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

[Astrid Kirchherr65]

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

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.

I agree that they will always be better together...then apart..

They always had that strength..but the last few years they weren't a 'band' they were writing music solo..putting it out together..

I don't know them either...I'm just pointing out that who's better than who is really not fair..it depends on your tastes..I really love some of Macca's stuff and theres plenty I don't

same with John
Same with George
Same with Ringo..I just don't pay attention to record sales /popularity..I listen what appeals to me...

as long as they have something to say...I'll listen..at least once

 

[whobeatle]

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

McCartney 3 (another album where Paul does everything) is supposedly coming
out later this year, his first studio album since the Firemen thing. Which come to
think of it, is just him playing almost everything.,..(BUT)

theres a lot of money is promoting McCartney 3 I suppose...

I Think McCartney had a really good streak... between 97-07..the only dog of an
album being, Driving Rain...which I think is pretty terrible.. his voice sounds awful
none of the songs go together, and most of the songs arent very good (with a couple exceptions... Lonely road is a great song...

but

Flaming Pie 97
Run Devil Run 99
Chaos and Creation 05
Memory almost full 07
The Fireman... 09 ?

THose are all quite good, maybe even brilliant.. or close to it..
really good work for a guy between 60-65 years old with nothing
to prove and plenty in the bank...

He is going big time for his legacy or to record while he still can..

I have a hunch though.. anything called McCartney 3 is gonna sound
like Cr^P

McCartney two is awful, except for one song or two..

McCartney one is ok..it has Maybe I'm amazed... and Every Night
but it has some weak stuff

McCartney 3... I think for the first time ever... (I'll wait till I hear it)
I may pass on a new solo Beatle studio album

 

[Bocephus]

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

Sorry, but Paul McCartney's solo career is way better than John Lennon's. I'm only talking about 1970-80 btw.

For me, John's only great album was Plastic Ono Band. Imagine is good, but it's really just 3 great songs (Imagine, Jealous Guy, Gimme Some Truth) and a lot of filler.

After that, no. Just no. I like a few songs here and there, but it is a major disappointment. I mean, how could "aisumasen" come from the man who wrote "in my life" "strawberry fields forever", etc.

Meanwhile a lot of Paul's solo stuff is as good or better than his beatle stuff (maybe i'm amazed, the entire ram album, my love, the entire band on the run album, the entire venus and mars album, silly love songs, with a little luck, old siam sir, getting closer, daytime nighttime suffering... and that's just in the 70s.)


Now, it seems like a lot of people gave up on Paul after press to play. but honestly, his recent albums are amazing (electric arguments, memory almost full, chaos and creation in the backyard, flaming pie, flowers in the dirt)

Now I think Paul beats John in the 70s by a long shot.

But...if you take Paul's entire career, I say it's better than Solo John plus Solo George plus Solo Ringo plus Pre-Rubber Soul Beatles times two. It's just awesome.

As far as essential solo albums from each beatle go, paul has the most by far the most:

John-Plastic ono band, imagine (kind of)

George-all things must pass, cloud 9, brainwashed

ringo-ringo

paul-ram, band on the run, venus and mars, tug of war, flowers in the dirt, flaming pie, chaos and creation in the backyard, memory almost full, electric arguments.


my 2 cents.

Thoughts?

I actually like the song Aisuamasen (one of my favourite tracks off Mind Games), different strokes i s'pose.
It could be argued that Paul was the best becuase he was the most prolific.
I think George was the most consistent (as in his albums had the least amount of duds to my ear).
John was inactive for half the period of time between the end of The Beatles and his assasination in 1980, but, Double Fantasy his 1980 comeback album had some stunning tracks which showed he was still relevent and that he was far from spent creatively.
You could make good arguments for any 3 of them as to who had the "best" solo career.