>>>Once they came out with that, the stones and others followed suit. The >>sitar, as you pointed out, is another example of them takin the lead. I've >>never liked the sound of it, but they did introduce it to the west, sorta. >>I am always amazed at the diversity of the songs they came out with and he
>>>different styles they showed.
>
>>All the more reason for their not being an influence - unless that influence was to diversify.
>
>>>Paul has demonstrated that he was the biggest driving influence of that >>band by what he has done as a Beatle and since, IMHO.
>
>>Agreed but, well, he HAS had a few more years to work on it than John >did! :-)
>
>>BUT! we get that stooopid frog song, Ebony & Ivory (for which Stevie Wonder
>>totally lost my respect, esp. after "I just called ..."), and other crass >nonsenese like them. Then when he runs out of material, or appears on a >multi-pop star extravaganza, he thinks he can wow us all with his R&R, >and .reverts back to the days when he thoughht he was Little Richard.
>
>early on they would play any style from waltz (see baby's in black) to r&b (arthur alexander stuff) to Chuck Berry/Little Richard. The bass line from I saw her standing there is copied note by note from Ray Charles' Talking 'bout you'.

There you go! One could then say that it wasn't the Beatles who influenced the world but Chuck Berry, Little Richard (who already HAD a toe-hold) et al, THROUGH the medium of the Beatles.

>I believe is McCartney who, having a broader musical culture, introduced the band to other styles than rock.

erm, "When I'm 64", "Martha My Dear" :-(

>
>Among their beatles song, i prefer Lennon's style. His lyrics are much better, more direct, no nonsense, and I think even his writing style is more rock thatn Paul's.

"I'm so tired", "Yes I'm Lonely" :-)

>After Beatles, both has got some good songs but Lennon never really went... that pop as McCartney did.( as you mention the junk with Wonders, M Jackson).

Lenon did the rounds - but in the end the rounds did him! :-)