rad lib Todd haynes

The George Harrison supremacy you sometimes see in Beatles fan communities is basically one of many forms of Beatles contrarianism that exist in the face of their hegemony within the pop music critical discourse imagination. The crudest type of this contrarianism is outright dislike of the whole group, of course. There’s just this tendency to deny the obvious read on the nature and distribution of the band’s talent: that Paul was easily the most consistent and successfully musically adventurous creative in the band and the wellspring of its inventive conceptuality. Sure, John was gifted too, but his talents were much more conservative. He was too mercurial a personality to do experimental sonic approaches responsibly, and nearly all of his avant-garde works signify as obnoxious BPD-flavored hostility towards his public. George was a Mr. Hit-and-Miss whose every moment of genius was complimented by at least three moments of mediocre blandness. And I think enough time has passed now that we can acknowledge that his Eastern musical pastiches were more contingently novel than successful. Ringo was Ringo. Come to terms with Paul supremacy. The culture will be much smarter and more honest for it, trust me.