Who was ultimately the best Beatle when it came to making good music and good songs?

Who was ultimately the best Beatle when it came to making good music and good songs?

Attached: 4E53E17D-F6B7-4A64-8BCB-94F057091F83.jpg (602x374, 97.44K)

me

Hey John.

That guy married to Yoko Ono.

The one who wrote A Day In The Life

Granny music ftw

But seriously, it's Paul.

It's hard to say. I think the other beatles carried john's songs hard sometimes. JOhn had interesting chord progressions, emotional singing, and great lyrics, probably the best lyrics in the beatles. But paul was a much better musician and better technical singer, however with a more boring voice.

But pauls solo career is great, and still sounds very beatles-y. Johns solo career is pretty trash besides a few songs. I'm not sure. They were pretty neck-and-neck in the early beatles with maybe john having a slight upper hand. Mid-late beatles paul got really boring to me. But then paul went onto the 70s and had so many fucking great songs. Im not sure if paul was a late bloomer or what. I guess he had shit like penny lane and yesterday every once in a while though in the mid/late beatles.

I think paul was more consistent throughout the beatles, john had more stinkers, but when john made something really good it was really really moving and paul seemed more like he was "acting" his songs out, john could write very emotional shit.

I think john had higher highpoints than paul throughout the beatles. But paul was consistent and obviously a better musician and singer and all of that.

John almost strikes me as a hack sometimes, like he just wrote good shit as a fluke or something, but seriously so many memorable beatles songs were john sings, mostly their like huge hits and widely known songs, otherwise john songs kinda sucked. paul had more consistency and i think contributed more to the actual music, along with george. george just was shit at writing lyrics to me, not a bad musician at all, had a good voice, just not a good lyricist.

John was the best lyricist, paul was the better overall musician with a better sense of melody and songcrafting expertise, that's how i'd say it. but i think johns rhythm guitar was really unique to him, paul seemed more to just be doing standard pop melodies.

ringo

When they were together it was John, when they broke up it was George. Paul is #2 in both cases
Beatles ranking: John > Paul > George > Ringo
Solo career ranking: George > Paul > John > Ringo

based

1. Faul
2. John
3. George
4. Ringo
5. Paul

>when they broke up it was George

Maybe for like a split second with ATMP (which is honestly pretty overrated), after that george went to shit. And paul's 70s output was really fucking good on the whole. George's solo career does not compare in any way.

In the beatles its john > paul > george but john beats paul only slightly

solo career its like paul > george > john but john and george would be tied if lennon didnt make so much shit with yoko

John was the best beater of his wife

Attached: Imagine-film-stills-005.jpg (520x350, 42.16K)

Lemon ftb. Always had the best lyrical incline, especially after they’re dive into transcendental meditation. Songs like tomorrow never knows are some of the most profound lyrics. Post break up jon did have sum good ones but honestly Georgie had some pretty impressive work

Yeah lennon was the best lyricist, but it's almost like he wasn't even a musician sometimes, which makes me feel like he's a bit of a hack. Paul and george were so much better at creating the music, i think, in a lot of cases.

The one who made the most money.

Attached: frank-zappa-9540382-1-402.jpg (300x300, 11.7K)

Paul

Going to go against the grain here and say they were all great and worked to serve the songs together. Sum of parts and whatnot. But Paul went on to have the only actually good solo career, so that does say something.

hmm that's tough and probably kinda subjective depending on viewpoint. Paul is lowkey a virtuoso when to comes to melody, multistrumentism.

John while not being probably good enough alone to be a professional musician(Knowing scales,theory,keeping rhythm and technical, not to knock him from being great but probably couldn't do it alone compared to the others technical abilities) is/was a great artist. Give John a tuba and he'll make it work.

George is definitely the most technically proficient at his instrument compared to the others but some word argue weaker uh artistic songwriting? people either love him or write him off. He's great but what's to say.

Ringo funny enough might be the most off the cuff talented. being left handed, playing on a right handed kit. Great sense and intuitive rhythm. Was already a professional drummer playing with Rory and the Hurricanes, older than the other Beatles and took the place of Pete Best. Paul, George and John all loved Ringo. They felt complete once they had him in the band.
Anyone who says Ringo's bad; they wouldn't all use him on their solo albums if he weren't great. Beatles don't settle.


The Beatles are great, they only compete versus other Beatles.

Attached: 1564028589355.jpg (462x700, 50.94K)

this guy

the beatles never wrote a good song

very unique opinion user, you must have very special taste, very much cut from another cloth indeed, not like the others at all.

nah, I just think they suck. Pop music is garbage and always has been.

see

where did I claim to have a unique taste? You seem a little insecure. perhaps thats why you listen to the musical equivalent of mr. rogers.

my impression of a beatles song
>hey!(hey) I need you baby (baby)
>hey!(hey) I need you baby (baby)
>hey!(hey) I need you baby (baby)
>ooooooooh yeaaaaaahhhhhh

>You seem a little insecure

the projection is strong in this one

okay retard, whatever

projection once again, projection once more

Maybe the best Beatle was just the fun we had along the way...