Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bradwest96]

Here's my ranking of the Beatles by talent.

1. Paul McCartney (plays many instruments, best singing voice, can play many genres)
2. George Harrison (second best singing voice, talented guitarist and sitar player)
3. John Lennon (decent singing voice but not very versatile, great songwriting, decent but not great guitarist)
4. Ringo Starr (great drummer, decent singing voice, lack of ability to play many instruments)

This list is based SOLEY on musical talent, not personality or ability to lead the group.

[emmi_luvs_beatles]

I'm gonna have to agree. John was more of a writer than anything else. And Ringo was great, but could only play drums and didn't have the best voice compared to the other 3. But I think John and George's voice are tied.

[SemolinaPilchard]

1. Paul McCartney (He was without a doubt the best musician of the 4. Wonderfully versatile voice, great bass player and songwriter)
2. John Lennon (Not as much range as Paul's voice but still was a great singer. As for songwriting ability he was 1/2 of Lennon-McCartney, what else is there to say)
3. George Harrison (AMAZING guitarist but his voice was rather thin and weak at times, he could still sing a beautiful harmony though. And he wrote some beautiful songs but again, when you're trying to compete with Lennon and McCartney well...)
4. Ringo Starr (Great drummer, not so great singer)

[Kaleidoscope_Eyes]

I think I will agree wih your rating SemolinaPilchard.

Perhaps as the years went on, George's became more musically talented than John... but I stil think John's lyrics and voice are better.

[Nelson_Wilbury]

It's obvious that my favourite always was and will be George (Look my nick!!!) but the
quantity and the quality of the Lennon-McCartney material leave to George in a second place.
Anyway, I think that each one can't be compare with other, It's like a football team. Who's more important? a Goalkeeper that nobody can't score, a Forward that always score, the guy who make the "dirty work", the guy who "Think" and made play better his team?
Mozart or Beethoven? Pacino or DeNiro? Schumacher or Fangio? Ali or Tyson? Jordan or Magic? Pele or Maradona? It's imposible

[georgeharrisonluver]

For me personally, George had the best vocal. I absolutely love it! But I do believe that Paul and John were the best musicians. Paul just a little bit more than John because he pretty much could do anything musically, he was so versitile. John had an amazing voice on some songs and is my favorite songwriter. John's voice can affect me like George's sometimes and gives me chills, esp. in A Day In The Life. I find it really hard to choose between John and Paul, they are just perfect as Lennon/McCartney.  Ringo had an okay singing voice but the Beatles wouldn't be the Beatles without him. I have a soft spot for Ringo 

[nyfan(41)]

if you read 'here there and everywhere' by geoff emerick it really shows how paul used to direct the recordings and do alot of the production
also, alot of john's songs are great because of instrumental elements added by paul - too many examples to mention - but some include the opening meletron in Lucy, the swamp bass and organ in come together (john played the organ part but paul authored it), the piano in a day in the life, drums in ballad of j+y and dear prudence, orchestration of ticket to ride and BASS in damn near everything and harmony parts.

likewise george's songs were elevated by paul's musicianship (bass in something, guitar solo in taxman . . )

[Kevin]

Lennon's lyrics, generally, had more meaning/power/personal angst... that's why Lennon wasn't as commercially successful as McCartney.

Hi Justin. I have to disagree strongly with this.
Everything I know and have read/heard about popular music puts lyrical content at the bottom of the list of what makes a commercially successful hit. The real key is melody. Which is why a song about pushing pineapples up a tree (Agodo) or the horrors of urban isolation (Sounds of Silence) can both be hits. What they do have in common is a catchy, memorable melody. Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit is another excellent example of a melody triumphing over meaningful/powerful/angsty lyrics. It has a melody to die for.
George Martin identified melody as the key element. The hardened pro's of Tin Pan Alley said that a hit single succeeded in the first ten seconds or not at all. The Old Grey Whistle Test was named after the understanding that in order for a song to be a hit it needed a catchy, memorable melody.
How many people do you know who turn the radio up to listen to a favourite song without even knowing the lyrics, let alone interpretting them?
This is the key to Lennon's commercial decline. He simply lost the ability to write killer tunes.

As for his voice I agree he had a unique sound. But wasn't this due more to studio trickery than his vocal chords - all because the truth was that his voice was shredded.

[Joost]

Although I'm personally a bigger fan of George than John, I'm not sure I agree that George ranks higher. Cause in all fairness, there are thousands and thousands of great singers and great guitarists out there. But there aren't too many songwriters with a two-digit number of #1 hits on their name. So while George might have been a bit more allround musically, I'd say that John's talent was more exceptional.

[Joost]

Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit is another excellent example of a melody triumphing over meaningful/powerful/angsty lyrics. It has a melody to die for.

My theory for the success of Smells Like Teen Spirit is that it has the most powerful, explosive drumming ever put on record. I think that is really what makes the song. Listen carefully how Dave Grohl pauses for a split-second every time before those big crash cymbal hits in the chorus. Brilliant. Play that song with an even slightly different drum part and it's not half as good. I tried it with my band's drummer in the rehearsal room.

[Kevin]

mmm - interesting, Thank God you didn't say it was the angsty lyrics.
It is the last song I ever heard on the radio that made me go "what the f*ck is that?"
Surely the finest rock single of all time ?

[sregis]

I'm gonna have to agree. John was more of a writer than anything else. And Ringo was great, but could only play drums and didn't have the best voice compared to the other 3. But I think John and George's voice are tied.

technically, i think there's little question that paul leads the pack in both voice and instumentally, although i'd argue that most of his greatest work in all those areas was inspited by his great friend and rival, john lennon.  perhaps inspiration isn't the best word- the dynamic of the relationship, however, is very revealing.  it's oft-stated that lennon was a real father-figure to george harrison, and this was undeniably true.  but this was also tru of mccartney.  although paul's sheer musical brilliance helped keep him toe-to-toe, it's important to note that lennon wasn't the unofficial "leader" of the band for nothing.  in particular, take another listen to AHDN, for instance.  Lennon's incomparable voice is absolutely dominant here, and he's absolutely comfortable w/ this reality.  there's much to be said on this topic.

[Jane]

Lennon had an absolutely wonderful unique voice. Paul`s voice was great, but a bit toneless, unimpressive. The whole day I`ve been listening to Help, AHDN, remastered. John`s voice is fantastic there. It`s not the strength, cause I am sure you will say something neg. about it, but its quality, its timbre.

[SemolinaPilchard]

Lennon had an absolutely wonderful unique voice. Paul`s voice was great, but a bit toneless, unimpressive. The whole day I`ve been listening to Help, AHDN, remastered. John`s voice is fantastic there. It`s not the strength, cause I am sure you will say something neg. about it, but its quality, its timbre.

You're calling Paul's voice toneless and unimpressive? I'm sorry but that is completely rediculous. I can understand you liking John's voice better out of personal preference, but you go too far on that one. Paul had an AMAZING voice, with much greater range than either John or George.

[tkitna]

You're calling Paul's voice toneless and unimpressive? I'm sorry but that is completely rediculous. I can understand you liking John's voice better out of personal preference, but you go too far on that one. Paul had an AMAZING voice, with much greater range than either John or George.

I agree. You beat me to it.

[BlueMeanie]

Here's my ranking of the Beatles by talent.

1. Paul McCartney (plays many instruments, best singing voice, can play many genres)
2. George Harrison (second best singing voice, talented guitarist and sitar player)
3. John Lennon (decent singing voice but not very versatile, great songwriting, decent but not great guitarist)
4. Ringo Starr (great drummer, decent singing voice, lack of ability to play many instruments)

This list is based SOLEY on musical talent, not personality or ability to lead the group.

I think George became a better musician than John, but I wouldn't say he had a good singing voice, or that he was a particularly talented guitarist. You've only got to listen really. Otherwise I agree with the order of your list.

[besame_mucho]

Well, most people would rattle off Paul - John - George - Ringo, in that order.  But I think John deserves more credit than is usually given (about his musical talent, I mean).  First of all, I think he has a great voice -- not conventional perhaps, but certainly unique.  Secondly, I don't think he was trying as hard as Paul to make good music.  I remember reading somewhere that Paul would have a bunch of songs ready and *that* would motivate John to come up with some stuff of his own.

About George -- although he is perhaps my favorite Beatle, I think he was a decent guitarist, decent song-writer and has a decent singing voice, but that's about it -- nothing really awesome.

Ringo, in my opinion, could have been replaced with any average drummer and it would have made no difference to the overall music.  Although, to his credit, he did keep in time well - like a human metronome (but then that's the least expected from a good drummer).

Bottom-line:  With the Beatles (no pun intended) the sum of all parts was far greater than the individuals.

[Joost]

Lennon had an absolutely wonderful unique voice. Paul`s voice was great, but a bit toneless, unimpressive. The whole day I`ve been listening to Help, AHDN, remastered. John`s voice is fantastic there. It`s not the strength, cause I am sure you will say something neg. about it, but its quality, its timbre.

Paul was technically a better singer. His pitch was a bit better and he had a wider range. But it certainly could be argued that John had more "soul" in his voice.

[Kevin]

Secondly, I don't think he was trying as hard as Paul to make good music.  I remember reading somewhere that Paul would have a bunch of songs ready and *that* would motivate John to come up with some stuff of his own.

You interpret the fact that John was motivated by Paul's work to mean John "wasn't trying as hard." ? mmmmm. You should be a lawyer. 
Can I quote Lennon himself on the writing of Nowhere Man:
"I'd spent five hours that morning trying to write a song that was meaningful and good, and I finally gave up and lay down. Then 'Nowhere Man' came, words and music, the whole damn thing as I lay down".
Hardly the words of a man "not trying." Maybe more of a man who sometimes struggled for inspiration.

[Kevin]

Paul was technically a better singer. His pitch was a bit better and he had a wider range. But it certainly could be argued that John had more "soul" in his voice.

Pre 66 I rank them both and would struggle to chose between them. They are both awesome.
John's voice starts to go in 66 and I'd put Paul ahead then.
George George George. I can understand (just) people preferring him, but to say his voice is better dumfounds me. He's great as a harmoniser but as a lead lacks all those things I thought you judged quality by - range, power, timbre. And it's not as if his voice has any great personality, like Jagger for instance.