$vboptions[bbtitle]

rating john, paul and george as musicians

LeftyAl
October 10th, 2011, 08:08 PM
When people talk about who are the best guitar players out there,I hardly ever hear their names brought up.But think about what they did.'66-'70 they were writing music that had never been exploded before They played their own instruments on their records,where many of the pop groups didn't actually play on the record that was sold.

Brad Pittiful
October 10th, 2011, 08:11 PM
im sure the answer is like...they were over shadowed by clapton beck page and hendrix...but they were solid musicians from what ive read and heard people say

Mjark
October 10th, 2011, 08:14 PM
I think their body of work says everything we need to know. We're they well schooled, or technically brilliant? No, except perhaps McCartney's incredible bass playing.

Agave_Blue
October 10th, 2011, 08:18 PM
Whether or not, individually, they were "the best" or even "great", there is no denying that as a group they were magic. The whole was greater than the sum of it's parts.


Seems to happen a lot with great bands. If it were all about individual components "super groups" should always be smashing; instead sometimes they work and sometimes they don't.

boneyguy
October 10th, 2011, 08:20 PM
Why is Ringo left out!? He was one of the greatest rock drummers ever.

cband7
October 10th, 2011, 08:36 PM
Why is Ringo left out!? He was one of the greatest rock drummers ever.


In some documentary I think it was Paul that said during the entire time the Beatles were together they only had to do three (3!) retakes due to a mistake by Ringo. That plus he did everything with the same four drum setup the entire time; different models but always four drums.



.

Blazer
October 10th, 2011, 08:42 PM
I think their body of work says everything we need to know. We're they well schooled, or technically brilliant? No, except perhaps McCartney's incredible bass playing.

Oh really?

kUjFpdxFWHU
Listen to that incredible solo and he was only 20. People were going "that must be session player on the studio version, here George proved all the nay-sayers wrong.

As for John, why nobody never mentions him as one of the finest rhythm players in Rock I don't know but listen to those triads and the constant changing of chords here, make no mistake that is a TOUGH song to play.
JyM8_NBv90Y

oT7UKAsJo64

taxer
October 10th, 2011, 08:48 PM
George - most early Beatle solos are very unimpressive. He got better, but no one will ever consider George an elite guitarist.

Ringo - extremely talented. Criminally overlooked. His creativity and brilliance lies in his fills. Listen to "Hello Goodbye" or John's solo tune "God" for fills that no one can outdo.

John - extremely basic player both on guitar and piano. Took me not long at all to play just about everything he played -- and that's on both guitar and piano. You can teach yourself piano and about two months later you can play everything John played. Guitar, take half a year and you can play everything John played.

Paul - since the beginning of music only a handful of people could match his musicianship and creativity. Paul literally was one of the best musicians ever.

Blazer
October 10th, 2011, 08:51 PM
In some documentary I think it was Paul that said during the entire time the Beatles were together they only had to do three (3!) retakes due to a mistake by Ringo. That plus he did everything with the same four drum setup the entire time; different models but always four drums.

You forgot one thing, Ringo always played Ludwig, he still does. And that once lead to a very funny situation. The stick-on letters of the "Ludwig" logo came off during one of the early tours until his drumhead just said "Lu" and John would jokingly introduce Ringo by going "On the 'Lu', Ringo." the people at Ludwig were not amused and promptly send over a new drumhead with screened on letters.

Vinnie Appice once said that if you took all the instruments away from a Beatles recording and left just the vocals and the drums it would still be a viable piece of music. Ringo never was a flashy drummer but he certainly played with a finesse that was all his own.

Tim Armstrong
October 10th, 2011, 08:52 PM
The most important, influential and popular recordings of the rock era, recorded mostly in full-band takes on 2 and 4 track tape recorders. All four were very good on their instruments, and more important, were PHENOMENAL playing TOGETHER!

Tim

taxer
October 10th, 2011, 08:55 PM
Oh really?

Listen to that incredible "Till There Was You" solo
Blazer, there is no doubt, no doubt at all that George's solo in "Till There Was You" is outstanding. Full marks for the composition. It flows perfectly. One of the best solos I can name.

But that solo is easy as hell to play. I am strictly a rhythm guitar player. I have played only two leads in my entire life: John's solo break in "Get Back" and George's solo break in "Till There Was You." If I, a guy who has no talent at all for lead playing, can do "Till There Was You," it shows it really is an insanely simple piece of soloing. And it really is.

String Tree
October 10th, 2011, 08:58 PM
I think they were FAB!

They got the job done.

SolidSnakeBoss
October 10th, 2011, 09:04 PM
Blazer, there is no doubt, no doubt at all that George's solo in "Till There Was You" is outstanding. Full marks for the composition. It flows perfectly. One of the best solos I can name.

But that solo is easy as hell to play. I am strictly a rhythm guitar player. I have played only two leads in my entire life: John's solo break in "Get Back" and George's solo break in "Till There Was You." If I, a guy who has no talent at all for lead playing, can do "Till There Was You," it shows it really is an insanely simple piece of soloing. And it really is.

So? Do your fingers need to be flying all over the fretboard to be considered a great guitarist? I do love almost everything George played when he was in the Beatles.

taxer
October 10th, 2011, 09:15 PM
So? Do your fingers need to be flying all over the fretboard to be considered a great guitarist?
No, but a great guitarist should employ chordings and techniques that the average 13 year old beginner can not do.

The real reason why Michael Jordan is great is because he does things you and I and most others can't. Shakespeare? Same thing. Hendrix? Same thing. George Harrison? If I and millions of other can do it, then there ain't nothing marvelous or great about it. Yes, the creativity of George is great; but this thread is asking about musicianship and George's playing is far too simple to be awarded the status of greatness.

Blazer
October 10th, 2011, 09:21 PM
Blazer, there is no doubt, no doubt at all that George's solo in "Till There Was You" is outstanding. Full marks for the composition. It flows perfectly. One of the best solos I can name.

But that solo is easy as hell to play. I am strictly a rhythm guitar player. I have played only two leads in my entire life: John's solo break in "Get Back" and George's solo break in "Till There Was You." If I, a guy who has no talent at all for lead playing, can do "Till There Was You," it shows it really is an insanely simple piece of soloing. And it really is.

And what's so bad about a simple solo, besides, you overlook the fact that George had feel, he made every single note count. The late great Albert King once said "It's not about the notes you play, it's about the notes you DON'T play." and that's certainly what George did.

Sure, as a metal player myself, I dig what people like Steve Vai are doing but I own the G-3 live in Tokyo DVD and when Vai, Satch and Malsteen get to Jam on Hendrix songs, it all falls apart because none of them has that feel, to make every note count, like Hendrix had.
pky1C0OKTFo
Three technically gifted players but it was a farce.

Blazer
October 10th, 2011, 09:25 PM
No, but a great guitarist should employ chordings and techniques that the average 13 year old beginner can not do.

The real reason why Michael Jordan is great is because he does things you and I and most others can't. Shakespeare? Same thing. Hendrix? Same thing. George Harrison? If I and millions of other can do it, then there ain't nothing marvelous or great about it. Yes, the creativity of George is great; but this thread is asking about musicianship and George's playing is far too simple to be awarded the status of greatness.

(I really shouldn't be doing this but this provokes me a little too much...)

Then put your money where your mouth is and record the solos for "Something", "Till there was you" and more recent "Marwa blues" and see if you get the vibe right, you'll never be able to pull them off as elegant and fluid like George did.

Tim Armstrong
October 10th, 2011, 09:25 PM
No, but a great guitarist should employ chordings and techniques that the average 13 year old beginner can not do.

Why?

I mean, I can see MAYBE saying that a great guitarist should BE ABLE TO employ chordings and techniques that that the average 13 year old beginner can not do. But the real mark of a great guitarist is playing the exact right part for the song, isn't it?

Tim

yark14
October 10th, 2011, 09:27 PM
There's a difference between super fast guitar playing and well-constructed and tasteful lead melodies that fit with the song the other bandmates are playing. Give me George's playing over the "guitar gods" any day.

Tim Armstrong
October 10th, 2011, 09:28 PM
I'd also note that George did play some pretty hip things, even early on. He had some very nice rockabilly/Chet Atkins technique, and later on developed a very distinctive and lovely slide guitar touch.

Tim

Tele-Monster
October 10th, 2011, 09:29 PM
They were all three great and innovative players. Their writing skills are unparalleled.

elicross
October 10th, 2011, 09:31 PM
The Beatles weren't guitarists' guitarists. They didn't have mind-blowing chops. They just made some of the greatest pop and rock music ever made.

They didn't melt faces. They played exactly what the song needed. That was their genius.

Ringo included, dammit.

elicross
October 10th, 2011, 09:34 PM
Then put your money where your mouth is and record the solos for "Something", "Till there was you" and more recent "Marwa blues" and see if you get the vibe right, you'll never be able to pull them off as elegant and fluid like George did.
Wouldn't matter if he could. He didn't invent 'em. George Did.

(Which is why "Oh, yeah? -- let's see you play that solo as well as he did" never really works as an argument; it's too far removed from the point. :grin:)

Mjark
October 10th, 2011, 09:36 PM
I forgot to mention Ringo. Of course he's tremendous.

twangking
October 10th, 2011, 09:39 PM
To quote John "Ringo wasn't even the best drummer in the beatles"

SolidSnakeBoss
October 10th, 2011, 09:39 PM
Wouldn't matter if he could. He didn't invent 'em. George Did.

(Which is why "Oh, yeah? -- let's see you play that solo as well as he did" never really works as an argument; it's too far removed from the point. :grin:)

+1. I've seen lots of covers of Little Wing but you still can't compare them to Hendrix. A lot of them suck too.:lol:

mohair_chair
October 10th, 2011, 09:43 PM
George was a great player. His early stuff was constrained by the musical tastes of the time, but once they broke out of the fab Beatlemania era and started doing whatever they wanted, he really blossomed as a player. He is one of the great players of the 1960s.

John was pretty average at guitar and piano. And harp. He was a pro, but he was limited.

Paul was good at everything. He was a very good guitarist and played a lot of guitar parts that are credited to George, and even some drum tracks that are credited to Ringo. George wasn't even there for most of the Sgt. Pepper recording sessions, so a lot of the lead work you hear is Paul. Paul has a distinctive lead tone. Very shrill and stabbing with lots of treble.

Ringo was good. Not great, just good. They told him what to play and he played it. He famously can't play a drum roll, but who cares?

The three-way solo in the Golden Slumbers medley is a great example of all three as guitarists. Paul goes first, slightly rough and dirty, then George, who is very clean and smooth, and then the edgy, sloppy one is John. It works.

There's a video of Paul doing the three-way with Clapton and Knopfler (with Phil Collins on drums), and he holds his own. Here it is. The 3-way starts around 3:45:

HY7S-flGplM

taxer
October 10th, 2011, 09:53 PM
I'd also note that George did play some pretty hip things, even early on. He had some very nice rockabilly/Chet Atkins technique,
Good point, Tim.

You know, the best thing I ever heard about George's guitar playing was just said a week ago in that George documentary directed by Scorsese. It was said by Clapton.

Now some of you are getting on me for saying George lacked technique. Well, Clapton himself said the same thing. Clapton honestly admited he had the chops that George could never do. But Clapton gave George a great compliment that I had never really thought of. Clapton said George was actually very, very innovative. A great innovator. Innovative in the fact that George did something really no one had done before. He mixed guitar chops of rock, rockabilly, and country western into something new. And Clapton's right. Those early George solos really are a bizarre mixture of different solo playing. George melded all the different styles he loved and grew up listening to into something new. Full marks for that.

But his techniques, his "level of difficulty" as they call it in sports should be much higher in order for him to be considered a brilliant musician. That's all I am saying. Wonderful player. Could create a perfect solo. Musicianship was nothing to write home about.

tele12
October 10th, 2011, 09:54 PM
George - most early Beatle solos are very unimpressive. He got better, but no one will ever consider George an elite guitarist.
....

George is #21 on RollingStone's list of 100 best guitarists. He's #11 on Gibson.com's list of top 50 guitarists.

Sounds pretty elite to me.

taxer
October 10th, 2011, 09:57 PM
George is #21 on RollingStone's list of 100 best guitarists.
That actually says a lot. Think about it. The lead guitarist for history's most popular and successful band only ranks number 21.

tele12
October 10th, 2011, 10:08 PM
Yes, the creativity of George is great; but this thread is asking about musicianship and George's playing is far too simple to be awarded the status of greatness.

Wouldn't musicianship mean the making of music? If music is great why can't it be simple?

yark14
October 10th, 2011, 10:10 PM
That actually says a lot. Think about it. The lead guitarist for history's most popular and successful band only ranks number 21.

Only 21? Look at the list of people behind him. Sure looks pretty good to be #21. I'd be happy with #21 of the millions of people that consider themselves guitar players. Ahead of Buddy Guy and Stephen Stills.

Bottom line: George was fabulous. The people that doubt his ability probably aren't very good in their own right.

tele12
October 10th, 2011, 10:19 PM
That actually says a lot. Think about it. The lead guitarist for history's most popular and successful band only ranks number 21.

ONLY #21? You said no one considers George elite. Many people do.

http://www.amazon.com/Legends-Rock-Guitar-Artie-Traum/dp/0825603099

George's heading reads:

George Harrison: Was he the Best?

"....As far as we're concerned, George Harrison wrote the book on melodic rock and roll guitar."

SamClemons
October 10th, 2011, 10:24 PM
I would note one thing, Paul is way up the list of people whom bass players would note as one of their prime influences, including me. George or John are not mentioned very often when you see list of people who influenced guitar players, though in reality they did through their music. I bet nearly everyone on this board has played Beatles tunes at one time. We did. Their song writing and playing very tasteful, catchy, music to go with it was their strong point.

SolidSnakeBoss
October 10th, 2011, 10:25 PM
That actually says a lot. Think about it. The lead guitarist for history's most popular and successful band only ranks number 21. Sure says a lot. Think about it. #21 and he's not considered a great guitarist? What, he needs to be number one?

Could create a perfect solo. Exactly.

Tim Armstrong
October 10th, 2011, 10:26 PM
Flash is often confused for substance, but substance never seems to be confused for flash.

Tim

Tele-writer
October 10th, 2011, 10:26 PM
Fifty years on, and they are still worthy of discussing, and more importantly, giving a listen to. I applaud them all, still, for all their talent and passion.

getbent
October 10th, 2011, 10:34 PM
to me, you are what you are.

the beatles were about great, great songs. Because of that, they didn't focus their material on showcasing the individual chops or solo skills etc... if they had, they wouldn't have been 'all about the songs'

It seems simplistic, and it is, but it is also true. If you make records with great songs, they will probably have great parts, but the focus will be on the song...

for people who 'rate' musicians (which is about as thoughtful as rating women or thinking that penis enlargement ads might actually help) the Beatles won't be rated highly because those same people usually aren't 'about the song' they are about solos as signs of machismo and who go see bands and talk about them as though the bands are competing...

taxer
October 10th, 2011, 10:38 PM
George or John are not mentioned very often when you see list of people who influenced guitar players,.
Best point made here.

Yes, George influenced countless people to pick up a guitar. No doubt about that. But once you got your guitar and learned and progressed and you wanted to be an exceptional musician, did anyone really look to George's playing as a guide?

We are talking about musicianship here. Not song writing craftsmanship. George could write songs better than most. On that list he would be an elite. On a list of history's accomplished guitarists, you are nuts if you think George makes that list. Come on people, think of what you are saying. George Harrison is on the level of Hendrix or Chet Atkins or Segovia? Even he would laugh at that.

Cheesehead
October 10th, 2011, 10:38 PM
(I really shouldn't be doing this but this provokes me a little too much...)

Then put your money where your mouth is and record the solos for "Something", "Till there was you" and more recent "Marwa blues" and see if you get the vibe right, you'll never be able to pull them off as elegant and fluid like George did.

Interestingly I just learned the solo to Something yesterday. Easy to play? I suppose. Hard to get the vibe? You bet. Absolutely beautiful and lyrical and perfect for the song? Darn tootin'!

I just had this argument with a nonmusician friend of mine over the weekend. He said they were good songwriters but not that great of musicians. I agree with the above posts that Paul was an amazing musician all around, George was a top notch guitarist, Ringo was a great drummer, and John was a great songwriter.

TeleTim911
October 10th, 2011, 10:38 PM
My take on this: George was incredible. He played tons of Rock leads without pedals or OD or whatever (listen up young-uns!). He could finger pick as well (as video lesson above shows).

Paul did tons of bass lines...as in "All My Loving" and "Nowhere Man". Rolling bass lines, and singing at the same time. He is still a great musician, IMO.

John was a great rhythm player, and I often felt he could play leads as well, just never did. My favorite Beatles stuff was him singing leads.

Ringo may not have been a flashy over the top player, however he had one of the fastest right hands I've heard. He kept the beat, often when you couldn't even hear the music over the crowd. I've always respected him as a drummer.

Together, they performed absolute magic. Remember, they had dozens of hits, changed the face of rock music, influenced literally millions of musicians, had millions of screaming fans, and all before 25 years of age. Wish I could say the same.

MarrFan
October 10th, 2011, 10:44 PM
There's a difference between super fast guitar playing and well-constructed and tasteful lead melodies that fit with the song the other bandmates are playing. Give me George's playing over the "guitar gods" any day.

Well said!

Tim Armstrong
October 10th, 2011, 10:48 PM
My favorite John guitar solo: You Can't Do That.

Simple, cool, snarling.

0EYa5YkJu4Q

Tim

beep.click
October 10th, 2011, 10:52 PM
I've been playing guitar since 1976, and loving the Beatles music since way before that. I have to say, AFTER I played for a while, and AFTER I wrote and recorded a few songs - it TRULY hit home, how brilliant all those guys were.

A common conclusion, in conversations with my friends, back then: you might be able to play what they played, but could you ever come up with it, in the first place?

klasaine
October 10th, 2011, 10:55 PM
I've noticed that the 'better' I get as a musician, the 'better' the Beatles get ... and the harder it is to 'really play it right'. I'm talking about as pure 'players'. The awesome songwriting aside (I've been a fanatic since 1970). There's a reason very few cover bands and even many of the tribute acts don't really cop the right vibe or feel of those tunes. Even good musicians F' up some of the parts. There's also a reason that so many great and renowned players constantly strive to really 'do' Beatles covers (Will Lee's band the Fab Faux as a case in point). What the beatles 'may' have lacked in traditional pure technique they more than made up for in inventiveness, both in composition and the application of traditional instruments in a modern setting. They expanded the possible vocabulary for any musician coming after them. Hendrix, Zep, Van Halen, Thelonius Monk, Charles Ives, Zappa, Coltrane ... they all did that too. That's BEYOND technique. That's what ART is all about.

MarrFan
October 10th, 2011, 10:57 PM
Paul did tons of bass lines...as in "All My Loving" and "Nowhere Man". Rolling bass lines, and singing at the same time. He is still a great musician, IMO.

The bass in "Rain" is amazing.

klasaine
October 10th, 2011, 11:00 PM
A common conclusion, in conversations with my friends, back then: you might be able to play what they played, but could you ever come up with it, in the first place? and the answer is a resounding NO.

+ 1,000,000!

garytelecastor
October 10th, 2011, 11:01 PM
There's a difference between super fast guitar playing and well-constructed and tasteful lead melodies that fit with the song the other bandmates are playing. Give me George's playing over the "guitar gods" any day.

+10^10

The hardest thing for a player to do is to NOT OVERPLAY.
It seems that there is a habit in players that if they can burn they have to do it on every lead and solo.
The guitar work by the Beatles, no matter who was playing it, was perfect to the song. Those "simple" leads that George played could not have "fit" any better in the tunes he recorded. They didn't need a Hendrix in the Beatles. The Beatles were all about THE SONG. Not personal acuity. Sometimes 3 notes can say things better than 10,000. Melodic playing is the greatest achievement any player can strive for. To be musical is far more important than running scales.
These 4 guys, IMHO, were the greatest song craftsman that has existed in a very long time.

Robert H.
October 10th, 2011, 11:02 PM
I guess it"s hard for me to understand discussions about the individual musical talents of the Beatles when they created that vast body of brilliant popular music...Few people concern themselves with Mozart's skills as a pianist. I can think of people who could play circles around each Beatle...so..? Our great, great grandchildren will know their music.

klasaine
October 10th, 2011, 11:10 PM
I guess it"s hard for me to understand discussions about the individual musical talents of the Beatles when they created that vast body of brilliant popular music...Few people concern themselves with Mozart's skills as a pianist. I can think of people who could play circles around each Beatle...so..? Our great, great grandchildren will know their music.

A lot of classical musicians discuss Mozart and/or Bachs keyboard skills.
I think the point we're making here - I know it's the point I'm making - is though the Beatles musicianship may seem to be maybe not so virtuosic in the traditional sense, it's actually very difficult to play it right. Especially in context. Then you throw in their transcendent songwriting and it's out of the ballpark.

garytelecastor
October 10th, 2011, 11:18 PM
I've been playing guitar since 1976, and loving the Beatles music since way before that. I have to say, AFTER I played for a while, and AFTER I wrote and recorded a few songs - it TRULY hit home, how brilliant all those guys were.

A common conclusion, in conversations with my friends, back then: you might be able to play what they played, but could you ever come up with it, in the first place?

I gotta say that George Martin was irreplaceable in the equation of the Beatles. His experience in the pop song market for 20+ years before becoming their producer was a stroke of fate. He and those 4 minds were creative paradise.

Jonny_Quest
October 10th, 2011, 11:18 PM
There are many artists around the world, some very young, who can reproduce the "Mona Lisa" stroke for stroke, shade for shade, hue for hue, color for color,......but it took a DaVinci to conceive and produce it,....leaving it for the rest of the world's artists to be inspired enough to copy it.

I view the Beatles (and those who emulate them) this way.

garytelecastor
October 10th, 2011, 11:23 PM
My favorite John guitar solo: You Can't Do That.

Simple, cool, snarling.

0EYa5YkJu4Q

Tim

Yeah, it gives a little picture of what these guys were like in club work.
I would've loved to see these guys play in Germany. I bet they tore it up.

smsuryan
October 10th, 2011, 11:24 PM
This discussion reminds me of the stones...i can draw a lot of parallels...i dont think keith or mick (or any of the others) wouldve made a solo album that wouldve sold big (just my opinion, and of course theyve made solo albums since the inception of the stones that have done well) but their sound together is incredible...just the simple stuff...brown sugar, jumpin jack flash...not the most difficult stuff but its got mojo! as much as i love flashy guitar, i love that meat and potatoes bluesy rock that paved the way for the flashy guitar...know what i mean?

Good Iron
October 11th, 2011, 12:07 AM
In a hundred forty four years no one will be talking about the Beatles. Unless their marketing dept. stays the course! :mrgreen:

oh an by the way I am a big fan of all six or twelve of them... how many were there? I forget... :roll:

Jonny_Quest
October 11th, 2011, 12:11 AM
In a hundred forty four years no one will be talking about the Beatles. Unless their marketing dept. stays the course! :mrgreen:

....Future historians won't need "marketing" departments when gauging their social significance,.......neither will the world's libraries which will contain millions of books on the Beatles by then, not to mention a constant massive presence on the internet (whatever that develops into by then).

fezz parka
October 11th, 2011, 12:28 AM
I play guitar because I saw George on the Ed Sullivan Show. I'll bet a bunch of us guitarists of my generation felt the same way.

George shines on this:
7hRVu-T73Zo

TxTeleMan
October 11th, 2011, 12:33 AM
A couple of things.

A great guitarist is one who plays a part that's perfect for the song. I think John and George both did that. So did Paul.

Stu Sutcliffe was The Beatles original bass player. It was only after he left the band that Paul moved to the bass, and became one of popular music's premier bass players. George said he played bass on many of Paul's songs in the studio, but the parts were written by Paul.

Good Iron
October 11th, 2011, 12:37 AM
....Future historians won't need "marketing" departments when gauging their social significance,.......neither do libraries which will contain millions of books on the Beatles by then (not to mention a constant massive presense of the internet - whatever that develops into by then).

There are lots of books on everything.

I am not sure that the Beatles might have the same social significance of a Frederick Douglass is what I am saying, does anyone remember what was going on in 1817?

What I am saying is the Beatles will melt into oblivion over time. No one will remember Frank Zappa either. These are the times we live, so they are important to us, but unless you are interested in history (and I am) this will just be a blip on the bigger picture called the twentieth century.

Someone once said, when it comes to choosing the truth or the story the story is ultimately more interesting so that is most often passed down as what actually happened.

The Beatles - Great guys, great band, great music, great mystic, great marketing machine, but just a blip that's all.

And...What about Humble Pie? ... what a great band that is... whew boy a rockin band! What about Stravinsky or Coltrane... Miles... Brando... all blips in the big thing called time.

All this is just my opinion. My generation is so tied to the Beatles and Elvis and all that 60's and 70's stuff --- I am just being realistic that it will fade. It is better to burn out than fade away, rust never sleeps. :cool:

Michael

gionnio
October 11th, 2011, 12:38 AM
The Beatles had something beyond instrumental prowess and songwriting/arrangement chops...they had great vocals. Many guitar players don't get that, but many do.

They also had a first-rate producer and engineers at EMI...

Ringo
October 11th, 2011, 12:39 AM
I also play guitar because of seeing the Beatles on TV as a kid, I made cardboard guitars for a bunch of kids in my class in the 4th grade (1964) and we all pretended to be the Beatles.

Watch some of the older videos of the Beatles playing live, they were a tight band, IMO very good musicians plus great harmonies.
Try playing some of that stuff and singing at the same time, and as some others have mentioned, doing that while the crowd is screaming so loud that they probably had trouble hearing themselves.

They may not have been the best musicians but the four of them together had something special and left behind a lot of great music that I still like and listen to.
I can't think of many other bands from my childhood that I can say that about.

ce24
October 11th, 2011, 12:42 AM
To say that john and George didnt influence many guitarists is just not being historically aware. they made garage bands around the world spring up and in that influenced thousands of guitarists. Tim is absolutely right..understatement is waay better than flash...and what George played was always perfect for the song..very tough to do and be creative...how about his inclusion of eastern semitones and style .many times just a bar of tasteful fill here and ther was brilliant. always will be a master to me. But then I lived thru the greates era of R&R for which im very thankful....

cheers ce24

Jonny_Quest
October 11th, 2011, 12:43 AM
There are lots of books on everything.

I am not sure that the Beatles might have the same social significance of a Frederick Douglass is what I am saying, does anyone remember what was going on in 1817?

What I am saying is the Beatles will melt into oblivion over time. No one will remember Frank Zappa either. These are the times we live, so they are important to us, but unless you are interested in history (and I am) this will just be a blip on the bigger picture called the twentieth century.

Someone once said, when it comes to choosing the truth or the story the story is ultimately more interesting so that is most often passed down as what actually happened.

The Beatles - Great guys, great band, great music, great mystic, great marketing machine, but just a blip that's all.

And...What about Humble Pie? ... what a great band that is... whew boy a rockin band! What about Stravinsky or Coltrane... Miles... Brando... all blips in the big thing called time.

All this is just my opinion. My generation is so tied to the Beatles and Elvis and all that 60's and 70's stuff --- I am just being realistic that it will fade. It is better to burn out than fade away, rust never sleeps. :cool:

Michael

Were Jesus Christ, Ghandi, and Plato also examples of a 'blip'? Anyway,...talk to anyone 12 years old on up and ask them about the Beatles,...they'll have something to say, likely good and substantial. Most of the younger ones could tell you how their parents and grandparents felt about them as well.

Yet most will look perplexed if you asked them about Coltrane or Miles (whose great talents were appreciated by only a tiny segment of the masses). And all the marketing in the world will never make something lasting and laudable out of nothing.

if you lived through the early Beatles era in the 60's,....you know that their popularity and influence was only expected to last about 15 minutes then too.

kelnet
October 11th, 2011, 12:45 AM
We are talking about musicianship here. Not song writing craftsmanship. George could write songs better than most. On that list he would be an elite. On a list of history's accomplished guitarists, you are nuts if you think George makes that list. Come on people, think of what you are saying. George Harrison is on the level of Hendrix or Chet Atkins or Segovia? Even he would laugh at that.

I asked this on another thread, and no-one even tried to answer it, but how do you measure the quality of a guitarist, taxer? What are the criteria that you use to say that this guitarist is better than that guitarist?

elicross
October 11th, 2011, 12:54 AM
What I am saying is the Beatles will melt into oblivion over time. No one will remember Frank Zappa either. These are the times we live, so they are important to us, but unless you are interested in history (and I am) this will just be a blip on the bigger picture called the twentieth century.
Shakespeare is still widely read, performed and revered nearly 400 years after his death. What else does the average person know about the 16th century?

It's the great works of popular art that survive. And any artist's work that's still alive in the digital age will survive much longer. Name a play of Shakespeare's, and you can find the entire thing on numerous Internet sites. When and how do you think Shakespeare's going to vanish into oblivion?

Name a Beatles song, and even though it's not in the public domain, you'll find it on iTunes and on millions of personal computers. You'll also find the song's lyrics, tab, and notation on countless web sites. When and how are the Beatles going to die out?

Justinvs
October 11th, 2011, 12:55 AM
Given the context of what else was out there at the time, all the Beatles were damned good. There wasn't a lot of flashy playing going on at the time, at least not in the pop music of the early 60's. And while they would be overshadowed by their contemporaries as musicians before the band broke up, no one could ever dismiss the way they functioned as a band, both live and especially in the studio. The sum was greater than the parts. Having said that, it's funny how George seemed to be some kind of 'elder statesman' figure to the guitarists who followed him, even though he was only a few years older than most of the guitar gods of the period. He was very generous to other players, not one to push his own ego ahead of the song, and while he may not technically be among the greatest, George was an innovator. Flashy or not, i loved his guitar work.

I think most people would agree Paul was the best overall musician in the band, and I don't care what anyone says, his bass playing has influenced at least three generations of players. Whether most of us bass players realize it or not, we're still copping things from McCartney. His playing, like Carol Kaye's, has become part of the lexicon.

One thing I haven't seen a lot of people mention is that Ringo played left-handed on a right-handed kit. He even admits he wasn't a technical drummer, but that what he did few people could imitate because of the way he played. I wonder how many other bands have lefties on both bass and drums?

Justin

klasaine
October 11th, 2011, 12:59 AM
Bach, Mozart, Sophocles, Euripides, Raphael, Charlie Chaplin, ... blips - I think not.
Beatles, Stones, Miles Davis ... my money's on them not fading into forgotten history.

As much GH couldn't play a Segovia Bach transcription, Segovia couldn't play Day Tripper on an electric convincingly. I'm dead serious.

Justinvs
October 11th, 2011, 01:10 AM
I play guitar because I saw George on the Ed Sullivan Show. I'll bet a bunch of us guitarists of my generation felt the same way.

George shines on this:
7hRVu-T73Zo

Man, I love that song!

Who was playing the Tele behind George? You get a real good look at him just before the first solo.

Justin

getbent
October 11th, 2011, 01:30 AM
Man, I love that song!

Who was playing the Tele behind George? You get a real good look at him just before the first solo.

Justin

looks like Jesse Ed Davis to me.


as for the whole 'history' thing... the arc of history is an arc not a line....

the cheap energy thing in the last 120 years has changed everything.. it is very likely that the Beatles actually will be popular for as long as there are people... in the skein of time, more people will have heard beatles songs than any other composer. Sound strange? It isn't. it is just the geometric nature of how data moves.

I'd bet you money that the average western teenager would much more readily recognize Beatles over Mozart. That will only INCREASE even though this generation could never have seen the Beatles in person...

That whole 'no one will remember in a hundred years' is more bluster than data supported information...

But..... if you guys want... I'll hop in the time machine and go take a listen in say, 2200 and come back and let you know.... the only thing I ask is that you not question where my time machine is.

trev333
October 11th, 2011, 01:31 AM
good clip of George..

. first live clip I've seen without EC playing the back up lead at his concerts...

it wasn't so much what George played in complexity.. it was the tones he put in.. those guitar sounds. runs and fills.. a bit of slide, etc...

you could "feel" Georges guitar through the songs.... as it were... he made you feel them... weep, even... wink..

Good Iron
October 11th, 2011, 01:35 AM
Just as a matter of mentioning a blip is just that, a blip. It is all important. Many important things happened years ago. Some are more familiar today to us and are on the social radar and some not so much, maybe some are yet to be rediscovered. My statement is that we really do not know. A pop band, how ever relevant in its time, might be a Shakespeare or a Mozart or fall into oblivion I am not to judge this or to know.

Someone said, maybe it was me... "Every journey has purpose"

When it comes to the Beatles we grew up where every sound bite, every TV show appearance, every new record, all the Christmas greeting floppy records, and the AM radio, just sitting there glued to it waiting for a Beatles tune to be played, every thing was like gold. I get it, I was there, and I am a fan. Now with the media like it is it is like Christmas all over again. I mean I had no Idea that John played bass on Helter Skelter, I thought for sure it was one of the stringed instrument players that screamed "I've got blisters on my fingers!" but it was Ringo that said that.

There is an old question we use to ask ourselves, what would you rather have a million dollars or be a Beatle for a day” and most of us would say ... I'd be a Beatle for a day. This is how powerful this is here and now… in a couple hundred years… ???

All blips all good... the more time goes on the more stuff is going to happen and the more ingenious things will happen... I'll I am saying is it will blur in with all the rest of the greatness. People can’t handle the fact that the most influential event in their lives might not be that big of a deal in future generations. I hope Rock lives on, I love it. Long live Rock! Don’t hate, all you need is love.. da da dada daaaa…

Jonny_Quest
October 11th, 2011, 01:42 AM
But..... if you guys want... I'll hop in the time machine and go take a listen in say, 2200 and come back and let you know.... the only thing I ask is that you not question where my time machine is.

...might your "time machine" consist of a select mix of chemicals? :lol:

getbent
October 11th, 2011, 01:49 AM
...might your "time machine" consist of a select mix of chemicals? :lol:

that is last century thinking...

this is something so wonderful, it won't come to you for some time... when it does, you'll remember this moment, no, no, this moment and you'll smile and shake your head and wonder where I am.

and then I'll arrive... just after I just left!

Justinvs
October 11th, 2011, 01:54 AM
that is last century thinking...

this is something so wonderful, it won't come to you for some time... when it does, you'll remember this moment, no, no, this moment and you'll smile and shake your head and wonder where I am.

and then I'll arrive... just after I just left!

Oh no, paradox alert!

Breen
October 11th, 2011, 01:57 AM
Oh really?

kUjFpdxFWHU


This video killed me. Wow. Back in the early 60s and at their age, its like Esperanza Spalding now or something.

Tonetele
October 11th, 2011, 02:00 AM
Individually good -together BRILLIANT. I'd rather hear a melodic piecxe of music than a so-called shredder , those players seem to get lost on the fingerboards.Gearge, in particular, used a great array of unusual chords to great affect. Paul was also good on guitar. They all played and contributed to musical history-that's why our grand kids will still be playing their songs. Or will the music die? I think not.

gguitar55
October 11th, 2011, 02:24 AM
This is all a bit pointless isn't it. It's like asking who's the best scientist.
The Beatles invented modern rock and pop music. Then they took it beyond rock and pop.
Past that its all preference of the listener.

First they worked their asses of to become one of the tightest rock bands ever, then they created the most impressive and timeless catalog of music the world has known. In my book, innovation and pure musical genius trumps instrument ability any time.

Discuss amongst yourselves, I'm too verklempt.

ringodingo
October 11th, 2011, 02:33 AM
Next thing someone will say is that the Beatles are more popular than Jesus.

[ I am just kidding. I did not mean that as a religious comment. ( "I just said what I said and it was wrong. Or it was taken wrong. And now it's all this." - John Winston Lennon ) ]
"Their beautiful melodies, which changed forever pop music and still give us emotions, live on like precious jewels" - statement issued in 2008 by the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano.

elicross
October 11th, 2011, 02:36 AM
A Ringo ate my baby.

ScatMan
October 11th, 2011, 02:39 AM
What I am saying is the Beatles will melt into oblivion over time. No one will remember Frank Zappa either. These are the times we live, so they are important to us, but unless you are interested in history (and I am) this will just be a blip on the bigger picture called the twentieth century.

I agree, the Beatles could be forgotten. Who's to say what the future holds though?

'Over time' can be a long time..or not (depending on one's perspective of what a long time is).

The speculation: 'will melt into oblivion over time' sounds a bit like wishful thinking to me.

I'm hopeful that 'Beatles' music will stand the test of time, but none of us posting here will live long enough to know (even if there was a consensus of what 'a long time' is).

cband7
October 11th, 2011, 02:46 AM
You forgot one thing, Ringo always played Ludwig, he still does.


My apologies - I meant he's played different Ludwig models, not different manufacturers.... :grin:


.

itsGreg
October 11th, 2011, 02:52 AM
The Beatles were never about raging guitar solos and musical showing off. It always seemed less about egos and more about balanced tunes to me.
Pesonally I think they were all technically brilliant(and all could sing!).
One of my favourite Beatles songs, helter skelter has simple,raw guitar playing that many would say was easy and that they could do that but the point is they didnt...

chezdeluxe
October 11th, 2011, 03:40 AM
You forgot one thing, Ringo always played Ludwig, .

My apologies - I meant he's played different Ludwig models, not different manufacturers.... :grin:.

Wrong. He was playing Premiers when he joined the Beatles and didn't switch to Ludwig until 1963.look here (http://web2.iadfw.net/gshultz/drumhist.html)

Westerly Sunn
October 11th, 2011, 03:40 AM
If I could have been born in another era; any I so chose, former or hence, I wouldn't have...

'cause then I wouldn't have grown up listening to the Beatles...

Bard2dbone
October 11th, 2011, 04:46 AM
good clip of George..

. first live clip I've seen without EC playing the back up lead at his concerts...

it wasn't so much what George played in complexity.. it was the tones he put in.. those guitar sounds. runs and fills.. a bit of slide, etc...

you could "feel" Georges guitar through the songs.... as it were... he made you feel them... weep, even... wink..

I'm confused by that. Clapton is right there to the right playing the solo on a jazzbox.

trev333
October 11th, 2011, 04:51 AM
" I've got blisters on my fingers"...

I always thought that was John's exclamation.... that raspy thin scream seems to be always John, in songs... especially on his own later LP's.. with yoko..

was it Ringo?... mmm...

trev333
October 11th, 2011, 05:03 AM
ooops, so it was... the hair and mo fooled me.... I had to watch it again...

what year was that clip?...

..I was looking to see the Tele player when someone asked about his name....

just though it might have been in the US and George had some other players around him for the show... I hadn't seen that clip before... screens a bit small..

Telenut62
October 11th, 2011, 05:35 AM
Two words...Sgt. Peppers

Good Iron
October 11th, 2011, 06:15 AM
That is six... you forgot lonely hearts club band...

JaysRiff
October 11th, 2011, 06:26 AM
Ahh The Beatles does anyone ever tire of those lads?
Great band but when i listen to music from that era they are a fair way down the queue

TG
October 11th, 2011, 06:28 AM
I think there are a number of reasons their rating as 'musicians' is often called into question.

1- They never tried to impress with flash technique, they were always more into the song and the 'music'. And then, due to the insane Beatlemania touring years, they, and especially George, became very jaded and didn't have time to sit around practicing anyway.
Lennon even said later that was why they 'didn't improve as musicians'.

2- With Hendrix and Clapton being so well known for technical prowess, and the obsession with 'skill' and especially speed that developed in guitar playing circles, it became sort of 'cool' to diss the Beatles' playing.
Kind of like nowadays dissing 'shred' or the Edge or John Mayer or whatever.
It got worse in the '70s with Jimmy Page, Steve Howe, Richie Blackmore, etc, being almost worshipped as players of 'difficult to play' stuff.
(Apparently, too few bands covered Beatles songs...probably because of the vocals...to realise how difficult they can be.)

3- The stereo mixes. I got the mono set last year and listening carefully to it I can hear just how much better players they were than I'd always thought growing up. The cheesy 1960s guitar tones simply aren't on the original mixes and that affects your perception of how well they played, I think. It especially makes a difference with Ringo's drumming. On the mono mixes you can hear how clever and complicated his drum parts are.

benderb9
October 11th, 2011, 06:39 AM
John's playing and that dynamite primal scream of his in Slow Down off the American Something New album still rocks my boat...George and the other two Fabs do pretty well on it too just in keeping up with him. I got a DVD set (Japanese Apple Import) some years ago of Let It Be and it has a second DVD beside the original movie release of out-takes and even their screwing about was good. The audio release of that periods sessions, Let It Be Naked, is pretty instructive too...John was wrong on that move, it sounds better without Phil Spectors mucking about. Much as I've always liked the Stones they weren't The World's Greatest Rock n Roll band until the Beatles dis-banded

T Prior
October 11th, 2011, 07:13 AM
Of course we are talking 40 years ago...I am certain that they didn't care who the better players were, they all rushed out to see Jimi, they all knew each other and at times hung out...

They didn't know Yngwie Malsteem was god...It never occurred to them !

Was George as technically proficient as Robben Ford ? Probably not but when Robben talks about playing with George he says he was intimidated because he was standing right next to " Mr All Things Must Pass" !

TxTeleMan
October 11th, 2011, 07:25 AM
ooops, so it was... the hair and mo fooled me.... I had to watch it again...

what year was that clip?...

..I was looking to see the Tele player when someone asked about his name....

just though it might have been in the US and George had some other players around him for the show... I hadn't seen that clip before... screens a bit small..Concert for Bangladesh. 1971. George Harrison, Ringo Starr, Jim Keltner, Eric Clapton, Carl Radle, Klaus Vormann, Billy Preston, Don Preston, Badfinger, Jim Horn & the Hollywood Horns, Leon Russell, Jesse Ed Davis, and some guy named Dylan.

The Tele player was Jesse Ed Davis.

taxer
October 11th, 2011, 08:26 AM
how do you measure the quality of a guitarist, taxer? What are the criteria that you use to say that this guitarist is better than that guitarist?There is no way to measure guitarists. This isn't the 100 yard dash where you can declare a clear winner. We will all have different criteria when it comes to rating a guitarist.

To me the greatest guitarist that ever lived was John Lennon. Yup, the guy who played open cowboy chords and played maybe five leads in his entire life is the greatest guitar player that ever picked up a guitar. My top criteria for a guitar player is the ability to write a song on guitar. No one tops John in that category therefore he is the best guitar player I have ever come across.

- songwriting ability
- technical prowess
- tone and vibe
- innovation
The criteria for greatness all lies in that, but who's to say which is more important than another?

ce24
October 11th, 2011, 09:23 AM
They are the only band EVER to make successive albums that had no connection to the previous work. Each album was totally different in scope and idea. the only other artist is Dylan in scope and output. IMHO of course:mrgreen:.

Mike Eskimo
October 11th, 2011, 09:36 AM
Anybody on this forum (or off) who plays slide guitar and doesn't realize how great a slide player George was should toss their guitar off a cliff and then follow it.

And if you players who have never picked up a slide can't hear it, you need to develop your ear more.

Ry Cooder said "George was one of the all-time best ... his touch..."


That having been said, too few people here have a good working knowledge of what "musician" means.

collinsman
October 11th, 2011, 09:59 AM
Blazer, there is no doubt, no doubt at all that George's solo in "Till There Was You" is outstanding. Full marks for the composition. It flows perfectly. One of the best solos I can name.

But that solo is easy as hell to play. I am strictly a rhythm guitar player. I have played only two leads in my entire life: John's solo break in "Get Back" and George's solo break in "Till There Was You." If I, a guy who has no talent at all for lead playing, can do "Till There Was You," it shows it really is an insanely simple piece of soloing. And it really is.

Really Blazer', because you can play the solo, doesn't make it any less credible, really the degree of difficulty isn't what make music great or not great, it's how it all come together & what it does for the listener. IMO, the solo on " Something" is one of the best recorded, understated yes, but magical.

kelnet
October 11th, 2011, 10:01 AM
no one will ever consider George an elite guitarist.

John - extremely basic player both on guitar and piano.

George's playing is far too simple to be awarded the status of greatness.

Musicianship was nothing to write home about.

On a list of history's accomplished guitarists, you are nuts if you think George makes that list. Come on people, think of what you are saying. George Harrison is on the level of Hendrix or Chet Atkins or Segovia? Even he would laugh at that.

There is no way to measure guitarists. To me the greatest guitarist that ever lived was John Lennon. Yup, the guy who played open cowboy chords and played maybe five leads in his entire life is the greatest guitar player that ever picked up a guitar. My top criteria for a guitar player is the ability to write a song on guitar. No one tops John in that category therefore he is the best guitar player I have ever come across.

- songwriting ability
- technical prowess
- tone and vibe
- innovation
The criteria for greatness all lies in that, but who's to say which is more important than another?

Your last post seems to contradict your earlier posts. You say you can't measure guitarists, and yet you do measure George against others.

Jonny_Quest
October 11th, 2011, 10:06 AM
You wanna know the domain where the Beatles 'shredded' better than anyone?








CREATIVITY

Rasmuth
October 11th, 2011, 10:20 AM
The were the perfect band.

And certainly no other 4 people on this earth ever influenced more young boys to take up instruments and learn to play...and form their own bands than the fab 4.

Their influence is undeniable and everlasting, I believe.

And part of that brilliance was the fact that they all were very skilled, if not brilliant on their instruments, or in some cases multiple instruments.

Then it just so happens they could also sing and perform impeccable harmonies....

AND...three of them were great songwriters....

The Beatles = perfection.

And no other band has ever lived up the bar they set so damn high all those years ago...and I expect no-one ever will.

yark14
October 11th, 2011, 10:24 AM
Your last post seems to contradict your earlier posts. You say you can't measure guitarists, and yet you do measure George against others.

BAM! Thattaway Kelnet.

middy
October 11th, 2011, 10:30 AM
Hemingway may have been a great novelist, but his penmanship was nothing to write home about. I personally know several calligraphers who could run circles around him, technique-wise.

Plus, his sentence structure was usually very simple. He's not even on the same level as someone like Faulkner.

62 Jazzmaster
October 11th, 2011, 10:48 AM
It's one thing to copy someone else's work.
It's another thing entirely to create something worth copying.

brewwagon
October 11th, 2011, 10:57 AM
You forgot one thing, Ringo always played Ludwig,

ringo played "premier" drums early on

brewwagon
October 11th, 2011, 11:04 AM
ringo on his "premier" kit

http://ringosbeatlekits.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Premier_17a.114180520_std.jpg

http://ringosbeatlekits.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/beatles20ringo20at20Premiere20kit21.183195456_std. jpg

The Story Behind Ringo’s Drums
By Charlie West

They are the world’s most famous percussion instrument.

The Black Oyster Pearl, Ludwig Super Classic drum set that bears the name of the most famous band in our history, The Beatles. Certainly no other drum kit is as well known.

It is believed that Ringo may still have this original Ludwig kit.

The Ludwig drums and the Beatles logo became the centerpiece of the Beatles stage set from mid 1963 through August of 1966. Amazingly, not much has been written about Ringo’s drums.

Ringo didn’t always play Ludwig drums. In fact his first drum kit was a used set that was purchased for him as a Christmas gift. Up until this time, Ringo had been playing biscuit tins and pieces of firewood.

In February 1957, Ringo started playing in a band. All of the guys in the group worked at the same factory and played for their fellow workmen in a cellar during lunch. They started playing all the freebies that they could get, such as weddings and clubs. Ringo was becoming a semi-professional. He was an Engineer at the factory by day, and at night he played drums. He would play dances with Eddie Miles and some other groups. Later he would play with Rory Storm, which is where Ringo’s career really got started. He played and practiced with a lot of the groups in Liverpool.

Ringo’s drum kit was old and it was time to step up to something a bit newer. In the summer of 1958 Ringo borrowed £46 from his grandfather, went to Frank Hessy’s Music store, and bought an Ajax single headed kit. The appeal may have been that it looked similar to a Ludwig kit that he had seen.

While playing with Rory Storm and the Hurricanes in Hamburg, Germany, in 1960, Ringo purchased a set of Premier drums. On the front bass drum head was the “Premier” logo and “Ringo Starr” just below it.

When Ringo was asked to join The Beatles, he still had the Premier kit. Many of the early recordings were made with this kit. Sometime between September 4, 1962, and February 17, 1963, Ringo’s name was replaced by a Beatles logo. The logo that appeared on Ringo’s Premier drum kit was based on Paul’s doodles. Terry Tex O’Hara, a Liverpool artist, designed the actual logo. It is a script type font with a “B” that has beetle-like antenna and a tiny “THE” above it. The logo was printed on a cloth banner that was stretched across the drumhead and was held in place by the drums rim. The banner also provided some muffling for the drum. This was one of many of the logo designs to come.

Sometime in early 1963, Ringo planned to replace his Premier kit, so he went to Music City, a large music store on Salisbury Street in London, to order a new Premier kit. The owner of Music City, Ivor Arbiter, had just been granted exclusive rights to distribute U.S. made Ludwig drums in Britain. Dave Martin, a salesman at Music City, talked up the Ludwig Drums to Ringo. Ringo was familiar with the drums because he had played a Ludwig kit owned by Tony Mansfield (drummer for the Dakotas). Ringo fell in love with the new Black Oyster Pearl drum finish. When he learned that it was only available on Ludwig Drums, the deal was sealed. There was one catch. Ringo insisted that a large Ludwig logo be printed across the bass drum head. At that time Ludwig did not put logos on its drumheads. Brian Epstein, The Beatles’ manager, quickly countered that the band was called “The Beatles” and that the bands name should be displayed on the drumhead. Arbiter, who realized the marketing potential and wanted to save the sale, quickly came up with a compromise. Arbiter thought that a large Beatles logo could be printed across the drumhead, but room could also be left for Ringo’s requested Ludwig logo. He brought out a piece of paper, drew a drumhead and then sketched out the famous “The Beatles” drum logo. Ringo took possession of the new Ludwig kit and new logo on June 17, 1963.

The first time Ringo used his new kit in public, he was at the recording of “EasyBeat”, at the Playhouse, on June 23, 1963. The British community got their first viewing of the new drum kit and logo during the Saturday, June 29, television program.

Ringo used seven different front bass drum heads from 1963 to 1967. Each head sported a logo that was a little different from the others. The original head was of course a “Ludwig Weather Master” and can be identified by the logo bearing the same name, at the bottom of the head. Some of the other drumheads were “Remo Weather King” and can be identified by the logo at the top of the head. Ringo experimented with various muffling techniques. Perhaps this accounted for the different kinds of drumheads and the varied placement of muffling material.

Only two of the heads have ever surfaced. Russ Lease is the proud owner of the head that was used during the first Beatles performance on the Ed Sullivan Show. Russ purchased the drumhead from Sotheby’s in London. In 1997, Bonham’s Auctioneers and Valuers ran an “all Beatles” auction in Japan. The auction included a Beatles bass drumhead. In the early 70’s a Chicago radio station somehow acquired “the drums that Ringo played at the 1965 Shea Stadium Concert”. They held a contest and gave them away to some lucky listener! The head that Bonham’s auctioned off is from this drum set. There is no word on what happened to the rest of the set.

Ringo had several Black Oyster Pearl drum kits. Some of the photos taken at Abby Road Studios show two of these kits. Expense records indicate that in May 1964, Drum City supplied Ringo with a £350 drum kit at no charge.

It is generally accepted that Ringo played Zildjian Cymbals. 14” hi-hats, 18” Medium thin crash, and an 18” or 20” ride. This is further evidenced by the fact that Don Bennett’s Drum Studio in Bellevue, Washington actually has Ringo’s “original” hi hat, and crash cymbals. We also know that Ringo plays Zildjians today. There is however evidence that exists that maybe Ringo didn’t always play Zildjians.

In Ringo’s expense reports from 1961 - 1963 there is an entry where Ringo purchased a set of Swiss made Paiste Cymbals. This entry is made about the same time that Ringo purchased his Ludwig kit. It would have been easier to obtain the Paiste Cymbals at that time. Ludwig distributed Paiste Cymbals. Also, with Ringo spending so much time in Germany and Sweden, it would have made the Paiste Cymbals much easier to obtain than the Zildjians. Expense records indicate that he purchased Paiste Cymbal, but Don Bennett has an original Zildjian 18” Medium Crash Cymbal with Paul’s inscription to Ringo!

Since not much has been written about Ringo’s drums, one is often left to speculate….

© 2000 Charlie West

http://www.ringosbeatlekits.com/

Tommy Biggs
October 11th, 2011, 11:13 AM
In my opinion George was a very good guitarist. I think that he was more of a trained musician than many of his peers, and it shows in his chord choices and solo parts which were always memorable lines that served the songs.

To defend Ringo is unnecessary, I do think that John did seem to like to make provocative statements that had some truth to them but also took some license...

GigsbyBoyUK
October 11th, 2011, 11:22 AM
It's one thing to copy someone else's work.
It's another thing entirely to create something worth copying.

Absolutely. Sure, we can all learn to play any of George's solos. (Sadly there are many people who think that guitar playing is just a matter of 'learning the tabs'.) But how many of us have written or improvised solo after solo as perfectly crafted as his?

Rokatt88
October 11th, 2011, 11:26 AM
A Ringo ate my baby.


I didn't know he was French!

PeterVV
October 11th, 2011, 11:27 AM
George was the lead guitarist for a reason. I will say no more.........

Mike Eskimo
October 11th, 2011, 11:35 AM
To belabor the point (I don't mind) :

George's slide playing is world-class.

George's slide playing is, at the very least, as good as Paul's bass playing.

(And I think it's far beyond that)

All of his other guitar playing is very good but - no more than that.

His songwriting is also world-class . (Which of course is their greatest strength).


Slide playing ? One of the best.

ce24
October 11th, 2011, 11:46 AM
I find it pretty cool that Max Weinberg also uses a very spare set for one the best RnR bands today! something about simplicity that works! "it aint what you got its what you do with what you got"

gguitar55
October 11th, 2011, 12:08 PM
It's one thing to copy someone else's work.
It's another thing entirely to create something worth copying.

That's what I'm saying without all the unnecessary words.

I would add that everyone else since The Beatles and The Stones stands on their shoulders, except that might imply that someone has done it better. I'm not sure.

Music is not a competitive sport, except on American Idol.

Jared Purdy
October 11th, 2011, 12:12 PM
I personally never looked at any of them as being incredible instrumentalists, with the exception "maybe" of McCartney. However, they weren't known for that either. They were obviously known for their singing abities, song writing skills and overall orchestration and production skills. With the exception of Layla, Clapton has never been revered as an amazing song writer either.

Rokatt88
October 11th, 2011, 12:13 PM
To quote John,

Nothing you can do that can't be done.

Nothing you can sing that can't be sung...

It's easy, all you need is love.

Music is art not NASCAR

LOSTVENTURE
October 11th, 2011, 12:40 PM
You should ignore the Rolling Stone rating, as well as the Guitar Player polls. They are both more popularity contest than a rating of technical musical skills.

studio1087
October 11th, 2011, 12:49 PM
They were all good. They were all much better than "good enough".

It's rock and roll. Verses and choruses and maybe a bridge and 6 chords total.

It's only rock and roll but I like it. I do.

They did it as well or possibly better than anyone else has.

The Beatles are a text book example of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.

I love listening to the old remastered CD's. Complicated?? No. Fantastic music? Yes.

Thorby Bislam
October 11th, 2011, 12:57 PM
To quote John "Ringo wasn't even the best drummer in the beatles"

Every time this quote appears it's always taken out of context. John was asked in an interview if he thought Ringo as the best drummer in the world. He answered with that throwaway, sarcastic joke.

That was just John's way. Something he did, especially when faced with interview after interview, usually asking all the same questions. The others did too to a degree. It stems from the caustic, self-deprecating Liverpool sense of humour. It doesn't always travel well and sometimes people took his remarks at face value when they shouldn't have. (See the 'bigger than Jesus' controversy).

This is what John said about Ringo in 1971, when for once, he was being serious.
In spite of all things, the Beatles could really play music together when they weren't up tight, and if I get things going Ringo knows where to go just like that and he does well
And in 1980.
Ringo's a damn good drummer. He was always a good drummer. He's not technically good, but I think Ringo's drumming is underrated the same way as Paul's bass playing is underrated...

I think Paul and Ringo stand up anywhere with any of the rock musicians. Not technically great. None of us were technical musicians. None of us could read music. None of us can write it. But as pure musicians, as inspired humans to make noise, they're as good as anybody!

And George, in a Guitar interview 1987.
"Ringo could be the best rock ''n'' roll drummer -- or at least one of the best rock and roll drummers ... He does fills which crack up people like Jim Keltner. He's just amazed because Ringo starts them in the wrong place and all of that, but that is brilliance, that's pure feel.

Btw, I am biased, I play in a little Beatles tribute duo. We call ourselves The Dung Beatles. (Because all the good Beatles related names were taken and this was the only one left :grin:).

gibsonjunkie
October 11th, 2011, 12:58 PM
According to this great biography (http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-Biography-Bob-Spitz/dp/B000Y8Y1MG/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318352170&sr=1-8), Ringo was the "real" musician back when they started and the others worked hard to convince him to join the band.

brewwagon
October 11th, 2011, 01:02 PM
pTepreQIvZk

Dg8iXDY1qXM

ZQUZW-jtRFk

TeleAnthony
October 11th, 2011, 01:23 PM
There's a difference between super fast guitar playing and well-constructed and tasteful lead melodies that fit with the song the other bandmates are playing. Give me George's playing over the "guitar gods" any day.

+1

hymiepab
October 11th, 2011, 01:39 PM
My take on the individual Beatles talents is they were as good as they needed to be. If you have enough technique to explore your vision you are a lucky musician...and the four of them had that!

jefrs
October 11th, 2011, 01:55 PM
When people talk about who are the best guitar players out there,I hardly ever hear their names brought up.But think about what they did.'66-'70 they were writing music that had never been exploded before They played their own instruments on their records,where many of the pop groups didn't actually play on the record that was sold.

I'd reckon the bulk of Lennon-McCartney were written 1962-65
Some of the earliest numbers were covers. Sheer output seemed to drop as they became experimental and more adventurous. Not all L-M lyrics were performed by The Beatles: Billy J Kramer & The Dakotas; Fourmost; PJ.Proby; Peter & Gordon (Peter was Jane Asher's brother); Cilla Black; The Applejacks; The Strangers; The Rolling Stones; etc
Although the words were generally written by L-M, the guitar lead was usually left to George to come up with something new.

"The Beatles Lyrics" ISBN 0-8600-74781 (1969-77) breaks them down into three periods - 1962-65, 1965-68, 1968-70 (over 200 original numbers).

They may have played their own instruments but they didn't play all the instruments :wink: George Martin covered the piano and arranged strings. However they were noted for not using session player for the main parts. OT - Jimmy Page played harmonica on a Cliff Richards & The Shadows hit, as a session player.

ce24
October 11th, 2011, 02:49 PM
The crux of their musicianship was the 8 hours a day of playing live in Hamburg....That must have been an unreal experience and what gave them the abilities they had to make songs work.....can you imagine how tight a band would get in that kind of a gig set up? :shock:

TG
October 11th, 2011, 03:12 PM
The crux of their musicianship was the 8 hours a day of playing live in Hamburg....That must have been an unreal experience and what gave them the abilities they had to make songs work.....can you imagine how tight a band would get in that kind of a gig set up? :shock:


That's what people today don't appreciate enough. They had appalling PA and monitor arrangements when they played live yet they still did their stuff note perfect time after time...with Ringo holding the beat as reliably as a metronome.
The pressure on them when they did gigs like the Ed Sullivan show and Shea Stadium must've been unbelievable, yet they nailed the songs they did.

Telemarkman
October 11th, 2011, 04:13 PM
They may have played their own instruments but they didn't play all the instruments :wink: George Martin covered the piano and arranged strings. However they were noted for not using session player for the main parts.

That is correct except on two occasions: Andy White (hired by George Martin) played the drums on their first single, "Love Me Do" (Ringo played the tambourine), and as we all know EC played the guitar solo on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" (at George's request and using George's wine red Les Paul).

Besides George Martin's piano, Billy Preston played keyboards on several songs and David Mason of Royal Philharmonic Orchestra played piccolo trumpet on "Penny Lane" (just to mention a few).

Paul also played the lead guitar on several tracks: "Another Girl", "Taxman" and "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" comes to mind.

I think they were all very capable players - not least tasteful and inventive, but only Paul, whether "real" or "fake", was a GREAT instrumentalist.

klasaine
October 11th, 2011, 04:17 PM
That's what people today don't appreciate enough. They had appalling PA and monitor arrangements when they played live yet they still did their stuff note perfect time after time...with Ringo holding the beat as reliably as a metronome.
The pressure on them when they did gigs like the Ed Sullivan show and Shea Stadium must've been unbelievable, yet they nailed the songs they did.
+1000
That's a beautifully concise way of putting it.

Most folks have no clue what it's like to play on TV or in front of 35,000 people. And get it right.
That IS good musicianship. And what separates the men and women from the boys and the girls. (I maintain that it takes 10 years of hard work just to suck confidently in front of a crowd.)
If all think about good musicianship is shredding - in whatever style be it jazz to metal - then you really don't understand what good musicianship is. Yes, my opinion ... but I'm right.

Brother Rob
October 11th, 2011, 04:39 PM
George is #21 on RollingStone's list of 100 best guitarists...

You mean the same list that puts Joni Mitchell higher than David Gilmour?

SChoirFan
October 11th, 2011, 05:00 PM
Hemingway may have been a great novelist, but his penmanship was nothing to write home about. I personally know several calligraphers who could run circles around him, technique-wise.

Plus, his sentence structure was usually very simple. He's not even on the same level as someone like Faulkner.


Okay, I seriously Laughed Out Loud when I read that one! Thanks middy! And good point by the way.

TG
October 11th, 2011, 05:08 PM
... but only Paul, whether "real" or "fake", was a GREAT instrumentalist.

They both were, coincidentally enough. :lol:

Brother Rob
October 11th, 2011, 05:11 PM
I think we are talking about three different things: IMO they were all great musicians, very good instrumentalists and tremendous performers.

Mike Eskimo
October 11th, 2011, 05:50 PM
I think they were all very capable players - not least tasteful and inventive, but only Paul, whether "real" or "fake", was a GREAT instrumentalist.

Wrong.

If you're talking about when they were in the Beatles, Paul did have the virtuoso bass lines - fine.

For the 3rd time (or fourth?) :

George Harrison was a world-class slide player.

That was his voice and nine times out of ten, post-Beatles - that's how he would solo.

In a rock/pop, non-blues context ? He had no peer.

The fact that so few Beatles "fans" have an understanding of this is stunning.

Blazer
October 11th, 2011, 06:01 PM
That's what people today don't appreciate enough. They had appalling PA and monitor arrangements when they played live yet they still did their stuff note perfect time after time...with Ringo holding the beat as reliably as a metronome.
The pressure on them when they did gigs like the Ed Sullivan show and Shea Stadium must've been unbelievable, yet they nailed the songs they did.

Yup, their backline of Vox amps was OPTIMISTIC seeing what they were up against and they couldn't turn them up full because of the hollowbody Rickenbacker, Gretsch and Epiphone guitars being prone to feedback.
http://www.combo-organ.com/Vox/Dual/BeatlesEssen6-25-66.jpg
Stage monitors? What stage monitors, they didn't exist back then.

It wasn't until Pete Townshend went to Marshall, put his fender bassman head in front of Jim Marshall and told him "I want this sound but ten times as loud." because he wanted to get rid of the screaming, he wanted that the band was overpowering the audience instead of the other way round, that things started to change.

Because along with the Marshall stacks that that encounter proved to be the genesis of, Marshall also applied that idea of "Overpowering the audience" into powerful PA systems.
http://www.thewho.net/whotabs/images/pa/66_marshallpabook.jpg

Of course by the time those came around, the Beatles had stopped touring, but they enjoyed the merits of Townshend's request when they played their solo tours, the screaming was still there but the powerful amps and PA made sure that the band was always louder.
R3wA4ZxGd3U
Paul and the Wings live in 1976, ten years prior, this performance wouldn't have sounded this good.

Telemarkman
October 11th, 2011, 06:12 PM
George Harrison was a world-class slide player.

That was his voice and nine times out of ten, post-Beatles - that's how he would solo.

In a rock/pop, non-blues context ? He had no peer.

I agree he was a good - and again: tasteful and inventive - slide player, especially post-Beatles, but as an all-round guitarist he wasn't really that exceptional.

He was the right player in the right band though - and now I'm speaking about The Beatles.


The fact that so few Beatles "fans" have an understanding of this is stunning.

I think all Beatles fans (or "fans") appreciate his skills - even if they don't think he was God.

T Prior
October 11th, 2011, 06:24 PM
It wasn't until Pete Townshend went to Marshall, put his fender bassman head in front of Jim Marshall and told him "I want this sound but ten times as loud." because he wanted to get rid of the screaming, he wanted that the band was overpowering the audience instead of the other way round, that things started to change.
.

Actually it was John Entwhistle who was getting the first Marshall Stack...Pete followed...

But do remember what started the whole thing, aka: The Beatles. The 100 watt Vox AC100 was the first of the BIG AMPS, even at that they were not loud enough and the basically blew up on the gigs. The Beatles first gigged with AC15's ! If you can imagine that. From the AC100's came the solid state Beatles, built in the USA, these amps were built state side so that British touring bands did not have to pay enormous freight costs. I recall going into Manny's ( NYC) and seeing the AC100's and then the Super Beatle solid state amps, it was like a fantasy ! ...There were these huge amps , tall..looking amazingly loud and next to it on the floor looking pale, weak and quiet was a Twin Reverb. If I recall back then the AC100's were selling for $1000, totally out of range for me...I believe the Super Beatle was selling for about that same price...

Ok back to Pete and the Marshall, he was of course the first guitar player with the 100 watt stack, he brought it to Monterey and then made a huge mistake..Hendrix loved it and asked to borrow it of which he did, Jimi played before The Who and he was recognized as the first guitar player using the Marshall stack ! Bummer for Pete ! Then Clapton and Bruce started using them and the rest is history...Les Paul and the Stack or Hendrix with the Strat and a Stack... Pete stated this in an interview, he showed up with the stack, Hendrix and Clapton get all the glory today and still do !

To me the best photo's out there of Pete are when he had 2, 3 or 4 Vox AC100's behind him ! When I saw The Who early on he was playing out of two AC100's..

Of which..I still want one !

Ok Beatles and sound, it is known that when the Beatles toured the 2nd time around, they toured with The Remains, aka: Barry Tashian and company. The Remains put together a 2nd sound system for monitors using two mics on one stand. The Beatles used that system for the whole tour. Now I can't say if the Remains were the first to do this but they certainly were one of the Pioneer bands using two sound systems. If you look at the photo's of the Shea stadium concert you will see two mics on the stands... This may be a result of the Remains thoughts on two systems at once.


Imagine if we can, with today's criteria, a band like the Beatles touring with 3 small amps , a low wattage MAINS system only and playing for 20,000 people ! Hard to imagine !

taxer
October 11th, 2011, 06:35 PM
You say you can't measure guitarists, and yet you do measure George against others.
As I said, you can't measure guitarists because we will all have our own criteria. I said it isn't a 100 yard dash where a clear winner can be declared.

But in this thread I have rated George against others because that's what this thread is asking. Using my criteria, George does not qualify as an elite. You really think he is up there with Merle Travis? Chet Atkins? Clapton? Page? George himself would say no to that.

Cheesehead
October 11th, 2011, 06:35 PM
Yup, their backline of Vox amps was OPTIMISTIC seeing what they were up against and they couldn't turn them up full because of the hollowbody Rickenbacker, Gretsch and Epiphone guitars being prone to feedback.
http://www.combo-organ.com/Vox/Dual/BeatlesEssen6-25-66.jpg
Stage monitors? What stage monitors, they didn't exist back then.

It wasn't until Pete Townshend went to Marshall, put his fender bassman head in front of Jim Marshall and told him "I want this sound but ten times as loud." because he wanted to get rid of the screaming, he wanted that the band was overpowering the audience instead of the other way round, that things started to change.

Because along with the Marshall stacks that that encounter proved to be the genesis of, Marshall also applied that idea of "Overpowering the audience" into powerful PA systems.
http://www.thewho.net/whotabs/images/pa/66_marshallpabook.jpg

Of course by the time those came around, the Beatles had stopped touring, but they enjoyed the merits of Townshend's request when they played their solo tours, the screaming was still there but the powerful amps and PA made sure that the band was always louder.
R3wA4ZxGd3U
Paul and the Wings live in 1976, ten years prior, this performance wouldn't have sounded this good.

Great post, pics, and video.

I saw that Wings show back in the day in St. Paul.

Drunkinminer
October 11th, 2011, 06:38 PM
In some documentary I think it was Paul that said during the entire time the Beatles were together they only had to do three (3!) retakes due to a mistake by Ringo. That plus he did everything with the same four drum setup the entire time; different models but always four drums.



.

I'm sure Mr High and Mighty is saying that to make himself look good.

murff625
October 11th, 2011, 06:40 PM
It's music. It's not a contest. Ears like. Good music. Ears don't like. Bad music. I can hear a monster player with incredible chops and not remember anything he played the next day other than the fact that he played really fast. Hats off to him. Good job. With everything said and done I'll take George Harrison any day. His guitar parts live in my head and have lived there for decades. You name any song that he played a solo and I'll remember it note for note. He owns real estate in my head. Who wins? The guy that played a million notes that I can't remember or the guy who's music lives in my mind. Same goes for the rest of the Beatles. It's all about the music. Ear candy.

Blazer
October 11th, 2011, 06:47 PM
Actually it was John Entwhistle who was getting the first Marshall Stack...Pete followed...
True but Pete first used only the Marshall cabs, through which he used his Fender Bassman and Pro heads, but they weren't loud enough, so he went to Marshall and requested Louder amps.

I eventually took the Fender Pro and a Bassman head to Jim Marshall and said, I want this sound but I want it 10 times louder. When he asked why, I said, Because I don’t want to hear any heckling, I don’t want to hear any requests. All we want to hear when we’re in a hall is The Who — that’s all. We’re there so that they can hear themselves. We’re not there to hear them. Jim Marshall was amazingly inspired; I realise now that Jim was an angry young man too, though a few years older than me. But he was like the crooks’ weapon builder; like Uzi or Kalashnikov, and the enemy was the previous generation. - Townshend 1994

http://www.thewho.net/whotabs/gear/guitar/marshallstack.html
Read the whole thing here.

But do remember what started the whole thing, aka: The Beatles. The 100 watt Vox AC100 was the first of the BIG AMPS, even at that they were not loud enough and the basically blew up on the gigs. The Beatles first gigged with AC15's ! If you can imagine that. From the AC100's came the solid state Beatles, built in the USA, these amps were built state side so that British touring bands did not have to pay enormous freight costs. I recall going into Manny's ( NYC) and seeing the AC100's and then the Super Beatle solid state amps, it was like a fantasy ! ...
Ah the years of amp makers not understanding how the mind of a Guitarist works, we have come a long way.

Ok back to Pete and the Marshall, he was of course the first guitar player with the 100 watt stack, he brought it to Monterey and then made a huge mistake..Hendrix loved it and asked to borrow it of which he did, Jimi played before The Who and he was recognized as the first guitar player using the Marshall stack ! Bummer for Pete ! The Clapton and Bruce started using them and the rest is history...Les Paul and the Stack or Hendrix with the Strat and a Stack...
Nope, the Marshalls that Hendrix used at Monterey were his own, when he got to England to form The Experience, he went to see Cream and The Who ( Clapton said to Hendrix Manager Chas Chandler "You told me he was good but you didn't tell me he was THIS f*cking good!" when Hendrix jammed with Cream) and made notes on what they were using. It is more likely that the first Marshall Hendrix ever played over was Clapton's.

So Hendrix went to Jim Marshall (The "Guy with my first and middle name") and ordered four stacks, two for him and two for Noel Redding to use. Jim Marshall later recalled, not being too impressed by the tall American bloke, figuring that this new upstart would probably think he'd get them for free but he warmed up when Hendrix went "I'll pay the full retail price for them."

Also, take a good look at the backline of the Who at Monterey, not a marshall in sight, it was all Vox AC-100 there, the reason was that that American tour was sponsored by Jennings and thus the guys had to keep their Marshalls at home of course, soon afterwards, they would discover Hiwatt (then called Sound City)

To me the best photo's out there of Pete are when he had 2 3 or 4 Vox AC100's behind him ! When I saw The Who early on he was playing out of two AC100's..

Of which..I still want one !

So do I my brother, so do I. :cool:

T Prior
October 11th, 2011, 06:55 PM
Nope, the Marshalls that Hendrix used at Monterey were his own,

Well I listened to Pete tell the story on one of those TV show interviews, that's the way he told it...he said Hendrix borrowed his amps and he is angry ( not really, he laughed ) that Jimi got the credit for using the stacks first !

Maybe I have the Concert location wrong...

It's all good...I still like Pete with the AC100's...

That's where I got it from...

brewwagon
October 11th, 2011, 07:08 PM
Shea Stadium
http://tlb.hwcdn.net/g5a9r2d3/cds/media/2ba/d88cd58999043/view.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/48/128620676_3dd47ec787_z.jpg


GEORGE: "This was the first time that one of those stadiums was used for a rock concert."

PAUL: " Once you know you've filled a place that size, it's magic; just walls of people. Half the fun was being involved in this gigantic event ourselves."

Over 55,000 people came to watch this ground-breaking concert, the sound of which was completely dominated by screaming of the audience. The huge number of security guards were kept occupied by fainting girls and audience members attempting to reach the field stage

h6TIEkB4_F8


http://www.beatles.com/

Jimo
October 11th, 2011, 07:36 PM
Wouldn't matter if he could. He didn't invent 'em. George Did.

(Which is why "Oh, yeah? -- let's see you play that solo as well as he did" never really works as an argument; it's too far removed from the point. :grin:)

EXACTLY! It is one thing to be able to COPY something, and quite another to COME UP with it. You also need to realize that at the time they hit, MOST of the other "Rock" bands were playing c,f and g Chuck Berry variations. There music was like from another world, I was there, thats how I know. Cheers! JIMO

p.s. I was in another discussion with one guy who was slagging The Beatles, and I said, "WEll, who do YOU like?"..he said "Porter Wagoner".....ahh, Okey Dokey!!!!!!!! hahahahahhaa

brewwagon
October 11th, 2011, 07:46 PM
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/5919/thebeatlesrooftop.jpg

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/363/letitbbeatles.jpg

Justinvs
October 11th, 2011, 07:47 PM
Imagine if we can, with today's criteria, a band like the Beatles touring with 3 small amps , a low wattage MAINS system only and playing for 20,000 people ! Hard to imagine !

Most garage bands today kick out more power than the Beatles had during that tour.

Blazer
October 11th, 2011, 07:48 PM
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/5919/thebeatlesrooftop.jpg

Note the PA speakers, pointing both downwards and facing the band.

DougieLove
October 11th, 2011, 07:49 PM
The OP asked about rating the four Beatles as musicians, and in my mind, I think two out of the four are beyond reproach. John and Paul were outstanding musicians - they were extremely creative, knew just what to play, what instruments/harmonies would sound right, etc. I think George is very good, but not outstanding.
Yes, George's solos are memorable. Yes, George's solos incorporated country, rockabilly, pop, etc... And that's part of musicianship - knowing what to play when, melding various styles into something that works for the song. But his songwriting never really did it for me.

As far as instrument talent, I think Paul is outstanding. George is very good and John is above average. George could play, without a doubt, and he could write a great song, and he could play a solo that fit a song perfectly, but as far as talent as a guitar player, I don't think he's in the stratosphere. In my eyes, guys like Clapton, Hendrix, Green, Taylor...heck even Paul Simon...are more skilled as a guitarist than George. Again, that's not to say George is bad. I still think he's very good, but not "all that". George inspires me to create melodic solos that fit the song. Paul Simon inspires me to become a better finger-picking guitarist. Eddie Van Halen inspires me to become a better guitarist.

Jimo
October 11th, 2011, 07:53 PM
Every time this quote appears it's always taken out of context. John was asked in an interview if he thought Ringo as the best drummer in the world. He answered with that throwaway, sarcastic joke.

That was just John's way. Something he did, especially when faced with interview after interview, usually asking all the same questions. The others did too to a degree. It stems from the caustic, self-deprecating Liverpool sense of humour. It doesn't always travel well and sometimes people took his remarks at face value when they shouldn't have. (See the 'bigger than Jesus' controversy).

This is what John said about Ringo in 1971, when for once, he was being serious.

And in 1980.

And George, in a Guitar interview 1987.


Btw, I am biased, I play in a little Beatles tribute duo. We call ourselves The Dung Beatles. (Because all the good Beatles related names were taken and this was the only one left :grin:).

Ringo was a LEFT handed drummer, playing a RIGHT handed kit---if you are a drummer, you will realize why he started fills at the "wrong' time....Cheers!

brewwagon
October 11th, 2011, 07:55 PM
v5k-OE0-fWs


George Harrison (also known as "the quiet beatle")
– lead guitarist for the Beatles and Traveling Wilburys, as well as a best-selling solo artist. He was one of the world’s most famous sitar players, was devoted to East Indian music and culture, and helped introduce it to the west.

JMfJeAC4Rgc


p4G2RlBKbrM


note by the time George Harrison was 15, Lennon and the others had accepted him as one of the band. the rest is history...

LeftyAl
October 11th, 2011, 09:21 PM
thanks Brew for putting up those videos.I had never seen them before.that was great stuff.Like we all say ,Anybody could copy something (even me) try coming up with it yourself. Anyone ever hear the story of the title song of "A hards days night" That the producers wanted a song for the title of the movie,which had none yet.24 hours later they had it .And it's a great song. And what was that chord at the end ?

stantheman
October 11th, 2011, 09:31 PM
John, Paul, George and Ringo were and still are The Ultimate Chemistry Set.

There have been scant few and virtuosity with the exception of The Miles Davis Quintet is not a key ingredient. Plus the fact that The MDQ was Jazz.

So, aside from The Beatles let's see who I think qualifies...
In no particular order.

!. Dr.Feelgood
@. Creedence Clearwater Revival
#. Snooks Eaglin, George Porter Jr., Ken Blevins and John Cleary
$. The Lovin' Spoonful
%. Treat Her Right

Of course Snooks has to be counted as a virtuoso because he's perhaps the greatest who ever lived but mainly I'm talking chemistry.

garytelecastor
October 11th, 2011, 09:43 PM
Man, I love that song!

Who was playing the Tele behind George? You get a real good look at him just before the first solo.

Justin

Bent is right. It's Jesse Ed Davis.
That ending where Harrison and Clapton are soloing is a piece of history.

I have been really studying the approaches of different musicians lately. One of the things that comes through is that the really good ones aren't afraid of space in their playing.

Kind of like John Cage and 5 minutes of silence.

garytelecastor
October 11th, 2011, 09:44 PM
John, Paul, George and Ringo were and still are The Ultimate Chemistry Set.

There have been scant few and virtuosity with the exception of The Miles Davis Quintet is not a key ingredient. Plus the fact that The MDQ was Jazz.

So, aside from The Beatles let's see who I think qualifies...
In no particular order.

!. Dr.Feelgood
@. Creedence Clearwater Revival
#. Snooks Eaglin, George Porter Jr., Ken Blevins and John Cleary
$. The Lovin' Spoonful
%. Treat Her Right

Of course Snooks has to be counted as a virtuoso because he's perhaps the greatest who ever lived but mainly I'm talking chemistry.


Stan-I think you could include the Crusaders in that file.

garytelecastor
October 11th, 2011, 09:51 PM
Here is a thought that just went through my mind.

Back in the 50's when John put this band together, does anyone think that
he even "imagined" a day that they would still be a hot topic for conversation
when they reached their 70's?

It is absolutely phenomenal that these guys haven't been around as an act for
over 40 years and here we are still trying to figure it all out.
I think that alone should justify their abilities as musicians.

w3stie
October 11th, 2011, 09:51 PM
I gotta say that George Martin was irreplaceable in the equation of the Beatles. His experience in the pop song market for 20+ years before becoming their producer was a stroke of fate. He and those 4 minds were creative paradise.

+1 It's hard to overestimate the contribution of George Martin, the "fifth Beatle".

garytelecastor
October 11th, 2011, 09:59 PM
Just as a side note.
Dolly Parton has published over 3000 songs.

MarrFan
October 11th, 2011, 10:22 PM
ringo on his "premier" kit

http://ringosbeatlekits.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Premier_17a.114180520_std.jpg

http://ringosbeatlekits.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/beatles20ringo20at20Premiere20kit21.183195456_std. jpg

The Story Behind Ringo’s Drums
By Charlie West

They are the world’s most famous percussion instrument.

The Black Oyster Pearl, Ludwig Super Classic drum set that bears the name of the most famous band in our history, The Beatles. Certainly no other drum kit is as well known.

It is believed that Ringo may still have this original Ludwig kit.

The Ludwig drums and the Beatles logo became the centerpiece of the Beatles stage set from mid 1963 through August of 1966. Amazingly, not much has been written about Ringo’s drums.

Ringo didn’t always play Ludwig drums. In fact his first drum kit was a used set that was purchased for him as a Christmas gift. Up until this time, Ringo had been playing biscuit tins and pieces of firewood.

In February 1957, Ringo started playing in a band. All of the guys in the group worked at the same factory and played for their fellow workmen in a cellar during lunch. They started playing all the freebies that they could get, such as weddings and clubs. Ringo was becoming a semi-professional. He was an Engineer at the factory by day, and at night he played drums. He would play dances with Eddie Miles and some other groups. Later he would play with Rory Storm, which is where Ringo’s career really got started. He played and practiced with a lot of the groups in Liverpool.

Ringo’s drum kit was old and it was time to step up to something a bit newer. In the summer of 1958 Ringo borrowed £46 from his grandfather, went to Frank Hessy’s Music store, and bought an Ajax single headed kit. The appeal may have been that it looked similar to a Ludwig kit that he had seen.

While playing with Rory Storm and the Hurricanes in Hamburg, Germany, in 1960, Ringo purchased a set of Premier drums. On the front bass drum head was the “Premier” logo and “Ringo Starr” just below it.

When Ringo was asked to join The Beatles, he still had the Premier kit. Many of the early recordings were made with this kit. Sometime between September 4, 1962, and February 17, 1963, Ringo’s name was replaced by a Beatles logo. The logo that appeared on Ringo’s Premier drum kit was based on Paul’s doodles. Terry Tex O’Hara, a Liverpool artist, designed the actual logo. It is a script type font with a “B” that has beetle-like antenna and a tiny “THE” above it. The logo was printed on a cloth banner that was stretched across the drumhead and was held in place by the drums rim. The banner also provided some muffling for the drum. This was one of many of the logo designs to come.

Sometime in early 1963, Ringo planned to replace his Premier kit, so he went to Music City, a large music store on Salisbury Street in London, to order a new Premier kit. The owner of Music City, Ivor Arbiter, had just been granted exclusive rights to distribute U.S. made Ludwig drums in Britain. Dave Martin, a salesman at Music City, talked up the Ludwig Drums to Ringo. Ringo was familiar with the drums because he had played a Ludwig kit owned by Tony Mansfield (drummer for the Dakotas). Ringo fell in love with the new Black Oyster Pearl drum finish. When he learned that it was only available on Ludwig Drums, the deal was sealed. There was one catch. Ringo insisted that a large Ludwig logo be printed across the bass drum head. At that time Ludwig did not put logos on its drumheads. Brian Epstein, The Beatles’ manager, quickly countered that the band was called “The Beatles” and that the bands name should be displayed on the drumhead. Arbiter, who realized the marketing potential and wanted to save the sale, quickly came up with a compromise. Arbiter thought that a large Beatles logo could be printed across the drumhead, but room could also be left for Ringo’s requested Ludwig logo. He brought out a piece of paper, drew a drumhead and then sketched out the famous “The Beatles” drum logo. Ringo took possession of the new Ludwig kit and new logo on June 17, 1963.

The first time Ringo used his new kit in public, he was at the recording of “EasyBeat”, at the Playhouse, on June 23, 1963. The British community got their first viewing of the new drum kit and logo during the Saturday, June 29, television program.

Ringo used seven different front bass drum heads from 1963 to 1967. Each head sported a logo that was a little different from the others. The original head was of course a “Ludwig Weather Master” and can be identified by the logo bearing the same name, at the bottom of the head. Some of the other drumheads were “Remo Weather King” and can be identified by the logo at the top of the head. Ringo experimented with various muffling techniques. Perhaps this accounted for the different kinds of drumheads and the varied placement of muffling material.

Only two of the heads have ever surfaced. Russ Lease is the proud owner of the head that was used during the first Beatles performance on the Ed Sullivan Show. Russ purchased the drumhead from Sotheby’s in London. In 1997, Bonham’s Auctioneers and Valuers ran an “all Beatles” auction in Japan. The auction included a Beatles bass drumhead. In the early 70’s a Chicago radio station somehow acquired “the drums that Ringo played at the 1965 Shea Stadium Concert”. They held a contest and gave them away to some lucky listener! The head that Bonham’s auctioned off is from this drum set. There is no word on what happened to the rest of the set.

Ringo had several Black Oyster Pearl drum kits. Some of the photos taken at Abby Road Studios show two of these kits. Expense records indicate that in May 1964, Drum City supplied Ringo with a £350 drum kit at no charge.

It is generally accepted that Ringo played Zildjian Cymbals. 14” hi-hats, 18” Medium thin crash, and an 18” or 20” ride. This is further evidenced by the fact that Don Bennett’s Drum Studio in Bellevue, Washington actually has Ringo’s “original” hi hat, and crash cymbals. We also know that Ringo plays Zildjians today. There is however evidence that exists that maybe Ringo didn’t always play Zildjians.

In Ringo’s expense reports from 1961 - 1963 there is an entry where Ringo purchased a set of Swiss made Paiste Cymbals. This entry is made about the same time that Ringo purchased his Ludwig kit. It would have been easier to obtain the Paiste Cymbals at that time. Ludwig distributed Paiste Cymbals. Also, with Ringo spending so much time in Germany and Sweden, it would have made the Paiste Cymbals much easier to obtain than the Zildjians. Expense records indicate that he purchased Paiste Cymbal, but Don Bennett has an original Zildjian 18” Medium Crash Cymbal with Paul’s inscription to Ringo!

Since not much has been written about Ringo’s drums, one is often left to speculate….

© 2000 Charlie West

http://www.ringosbeatlekits.com/

Check out the story on Ringo's drum-head story here:
http://beatlesuits.com/Beatlesuits_Saga7.htm

macdog
October 11th, 2011, 10:43 PM
There's a difference between being a player and being a musician. The latter involves taste, intelligence, imagination, intuition, in working with other musicians, arranging songs, working in the studio and so on. These are qualities The Beatles had in spades. Sitar in rock music, backwards tapes, lines like "Man you should have seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe"; you could go on with lots more examples. They were the great innovators.

mr natural
October 11th, 2011, 10:53 PM
Hmmm... I've been saying for years that the Beatles could have been the greatest bar band ever, if only they hadn't become famous. It was all about the chemistry. Whatever "it" is, they had it in spades. As for the PA and sound system history, it looked like the rooftop concert PA speakers were WEM. You can't overlook Charlie Watkins in any discussion of PA development. He was the man. I actualy emailed back and forth with him several years ago. Interesting guy.
-Mr. N.

Geoff738
October 11th, 2011, 11:42 PM
I have not read the whole thread. Nor am I going to.

With that caveat I will say that if an artists goal in making their art should be to inspire, entertain, uplift, engage, provoke an emotional response (usually one of pleasure - but not necessarily)and if you agree with that general statement - and you may not - then the Beatles should be considered among the most successful musicians of their time.

Now, as technicians - no, they are not technically capable of playing their instruments with the speed or precision of many.

But so what. If that were the goal we would all be listening to Gentle Giant or Steve Vai or something. Nothing wrong with that either. Just that if your goal as an artist - as a musician - is to make an emotional connection with an audience, its hard for me to imagine who has done that to a greater, deeper, degree than the Fabs in my lifetime.

And I say all this as someone who is not really a Beatles fan.

As technicians, sure there may be better players.

But, George developed a signature slide style.
Macca, as much as I despise his public persona, is just a mega-musical guy and one of my top bass players. Period.
Ringo - well, he has his own thing. Maybe underrated.
John - may have been instrumentally the least talented or versatile. But he could sure belt one out with intensity.

So, they may not be great players. But they are, or were, great musicians.

Just my take. YMMV. Etc.

Cheers,
GEoff

Mike Eskimo
October 12th, 2011, 12:04 AM
Of course Snooks has to be counted as a virtuoso because he's perhaps the greatest who ever lived but mainly I'm talking chemistry.

+1

Snooks knew 1,000 songs and he could blow more guitarists off the stage w/ just the back of his finger than anybody.

Ok -

back to the boring and over-discussed Beatles...

ringodingo
October 12th, 2011, 12:17 AM
I don't play a Telecaster because of the Beatles, but I do play guitar because of the Beatles.

Justinvs
October 12th, 2011, 12:46 AM
Bent is right. It's Jesse Ed Davis.
That ending where Harrison and Clapton are soloing is a piece of history.


I wondered if that's who it was.

Justin

Good Iron
October 12th, 2011, 05:01 AM
We would all write great songs if we were able to ingest nicotine at the level these guys were able to, now it is virtually impossible to book a session that allows smoking to the degree these guys were so freely able to do. Nicotine is a great drug, it is too bad that it is so bad for the health (and the health of others) and this is a real drag. I quit the "happy" drug, but I remember the days of nicotine. Hey... need another verse? Lets have a smoke and we will get one out. This is why the Beatles were successful. I am not sure that Jesse smoked but if he was on the Bangladesh gig he probably did and this is why he was there because he smoked cigarettes and he probably had a good stash of Shermans or something better I am sure. Just sayin... it isn't always what is appears to be. It is mostly illusion and Fantasy. :mrgreen:

But seriously, when it comes down to talent or persistence, choose persistence. This is what my dad said to me, and I believe it. Unfortunately I am talented, so I have relied on my talent, I have done okay, but... :sad:

The up side, life is not over and I am getting mighty hungry - not hungry enough to start smoking again, but pretty hungry!!!

Michael

JaysRiff
October 12th, 2011, 06:24 AM
They were a great unit the sum of all parts as others have said but i must say & i know im gonna get slammed for saying it but i think alot of their stuff is throw away & jingle-ish.
I listen to lennons solo stuff alot more than any beatles album.

bcarter_1
October 12th, 2011, 07:02 AM
George played to fit the song, he decided he had other interests than to "impress" us.
The ability to play for the song is one of his best streingths, that and his ability to harmonize.

Durtdog
October 12th, 2011, 08:00 AM
As I said, you can't measure guitarists because we will all have our own criteria. I said it isn't a 100 yard dash where a clear winner can be declared.

But in this thread I have rated George against others because that's what this thread is asking. Using my criteria, George does not qualify as an elite. You really think he is up there with Merle Travis? Chet Atkins? Clapton? Page? George himself would say no to that.
I have no idea what your criteria are...lots of notes, number of chords played etc. I know my own criteria is what music/guitar playing moves me, not who is most technically proficient. That's why I listen to music, to be moved, not to see who the best athletic player is.

And you should stop telling us what George would say. You don't know.

mickmac
October 12th, 2011, 08:09 AM
George Harrison RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fuzzbender
October 12th, 2011, 08:22 AM
Sorry i don't keep up to date, who are the Beatles?

toddfan
October 12th, 2011, 09:03 AM
Why?

I mean, I can see MAYBE saying that a great guitarist should BE ABLE TO employ chordings and techniques that that the average 13 year old beginner can not do. But the real mark of a great guitarist is playing the exact right part for the song, isn't it?

Tim

+1

"TASTE" trumps "TECHNIQUE" every time.

Born2Run
October 12th, 2011, 09:21 AM
this is about as good as it gets as far as i'm concerned. ranks up there with any mccartney or lennon tune (in my opinion)
wynYMJwEPH8

kelnet
October 12th, 2011, 10:05 AM
George always had the best hair in the band, and the Beatles were the first hair band.

Thorby Bislam
October 12th, 2011, 10:16 AM
Ringo was a LEFT handed drummer, playing a RIGHT handed kit---if you are a drummer, you will realize why he started fills at the "wrong' time....Cheers!

Jimo, are you taking me to task for quoting George Harrison?

Fyi, The Beatles formed a large part of the soundtrack to my childhood. Their music is no wiki exercise to me. It's bound up in my DNA, absorbed through osmosis.

68 Shovelhead
October 12th, 2011, 10:42 AM
Wrong.

If you're talking about when they were in the Beatles, Paul did have the virtuoso bass lines - fine.

For the 3rd time (or fourth?) :

George Harrison was a world-class slide player.

That was his voice and nine times out of ten, post-Beatles - that's how he would solo.

In a rock/pop, non-blues context ? He had no peer.

The fact that so few Beatles "fans" have an understanding of this is stunning.


I agree 100%, his slide playing always got my attention, it's both masterful and emotive. I understand other people may have different priorities as a listener than I do, and it's okay that George doesn't do it for them, but I happen to think he's fantastic.

Here's an example of his slide work that I feel is particularly tastey (Sorry, I haven't figured out how to imbed youtube clips).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6fJfXLjwxQ

I think it's silly to compare musicians, what consitutes good music to each listener is not an intellectual choice, it's all left brain and heart IMO.

Red Square
October 12th, 2011, 03:01 PM
My take?
George- Good guitarist, improved vastly as he went along, great slide player, superb songwriter from 68-72, incredible singer.
John- All around brilliant musician. Incredibly inventive songwriter. Fantastic singer. Fine rhythm guitarist.
Paul- One of the best bass players ever. One of the best song writers ever. One of the best singers ever. Good drummer. Great guitarist. Not too crazy about his material after 74 or so.
Rich Starkey- Inventive, patient drummer. Great meter. Heart of gold.

The Beatles- By far the most important musicians of the last several centuries. This world we live in would be a vastly different place had they not come along.

SolidSnakeBoss
October 12th, 2011, 03:27 PM
I don't play a Telecaster because of the Beatles, but I do play guitar because of the Beatles.

I do. I fell in love with George's rosewood tele.:razz:

klasaine
October 12th, 2011, 06:07 PM
The Beatles- By far the most important musicians of the last several centuries. This world we live in would be a vastly different place had they not come along.

Lets say Amongst the most important: Palestrina, Monteverdi, Bach, Mozart, Stravinsky, Coltrane, Gershwin, Muddy Waters ... there's a few more:mrgreen:.

DrumBob
October 12th, 2011, 10:31 PM
Whether or not, individually, they were "the best" or even "great", there is no denying that as a group they were magic. The whole was greater than the sum of it's parts.


Seems to happen a lot with great bands. If it were all about individual components "super groups" should always be smashing; instead sometimes they work and sometimes they don't.

+1000. Totally right. Here's how I would rate them individually:

John Lennon: Great rhythm guitarist, genius composer with McCartney.

George Harrison: Played appropriately perfect parts for every song. Incredible rockabilly style lead player, and stylish slide player.

Paul McCartney: Amazing bass player, talented multi-instrumentalist, genius composer with Lennon.

Red Square
October 13th, 2011, 09:10 AM
Lets say Amongst the most important: Palestrina, Monteverdi, Bach, Mozart, Stravinsky, Coltrane, Gershwin, Muddy Waters ... there's a few more.

I disagree. I was speaking in the context of them making the world a very different place.
With all due respect to John Coltrane and Muddy, I don't think they had the lasting societal impact the Fab's did.
The classical composers that you reference were indeed genius' by and large, but they didn't put as big a ripple in the pond as did the Beatles. Perhaps back then if they had access to "modern" methods of media as the Beatles enjoyed, they would have.

gypsyseven
October 13th, 2011, 09:15 AM
My vote goes out for George....

rand z
October 13th, 2011, 09:23 AM
Why?

I mean, I can see MAYBE saying that a great guitarist should BE ABLE TO employ chordings and techniques that that the average 13 year old beginner can not do. But the real mark of a great guitarist is playing the exact right part for the song, isn't it?

Tim

a BIG... YES!!!!!!!!


rand z

gibsonjunkie
October 13th, 2011, 09:25 AM
I disagree. I was speaking in the context of them making the world a very different place.
With all due respect to John Coltrane and Muddy, I don't think they had the lasting societal impact the Fab's did.
The classical composers that you reference were indeed genius' by and large, but they didn't put as big a ripple in the pond as did the Beatles. Perhaps back then if they had access to "modern" methods of media as the Beatles enjoyed, they would have.

Palestrina - Adam de la Hale, Josquin De Pres, Pierre De la Rue... if not for them music would still be church-centric -this was earth shattering back then. - If it wasn't for Montiverdi we would not have gotten opera. He helped bring about the late renaissance-early baroque period. Likewise Mozart helped bring in the Classical period, etc.

While they may not seem as significant to us because we didn't live back then, these musicians had as significant an impact on the times as the Beatles did for our generation. In many regards (with help from scientists, authors and others) they helped usher in entire changes in society - as could also be said about the Beatles.

TJNY
October 13th, 2011, 09:28 AM
At this point, do they need to be rated!!?? They were great. All of them.

Cheesehead
October 13th, 2011, 09:51 AM
My take?
George- Good guitarist, improved vastly as he went along, great slide player, superb songwriter from 68-72, incredible singer.
John- All around brilliant musician. Incredibly inventive songwriter. Fantastic singer. Fine rhythm guitarist.
Paul- One of the best bass players ever. One of the best song writers ever. One of the best singers ever. Good drummer. Great guitarist. Not too crazy about his material after 74 or so.
Rich Starkey- Inventive, patient drummer. Great meter. Heart of gold.

The Beatles- By far the most important musicians of the last several centuries. This world we live in would be a vastly different place had they not come along.

I think you pretty much ended all arguments right there.

My thoughts exactly.

kelnet
October 13th, 2011, 10:12 AM
There is no way to measure guitarists. This isn't the 100 yard dash where you can declare a clear winner. We will all have different criteria when it comes to rating a guitarist.

To me the greatest guitarist that ever lived was John Lennon. Yup, the guy who played open cowboy chords and played maybe five leads in his entire life is the greatest guitar player that ever picked up a guitar. My top criteria for a guitar player is the ability to write a song on guitar. No one tops John in that category therefore he is the best guitar player I have ever come across.

- songwriting ability
- technical prowess
- tone and vibe
- innovation
The criteria for greatness all lies in that, but who's to say which is more important than another?

Interesting contradiction there. Based on your criteria for comparing guitarists, how does Eddie Van Halen compare to John Lennon? Joe Satriani would surely outpoint Lennon, wouldn't he?

As I said, you can't measure guitarists because we will all have our own criteria. I said it isn't a 100 yard dash where a clear winner can be declared.

But in this thread I have rated George against others because that's what this thread is asking. Using my criteria, George does not qualify as an elite. You really think he is up there with Merle Travis? Chet Atkins? Clapton? Page? George himself would say no to that.

There you go again. You are measuring him against others when you just said that you can't. Which is it? If you can't measure him against others, then how can Chet Atkins be better?

Personally, I PREFER to listen to Page, Gilmour, Knopfler, and many others, but I wouldn't say that any one of them is better than another. I just happen to like their music more that I like George's music.
On the other hand, I think it's prefectly fine to compare some guitar players and say that one is better than another. I think that Michael Hedges is a better guitarist than John Fogerty. I think that Tommy Emmanuel is a better guitarist than Ron Wood. However, those are easy comparisons. Virtuosity is easy to spot, and we can simply focus on the technical skill.
It gets impossible when you're talking about the vague concept of musicianship. As so many have said here, George was the right guy in the right band. He contributed musically in ways that a more technical virtuoso perhaps wouldn't. I can't imagine Eddie Van Halen in The Beatles.
It's also impossible to compare guitarists who are doing similar things musically. Is Brad Whitford better than Malcolm Young? Is Joe Satriani better than Steve Vai? Is Freddie King better than Albert Collins? You can't really say. In the end, it doesn't matter how one guitarist ranks against another. It's really about whether or not we like the songs that we hear.

getar
October 13th, 2011, 10:31 AM
George is #21 on RollingStone's list of 100 best guitarists. He's #11 on Gibson.com's list of top 50 guitarists.

Sounds pretty elite to me.

The rolling stone list Is garbage as they have Kurt cobain #4 and gilmour in the high eighties.

getar
October 13th, 2011, 10:37 AM
we have plenty of youtubers doing covers but most lack the creative chops to write those epic pieces they play. Paul was the best muscian, but georges songs are my favorite.

klasaine
October 13th, 2011, 11:45 AM
I disagree. I was speaking in the context of them making the world a very different place.
With all due respect to John Coltrane and Muddy, I don't think they had the lasting societal impact the Fab's did.
The classical composers that you reference were indeed genius' by and large, but they didn't put as big a ripple in the pond as did the Beatles. Perhaps back then if they had access to "modern" methods of media as the Beatles enjoyed, they would have.

'socially' - I'll agree with that.
The musicians I mentioned though: Palestrina, Monteverdi, Bach, Mozart, Stravinsky, Coltrane, Gershwin, Muddy Waters absolutely changed music as overnight as possible considering the limitations of the eras they lived during. I'll throw Elvis in there too.
*Stravinsky and Elvis had a pretty huge impact on European and American society respectively. Imagine being a teenager in Paris in 1910 when the Firebird was premiered or a high school student in Wisconsin in 1956 when 'the King' first appeared on Ed Sullivan. From what I can ascertain - from folks that were there - it was about the same as the Fab 4's impact, at least initially.

The Beatles were also very much of their time. Which was one of the more unique eras of history. They were able, whether consciously or not to take advantage of the zeitgeist. Timing and lighting as an old GF of mine used to say.

Red Square
October 13th, 2011, 11:46 AM
Palestrina - Adam de la Hale, Josquin De Pres, Pierre De la Rue... if not for them music would still be church-centric -this was earth shattering back then. - If it wasn't for Montiverdi we would not have gotten opera. He helped bring about the late renaissance-early baroque period. Likewise Mozart helped bring in the Classical period, etc.

While they may not seem as significant to us because we didn't live back then, these musicians had as significant an impact on the times as the Beatles did for our generation. In many regards (with help from scientists, authors and others) they helped usher in entire changes in society - as could also be said about the Beatles.

Point taken. And they did come up with musicians having long hair first as well.

brewwagon
October 13th, 2011, 11:49 AM
hell what about chuck berry!?!

http://images.wikia.com/lyricwiki/images/0/00/ChuckBerry.jpg

( beethoven just rolled over in his grave :lol:)

Red Square
October 13th, 2011, 11:52 AM
'socially' - I'll agree with that.
The musicians I mentioned though: Palestrina, Monteverdi, Bach, Mozart, Stravinsky, Coltrane, Gershwin, Muddy Waters absolutely changed music as overnight as possible considering the limitations of the eras they lived during. I'll throw Elvis in there too.
*Stravinsky and Elvis had a pretty huge impact on European and American society respectively. Imagine being a teenager in Paris in 1910 when the Firebird was premiered or a high school student in Wisconsin in 1956 when 'the King' first appeared on Ed Sullivan. From what I can ascertain - from folks that were there - it was about the same as the Fab 4's impact, at least initially.

The Beatles were also very much of their time. Which was one of the more unique eras of history. They were able, whether consciously or not to take advantage of the zeitgeist. Timing and lighting as an old G

Excellent points.
And just for the record I'm not attempting to equate "The Firebird Suite" with "I don't want to spoil the party",...I was merely speaking of sheer impact on huge numbers of people....but I know nothing (well....very little) of musical history....Bach may very well have inspired millions of kids to play music (mainly to pick up girls).

klasaine
October 13th, 2011, 12:09 PM
Yes, Chuck Berry set the world on fire with his guitar.
Actually as a guitarist, Segovia inspired an entire generation to pick up guitars. He also legitimized an instrument that was primarily considered a womens instrument or something just for entertaining in the parlour or at picnics. Flamenco was the jazz or hip-hop of the day ... only played and listened to in bars/brothels by the 'underclasses'. During Segovia's lifetime (thankfully very long) it became a 'concert' instrument. *Segovia was way into chicks too! Seriously.

*"for the record I'm not attempting to equate "The Firebird Suite" with "I don't want to spoil the party"

My dad was into classical and jazz and my mom liked elvis and the beatles.
I grew up 'literally' hearing the Firebird and I don't want to spoil the party. to this day I like them both the same and they both had a huge impact on my life.

Red Square
October 13th, 2011, 12:42 PM
For some weird reason whenever I hear Firebird Suite I'm always expecting it to be followed by Siberian Khatru.
; )

klasaine
October 13th, 2011, 12:51 PM
:mrgreen:
'Close to the Edge' and 'Going for the One' are in constant rotation in my car.

OK so here's just my very personal opinion (repeat, MY personal opinion) ... Steve Howe gets my vote for best overall guitarist any style any era. *I won't respond back on this because it's just my own thing :wink:.

scud133
October 13th, 2011, 01:47 PM
just this week on the Gibby website they just picked John as one of the top ten rhythm players. Keef was numero uno.

brewwagon
October 13th, 2011, 02:12 PM
yes!

0XuRxzYeXWw

Big Burly
October 13th, 2011, 02:21 PM
Well, I just have to chime in. This may be a long post.

All of this is IMHO, mind you. MY opinion, which has zero worth to anyone.

I grew up with my mom playing Beatles LPs in the 70s. She flat wore them out. Especially Help, Rubber Soul, and Revolver.

I used to say, without hesitation, that Rubber Soul was my favorite Beatles album. Now I say it is their trilogy of Help-Rubber Soul-Revolver. I had forgotten all of the great stuff on Help until I got the CD a few years ago. Same with Revolver. All great stuff, for sure. Their stuff before and after this "trilogy" was hit-and-miss for me. Still a lot of good stuff, but a lot of stuff I'm not wild about as well.

I also have, unofficially, kind-of, analyzed the Beatles songs that I really like. Mostly John's singing, followed by George's stuff, then Ringo's. Only one of my favorites was sung by Paul. Of the stuff I'm not wild about, the majority of it was sung by Paul. I don't like a lot of the weird stuff that John did on later Beatles stuff. I can't think of a Beatles song by George that I don't like.

I've never been a big fan of Paul as a lead singer. I admire some of his songwriting. I admire his musicality and musicianship. I love his harmony singing.

I don't think most give enough credit to Lennon's rhythm guitar. He really drove the songs well.

George is my favorite Beatle. His songwriting developed.matured later than John and Paul's, and I'd argue that by the end of the Beatles he became their best songwriter, even counting Paul and John's output. George had the better solo albums, IMHO. Ringo had more radio hits than ANY other Beatle in the 70s! And I like his solo output.

Ringo wasn't an overly flashy drummer. He wasn't a huge power-drummer either. He kept the beat and was very tasteful with his drumming. His drum playing is recognizable. I consider Ringo as a great drummer. Yes, others may be fancier or faster. There are a LOT of great drummers. Ringo is one of them. (Hell, Charlie Watts isn't fancy and he plays with a simple Gretsch drum kit. He's a killer drummer!)

I've seen an interview, but I don't remember which Beatle gave it. Paraphrasing it, he basically said that there were a lot of better musicians than the individual Beatles in the world, but as a band, the Beatles were the best because they played as a band, together.

Rasmuth
October 13th, 2011, 02:50 PM
someone mentioned Ringo wasn't a power drummer....

listen to the broadcast that was recorded live in Stockholm just months before they broke huge around the world...

Ringo's drumming is huge....

http://straighttalk.podomatic.com/entry/2008-07-27T19_48_20-07_00

Skully
October 13th, 2011, 03:09 PM
Ringo had more radio hits than ANY other Beatle in the 70s!

No, that honor goes to Paul, unless you disqualify him for being a member of a group (Wings).

Nighthawk
October 13th, 2011, 03:17 PM
im sure the answer is like...they were over shadowed by clapton beck page and hendrix...but they were solid musicians from what ive read and heard people say

The Beatles were a band, a group, Beck, Clapton and Hendrix were in groups or had their own but they were virtuosos, it was about them not the group. Only in Cream was Clapton in a group where it was more about the whole than about him and that includes Derek and the Dominoes. Same can be said of Page whom you did not mention, because Zep had other players who were as important as Page was. Comparing the Beatles to the gentlemen you mention is comparing apples to oranges. They were four the others were alone, even if they were surrounded by other musicians in a band,

Nighthawk
October 13th, 2011, 03:18 PM
The most important, influential and popular recordings of the rock era, recorded mostly in full-band takes on 2 and 4 track tape recorders. All four were very good on their instruments, and more important, were PHENOMENAL playing TOGETHER!

Tim


Yep, this^^^^^^

stantheman
October 13th, 2011, 03:20 PM
Something You may or may not have known - but probably not.
Richard Starkey has been known to go to "Beatle Tribute Band Auditions" and usually gets disqualified because he doesn't "look like Ringo." :mrgreen:

I have this on excellent authority which I shall not disclose.

chabby
October 13th, 2011, 04:16 PM
I'd also note that George did play some pretty hip things, even early on. He had some very nice rockabilly/Chet Atkins technique, and later on developed a very distinctive and lovely slide guitar touch.

Tim

He did indeed and I loved Georges solo works all the way up to "Crackerbox Palace". You heard one note and knew instantly that style of slide, which was very melodic compared to most.

In that way George was one of the first Rock players to employ melodic slide playing and greased the skids for others to try. Still to this day, there are very few slide players that play melodically like George did. The only one I've ever heard that took melodic slide to the net level was David Lindley who's considered a musical genius.

Georges work on the White Album and Abbey Road were critical to the whole.
Paul was indeed the resident musical genius and really did everything well.
But George was a very humble team player that stayed out of Paul and Johns way............no easy feat.

kelnet
October 13th, 2011, 04:30 PM
Something You may or may not have known - but probably not.
Richard Starkey has been known to go to "Beatle Tribute Band Auditions" and usually gets disqualified because he doesn't "look like Ringo." :mrgreen:

I have this on excellent authority which I shall not disclose.

Maybe they're looking for a young Ringo, not the craggy old guy who just auditioned.

tele12
October 13th, 2011, 06:33 PM
The rolling stone list Is garbage as they have Kurt cobain #4 and gilmour in the high eighties.

Plenty of music fans grew up in the 90's listening to Nirvana. Not only guitarists get to vote in these music polls. And I know quite a few music fans who have no use for Pink Floyd.

chabby
October 13th, 2011, 06:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPJy05efcgE&feature=fvwrel

John at his finest - pay close attention to the second number "twist & Shout" where John was without peer as a Rock n Roll singer.
He just nailed that tune like it was made for him, and he for it.

To this day, every time I hear him sing that sone, it sounds brand new.

SolidSnakeBoss
October 13th, 2011, 10:03 PM
You also hear John here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGWUUEQ0Bt0

G60syncro
October 13th, 2011, 10:48 PM
Back in college I hung out at the campus radio and there was a friend of mine there who just did'nt understand the beatles... He was into prog rock and classical and very cerebral music so to speak and to him the Beatles had nothing particular about them. When I pointed out to him that that's the whole appeal of the deal, the Beatles were just so perfectly balanced, nothing overdone, yet always taking fresh angles from what was done previously... Nothing happened after that conversation.... Then 2 weeks later he comes to me and says "Man, I got Abbey Road and I've been listening to it non-stop ever since!!"

I'm pretty sure none of them would have made it on their own, but as a group they just exploded... that being said, I ure we could say that for a lot of others... Keith Moon's "sloppy drums" would have had no place in the Stones and Clapton would'nt have landed the Cream gig if John Mayall had'nt "rescued" him from the pop bound Yardbirds... who in turn would'nt have morphed into Led Zeppelin if it was'nt for the reunion of Page, Plant, Bonzo and Jones.

Valvey
October 14th, 2011, 07:07 AM
I think it should be pointed out that John was the one who wrote most of their tunes that were based on guitar riffs. That's what makes him one of the best rock guitarists.

Jethro
October 14th, 2011, 10:29 AM
You also hear John here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGWUUEQ0Bt0

Hey that's great!!! I would've assumed that was George until I saw it.

SolidSnakeBoss
October 14th, 2011, 11:49 AM
Hey that's great!!! I would've assumed that was George until I saw it.
Yeah, John was great in that show. I believe George does the 2nd solo which for some reason they skipped it.

rokdog49
October 14th, 2011, 01:34 PM
Just to correct a somewhat universal misconception;
1. John didplay a lot of the leads and solos. The intro on "Day Tripper" and the solo...that was John (Rolling Stone "The Beatles Greatest 100 Songs" published in 2010.) This book is a fabulous insight into how many of these songs were written and a lot of "who did what" is explained. There are many, many songs John played lead and solos. I think he should be considered as the archetypal rhythm guitar player from chord structures to technique. Until McCartney played "chords" on the bass, that was virtually unheard of in popular music. His note patterns, slides and rolls have become commonplace. The intro riff on "And Your Bird Can Sing" If that ain't good guitar playing ask anyone who has played it. ( or tried to) As for creativity, well, if you poll some of the legendary players of every decade from the 70's on, you would find most of them were influenced by the Beatles musicianship in one way or another.

Blazer
October 14th, 2011, 02:15 PM
yes!

0XuRxzYeXWw

Thanks, that was a KILLER version and a great display of the concrete mixer sound of Squire's Rickenbacker bass.

Sombrero Top
October 14th, 2011, 02:32 PM
I don't think most give enough credit to Lennon's rhythm guitar. He really drove the songs well.


This!

This bit of the Rolling Stone interview gives a good idea on how Lennon sees himself as guitar player.

WENNER:
How do you rate yourself as a guitarist?

LENNON:
Well, it depends on what kind of guitarist. I’m OK, I’m not technically good, but I can make it ****ing howl and move. I was rhythm guitarist. It’s an important job. I can make a band drive.

Collirem
October 14th, 2011, 03:08 PM
John - excellent rhythm guitar player. John stated many times how the rhythm guitar parts in the Beatles were so important and essential in moving the composition along and in creating their unifying sound. George - good guitarist overall, innovative without being excessive, excellent slide player during the later years. Ringo - unique style, great rhythm, maybe not innovative, but perfect for the Beatles compositions/sound. Paul - brilliant and creative bass player, accomplished in guitar, (Taxman, Pepper ect.), piano, organ, drums ... all around proficient muscian. It was never about technically skilled solos, it was always about the composition. That's why McCartney wanted the solo ditty from all of them at the end of Abbey Road; just to finally show of little bit (Ringo particularly hated drum solos). It is the magical chemistry of these four diverse talents that made the Beatles the greatest rock band of the century.

chabby
October 14th, 2011, 05:33 PM
I love that solo ditty at the "The End" of Abbey Road, Johns Rhythm is killer, but so is Ringo's drums, Georges stinging lead and Paul's Bass and piano figures. Not to Mention Paul's vocal and the harmonies from George and John.

That really was to me, the definitive and appropriate end to the Beatles.

chabby
October 14th, 2011, 05:49 PM
This video and tune shows why the melding of these two voices was the best to ever grace a stage.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgFfywSem7s&feature=related

chabby
October 14th, 2011, 06:01 PM
This may be the single biggest musical moment of my life and even though I was 5 0r 6 years old, I remember it like yesterday.

My entire family was gathered round the TV eagerly waiting for this moment.
I already had a whole shoe box full if Beatles Cards (yes, there were Beatle cards, just like baseball cards) and Beatle magazines I wish I still had.

A few years later there was even a Beatles Saturday morning cartoon series.
They were likely the only band in history that couldn't be destroyed by over exposure.
They were too new and set too much of their own trend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoZ18rO1Rj0&feature=related

What's also amazing is how they could pull off these harmonies whether playing under pressure for a crowd, or in the studio. Here's a favorite of mine, but the "Nowhere Man" vid live is even better voxy jangly guitars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7ABWbnuQhk&feature=related

Collirem
October 15th, 2011, 12:33 PM
By the way, Ringo's drum solo in "The End" was ripped off directly from Iron Butterfly's In A Gadda Da Vida drum solo. Ringo never came up with much even to the very day of recording so he went with the mini da vida solo. It was great anyway........

Jimo
October 15th, 2011, 01:23 PM
Listen to the drum part of "Come Together"...who else but Ringo would have come up with that?...brilliant! Fab! JIMO

Alex W
October 15th, 2011, 02:40 PM
I think they were all great musicians, even if on a partucular instrument this one or that one was not a virtuoso. Just as there is more to acting than knowing your lines and having a good speaking voice, there is more to being in a band than mastering your instrument. The Beatles' composing and their harmony singing were top notch. They understood how to all work together to serve the song. They were characterized by their taste and restraint as much as other bands are characterized by showing off. Their music is more moving than "impressive," which IMO is what music and musicianship are all about.

android
October 24th, 2011, 09:43 PM
i was watching That Metal Show the other night and they had Sammy Hagar on there and the question for the night was: Who was/is the better guitarist- Satriani or EVH? (Hagar plays in a band with Satch right now).

all but one of the TMS guys + Hagar all said Satch.

I'm laying in bed watching and thinking "Satriani is wonderful, amazing technical player, but EVH has chops out the ass as well...at some point shouldn't 'plays/creates music with the guitar anyone might actually want to listen to' become a part of the rubric'"?

after a certain point of competence (EVH and Satch obviously meet that hurdle) it should be clear that we are talking about MUSIC, not gymnastics.

Beatles were all amazing- and made amazing music with their instruments- they had complete mastery for their objective...and were sneaky good. making it look/sound easy is part of the genius.

Even John (admittedly not a technical dynamo) had great style and a very good right hand.

tele12
October 24th, 2011, 09:55 PM
i was watching That Metal Show the other night and they had Sammy Hagar on there and the question for the night was: Who was/is the better guitarist- Satriani or EVH? (Hagar plays in a band with Satch right now).

all but one of the TMS guys + Hagar all said Satch.

.

Since he is in a band with Satch now I don't see any way Hagar could not have said satch.

DougieLove
October 24th, 2011, 10:10 PM
Since he is in a band with Satch now I don't see any way Hagar could not have said satch.

+1.

android
October 24th, 2011, 10:11 PM
Since he is in a band with Satch now I don't see any way Hagar could not have said satch.

maybe, but when slash was on their previously and velvet revolver was still together he picked axl over scott weiland (of course now they are broken up so you may have a point). i thought it was a nice, honest answer. the fans (the audience) appreciate that i think.

i was more irritated with the rationale expressed by the group- they kept saying "best guitarist" as if saying the word a certain way stripped the word of all meaning related to the making of good music with it and only denoted mechanical playing, speed, etc. i don't agree guitar at its most basic is that- quite the opposite.

when the crowd "voted" by cheering they picked Eddie...as did the guest shredder who plays the bumper music pre/post commercials (who in fact learned from Satch... he said he had to pick Eddie).

just my $0.02

taxer
October 24th, 2011, 10:33 PM
...at some point shouldn't 'plays/creates music with the guitar anyone might actually want to listen to' become a part of the rubric'"?

But the question is, "How much a part of the rubric?"

Elvis lazily strummed cowboy chords on a guitar and an incredible amount of people on Earth wanted to hear it. Should that qualify him as a better guitarist than Satch? On the other hand, Satch strums a guitar that no one on Earth really wants to hear? Should that disqualify him as a top guitarist?

It comes down to how much do you want to count actual connection to an audience when you rate a guitar player.

DougieLove
October 24th, 2011, 11:09 PM
It seems to me that the big debate is really the difference between being a "Guitarist" and a "Musician".

I feel there is a difference between the two.

Being a guitarist incompasses the physical ability to play the guitar with technical prowess. It might not be a catchy song, but it is technically proficient. It is the musician who knows what notes to play when.

Just like I can take a brush and some paint, put it on a canvass, and be called a painter. But not an artist.

toddfan
October 25th, 2011, 08:10 AM
Elvis lazily strummed cowboy chords on a guitar and an incredible amount of people on Earth wanted to hear it. ......

With all due respect...I think people wanted to hear Elvis....SING (and, some wanted to watch him "dance"). :grin:

oldmark
October 25th, 2011, 09:52 AM
Lennon was a very capable rythmic guitarist who could play some nasty, raucus lead guitar and some very nice acoustic as well. George Harrison started as a huge fan of rockabilly, especially Carl Perkins-he actually used the name Carl Harrison for a short time. I beileve he was and still is very underrated in his guitar playing. Paul is a versatile and accomplished multiinstrumentalist. He is a fine keyboard player and composer, a fine guitarist and he wrote some of the most innovative bass lines in pop music to date (along with Brian Wilson). Remember, they ALL composed music and wrote lyrics and all sang as well...that is much different from just playing an instrument.

mark

FWIW, Elvis was a much better guitarist than most people realize, even now, and he and Scotty Moore are high among the creators of rock and roll.

Blazer
October 25th, 2011, 01:03 PM
Probably George Harrison's greatest unknown solo.

NweLoaLuAkU
You hear it's him from that very first note.

Blazer
October 25th, 2011, 01:09 PM
FWIW, Elvis was a much better guitarist than most people realize, even now, and he and Scotty Moore are high among the creators of rock and roll.
Don't forget that Elvis' vigorous strumming was a very strong part of the rythm section of those early years. His version of "Blue suede shoes" for example wouldn't have been as powerful if it didn't have Elvis just slamming away with total abandon.

android
October 25th, 2011, 01:15 PM
But the question is, "How much a part of the rubric?"

Elvis lazily strummed cowboy chords on a guitar and an incredible amount of people on Earth wanted to hear it. Should that qualify him as a better guitarist than Satch? On the other hand, Satch strums a guitar that no one on Earth really wants to hear? Should that disqualify him as a top guitarist?

It comes down to how much do you want to count actual connection to an audience when you rate a guitar player.

I totally agree. That's what I meant by "once you get passed a certain level of chops...", and in this case I think EVH and Joe Satriani meet that bar (I'm sure they will both be relieved to know I feel this way :wink:)

I do agree with someone else's distinction between guitarist/musician, and in the case of the Beatles I think George would be a guitarist (albeit one who wrote great songs) and John would be a musician (who happened to play guitar). I say that for the sake of compromise since I do think John was a good rhythm guitar player.

That said, as between George and one of the "guitar gods" I think fewer notes, tasteful playing, feel, careful implementation of unique chord voicings, etc. are all as valid assessments of someone's abilities as a technical musician than speed. George had all of that.


I'm not sure Picasso had the technical chops to paint as "well" as Thomas Kinkade, but painting is much more than creating an image using a paintbrush, just like causing the guitar to pour forth notes on a scale is a pretty limited view.

Otherwise, every fat goober wearing a Dokken shirt wailing away on a Jackson at Guitar Center for 5 hours every Saturday would be a "great guitarist".

taxer
October 25th, 2011, 01:20 PM
Don't forget that Elvis' vigorous strumming was a very strong part of the rythm section of those early years. His version of "Blue suede shoes" for example wouldn't have been as powerful if it didn't have Elvis just slamming away with total abandon.
Exactly.

Obviously his audience primarily wanted his voice, looks, movement, persona, etc... But to dismiss Elvis' guitar playing would be wrong. On the Sun Sessions music - the very birth of rock and roll - Elvis' guitar playing was just as important as anything else on those records.

StoogeSurfer
October 25th, 2011, 01:32 PM
John McLaughlin plays very fast. He doesn't have to look at the neck either. I find him almost un-listenable.:wink:

oldteleguy
October 25th, 2011, 01:32 PM
I was a sophomore in college when I first heard these guys-I was stunned at how wonderful they sounded-they became my favorite group(all the honies said
I looked very much like George,and I did-another story for another time).As I
grew,I realized that it wasn't only the great chemistry and sound-rather,it seemed to me that every album had evolved and morphed into something diff-
ent,and that part of their musical genius was how they utilized chords never
before used,and made them sound good,and as if they belonged.As far as being
overshadowed by Beck,Hendrix,and others,my answer is-nonsense!I was there,
and saw and heard the reaction to these other great musicians,but no one then,
or since,has had the effect that the Fabs had on popular culture,and the music
scene.I don't believe that anyone ever again will.They were magic at a time was
sorely needed by we younguns'.I miss them terribly!All i.m.o.h.o.)
Best regards,
Oldteleguy

Blazer
October 25th, 2011, 01:38 PM
I found this funny interview with Dahni Harrison where he remarked talking to his father after he graduated from college and got his degree. Dahni was all about "And I did that at only 23."

At which George smiled and went "Let's see what was I doing when I was 23? ... Oh yeah, I was doing 'Sgt. Pepper.' "

Which took the wind out of Dahni's sails completely.

Blazer
October 25th, 2011, 01:45 PM
0rolz1VasS4

Wuchak
October 25th, 2011, 01:56 PM
"...the Monkees. They were a huge influence on the Beatles." - Lloyd Christmas