Old55
Riddle me this.  All four Beatles are listed in Wikipedia as being MBEs.  Why, then, is MacCartney the only one who is referred to as "Sir Paul".  Is "Sir" different from MBE?  I understand that "Sir Ringo" doesn't necessarily fit his basic demeanor and image.  But John and George could easily referred to as Sirs.  

In Great Britain, yes, "Sir" is different from having an MBE. In addition to his MBE, McCartney was knighted by Queen Elizabeth in 1997 - and that's what makes him a "Sir".

It's pop culture at its best. No sense of nuance or perspective in people's appreciation.
 
I remember not that long ago, many thought of George Harrison as a rather mediocre guitar player. Now he and Lennon BOTH make it on Rolling Stones' Best 100 Guitarists of All Time. I love his work, I've always enjoyed hearing him on the slide guitar for some reason. But, come on...
 
 
You check those lists and guitar heroes these days, and you can't help but notice how conveniently people managed to completely forget the sheer virtuosity of the 80s shredders, as if it never really happened. How tasteful it all was is a different story, but you cannot possibly tell me that John Lennon is a better guitar player than Yngwie or MacAlpine... He was average back then, and turning into a legend didn't magically blow away all competition. He just strummed the darn thing.
 
And there's no wrong in that. Most of my favorite guitarists have relatively rudimentary skills. Jimmy Page is sloppy. Hendrix was completely and painfully off a lot of the time. Ace Frehley never was that good. Tony Iommi is a pretty weak and repetitive lead guitarist. 
 
We got to be objective. No matter if I'm much more likely to listen to Zeppelin or the Beatles than I am likely to put on St. Matthews Passion... It doesn't make the Beatles better than Bach. They're just a whole lot easier to assimilate and require nowhere near the attention and the listening skills.
 

Rain
It's pop culture at its best. No sense of nuance or perspective in people's appreciation.
 
I remember not that long ago, many thought of George Harrison as a rather mediocre guitar player. Now he and Lennon BOTH make it on Rolling Stones' Best 100 Guitarists of All Time. I love his work, I've always enjoyed hearing him on the slide guitar for some reason. But, come on...
 
 
You check those lists and guitar heroes these days, and you can't help but notice how conveniently people managed to completely forget the sheer virtuosity of the 80s shredders, as if it never really happened. How tasteful it all was is a different story, but you cannot possibly tell me that John Lennon is a better guitar player than Yngwie or MacAlpine... He was average back then, and turning into a legend didn't magically blow away all competition. He just strummed the darn thing.
 
And there's no wrong in that. Most of my favorite guitarists have relatively rudimentary skills. Jimmy Page is sloppy. Hendrix was completely and painfully off a lot of the time. Ace Frehley never was that good. Tony Iommi is a pretty weak and repetitive lead guitarist. 
 
We got to be objective. No matter if I'm much more likely to listen to Zeppelin or the Beatles than I am likely to put on St. Matthews Passion... It doesn't make the Beatles better than Bach. They're just a whole lot easier to assimilate and require nowhere near the attention and the listening skills.
 

 
Yeah but those 80's shredders - it was all about technique and little else. I had great fun watching Paul Gilbert's Hot Licks video from the 80's on YouTube recently. The stuff he's playing sounds just horrible. It's incredible technique, and I'll always be in awe of his speed picking technique, but man...that's not very musical to me and hence I didn't rate him as a guitar player. However, I've seen him play lately and he really is an awesome guitarist these days. He's still got the breathtaking technique but he's using it to a far more musical end and he's got great quirk and style. 
 

sharke
 
Yeah but those 80's shredders - it was all about technique and little else. I had great fun watching Paul Gilbert's Hot Licks video from the 80's on YouTube recently. The stuff he's playing sounds just horrible. It's incredible technique, and I'll always be in awe of his speed picking technique, but man...that's not very musical to me and hence I didn't rate him as a guitar player. However, I've seen him play lately and he really is an awesome guitarist these days. He's still got the breathtaking technique but he's using it to a far more musical end and he's got great quirk and style. 
 

Yup - that's what I meant that it wasn't necessarily all tasteful.
 
 
OTOH, inadequate technique, while it may result in something that's more pleasant and/or easier to digest is equally compromised. Though people will most commonly pick what they feel is "heartfelt" - and that is also highly subjective, especially when you ask someone with little or no musical skills.
 
For exemple, lots of people seem to equate a raspy voice with "feeling" but will completely miss the beauty of something that's 100 times as heartfelt because it's more subtle.
 
I think it shouldn't be a case of either or. It's not because this or that shredder didn't play tastefully that John Lennon suddenly becomes a great guitar player. A great guitarist should be both technically brilliant and tasteful in his playing. I don't see why we need make lists so badly that we're ready to overlook an essential aspect of the equation or to factor in how legendary the guy was.

I thought the question would get some response. It's always fun to read your responses and give Jeff Evans a platform to insult people. Most responses touch on the issue that had me going; how do we measure success? Will the Beatles be played in 100 years? I think so.
 
It's impossible to compare anything over a long period of time. It seems like most of the great composers died poor, or at least living a modest life. So money can't be a criteria. Maybe it's longevity. Who knows, and as Jeff pointed out I am musically ignorant.

ampfixer
I thought the question would get some response. It's always fun to read your responses and give Jeff Evans a platform to insult people. Most responses touch on the issue that had me going; how do we measure success? Will the Beatles be played in 100 years? I think so.
 
It's impossible to compare anything over a long period of time. It seems like most of the great composers died poor, or at least living a modest life. So money can't be a criteria. Maybe it's longevity. Who knows, and as Jeff pointed out I am musically ignorant.

In terms of relevance, it's a safe bet to say that the Beatles will be remembered for a long long long time. No matter what we think of popular music vs classical music - they are representative of the culture of their time, a time when pop culture became absolutely prevalent. They do represent that. 

craigb
I'm just going to go with... No.

Perfect....but James hit the top with humor.
Hendrix is still #1 in everything and everybody knows that.
 

 
"Twat it up into C# major"
   ~ Pull McCarthorse 1962

Whilst out standing in my field.... of dreams, it occurred to me that I am a legend in my own mind.