If John and Paul were trying to sound like each other, I don’t think that they succeeded…
George was an amazing talent (and very cute!) but he didn’t match the genius of John and Paul. John and Paul wrote better songs, and both were better singers than George, too.
Huh, he didn’t write those riffs? Hm…
I guess that changes that a little.
When I think of “talent” in connection with the Beatles, I think of “really great songs”. Harrison wrote very little of what I’d put at the top of the Beatles’ output.
He also got annoyingly into that Maharishi glop.
His solo stuff was heavily forgettable.
He just wasn’t in the league of Lennon-McCartney. Which doesn’t make him terrible, just not even remotely the Beatles’ greatest talent.
Lifelong Beatle lover here. I was eleven when Beatlemania exploded in the States; I saw them in August of '65 (San Diego Balboa Stadium) and yes it was loud but you could hear the music well enough; and if anything, I love their music more than ever all these years later.
For what it’s worth, George has always been “my favorite Beatle”, but my OPINION has always been that he was the weakest instrumentalist of the four.
John had one of the most extraordinary voices in pop-rock history, and was a terrific rhythm guitarist;
Paul was also a great, and versatile, singer; his multi-instrumental talents are famous; and his bass playing plainly established him as the Beatles’ only virtuoso instrumentalist.
Ringo was no songwriter, and was a mediocre but pleasantly entertaining singer, but throughout the Beatles heyday, his drumming was criminally underrated and dismissed. He wasn’t a flashy technical showboat, but he was a versatile, rock-solid drummer who knew how to drive a band, as well as provide whatever was best for any given song. His contribution to what defined the Beatles “sound” has never been given proper recognition.
George had an inherently weak singing voice, and although he sang very well on many of the earlier cuts, over time his vocal range an power progressively weakened. He remained an excellent harmony/backup singer. On guitar he was flat out terrible at improvisation, and while I agree that his gift as a musician was his ability to contribute exactly what a song needed, by most accounts he labored long and hard to conceive and execute his input. It didn’t come easily to him, and I think the effort shows through on the records.
There have been very few songwriting talents that can compare to John or Paul, when either of them was working with the other. George wrote several really good songs, and a few masterpieces, but was nowhere near John or Paul’s level of creativity.
In any other band, George might have been the standout, but he was in the most phenomenal pop music group of the 20th century (second half, at least), and in the company of one of history’s greatest songwriting duos. The Beatles almost certainly wouldn’t have become what they were without George, and his presence in the band was no accident of chance, but measured on the yardstick of “talent” I think he came in last.
But that’s one hell of a yardstick.
I know this has to have offended at least some folks, and I sincerely apologize.
I happen to think George was the wisest and sanest of the four, and to the day he died he remained the Beatle I would have most preferred to spend an evening with.
Well, the main reason why Harrison was in the band because he was a better guitarist than McCartney or Lennon (at least at the time).
Lennon was ruthless in his pursuit of success. He also wanted to be the band’s leader. His friends in the Quarrymen weren’t sure which of the two would win out when he met McCartney, who was a better musician. Then when McCartney brought Harrison in, it was because McCartney thought George was better on guitar (McCartney didn’t play bass until after Stu Sutcliffe left).
Harrison may not have been a facile composer on guitar, but he could play everything that McCartney and Lennon wanted but couldn’t play themselves.
Harrison was a very talented musician, but he was no John Lennon or Paul McCartney.
George was a very gifted songwriter and instrumentalist. If you go back and listen to earlier Beatles tracks, some of the things he did were remarkable for the time. As was Ringo’s drumming.
I would put him on par with John and Paul, but I wonder if he would have lived up to his clear potential without them, and visa-versa.
According to my sources, he didn’t play lead guitar on “My Guitar Gently Weeps,” although he was certainly capable of doing so. And he did write the song.
But, who played or didn’t play on a song is completely erased by the pop genius of “Badge.”
After all is said in done, I have to say, he is my favorite Beatle.
+1
Talented guy; wrote some great songs and contributed essential parts to others. In the same league talent-wise as John and Paul? No; but that is a helluva scale to be measured against.
Very nice to see some love for Only a Northern Song.
Didn’t George Martin at one say he’d kind of neglected Harrison’s songwriting beause Lennon and McCartney were creating so much good stuff? Harrison definitely became capable of writing at their level, and maybe he’d have produced a stronger and more impressive Beatles output if that had happened. Going from what’s actually there I don’t think you can say he was their greatest talent. Like I said, his best songwriting was about as good as Lennon or McCartney - close enough that I wouldn’t want to argue about whose was best - but I don’t think he matched them at churning out consistently impressive stuff. He definitely couldn’t equal either of them as a singer.
I forgot to put in my previous post that one of my favourite Beatles’ songs is one of George Harrison’s. It’s also a contender for the least known Beatle song: It’s All Too Much, from Yellow Submarine. Wonderfully psychedlic and joyous:
Sail me on a silver sun, for I know that I’m free
Show me that I’m everywhere, and get me home for tea
Only in England, no matter how psychedelic you are, would you have to get home in time for tea. 
In terms of songwriting talent, it’s hard to beat the genius and output of the Lennon/McCartney combination. However (IMO) Harrison was a better songwriter than McCartney alone, and at least as good as, if not better, than John Lennon alone.
I have never seen the point in arguing which song, album, singer, instrumentalist, etc. was “greater” than the next one, or the “greatest” of all.
While I recognize that music is made up of individual components, what interests me most is how they all come together in a unified whole with the power to move the listener in some way.
I think George was one of four perfect quarters that made up The Beatles. Given the incredible level of talent evinced by John and Paul as singers, songwriters and instrumentalists (Paul in particular in the latter category), the group surely would have exploded had the third (non-percussion) member been on their level.
George instead concentrated primarily on playing a very strong supporting role, along with also providing an occasional enjoyable alternative to the firepower of John and Paul. His singing voice was quite different from either of theirs (Lennon, IMHO, had the greatest voice of ANYONE who has ever sung rock ‘n’ roll…something that’s seldom recognized) – more ordinary, yet it still could be winning and effective. Plus, his harmony parts were often both the most critical and the most difficult.
As noted (and as numerous outtakes painfully demonstrate), George was terrible when called upon to improvise, but when given time to work out a guitar solo, produced ones of simple beauty that are almost always “just right.”
To this point, in a MOJO article several years ago on the 100 greatest guitarists of all time, Harrison placed in the top 10 IIRC. Most of the entry on George was left to a fellow guitarist – I can never remember his name, but he played with The Pretenders for a time and went on to play behind Paul McCartney on his earlier solo tours.
I’m paraphrasing what he wrote, but it came down to him saying that when Paul told him he planned to do several Beatles songs on his tour, this guy figured he would work out dynamic new guitar solos for then. But as he listened to Beatles records, he realized that George had in every instance played the perfect solo on each of these songs, a solo that couldn’t possibly be improved upon.
I agree with this.
The Beatles were the four right people (once Ringo was added, and I could rhapsodize about his contributions just as easily) coming together at the right time. Messing with that particular chemistry is unthinkable, and anyone who believes they would have been just as good or better if someone else had taken the place of George and Ringo is, IMHO, very much mistaken.
And you can’t forget George’s role with Wilbury’s.
I basically agree with this - The Beatles were The Beatles
Not true at all - Lennon’s vocals are routinely held up as some of the best ever.
I suspect you are thinking about Robbie McIntosh(wiki link). And while I agree with you about George’s taste - on both leads to play and the better songs he wrote he showed beautiful taste - he does not even REMOTELY belong in the Top 10 list of guitarists. Another composer - say, Ravel or Mozart - could write an exquisite solo like George composed for Something - but they couldn’t play it since, to my knowledge, neither played guitar. Neither would deserve to be on a Guitarist Top 10 list. George couldn’t improvise to save his life and was tentative at delivering even the leads he did compose.
The Beatles are my favorite band - I have a deep love and respect for them. But I am also realistic and, speaking as a player, George was decent.
Or Handmade Films. He’s definitely behind much better movies than the others.
On some songs (e.g. “Here Comes the Sun,” “Dream Away,” “I’ve Got My Mind Set On You,” and the Wilbury’s stuff) I think he’s got one of the loveliest male voices I’ve ever heard. Very soft and airy, but with an a bit of an edge nonetheless.
Billy Shears was “the greatest”!
The one and only Billy Shears?
I wish I had written this. Very well put. I do have a couple of nits to pick, however.
I already attempted to post a reply, but it apparently has been lost in the intertubes. Since then, someone else has already voiced the same nitpicks as mine, and I’ll quote his comments in place of my own.
To which WordMan said: “Not true at all - Lennon’s vocals are routinely held up as some of the best ever.”
And I agree with him there. I spend a LOT of time on a Boomercentric music forum, and when the subject is “all-time greatest pop-rock vocalists”, John Lennon is usually at or very near the top of many lists.
I wish I did too, but I can’t. Again, WordMan says it better than I would have:
"I suspect you are thinking about Robbie McIntosh (wiki link). And while I agree with you about George’s taste - on both leads to play and the better songs he wrote he showed beautiful taste - he does not even REMOTELY belong in the Top 10 list of guitarists. Another composer - say, Ravel or Mozart - could write an exquisite solo like George composed for Something - but they couldn’t play it since, to my knowledge, neither played guitar. Neither would deserve to be on a Guitarist Top 10 list. George couldn’t improvise to save his life and was tentative at delivering even the leads he did compose.
The Beatles are my favorite band - I have a deep love and respect for them. But I am also realistic and, speaking as a player, George was decent."
Sad to say, this is correct.
But George will always be “my favorite Beatle”, and his passing was one of the very few celebrity deaths that has ever moved me to tears.
.
Yes. Cite
What I meant by this was, what is usually talked about first when the subject of John Lennon is raised is either his songwriting or his personal/public life. Music nerds like us may speak of the greatness of his vocals, but in the overall scheme of things, they come up less frequently than other areas more often focused upon.
Much depends on how you define “greatness” in a guitar player. I tend to rate taste and musicality higher than flash or technique.
Further, most choose to look at guitar playing in isolation, whereas I tend to focus (as I do with ALL other aspects of music) on the extent to which it furthers the overall success of whatever setting it takes place in.
In other words, I’m a song guy rather than an individual instrumentalist guy. The guitar solo in “Something” is a moving piece of work that further enhances an already great song. Another guitarist would have written/performed a different kind of solo that likely as not wouldn’t have worked as well.
I believe that Jimi Hendrix was the greatest guitarist in the history of rock ‘n’ roll – but I wouldn’t feel that way if I didn’t also very much like the songs he wrote and the combined impact his singing of them, the effectiveness of the rhythm section behind it, and the overall “feel” of his music.
You might be interested to know who MOJO picked as the #2 greatest guitarist behind Hendrix: Steve Cropper! I believe they had some of my same philosophy of “it’s all in the service of the song” when they chose him.
Thanks very much for the kind words in your post, and thanks to Word Man for supplying Robbie Macintosh’s name. As a long-time Apple fan (the computer as well as the label!), I don’t know why I can’t ever remember it.
DChord568 - trust me, I am all about the song first, too. I don’t know how long you have been posting here - I argue “song first” a lot and cite my preference for Johnny Ramone over Yngwie Malmsteen as the basic illustration of song substance over flash style. And I use Hendrix as the example of great songs providing a showcase for great guitar - Eddie Van Halen was another great benefactor of huge songs supporting his flash.
You cite Steve Cropper in MOJO’s poll - Steve Cropper is a balls-out, insider’s insider fabulous guitarist. Who also happened to have written and/or played on some of the songs that are the soundtrack of our mid/late 20th century history, let alone our lives. So yeah, the songs come first, but he’s a brilliant player - he brings both to bear.
George simply isn’t a brilliant player - to be clear, he is a great, brilliant musician, but speaking as a guitarist, yeah, technique has to matter a little bit and George doesn’t have enough technique and delivery. His songcraft, chord knowledge and melodic sense lift him up way past his limitations as a player, but it is simply not worth trying to compare his guitar playing to any of the normally-cited Guitar Gods™.