Paul McCartney's solo career > John Lennon's solo career (and george's and ringo's)

Re: Paul McCartney's solo career > John Lennon's solo career (and george's and ringo'

Masherbrum said:

McCartney has done two relevant albums since London Town: Flowers in the Dirt and Run Devil Run. The rest is garbage.

Click to expand...

I thought ''Flaming Pie'' (1997) and ''Chaos and Creation in the Backyard'' (2005) were great albums.

Re: Paul McCartney's solo career > John Lennon's solo career (and george's and ringo'

Groovy Man said:

I thought ''Flaming Pie'' (1997) and ''Chaos and Creation in the Backyard'' (2005) were great albums.

Click to expand...

While decent for me, they left that "nah, this is missing something" feeling.

Re: Paul McCartney's solo career > John Lennon's solo career (and george's and ringo'

It's how we hear things...I thought Chaos was great also as is memory Almost full....Off The ground holds a special place with me as well. Alot of great music besides Flowers in The Dirt...I own it all...all 4 Beatle solo careers...so I'm not just guessing here with my opinion...

Re: Paul McCartney's solo career > John Lennon's solo career (and george's and ringo'

I find it difficult to assess the Beatles individually on their merits. As a band the fellows were superb, but as individuals each seemed to have a singular defining weakness:

Paul - He was overly fond of sappy pop. He also eventually became just a tad too respectable/conventional. I can't see Keith Richards that way even with the drug/alcohol problems behind him.

John - Yoko. He allowed her to so disrupt the clockwork like functioning of the Beatles as a unit that the bonds between the members frayed and dissolved. A bit of a "God complex" too.

George - He was overly influenced by Indian mysticism. Come on, George! Hare Krishna indeed!

Ringo - No serious deficiencies. He stuck to his knitting - and drumming. But he contributed so little to the songwriting of the band that he could well have been the most expendable member of the band.

Despite their individual weaknesses, the Beatles were together a fabulous combo until their individual weaknesses started to tear them apart as a band in 1968.

Re: Paul McCartney's solo career > John Lennon's solo career (and george's and ringo'

I definitely like Paul's career best. I'd rate John and George about equally.

Re: Paul McCartney's solo career > John Lennon's solo career (and george's and ringo'

Different strokes. I preferred John's work with the Beatles more than Paul's. I just like his style of music more than Paul's sappy pop. I always thought of John as more of an artist while Paul was more of a songwriter.

So naturally for me, I like John's solo work more. I won't pretend that I know all of or even most of Paul's solo work. I know a bunch of the songs of his, but I just don't care to listen to a full album of his. Maybe I just need to give it more of a chance, but I just don't think it's my cup of tea.

I like what I've heard from George's solo career more than Paul's too. All Things Must Pass might be my favorite solo Beatles' album.

Don't really know a whole lot from Ringo outside of Photograph.

This is what made the Beatles the best IMO. There was a songwriter that appealed to everybody. But they were all great so even if it's not your favorite songwriter, you can still appreciate the others.

Re: Paul McCartney's solo career > John Lennon's solo career (and george's and ringo'

Too much to cover in one thread.. to many subjects..

They were better together, one reason is the contrast, four lead vocalists, two great
vocalists, three hall of fame songwriters, the perfect producer, Band on The Run or Imagine are great albums, but maintaining the same level of interest, in pop music is
hard with just one singer or writer, Being able to bop from Lennon's "Come Together" to Harrisons "Something" to McCartney's (primarily) Abbey Road Medley.... is the sort of thing no one guy could ever do.

As stand alone songs, Band on The Run. Imagine, My Sweet Lord, are all just as good as Beatle songs, and just as succesful... but in terms of a whole album... There was more filler for one thing... "bip Bop" "Lazy Dynamite" "I dont wanna be a soldier Mama"

and second... let me put it this way... lets just take one year, hypothetically where they all had an album out... lets say 1973 for the sake of discussion

If you took, Band On The Run, Live and Let Die, Jet, My Love from McCartney, and Mind Games, I'm The Greatest, Out The Blue from Lennon, and Photograph from Ringo,and oh Give Me love and Dont let me wait too long, from Harrison.... now you are starting to talk about an album...of biblical proportions... the contrast, the quality of the writing.,. the different lead singers...

no one guy could ever do that...to recreate the beatle sound.... you need multiple lead singers...going from Psychadelia... to baroque, to country and western to hard rock to tin pan alley..

McCartney has tried recreating that sort of album on his own.. with Venus and Mars and Back To the Egg and Tug of War.. and FLowers in the Dirt..

and though McCartney is great, prolific, a melodic genius, and (until recently) a great singer...

No one guy can switch styles, vocals and contrast like the Beatles could... and Paul cant write a whole album of lyrics to match the combined work of all three writers..

lastly.... no one stands up to a Beatle in the studio, and says hey that song stinks forget it...but when they were together...they were more effective at editing each other.

They all did great solo work.. and still do..

I say lets get the last "new" Beatle tracks out of the vaults... the Beatles reunion tracks that haven't been released they are

NOW AND THEN (which is finished) + ALL FOR LOVE (not another Lennon demo, a McCartney/Harrison original)

Re: Paul McCartney's solo career > John Lennon's solo career (and george's and ringo'

They all had 'good' albums and 'rotten' albums..they were all artists and musicians...I don't judge their talent by record sales or popularity..because thats not what matters to me as artists go..

they all created music and sometimes it was appealing /sometimes it wasn't..they weren't writing together much the last part of the Beatles ANYWAYS and I just think comparing them against each other is childish..I never liked the who's better then who thing..

when you love your children..you love them for all their merits..good.bad. and differences equally...
this how I look at them ..I never take sides or piss off against them..There are times I'm disapointed in them and sometimes I'm proud ..but I always love them..

they keep putting out stuff/their still out there rocking ..I respect that alot..they hardly need the money..so the must love what they do..good for them

Re: Paul McCartney's solo career > John Lennon's solo career (and george's and ringo'

Astrid Kirchherr65 said:

They all had 'good' albums and 'rotten' albums..they were all artists and musicians...I don't judge their talent by record sales or popularity..because thats not what matters to me as artists go..

they all created music and sometimes it was appealing /sometimes it wasn't..they weren't writing together much the last part of the Beatles ANYWAYS and I just think comparing them against each other is childish..I never liked the who's better then who thing..

when you love your children..you love them for all their merits..good.bad. and differences equally...
this how I look at them ..I never take sides or piss off against them..There are times I'm disapointed in them and sometimes I'm proud ..but I always love them..

they keep putting out stuff/their still out there rocking ..I respect that alot..they hardly need the money..so the must love what they do..good for them

Click to expand...

Yeah thats interesting,

I don't know any of the Beatles, so for me I care about the music they do. I happen to believe that in general terms, the music they did together tends to be greater than the music they have done as solo artists. But again its all about the music, I don't really care how many children they have or if they cheated on their wives or not. Its all about the music, and now its moot anyway, with George Harrison and John Lennon gone, the only hope is previously unreleased material, or the dim chance that Paul or Ringo would produce a stunning solo album in their seventies, which I believe is a rather remote possibility.

I certainly don't believe in pitting one against the other, I think the idea is that their musical chemistry and skills complimented each other in a way, and to heights that their solo careers in recording seldom achieved, with a few exceptions.

Re: Paul McCartney's solo career > John Lennon's solo career (and george's and ringo'

Melodic pop genius. Lyrics, not so much.

I'm always defending Paul. Someone has to do it!