I agree. I think Paul and John Entwistle (The Who) were key players in changing how the bass guitar was played and utilized in rock music. Both were creative in terms of technique and melody, and used the bass for more than just backing rhythm.
Because, frankly, it seems so uninformed. This is a person who composed songs that will be listened to in hundreds of years, who played the lead on Taxman, who played the bass on Rain and Paperback Writer (and Something, per Crotalus). The brilliant musicianship of those and other works speak for themselves.
Tossing off references to Blackbird being meh and just saying “I don’t rate him…” - well, fine, as always, everyone has a right to their opinion and of course you are welcome to not like him. But to not start your points by acknowledging that he IS typically held up as a musical genius on a number of levels, and you happen to disagree with that, just seems silly.
Two thumbs up!
Between the Buttons is in my top three Stones albums as well (along with Aftermath and Their Satanic Majesties Request).
Yes, I recognize the greatness of the run from Beggar’s Banquet through Exile on Main Street, but the three above are still the Stones albums that speak to me the most. (Ironic that The Stones themselves seem to hate BTB and TSMR!)
A big element in the success of those albums is the many and varied musical textures they contain thanks to Brian Jones’ skills on multiple and diverse instruments.
Was he a “virtuoso” on any of them? Hardly. But that mattered not a whit.
The way I’ve always put it is this: The Stones went from a band who did several things very well in the Brian Jones era to a band that did one thing very well in the post-Jones era.
Maybe this will clarify things…
Is someone who can read a daunting score and a perform a very complex and challenging piece of classical music on the piano note-for-note a “great musician”? Sure.
Is someone whose overall technical skill level may be lower than #1 but who can improvise little embellishments of his own making (i.e., not in the score) in the course of playing a standard a “great musician”? Absolutely.
Is someone who composes out of whole cloth a melody (not to mention lyrics) that didn’t exist in the world before he/she sat down a “great musician”? Unless you’re gonna be really anal about the definition of “musician,” I say “beyond a doubt.”
In terms of what matters most to me, I would rank the above in reverse order.
Let’s remember that the title of this thread is “The talent level of the individual Beatles.” The OP goes on to speak about general musical ability, but in his concluding remarks states:
[Emphasis mine.]
This is the conclusion that the majority of posters in this thread have (IMHO correctly) reached as well.
Precisely. I might add the nuance “a couple of things very well in the Mick Taylor era,” followed by “one not very interesting thing very well post-Taylor.”
I read an interview with Clapton in Guitar World (around 1997 or so) where he says that he did play guitar on WMGGW, but that he played rhythm guitar. George Harrison played the solo.
For the life of me I’ve never seen it corroborated elsewhere, and I wouldn’t know how to track down that interview, but I swear I read, reportedly from Clapton’s own lips, that he did not play the solo on that song.
You heard right - it was the first, self-titled one. And he even gave himself a drum solo, though Ringo’s was far better. I had it recorded at one point, but lost it, as not being worth moving from reel-to-reel to cassette.
Anyhow, Mike Oldfield did it better at 19. 
Maybe I’m Amazed still holds up pretty well, but the rest is pretty spotty. Emmit Rhodes did it better at 20.
I like a few other tracks on McCartney, but overall I heartily agree. I’ve been a huge fan of Emitt Rhodes since the day I first heard “Live” on AM radio.
It’s an illustrative example for this thread. Emitt is certainly not a whiz-bang guitarist or piano player, but he took the level of skills he had and created nearly three albums’ worth of outstanding songs that have been a part of me forever.
And, distinguishing himself from Paul, he wrote his first batch of songs (including “Live” and the sublime “You’re a Very Lovely Woman”) at age 16.
DChord, we’re showing our age. I think only fogies even know who Emmit Rhodes is.
And I like a few other tracks on McCartney, too. I just think that Maybe I’m Amazed, in addition to being the best composition, sounds the least like a home recording by one guy. It holds up pretty well as a produced recording, and the guitar solo, which requires no virtuousity to play, is really nice.
I’d need to see that. Never heard that - but, either way, just listen to the track. Who do *you *think it sounds like? 
I got news for ya: it ain’t George! George did some fine work - his solo on Something is sublime - but his hand is distinctive, with that little bit of tentativeness in his delivery. Clapton wouldn’t know tentative if it walked up and said hi.
True. I think it sounds like Clapton. BUT, I’ve heard successful impersonations of guitarists before (Pearl Jam’s Yellow Ledbetter sounds like a Hendrix ripoff, for example), so maybe George and Eric were having a little joke.
Also, maybe Clapton was lying in the interview or misremembered or both. I’ve heard artists contradict themselves by telling the same story a bunch of times in different ways. So I’m not sure. I’ll probably see if I can’t find that GW interview now…
Harrison couldn’t play like Clapton. Not trying to slam Harrison, just trying to be clear. I don’t mean to say that Clapton has unobtainable technique - he doesn’t - just that Harrison couldn’t do it.
Famously, Clapton used a refinished-red Les Paul for the solo. Nicknamed Lucy, IIRC and just reissued by Guitar Center and Gibson in a limited edition. If Clapton did NOT play the leads on While My Guitar… on Lucy, it would’ve come up…
Even that’s debatable. A computer could do what you mention, but it would sound mechanical and uninspired. (I don’t know whether the software exists yet to scan and perform a piece of complex sheet music, but if not, it’s only a matter of time.) To be a “great musician” even at the level of faithfully performing other people’s compositions takes more than just the ability to hit all the right notes in the right order. If I were being careful, I’d say that the kind of technical mastery you describe is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for being one particular type of “great musician.”
If you’re going to compare Harrison vs Clapton, I think you should remember their basics. That is, Clapton was a blues guitarist. He learned by listening to blues guitarists. Those were his idols. Harrison’s idol was Carl Perkins. During his touring days, his ax was a Gretch. I submit that George was a Rockabilly guitarist at heart.
I have Teddy Boy, another track on that album, on a bootleg of the Let It Be sessions. Much better, even with John making fun of it.
Paul played most of the instrumental parts on the Band on the Run album too, I think. He did still have Linda and Denny Laine in the ‘band’ at that time, but Denny was mainly a rhythm guitarist, and Linda …, well. I think we can be confident that not only the bass, but also the drums,* much of the guitar (probably including most lead parts), and much of the keyboard work is Paul. Unlike McCartney, Band on the Run is generally considered to be post-Beatles Paul at his very best.
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
*Ginger Baker is on one track, but apparently not actually playing the drums!
In fact “Maybe I’m Amazed” was recorded at EMI Abbey Road, as were “Every Night” and “That Would Be Something.” Despite the album’s reputation as a low-tech home-brew project, only about half the tracks were actually recorded at McCartney’s home, and most of those were subjected to overdubs and editing in the studio.
The player piano has been around for a long time.
Back in the 80’s I attended a session on Studio Guitar by Tommy Tedesco. He said that many studio cats could read cold, it was far more important to glean the intent of the music than to play the notes as written, and went on to show a number of little cheats that he used. In particular, he said, when you see a flurry of notes, it’s more important to play a flurry of notes that fit the subject and suit your style, than to play what’s written. He showed some VERY simple “scale” patterns that he said he often used when the music showed an ascending or descending scale, because he could nail them and when played fast enough, few people would hear the cheat, and fewer would care as long as you landed on the right note at the end. His main point was that the studio musician has to chart the line between what’s intended and his own style.
Sure, he did play a number of simple parts, but he also played a lot of parts that take incredible skill to master (and few would master it by duplicating his part, but rather by trying to get a similar groove). I recently spent quite a bit of time trying to understand how his part worked in the Jackson 5’s “I Want You Back”. It’s definitely not a beginner part! Yet nowhere does it jump out as being a virtuoso part. It serves the purpose. Not that this conflicts with your point. But even many of his simple parts are hard to get right and in the pocket.
I’ve seen footage of someone asking George about it, and joking that it wasn’t his guitar weeping. He retorted that Clapton was playing his (George’s) guitar, so it really was HIS guitar weeping, just not him making it weep!
The software and hardware both have existed for quite a while now. Listen to “Gershwin Plays Gershwin” for example. The player piano doesn’t rate because it doesn’t play dynamics: all notes are the same volume. You can, using a pedal, adjust the overall force, but it applies to all notes being played at the time. The very name of the “pianoforte” is due to its ability to play soft and loud, to control dynamics, which previous keyboard instruments did not have.