# Who is your favorite member of "The Beatles"?



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

A Classic question that I want my fellow TC members to give me their take on. Mine's Paul, I like his songs the best in the Beatles and his post Beatles output is better than any of the others. Don't forget to vote!


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Got to be Macca - he was criticised by his fellow-Beatles for trying to 'take over' during the fraught year of 1969 but that was mainly because he was the only one with any real ideas and enthusiasm in an effort to keep the band together. Plus he was the only one who was savvy enough to refuse to sign up with Allen Klein. He was then savaged by the others for going to the courts in order to split the Beatles up for good - even though they were finished as a group they still existed collectively on paper as a business entity - a move which in the long run worked in their favour, as it removed Klein from the equation.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

Paul had the best solo career in my opinion. If you count only the 70's, his is still the one with the better material. John could've done better work, but Yoko destroyed any decent song he made. Imagine is his popular song, because she doesn't screech on it. Paul's wife, on the other hand, didn't ruin his music, and actually contributed more than Yoko for John. I don't like lazy art. I do not believe throwing paint on a canvas is art, any more than screeching into a mic.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I never liked Paul. His solo albums are sappy and commercial. George got into his God trip too much and much of it was pretty contrived. John was probably the best, by a long shot, but his last 3 or 4 albums were getting pretty formulaic and commercial and way too much mainstream attention, to the point that I still groan when I am subjected to them. I really liked Ringo's single, It Don't Come Easy 

I think my favourite member was the Magical Mystery Tour bus driver


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Ringo Starr, because he didn't do anything ridiculous and pretentious like the other three after the band got disbanded. At least I'm not aware of anything.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Pete Best.

Why? Well ... simply because he's ... the Best!















I even have his album in my collection:


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Paul, definitely. John was the better composer early on, but Paul composed some of the best known Beatles tunes - and his music is more upbeat. Of course John is probably just a hair-breadth behind.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I've got to go with John. Paul's music tended to have a schmaltzy element to it that I appreciate less as I get older.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Bulldog said:


> I've got to go with John. Paul's music tended to have a schmaltzy element to it that I appreciate less as I get older.


Hey, Bulldog !!


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Ringo Starr, because he didn't do anything ridiculous and pretentious like the other three after the band got disbanded. At least I'm not aware of anything.


Apart from agreeing to appear in '200 Motels'? :devil:


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

SONNET CLV said:


> Pete Best


Hey Sonnet, You just stole my mojo!  :tiphat:

/ptr


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Hard to say. I think Paul was the most naturally talented - he could have had a musical career in practically any era. The others were pretty much limited to Rock. But I agree that Paul lacked taste at times, going in for schmaltz.

John was cool, but turned into a jerk for a time during the late 60s/early 70s.

George was unheralded for so long and collaborated with the right musicians (Clapton > Linda > Yoko).

Ringo seems to be the most grounded, but alas, the least essential.


----------



## nightscape (Jun 22, 2013)

Paul was the better song writer, John was perhaps a bit more inventive/creative. Together they formed quite a duo. Separated, they lost their power, and with it my interest.

Didn't care for any of their solo careers, apart from a song or two here and there.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Ringo! He's the funniest.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

brotagonist said:


> George got into his God trip too much and much of it was pretty contrived.


Bad word: I did not mean contrived. I am sure that for him it was meaningful and genuine. What I meant was that for me, it was monotonous. I just never got into any of his albums. I take that back  I did rather like Wonderwall Music.


----------



## captain charles ryder (Jul 20, 2014)

McCartney fo sure. Great composer.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Paul>George>John>Ringo

I never cared too much for John's solo career, except for a song or two. I think he wrote better songs as part of the Beatles. I was obsessed with Paul and the the album Wings Over America in 1977 when it was released. I was 11 that summer and I must have worn out the LP. I like many of George's solo career songs.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I didn't like John as a person - he talked like a bighead & treated people who loved him & people he regarded as 'ordinary' (like me!) with utter contempt. His songs with Paul are good, but as others have said, his solo efforts are not so sparkling. 

Ringo Starr is perhaps the 'nicest' of the four, but not really much of a talent, imo. 

George was the best-looking, & had charm, but his output is small. 

Paul - well, I really get the point about 'schmaltzy', and he's dreadfully pretentious these days, but all the same, I think he is the most musically talented and I can sympathise with him and understand his mind-set more than I can the others. 

So I've voted for Paul, even though he makes my toes curl.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I agree with many of the comments so far. Paul's contribution to the Beatles was probably the strongest, but he completely tarnished his reputation in the 45 years that follow. I do cringe at every large state event when Paul McCartney is dragged out to sing a chorus of Hey Jude for 10 minutes. Some people clearly don't know how to quit gracefully. Paul is also responsible for crimes against music such as "Mull of Kintyre" and that other woeful Christmas song. 

John and George had decent solo careers at times, but put out some pretentious garbage as well. As for Ringo... well at least he had a decent career in children's TV


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

Paul is also responsible, along with the great Quincey Jones, for making Michael Jackson king of the world for a long time. I don't care if you love Michael Jackson, I don't. I consider his music the reason pop music has been utter garbage for the past 30 years.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Winterreisender said:


> As for Ringo... well at least he had a decent career in children's TV


To be fair to him, his third album (just called 'Ringo' - released in 1973) was surprisingly quite good. It was certainly a more refreshing listen than, say, Lennon's dreary Mind Games or Harrison's occasionally sanctimonious Living In The Material World. Although less than half of the songs were written/co-written by him it still probably represents his solo high point. In the early 70s he had some decent non-album single hits, too.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

*George Martin*xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2014)

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> Paul is also responsible, along with the great Quincey Jones, for making Michael Jackson king of the world for a long time. I don't care if you love Michael Jackson, I don't. I consider his music the reason pop music has been utter garbage for the past 30 years.


Nah.

Thriller (the album).

I can name quite a few things with a detrimental effect on pop music though. One thing that irritates me almost as much as the loose link with Hollywood is the rise of pop stars that are literally nothing but annoying faces for the studio musicians that write their commercialized "music".

I had a music class once where we had to give a presentation on a composer/artist/band/etc that was important to us. Probably a quarter of the class used the line "they write their own music" in praise of the artist, and every time I found it profoundly depressing - shouldn't originality be a given?


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

I think that Michael Jackson's pop music was really great. I didn't care for it back then, nor do I listen to it now, but I think that as a product it rightfully deserves its due recognition.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

And as far as the favorite Beatles member, for a long time I thought it was Paul McCartney, but ultimately it's most likely John Lennon for his "raw" talent.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

McCartney was the only one that I really liked in their solo careers.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

But what was that other than pop? Lennon, on the other hand, raised issues, I think. Music not too shabby either.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ringo Starr. The best rhythm man who ever lived and the glue that held the band together. No doubt about it.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Gee, not the Crazy Glue, I hope.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Serge said:


> But what was that other than pop? Lennon, on the other hand, raised issues, I think. Music not too shabby either.


You have a point. Lennon was more on the level of Dylan. Still I liked the more carefree music of McCartney. But maybe I never listened enough to Lennon.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

It bugs me how often Ringo gets slammed and put down as the "untalented Beatle". He's great, a very subtle and wonderful drummer, and he has a gorgeous singing voice. Honestly, most of his compositions that I have heard (which isn't very many) I haven't found particularly compelling, but that doesn't invalidate his beautiful work at the kit. I really wish he and Paul would collaborate, so that Paul could write some more songs for him to sing.

Personally my favorite Beatle would be Paul McCartney. I like his writing, his very romantic bent, and I really love his bass-playing, which like Ringo's drumming, is very subtle, but very interesting and creative and suits the music beautifully. I also love his multi-instrumental skills, and he has been a major influence on my own ambitions as a multi-instrumentalist.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

BurningDesire said:


> It bugs me how often Ringo gets slammed and put down as the "untalented Beatle". He's great, a very subtle and wonderful drummer, and he has a gorgeous singing voice. Honestly, most of his compositions that I have heard (which isn't very many) I haven't found particularly compelling, but that doesn't invalidate his beautiful work at the kit. I really wish he and Paul would collaborate, so that Paul could write some more songs for him to sing.


Ringo certainly comes across as the Beatle member who had fun being a Beatle and a musician. I can never sense that he takes the experience of being Ringo too seriously. Rather, he always seems somewhat flabbergasted by his own persona. He's much more "real" in that way, and I like that.

I've collected a lot of Beatles music over the years (purchasing my first albums when they were originally released in the mid '60s) and adding much of the solo work by the four (and even Pete Best's music), and the Ringo music never disappoints. It's always "fun stuff" to listen to, and that seems in keeping with his personality. And face it, "It Don't Come Easy" (written by Richard Starkey) certainly qualifies as a quality piece of songcraft. It's simply a good song.

And yes, Ringo is a fine drummer with a great sense of knowing just how much rhythm to add, never underplaying or overplaying. He remains one of the finest ensemble drummers in rock history, and he is exactly what the Beatles' music needed. Maybe the other three received more focus as musicians, but it was Ringo who allowed their songs to flow and even allowed the focus to push to the guitarists, by pulling back from being the showoff kitmeister in favor of highlighting each song with a subtle but perfect rhythmic grounding.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> I don't care if you love Michael Jackson, I don't. I consider his music the reason pop music has been utter garbage for the past 30 years.


LOL, yeah.. the sole reason. I think Michael Jackson's best music is actually among the little pop music that isn't utter garbage for the past 30 years.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

BurningDesire said:


> It bugs me how often Ringo gets slammed and put down as the "untalented Beatle". He's great, a very subtle and wonderful drummer, and he has a gorgeous singing voice. Honestly, most of his compositions that I have heard (which isn't very many) I haven't found particularly compelling, but that doesn't invalidate his beautiful work at the kit. I really wish he and Paul would collaborate, so that Paul could write some more songs for him to sing.
> 
> Personally my favorite Beatle would be Paul McCartney. I like his writing, his very romantic bent, and I really love his bass-playing, which like Ringo's drumming, is very subtle, but very interesting and creative and suits the music beautifully. I also love his multi-instrumental skills, and he has been a major influence on my own ambitions as a multi-instrumentalist.


I agree with all you say about Ringo, he get's a raw deal from a lot of people for some unknown reason. It takes true talent to do what he did and make it look so easy. That being said Paul is still the most talented of the group as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

DeepR said:


> LOL, yeah.. the sole reason. I think Michael Jackson's best music is actually among the little pop music that isn't utter garbage for the past 30 years.


Indeed sir, indeed.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

John was a type of personality I always like, a radical, militant reformer.

I also wear similar sunglasses, partly as a tribute to him.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Florestan said:


> You have a point. Lennon was more on the level of Dylan. Still I liked the more carefree music of McCartney. But maybe I never listened enough to Lennon.


You should really go for it. His music is great when you get into it, you'll be amazed.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I'm a George guy.

Musically, John and Paul needed each other.
They went to their own extremes when they broke up.


----------



## echo (Aug 15, 2014)

Ringo - he seemed the funniest and I think humour makes the world a better place than music -- but look at this video from Paul -- takes my breathe away


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

echo said:


> Ringo - he seemed the funniest and I think humour makes the world a better place than music -- but look at this video from Paul -- takes my breathe away


Except for the resolution, these are very good visuals - carefully chosen, apparently. But Winamp plug-ins can do about the same, even if a miss on occasion.


----------



## Celloissimo (Mar 29, 2013)

For me it's Ringo. Even though he's the least talented of the group, as a person he's the most humble and approachable out of all of them.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Why is there no option for no one? Hehe, sorry, never really got into the Beatles. Their music is good, I think I dislike the image.


----------



## echo (Aug 15, 2014)

Serge said:


> Except for the resolution, these are very good visuals - carefully chosen, apparently. But Winamp plug-ins can do about the same, even if a miss on occasion.


i like the lyric -- look at it walking


----------



## Celloissimo (Mar 29, 2013)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Why is there no option for no one? Hehe, sorry, never really got into the Beatles. Their music is good, I think I dislike the image.


I dislike both, actually.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Yoko Ono

*******


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Dang, Yoko really killed this thread.


----------



## Amusicman (Jul 3, 2014)

Nothing but John


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

It's a toss up between Harrison and Starr. I absolutely loved Starr as Atouk:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Lukecash12 said:


> It's a toss up between Harrison and Starr. I absolutely loved Starr as Atouk:


Based on this prehistoric evidence Richard wins hands down no question


----------



## Moraviac (Feb 18, 2011)

Paul is my favorite, the most musical of the (fab) four IMHO.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Moraviac said:


> Paul is my favorite, the most musical of the (fab) four IMHO.


That could be; I wish he was a bit more socially involved though. I mean, past his The Beatles years with Lennon by his side was he at all? Well, I think he co-authored Ebony and Ivory to his credit.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Ravi Shankar
**********


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Ravi Shankar
> **********


Which is why I chose Harrison. It's funny that Shankar started this craze over Hindustani music amongst the hippies because he was disgusted by Woodstock.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> Which is why I chose Harrison. It's funny that Shankar started this craze over Hindustani music amongst the hippies because he was disgusted by Woodstock.


He wasn't about the drugs, man. He was about the ladies... man.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> He wasn't about the drugs, man. He was about the ladies... man.


Yeah, Shankar can think whatever he likes but I'll still be listening to his music with a tall can and a joint.


----------

