Pinkaspie5 wrote:
I have yo disagree with you on the fact that they are highly overrated.. They are/were SO TALENTED.. I
As the French say, à chacun son goût (each to their own taste), or the Latin De gustibus non est disputandum (there's no arguing about tastes).
I'm not saying The Beatles aren't talented. Obviously they have something going on, some combination of their looks, personality, musical ability and songwriting skills. However, as
musicians they really aren't that great. What I mean is that in terms of being virtuosos on their respective instruments, there are dozens or hundreds of lesser-known people who are or were better at playing their respective instruments than the Beatles were. Ringo isn't that great a drummer. George had a great style but wasn't a spectacular lead guitarist. John had good chops but wasn't the best rhythm guitarist, and Paul isn't the world's greatest bass player although he is better at his instrument than most of the other Beatles were at theirs. That said, they played well together, better than most musical groups ever had.
John and Paul are one of history's greatest songwriting teams, and George may have had more input into the finished form of many Beatles songs (even those by Lennon and McCartney) than he is generally given credit for. Ringo could lay down a solid beat which is why they asked him to join. I'm not putting the Beatles down by saying that as musicians there were and are many more people who can play their instruments better than any of the Beatles could. Like I said, there is something magical about the whole Beatles story, but they are far from being the world's best musicians in terms of how well they could play their instruments. They may be the world's best ever musicians in terms of how popular they were, but that is something different than musical ability.
_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008
Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 08 Apr 2011, 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.