Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
My favorite Beatle was John.
But I think it's a little harsh to dismiss the other three as "bland and meaningless," "out of it" and "never finding a voice." In fact, I think that is quite rude and disrespectful. I love The Beatles and it took all four of them for there to be The Beatles.
I enjoy the solo work that all of them did, but the four of them together were a phenomena that none of them managed to recapture on their own.
|
"Bland and meaningless" did not cross my keyboard. Commercial and no real substance is Paul. I'm a big Wings fan and I am probably one of the few in this forum that has watched "Give my Regards to Broad Street" (Paul's 80's movie) and liked it. But that doesn't change the fact that solo he really never took many stands against anything, I can't think of anything controversial ever coming out of Paul, as an icon in the music industry he is, in life, he isn't.
As for my assessment on Ringo, those are words that actually came from a well regarded Beatle biographer on the Today show in the early 90's.
George did find a voice but it was not public, again that's not supposed to be derogatory.
Those are just my opinions based on research and learning what I could about them.
As for the band, yes they were great but they also had the best of the best behind them building them and making them. Brian Epstein, George Martin, and the guys behind the scenes were great marketers. They may have started as a touring band but they were a long way from that at the end. At the end every move, every album's support single and their appearances were well planned and thought out and Paul was the man who kept the focus that way.
I think the only thing they did that was totally unscripted (as far as the band went) was the Let it Be concert on top of Apple Studio.
I think it was what truly destroyed them, the fun was gone. They lost who they were and each sought different ways to find themselves afterward.
John became extremely social and wanting to use his stardom to better society. Perhaps, it was nothing more than rebellion for the rigorous and tightly agendized situation he came from. In no way does that belittle what he did, but it may have been his true motivation for moves like being the stay at home dad and dropping out of music all together for 7 years. Or, maybe as some believe he went from one manipulation to another in Yoko.
Paul just found a money lust, had Linda's brother and the Eastman family showing him how to make it and keep it.
George went full throttle into religion and then stayed more in the shadows and behind the scenes (producing a majority of Monty Python's works).
Ringo was Ringo, and it took until the 80's for him to dry out and truly do anything, Ringo's all star band. I think out of all 4, Ringo is the most under rated and overlooked, simply because he didn't do much after the break and a lot of what he did do, (other than tour with his "All Starr Band") was with Paul or Paul's help. (Caveman, Ringo's movie, was made solely as repayment for being in Paul's movie.)
No matter the case, this does make good conversation and debate, at least for me.