I went looking for a few online polls with bigger sample size results, just to satisfy my curiosity, and it looks pretty much like I thought I would. An example:
* http://www.quibblo.com/quiz/aeHSs4s/...he-best-beatle
*
496 responses
*
John 174 (35%)
Paul 164 (33%)
George 114 (23%)
Ringo 44 (9%)
*
And here:
* http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/31452/results
*
It’s a two-pronged question though, whereas the one on this site kinda encompasses both (or leaves it open to interpretation)
*
Who was the best Beatle?
42% (543)
John Lennon
37% (485)
Paul McCartney
27% (353)
George Harrison
10% (139)
Ringo Starr
*
Which Beatle had the best solo career?
42% (500)
John Lennon
46% (558)
Paul McCartney
14% (177)
George Harrison
3% (40)
Ringo Starr
*
If you just weigh it 50/50 by adding up all the results, you get this:
*
Lennon 1043 (37.3%)
McCartney 1043 (37.3%)
Harrison 530 (19.0%)
Starr 179 (6.4%)
*
Remarkably, after nearly 3000 votes they have an identical amount of support – Lennon about 60 more votes for his greatness as a Beatle (I tend to agree), and McCartney about 60 more for his solo career.
*
I’m sure there are others out there.
*
Combine these results with ours:
*
3399 responses
John Lennon 1251 (36.8%)
Paul McCartney 1234 (36.3%)
George Harrison 685 (20.2%)
Ringo Starr 229 (6.7%)
*
Looks like what I originally thought. About ¾ prefer John and Paul, who are in a dead heat, then a sizeable minority who either actually prefer George, or say “John and Paul get enough love and Harrison is awesome too, so I’m taking him”, and then a fringe who take Ringo. Possible reasons:
*
1.****** They hate the Beatles and therefore find the musicians behind their songs nauseating, and choose Ringo as he is the least to blame
2.****** They are taking Pity on Ringo as he’s such a likeable character and couldn’t stand to see him end up without votes
3.****** They are joking/being ironic
4.****** They actually think he was the “best” Beatle. (doubtful)
I don't even remember the argument, but the big issue I have is that this is such a dismissive, unnecessary, and widespread accusation to make based on nothing other than not understanding why anyone would disagree with you about which ones you like.
Look, I don't even mean it in a bad way, and I already said it has nothing to do with disagreeing with ME so much as it is disagreeing with what is (more or less) a consensus. As shown by the larger sample I provided, typically John and Paul are the popular Beatles. They are not winning this poll, so I hypothesize it's due to some people having a natural inclination to like or choose something different than the popular or obvious choice. I'm like that too! It's not a bad thing.
FWIW, if you ask any of my friends or family, I'm the hipster. Ask other fans of some of my more exotic tastes, and some would say I'm too pop.... I just like what I like.
Anyway, main reason I brought this thread back up is, I got 60 John, Paul and George albums (including live albums, compilations, etc) and am so much richer for it. It was a gap in my collection I couldn't stand any longer,the Beatles being one of my three favorite bands.
Why the hell did I say that? I guess I was assuming that the farther removed a person is from the Beatles era, the greater the likelihood that they will have less personal attachment to specific members of the band and, as a result, be freer from bias. Or maybe I meant that young people may have greater detachment than those of us who were part of the Beatles era, and, thus (or perhaps), a fresher take on the established hierarchy of the band....Then again, I may have thought that young people are disguised Martians whose taste in music is volatile. I'm rather leaning to this last theory myself.
The Beatles are the best pop band in history. As such, I appreciate their pop songs so much more than their more experimental or heavy songs because they're not the best rock band in history - to extend that thought: Paul McCartney, the melodic pop genius, contributed greatly to my favourite songs so I guess he's my favourite Beatle.
I don't know much about his personality or the Beatles' sordid past so he could be the world's biggest egotist and I wouldn't have the slightest clue - all I know is that I love his schmaltzy stuff more than any of the noisy stuff Lennon put out (Warm Gun, Walrus) or the Hare Krishna stuff of Harrison. But yes it does get a bit too saccharine for me too - I can't stand Let it Be or Hey Jude. George's Something is probably my favourite song by any Beatle ever... but Sgt Pepper's is a McCartney-led masterpiece and the Lennon-only songs are the weakest parts of the album.
If you've never heard it, put it on for 39 minutes. You won't regret it.
Look, I don't even mean it in a bad way, and I already said it has nothing to do with disagreeing with ME so much as it is disagreeing with what is (more or less) a consensus. As shown by the larger sample I provided, typically John and Paul are the popular Beatles. They are not winning this poll, so I hypothesize it's due to some people having a natural inclination to like or choose something different than the popular or obvious choice. I'm like that too! It's not a bad thing.
FWIW, if you ask any of my friends or family, I'm the hipster. Ask other fans of some of my more exotic tastes, and some would say I'm too pop.... I just like what I like.
That's fine. I don't believe you have some cynical intention behind it, and I'm not angrily getting into an argument with you about it-- but I just think it's very unfair to make that assumption. Whether it's well-intentioned or not, you're still discrediting a huge group of people and telling them that they aren't being totally truthful with themselves without any evidence.
If it was more of a wishy-washy thought/impression, I'd totally get it, but I read it as closer to a full blown accusation-- rather than, "I get the sneaking suspicion this might be happening", you're saying "this is clearly what's happening and I'm calling you guys out for it"-- which seems pretty uncalled for, in my eyes.
Last edited by Shareefruck: 02-14-2013 at 08:42 PM.
Does anyone else relate when I say that I don't really get why of all the great stuff they did, that Sgt. Pepper is by consensus widely considered their magnum opus? As a historical moment of creative influence, I get it, but I think time has revealed that've made better albums, personally (although I still like it alot-- it's probably a distant 3rd favorite).
I still think Revolver is the closest they ever came to complete perfection.
Last edited by Shareefruck: 02-14-2013 at 08:44 PM.
Does anyone else relate when I say that I don't really get why of all the great stuff they did, that Sgt. Pepper is by consensus widely considered their magnum opus? As a historical moment of creative influence, I get it, but I think time has revealed that've made better albums, personally (although I still like it alot-- it's probably a distant 3rd favorite).
I still think Revolver is the closest they ever came to complete perfection.
I think Rubber Soul is near perfection, too. With Sgt. Pepper, I think it is an excellent example of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. It holds together as a concept album, though the concept always seemed to me pretty subtle. The pieces just seem to fit together like a series of short stories almost. And it ends with, arguably, their most powerful song.
I think Rubber Soul is near perfection, too. With Sgt. Pepper, I think it is an excellent example of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. It holds together as a concept album, though the concept always seemed to me pretty subtle. The pieces just seem to fit together like a series of short stories almost. And it ends with, arguably, their most powerful song.
That's my second favorite-- sometimes I prefer it to Revolver, but only when I'm in a very specific mood. I really wish it didn't end with "Run For Your Life" though.
I personally just felt that the "era" was particularly impressive because it produced Strawberry Fields and A Day in the Life, but I never felt THAT strongly about Sgt. Pepper itself. A lot of if is very good, I think Within You Without You is one of their most underrated songs, but I've never sat well with stuff like The Benefit of Mr. Kite and Good Morning, personally-- I usually end up slightly impatiently waiting for A Day in the Life to come on when I go through the album.
It's generally treated like the crowning achievement of all of music history (well, as much as any other album), though.
That's my second favorite-- sometimes I prefer it to Revolver, but only when I'm in a very specific mood. I really wish it didn't end with "Run For Your Life" though.
Yeah, I'd bet they'd take that one back if they could.
Does anyone else relate when I say that I don't really get why of all the great stuff they did, that Sgt. Pepper is by consensus widely considered their magnum opus? As a historical moment of creative influence, I get it, but I think time has revealed that've made better albums, personally (although I still like it alot-- it's probably a distant 3rd favorite).
I still think Revolver is the closest they ever came to complete perfection.
Completely agree. Although it is awesome, it's overrated. It's not in my top 3 for them.
Yeah, I'd bet they'd take that one back if they could.
I thought it was surreal how bizarre that choice was. Whole album was warm, laid back, and sentimental, and then all of a sudden "If you leave me, I will murder you, little girl"
Does anyone else relate when I say that I don't really get why of all the great stuff they did, that Sgt. Pepper is by consensus widely considered their magnum opus? As a historical moment of creative influence, I get it, but I think time has revealed that've made better albums, personally (although I still like it alot-- it's probably a distant 3rd favorite).
I still think Revolver is the closest they ever came to complete perfection.
Abbey Road for me, but mostly for sentimental reasons.
I thought it was surreal how bizarre that choice was. Whole album was warm, laid back, and sentimental, and then all of a sudden "If you leave me, I will murder you, little girl"
I know this is exactly the song you'd expect Lennon to write, but are we sure he wasn't just 'avin' a laff?
I guess I was assuming that the farther removed a person is from the Beatles era, the greater the likelihood that they will have less personal attachment to specific members of the band and, as a result, be freer from bias. Or maybe I meant that young people may have greater detachment than those of us who were part of the Beatles era, and, thus (or perhaps), a fresher take on the established hierarchy of the band....Then again, I may have thought that young people are disguised Martians whose taste in music is volatile. I'm rather leaning to this last theory myself.
