Paul. No doubt. He’s not only the most successful songwriter of all time, but also one of rock’s top bassists, incredibly versatile vocally, and plays several instruments quite well, including very good lead guitar.
Don’t say that to that black guy who started Motown records. He thought the Beatles and Paul lousy musicians. Maybe at first when anyone tries something but look how far they evolved
Paul isn't the best bass player I have ever seen. He was a good writer. John had more hits as a Beatle. Paul gave me a bad taste in my mouth watching Get Back. Let's be clear on who started the beatles. That would be John. John is more rock and roll his songs reflected his personal problems. He was the best for me. George had the heart and if he was given more of a shot he would have wrote more songs. Ringo is am amazing drummer and person.
@@michelepaccione8806 Motowns top groups....The Supremes, Marvin Gaye, , Smokey & the Miracles,,,The Vandellas, the Marvelettes,...Temptations, Four Tops....they were great!.....But how many wrote their songs?....how many played instruments?....
@@ThrowAway271 I put Paul's voice way above Lennon personally....Paul could do raunchy as well as anyone in Rock history....Long Tall Sally, Helter Skelter, Oh Darling,...and the closing minutes of Hey Jude....Incredible....Of course the softer, smooth and emotive Paul on Yesterday, The Long & Winding Road, and Blackbird....and everything in between!....I don't see Lennon beating Paul at any style of singing at all.
Paul in terms of the musical instruments he can play well (bass, guitar, piano, drums, etc.). In Get Back there is one bit where he is scatting melodies to songs barely written and yet his scatting is like finished melodies.
@@lancelot771 you really think McCartney 1,2 or 3 are great albums?? 🤔🤔🤔 those albums are worth 2/3 good songs each imo. Not saying they’re terrible or bad but Paul has never produced a masterpiece on his own. Collaboration between different minds with different ideas is the key to great music; ego and/or playing everything yourself leads to uninteresting music
Ringo was the best technician. Paul was the most versatile. John had the most fire. George had the most heart and beauty. They all needed each other to be, well, perfect.
@@johnsain I didn't say only. To a musician, versatility is a very strong value. So much has been said about Paul's many talents that it seemed unnecessary to list them.
@@johnsain Versatile in the sense that he has a wider vocal range, objectively wider than even Freddie Mercury, also when it comes to musical instruments, he can play piano, drums, lead guitar, and of course bass, better than any of them when it comes to technicality. Paul was supposed to be the lead guitarist but after Stu left he had to take on bass, and during Rubber Soul onwards he played more lead guitar and covered most of the piano playing in numerous songs like Hey Jude and While my Guitar gently weeps. In a band, someone with such flexibility like Paul is considered versatile.
There's no debate here. It's Paul, hands-down. He could play all the major instruments, and showed the most improvement the soonest. George didn't improve dramatically until he started hanging with Eric Clapton. John's rhythm guitar playing never improved much from the banjo-style skiffle chords he started with. Ringo's drumming did improve substantially. The drum fills on "Day in the Life" do not lie.
Paul McCartney is the best as proven by several number of hits he composed and sang all along many years after the Beatles breakup.He is also the most talented compared to the other members.
John Lennon is the greatest songwriter, and Lead singer of the Beatles, and Ringo called John the greatest rhythm guitarist ever. Paul is the greatest bass player and arranger of the band members (also a great songwriter and singer obviously and the most versatile and melodic musically speaking although lyrically very suspect hit or miss and lazy/shallow as a lyricist compared to John and George in their solo careers), George is the best all around guitarist, another great songwriter and singer, and Ringo is easily the best drummer and one of the most original unique drummers in rock history. Thus, this is a stupid question that cannot be answered objectively
@@hw343434 3rd best songwriter according to Rolling Stones (which is a magazine that historically has always praised Lennon a lot, and Lennon himself always respected). 2nd McCartney and 1st Dylan. I would say McCartney 1st but whatever...
I agree. They were all talented and all were integral to making the Beatles the phenomenon that they were - all of them were required to create what they did together. But I think that McCartney was, hands down, the best of them overall.
The fifth Beatle is the true answer to this question, and that was George Martin. But out of the four, everyone knows it was him and Paul...quite the musical genius..!
Paul is incredible talented and more knowledgeable but people seem to forget that music is an art form and as an artist, John was more bold, risky, innovative and conceptually creative. I absolutely love Paul contributions, but most of The Beatles greatest avant-garde masterpieces came from John’s mind: A Day In The Life, Strawberry Fields Forever, Tomorrow Never Knows, I Am The Walrus, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, Across The Universe, Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite. Also, even though John didn’t have the musical background that Paul had, he was incredible intuitive and explorative in both melody and harmony, and he had beautiful melodic masterpieces as In My Life, Girl, If I Fell, Ticket to Ride, All I’ve Got to Do, Anytime At All. Both were equally talented in my opinion.
People are only focusing on technical musicianship. But as you say, Lennon was the most artistic and revolutionary of the 4 by a mile with his music, words and artistic vision
John didn't play or master as many instruments as Paul. They both were exceptional writers. Even John said Paul was the better musician. John relied on Paul to motivate him, because he knew he was on the lazy side.
@@bob44044 Yeah yeah; I know all Lennon’s flaws, already. Still as creators, both John and Paul delivered in a way that only together would work. Yes, I know Paul was more proficient and efficient, but there’s a personal touch in Lennon that had a huge impact in The Beatles discography, songs like No Reply, or Happiness Is A Warm Gun, or Norwegian Wood are clear examples of that. Paul pushed in things like production and arrangements, and he understood the importance of consistency regarding making hits. I love Lennon’s later songs but most of them were not #1s.
That's a catch 22 type of question, each of the men in the super group The Beatles each hold their own special talent which is exactly why they succeeded so much. I can't vote, that just isn't fair they're all very talented all of them.
That's a very limited viewpoint. Paul did write pop music. However he also wrote rock music, classical music, electronic music, ballads, movie themes, soundtrack music, etc. Too many people bought into the myth that John was the rocker and Paul was just pop. Whenever I hear someone say that I realize right away that haven't heard that much of either artist's catalog. Even within the Beatles their hardest rocking song of their early period, "I'm Down", and their hardest rocking song of their later period, "Helter Skelter" were both Paul songs. Going into their solo work you will be hard pressed to find too many tracks from John that rock like "Jet", "Junior's Farm" or "Beware My Love" and definitely not like "Soily". While John certainly had more political songs than Paul, Paul had his share as well right from the early days with "Give Ireland Back to the Irish". Paul is also considered the master of melody so to think that John had a better melody writing ability is certainly a minority opinion. While it's true there is no comparison between their commercial success, the critics that were unfairly harsh to Paul in the beginning have changed their opinions over time. We can analyze their musical abilities but I think you'll find that if you dig deep enough that the answer doesn't change no matter how much you may prefer John's music, which is fine, music affects everyone differently and we all have our favorites, but look at the overall data and you'll see it's harder to say John was the best. It's all going to depend on your criteria I suppose.
@@krowta2062, doesn’t matter if you like lennon better what matters are McCartney is the most successful musician ever first he can play more instruments than john, ringo or george. Even john said so in his interview and he said is more accomplished musically because he came from a musician family as both his father and uncles played in a band also his grandfather and by the way McCartney taught john how to play guitar chords because before met Paul he played banjo chords.
Paul, hands down. He learned to be a classical composer. He moved the bass forward in rock. He learned different picking styles on the guitar and picked them up easier than John. He played lead guitar on some tracks, including George's Taxman. He produced three different albums (1970, 1980, 2020) in which he played every single musical instrument. It really feels like a question you ask of people who were not Beatle fans as the answer is really that simple.
his songs arnet as good as lennons. simple as that, but has slightly better voice (not for all types of songs) and plays more instrruments so they are equals imo
@@krowta2062 Without question only in the subjective sense. If however, you were to use facts, such as the fact that John himself said he couldn't go and jam with other musicians like Paul and George did, or look at the number of different instruments that Paul could play, or the musicianship it takes to compose symphonic music, you would absolutely have to question.
That's a 100% subjective viewpoint. You can find as many people and actually probably far more who would disagree seeing as how Paul had more hits than John, George, and Ringo put together in the 1970s. It's not fair of course to compare beyond that since John died in 1980. A lot of the critics that were harsh to Paul in those days have also changed their tunes over time so in terms of commercial success there's no comparison and at best it's neck and neck in critical success.
To me, George is the best, its not about how many instrument you can play but how you play your instrument. Hes very professional when it comes to writing his parts and what he created is unchangeable. Paul was the best singer but john has the best sounding voice and he is one of the greatest lyricist.
Why people now like to pretend that George Harrison didn't only write like 3 bangers in The Beatle... Let's say 4. Hell, let's say 5. What is that compared to the many that Paul and John wrote?? Are we just not gonna take into account the big disparity here?
@@trevormichaelmcgowan Harrison was so far to be the best !!! Vous plaisantez ? seriously, he can't be compared for the songwriting to Lennon & Mccartney !!! Harrison n'est pas un grand chanteur non plus...
In my opinion, John was the best and most creative songwriter, lyrically as well, however, George was a better guitarist than John. Ringo was a very solid drummer whose ability to keep time is legendary. Paul was the best musician. Very talented and well versed in several instruments, and is arguably among the very best singers and bassist of all time, a top three to five in either category in most polls.
As John's life was cut short in 1980, its difficult to compare him with Paul's efforts since the break up. If John had lived, I think it would be difficult to separate their musicianship. George was overshadowed by John and Paul because George Martin concentrated on John and Paul compositions.
George Harrison's guitar skills are second to none. As a song writer he proved himself to be a giant. I doubt that the Beatles would have had the success they had without him!
@@W_L-mb9no In many respects Paul McCartney was the group's most rounded musician, and possibly even its best guitarist. It was he that devised many of the riffs and even played some of the most memorable solos, such as on Taxman (Revolver), Ticket To Ride and his killer Epiphone Casino (opens in new tab) riff on Paperback Writer.
@@johnsain The BEST in rock history? He is good but I could name many bassists that are much better. Geddy Lee, Les Claypool, John Entwistle and Jack Bruce to name a few
paul's songs arent as good as lennons but has slightly better voice (not for all types of songs) and plays more instrruments so lennon is a better songwriter for me, paul has other advantages that brings him to lennon's level
Paul. Why is this video 8 minutes long? The reason why they were so great was because they were all great and adding different talents to the mix. And they were greater than the sum of their parts. John's my personal fave. But the best musician... no doubt. It's Paul.
Regardless of what Quincy jones said, Jeff Lynne, of ELO, Taveling Wilburys, said Paul Mcartney was a genius, and said he's probably the best musician he ever worked with.
While John is my favorite, I have to say that Paul and George were the best. Hard to pick one, but given the musical diversity they had makes them my top 2.
So…. he’s the most versatile musician in the Beatles. He doesn’t play any instrument better than John sings, or than Ringo plays drums, or than George plays guitar. Paul’s an amazing Bass player, I will give him that. And a great singer as well. Everything else he was serviceable
What singing has to do with best musican? Even voice paul has the most with a range of 5 octaves , he was a choir boy in a church and his family from grandfather one was musically with their bands!
John’s songs are more philosophical and Paul’s songs are more commercialised. Combined, they are the best. But John is the founder and the leader of the Beatles.
I believe George was the most trained musician, but Paul was the most versatile musician along with John. Ringo was supposed to be the most professional before the Beatles got started. He had his own band Rory storm
@@Billsingsong His biggest influences were Country and Western guitarists like Chet Atkins....and Rock guitarists like Chuck Berry.....He was self-taught not trained.
Just answering this specific question (which isn't about which Beatle's music you like best) it's easily Paul, when just considering his bass guitar playing, and consider the influence he's had on other musicians, and the admiration there is for his playing even from people who don't always even like his music. AND he can do it live, and unlike other bass players he's not at the back of the stage, he's out front singing at the same time as playing incredibly complicated bass lines, which often counterpoint the song. That's not even considering his singing, lead guitar playing (many of The Beatles' best aggressive solos), his piano playing or even his competent drumming.
John was the most creative and had the most distinctive voice, in my opinion. He was the most artful, but probably not the most musically talented, although I don’t know who was.
Or not... For all we know, he wasn't particularly interested in music anymore. Sure, he would release an album once in a while but other than that... I guess we'll never know.
Well it’s a tough argument to lose if you think George was the best vocalist and guitarist in the group. Anyone who argues this is just incorrect. The man went on to be massively successful on his own after the break up (not saying the rest didn’t). His song “My Sweet Lord” is in my opinion the greatest song released by any of them whether they are together or separate.
My sweet lord was plagiarized and George had to pay fees and even Lennon made fun of him. And by the way george just had 5 or 6 songs that were successful the rest were garbage!
They were all great in their own right but I think Paul was the best overall talent as a musician. I remember seeing him in concert many years ago and was amazed at how many instruments he can play and how well he played them.
Ringo is one of the best Drummers in history and without his input The Beatles would've sounded totally different. This is not my opinion, it is a scientific fact. Something not mentioned here is that none of The Beatles could read or write music. I heard Paul tell the story in an interview how they communicated to each other what to play when and how, plus the bizarre code language they used. Through music history there have been quite a few successful artists that haven't read or written music, I think Don McLean is one of them. Captain Beefheart would whistle each music part to each individual musician, making him a genuine genius. Here's a few more :
how would John rate if he were still alive today, he also played multiple instruments, the question is a mute point because two Beatles have been dead for so long.
@@johnsain okay, we see you’re a John HATER Troll who fell for McCartney’s cute looks 😂 P.S: John was Writing classic songs the likes of which Paul hadn’t written since “Band on the Run” and would never write again. John by around 1980 was peaking again composing “Watching the Wheels”, “Real Love”, “Free as a Bird”, “Woman”, “Beautiful Boy”, “I’m Losing You”, etc… Paul was sounding like an amateur synth player at the time on McCartney II with the exception of “Coming Up” which even surprised John who said “he’s finally done something good” 😂
I liked John best, and George second. But Paul played more instruments as well as composing and singing. However, Paul also wanted to walk away from the group before John or George.
False....they all expressed a desire to leave the group before Paul....Look up George's words after their final concert in San Francisco August 1966...."That's it,...I'm not a Beatle anymore".
2 роки тому+3
I think that today everyone agrees that Paul is the best musician, technically speaking, and that in 80 years of life he has played perhaps more than 50 instruments on his albums (with The Beatles or as a soloist). But if we stick to John's 40 years, and specifically to his period with The Beatles, a detailed list of instruments shows that he played even more instruments than Paul on the band's recordings. That is not an opinion, it is a fact that we sometimes overlook. Finally, it is essential to emphasize that all four (yes, even Ringo), to a greater or lesser extent, with greater or lesser capacity, are multi-instrumentalists.
@@johnsain John was the greatest rhythm guitarist ever according to Ringo. And he was probably the greatest rock singer ever… so there’s that. Never mind he was the best harmonica player and whistler in the band, was an amazing composer at the piano, created electric guitar feedback, backwards vocals…. Should i keep going ? 😂
@@hw343434, you are just a Paul hater. Even john said in his last interview for Playboy that Paul was better musically as he comes from a very musically family as his father and uncles and his grandfather had bands so Paul was raised in a musical family.
Paul McCartney hands down was the strongest musician, lets not forget his dad was a musician too. But the engineers who worked at EMI/Abbey Road Studios all agree that Paul was the best musician. Don’t come at me I think John Lennon was incredible musical genius, incredible voice, George came into his own too and of course Ringo was a great drummer and had a good personality.
@@hw343434 I think John Lennon had a crushed velvet voice and Paul McCartney had a smooth velvet, both incredible singers, equally great. But I do agree with you that John was a poet with poetic lyrics, Paul had incredible melodies, although both of them crossed those lines and did both really well sometimes.
It’s Paul and it’s not even close. Paul can play drums unlike John or George All of George’s hits, (here comes the sun, something, my sweet lord, what is life, taxman, while my guitar) none feature him playing piano like Paul or John. So Paul didn’t play harmonica or sitar, big deal.
Paul was the best musician, although none of them were great technically. John and George were more on the artistic side but wither way they had an incredible sound
all of them of course were the best musicians in their group. i don't think i would enjoy their music the way i did if you replace even just one of them in the band.
Paul was The Best and his voice the best also he could calm and shout..when he played guitar amazing also..we can hear balckbird etc...about bass Paul Made Bassist to be cool
I really think you could make an argument for all the members: Beginning of the band? Idolised by the other members of the band and originally a musician specifically called in to replace their original drummer for their first few songs, Ringo During/ by the end of the band? Becoming the writer of one of the best songs in their catalog and honing his own lead guitar skills overtime, George Post Beatles: for his artistic abilities, John Overall: with his writing ability, instrumentation and pure number of songs, Paul
People in the comments seem to associate talent with success commercially.. was Britney Spears a musician at all? No. There’s a difference between technically being “good” as a musician and being able to play instruments. The Beatles were fascinating songwriters and artists no doubt, and they were no slouches musically.. maybe I’m getting to industry specific with my use of verbiage for folks who aren’t involved in music As far as being the best technically at specific instruments it would go to George, but to appease all the Paul folks who aren’t trained musicians he did play the most instruments successfully I guess. The thing about Paul being the main piano player I found interesting too. I’d say George Martin is in contention on the records, and most certainly the best technical pianist in the group. He was the only one who could play the harpsichord solo in My Life (and even then it was sped up considerably for the album).. I’d just like to finish my comment by reminding folks I’m not discussing who’s anyones favorite or saying anything that people have opinions about their level of enjoying things.. even if folks have a differing opinion to my own I hope this discussion would steer more towards a technical discussion as that the question being raised. Cheers.
John was the best overall artist: best lyrics, best rock songs, most interesting songs, funniest and best artwork. Also an awesome rhythm, piano and harmonica player. With the best voice. John is the greatest rock artist of all time. Paul: probably the most talented musically, best pop songs (practically invented the genre) although I’d say he’s also done some of the most stupid work and stuff John and George would never dream of releasing (forgetting some of Johns weird stuff with Yoko). Great bass player and pianist with a lovely voice (slightly behind johns) Paul is the greatest pop artist of all time. So it’s between these two and hard to split them. George was a lovely guitar player. Restrained and technically sound. He made some good songs. But nothing close to John and Paul. Ringo was the perfect drummer for the band. Not a showman but predictable. Stands to reason that the others wanted him on their solo work. Not a songwriter but easily the best actor in the band. Long story short: John is the greatest rock musician of all time and Paul is the greatest pop artist of all time. So it’s a toss up between them although Paul probably the best actual musician.
John's If I Fell, This Boy, Because, Julia etc. are some of the Beatles most beautiful pop songs. Paul's I saw her standing there, Can't Buy Me Love. I'm Down, Got to get you into my Life, Back in the USSR etc. are some of the Beatles best rockers. Paul pracrtially invented heavy metal with Helter Skelter. You're categorization is based on on 50 years of myth.
@@willm623 you could easily reverse that and count all the poppy songs Paul made that the rest of the Beatles didn’t like. John described Paul’s abbey road material as granny music. George Martin even said John was a rocker at heart and John even made a rock n roll covers album. Yes there are exceptions but in general terms - John made rock music and Paul made very poppy music. Even if you listen to “a day in the life” Paul’s’ contribution is very whimsy compared to rest of the verses John wrote. So I’d say that your categorisation is based on exceptions to a rule which is obviously going to happen when you’re in a rock n roll band.
@@MrTompahallam Paul did an album of R&R covers album too with 3 originals. You should check out the title track Run Devil Run. Have you heard slidin' off McCartney 3 last year. And he's playing all guitar parts. I think what George Martin atually said was that John ultimately grew to dislike big production and preferred straight foreward R&R. As far as A Day in the Life, if Paul's part was crap why would a genius like John allow it on his song? Paul also came up with the line I'd love to turn you on. How's that for whimsy. Now for the "grannt sh*%", there's a lot of context. This was from GEoff Emericks book and it was regarding ob la di ob la da. It wasn.t the song so much as Paul made the band run through it more than any other song before. He later did that with Maxwell's silver hammer. Lennon was dismissive of several Beatles classics even his own, which are popular songs. John happened to love Paul's song Oh Darling off Abbey Road so muh so that he wanted to sing it. In fact that and Allen Klein is what broke up the Beatles. He later said that if Paul allowed him to sing Oh Darling the band would have stayed together for another album or two. Find me the granny music on side 2 of Abbey Road. What a lot of Lennon fans don't know is the great love admiration and respect they had for each other. John even had a heavy dose of jealousy for Paul. Paul and John had made up in 1971 and were becoming very close again then Yoko convinced John to move to New York and did everything in her power to keep them apart. And btw the reason John made the Rock and Roll album was A) Mind games tanked following his terrible Some time in New York album. He was creatively dry and had low confidence. B) He was sued for borrowing a Chuck Berry line on Come Together, so the settlement was that he would cover a certain amount of songs on that music publishers catalogue so John decided to make an entire album of covers.
@@willm623 are you Paul McCartney’s lawyer by any chance? You’re doing a great job of defending him haha! This is where these debates are better to be had in a pub over a beer - cos it’s more fun to drink beer than type. Re: Paul’s latest music. No I haven’t listened to it. He released a song playing a mandolin about 15 years ago and it was embarrassing to listen to so i sorta gave up at that point. But I will revisit McCartney 3 - thanks for the tip. Anyway in general this is not some John vs Paul thing. I love Paul - as I said he’s the greatest pop musician of all time and the best musician in the Beatles overall. But I’m of the opinion that I don’t like his rocky songs… I don’t like Helter Skelter and I don’t like him on Oh Darling although the song is good as his always are! For me, that one was made for John’s voice (which is why he wanted to sing it) and he’d have sung it better. By the same token I don’t like a lot of the more poppy stuff that John did in the Beatles. But it’s no way near as rubbish as “when I’m 64” “maxwell” and “honey pie” - to me that is granny music. Maxwell does have cool syths as an aside, it’s just too singalong noddy for me. I’d much rather listen to the weirder stuff John did. For example -if I compare Strawberry fields and penny lane. Which followed the same premise and were brought out at the same time. To me there’s no question which is the better and more interesting song and the one that pushes the boundaries of music in general further forward. But all this is a personal taste thing. The rock song I do love that Paul did is “drive my Car”… and of course “I saw her standing there”. What Paul did well in the Beatles in my opinion is making up a persona and running with it in his songs “Eleanor rigby” is a great example…and his feel for melody is unrivalled. Maybe I’m amazed is an incredible song. I also love “for no one” “the day breaks you…Your day breaks, your mind aches You find that all her words of kindness linger on” brilliant lyrics that gave John a run for his money on that front. He also wrote a great rock James Bond song + here there and everywhere is a beautiful song. But when you look at the poetics and the level of experimentation of John’s songs + how brave and honest he was - they really did push the genre forward which Paul did in equal measure on the melody & arrangement front. To your point they could both do rock and both do pop - but it’s a matter of personal opinion and taste whose you prefer. Ps. It’s interesting that when John made his comeback after hearing Paul experiment with “coming up” (cool tune btw) that John went and made a great pop song “woman” that sounded just like a McCartney classic. Which is why back to my original point - you can’t really split them. Number 1 and 1 best musical artists of all time.
Paul was the best technical musician , followed by George. John I consider the best musician as art form. To me he approaches music sideways. John was more likely to say if it sounds good then it’s good even if it’s not technically correct.
John. He was the most creative and by far the best songwriter. He formed the group and of course a wonderful guitarist. Moreover, a great poet and writer who transformed our world. John Lennon.
The Beatles were best live during their early period as a group. But by 65 and 66 their live playing was sloppy. This is probably due to laziness from success and the fact that they could not hear themselves. When you say " even Ringo" you are overlooking the fact that he was one of the best rock drummers in Liverpool during the beat group boom in the early 60s. When looking at the " Get Back" film, he was the most consistent with the least amount of mistakes. John was a fine rythym guitar player but his strong suit was his songwriting. His keyboard skills were basic. George Harrison did not play all those instruments you've mentioned. Just because you pick up an instrument and find the right notes does not mean you can play it. However as a guitar player I feel he was probably the finest musician in the band. Simply listen to his lyrical playing on the solo from " Something ". Paul McCartney is easily the most versatile and probably played the most instruments. His guitar playing was pretty good as was his piano but neither instrument he mastered and Ringo was clearly a better drummer. His bass playing however was innovative. But his strong point like Lennons was his songwriting skills. The Beatles strong point was their gift for writing great songs and this includes Harrison.
This is the best answer and accurate, Vincent. As an aside, this video is perhaps the most poorly written account of the Beatles I have ever heard. It is filled with inaccuracies, over simplifications, cliches, and just wrong information. It was written by someone who knows nothing about the Beatles and even less about writing decent copy. But that's just nitpicking, isn't it?
@@timothygibbs9578 Thank you Timothy and yeah it drives me nuts too when people post things like this about artist simply to post them..and no we are not nit-picking buddy...lol
If it were just to compose, it would be Paul, if it were to be performance take your choice, if it were to be just playing an instrument - Ringo then George.
Collectively, they are the Beatles, right? But when the world starts mentioning their names individually the order is as follows: John, Paul, George and Ringo. The sequence is like that for a reason throughout the history of the band. Let's respect that.
So doesn’t mean that John was the best musician lol. John even said Paul was better musically because he came from a musically family as both his father and uncles and even his grandfather was in a band.
Paul. No doubt. He’s not only the most successful songwriter of all time, but also one of rock’s top bassists, incredibly versatile vocally, and plays several instruments quite well, including very good lead guitar.
Don’t say that to that black guy who started Motown records. He thought the Beatles and Paul lousy musicians.
Maybe at first when anyone tries something but look how far they evolved
Paul isn't the best bass player I have ever seen. He was a good writer. John had more hits as a Beatle. Paul gave me a bad taste in my mouth watching Get Back. Let's be clear on who started the beatles. That would be John.
John is more rock and roll his songs reflected his personal problems. He was the best for me.
George had the heart and if he was given more of a shot he would have wrote more songs. Ringo is am amazing drummer and person.
@@delainepep22 Paul wrote most of the group’s #1 hits.
@@michelepaccione8806 Motowns top groups....The Supremes, Marvin Gaye, , Smokey & the Miracles,,,The Vandellas, the Marvelettes,...Temptations, Four Tops....they were great!.....But how many wrote their songs?....how many played instruments?....
@@ThrowAway271 I put Paul's voice way above Lennon personally....Paul could do raunchy as well as anyone in Rock history....Long Tall Sally, Helter Skelter, Oh Darling,...and the closing minutes of Hey Jude....Incredible....Of course the softer, smooth and emotive Paul on Yesterday, The Long & Winding Road, and Blackbird....and everything in between!....I don't see Lennon beating Paul at any style of singing at all.
Ringo was extremely underrated. Many great drummers to this day say Ringo is one of the best ever.
And people that use the lame and lazy word "underrated" are extremely overrated.
Paul in terms of the musical instruments he can play well (bass, guitar, piano, drums, etc.). In Get Back there is one bit where he is scatting melodies to songs barely written and yet his scatting is like finished melodies.
McCartney has a habit of releasing albums and singles where he plays all the instruments. I'll say Paul is the best musician in the band.
Not for that reason.
None of those albums are great
@@hw343434 cap
@@lancelot771 you really think McCartney 1,2 or 3 are great albums?? 🤔🤔🤔 those albums are worth 2/3 good songs each imo. Not saying they’re terrible or bad but Paul has never produced a masterpiece on his own. Collaboration between different minds with different ideas is the key to great music; ego and/or playing everything yourself leads to uninteresting music
Unfortunately he just releases any old thing. Without John's influence, his music is often soft
Ringo was the best technician. Paul was the most versatile. John had the most fire. George had the most heart and beauty. They all needed each other to be, well, perfect.
Paul is only the most versatile?....lol
@@johnsain I didn't say only. To a musician, versatility is a very strong value. So much has been said about Paul's many talents that it seemed unnecessary to list them.
@@johnsain Versatile in the sense that he has a wider vocal range, objectively wider than even Freddie Mercury, also when it comes to musical instruments, he can play piano, drums, lead guitar, and of course bass, better than any of them when it comes to technicality.
Paul was supposed to be the lead guitarist but after Stu left he had to take on bass, and during Rubber Soul onwards he played more lead guitar and covered most of the piano playing in numerous songs like Hey Jude and While my Guitar gently weeps.
In a band, someone with such flexibility like Paul is considered versatile.
Paul was a sick bassist. I'm a Lennon and Harrison fan, but Paul's basslines were so good.
George is my favourite so I'm biased towards him but I can't deny Paul's versatility and talent on different instruments
George Harrison was amazing. I love his style. I identify much more with his music and his style than with Paul, John Or Ringo.
Team George.
Paul was the best musician of course but the band The Beatles was magic and no member alone achieved that magic again.
They were all great and it was the collaboration that made them truly great.
Paul no question x
There's no debate here. It's Paul, hands-down. He could play all the major instruments, and showed the most improvement the soonest.
George didn't improve dramatically until he started hanging with Eric Clapton. John's rhythm guitar playing never improved much from the banjo-style skiffle chords he started with. Ringo's drumming did improve substantially. The drum fills on "Day in the Life" do not lie.
Paul McCartney is the best as proven by several number of hits he composed and sang all along many years after the Beatles breakup.He is also the most talented compared to the other members.
John Lennon is the greatest songwriter, and Lead singer of the Beatles, and Ringo called John the greatest rhythm guitarist ever. Paul is the greatest bass player and arranger of the band members (also a great songwriter and singer obviously and the most versatile and melodic musically speaking although lyrically very suspect hit or miss and lazy/shallow as a lyricist compared to John and George in their solo careers), George is the best all around guitarist, another great songwriter and singer, and Ringo is easily the best drummer and one of the most original unique drummers in rock history. Thus, this is a stupid question that cannot be answered objectively
@@hw343434 3rd best songwriter according to Rolling Stones (which is a magazine that historically has always praised Lennon a lot, and Lennon himself always respected). 2nd McCartney and 1st Dylan. I would say McCartney 1st but whatever...
I think Paul McCartney was the most talented musician of The Beatles.
I agree. They were all talented and all were integral to making the Beatles the phenomenon that they were - all of them were required to create what they did together. But I think that McCartney was, hands down, the best of them overall.
Ringo's guitar playing is not appreciated..... : (
Not himself really but his bass guitar.
@@mariocardabollo3631 the bass doesn't play itself...
@@horaciodortona574 Pues vaya decepción.
The fifth Beatle is the true answer to this question, and that was George Martin. But out of the four, everyone knows it was him and Paul...quite the musical genius..!
Paul is incredible talented and more knowledgeable but people seem to forget that music is an art form and as an artist, John was more bold, risky, innovative and conceptually creative. I absolutely love Paul contributions, but most of The Beatles greatest avant-garde masterpieces came from John’s mind: A Day In The Life, Strawberry Fields Forever, Tomorrow Never Knows, I Am The Walrus, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, Across The Universe, Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite. Also, even though John didn’t have the musical background that Paul had, he was incredible intuitive and explorative in both melody and harmony, and he had beautiful melodic masterpieces as In My Life, Girl, If I Fell, Ticket to Ride, All I’ve Got to Do, Anytime At All. Both were equally talented in my opinion.
People are only focusing on technical musicianship. But as you say, Lennon was the most artistic and revolutionary of the 4 by a mile with his music, words and artistic vision
A day in the life was john and Paul, even john acknowledged that
John didn't play or master as many instruments as Paul. They both were exceptional writers. Even John said Paul was the better musician. John relied on Paul to motivate him, because he knew he was on the lazy side.
@@bob44044 Yeah yeah; I know all Lennon’s flaws, already. Still as creators, both John and Paul delivered in a way that only together would work. Yes, I know Paul was more proficient and efficient, but there’s a personal touch in Lennon that had a huge impact in The Beatles discography, songs like No Reply, or Happiness Is A Warm Gun, or Norwegian Wood are clear examples of that. Paul pushed in things like production and arrangements, and he understood the importance of consistency regarding making hits. I love Lennon’s later songs but most of them were not #1s.
That's a catch 22 type of question, each of the men in the super group The Beatles each hold their own special talent which is exactly why they succeeded so much. I can't vote, that just isn't fair they're all very talented all of them.
This is more of a Paul McCartney Love fest than a real analysis of their musical abilities
Exactly
Either way the answer is still the same.
The result would be the exact same.
That's a very limited viewpoint. Paul did write pop music. However he also wrote rock music, classical music, electronic music, ballads, movie themes, soundtrack music, etc. Too many people bought into the myth that John was the rocker and Paul was just pop. Whenever I hear someone say that I realize right away that haven't heard that much of either artist's catalog. Even within the Beatles their hardest rocking song of their early period, "I'm Down", and their hardest rocking song of their later period, "Helter Skelter" were both Paul songs. Going into their solo work you will be hard pressed to find too many tracks from John that rock like "Jet", "Junior's Farm" or "Beware My Love" and definitely not like "Soily". While John certainly had more political songs than Paul, Paul had his share as well right from the early days with "Give Ireland Back to the Irish". Paul is also considered the master of melody so to think that John had a better melody writing ability is certainly a minority opinion. While it's true there is no comparison between their commercial success, the critics that were unfairly harsh to Paul in the beginning have changed their opinions over time. We can analyze their musical abilities but I think you'll find that if you dig deep enough that the answer doesn't change no matter how much you may prefer John's music, which is fine, music affects everyone differently and we all have our favorites, but look at the overall data and you'll see it's harder to say John was the best. It's all going to depend on your criteria I suppose.
@@krowta2062, doesn’t matter if you like lennon better what matters are McCartney is the most successful musician ever first he can play more instruments than john, ringo or george. Even john said so in his interview and he said is more accomplished musically because he came from a musician family as both his father and uncles played in a band also his grandfather and by the way McCartney taught john how to play guitar chords because before met Paul he played banjo chords.
Paul, hands down. He learned to be a classical composer. He moved the bass forward in rock. He learned different picking styles on the guitar and picked them up easier than John. He played lead guitar on some tracks, including George's Taxman. He produced three different albums (1970, 1980, 2020) in which he played every single musical instrument. It really feels like a question you ask of people who were not Beatle fans as the answer is really that simple.
his songs arnet as good as lennons. simple as that, but has slightly better voice (not for all types of songs) and plays more instrruments so they are equals imo
@@krowta2062 Without question only in the subjective sense. If however, you were to use facts, such as the fact that John himself said he couldn't go and jam with other musicians like Paul and George did, or look at the number of different instruments that Paul could play, or the musicianship it takes to compose symphonic music, you would absolutely have to question.
That's a 100% subjective viewpoint. You can find as many people and actually probably far more who would disagree seeing as how Paul had more hits than John, George, and Ringo put together in the 1970s. It's not fair of course to compare beyond that since John died in 1980. A lot of the critics that were harsh to Paul in those days have also changed their tunes over time so in terms of commercial success there's no comparison and at best it's neck and neck in critical success.
To me, George is the best, its not about how many instrument you can play but how you play your instrument. Hes very professional when it comes to writing his parts and what he created is unchangeable. Paul was the best singer but john has the best sounding voice and he is one of the greatest lyricist.
Why people now like to pretend that George Harrison didn't only write like 3 bangers in The Beatle... Let's say 4. Hell, let's say 5. What is that compared to the many that Paul and John wrote?? Are we just not gonna take into account the big disparity here?
@@MoreCoversevery song George wrote was hit, whereas a lot of John and Paul’s went under appreciated. George knew what was good. Simple.
@@MoreCovers, it’s wrong, George just have few songs on his albums that were successful the rest were dudes
@@trevormichaelmcgowan
Harrison was so far to be the best !!!
Vous plaisantez ? seriously, he can't be compared for the songwriting to Lennon & Mccartney !!!
Harrison n'est pas un grand chanteur non plus...
In my opinion, John was the best and most creative songwriter, lyrically as well, however, George was a better guitarist than John. Ringo was a very solid drummer whose ability to keep time is legendary. Paul was the best musician. Very talented and well versed in several instruments, and is arguably among the very best singers and bassist of all time, a top three to five in either category in most polls.
Paul was the best musician imo, but they were all special in their own way.
As John's life was cut short in 1980, its difficult to compare him with Paul's efforts since the break up. If John had lived, I think it would be difficult to separate their musicianship. George was overshadowed by John and Paul because George Martin concentrated on John and Paul compositions.
Agree with you.
@@gwenmcalister888 So do i
George Harrison's guitar skills are second to none. As a song writer he proved himself to be a giant. I doubt that the Beatles would have had the success they had without him!
Even he would tell you Clapton is much better.....McCartney can rival George on guitar.
@@johnsain nope Harrison was the best guitarist in the band and it wasn’t even close.
@@W_L-mb9no Paul was best.
@@johnsain nope all his solos sounded the same, his tone was shit, George was way more versatile as a guitar player
@@W_L-mb9no In many respects Paul McCartney was the group's most rounded musician, and possibly even its best guitarist. It was he that devised many of the riffs and even played some of the most memorable solos, such as on Taxman (Revolver), Ticket To Ride and his killer Epiphone Casino (opens in new tab) riff on Paperback Writer.
Real Beatles Fans will ignore this question. Its forbidden to ask.
Paul beyond a doubt...he played more instruments on their albums including drums.
Not only that...his bass guitar playing is considered the best in Rock History..
@@johnsain The BEST in rock history? He is good but I could name many bassists that are much better. Geddy Lee, Les Claypool, John Entwistle and Jack Bruce to name a few
This is an easy one . . . McCartney. He would have been a virtuoso on any instrument that he focused on.
paul's songs arent as good as lennons but has slightly better voice (not for all types of songs) and plays more instrruments so lennon is a better songwriter for me, paul has other advantages that brings him to lennon's level
Paul. Why is this video 8 minutes long? The reason why they were so great was because they were all great and adding different talents to the mix. And they were greater than the sum of their parts. John's my personal fave. But the best musician... no doubt. It's Paul.
Regardless of what Quincy jones said, Jeff Lynne, of ELO, Taveling Wilburys, said Paul Mcartney was a genius, and said he's probably the best musician he ever worked with.
Best lyricist = Lennon
Best composer = McCartney
Best instrumentalist = Harrison
Best personality = Ringo
This sounds great to me!
Easy, Paul. Next question.
John is my favorite !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
While John is my favorite, I have to say that Paul and George were the best. Hard to pick one, but given the musical diversity they had makes them my top 2.
Only one Beatle played bass, guitar, lead guitar and drums on released Beatles recordings, Paul McCartney.
.....and piano.....and organ....and recorder.....
So…. he’s the most versatile musician in the Beatles. He doesn’t play any instrument better than John sings, or than Ringo plays drums, or than George plays guitar. Paul’s an amazing Bass player, I will give him that. And a great singer as well. Everything else he was serviceable
What singing has to do with best musican? Even voice paul has the most with a range of 5 octaves , he was a choir boy in a church and his family from grandfather one was musically with their bands!
Hard to beat a McCartney!
John Lennon
John’s songs are more philosophical and Paul’s songs are more commercialised. Combined, they are the best. But John is the founder and the leader of the Beatles.
John was founder of Quarry men. The Beatles were completely different from the Quarry.
I believe George was the most trained musician, but Paul was the most versatile musician along with John. Ringo was supposed to be the most professional before the Beatles got started. He had his own band Rory storm
Where did George get his training?....Julliard?
@@johnsain Are you being facetious? I think he was influenced by different jazz guitar Greats and other Great Guitsrists of his time and before
@@Billsingsong His biggest influences were Country and Western guitarists like Chet Atkins....and Rock guitarists like Chuck Berry.....He was self-taught not trained.
Just answering this specific question (which isn't about which Beatle's music you like best) it's easily Paul, when just considering his bass guitar playing, and consider the influence he's had on other musicians, and the admiration there is for his playing even from people who don't always even like his music. AND he can do it live, and unlike other bass players he's not at the back of the stage, he's out front singing at the same time as playing incredibly complicated bass lines, which often counterpoint the song.
That's not even considering his singing, lead guitar playing (many of The Beatles' best aggressive solos), his piano playing or even his competent drumming.
John was the most creative and had the most distinctive voice, in my opinion. He was the most artful, but probably not the most musically talented, although I don’t know who was.
John Lennon
Imagine if he's still alive
The amount of music he can brings to us.
Sadly that ends in 1980
Or not... For all we know, he wasn't particularly interested in music anymore. Sure, he would release an album once in a while but other than that... I guess we'll never know.
Paul without a doubt. He can play every instrument at an elite level
My favorite Beatle is the Beatles
Well it’s a tough argument to lose if you think George was the best vocalist and guitarist in the group. Anyone who argues this is just incorrect. The man went on to be massively successful on his own after the break up (not saying the rest didn’t). His song “My Sweet Lord” is in my opinion the greatest song released by any of them whether they are together or separate.
My sweet lord was plagiarized and George had to pay fees and even Lennon made fun of him. And by the way george just had 5 or 6 songs that were successful the rest were garbage!
They were all great in their own right but I think Paul was the best overall talent as a musician. I remember seeing him in concert many years ago and was amazed at how many instruments he can play and how well he played them.
If we assume that Paul is Mozart, then John is Beethoven
And once again, bass guitar comes out on top! All my fellow slappers will agree.
Paul, best overall
I like the Beatles a lot,always have since the 60's,But George was my favorite &Ringo.The other two was really talented but So Full of themselves.
Ringo is one of the best Drummers in history and without his input The Beatles would've sounded totally different.
This is not my opinion, it is a scientific fact.
Something not mentioned here is that none of The Beatles could read or write music.
I heard Paul tell the story in an interview how they communicated to each other what to play when and how, plus the bizarre code language they used.
Through music history there have been quite a few successful artists that haven't read or written music, I think Don McLean is one of them.
Captain Beefheart would whistle each music part to each individual musician, making him a genuine genius.
Here's a few more :
George Harrison was able to read music, he took a year of guitar lessons.
Paul
McCartney
how would John rate if he were still alive today, he also played multiple instruments, the question is a mute point because two Beatles have been dead for so long.
John was good at making bread around the time he died...
@@johnsain okay, we see you’re a John HATER Troll who fell for McCartney’s cute looks 😂 P.S: John was Writing classic songs the likes of which Paul hadn’t written since “Band on the Run” and would never write again. John by around 1980 was peaking again composing “Watching the Wheels”, “Real Love”, “Free as a Bird”, “Woman”, “Beautiful Boy”, “I’m Losing You”, etc… Paul was sounding like an amateur synth player at the time on McCartney II with the exception of “Coming Up” which even surprised John who said “he’s finally done something good” 😂
@@hw343434 OK I get it - you're a jealous Paul hater....who fell for John's Lefty politics....and George's Hinduism....
@@johnsain jeez you hate both John AND George. Now that’s a true Paul-centric fanatic there 🤯
Billy Preston
I love them all ❤️❤️❤️❤️ I’d say George too had great song writing ability and would be the top guitarist of all time ❤️💜
He wasn't even the best guitarist of his era. He's not known for that.
@@williamjordan5554 Not even top 50.
@@johnsain Not even top 60.
I liked John best, and George second. But Paul played more instruments as well as composing and singing. However, Paul also wanted to walk away from the group before John or George.
False....they all expressed a desire to leave the group before Paul....Look up George's words after their final concert in San Francisco August 1966...."That's it,...I'm not a Beatle anymore".
I think that today everyone agrees that Paul is the best musician, technically speaking, and that in 80 years of life he has played perhaps more than 50 instruments on his albums (with The Beatles or as a soloist). But if we stick to John's 40 years, and specifically to his period with The Beatles, a detailed list of instruments shows that he played even more instruments than Paul on the band's recordings. That is not an opinion, it is a fact that we sometimes overlook. Finally, it is essential to emphasize that all four (yes, even Ringo), to a greater or lesser extent, with greater or lesser capacity, are multi-instrumentalists.
It's not how many instruments you play....it's how well you play them.
@@johnsain John was the greatest rhythm guitarist ever according to Ringo. And he was probably the greatest rock singer ever… so there’s that. Never mind he was the best harmonica player and whistler in the band, was an amazing composer at the piano, created electric guitar feedback, backwards vocals…. Should i keep going ? 😂
@@hw343434 keep going!...Paul still wins!...lol!!!!!
@@johnsain he wins at “Silly Love Songs” although John can compete with him at that too when he wants 😂
@@hw343434, you are just a Paul hater. Even john said in his last interview for Playboy that Paul was better musically as he comes from a very musically family as his father and uncles and his grandfather had bands so Paul was raised in a musical family.
It’s Paul …
Paul McCartney hands down was the strongest musician, lets not forget his dad was a musician too. But the engineers who worked at EMI/Abbey Road Studios all agree that Paul was the best musician. Don’t come at me I think John Lennon was incredible musical genius, incredible voice, George came into his own too and of course Ringo was a great drummer and had a good personality.
As a musician it has to be Paul. But I think that John was the most well rounded Song Writer
@@AI_Image_Master indeed he was a poet really, John was better with words and Paul was better with melody, what a combination!!!
John was the greatest songwriter and lead singer. Paul was better with melodies and arrangements
@@hw343434 I think John Lennon had a crushed velvet voice and Paul McCartney had a smooth velvet, both incredible singers, equally great. But I do agree with you that John was a poet with poetic lyrics, Paul had incredible melodies, although both of them crossed those lines and did both really well sometimes.
For me, the four are the best
George 🙃 Martin !
GH, sem dúvida ouvindo ATMP! Os outros não conseguem nem chegar perto
Easy answer. It's RINGO!!! He made The Beatles THE BEATLES.
George Martin said you couldn't get a cigarette paper between John and Paul regarding the respective creative talents of each.
We’ll yes. That’s true. But creative talents are different than musicianship talent. In the latter Paul is much better
@@danielrivadeneira185 George was referring to their musical creativity.
@@flankerroad7414 You stated him as saying “creative talents” specifically, not musical talent.
@@danielrivadeneira185 well, John had a better voice than Paul and Ringo said John was the greatest rhythm guitarist ever 🤷🏽♂️
It’s Paul and it’s not even close.
Paul can play drums unlike John or George
All of George’s hits, (here comes the sun, something, my sweet lord, what is life, taxman, while my guitar) none feature him playing piano like Paul or John.
So Paul didn’t play harmonica or sitar, big deal.
Ringo: Best Drummer
George: Best Guitarist
Paul: Best Bass, Piano
John: Best Melody Maker
Paul was the best musician, although none of them were great technically. John and George were more on the artistic side but wither way they had an incredible sound
I just love all 4 of them! All the time !
all of them of course were the best musicians in their group. i don't think i would enjoy their music the way i did if you replace even just one of them in the band.
Paul was The Best and his voice the best also he could calm and shout..when he played guitar amazing also..we can hear balckbird etc...about bass Paul Made Bassist to be cool
They took turns being the best. 😄
First Paul was great but Tall Paul was and is astonishing!
john lennon
I really think you could make an argument for all the members:
Beginning of the band? Idolised by the other members of the band and originally a musician specifically called in to replace their original drummer for their first few songs, Ringo
During/ by the end of the band? Becoming the writer of one of the best songs in their catalog and honing his own lead guitar skills overtime, George
Post Beatles: for his artistic abilities, John
Overall: with his writing ability, instrumentation and pure number of songs, Paul
Hands down... Paul
Paul has played all the instruments on some recordings.
In those reviews of the best album done after they broke up, All Things Must Pass nearly always wins and it was done by.....GH
George Martin
People in the comments seem to associate talent with success commercially.. was Britney Spears a musician at all? No.
There’s a difference between technically being “good” as a musician and being able to play instruments. The Beatles were fascinating songwriters and artists no doubt, and they were no slouches musically.. maybe I’m getting to industry specific with my use of verbiage for folks who aren’t involved in music
As far as being the best technically at specific instruments it would go to George, but to appease all the Paul folks who aren’t trained musicians he did play the most instruments successfully I guess.
The thing about Paul being the main piano player I found interesting too. I’d say George Martin is in contention on the records, and most certainly the best technical pianist in the group. He was the only one who could play the harpsichord solo in My Life (and even then it was sped up considerably for the album)..
I’d just like to finish my comment by reminding folks I’m not discussing who’s anyones favorite or saying anything that people have opinions about their level of enjoying things.. even if folks have a differing opinion to my own I hope this discussion would steer more towards a technical discussion as that the question being raised.
Cheers.
Equals. You can’t be a Beatles fan and choose. Each is a key player!
The Beatles it’s a band
Yall are sleeping on George.
George Martin.
John was the best overall artist: best lyrics, best rock songs, most interesting songs, funniest and best artwork. Also an awesome rhythm, piano and harmonica player. With the best voice.
John is the greatest rock artist of all time.
Paul: probably the most talented musically, best pop songs (practically invented the genre) although I’d say he’s also done some of the most stupid work and stuff John and George would never dream of releasing (forgetting some of Johns weird stuff with Yoko). Great bass player and pianist with a lovely voice (slightly behind johns)
Paul is the greatest pop artist of all time.
So it’s between these two and hard to split them.
George was a lovely guitar player. Restrained and technically sound. He made some good songs. But nothing close to John and Paul.
Ringo was the perfect drummer for the band. Not a showman but predictable. Stands to reason that the others wanted him on their solo work. Not a songwriter but easily the best actor in the band.
Long story short:
John is the greatest rock musician of all time and Paul is the greatest pop artist of all time.
So it’s a toss up between them although Paul probably the best actual musician.
John's If I Fell, This Boy, Because, Julia etc. are some of the Beatles most beautiful pop songs. Paul's I saw her standing there, Can't Buy Me Love. I'm Down, Got to get you into my Life, Back in the USSR etc. are some of the Beatles best rockers. Paul pracrtially invented heavy metal with Helter Skelter. You're categorization is based on on 50 years of myth.
@@willm623 you could easily reverse that and count all the poppy songs Paul made that the rest of the Beatles didn’t like. John described Paul’s abbey road material as granny music. George Martin even said John was a rocker at heart and John even made a rock n roll covers album.
Yes there are exceptions but in general terms - John made rock music and Paul made very poppy music. Even if you listen to “a day in the life” Paul’s’ contribution is very whimsy compared to rest of the verses John wrote.
So I’d say that your categorisation is based on exceptions to a rule which is obviously going to happen when you’re in a rock n roll band.
@@MrTompahallam Paul did an album of R&R covers album too with 3 originals. You should check out the title track Run Devil Run. Have you heard slidin' off McCartney 3 last year. And he's playing all guitar parts. I think what George Martin atually said was that John ultimately grew to dislike big production and preferred straight foreward R&R. As far as A Day in the Life, if Paul's part was crap why would a genius like John allow it on his song? Paul also came up with the line I'd love to turn you on. How's that for whimsy.
Now for the "grannt sh*%", there's a lot of context. This was from GEoff Emericks book and it was regarding ob la di ob la da. It wasn.t the song so much as Paul made the band run through it more than any other song before. He later did that with Maxwell's silver hammer. Lennon was dismissive of several Beatles classics even his own, which are popular songs. John happened to love Paul's song Oh Darling off Abbey Road so muh so that he wanted to sing it. In fact that and Allen Klein is what broke up the Beatles. He later said that if Paul allowed him to sing Oh Darling the band would have stayed together for another album or two. Find me the granny music on side 2 of Abbey Road.
What a lot of Lennon fans don't know is the great love admiration and respect they had for each other. John even had a heavy dose of jealousy for Paul. Paul and John had made up in 1971 and were becoming very close again then Yoko convinced John to move to New York and did everything in her power to keep them apart.
And btw the reason John made the Rock and Roll album was A) Mind games tanked following his terrible Some time in New York album. He was creatively dry and had low confidence. B) He was sued for borrowing a Chuck Berry line on Come Together, so the settlement was that he would cover a certain amount of songs on that music publishers catalogue so John decided to make an entire album of covers.
@@willm623 are you Paul McCartney’s lawyer by any chance? You’re doing a great job of defending him haha!
This is where these debates are better to be had in a pub over a beer - cos it’s more fun to drink beer than type.
Re: Paul’s latest music. No I haven’t listened to it. He released a song playing a mandolin about 15 years ago and it was embarrassing to listen to so i sorta gave up at that point. But I will revisit McCartney 3 - thanks for the tip.
Anyway in general this is not some John vs Paul thing. I love Paul - as I said he’s the greatest pop musician of all time and the best musician in the Beatles overall. But I’m of the opinion that I don’t like his rocky songs… I don’t like Helter Skelter and I don’t like him on Oh Darling although the song is good as his always are! For me, that one was made for John’s voice (which is why he wanted to sing it) and he’d have sung it better. By the same token I don’t like a lot of the more poppy stuff that John did in the Beatles. But it’s no way near as rubbish as “when I’m 64” “maxwell” and “honey pie” - to me that is granny music. Maxwell does have cool syths as an aside, it’s just too singalong noddy for me. I’d much rather listen to the weirder stuff John did. For example -if I compare Strawberry fields and penny lane. Which followed the same premise and were brought out at the same time. To me there’s no question which is the better and more interesting song and the one that pushes the boundaries of music in general further forward. But all this is a personal taste thing. The rock song I do love that Paul did is “drive my Car”… and of course “I saw her standing there”. What Paul did well in the Beatles in my opinion is making up a persona and running with it in his songs “Eleanor rigby” is a great example…and his feel for melody is unrivalled. Maybe I’m amazed is an incredible song. I also love “for no one” “the day breaks you…Your day breaks, your mind aches
You find that all her words of kindness linger on” brilliant lyrics that gave John a run for his money on that front. He also wrote a great rock James Bond song + here there and everywhere is a beautiful song.
But when you look at the poetics and the level of experimentation of John’s songs + how brave and honest he was - they really did push the genre forward which Paul did in equal measure on the melody & arrangement front.
To your point they could both do rock and both do pop - but it’s a matter of personal opinion and taste whose you prefer.
Ps. It’s interesting that when John made his comeback after hearing Paul experiment with “coming up” (cool tune btw) that John went and made a great pop song “woman” that sounded just like a McCartney classic.
Which is why back to my original point - you can’t really split them. Number 1 and 1 best musical artists of all time.
@@MrTompahallam Agree to disagree. And you're buying the first round.🍺
I love them all
George Harrison was the best imo. Rest in Peace
It's funny that people keep with the George is the quiet one. He was never quiet🤣
I think it's obvious, Pete Best was the Best Beatle.
Pete
Paul was the best technical musician , followed by George.
John I consider the best musician as art form. To me he approaches music sideways. John was more likely to say if it sounds good then it’s good even if it’s not technically correct.
Exactly
Pete Best, was the BEST! + THE Beatles was the best. Together Jonathan, Paul, George and Ringo. How lucky where we the day they met!
Jonathan? His full name is John.
Not difficult to tell. Paul was prolific. He could write ten songs in an hour. He had the work ethic that the others didn’t have
Why did John write more Beatles songs than Paul then? 🤔
John Lennon...no doubt..Imagine was a masterpiece....so much meaning..
Most pretentious song ever written. So childish.
John. He was the most creative and by far the best songwriter. He formed the group and of course a wonderful guitarist. Moreover, a great poet and writer who transformed our world. John Lennon.
Nope.
@@MoreCovers who do you think
The Beatles were best live during their early period as a group. But by 65 and 66 their live playing was sloppy. This is probably due to laziness from success and the fact that they could not hear themselves. When you say " even Ringo" you are overlooking the fact that he was one of the best rock drummers in Liverpool during the beat group boom in the early 60s. When looking at the " Get Back" film, he was the most consistent with the least amount of mistakes. John was a fine rythym guitar player but his strong suit was his songwriting. His keyboard skills were basic. George Harrison did not play all those instruments you've mentioned. Just because you pick up an instrument and find the right notes does not mean you can play it. However as a guitar player I feel he was probably the finest musician in the band. Simply listen to his lyrical playing on the solo from " Something ". Paul McCartney is easily the most versatile and probably played the most instruments. His guitar playing was pretty good as was his piano but neither instrument he mastered and Ringo was clearly a better drummer. His bass playing however was innovative. But his strong point like Lennons was his songwriting skills. The Beatles strong point was their gift for writing great songs and this includes Harrison.
This is the best answer and accurate, Vincent. As an aside, this video is perhaps the most poorly written account of the Beatles I have ever heard. It is filled with inaccuracies, over simplifications, cliches, and just wrong information. It was written by someone who knows nothing about the Beatles and even less about writing decent copy. But that's just nitpicking, isn't it?
@@timothygibbs9578 Thank you Timothy and yeah it drives me nuts too when people post things like this about artist simply to post them..and no we are not nit-picking buddy...lol
Paul is my favorite and the best. Love all four of them though.
Nobody comes close to John as a rhythm guitarist
This brings back great memories of when we used to huff Carbona and listen to Yoko Ono sing like a dolphin.
If it were just to compose, it would be Paul, if it were to be performance take your choice, if it were to be just playing an instrument - Ringo then George.
If it were just to write and sing songs, Lennon.
Collectively, they are the Beatles, right? But when the world starts mentioning their names individually the order is as follows: John, Paul, George and Ringo. The sequence is like that for a reason throughout the history of the band. Let's respect that.
Well said. I’ve always thought that. I love John and Paul equally, but ever since they were a band, people always, ALWAYS had John in mind first.
So doesn’t mean that John was the best musician lol. John even said Paul was better musically because he came from a musically family as both his father and uncles and even his grandfather was in a band.
That would be Pete.