Lord

McCartney's career is the opposite of what you're saying; with the exception of a few albums from the '80s, it's been on a good level: he's always made pop (after all, he invented it) and he has never been overly fooled by the business (just listen to his latest works to believe it). Lennon’s career, after a certain period, ended up as fodder for the sharks (disco music, trendy stuff, and whatever else you can think of). Not to mention the shocking thinness of Starr's and Harrison's discographies (only All Things Must Pass and a little more survive).

And then, sorry Surferkangaroo, the debut of Yes is a striking example of how immature they still were: the album is nice, but it’s still very naïve. Paolo Farina, it’s logical that artists ‘borrow’ a bit from each other; if the Beatles had had a closed-minded, dark-age mentality in '69, they would have still made some nice beat albums and nothing else. And what does the idea of the Medley inspired by the tracks of Pink Floyd mean; for example, Valentyne Suite by Colosseum was one of the first, if not the very first rock suite (there’s also Red Crayola), but that doesn’t mean it's the most beautiful and representative of rock, because there are names out there like Supper's Ready, Close to the Edge, Tarkus, Lizard, Thick as a Brick, A Passion Play, etc.

Surferkangaroo, the review is as naive as your reasoning: how can we keep making these pointless comparisons? The Beatles are the Beatles, the Who are the Who, and the Stones are the Stones. And if we want to look closely, Tommy (a masterpiece) is still full of late-psychedelic naiveté that Abbey Road has long abandoned, like Underture and some others, not to mention the fillers, which are 'a must' on double albums. If we want to consider it, Let It Bleed is more mature than Tommy, but in its beauty, it is also much more boring and less fluid compared to Abbey Road. And then, excuse me, how can you compare a routine album like Let It Bleed (which is memorable anyway) with an event like Abbey Road? The latter is polished to the last detail, while the others were more skeptical, but Paul poured his soul and all his strength into this album.

In '69, the Beatles were not outdated; they had simply embraced the path of POP and a certain symphonism: what’s the point of comparing them to Ummagumma? As a psychedelic album, Abbey Road leaves something to be desired, but thinking this way, Ummagumma as a symphonic POP album is also disappointing. The fact is that the Beatles said, 'okay, let's embrace this new psychedelic genre, but we shouldn't overdo it.' After Revolver, Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, and to some extent the White album, the four said enough; having undergone the psychedelic lesson, they could continue with an even more refined form of rock, and here comes Abbey Road: it’s a mature album, very coherent and without naivety, where everything is measured with parsimony, and where the moog is used only to embellish the arrangements to make them perfect (a year later, the great Keith Emerson, not yet a master of the instrument, would have fun making it roar like an elephant with hemorrhoids, creating a true indigestion of synthesizers). This is Abbey Road, the compositional and expressive maturity of the four.

"...the solo interludes in a three-guitar exchange...when albums like Led Zeppelin II, Let It Bleed, Zappa, Santana were around." Everything could work except for Let It Bleed: great album, great band the Rolling Stones, but in terms of guitar technique, we’re at the same level; at least the Beatles tried to break away a bit from the pop matrix of guitar solos. Anyway, the fact that the solos couldn't compete with the Zeppelins doesn't mean anything: everyone does what they can. The fact remains that Abbey Road is very mature and complete and for me represents the quintessence of pop. As for the final medley, it seems more than successful to me, not a protracted moment, not a boring piece, it flows like dew on the leaves of a blossoming peach tree; what does it matter if it consists of bits discarded from other songs? In the end, it worked.

Ringo Starr used to put rags on the snare drum to soften its sound. I also tried recording my drum set that way, and I must say that the sound is exactly like Starr's. Anyway, Ringo had his own style. Many other drummers of the time were more technical, but how do you distinguish one from another? He, on the other hand, whether due to incapacity or some mysterious alchemy, always managed to be recognized, for the mistakes, for that lazy touch,... And especially remember that open Charleston on the snare hit: it was one of the first.

Yes, but in terms of guitar technique, he was inferior to Paul. If you listen to Jethro Tull, you will notice how much skill Ian Anderson has with the guitar; even Barre himself admitted his technical superiority. Yet, Ian continues to do his ramblings and Martin Barre his guitar riffs. I did not question Lennon’s genius (and he certainly was one); I just said that in terms of guitar technique, he was weaker compared to the other two.

Know-it-all, Ringo Starr, although more ragged and out of time, has a recognizability equal to that of a Keith Moon. Got what I mean? He had that trademark that inevitably made you say, "yes, this is Ringo Starr, no doubt about it."

There was a site, I don't remember the address, where for each song it listed who the actual author was (they always signed as Lennon-McCartney, except for George and Ringo), who played this, who played that, etc. So while reading, I realized that the most beautiful solos were by McCartney, with Harrison in second place, and finally Lennon. In the Let It Be video, when he improvises, he stumbles spectacularly, while the other two are more skilled at inventing on the spot. That doesn't take away from the fact that John was an extraordinary talent; just listen to songs like Because, Lucy in the..., And Your Bird Can Sing, much of A Day in the Life, She Said She Said—essentially the most 'avant-garde' pieces, which were somehow more projected into the future.

However, John Lennon, of the three (George, John, Paul-Saul), was the least skilled with the guitar. McCartney probably matched Harrison in terms of talent. That said, I don't want to take anything away from Lennon and George. I believe the strength of the Beatles was their creativity and originality. I want to defend Richard Starkey (for those who don't know, Ringo Starr): although he wasn't an exceptional drummer, his playing style is easily recognizable among a thousand other drummers (the personal style of musicians has sadly dwindled in recent years, much like music itself). Furthermore, Ringo was one of the first to open the Charleston on the snare hit and then close it again, a technique that became popular in the seventies (Phil Collins, Roger Taylor, Bill Bruford,...)