To answer your first question, I joined two days ago! I’m glad we’re on the same page on this. In fact, in the MOJO 100 Greatest Guitarists piece (it wasn’t a poll, but rather MOJO’s editors’ picks), Johnny Ramone was in the Top 20!
Again, in the end these head-to-head competitions don’t matter very much to me. George to me was the perfect guitarist for The Beatles, and I can’t fathom anyone else in his place.
I remember someone once wondering idly what The Beatles would have been like with Tony Hicks of The Hollies as their lead player.
Tony is a tremendously underrated guitarist, admittedly much more technically skilled that Harrison, who also coincidentally usually sang the lower third harmony part as George so often did. I’m a tremendous admirer of his, but I’m glad both were in their respective bands. Hicks tended to bear almost all of the guitar burden of The Hollies (Nash often barely played, onstage or on record), and his playing as a whole reflects this burden.
With Lennon’s similarly underrated rhythm guitar work, this would have been unnecessary in The Beatles.
Welcome - do you play music? What is your music background? I play guitar, geek out about it a lot and like a variety of music, but tend to concentrate on rock and blues.
Nor can I - I am just trying to process the OP and one of the areas to discuss talent is guitar playing; which counts within the context of the Beatles, to be sure. But the question is about George Harrison being a “talent” - that is explicitly, to me, on a more objective basis. Therefore his guitar playing factors in beyond the “essential to the Beatles” aspect to a more arms-length review. Hence my earlier posts…
not lending much to the OP’s question, but any discussion of George reminds me of the National Lampoon’s Magical Misery Tour, especially the part that says (discussing Yoko):
Thanks. I’ve been playing since I was 13. I won’t tell you how much older I am now…let’s just say a lot! I’ve played in bands all my life, and I’m still at it.
Let’s also say that I was just the right age when The Beatles came along, and it was life-changing for me. I love many different kinds of music, including the roots of what became rock ‘n’ roll. But if pressed to choose a favorite, melodic, harmony-based rock (derived, not surprisingly, from The Beatles) would win.
Being lazy, I’ve never pursued the more technical aspects of guitar. My leads are rudimentary, but I’m one hell of a rhythm guitarist and generally a very good “feel” musician.
And I can talk about all of this stuff (in the words of John Lennon) “…till the cows come home.”
Cool - I will stop hijacking this thread by referring you to this thread. It is kind of a throw-away topic, but you get a sense of the guitar geekery on this board, and Post #33 serves as a link to a bunch of other big rock guitar threads…
Last question, given your preference for melodic, harmony-based rock - is that the same as Power Pop to you? What do you think of Big Star, Cheap Trick, Fountains of Wayne, etc? Or are you more of a Badfinger and Byrds kinda guy?
I’m both! “Power Pop” (and its roots) is what I would answer first if asked what my favorite kind of rock is…though there are many other answers that might follow.
I grew up playing the first five Byrds albums (plus Beatles, Hollies, Buffalo Springfield, etc.) over and over again, and Big Star/Badfinger/Blue Ash/Flamin’ Groovies, etc. is what got me through the 70s when mainstream rock turned so turgid and pretentious (though I gleefully welcomed punk once it hit, and some of the new wave that followed).
I kept fairly up-to-date with modern Power Pop at least through the early 90s (and there was a distinctively melodic component to much “alternative rock” before it too went bad). I’m less up on its most modern practitioners, though something will break through every once in a while.
Thanks for the link to the other thread…I’ll check it out.
All good - we now return you to the regularly-scheduled thread. I have to run to the airport anyway so can’t be posting for the rest of the day…I’ll be interested in your thoughts on the link. Also, look for the Great Ongoing Guitar Thread…
I think that the way to establish each of the fours personal talent level is to imagine what sort of groups they would have had if they’d each had started their own BEFORE the Beatles.
Not after because IMO they were all jaded and their creativity was on the wane after so many years of producing the goods.
Ringo I think would have been in a perfectly ordinary band that probably wouldn’t have achieved fame unless he got lucky.
George might have found fame with only a little luck, though IMO the groups stay at the top levels would have only been for a few years.
John would have achieved fame (and notoriety) with a very good group, though not at the level of the Beatles and not for the same length of time.
Paul who was mostly the creative genius behind most of the tracks, not overly correctly labelled as Lennon/Mcartney creations, would almost certainly have achieved mega fame and stardom over a long period in most conditions that didn’t see him struck by lightening or run over by a bus.
Before people point accusingly at Wings, I say again by that time the well had all but dried up.
Though he did still produce the odd work of brilliance even then.
I think that Georges excitement about things Indian did substantially contribute to the Bs innovation as did their experimentation with L.S.D.
Lust4Life - Lennon early on was a hit machine. Up to Rubber Soul he solely or jointly wrote 80% of their hits*. After that McCartney was more dominant as the hit maker and as the leading musician in the group.
McCartney’s output after the Beatles was uneven. There are literally dozens of songs that have the same spark of genius as songs in the Beatle era, but they lacked some fine tuning of lyric or arrangement. Paul and Linda always gave in to the temptation to introduce a slow movement in the middle of a pop song that didn’t require it.
*Notable exceptions: I Saw Her Standing There, Can’t Buy Me Love, And I Love Her, Yesterday.
It’s hard to say they hindered it much. Comparing the work of groups I’ve enjoyed in the past couple of decades with those I liked in the 1960s, the difference in output is absolutely astounding. The Beatles put out fourteen remarkable albums in eight years. During the 1960s, Clapton had four albums as part of Cream (not counting live and compilation albums), plus albums with Blind Faith, the Yardbirds, and the Bluesbreakers. The Rolling Stones had eight UK studio albums before the decade was out (which were transmuted into 10 U.S. albums). And similarly with the era’s other well-known bands.
And I don’t see that their quality suffered as a result, compared to groups now that release one album every 2-3 years.
Yep. The best example being “A Hard Day’s Night”; although Paul contributed a few of the songs, that album is John’s masterpiece.
Specifically, they lacked John’s influence. And I think the same could be said for John’s post-Fabs songs. John and Paul brought out the best in each other as songwriters.