Composing and performing are not the same thing. The Beatles also started with cover versions, by 67 both bands were writing original material. Jones had a hand in writing that material - often uncredited but his main talent was arrangements. I honestly don't understand where you're coming from with this claim.
All of the Beatles had something very different about them. Ignoring McCartney’s talent for melody (his cheesiness tempered by Lennon’s cynicism), George Harrison, although stifled in the Beatles, wrote very sophisticated tunes and his slide guitar playing is instantly recognisable. Even much mocked Ringo has a style that’s difficult to emulate - being a left handed drummer on a right handed kit and giving each song what it needed. The Stones had a unique lead singer, a jazz drummer forced into playing rock and Brian Jones’ multi instrumentalist chops (good though they were) were oddly anonymous in a session player sort of way. Their run of LPs from “Between the Buttons” to “Goats Head Soup” are fantastic - the majority without Jones.
Harrison had a gift but he would be the first to admit that he was lazy, never practiced, and therefore was quite a limited guitarist.
I said they weren’t as accomplished as the Beatles. Did you hear their answer to Sgt Pepper?
He'll have been comparison himself to his peers and friends though...Clapton among them. He wasn't musically shite.
its hard to assess Jones as he died after a period of being gradually rejected by Jagger and Richards. But all I was doing was comparing him to McCartney - as a natural and gifted musician. McCartney's solo efforts have hardly been earth shattering, though clearly popular and competent, how much of it gets listened to by contributors to this forum? Very little i suspect. I can bear the odd track, but he's made about 2 albums i can listen to all the way through. People forget the Beatles had George Martin to arrange and, I suspect, contributed to the writing of their tunes. Which elevated their output above the average band at that time.
i never said that. I said lazy. I think he's great but even i can hear the limitations.
No, the OP says that.
Yep, George Martin’s production was big part of it. Unlike most other producers he didn’t go mad with the echo or orchestration that dates a lot of 60s records. The “dry” vocals and guitar sound means you can listen to something like Revolver and it could have been recorded yesterday. The Stones’ sound improved immeasurably after AndrewcLoog Oldham relinquished the producer’s chair.
I don't think they were tight when the were playing stadiums. They couldn't even hear themselves play. Lots of interviews about this if you care to check, and even recordings which bear out the fact that they were not a good live band between 62 and 67. And they may well have been tight after all those hours of playing in Germany, but they were still a covers band and very limited in what they could play. Again, can be shown by listening to actual recordings, and interviews with George Martin, McCartney and Lennon.
I was making the opposite point but of course that wasn’t what was leapt on.
That reminds me. I have a tour poster near me that I’ve been meaning to deface
Not something I ever notice listening to the Beatles growing up, well you wouldn't when you were about 5 years old, but Harrison did lots of interesting voicings of chords. Not something I'm an expert on, but I've seen plenty of youtube vids on this. Similarly, youtube informs me McCartney's bass lines moved from the rudimentary to 'a bit more interesting' over the years. There was a fair bit of subtlety in the Beatles.
I only ever heard Peely play him on the radio sometimes. Went for years thinking he was called Captain Bee Fart
you are laughable nonsense. Thankyou for your considered and detailed response.
The Doors. - YES/ Nick Cave - no, but over rated/. The Cardiacs - don't know who they are
To say The Beatles were mediocre apart from McCartney is laughable nonsense though, come on.
if you had a point worth voicing you wouldn't have to lie about what i said. I said "limited at best" and stand by that. It's not exactly an out there opinion, lots of music critics have talked about the limited ability of the Beatles as musicians.
