Rank the Beatles members from best to worst.

>Ascended tier
George Harrison

>Absolute Madman tier
John Lennon

>Shit tier
Paul McCartney

>Literally who
Ringo Starr

>>74335740
beatles<the

File: ringo ms paint.jpg (127KB, 1325x404px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1325x404px

The other Beatles may have musical talents, but can they draw like Ringo can?

George = Paul > Ringo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John

YOU MAY SAY IM A BEATER

George > Ringo > Paul > John

>>74335740
George Harrison > the rest

File: Peter_Griffin.png (77KB, 247x359px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 247x359px

>>74335827
HEY, ETER

File: j.jpg (19KB, 640x504px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 640x504px

>>74335827
ABSOLUTE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT9yNse2ahw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_0J6MDld7o

is this patrish

>>74335740
Paul >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the other 3 in any order (not like it matters)

>>74335843
this

my hairy cum stained butt hole>literal shit>harrison>the rest

>>74335767
Switch Paul and George and you have the objective order.

fools like you should stop pitting them against each other

the superior opinion is that all 4 are equally great

5. George
4. John
3. Ringo
2. Paul
1. Guy who replaced Paul

John > Paul > George > Stuart Sutcliffe > Ringo > Pete Best

4. Paul
3. Ringo
2. George
1. John

objectivity post has arrived:

john > george > faul > ringo > paul

>>74337282

/thread

Only good answer ITT:
Martin > Lennon > McCarthy > Harrison > Ringo

>>74337282
how is paul the worst?

1. John
2. Paul
3. George
4. Ringo

>>74335812
that yer baby gets me everytime xD

File: 4L_0bCDxPI5.jpg (30KB, 548x308px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 548x308px

>The Beatles were the quintessence of instrumental mediocrity. George Harrison was a pathetic guitarist, compared with the London guitarists of those days (Townshend of the Who, Richards of the Rolling Stones, Davies of the Kinks, Clapton, Beck and Page of the Yardbirds, and many others who were less famous but more original). The Beatles had completely missed the revolution of rock music (founded on a prominent use of the guitar) and were still trapped in the stereotypes of the easy-listening orchestras. Paul McCartney was a singer from the 1950s, who could not have possibly sounded more conventional. As a bassist, he was not worth the last of the rhythm and blues bassists (even though within the world of Merseybeat his style was indeed revolutionary). Ringo Starr played drums the way any kid of that time played it in his garage (even though he may ultimately be the only one of the four who had a bit of technical competence).
>even though he may ultimately be the only one of the four who had a bit of technical competence
what did he mean by this

>>74336840
retard

>>74336840
Agreed

Ringo > Paul = John > George

>>74335913
She's completely right lol. Lennon was deluded if he thought his stunts were actually bringing the world any closer to peace.

>>74337397

greedy scumbag

>>74338441
They all were except Ringo.

>>74337040
kek

>>74337482
>Townshend of the Who, Richards of the Rolling Stones, Davies of the Kinks, Clapton, Beck and Page of the Yardbirds, and many others who were less famous but more original
But those guys were all famous as fuck. You could split hairs over whether they're more or less famous then George Harrison, but why?

>The Beatles had completely missed the revolution of rock music (founded on a prominent use of the guitar) and were still trapped in the stereotypes of the easy-listening orchestras.
The Beatles didn't prominently use their guitars??

George Harrison > John Lennon > Ringo Starr > Paul McCartney

>>74337482
God Scarruffi is such a faggot. McCartney is by all means a great and surprisingly inventive bass player. Also Harrison was better than Richards and far more tasteful than Townshend.

File: sad.jpg (5KB, 247x250px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 247x250px

>>74336779
rude

>>74336980
you're boring

>>74335740
Paul>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ringo>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ony faggots and normies care

George>Paul>John>>>>>Ringo
Based on musical ability and nothing else. John is a faggot so I'd rate him lower if personality counted.

John = Paul > George >>>> Ringo

>Absolute best, saved the band from being a boring pop band by injecting the influence of the avant-garde new york fluxus scene into the band.
Yoko
>Mediocre hacks
John, Paul, Ringo, George
>no talent
Brian Epstein

File: this is bait Tom Petty.jpg (50KB, 793x559px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 793x559px

>>74339880

>>74340102
not bait, I just prefer music with some originality in to lowest-common-denominator commercial pop

>>74338876

I agree on every point. Paul and George can both be described as "tasteful" players. Not flashy or a master of their instrument, but overall very solid with nary a misstep in their playing.

As for my rankings:
>Paul
>George
>John
>Ringo