Favorite Beatles?

monkey_00*
09-22-2003, 09:07 PM
Favorite Beatles...which one do you like the Best?

Magnus Fulgur
09-22-2003, 09:10 PM
Favorite Beatles...which one do you like the Best?

MMmmmmmmmmmmmmm Beetles are crunchy, and a good source of protein.

monkey_00*
09-22-2003, 09:21 PM
MMmmmmmmmmmmmmm Beetles are crunchy, and a good source of protein.
LOL..........My personal favorite is George Harrison.........he's very much under-rated guitar player plus he was also very spiritual........I think that's what I like about him alot as well.......with all the wealth and fortune he never really let that get to his head.

Zodiac
09-22-2003, 09:25 PM
John Lennon would be my favorite.

Nalyd Psycho
09-22-2003, 09:34 PM
IMO Harrison and Lennon are at the heart of what made the Beatles great. And I've always been fond of the people who stay in the background and do things right, so I voted for Harrison.

majicpixie
09-22-2003, 09:54 PM
My favorite band of all time is the Beatles, and my favorite musician of all time is definitely John Lennon. I have a lot of Beatles/Lennon memorabilia which includes the Beatles Anthology, the John Lennon Anthology, a set of Beatles dolls, and the recently republished "In His Own Write" that was written by John.

John was a true musical genius, and there will never be another musician like him.

monkey_00*
09-22-2003, 10:06 PM
My favorite band of all time is the Beatles, and my favorite musician of all time is definitely John Lennon. I have a lot of Beatles/Lennon memorabilia which includes the Beatles Anthology, the John Lennon Anthology, a set of Beatles dolls, and the recently republished "In His Own Write" that was written by John.

John was a true musical genius, and there will never be another musician like him.
Beatles Dolls?..........That sounds pretty interesting........Tell us more.

monkey_00*
09-22-2003, 10:32 PM
Interesting results so far with this Beatles Poll..........still no votes for Paul and Ringo..........So far It's been a 2-Man race between George and John.

Legionnaire
09-23-2003, 02:01 AM
I've always been more of a Paul fan.

The G Man
09-23-2003, 02:27 AM
Paul. The world DOES need some more silly love songs.

Triple Klutz
09-23-2003, 03:33 AM
This poll reminds of that great Saturday Night Live piece from the 1970s where Lorne Michaels comes on and offers $3,000 to The Beatles to reunite for the show. "You divide it up any way you want," Michaels said. "If you want to pay Ringo less, it's up to you."

I can't choose between Paul and John. They were both muscial geniuses in their own distinct way.

Howie Morenz
09-23-2003, 05:23 AM
Being a huge Beatle fan and enjoying what all 4 brought to the table,I'll vote for Ringo(he is the big underdog right?) :rolly:

Vyacheslav
09-23-2003, 06:45 AM
Being a huge Beatle fan and enjoying what all 4 brought to the table,I'll vote for Ringo(he is the big underdog right?) :rolly:

Yet Ringo is still voteless...

Moose Head
09-23-2003, 06:51 AM
Paul. The world DOES need some more silly love songs.


Question: When did Paul write "Silly Love Songs"?













Answer: Between 1970 and 2003 :joker:

Moose Head
09-23-2003, 06:52 AM
Harrison ahead of McCartney :dunno: Oh friggen please.

stanley
09-23-2003, 06:54 AM
Paul. The world DOES need some more silly love songs.

Right on. Take THAT, Mick Jaggar.

Where are Stu Sutcliffe, Pete Best, and Billy Preston (honorarily)?

The G Man
09-23-2003, 06:56 AM
Question: When did Paul write "Silly Love Songs"?

Answer: Between 1970 and 2003 :joker:
So whats wrong with that? I'd like to know.

Moose Head
09-23-2003, 07:00 AM
So whats wrong with that? I'd like to know.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Just answer my damn question in the feedback forum will ya.

Belgian Fan
09-23-2003, 07:01 AM
Harrison ahead of McCartney :dunno: Oh friggen please.

De mortuis nil nisi bene

Ric Flair
09-23-2003, 08:05 AM
George, by quite a large margin in my book.

Serena587
09-23-2003, 08:58 AM
Had to vote for George....John was the genius and my other favorite....but I've always had a bit of a crush on quiet George. :)

Radio Robert
09-23-2003, 09:05 AM
Yet Ringo is still voteless...

Punks!

Dr Love
09-23-2003, 09:07 AM
Punks!

Two posts in about as many minutes. Post padder. :rolleyes:

No Quarter
09-23-2003, 09:20 AM
I'm a pretty big McCartney fan.

canucksfan
09-23-2003, 09:37 AM
John gets my vote.

jiggs 10
09-23-2003, 11:00 AM
I liked them all about equally, except for Harrison. Never really liked him as a Beatle. But during that whole "Anthalogy" thing in the early 90's, he seemed more at peace and a better person, so I thought much more highly of him after that.
I voted Paul, because he has shown to be the more, what, "reliable" one, plus he wrote the better songs before AND after the Beatles ("Let It Be, Long & Winding Road, Yesterday, When I'm 64," etc. compared to John's "Woman Is The N**ger Of The World", "How Do You Sleep", etc.). Both are great in their own way, and that's why the Beatles worked so well.
Then there's poor Ringo...

Nikkowar
09-23-2003, 11:37 AM
Harrison,defently.

pavel13
09-23-2003, 02:28 PM
Stag beetles are pretty cool. Once, I was working in the garden, and I stuck my finger in the soil, and a stag beetle bit me. I was five, and it hurt a lot.

dempsey_k*
09-23-2003, 03:00 PM
Stag beetles are pretty cool. Once, I was working in the garden, and I stuck my finger in the soil, and a stag beetle bit me. I was five, and it hurt a lot.

You should be dipped in acid.

Wild Thing
09-23-2003, 04:40 PM
This poll reminds of that great Saturday Night Live piece from the 1970s where Lorne Michaels comes on and offers $3,000 to The Beatles to reunite for the show. "You divide it up any way you want," Michaels said. "If you want to pay Ringo less, it's up to you."


I was watching SNL that night, too.

Do you realize how close we came to seeing a Beatles reunion that night? Paul was over at John's place with his guitar watching the show, and when Michaels made that offer, one of them (I can't recall which) said, "Hey - let's do it!" They packed up their guitars and tried to get down to the studio, but they couldn't get a cab in time to make it before the end of the show, so it never happened.

Wouldn't that have been a night to remember? Man, whenever I think of how close that came to happening...

Wild Thing
09-23-2003, 04:41 PM
You should be dipped in acid.

Hey - no drug talk in this here forum, pardner!

Wild Thing
09-23-2003, 04:44 PM
I voted for John - partly because his songs penetrated more deeply into my soul than Paul's, and partly because Paul is such a meanspirited, arrogant little *****. A musical genius, but a complete jerk as a human being. He would never be my favorite anything.

dempsey_k*
09-23-2003, 05:06 PM
I voted for John - partly because his songs penetrated more deeply into my soul than Paul's, and partly because Paul is such a meanspirited, arrogant little *****. A musical genius, but a complete jerk as a human being. He would never be my favorite anything.

Amen, Paul is a giant jerk, I thought everybody had heard this by now ?

Vyacheslav
09-23-2003, 05:17 PM
I voted for John - partly because his songs penetrated more deeply into my soul than Paul's, and partly because Paul is such a meanspirited, arrogant little *****. A musical genius, but a complete jerk as a human being. He would never be my favorite anything.

One time Paul beat up Stuart Sutcliffe.

monkey_00*
09-23-2003, 05:22 PM
One Vote for Ringo...........Hip Hip Horay!!

jiggs 10
09-23-2003, 08:25 PM
I voted for John - partly because his songs penetrated more deeply into my soul than Paul's, and partly because Paul is such a meanspirited, arrogant little *****. A musical genius, but a complete jerk as a human being. He would never be my favorite anything.

I think you have the names reversed...JOHN was the complete (by his own saying so) *****! But you are right about one thing...McCartney being a musical genius. Lennon had a small gift with words, but that's it. At least Paul could play some instruments, too.

dempsey_k*
09-23-2003, 08:30 PM
I think you have the names reversed...JOHN was the complete (by his own saying so) *****!

They both great musicians and arrogant snobs, but haven't you heard any of the horror stories of his royal highness Primadonna McCartney ?

jiggs 10
09-23-2003, 08:46 PM
I'm the biggest Beatles fan on earth, but no, I've not heard any of these. I've read LOTS of stories about Lennon's big mouth nearly getting him killed in the 50's and 60's, but only jealous things about Sir Mac. Oooh, he's a billionaire, I hate him!!! Grow up, folks, this is a world where Kurt Cobain can become a millionaire! If a person writes 20 of the top 50 most recorded songs of all-time, and (as voted by music writers) 3 of the top 10 greatest rock songs ever, he SHOULD be looked on as royalty. I mean, if stink-burgers like Cobain can be seen as important, what should McCartney be seen as?

Nalyd Psycho
09-23-2003, 08:59 PM
. I mean, if stink-burgers like Cobain can be seen as important, what should McCartney be seen as?
Insipid?

dempsey_k*
09-23-2003, 11:13 PM
I'm the biggest Beatles fan on earth, but no, I've not heard any of these.

Well, to put it concisely, he acts like he's bloody Madonna.

I mean, if stink-burgers like Cobain can be seen as important, what should McCartney be seen as?

Cobain was a lot of things, but one thing he wasn't was a rock-star. He was the anti-rock star. He was as humble as they come, primarily because he lived an extremely painful existence (his suicide just a culmination of his pain), he was just another talented musician who hit it big with a new sound that blended punk and metal with pop. Whereas McCartney believes he's Jesus Christ.

Somebody should nail him to a cross already then.

lux_interior
09-24-2003, 01:22 AM
Favorite Beatles...which one do you like the Best?
I always fancied you as a fan of "The Monkees"

Davy Jones anyone?

Triple Klutz
09-24-2003, 04:30 AM
Cobain was a lot of things, but one thing he wasn't was a rock-star. He was the anti-rock star. He was as humble as they come, primarily because he lived an extremely painful existence (his suicide just a culmination of his pain), he was just another talented musician who hit it big with a new sound that blended punk and metal with pop.

Cobain was a talented guy but he was also largely a fraud, which ultimately even he recognized. He played the role of the anti-rock star but was just as concerned about record sales as anyone else. He moaned about corporate rock, yet *****ed when MTV didn't play his videos enough. I'm not sure I'd call the guy humble either because he had a sneering, snotty attitude that was elitist in its own way. And there was absolutely nothing new about his sound. He was hardly the first guy to blend punk and metal with pop. Bands like the Ramones, the Stooges and Sex Pistols did it long before he did. It just seemed new to kids who didn't know any better and at a time when people were fed up with the tripe that came out of the '80s.

Triple Klutz
09-24-2003, 04:32 AM
They both great musicians and arrogant snobs, but haven't you heard any of the horror stories of his royal highness Primadonna McCartney ?

I sure haven't. Fill me in because everything I've ever heard about Mac is just the opposite. He's loved by the crew he tours with and lives a relatively sane, simple existence for one of the richest guys on the planet.

Oilers Hockey
09-24-2003, 04:36 AM
Ringo for me.

Koltsov71
09-24-2003, 04:41 AM
I voted George Harrison.

Kurt Cobain kicks ass.

dempsey_k*
09-24-2003, 04:42 AM
Cobain was a talented guy but he was also largely a fraud, which ultimately even he recognized. He played the role of the anti-rock star but was just as concerned about record sales as anyone else. He moaned about corporate rock, yet *****ed when MTV didn't play his videos enough. I'm not sure I'd call the guy humble either because he had a sneering, snotty attitude that was elitist in its own way. And there was absolutely nothing new about his sound. He was hardly the first guy to blend punk and metal with pop. Bands like the Ramones, the Stooges and Sex Pistols did it long before he did. It just seemed new to kids who didn't know any better and at a time when people were fed up with the tripe that came out of the '80s.

Well the elitist attitude of a counter-culture musician is always mistaken for the same elitism as the culture they're wailing against. It's not any better or worse but it's more constructive than destructive, unlike the elitism of say .. Paul McCartney 2003. Feeling as though you're above the mainstream is a somewhat naive and lazy approach, but it produces something better than the mainstream, whereas when the mainstream feels itself above the underground ... it gets downright ugly.

As for the "new sound" you're right it sonically reminded of a blend of all the influences of Nirvana but it really established itself in a new era with a more prominent spotlight. But you're wrong about the punk thing, Ramones/Pistols did do that, but by the time Nirvana came around, that was the Punk that had established itself, and it was what made up the "punk" in the equation of Kurt's influencs. (for instance .. mix water with milk and honey and you've got strange water, then mix strange water with milk and honey and you've got Nirvana)

HABitude
09-24-2003, 04:52 AM
Right on. Take THAT, Mick Jaggar.

Where are Stu Sutcliffe, Pete Best, and Billy Preston (honorarily)?

If you want to include a 5th Beatle, it would be George Martin. What would be A day in a life without the orchestral built-up, Strawberry Fields, I am the Walrus without the symphonic background. That was pure genious. His contribution is huge to the musical work of the Beatles.

Stu Sutcliffe played bass before any studio recording. And was a bad bass player. He had a bad opinion of himself as a bass player. But he was truly a good expressionist modern painter. He was Lennon best friend and left the band to stay with Ingrid. Rent the movie Backbeat and find out about their love story. Very good movie.

Pete Best was a bad drummer. Can't hold a beat. Always trying conter-beat when it was out of purpose. Plus he had a bad character and he didn't liked the other Beatles.

Billy Preston was just an invited musician on Let it be album.
Invited musicians include:
Eric Clapton (guitar solo on While my guitar gently weeps),
Nicky Hopkins (piano track on Revolution),
George Martin (clavecin on In my life) and numerous musicians like the talented trompet player from the London Symphony Orchestra on Penny Lane.

HABitude
09-24-2003, 05:22 AM
I voted for Harrison because of his personnality. He is the one I would like to have as a friend. He was named “the quiet Beatles” because of the Beatlemania. Before that mania he was speaking a lot more, he had a true biting british sence of humour. Beatlemania made him shy. He didn't liked this mania, this crazyness was too big for him.
In the 80's and 90's he did have some nice quotes like about this one on the Spice Girls: “What's interresting about watching a video-clip of the Spice Girls is that you can watch it with the volume turned off.”
On Madonna: “ We were doing a comedy movie and she had no sence of humour.”
And a lot on others including U2 and of course ...Paul McCartney.

Musically, I give an edge to John Lennon. He was truly a genious and his best songs are more creative than the ones of Paul or many others great song-writers of his generation. He had an instinct of creating song that shows in the first draft, the first demo. Paul was more productive, was an hard worker. He's quite a good song writer, he have more hits than any other of his pairs. The Beatles are the best band ever because they made masterpieces in very different styles. Hey, they had Lennon and Mccartney; two of the best songwriters ever. Plus they had Harrison who had his style, a different approach of music. Harrison was the first pop-rock musician to include worldbeat. And eastern-spiritual in pop music.

Excuse-me about that long post, I'm a Beatles fan so I can't shut my mouth.

Voice of Reason
09-24-2003, 08:14 AM
Paul.
While much of his stuff may be more "pop" than what John evolved into, Paul had the better career overall. Who's to say what John was on the verge of in 1980, but I'm going on what they did during and after The Beatles.
While not always "important" in a current music sense, he's always managed to stay relevant.
Can't really ask for more than that.

stanley
09-24-2003, 09:29 AM
You should be dipped in acid.

Done and done!

http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2001/07/17motiva-explosion.html

To edit the article based on updated information: the worker was never found because he dissolved and it was a little bit closer to 1,000,000 gallons that was released, not 2,000 gallons.

My favorite is the dark brown plume of spent acid in the Delaware River.

zeppelin97
09-24-2003, 09:29 AM
I voted Harrison. I love all of his moody, dark songs on the beatle albums.

stanley
09-24-2003, 09:33 AM
Pete Best was a bad drummer. Can't hold a beat. Always trying conter-beat when it was out of purpose. Plus he had a bad character and he didn't liked the other Beatles.

I don't know about that. I think rumor and innuendo has become truth for many Beatle fans.

http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?displayValue=day&todayDate=09/02/2003

Give a listen.

As for Billy Preston, you mean he wasn't a member of the Beatles? Get - out! Am I the only one who knows them as John, Paul, George, Ringo, and Billy?

jiggs 10
09-24-2003, 10:11 AM
Well, to put it concisely, he acts like he's bloody Madonna.



Cobain was a lot of things, but one thing he wasn't was a rock-star. He was the anti-rock star. He was as humble as they come, primarily because he lived an extremely painful existence (his suicide just a culmination of his pain), he was just another talented musician who hit it big with a new sound that blended punk and metal with pop. Whereas McCartney believes he's Jesus Christ.

Somebody should nail him to a cross already then.

This could be the single stupidist thing I've read on these boards (and that's saying A LOT!)
McCartney is probably the most accessable "superstar" in the music world. He gives money to hundreds of charities, give FREE concerts often, gives interviews often, etc. He thinks he's Jesus Christ? Where does THAT come from?
Cobain was NOT talented. He was barely a passible guitarist, he was a below-average singer. These are facts, and cannot be disputed. Whether you like his songs or not is an opinion, open to debate. He may have lived a rough life. Fine. it's too bad, but I've known people who have lived much worse ones and came out in pretty good shape.
Good grief, if you don't like Paul McCartney, fine, but don't make up stuff to support your point.

dempsey_k*
09-24-2003, 12:17 PM
Good grief, if you don't like Paul McCartney, fine, but don't make up stuff to support your point.

I only wish I could live in the revisionist history you live, pissing in my nickers at the thought of change ... oh wait...no I don't, such an existence is that of a chimp.

jiggs 10
09-24-2003, 12:39 PM
I only wish I could live in the revisionist history you live, pissing in my nickers at the thought of change ... oh wait...no I don't, such an existence is that of a chimp.

I'M the revisionist? Show us proof of YOUR statements! Put up a link to a quote where Paul McCartney says "I'm Jesus, worship me!". Otherwise, YOU ARE making up history.
Geez, what a simpleton!

monkey_00*
09-24-2003, 02:18 PM
Interesting results so far with this Poll...........George Harrison in second place?.........Paul McCartney in 3rd?........Doesn't anybody else love Ringo?............

buzzard
09-24-2003, 04:09 PM
John Lennon, of course. I loved all his earlier music (lyrics), but the last years were his best. :bow:

HABitude
09-24-2003, 04:51 PM
McCartney is probably the most accessable "superstar" in the music world. He gives money to hundreds of charities, give FREE concerts often, gives interviews often, etc. ...

That's true. McCartney is a good guy. Simple and realistic. Like Sting, Peter Gabriel, Pat Metheny and David Bowie, They don't *****, they are not snobs, they are not prima-dona.

But if you want to know what was exactly the life and the insides of the Beatles, don't beleive everything of what Paul McCartney says. He tends to transform the facts in a nice way, he wants everybody to think that The Beatles liked each others, etc. Paul don't really lies but he doesn't tell the hole truth either.
Lennon was telling the truth but was to stoned at his Beatles time to remember.
Ringo was drunk or was not there. During long sessions his presence wasn't necessary. But basicly what Ringo says is truth.
If you want the complete truth, listen the version of Harrison. He was there, wasn't stoned and don't give a s**t of the politicly correct or what stories Beatles fans want to listen.

monkey_00*
09-24-2003, 06:17 PM
Holy Moly............I wasn't really expecting to see the results that I'm seeing but George Harrison is only 2-votes behind John Lennon.........

I personally voted for Harrison but I wasn't expecting too many others to as well..........very interesting results so far......it's turning into a very exciting 2-Bug race between Harrison and Lennon.

Unholy Diver
09-24-2003, 06:35 PM
I voted for Paul just barely over George.

Ringo would be 3rd

basically i liked all of em except john

monkey_00*
09-24-2003, 08:05 PM
I voted for Paul just barely over George.

Ringo would be 3rd

basically i liked all of em except john
Really?.......You didn't like Lennon?.......hmmmm........there's an idea for ANOTHER Poll: "Which Beatle did you like the least?"

monkey_00*
09-25-2003, 09:55 PM
This Poll is Now Over......Interesting to see Harrison finish in second and ONLY 2-back of Lennon too.

(1) George Harrison [ 18 ] * 31.58%
(2) Paul McCartney [ 14 ] 24.56%
(3) Ringo Starr [ 5 ] 8.77%
(4) John Lennon [ 20 ] 35.09%