|
They all have their merits and it was the sum of all their strengths that led to the formation of the greatest band of all time
When it comes to creativity and originality john is miles ahead of anyone else. still today even, the guy was that ahead of his time. you can see how far ahead he was from paul in especially the later stuff. compare 'i want you (shes so heavy) with say, "long and winding road" (paul song). paul is singing traditional piano melodies at the end of their career while john is writing these epic rock songs that were years ahead of their time. fuckin 'i dig a pony' bitches.
Paul was a god on bass and changed the way bass worked in rock music for the most part. but his compositional skills were more traditional and less original than johns. this is best exemplified in that one song where he sings "i like that kind of music" over a really old fashioned sounding melody. john used to actually make fun of him for what he perceived as a stale musical taste and approach. but it was their sense of competition between them that led to such great music. Paul was also a better singer than John, who was not confident in his voice throughout the beatles career.
Anyway, George didnt know shit but had an amazing amount of natural talent and potential. Everything he learned he picked up from being around the greatest songwriting team in history. that shit tends to rub off. add his talent to that and you can see how he made such great music post-beatles. and even the shit he wrote with the guys, while my guitar gently weeps, etc, is amazing. he just had the unfortunate circumstance of having to compete with john n paul.
fuckin ringo is just a jackoff they hired from some band they saw so he could keep time and play the basic rock riffs and maybe some special indian-sounding shit every once in awhile. he doesnt write his own music and is overall just in it for the paycheck.
And yes, i went to beatles college and got the PHD.
Last edited by Waves; 08-29-2010 at 08:18 PM.
|