Keith Richards is the Beatle within the Stones....

Keith and Ronnie are phenomenally great guitarists. I don't want to be dragged into a Keith vs. Mick thing, but Mick already tried touring with Joe Satriani. Remember how that went? If guitar gymnastics are your idea of "great" guitar playing, go listen to Satriani. Keith and Ronnie have more feel for the instrument in their pinky fingers alone compared to some of those gymnastic style guitar players.

 

People tend to associate "greatness" with technical skill or virtuosity, which is certainly one way to look at it. Can Harrison, Richards, Taylor or Wood touch Pat Metheny? Can McCartney or Wyman really be mentioned in the same sentence as Ron Carter? No, of course not. But, would Metheny have come up with the simple but now iconic staccato triplets in the solo of "A Hard Days Night" or the instantly identifiable three-note progression the begins "Start Me Up"? Probably not. There's more than one way to define "greatness."

 

So let's just keep them at the top of the charts! It could be 1964 all over again with the Beatles holding down the top 5 positions for weeks and months.

 

And the former trumps the latter.

 

It depends upon your cup of tea as they say.

 

Without doubt. Whatever floats yer boat, true. But aside from one's own personal taste, I was basically considering this (meaning that even without being guitar virtuoso's, The Beatles are the world's most successful group ....)

 

Maybe but is doesn't mean they are a favorite of everyone. No matter what the popularity of a group not everyone will like them. It doesn't mean the people are wrong that do not like them, they just have different tastes.

I am reminded of the guy the followed around Charlie Parker and just recorded his solos. He didn't much care about the other group members or even the songs really, he just recorded Parker's solos.

 

I understand and agree with all of that. It was just my way of showing that even though the Beatles were not great musicians, it ultimately didn't matter, as they still managed to be the most successful, anyway.

 

There are many talented groups with skilled musicians that don't really ever make it. There are also many groups that are popular and sell a lot of albums that are not really skilled or talented. It's probably as much about breaks and marketing than talent or skill.

 

Of course they were great musicians. You're a Beatles fan and you think they weren't great musicians?

Some people sure have a weird way of defining "great" around here.

Btw, that doesn't mean they were "the most successful group" either, as you say in your other post. Because, of course, the Stones are.

 

I think The Beatles had some talent and skill, especially in songwriting. (In the end, I think it all comes down to good songs).
The timing was right too.

 

Yes, I'm a Beatles fan. Which is why I know from having watched, heard, and read many interviews with them, even The Beatles themselves didn't claim to be "great musicians". More than once John and Paul referred to themselves as "adequate".

I don't say it; The Guinness World Book of Records documents it.

 

They were being humble when they called themselves "adequate."

And why don't you fetch me a Guinness....

 

Would agree good musicians, great songwriters.

 

Am noticing a pattern here!

 

I'll save it for later.

 

You guys really have to not take anything rockledge says seriously. He literally makes stuff up & I have serious doubts that he's ever played a guitar in his life that wasn't part of a video game.

 

Your exactly right tk17! He has taken the time to make two separate posts (at least) to inform us of his musical training and guitar prowess. What a guy.

Maybe that time would have been better spent practicing his guitar...........

 

"Age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill"? (I think John Cleese said that)

 

I've pondered this deeply, and I think that it's backwards. Lennon would be staples, and McCartney would be paper clips. Think about it.

 

Mick also plays a mean cuíca.

4:33

 

Great is quite a subjective term.
Technically accomplished? Creative?

The guitarists in both bands were "great' in that they did some pretty interesting things with the instrument.
Keith Richad invented one of the most interesting rhythm guitar styles ever done.
Brian Jones and Mick Taylor were both quite musically knowledgeable and applied their knowledge to guitar.
John Lennon might have been no Satriani, but some of the licks he put in Beatles song were both the creating of someone who knew music and the fretboard quite well. Lennons intro lick to Across the Universe is genius.

McCartney had the 50s guitar styles down well and did some pretty accomplished acoustic stuff.
I consider great guitarists to be guys who create a new style or approach to playing, guys who apply what they know extremely creatively, guys who write songs and know exactly what guitar licks are appropriate , and guys who play great grooves.
George Harrison was a textbook of american guitarists licks. He quite obviously studied the 50s intently, no doubt he burned incense around a shrine that had pictures of Scotty Moore and James Burton on it.
I am a technically quite skilled guitarist myself, only because I have been extremely active as a musician for 50 years. But that is not the standard I measure greatness by. There are a lot of very accomplished guitarists who can't get arrested at a record label.

 

Bill Wyman is the Stone alone.

 

Neil Young is a Stone. Ask him....

 

Dean Benedetti. It wasn't that he didn't care about the other musicians, it was the late 40s and consumer tape recording was in its infancy; he only had the capacity to record a few minutes at a time.

Also, this whole thread is idiotic.