Who was better... George or Paul?

westtexasrickenbacker · Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:53 am

Ah, not to stir a hornet's nest. Love all the Beatles! I think Paul's the best guitarist though!

Must run grab the umbrella now to deflect projectiles coming at me.

winston · Post by **winston** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:11 am

George is by far the best guitarist of the two IMO. Lets see Paul play like Carl Perkins and then immediately switch styles to play My Sweet Lord. He does not have those kind of chops.

Harrison was much better rounded as a guitarist.

Paul did play some nice bits though. Taxman comes to mind. George is a hands down winner of this contest.

lawton · Post by **lawton** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:13 am

John.

westtexasrickenbacker · Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:20 pm

You might be correct, Brian, but I'm not sure George Martin or Emerick would agree with you. We'll see what Norman Smith opinion is when his new book comes out later this year.

I don't think John would put himself at G or P's level.

beefandbones · Post by **beefandbones** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:39 pm

You can kind of tell George's job was being the lead guitarist - he was nearly always good, sometimes amazing, but not always inspired. Paul played lead guitar like he had something to prove - 'hey, I can rip it up on guitar too!' John played lead guitar like he had nothing to prove - he was just rockin'.

admin · Post by **admin** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:47 pm

Technically, at least in the early days I found George to be the better guitarist. When it came to writing riffs, however, Paul shone more.

alanz · Post by **alanz** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:08 pm

I dunno, whenever Paul plays lead nowadays on all those myrad DVDs he has he doesn't seem to be very good. Maybe it's 60+ year old fingers but he seems kinda slow and not very accurate, either.

But, he's better than George is today, that's for sure.

winston · Post by **winston** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:16 pm

Alan that was a low blow. Poor George, I wish he was still with us. I do have to agree with you on Paul's recent ability to play guitar. I watched him play a Les Paul on a video a while back and he seemed out of sorts.

George on the other hand always seemed more relaxed with guitar in his hand.

cowboy_joe · Post by **cowboy_joe** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:38 pm

I think George was the lead guitar player, and thus probably the best, but as a writer Paul was able to come up with some great work from time to time. But I think George's slide playing, his 12 string work, and his general diversity in his solo's puts him at the top.

Paul did do some great work on a lot of tracks, and I can always pick out his style--he definitely plays guitar like a bass player.

jt10824 · Post by **jt10824** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:15 pm

I don't know if "better" is an apt term -- they had such totally different styles. I always felt George was the most polished guitarist in the Beatles, but that Paul's and John's soloing often had more fire, more emotion.

That said, I think George developed into a spectacular guitarist AFTER his Beatles days were over. His slide solo on "Free As A Bird," for example, is one of the most stunning things ever recorded.

myfretless · Post by **myfretless** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:01 pm

I assume we confining this to the 60s during the Beatles. Paul was more technically proficient. He was cleaner and adept at many styles. Sort of like Steven Stills. He can blend in with anyone.

George was more stylized and you could identify him by his playing more easily. I would say he was more Roger McGuinny. It's a very difficult thing to make your own style. I wouldn't say he was better technically than Paul though. Listen to the difference of their playing on acoustic songs.

John was a rhythm player. Good on chords but messy on soloing. Sort of like Neil Young.

The best comparison is on "The End" where they all three trade off solos.

davclr · Post by **davclr** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:17 pm

Hard Question!

I'll frame my opinion this way.
I think all three of them were excellent guitarists and all of them extremely versatile.

But I think the most severely underrated of the three was John Lennon.

He had a very fast strident intuitive style and could do some damned fine solo work.
witness "Get Back", "You Can't Do That", Long Tall Sally" that 12 string Ric duet he did with George on "Words of Love", etc.

As far as JWL's rythym(sp?) playing. I'm always blown away by those triplets he did on "All My Loving" and how easy he made it look on the Ed Sullivan Shows" in early 1964.
Ya "easy" all right. Just try to duplicate it!

westtexasrickenbacker · Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:23 am

Good, myriad of opinions here. Excellent.

dudley07726 · Post by **dudley07726** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:15 am

I think Paul is a dirtier, more gritty guitar player. George's sound is much cleaner.

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:32 pm

>>>John played lead guitar like he had nothing to prove - he was just rockin'.

Ethan... that's one of the best descriptions of John's playing. Right on.

As for Paul vs George.... hmmmmm.... I think Goerge early on... but later? good question.