| Discuss. I prefer Paul. And I don't care how much the cool folk tell me I'm wrong. |
| Why is George not an option? |
| Paul , the whole "Ram" album. |
He's a home run hitter, but his body of work just can't compare. |
I think his work is vastly superior and that he was kept squashed by the ego of John who had to be out front and take credit for everything. George is definitely my man. My Sweet Lord is seminal. |
|
Paul.
Up until my thirties, I loved John. Then I learned more about him and just started to lose some of my idealization of him. |
Or Ringo? Ringo certainly aged the best. http://www.billboard.com/articles/list/5893949/ringo-starr-top-10-billboard-hits-hot-100-chart
|
| George: it was the HBO special on him a few years ago that tipped it in his favor... |
|
Paul. Most of my favorite Beatles songs happen to be sung by him: Blackbird, Let It Be, Eleanor Rigby, And I Love Her.
|
| George |
| Paul is like a national treasure in the UK. He writes terrible songs now and everyone bows and scrapes as if he is god. Its ridiculous. He is ridiculous. |
|
George doesn't have the baggage that John and Paul's public personas have, but his catalogue simply cannot compare. He has 4-5 great songs, comparable to John and Paul's best, but those guys each have dozens and dozens of songs, while George's list stops after about ten album worthy pieces.
I never really dug John's solo work, though I appreciate its significance. I like Paul's work on Wings the best in the solo arena. Their Beatles compositions were very close, but my preference for Paul is ultimately related to my presence for more up tempo, harder rock compositions. E.g., a case can be made that Paul invented metal/hard rock with Helter Skelter. |
| Paul--Hey, Jude |
|
George. Just listen to "Something."
But when I was a kid/teen, I was about about Paul and John. |
+ 1. I got my mind set on you! |