reply to my own reply....i am a firm believer that all four beatles are equal...sum better than the parts thing...i kinda went on a paul bandwagon in defence of that poor misguided paul hater...i like the " unit" beatles, it's a clean machine, i have to admit i am not a big fan of much of anything after 1980....i am sure there are many things i've missed, now that i've read a lot of posts here. i have always considered the beatles music considerably better than any solo attempts, of course there are exceptions, but generally, they lost a lot when they split. mainly george martin production....the odd thing about george harrison was, he had the most bottled up stuff, but he seemed to lose a lot in the production of his solo albums....too many musicians, to much background, to much "wall of sound" spector type junk, still great stuff though....john was the opposite. it all sounded like he did it in the bathroom, or on the sofa....good stuff, but you couldnt dance to it, great soul searching words though....of course paul is "pop ".....he has a knack for pop music, but the lennon, george depth is sorely missing in his solo efforts....but it was good pop rock music (saw him in 1976...best concert i ever saw, and i saw many bands! (saw george in 1974 too).
and ringo, he is ringo....you gotta love him, the sentimental heart, grounding force of the beatles....they would have never been much without him.....again i ramble more opinions just for the sake of speaking about beatles....this sight is great!
