I was having an argument with a friend...

[Michael Callahan]

The argument was chiefly between me (a fan of Macca) and a friend (a Communist hippy type who's big on Lennon's peace message). Obviously I didn't think it'd be fair to not include the other two as I'm sure we all have preferences but here's the argument we have. My argument consists more of why Lennon was a dick rather than why Macca was great though.

Paul McCartney
-Paul McCartney had a much better singing voice and was more talented than Lennon.
-This is embellished by the fact that Macca's stuff away from The Beatles (Wings) was better than John Lennon's solo stuff.
-Macca is still alive. John Lennon is not.
-Macca dated Jane Asher who to this day remains my favourite redhead of all time.
-Macca's cultural influence isn't as great as Lennon's (the anti-war peace crap), but most of what Macca did was out of good intentions. John Lennon was an egomaniacal dick who fancied himself as the ambassador of a generation much in the same category as Kurt Cobain or Jim Morrison. Macca didn't do any of that. He was mostly genuine. The only thing fake about him was Heather Mills' leg.
-He didn't marry Yoko Ono.

John Lennon
-Was extremely significant in anti-war movements and still has cultural signifance to this day whereas Macca is only really known now for who he's boning and what his idiot daughter is doing.
-Married Yoko Ono (this is a plus and a negative. She was hot but she was also musically retarded and she was clearly latching onto him for his fame)
-"Imagine" is the most significant non-Beatles song from a Beatles member. I can't deny this. It's a slamming tune.
-He didn't cheat on Jane Asher (again, an argument against Macca really)


As for the others? Well, Ringo Starr was the voice of Thomas the Tank Engine for the first season and he married Barbara Bach who for her time was delightful. He was also extremely influential in making drumming a cool instrument to play which as the nephew of a drum teacher influenced by him is pretty cool. George Harrison is dead but he had a tonne of interest in Indian culture which is pretty sweet and he studied with The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

[Jules]

Straight up, I think The Beatles are one of the most over-rated musical acts in history. I always get a ton of heat for this whenever I mention it, but it is what it is. I won't deny they wrote some popular and alright tunes, but the so-called revolutionary stuff is in the minority compared to the amount of twee boy-band love songs they wrote.

Not saying they aren't influential because every boy-band since has been a replication of The Beatles, but in no way were they musical mavericks. I'd take any average blues artists over The Beatles a hundred times over.

Anyway, I didn't post to have an argument about The Beatles because I've done it to death and I know nobody is going to change my mind, and I've learnt you never argue with a Beatles fan - not even fascists wander into the realms of dogmatic fanaticism and irrationality that Beatles fans do.

Personally, I think McCartney is a self-serving dick - always was and always will be - but I agree that Lennon is unrivaled in his pomposity. I hate Imagine, I hate everything about it, there has never been a more pretentious song written by a human being.

However, that all said and done, the main reason I replied was this.

May 25, 2012 7:45:39 GMT -4 Michael Callahan said:

John Lennon was an egomaniacal dick who fancied himself as the ambassador of a generation much in the same category as Kurt Cobain or Jim Morrison. Macca didn't do any of that. He was mostly genuine.

I don't agree with what you say about Cobain or Morrison, or I don't agree with how you've expressed it - it's too simplistic.

Cobain is a complex case because although he courted fame at times and was very neurotic about the way he was perceived, I doubt he ever wanted to be an 'ambassador of a generation', in fact when the popular music industry tried to build him up in that way he fell apart. 'Teen Spirit', the root of this case, actually became something of a bane to the man. I wouldn't deny he had delusions of grandeur at times, but I don't think you could say he actively went claiming he represented anyone like Lennon did; he was just a junkie who wrote songs about being in a lot of pain that a lot of kids used as an out for their angst.

Morrison, well he certainly thought of himself as something special, but again you have to detach the cult of Morrison that was created after his death, from Morrison as he was. Morrison was quite simply an all-out hedonist, but if he became a picture boy for that generation I'd say, like Cobain, it was because others built him up that way. I don't see anything self-righteous in Morrison in the same way you had it with Lennon, in fact he was too self-centred and self-focussed, too wrapped up in his own orgy of pleasure to really give a damn about anyone else. No doubt Morrison was prone to pretentious nonsense (just read his poetry), but I just don't think he set himself up as an 'ambassador of a generation', I think others did that for him, especially after he died.

[Jules]

As for your poll, I'd say Harrison. Nothing to do with music, but he was without doubt the most interesting and philosophical. There is a guy who genuinely devoted himself to a serious study of the puzzle of life's many mysteries.

[Michael Callahan]

May 25, 2012 8:24:02 GMT -4 Jules said:

Straight up, I think The Beatles are one of the most over-rated musical acts in history. I always get a ton of heat for this whenever I mention it, but it is what it is. I won't deny they wrote some popular and alright tunes, but the so-called revolutionary stuff is in the minority compared to the amount of twee boy-band love songs they wrote.

Not saying they aren't influential because every boy-band since has been a replication of The Beatles, but in no way were they musical mavericks. I'd take any average blues artists over The Beatles a hundred times over.

Anyway, I didn't post to have an argument about The Beatles because I've done it to death and I know nobody is going to change my mind, and I've learnt you never argue with a Beatles fan - not even fascists wander into the realms of dogmatic fanaticism and irrationality that Beatles fans do.

Actually I'm not that big a fan of The Beatles and completely agree with this section of your post. Nowhere near fanaticism. I too believe they're incredibly overrated. I like a very small portion of their material and that's namely the psychedelic stuff later on (mainly the Revolver album). Otherwise it's cheap gash that I could really do without.

This argument was solely about who the best member was. My friend that I was arguing with is a Beatles fan but I could care less.

[Mark Mania]

I think you guys spend too much time thinking about the philosophical and societal effects of these artists. Having said that, I don't think you can use them as being dead as a negative for Harrison and Lennon since your question was "Who was the best Beatle", not who was the best person. Therefore, my answer is Lennon.

[[ManiC]]

Even though I'm not a fan of the Beatles (I don't think I like anything I've heard from them) I kind of agree with Mark that we shouldn't hold the status of being dead against them, it hardly seems fair. Kind of like, "George W. Bush is a better leader than Gandhi since Gandhi's dead."

That said, purely because he voiced Thomas the Tank Engine and I loved that show as a child, I'll vote Ringo.

[A.C. Smith]

Considering "Paul McCartney" has been fooling people for 40+ years since the original one died, I'll vote for him.

(ducking the objects that will be thrown at me by Beatles fans)

[Kevin Dahlia]

"Ringo Starr was the voice of Thomas the Tank Engine for the first season"

What the FUCK am I hearing now!?