CruiserTwelve: You can't rate the Beatles in any talent order.

Sure you can. No one said that you could replace or remove any one of them; they were all integral to making the group what it was. But that's not the issue. Do you personally really believe that the four of them were precisely equally talented? (And did you notice that that last sentence had four adverbs?)

♪

You sorry sons of biznatches.

They can team him up with 3 other cartoon heroes and call it the Fab Four. I can see it now Ringo the rock, Paul the Fireball, John the elastic guy, and Tom Sawyer.

Cannot be anywhere near as bad as:



"Hammerman, Hammer,
Hammerman, Hammer.

Whenever there's a crime,
Some crooks are gonna do time.
They all better beware,
'Cause the Hammerman will be there.

Here's how it started,
Along time ago.
The legend of the Hammer,
And how it began to grow.

He was given magical shoes,
From a hip-hop mo-town dude.
Together they had power,
They stood up for what was right.
But Gramps was getting old,
And he couldn't keep up the fight.

RIGHT!

So Gramps and his granddaughter,
They went out on the road
To find the man they knew could tell
Who was worthy of the load.
They met a guy named Stanley
Who was dancing every night.
He helped the kids play everyday,
His heart was out of sight.
So Gramps opened up the bag,
And took out the magical shoes.
He set them on the ground
And they soon began to groove.

The shoes knew at once,
They had finally found their man,
They hopped right on his feet,
And he became Hammerman,

Hammerman, Hammer,
Hammerman, Hammer,
Hammerman, Hammer,
Hammerman, Hammer.
Oh Yeah!"

hexane:

Your [sic] sixteen [sic] your [sic] beautiful [sic] and your [sic] mine [sic]
Pedophile.

Actually, a pædophile (proper British spelling, though spelling is quite obviously not your strong suit) refers to someone who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. A 16-year-old is not pre-pubescent. Therefore, the song at worst refers to ephebephilia (aka hebephilia), sexual attracton to pubescent or post-pubescent teenagers.

While both, when acted on, are crimes in the USA (under the age of consent), only pædophilia is biologically a sexual deviancy or perversion, defined as a sexual attraction that, if acted upon to exclusion, would not promote procreation (yes, homosexuality also qualifies under this definition).


/Anyone who thinks that Stan Lee ever drew Marvel Comics doesn't know Jack.

pauly1620

"I tried to teach you how to handle comics in the sixth grade, but you decided to play little league instead."

/not 100% of the quote I'm sure, hence my liability loophole


Mallrats

On the "Concert for George" album, which features all sorts of awesome musical tributes to George Harrison by Eric Clapton, Paul McCartney, etc., there is an awkward tribute by Ringo, who does one of the only non-George song, "Honey Don't" because George liked Carl Perkins. Uh, yeah, that works. Then he does "Photograph," his only known hit, which he says George "co"-wrote.

For God's sake, Ringo was a drummer, and not even a really good one (listen to how he spoiled so many early Beatles songs with his incessant high-hat white noise). There's no reason he had to go solo.

im picturing myself on a boat on a river. also, im drunk.

Halfmast Trousers: There's no reason he had to go solo.

He didn't want to; he was the one Beatle that wanted them to stay together **cough because he was getting rich off the outrageous talents of the other three cough cough**.

But, to Ringo's credit, he knew his place. George got uppity, but Ringo understood his role and was happy with it.

Sounds like Stan Lee needs some losses for income tax purposes.... No way will this project make money.

anyone remember Stan Lee's last show

Alright, this is the actual order for "talent" or "genius":

1. George
1. Paul
1. John
1. Ringo

Seriously, they all had really great talents. John wrote some fantastic musical pieces, Paul did some really catchy lyrics, George was a fantastic guitarist, and Ringo was a good drummer that could really play to a crowd and could actually act.

I don't care if you like thier music or their personalities or whatever, you can still appreciate that they all had talent. Hell, Christina has talent, too. She's just in a really shiatty position where she can't get well-written songs and sells her body instead of her music. Its no reason to say she can't sing though.

Fleeing Citizen #1: "Oh no, John Lennon has risen from the grave! Run for your lives!"

Fleeing Citizen #2: "Only Ringo Star can save us now!"

Lennon: "Must destroy capitalism."

a comic about ringo? i say BLECCHH!

CruiserTwelve
In the Beatles case, any one of the four would have left an unfillable void.

And this is why they replaced at least one member?

monkey

for those who don't know, try googling "pete best" and "stuart sutcliffe".

Excellent headline. This one and the India one are gold.

CruiserTwelve: The only musical genius involved was the songwriting of Lennon-McCartney.

I essentially agree, though McCartney's instrumental versatility was noteworthy. Perhaps I would be more likely to say that their songwriting talents vastly outshone their technical musicianship. But they were fine players and performers. You also didn't talk about their singing talents; I think young Paul McCartney had an absolutely beautiful voice, and John Lennon was a great, expressive vocalist.

George, the lead guitarist, will never be mentioned on a "greatest guitarists of all time" list.

You mean like this one? I take Rolling Stone with a grain of salt, too, but there you have it.

For example the Rolling Stones (to cite a group from the same era) were four guys backing up Mick Jagger.

Only because he was the only lead singer. The Beatles had two fine vocalists, so neither of them, by definition, could possibly have stood out. One could say (unfairly but not insanely) that the Beatles were George and Ringo backing up the rotating combination of John and Paul.

In the Beatles case, any one of the four would have left an unfillable void.

Only because all four of their personalities were so well known to the public because of their colossal success. Musically, you could easily have substituted for, e.g., Ringo, which they actually did once on tour when Ringo fell ill.

IMHO, The Beatles were the greatest band ever, even though none of them could have stood alone, and none have.

This had more to do with just wiping out like all artists do. The solo Beatles started running out of steam in about 1973; until then, all four of them were, for the most part, putting out great solo material. I think that they would have hit the same wall eventually had they remained together. Instead of exploding apart, they simply would have run dry. Neither the All-Starr Band nor Wings was meant to be a serious from-the-ground-up band. They were only ever backing bands for their ex-Beatle frontmen; I don't think there was any pretense that they were anything else. And Paul, as himself, as himself + Linda, or as Wings, has a lot of amazing songs.

why the hell would they choose Ringo Starr to turn into an animated superhero?

Come on. Ringo's hilarious.

Don't worry steve-0. Some of us read Mad magazine :-)

CruiserTwelve:- Are you really implying that they wouldn't have been big without the drummer?

Of all the talent assessments so far, I'd say Angel of Death's list and CruiserTwelve's most recent post are the most on point.

If we're talking about pure musicianship, I think it's clear that George was the most talented. The man was a phenomenal guitarist who also mastered a number of other significantly more challenging instruments, not the least of which was the Sitar, which I (granted, I am by my own admission, a mediocre guitarist on a REALLY REALLY good day) would have about as much of a chance of making actual music with as a pile of pots and pans, or a trampoline and some breadsticks.

I'd also go out on a limb (and disagree with a few people here) and say that Ringo may well have been the second most talented musician, on a technical level. There's a reason why bands have trouble finding/keeping good drummers, and I believe he was a phenomenal one, as well as a master of pretty much anything else that could be considered a percussion instrument (come to think of it, he might actually be able to make something of the kitchen utensils and the trampoline).

On the other hand, if the discussion is about songwriting ability or, how it's been referred to a few times in this post, artistic vision, I doubt anyone would argue against the fact that John and Paul (Paul, who was, by the way, the least technically talented musician in the band by a longshot) come out on top.

Who is #1 and #2 there I'm not going to go into, I think it's best to leave them at a draw. Like CruiserTwelve said, they have their place in history as The Beatles, not "John, Paul, George, and Ringo" for a number of very good reasons.

I was listening to the White Album 2 tonight...I love this damn band.

misterhappy0: If we're talking about pure musicianship, I think it's clear that George was the most talented.

I agree. I also respect him for his perfectionism. He gets knocked for his guitar solos, essentially none of which were improvised (he practiced them obsessively until he could play them identically every time), but I happen to like that about him.

(Paul, who was, by the way, the least technically talented musician in the band by a longshot)

You really think so? I think of John in that spot. He plays bass on "The Long and Winding Road" and it sounds like feces. Meanwhile, when Paul switches instruments and plays the lead guitar on "Ticket to Ride," it sounds great. I know, anecdotal evidence. Paul's also all over the piano in the later years. I'm not an unbiased observer, though, since I'm definitely a "Paul person."

misterhappy0:

On the other hand, if the discussion is about songwriting ability or, how it's been referred to a few times in this post, artistic vision, I doubt anyone would argue against the fact that John and Paul (Paul, who was, by the way, the least technically talented musician in the band by a longshot) come out on top.

Ringo was the second best drummer in the Beatles. I have heard that Paul had to do some of the drum work on their later work.

CruiserTwelves: Sure, Lennon and McCartney each had great voices, but neither would ever have stood out on their own.

I really think they would have. You and I, as Beatles fans, have them seared into our minds and hearts as part of the global cultural juggernaut that was the Beatles; yes, without John, or without Paul, and maybe even without George, they would not have been the huge galactic-scale success that they were. But either of them, alone, as the sole vocalist, would have had a successful band. They wouldn't have been THE BEATLES, but they would have been something.

I've never been a fan of any of Wings music, and I don't even remember anything that the All Starr Band did.

Fair enough; certainly you're not alone on having at least a mild distaste for Wings. The All-Starr Band was never a serious recording effort, though. They were just a (constantly changing) gang of people that Ringo would tour with.

IMO neither of those bands would have been able to get studio time were it not for the Beatles name.

I don't know. Like I said, McCartney alone could not have given rise to the Beatles, but he would have made himself into something. He was certainly talented enough to have a successful musical career of his own, independent of any Beatleness.

I imagine if they had stayed together they would have continued to adapt to their audience.

Are you, by any chance, a fan of ELO?

CruiserTwelve

I call bullshiat. Keith Richards is farking brilliant. Listen to Let it Bleed a few more times. Oh, and Pete Townsed was simply backing up Roger Dahltry, or Jimmy Page was backing up Robert Plant?

/Keith Richards can survive a massive nuclear holocaust as long as he's got enough smokes

I don't know if it was so much The Beatles ABILITY to change with the times as the fact that they had the OPPORTUNITY to. Or rather, it was a combination of the two.

The music industry is monumentally different today than it was when The Beatles emerged, in large part because of the influence they themselves had. But the fact is, in 1960 very few people legitimately considered "Rock & Roll Musician" as a possible career path; there wasn't even a cut and dry definition of what a rock & roll musician was, as the entire concept was still being invented.

As a result, there were fewer people making music, which meant (a) less competition (I don't think "I want to hold your hand" is ANYONE'S magnum opus in terms of lyricism) and more importantly (b) more opportunity to develop. I feel that The Beatles "staying power" is as much a reflection of the environment they existed in as their personal musical ability. The fact that there were fewer producers and record executives trying to use Rock & Roll as a get rich quick scheme and shelving last week's soon-to-be one hit wonder for the "next big thing" gave The Beatles the opportunity to develop as musicians and songwriters, and make the transition from "I want to hold your hand" to the much more orchestrated, musically complicated, and lyrically profound work that they produced later in their careers.

Then again, I love "Savoy Truffle" and "Everybody's Got Something to Hide (Except for Me and My Monkey)" as proof of the fact that you can sing about damn near anything, and as long as it's good music it doesn't matter a bit.

Listen

George was a superb guitarist, for which he rarely got credit. And have you heard Ringo's drumming on "Golden Slumbers"? The dude was a solid drummer.

misterhappy0: Then again, I love "Savoy Truffle" and "Everybody's Got Something to Hide (Except for Me and My Monkey)" as proof of the fact that you can sing about damn near anything, and as long as it's good music it doesn't matter a bit.

That's precisely how I feel; the lyrics are always secondary to me. That's why even "I Want to Hold Your Hand" works, though. If that song doesn't make you smile, then you're comatose or dead. (Then again, I'm in the minority of fans that prefers the pre-Revolver days to the post-.)

Oh, great farking headline. George's guitar lick at the beginning of that song is wonderful.

CruiserTwelve: Well, they wouldn't have been "The Beatles," if that's what you mean.

This is easy to say, after the fact, with all one's happy memories etched in stone. They wouldn't have been the same without Ringo, and we, knowing how it did turn out with Ringo, would not want to see it change, but if it were different from the start, I imagine that it would have been wonderful as well. And in that alternate universe where they somehow recruited Ginger Baker or something, I bet all the alter-Beatles fans are glad that they dumped that loser Ringo.

It's a fine line, I think.

My old guitar teacher is an OUTSTANDING guitarist, has a degree in Jazz guitar, has recorded with a number of prominent bands, was one man away from being chosen to go on tour with John Mayer and play backup (one of his friends ended up getting the gig, makes a few hundred thousand a year to travel around and play someone else's songs every night...not too bad), but has never been much more than a sub-par songwriter.

I present this background info to paint a picture of someone who can clearly appreciate the technical aspects of the music of a song. Yet even he told me that although a song with amazing lyrics that isn't at least moderately listenable is basically worthless, "A bad lyric can ruin even the perfect song."

I think that a lyric doesn't necesarily need to be profound or emotionally significant, but it needs to fit, it needs to work in the context of the song. And I think that's part of what made The Beatles so great, they were masters of finding EXACTLY what worked.

misterhappy0: Yet even he told me that although a song with amazing lyrics that isn't at least moderately listenable is basically worthless

This is why I have never been a Bob Dylan fan. The lyrics may be fascinating and marvelous, but I simply can not stand that air-raid siren voice. To me, it's unlistenable. But musically knowledgeable people look at me like a blasphemer when I say that I don't like Bob Dylan.

CruiserTwelve: I might have agreed had you chosen anyone but Ginger Baker.

Haha, well, I just picked a drummer somewhat arbitrarily. Substitute your favorite and the point stands.

what an ugly cuss

And Ringo is a handsome man?

not even close to Ringo's personality

That's part of my point. It would be different. But that does not mean it would be bad or unsuccessful. If you integrated him into the Beatle lineup in 1961-2, it could have worked.

Angel of Death:
The lyrics may be fascinating and marvelous, but I simply can not stand that air-raid siren voice. To me, it's unlistenable.

At least when he was young it was just unlistenable. Now it's unlistenable AND unintelligible. His performance via satellite at the Grammys a few years back, with the EXTREME close up on his face and him sounding like Farmer Fran from The Waterboy was maybe one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

/if karma exists, people are going to make WAY too much fun of me when I'm old.

misterhappy0: if karma exists, people are going to make WAY too much fun of me when I'm old.

I hope I die before I get old.

Funny how he didn't.

"Behind Blue Eyes" was on the radio today. God damn, that is an incredible song. I could listen to it a hundred times in a row and not get sick of it.

stupid? screw you, fark.

and to whomever is saying this absurdity about Ginger Baker outshining the rest of the beatles... do you live on planet EARTH?

TKJP: LOL dude that's awesome. Nuff respect to Stan Lee. He's made my youth a whole lot more enjoyable. :)

Oh and the Spiderman movies rock. I've read all the spiderman comics in the 80s. As well as the x-men, wolverine, etc.

Does anyone still remember the Ace comics? Spiderman vs Ace? I'd love to see those again. Those ruled the school.

CruiserTwelve: Upon further review, it appears you're implying that Ginger Baker WAS one of the Beatles. Huh?

Well, in the alternate universe that I created, he is the Beatles' drummer. And you did say: "Baker, musical talent-wise, would have tipped the scales. Paople may have started calling them "Ginger Baker and The Beatles" and that would have sucked." So I can see why my_morning_jacket said what s/he did.