Re: Was Lennon Incompetent?

Sorry for the intrusion, but this is something that has bothered me
recently.  It is a basic tenet of musicianship that you can't succeed
without a tight rythm section.  My estimation of the individual Beatles:
John and Paul:  unsurpassed geniuses of pop music, the likes of which we
will never see.  All pop music being made today will be lucky to write
really insignificant footnotes to the work they did some thirty years ago.
George Harrison:  A near-great.  Were he a member of a rival band, the music
press of his day would've made a serious case for his superiority to the
Beatles, which would almost certainly have been corrected in our time, and
for posterity.
     And then there's Ringo.
     THUD-THUD-THUD.  That's this guy's transition from the intro to "Lucy
in the Sky With Diamonds" into the chorus.  No kidding!  I hope that noone
would rank his singing skills much higher either.
     Enough with the bashing.  The question that haunts me is how a third
rate singer and a fourth rate drummer got to be a significant part of the
greatest pop band of all time?  It just doesn't fit in my mind.
     If anything, I would like to think that this fact alone further
reinforces my case for the divinity of Paul McCartney and John Lennon as the
two foremost pop geniuses of all time (rumors of their poor live
performances notwithstanding).  How can you be the greatest band with a less
than adequate drummer?

"the bee tells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Great post. I'm surprised that JL played piano on "Maxwell's..." and "Oh,
> Darling."
>
> The notion of John being incompetent is absurd.
--

All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.    
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please 
change your headers appropriately.   -- the moderators