To Jalen-
Yeah you're saying they were average musicians, aside from Lennon I have to disagree. They were a really good enserable, I never said they were virutosos, hell no. But you seem to think they need to be virutosos in order to be considered good musicians, and that ain't true.
Harrison is simple, so what? So is Clapton. So is Gilmour.
And people really don't consider how good of a bassist McCartney actually was, their songs had really melodic basslines that you wouldn't find anywhere else in rock music at the time. Paul didn't play so much like he was just part of the rhtyhm section, and that of course influenced tons of rock bassists, everyone from Entwhistle to Squire.
Ringo was simple, but he wasn't lacking, you have a lot of "simple" drummers that use the same beats over and over, like Watts and Rudd. But Ringo was able enough to play whatever it was he needed to and just about every song has something unique about the drums.
Instrumentally, Lennon was the only weak link in the band. Though he had some great riRAB to his name and his rhythm playing was tight enough. But his limitations were especially noticable in his solo career where his playing figured in more prominately and also Beatles songs where he played lead.
Just listen to The End, and how weak Lennons solo licks are compared to Harrison and McCartneys. Harrison and McCartney were both really good guitarists, they were simple but that dosen't make them a sloppy mess.
I do agree that they worked better as an enserable way better than they did on their own. Chemestry is key, obviously.
To Urban-
Well nothing else other than Rebel Rebel really stood out to me, but it's been ages since I listened to that album so maybe I should give it another spin, I just remerabering it being really boring.
