Was he the best beatle?
>>12946627360s zayn was not. i prefer NSYNC desu
>>129466279ESL moment
>>129466273he was the best former Beatle.
>>129466273I think overall John had the best output in the Beatles, but that’s because I feel he had the better songs in their early days. Paul picked up momentum in their later albums. If he had an equal level of quality songs as John in their early days, then I’d think Paul was the best Beatle.>>129466329Also true. Paul had a better solo career than John or George or Ringo
>>129466329>>129467357Will they ever release it?
>>129466279>>129467381Kill yourself
>best beatleThat'll be me then
>>129466273He wasn't even the best Paul in the Beatles.
>>129466279>>129466279"The seething din of millennials faded into the warming night, their cries of "the Beatles fucking suck" and "Boomers are to blame for all my failings" were dampened to silence by the mist, and drown by the morning dew.But they'd be awake by early afternoon, only to start the plaintive ritual again; the melancholy wailing bouncing off the backlit screens and cereal boxes surrounding them, while members of other generations, working, raising families, contributors all, heard nothing of it. The local flora turned as deaf an ear as the fauna, and the cloudless sky, too; and so continued the spiteful blameful opera voiced by the directionless adherents of America's voluntary class of malding malaisial millennials."-- Magnus Olympus, from The Saddest Clowns in the World
>>129467357>I think John had the best output in their early daysafter seeing The Beatles: Get Back this is the only way I can see anyone saying anything but Paul.
