Meet people from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Author Topic: Is there a best Beatle?  (Read 1847 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Loco Mo

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 958
  • Oh, woe is me, and Mo am I.
Is there a best Beatle?
« on: September 08, 2019, 03:48:54 PM »

This question has nagged at me for years and years.

Is there a Beatle who is hands-down the best of the 4 Beatles?  Is this even a legitimate question?

It just seems to me that if there is a best Beatle, it's got to be Paul and for so many reasons.

He seems to have been the hardest working, the most dedicated to music, the one who most loves performing/touring, who's written the most popular and highest selling songs, maybe even the best-looking?

I don't know.  I just feel like Paul's the unacknowledged Elephant in the Room and maybe history should give him the credit he deserves.

I think there's a lot to say on this subject but I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with this assessment of Paul.  John is my favorite Beatle and that's why this question causes me some distress.  I want to think John and Paul are equal but I think that's more wishful thinking than reality.

It's like trying to choose to worship one God out of an assembly of Gods who are all worthy of worship (or are they?).
Logged
Some try to tell me thoughts they cannot defend.

Moogmodule

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 4269
  • “Moog was the truth” TheseLyricsDoNotExist 2023
Re: Is there a best Beatle?
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2019, 09:53:35 AM »

While Paul’s qualities are well known, I’m not sure it’s a obvious as you say Loco.

John was the real force in the group early on when they got very famous. He was more dominant as a vocalist and lead songwriter on the early albums. George had as many leads as Paul on With the Beatles and Hard Days Night was three-quarters John leads. Paul didn’t really dominate an album until Revolver. John was also the lead vocalist on most of their early hits. Paul only had one solo lead vocal (Can’t Buy Me Love) on a UK single prior to Paperback Writer in 1966. All the other were either John leads or them sharing (singing together such as Day Tripper or one of them taking a middle eight such as We Can Work It Out).

So until 1966 John really was the standout member.

Paul’s work from 1966 onward was amazing of course and he dominated the singles from 1966 onward.

So I suppose you could say John was Best Beatle from 1962 to 1965. Then Paul from 1966 to 1969.

But why say either? It just backs up how important they both were to what the Beatles were.




« Last Edit: August 24, 2021, 07:35:59 AM by Moogmodule »
Logged

Loco Mo

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 958
  • Oh, woe is me, and Mo am I.
Re: Is there a best Beatle?
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2019, 11:18:07 PM »

Thanks, Moog.  I really like your answer and explanation.

I don't like to think one's better than the other.  They both seem equally crucial to whatever it was that caused Beatlemania - even to this very day.

I can't imagine a Beatles without John.  John had something special.  I've said this before:  I think John had a charisma, a gravitas, and a mystique that Paul absolutely couldn't touch.

But, by golly, what a musical factotum that scouser, Paulie, was.  Wowzers!

Thanks again.
Logged
Some try to tell me thoughts they cannot defend.
 

Page created in 0.125 seconds with 40 queries.