Rainard Jalen

Paul's main skill is as a singer. He was a pretty decent bass player though.

It is also important to avoid judging the Beatles' instrumental skills on the basis of the years where they were no longer touring. A lot of people make this mistake. Hundreds of hours in the studio can make George Harrison sound like Jimmy Hendrix.

boo boo

Severe understatement. He played basslines that were very complex for their time, and he's one of the most innovative bassists in rock music, because of him more bass players began playing more of a leading role in the music. Like John Entwhistle and Chris Squire.

Abbey Road alone is a great bass album, and most of that was done in one take.

You don't have to. You could base it on their early material as well.

He didn't sound like Jimi Hendrix, and you can tell his solos weren't spliced up because they were simple and to the point and he could play live just like he could in the studio.

Seriously. Stop giving George Martin credit for EVERYTHING.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Rainard Jalen

You might be right, but most essentially: source please...

Hence why I called him a pretty decent bass player and not a brilliant one (since the most impressive lines seem to be post 66???).

I was just making a point that such a feat would be possible, and hence it's important to leave judgement of instrumental skills to actual live performances.

Double X

How about on the rooftop concert where he played Don't Let Me Down, One After 909, and I Want You? Three great bass lines that he played live.

It's just idiotic to write him off because the Beatles were sick of concerts.

Rainard Jalen

It was not a write-off, but a caution. At any rate, I've already said, no doubt Paul was a good bass player.

The Monkey

The Beatles were superior in every aspect, IMO.

Rainard Jalen

Every aspect aside from two: dancing skills, and innovation.

EDIT: You know what, screw that. The Beatles are better than the Stones in every single way. Listening to mis-steps from other great artists such as Bowie and so forth makes me appreciate just how good the Beatles actually were. I believe they stand as the only band I have EVER listened to for whom even the FILLER songs are actually good, catchy and listenable. Who else can boast that - virtually nobody. For that alone the Lennon-McCartney team must be the greatest of all time.

EDIT: But Mick Jagger is a better dancer than John and Paul by far.

Seltzer

I'll try to keep my Beatles fanboy bias out of this, but as a bassist myself, I think McCartney is one of the greatest bassists ever. He never overplays, yet his basslines are incredibly intricate... every bassist wishes they could write basslines as perfect as his... change one note and the whole song is destroyed. He has quite a unique style and his tone is lovely.

__________________

Ghostrider

No doubts where you stand on this issue, I do like the Beatles better, I might be just a little biased though,,,lol,,,I actually watched their North American debut on the Ed Sullivan show in black and white,,,the girls screaming constantly throughout the set I found extremely annoying, but the moment is permanently etched in my consciousness now. I like the Stones,,,but the Beatles reached me on a different level, plus not only the music they made, but they helped advance the quality of the recording industry as a whole, not just great songs, but great sounding recordings too.(Obviously I'm referring to their later albums when they had the money to get the very best technology and play around with it.) I had an argument with a good friend(Stones fanatic..), about this years ago,,,I would have way more respect had the Stones tried harder in the studio on the production side of their music, some of which was excellent, but the shoddy "let's get drunk and play around in the studio when we cut this album attitude", always hurt the overall sound of most of their albums. I think that's one of the reasons most people enjoy the Stones live,,,they put on a great show and the sound itself surpasses many of their studio recordings.(I'm an in no way slighting them for their songwriting skills, just wishing they cared more about the finished product, you can improve the production/engineering quality without sacrificing the natural raw edge of their sound.)

Rainard Jalen

To be honest though, the Beatles vs Rolling Stones is a VERY bad comparison to make. REALLY bad. For starters, they're essentially not even of the same genre! And that goes for any given period of their coexistence. If one wants to do a Beatles vs X thread, at least make sure that X is one of the melodic bands of the 60s. It would be fairer to have a Beatles vs Kinks or Beatles vs Beach Boys thread than this ridiculous comparison. I mean, just on what point can one argue that either is better than the other? In terms of catchy songs? Well, catchy songs was more the focus of the Beatles than it was of the Stones. Riffs? Well obviously the Stones would have to win that because the Beatles didn't really write that much riff driven music all in all. Quality of vocals? Well, they were singing in different styles and to different audiences. Number of memorable songs? Well, you could make an argument for the Beatles on that basis, but then a hardcore Stones fan might object and say that he/she doesn't find the Beatles' music as memorable as the best of the Stones' 60s catalogue.