My Evaluation of The Beatles

Everyone has their favorite Beatle, this is known. Most people go for either John Lennon or Paul McCartney, because they are the most well-known and wrote the majority of The Beatles' songs. John is usually more favorable than Paul, however, because he is in fact dead, and died in a very untimely fashion. Paul is normally a favorite of those who either A) hate Yoko Ono, or B) enjoy Wings. George Harrison has been gaining more popularity lately, however, because he is in fact "the quiet one", and therefore adds a very unique twist when you say he's your favorite. He did write some great stuff of course, but most of the time, the only reason people say that George is their favorite is because it's all too trendy to say John, and all too embarrassing to say Paul. Ringo Starr never gets any love, that is always how it goes. While all the other Beatles got unique recognitions [Paul was "the cute one", John "the smart one", George "the quiet one"], Ringo was only known as "the drummer." For some reason people have gathered this image that he is an untalented and worthless musician who could have been replaced by anyone. For the most part, the people who DO like Ringo, mainly just feel sorry for him. Or are drummers.

I don't have a favorite Beatle. I can't decide. George was my favorite when my obsession started, mainly because I really liked the songs "Blue Jay Way" and "Here Comes The Sun." Also, the one friend that I had who was equally obsessed with them [even more so than me], her favorite was George. But then I got a hold of John Lennon's Plastic Ono Band album, and "Working Class Hero" immediately converted me. "Jealous Guy" also became a favorite, and at the time seemed to dictate my life. Around that time I fell in love, however, and soon John was too cynical and edgy for what I was feeling. Paul became a little more popular, with his always rhyming and always impish sounds. I saw him in concert, too, which pushed him even further to the top. Unfortunately, I still thought Ringo was worthless, as most Beatles fans do, and did not give him any credit. "Octopus's Garden" was ALWAYS skipped over whenever I listened to Abbey Road. I just didn't get it, I didn't appreciate it for being silly. I thought it ruined the whole motif that The Beatles were going for, as well-accomplished and serious musicians. I didn't realize until later that The Beatles were trying to reach ALL levels, not just the intellectual serious ones. Songs like "Your Mother Should Know" and "Baby, You're A Rich Man" contribute to that theory, and both of those were Lennon/McCartney gems.

Then my heart broke, and I was back on the John Lennon. There was some George Harrison mixed in; songs like "All Things Must Pass" and "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" were great get-the-fuck-over-this songs. Paul McCartney's Chaos and Creation in the Backyard album also extended some valuable advice and helped make light of the situation with its child-like melodies. I still did not care for Ringo, though the song "Act Naturally" suddenly became a favorite. Still not written by him, but sung very nicely. At least he could carry a tune.

Here's how I see it:
John Lennon is the one for the radicals. He's the revolutionary one, the one preaching for peace, and unafraid of crossing lines. But he does it in a very stylistic way, a very organized and polite way. He didn't light things on fire or make obscene gestures. He encouraged revolution, but at the same time he talked about it in a way of complete class. The song "Revolution" isn't about rebellion, it's about common sense. It's about displaying your opinions in a way that makes sense and isn't just for the sake of "fighting the man." "But when you talk about destruction/Don't you know that you can count me out/Don't you know it's gonna be alright." That's not the voice of an angry man or even a rebellious man, but of a man who was willing to work for change. He didn't care how long it was going to take, as long as it was in a peaceful manner. That's dedication and respect right there.

Paul McCartney appeals to...well, just about everybody. People who appreciate good music, I suppose. He's respectable and he's talented, but I think the one thing he is missing is a cause. I know he's a strict vegetarian and fights for animal rights all the time, but he's mainly known for his feel good ballads. I think people who are fans of Michael Bolton and Lionel Richie can appreciate him more in his entirety than other people. He's had a lot of throwaway hits like "Let 'Em In", "No More Lonely Nights", and "My Love." Janis Joplin once described her sound as the bottom layer of rock and roll. She said there is a surface layer and that is where most people are, and then there are the bottom layers, and that's where she said she was. I think Paul is an outer layer musician. The edgiest he ever got was with "Helter Skelter", whereas John was ALWAYS rattling our minds with "Yer Blues" or again, "Revolution." Paul's for the people who like to feel, like to dance, and like to sing...and probably aren't too good at the latter two. But I'll tell you, there is not a single person on this Earth, musician or not, who can whole-heartedly hate the song "Yesterday." No matter how hard you might try, you will always find something that you like about that song.

George Harrison is for those who when they listen to music, they like to stare off into space and lose themselves for 4 minutes or so. I don't care who you are, "Within You Without You" will ALWAYS put you in a trance if you listen to it for more than a minute. It doesn't even matter what part of the song. You could catch it 3 minutes in, and still be compelled to sit down and think about the state of the world. Although always known as the lanky one with the guitar, he did yield some great hits, that I feel are under appreciated. "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" wasn't even taken seriously by John and Paul until George brought Eric Clapton in to record lead guitar. He wasn't necessarily a radical, but he was a peacemaker of sorts, and I really feel like he took advantage of his musical skills in all the right ways to try and get a point across. The Concert for Bangladesh was the first ever benefit concert, and that launched a whole new perspective on rock and roll and its meaning. It'd always been about sex and rebellion, but then it became more about meaningful lyrics and mantra-like melodies. I think George is for the people who have more worldly opinions.

And then there is Ringo Starr. Somehow in the course of 45 years or so, Ringo has gotten the reputation of the "less important" Beatle. Though there may be some truth to that, it still does not mean he is a terrible nor untalented musician. Yes, if you were to put "Yesterday", "Revolution", "Something", and "Octopus's Garden" all together, of course "Octopus's Garden" is going to be the inferior one, but that does not mean he's completely awful. It just means "Yesterday", "Revolution", and "Something" are INCREDIBLY AMAZING and INCOMPARABLE. You put ANY song next to those ones, and it doesn't matter how good it is, it will ALWAYS be inferior. Somehow a rumor of sorts got started, too, that Ringo is a bad drummer, but it is a fact that great drummers such as Dave Grohl and Phil Collins hail Ringo as being a revolutionary and phenomenal addition to music history. I see Ringo as the balance in The Beatles. He was very good at keeping time and putting in the right accents without taking away from the actual piece. And with The Beatles, if you had too much good stuff going at one time, it would ruin the entire song. George Harrison was a crappy guitarist, but it didn't matter because he was able to carry a tune, keep with the beat, and give what was needed. Ringo did the same. He let the lyrics and the melody do their thing and carry the piece. The Beatles didn't need an elaborate drummer, and that's a fact. If Ringo was such a horrible drummer, The Beatles would NEVER have made it as far at they did. People never seem to take that into consideration. Ringo is for the people who can appreciate The Beatles as a whole, and not just as individuals.

The magic of The Beatles was their balance, and the reason they split was because that balance was disrupted. John became too deep for them, Paul's ego grew too large, and George and Ringo became suffocated by John and Paul's overwhelming popularity. I can't choose a favorite because they are all irreplaceable. None of them could have survived without the other. What if it had just been John, Paul, and George, hmm? What then? Or just George, Paul, and Ringo? The combinations are endless, and also useless. It's a fact that each were able to contribute something on their own that made The Beatles what they were and how they are viewed today. John's attitude gave them their edge, Paul's smile gave them their appeal, George's subtleties gave them their meaning, and Ringo's beat pulled them all together. I'm sorry, but The Beatles are The Beatles, and cannot be separated.

When someone asks me who my favorite Beatle is, I always say, "Eric Clapton."