Is George Harrison the Best Beatle?

Watching Two of Us, the VH-1 account of a fictional meeting between Paul McCartney and John Lennon, I was struck by the badness of the idea, the inappropriateness of the whole undertaking, and my own embarrassment for tuning in. I was also struck by what the movie managed to capture despite itself, the relationship between Lennon and McCartney with all of its tension and synergy that made the Beatles possible. There can be no doubting that the creative collision of those two lads from Liverpool marked one of the most important moments in 20th century music, but while we acknowledge that fact we must also ask earnestly whether the Beatles were just about most people's favorite two Beatles, their ups and downs, and the songs that resulted. Were the Beatles just about John and Paul?

Casting our quickest eye over the foursome we may be tempted to answer "Yes" when we are confronted by the continuing spectacle surrounding Ringo and the circus of his life, one that's drawing to a close with his trading "The Taxman" for a Charles Schwab portfolio. But take a moment to look a little longer and pause to linger on the career of the quietest Beatle, a journeyman musician who was present at the beginning of Beatlemania and has survived to share stages and studios with some of popular music's most daunting icons. Consider with me the case of George Harrison.

First of all, let us give credit where credit is due. The Beatles were a phenomenon because Lennon, the artiste, was anchored in catchy and listenable music by McCartney, the hitmaker, who was anchored in serious ideas and themes by Lennon. Mere musicianship alone could never account for the enduring appeal of this band. Songwriting first and foremost made the Beatles what they are, and that creative tension between John and Paul made most of that songwriting happen. But this is music and musicianship counts for something. John Lennon was many things--a genius, really--but no one ever accused him of being a master of the rhythm guitar; Paul McCartney is as versatile a musician as he is a gifted songwriter, but playing is not what he is known for; Ringo can beat a drum. But pluck for pluck and strum for strum you will not find a finer or more expressive musician among the Beatles than George Harrison. A strong backbone to the whole body of the Beatles' work, Harrison's lead guitar defined a new sound that rippled forward through the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

As further evidence I offer just a short survey of his many collaborators: Eric Clapton (with and without Cream), Bob Dylan, Mick Fleetwood, Jim Keltner, Roy Orbison, Carl Perkins, and Tom Petty. Judge him by the company he keeps, and we can only conclude that George has been at the heart of popular music for the last thirty years, intimately connected with some of the finest ear-candy we have been blessed to listen to.

I won't claim to sit on Cloud Nine when I think of George's solo career. I won't tell you that "Here Comes the Sun" is near the top of my list of favorite Beatles songs. But when you think of some of the arrogant insanity that consumed John more and more as he grew older, when you consider all of the artless inanity that Paul has sold us for the last thirty years ("Jet!/Whoo-Whoo-Whoo-Whoo/Jet!"), when you just consider Ringo, I guess what I find so appealing about George is his quiet excellence, his devotion to doing his job well, and his never losing sight of the fact that he, George, is not the story. We're all here for the music, and the personalities run a distant second.

John Lennon may not have believed in Beatles, but I do. I believe these four great men did something together that they never equaled separately, and that's a phenomenon worth believing in. But which of the four has steadily kept offering us really good, if not great music for thirty years? George Harrison, The Greatest Beatle, can be the only answer.