[davidhunternyc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhere Man /img/forum/go_quote.gif John. His lyrics, attitude and solo career mean more to me. He was also more experimentally oriented. Paul has exceptional gift for melody. That´s why his solo efforts make me sad. I mean, hate to see that amount of potential going to waste. Silly and meaningless stuff with great melody but no emotion. I guess this just means that my approach to music is different. Though I must say "Here Today" is a beautiful and hearfelt tribute to John. I wish he would tackle more on "the dark side" of life.

I pretty much know nothing about the Beetles but what I have heard of Paul McCartney's solo work, I would have to agree with the above post. I once saw a live show on T.V. and Paul did this cover of Elvis's with just a guitar and it blew my mind. Then I wondered, why, with all of Paul's talent, do his songs sound so saccharine? I guess its just the stuff I hear on pop radio that turn me off and I am just not familiar with his work.

 

[BigEat]

I voted for Ringo just because think he gets too little credit as a Beatle and as a musician. He also seems like the most fun and the one who takes/took himself the least serious. Hell, Paul still uses Ringo as his drummer on most studio albums.

 

[tru blu]

Lennon, of course. It's true that Paul's stuff can be annoying, but when he gets things right—like some of those '70s singles (the ooohs actually finish his thoughts on "Baby, I'm Amazed" and "Jet")—you think, "No way the Beatles would have been the same without that guy."

 

[kleppy]

ringo,what a beast!!

 

[Sherwood]

John is, without question in my mind, the greatest of all four. He is a unique, irreplaceable musical icon, and no one in my generation does what he did.

Paul is a phenomenal musician, studio perfectionist, motivator, organizer, and myriad other great things. The Beatles needed him to become what they were.

George was a good man, a very good musician, and a rock. He has a number of excellent pieces of music, especially post-Beatles, but he is not in the same caliber as the former two.

Ringo was the clutch drummer they brought in at the beginning to boost their appeal when no one knew them. He was good enough to keep time, which is the best I can say about him.

 

[MoonShine]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif John is, without question in my mind, the greatest of all four. He is a unique, irreplaceable musical icon, and no one in my generation does what he did. Paul is a phenomenal musician, studio perfectionist, motivator, organizer, and myriad other great things. The Beatles needed him to become what they were. George was a good man, a very good musician, and a rock. He has a number of excellent pieces of music, especially post-Beatles, but he is not in the same caliber as the former two. Ringo was the clutch drummer they brought in at the beginning to boost their appeal when no one knew them. He was good enough to keep time, which is the best I can say about him.

The above sums up my feelings exactly.

 

[Kui4ever]

John4ever