Who's the best/most important Beatle?

[Eja117]

I think you have to look at what they did as solo guys after the Beatles to get an idea. Artists themselves consistently give the nod to John, but I've always disagreed.

I'll take a lot of what Paul did like Baby I'm Amazed over the naive easy answers of Imagine any day of the week. Give Peace a Chance is another overrated cliche based on ignoring problems. At some point you have to evaluate a song based somewhat on what it's saying and if what it's saying is something Oprahish like "Everybody be nice to each other and then everything is perfect" you have to send the song back to 3rd grade where it belongs.

[MattG12]

  The sixties are over.

But the music they (the Beatles) made is better than around 80 % of what has been put out since then.

100%

We have had a lot of good music from a lot of good artists... but the Beatles are still the best, hands down.

The fact that they can even make a list of the Beatles "Top 100" songs is amazing. They had something like 240 songs over a 10 year span... and I know all of them, I can't say that about any other band and I doubt I will ever be able to. I have the magazine, I bought it at Barnes and Noble the other day. The rankings are based on the opinions of the writers so I don't look at it as the official Top 100 at all. My favorite "song" would be the Abbey Road B Side Medley which I believe was placed at #22. It is an excellent read, whether you agree with the list or not. There is a lot of information on the songs, pictures, etc.

My favorite Beatle is Paul. To me he was the most diverse of the group. He played the piano (My favorite instrument" beautifully. He's a very underrated bass guitarist (The bass line on "Paperback Writer" is awesome), he has the best voice, he wrote the best songs IMO, he has longevity on his side as well as showmanship. John was certainly more edgy, but Paul had an edgy period as well. Really, every Beatle is awesome, but I don't see how you can say any of them are better than Paul.

[Casperian]

The list is utter crap. Hey Jude and Let It Be ahead of Eleanor Rigby, I Am The Walrus or Happiness Is A Warm Gun? The Rolling Stone isnīt worth the paper it is printed on.

I think the only one who gets "sympathy-points" here is McCartney for his life after the breakup, because of his "Gooder" image until this day, how he stood by Linda and what happened with Heather Mills, while Lennon is remembered for his time with Yoko Ono...and everyone hates Yoko Ono.

My vote definitly goes to Lennon. To simplify, John was the artist, Paul was mainstream. Lennonīs "edginess", as you call it, was so influential to what the Beatles represent and stand for until this day, that thereīs just no way around him, imho.

I agree with you that Hey Jude and Let it Be are overrated, although I still like the songs.  And I would put Eleanor Rigby and I Am the Walrus ahead of both.  So I figured that "Happiness Is a Warm Gun" was just one of those songs that everyone knows, but not everyone knows the name.  I can honestly say I've never heard that song before until just now.  Now this is obviously just my opinion, but I thought that song was just plain bad.

Uhm, then I guess this is one of the songs which takes repeated listening to fully appreciate it... 
"Mother Superior jumped then gun..."

I couldīve named 20 songs, from Strawberry Fields to Mother Natureīs Son. I think theyīre all better than freaking Let It Be

[arctic 3.0]

with out George, the Beatles never go to India and subsequently evolve into the late stage Beatles that produced their most interesting music.

[footey]

They were greater collectively than the sum of their parts. Yet the parts were incredible, especially when looking at the solo careers of Paul, John and George. Of the three (no offense, Ringo), for me, George's after Beatle songs are the most timeless, spiritual and memorable.  George had less ego than John or Paul, and was more comfortable dealing with spiritual themes.

My Sweet Lord and Give Me Love (Give me Peace on Earth) are two of my all time favorite songs. I can let them kick around in my head for days and not get tired of them.

[2short]

There is no such thing as the 'best/most important Beatle.'  What made the Beatles special is the collaborative magic that occurred when those 4 gentlemen where in the same room.   Take a George, Paul, John, or Ringo away and the magic changes and becomes something less than Beatlemusic.

Questions like these mistake musical talent as the driving factor behind good music when in fact great music is created collaboratively in the moment among empathic musicians who are both listening and communicating on a non-verbal level. 

The reason super-talented musicians fail to produce timeless music is because they don't work well with others, or are too ego-driven to accept outside input, much like great basketball players who can't sacrifice their individual stats and glory to fit into a winning team ethic.

I agree completely.  People do have to realize as well that Ringo Starr is an excellant drummer.  By the way a day in the life is imo the greatest song they did.  My own favorite most important beatle is john.  I do however think that Paul & George also did some great great work.  Post Beatle careers I would rank them this way:
John
George
Paul
Ringo

[Redz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6vQdFu7jl4&p=A52986163F534C59&playnext=1&index=20

,

[zerophase]

I that the most important Beatle was John although he might not always be my favorite. He was the one that originally put the group together and the most politically active of the 3. In the 70's he became in my opinion one of the strongest supported political activists of the time.

[Eja117]

This is what bothers me about John Lennon.

He was singing "Imagine no possessions" while being filmed in his multi-million dollar second residence, in front of a piano most people can't afford, while wearing designer shades.

He sang about giving peace a chance, but (at least to my knowledge) when the North Vietnamese broke the treaty and there were millions of fleeing refugees where was John to say "Well I guess they have to give back their Nobel Peace Prize now"

And worst of all he sang "a brotherhood of man" while treating his own son like a lepper.

He's just from the say-as-I-do school of music is all.

He's the Antonio Cromartie of the Beatles. Lot's of talent. But kind of a flake.


Yes. I guess you're right. I'm a hater. Surprise surprise. Who would ever have thought. eja117 doesn't ever formulate or express surprisingly strong opinions, but nevertheless here I am.

[Edgar]

The volkswagen

[Eja117]

The volkswagen

Edgar. You are a genious. You might be the only one. I hope some day I may join you. And then you and I may be as one.

Imagine no Lakers.

It's easy if you try.

No fans around us.

Above us only sky.

Imagine all the Lakers,

never winning games.....yoooo hooo hooo oooo

I say you are a genius.

[Bahku]

Herbie.

[guava_wrench]

The list is utter crap. Hey Jude and Let It Be ahead of Eleanor Rigby, I Am The Walrus or Happiness Is A Warm Gun? The Rolling Stone isnīt worth the paper it is printed on.

I think the only one who gets "sympathy-points" here is McCartney for his life after the breakup, because of his "Gooder" image until this day, how he stood by Linda and what happened with Heather Mills, while Lennon is remembered for his time with Yoko Ono...and everyone hates Yoko Ono.

My vote definitly goes to Lennon. To simplify, John was the artist, Paul was mainstream. Lennonīs "edginess", as you call it, was so influential to what the Beatles represent and stand for until this day, that thereīs just no way around him, imho.

It seems to me that the reason the Beatles remained fresh and relevant for so long is because of the combination of Paul's accessible pop sensibilities and the edgier artsiness of John and George. Get rid of Paul, and they become a creative band that doesn't take over the world.

I am more of a fan of edginess, but if you want great bands, find people with different ideas who can still work together.

I disagree with any idea that song X is inherently better than song Y. Better in what way? Aesthetically? A better composition? More creative? More influential? Take such ratings with a grain of salt.

[Edgar]

The volkswagen

Edgar. You are a genious. You might be the only one. I hope some day I may join you. And then you and I may be as one.

Imagine no Lakers.

It's easy if you try.

No fans around us.

Above us only sky.

Imagine all the Lakers,

never winning games.....yoooo hooo hooo oooo

I say you are a genius.

Domo Arigato

 

[guava_wrench]

This is what bothers me about John Lennon.

He was singing "Imagine no possessions" while being filmed in his multi-million dollar second residence, in front of a piano most people can't afford, while wearing designer shades.

He sang about giving peace a chance, but (at least to my knowledge) when the North Vietnamese broke the treaty and there were millions of fleeing refugees where was John to say "Well I guess they have to give back their Nobel Peace Prize now"

And worst of all he sang "a brotherhood of man" while treating his own son like a lepper.

He's just from the say-as-I-do school of music is all.

He's the Antonio Cromartie of the Beatles. Lot's of talent. But kind of a flake.


Yes. I guess you're right. I'm a hater. Surprise surprise. Who would ever have thought. eja117 doesn't ever formulate or express surprisingly strong opinions, but nevertheless here I am.

I have to respect Bono. Despite being pompous, he does work hard on issues that no one can disagree with - like starvation.