|
Post by ursamajor on Nov 16, 2013 6:20:15 GMT -5
John was not only the leader of the Beatles, he laid the blue print for modern rock and thus was the leader of an evolving genre which didn't exist at the time but came to be. Blues based rock, folk rock, psychedelic rock, hard rock you name it. He had a willing and capable partner in Paul who pushed other musical styles into Beatles music like jazz and classical arrangements and over time those styles became sub-genres but John was the catalyst for all of that. He opened the window where outside, there was a spaceship which took off into the sky leaving a trail of smoke behind it.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Nov 16, 2013 19:23:31 GMT -5
Well here's a much later quote by Paul on John being the leader.
I think Paul sees himself as the important General in the Beatles. He was happy to let John assume the role of leader as long as it suited both of them. He could influence the direction of the band whilst John was happy to be the front man and the one who appeared to be edgier and more of a risk taker. It's obvious that this went sour when Paul felt John was abdicating his leadership of the band after Brian died and so he became de facto leader in the vacuum that was left.
We can look at it two ways.
Either Paul had become overbearing to the others and this created the tension that led to the break up. Or perhaps he actually extended the life of the band for 2 or 3 years with his work ethic when it may have all fell apart before the White Album got finished.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 16, 2013 20:22:32 GMT -5
You make some excellent points Stavros.
And I always thought Many Years From Now is an excellent book. Paul is very thoughtful and lets his mask down for once. Its like he's mostly just trying to make sense of the Beatles thing for himself without an ulterior agenda.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 16, 2013 22:54:33 GMT -5
Yeah, that book is so much bullsh*t. Like it was Paul's decision to let John be the leader? More like either that or get out and start your own group, McCartney. This is the way Paul learned to rationalize being second banana to John after John's passing. But back in the day Paul was ok with John being leader because John was the leader, it was his group and everyone was cool with that. John wasn't leader because Paul let him. pathetic claim #2,956 in that rag called Many Years From Now. Every page with a revisionist bent. I respected Paul so much before he started pulling this garbage.!
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Nov 16, 2013 23:24:20 GMT -5
There is a leader in terms of the press or spokesman of the group and then there is a leader in the studio or musically. John was the erzats leader in terms of being a spokesman, but Paul was the musical leader in the studio. I submit the the latter is the most significant form of leadership for the group. For his ego, John needed to be the big cheese in the group and indeed, when he felt Paul had outshined him by 1966 John began to lose interest and by 1968-69 when Paul had completely taken over, John wanted out. Paul allowed John to believe he was "the leader" but in the studio where the music was made, as musical leader, it wa Paul who was dominant.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 16, 2013 23:29:59 GMT -5
Welcome back RTP! I really missed your fiction!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 17, 2013 0:23:20 GMT -5
Didn't they whip them out one day and put them on a table and John's was bigger?
(Ah, wallets, that is. Of course Paul said he didn't keep anything in his wallet. He kept his money on a charge card.)
(And he said there was a cold draft.)
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 17, 2013 2:01:48 GMT -5
There is a leader in terms of the press or spokesman of the group and then there is a leader in the studio or musically. John was the erzats leader in terms of being a spokesman, but Paul was the musical leader in the studio. I submit the the latter is the most significant form of leadership for the group. For his ego, John needed to be the big cheese in the group and indeed, when he felt Paul had outshined him by 1966 John began to lose interest and by 1968-69 when Paul had completely taken over, John wanted out. Paul allowed John to believe he was "the leader" but in the studio where the music was made, as musical leader, it wa Paul who was dominant. Good points RTP. Here's a line from Sean Lennon from the Phillip Norman bio of Lennon: "I don't think my dad would have been commercial at all without Paul and the management of George Martin. I mean in the sense of being palatable to the masses. I don't think that was his area of expertise. I think he was very interesting and edgy and edgy and interesting don't always cut it for the populace. I think the sugar around the Beatles with my dad as the core of intensity made them the ultimate package."
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 17, 2013 2:04:53 GMT -5
I'm not sure I completely agree with that. But its an interesting and perceptive quote.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 17, 2013 6:35:49 GMT -5
Here's a line from Sean Lennon from the Phillip Norman bio of Lennon: "I don't think my dad would have been commercial at all without Paul and the management of George Martin. I mean in the sense of being palatable to the masses. I don't think that was his area of expertise. I think he was very interesting and edgy and edgy and interesting don't always cut it for the populace. I think the sugar around the Beatles with my dad as the core of intensity made them the ultimate package." It just so happens that I agree for the most part with Sean... though in fairness, John was fairly commercial with DOUBLE FANTASY. But I don't see that quoting Sean ever has any credibility when it comes to his dad, sorry (well, except for what it was like knowing first hand about John playing with Sean and changing his diapers and such, as a little tyke). I say this because the kid was only 5 when John died, and it's highly unlikely that he and his pop had these types of in depth discussions or tht he really ever go to know his father. So in reality, all Sean is doing is offering an opinion which anybody would.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 17, 2013 7:17:13 GMT -5
Yeah, that book is so much bullsh*t. Like it was Paul's decision to let John be the leader? More like either that or get out and start your own group, McCartney. This is the way Paul learned to rationalize being second banana to John after John's passing. But back in the day Paul was ok with John being leader because John was the leader, it was his group and everyone was cool with that. John wasn't leader because Paul let him. pathetic claim #2,956 in that rag called Many Years From Now. Every page with a revisionist bent. I respected Paul so much before he started pulling this garbage.! Right on. No way would I read that self-serving rag of a book.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 17, 2013 7:31:47 GMT -5
There is a leader in terms of the press or spokesman of the group and then there is a leader in the studio or musically. John was the erzats leader in terms of being a spokesman, but Paul was the musical leader in the studio. I submit the the latter is the most significant form of leadership for the group. Well, of course you would naturally submit that. But the point is, even Paul McCartney himself deemed John the "Leader Of The Beatles", back in 1962 -- and probably before that. This is well before the Beatles even spent a lot of time in the studio recording their classic hits. You always want to assert that "The Beatles were not 'John's band', they were 'JohnANDPaul's band' " ... but here is evidence that even Paul himself never thought that in those earlier days, and as late as 1962. Here you go again only using the word "ego" to describe John, when in fact Paul always had - and still has - the most tremendous Ego of all! Like I said, the music in the studio had not even progressed beyond LOVE ME DO at the time this quote was made by Paul. At this time, John and Paul were on equal footing as novices and learners within the studio. This whole "who was the leader?" thing basically applied to the formation of the Beatles and their earliest years of success. It's like Brian Jones being the Leader of The Rolling Stones from the beginning before he faded through the '60s, and then Mick and Keith were more like the leaders. That's delusional. What a load of re-writing of history that is. John just became disenchanted with The Beatles and was not as interested anymore, and especially once he met and hooked up with Yoko. As a result, since John no longer cared, Paul stepped in and assumed leadership duties --- but don't kid yourself into thinking that Paul somehow just "took it from John, so John sulked and went home". That's not what happened at all. John just did not want The Beatles as much as Paul did anymore (same with George and Ringo; Paul was the only one who wanted the Beatles so much -- then the phony ultimately decided to be the one who quits and "wants out!")...
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 17, 2013 12:23:03 GMT -5
Here's a line from Sean Lennon from the Phillip Norman bio of Lennon: "I don't think my dad would have been commercial at all without Paul and the management of George Martin. I mean in the sense of being palatable to the masses. I don't think that was his area of expertise. I think he was very interesting and edgy and edgy and interesting don't always cut it for the populace. I think the sugar around the Beatles with my dad as the core of intensity made them the ultimate package." It just so happens that I agree for the most part with Sean... though in fairness, John was fairly commercial with DOUBLE FANTASY. But I don't see that quoting Sean ever has any credibility when it comes to his dad, sorry (well, except for what it was like knowing first hand about John playing with Sean and changing his diapers and such, as a little tyke). I say this because the kid was only 5 when John died, and it's highly unlikely that he and his pop had these types of in depth discussions or tht he really ever go to know his father. So in reality, all Sean is doing is offering an opinion which anybody would. The part of the quote I question is that John wouldn't have been "commercial at all without Paul." He most likely wouldn't have been AS commercial. But I tend to agree with Brian Epstein when he said, "John Lennon would have been a force in this world with or without the Beatles."
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 17, 2013 12:27:04 GMT -5
Yeah, that book is so much bullsh*t. Like it was Paul's decision to let John be the leader? More like either that or get out and start your own group, McCartney. This is the way Paul learned to rationalize being second banana to John after John's passing. But back in the day Paul was ok with John being leader because John was the leader, it was his group and everyone was cool with that. John wasn't leader because Paul let him. pathetic claim #2,956 in that rag called Many Years From Now. Every page with a revisionist bent. I respected Paul so much before he started pulling this garbage.! Right on. No way would I read that self-serving rag of a book. Its interesting how two people can have such different spins on the same thing. I thought it was a thoughtful, revealing book. Course message boards would be pretty dull if we all agreed with eachother.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 17, 2013 12:44:42 GMT -5
Paul said he was number two. Paul said he idolized John. Paul said it was like having our own Elvis in the group. Paul said they were all in love with John and competed for his friendship.
What more do you want him to say? That Paul was a boot-licking toadie who mindlessly went along with everything John told him to do?
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Nov 18, 2013 14:56:46 GMT -5
John was not only the leader of the Beatles, he laid the blue print for modern rock and thus was the leader of an evolving genre which didn't exist at the time but came to be. Blues based rock, folk rock, psychedelic rock, hard rock you name it. He had a willing and capable partner in Paul who pushed other musical styles into Beatles music like jazz and classical arrangements and over time those styles became sub-genres but John was the catalyst for all of that. He opened the window where outside, there was a spaceship which took off into the sky leaving a trail of smoke behind it. The Quarrymen were off playing Lonnie Donnigan before Paul came into the picture. He lead them in a new direction in many different ways. Read the history of the group in their own words and they talk about how Paul changed the direction of the group to playing rock and roll. He got John to realize they could write their own songs and become professionals. Before Paul they were a high school band going nowhere. They were in in for a larf and didn't take music seriously. Whose song was it that they used when it was time to record their own song in the summer of 1958? It was Paul who taught John how to play guitar properly. It was Paul who suggested they should be writing their own songs. The more you look at it the clearer it is that while John needed to be seen as the leader for his own ego, (yes Paul had a huge one too) Paul was always one step ahaed of him.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Nov 18, 2013 16:20:49 GMT -5
John was not only the leader of the Beatles, he laid the blue print for modern rock and thus was the leader of an evolving genre which didn't exist at the time but came to be. Blues based rock, folk rock, psychedelic rock, hard rock you name it. He had a willing and capable partner in Paul who pushed other musical styles into Beatles music like jazz and classical arrangements and over time those styles became sub-genres but John was the catalyst for all of that. He opened the window where outside, there was a spaceship which took off into the sky leaving a trail of smoke behind it. The Quarrymen were off playing Lonnie Donnigan before Paul came into the picture. He lead them in a new direction in many different ways. Read the history of the group in their own words and they talk about how Paul changed the direction of the group to playing rock and roll. He got John to realize they could write their own songs and become professionals. Before Paul they were a high school band going nowhere. They were in in for a larf and didn't take music seriously. Whose song was it that they used when it was time to record their own song in the summer of 1958? It was Paul who taught John how to play guitar properly. It was Paul who suggested they should be writing their own songs. The more you look at it the clearer it is that while John needed to be seen as the leader for his own ego, (yes Paul had a huge one too) Paul was always one step ahaed of him. I don't know if what you're saying is true or not so I am not going to argue with you but when the Beatles started to hit with their first album and first few singles it was John who was the driving force behind all those great songs. Paul because he was also so into it as John was still developing as a songwriter, check out his early songs vs what came later. John practically wrote A Hard Days Night on his own, he started to imitate Dylan to learn the Dylan craft and eventually surpassed him, he came up with the two biggest songs on RS Norwegian Wood and In My Life, first song recorded for Revolver was Tomorrow Never Knows, his Revolver songs were one rocker after another that no one else sounded like in '66, first song for Sgt Pepper was Strawberry Fields Forever, Paul copied with Penny Lane, Sgt Pepper was Paul's idea but the psychedelic rock genre that was borne out of it was all John, Lucy , Mr Kite and A Day in a Life - granted that with A Day in A Life John realised the song needed to be bigger and he was not egocentric at all about it, he asked Paul to help him out and that's why it is the masterpiece it is today. Then John's creme'de la creme , I Am the Walrus came out later in that year. Paul's songs were great as well but he didn't do anything that was new or ground-breaking or pushed the barriers of rock. Also if you read about Yesterday, George Martin did so much to help Paul with that song, he did quite a few different types of classical arrangements until Paul was happy to go along with it and he even gave Paul the option of going back to an acoustic arrangement if he didn't like anything that he came up with so you really have to give George Martin the credit for the way Yesterday ended up. After Yesterday Paul trusted George Martin's instincts and he helped him with Michelle and Eleanor Rigby . Moving onto the White Album era, John's songs are all indie-styled edgy rock songs whereas Paul sticks to the tried and trusted formula and goes on his genre hopping bandwagon with Obladi Oblada, Honey Pie etc .. Paul was always a follower and he admits is even though he likes to take a certain amount of credit for what John was doing because he didn't do it himself. Even with Helter Skelter Paul admits he was just trying to beat out The Who. So apart from Sgt Pepper which ended up having LSD and ADIAL as the two big songs on it which were John's, MMT which was a disaster and Let It Be another unmitigated disaster, I would say that when Paul took the lead he actually broke up the Beatles - twice, when John took the lead, the Beatles were a powerful force. When the Beatles were fracturing on the White Album , it took a John song Yer Blues to get them revved up again in the studio. There is no doubt in my mind that the Beatles was John's band and it all depended on John to be firing on all cylinders for the Beatles to function as a united cohesive unit, once John lost interest it all fell apart rather quickly.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 18, 2013 17:45:43 GMT -5
And if we walk a line between those two, we might be somewhere near the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 18, 2013 18:53:45 GMT -5
The Quarrymen were off playing Lonnie Donnigan before Paul came into the picture. He lead them in a new direction in many different ways. Read the history of the group in their own words and they talk about how Paul changed the direction of the group to playing rock and roll. He got John to realize they could write their own songs and become professionals. Before Paul they were a high school band going nowhere. They were in in for a larf and didn't take music seriously. Whose song was it that they used when it was time to record their own song in the summer of 1958? It was Paul who taught John how to play guitar properly. It was Paul who suggested they should be writing their own songs. The more you look at it the clearer it is that while John needed to be seen as the leader for his own ego, (yes Paul had a huge one too) Paul was always one step ahaed of him. You see, this quote is a good example of the claptrap and BS that has been allowed to flourish in recent years, and marginalizing John down and down in size over the last 10 or 20 years. What are you even talking about with the Lonnie Donnigan thing? John said "Ain't That A Shame" was the first song he learned to play, and the day Paul saw The Quarrymen John was singing "Come Go With Me" by the Del Vikings. John was a rabid Chuck Berry fan and had his look modeled after Elvis. RTP... you almost had me drinking your unique brand of Kool-Aid. I was actually beginning to think you could be right until I now started hearing new interviews with Mark Lewisohn and Kevin Howlett about their new books. They restored John's legacy -- which you'd think was something that none of us should NEED a refresher course in, but unfortunately Lennon's greatness and talents have started to fizzle in minds as John sinks farther back into history and oblivion for well over 30 years, while Paul's rep continues to flourish. And when someone else is not praising and elevating Paul above all others, we have Paul making sure to do that for himself. You say that Paul was always one step ahead of John. Why, then, did Paul always look up to John and why was Paul just as influenced by him as John was by Paul? THESE WERE TWO GREAT POWERHOUSES. I submit again that it is you, RTP, who continually tries to make Paul McCartney "The Beatles", while the rest of us realize it was BOTH John and Paul. When this "John Vs Paul" silliness occurs, it is almost always as a way of restoring the truth to the re-writes of Paul History.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 18, 2013 20:36:11 GMT -5
Paul said he was number two. Paul said he idolized John. Paul said it was like having our own Elvis in the group. Paul said they were all in love with John and competed for his friendship. What more do you want him to say? That Paul was a boot-licking toadie who mindlessly went along with everything John told him to do? Paul often acts like a number two when he talks about John and the Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 18, 2013 20:40:41 GMT -5
John was not only the leader of the Beatles, he laid the blue print for modern rock and thus was the leader of an evolving genre which didn't exist at the time but came to be. Blues based rock, folk rock, psychedelic rock, hard rock you name it. He had a willing and capable partner in Paul who pushed other musical styles into Beatles music like jazz and classical arrangements and over time those styles became sub-genres but John was the catalyst for all of that. He opened the window where outside, there was a spaceship which took off into the sky leaving a trail of smoke behind it. The Quarrymen were off playing Lonnie Donnigan before Paul came into the picture. He lead them in a new direction in many different ways. Read the history of the group in their own words and they talk about how Paul changed the direction of the group to playing rock and roll. He got John to realize they could write their own songs and become professionals. Before Paul they were a high school band going nowhere. They were in in for a larf and didn't take music seriously. Whose song was it that they used when it was time to record their own song in the summer of 1958? It was Paul who taught John how to play guitar properly. It was Paul who suggested they should be writing their own songs. The more you look at it the clearer it is that while John needed to be seen as the leader for his own ego, (yes Paul had a huge one too) Paul was always one step ahaed of him. more fiction. For starters, even Paul admits John was writing songs before they met. only you don't. Paul admits he was second to John. you don't. John led the Beatles music in several directions with Paul catching up an album or two later. Thanks for sharing your fantasy world with us. It's nice taking a break from reality.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 18, 2013 20:44:11 GMT -5
The Quarrymen were off playing Lonnie Donnigan before Paul came into the picture. He lead them in a new direction in many different ways. Read the history of the group in their own words and they talk about how Paul changed the direction of the group to playing rock and roll. He got John to realize they could write their own songs and become professionals. Before Paul they were a high school band going nowhere. They were in in for a larf and didn't take music seriously. Whose song was it that they used when it was time to record their own song in the summer of 1958? It was Paul who taught John how to play guitar properly. It was Paul who suggested they should be writing their own songs. The more you look at it the clearer it is that while John needed to be seen as the leader for his own ego, (yes Paul had a huge one too) Paul was always one step ahaed of him. I don't know if what you're saying is true or not so I am not going to argue with you but when the Beatles started to hit with their first album and first few singles it was John who was the driving force behind all those great songs. Paul because he was also so into it as John was still developing as a songwriter, check out his early songs vs what came later. John practically wrote A Hard Days Night on his own, he started to imitate Dylan to learn the Dylan craft and eventually surpassed him, he came up with the two biggest songs on RS Norwegian Wood and In My Life, first song recorded for Revolver was Tomorrow Never Knows, his Revolver songs were one rocker after another that no one else sounded like in '66, first song for Sgt Pepper was Strawberry Fields Forever, Paul copied with Penny Lane, Sgt Pepper was Paul's idea but the psychedelic rock genre that was borne out of it was all John, Lucy , Mr Kite and A Day in a Life - granted that with A Day in A Life John realised the song needed to be bigger and he was not egocentric at all about it, he asked Paul to help him out and that's why it is the masterpiece it is today. Then John's creme'de la creme , I Am the Walrus came out later in that year. Paul's songs were great as well but he didn't do anything that was new or ground-breaking or pushed the barriers of rock. Also if you read about Yesterday, George Martin did so much to help Paul with that song, he did quite a few different types of classical arrangements until Paul was happy to go along with it and he even gave Paul the option of going back to an acoustic arrangement if he didn't like anything that he came up with so you really have to give George Martin the credit for the way Yesterday ended up. After Yesterday Paul trusted George Martin's instincts and he helped him with Michelle and Eleanor Rigby . Moving onto the White Album era, John's songs are all indie-styled edgy rock songs whereas Paul sticks to the tried and trusted formula and goes on his genre hopping bandwagon with Obladi Oblada, Honey Pie etc .. Paul was always a follower and he admits is even though he likes to take a certain amount of credit for what John was doing because he didn't do it himself. Even with Helter Skelter Paul admits he was just trying to beat out The Who. So apart from Sgt Pepper which ended up having LSD and ADIAL as the two big songs on it which were John's, MMT which was a disaster and Let It Be another unmitigated disaster, I would say that when Paul took the lead he actually broke up the Beatles - twice, when John took the lead, the Beatles were a powerful force. When the Beatles were fracturing on the White Album , it took a John song Yer Blues to get them revved up again in the studio. There is no doubt in my mind that the Beatles was John's band and it all depended on John to be firing on all cylinders for the Beatles to function as a united cohesive unit, once John lost interest it all fell apart rather quickly. Great post Ursa. Undeniable facts... At every turn it was John leading the musical direction of the Beatles
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 18, 2013 20:49:11 GMT -5
For starters, even Paul admits John was writing songs before they met. only you don't. Paul admits he was second to John. you don't. John led the Beatles music in several directions with Paul catching up an album or two later. Thanks for sharing your fantasy world with us. It's nice taking a break from reality. Really! You know, I was listening to an interview the other day with Lewisohn and there was discussion of the songs John wrote, and what his very first song was. I forgot the title -- it was something other than "Hello Little Girl", which we'd always thought was John's first. Paul was inspired by John's help and his words... to this very day we all know that Paul still needs John and misses him, when it comes to helping Paul write. Paul tried using Elvis Costello and others in John's place, but to Paul's credit he still talks about needing someone like John to bounce off, and to tell him when he needs to keep or ax a line, or something,. Y'see, this is what I meant by the "marginalizing of John". I have to admit that with John gone for so long and so little attention paid to him these days as compared to years ago, it becomes easy to forget and think he was a sideman for Paul. So different from the situation around 1980 - 1990 when everyone thought "it was all John". Of course, we know that it was BOTH men... but it's just too easy in John's absence to have some details become blurred or lost.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 18, 2013 21:18:48 GMT -5
John was not only the leader of the Beatles, he laid the blue print for modern rock band thus was the leader of an evolving genre which didn't exist at the time but came to be. Blues based rock, folk rock, psychedelic rock, hard rock you name it. He had a willing and capable partner in Paul who pushed other musical styles into Beatles music like jazz and classical arrangements and over time those styles became sub-genres but John was the catalyst for all of that. He opened the window where outside, there was a spaceship which took off into the sky leaving a trail of smoke behind it. The Quarrymen were off playing Lonnie Donnigan before Paul came into the picture. He lead them in a new direction in many different ways. Read the history of the group in their own words and they talk about how Paul changed the direction of the group to playing rock and roll. He got John to realize they could write their own songs and become professionals. Before Paul they were a high school band going nowhere. They were in in for a larf and didn't take music seriously. Whose song was it that they used when it was time to record their own song in the summer of 1958? It was Paul who taught John how to play guitar properly. It was Paul who suggested they should be writing their own songs. The more you look at it the clearer it is that while John needed to be seen as the leader for his own ego, (yes Paul had a huge one too) Paul was always one step ahaed of him. I think thats a great stretch to say "Paul changed the direction of the group to play rocknroll." According to the Phillip Norman bio "John at the very earliest stage began mixing rocknroll into the Quarrymen's skiffle repertoire." And the notion that Paul showed John how to write songs, "John was in the habit of making up his own words to current hit songs." Which is the essence of songwriting after all (and his words were probably better than the original lyrics, too).
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 18, 2013 21:25:51 GMT -5
According to the Geoff Emerick book whenever the Beatles started recording s new album they always started with a John song first. There's a reason for that.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Nov 19, 2013 2:27:08 GMT -5
According to the Geoff Emerick book whenever the Beatles started recording s new album they always started with a John song first. There's a reason for that. The reason is that it set the tone and direction of the album, Paul and George would quickly latch onto it and this gave each album their individual vibe. On John's songs Paul's bass playing and Ringo's drumming reached new heights, Paul has always been considered one of the most influential bass players of all time.
|
|