Am I the only one who doesnt care for the Beatles' solo efforts?

You couldn't possibly be the ONLY one - there are 6.5 billion people on the planet!

 

I've seen a bunch of these posted on the internet, here's one attempt:

http://www.rockument.com/Beatles3.html

 

Re: Am I the only one who hates the Beatles' solo efforts?

I happen to like 'Wild Life' quite a bit. Not Paul's best, but not a throw away by any stretch.

 

Nor can I - that just doesn't make a lot of sense. It's not like they all suddenly lost talent after the band split. There's tons of great stuff in the various solo catalogs - I don't understand why anyone would dismiss ALL of it...

 

Re: Am I the only one who hates the Beatles' solo efforts?

The Wild Life CD with bonus tracks ("Mary Had a Little Lamb", "Give Ireland Back To the Irish", etc.) is an entertaining listen. There were a couple weeks last summer when I found myself playing it every day.

 

True, especially when much of it would have sounded almost exactly the same had the Beatles released it as a group.

 

The Beatles' solo work could be hit-or-miss. Occasionally excellent, other times, kinda lame. Without the support of one another as "The Beatles", their individual weaknesses sometimes got out of hand: John's stridency, Paul's saccharine, George's dourness, Ringo's triviality.

 

Re: Am I the only one who hates the Beatles' solo efforts?

Stone hits a home-run!
That is as good and accurate a sentence as I've seen on this forum in a long time, providing that we allow George's two brilliant songs to be omitted.
I'm not a big fan of their solo works in general, and have only a couple in my collection. Why are they uninteresting to me? Quite simply the magical two- and three-part harmonies aren't there. Apart from that, the quality of songs just isn't as good. In the uber-competitive world of songwriting, one head is not better than three.

 

To Each His Own!!!!
I grew up loving the Beatles, and because of that, I gave each of them a fair shot at being individual! How many groups out there were great---and then each one became successful on their own? Sure, a lot of what each of the Beatles as solo artists did was bad, but what artist has been perfect from the start? I know a lot of people will question what I consider "successful", but again, to each his own. I don't like Bob Dylan, but I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who do. And I love a lot of things that I know others will wonder "why?" but it's a matter of choice. Like anything else in life, diversity is what makes the world go 'round...so bring on the differences! How sad if the world was just black and white! Thank goodness there is blue and green and orange and purple! Everyone has a different opinion as to what is good and bad, and there will always be music critics, and movie critics, and fashion critics, and so on and so on, but the bottom lin is to each his own. It doesn't make one right or one wrong. It just shows us that we should be glad that we have such diversity!

 

Re: Am I the only one who hates the Beatles' solo efforts?

Basically agreed, provided we can have "Come together" excluded as well. But yeah, all the signs are there of the creative juices having run dry. No problems with The White Album, however.

In favour of Wings, I saw them in about '76, and their live sound left most of the other big names of the time for dead. OK, so maybe all that means is that they had the moolah to buy it, but to my uneducated ears they were the only band I had seen at that point who sounded just as clear as on record, vocals included.

 

Re: Am I the only one who hates the Beatles' solo efforts?

Well Frumaster, I was wondering if maybe some of your perceptions have to do with the changing times? They weren't going to do the same thing in the seventies or eighties that they did in the sixties, and even if they did, the different eras production would have resulted in a rather different sound. Less time rocking, more "studio time." More "FM synthy" as a friend put it, than the more acoustically live sixties sensibilities. To a point the Beatles records were having sway with the times, but after, at the same time they had gone solo, the times seems to have more sway on their records... Ah whatever; personally I just try to enjoy what we've got for whatever it is

 

Based on my listening proclivities, one might assume I have the exact opposite opinion.

 

I'd rather listen to All Things Must pass than most Beatles albums actually.

 

I was pleasantly surprised when John, Paul, and George released their solo albums. Most of us were sad to see the Beatles break up, but when Yoko came along and started being the "new" 5th Beatle, you could see the writing on the wall. Imagine, Maybe I'm Amazed, and My Sweet Lord were great songs that made me think, "maybe the guys are going to be allright after all". All the Beatles have done songs that have enriched our lives as solo acts, even Ringo.
Too answer your question, no you're not the only one, but I would say, " if you listen again someday, you might find that you like some of their solo stuff".

 

That is a GREAT one, that's for sure!!!

 

You're not the only one but I guess you're in the minority. A few Beatles' solo albums are now considered classic albums by many such as:

Plastic Ono Band
Imagine
Ram
Band on the Run
All Things Must Pass

while the following Beatles' solo albums are now considered by many borderline classic albums such as:

Double Fantasy
Tug Of War
Chaos & Creation in the Backyard
Cloud Nine
Ringo

 

Unfairly boosted by a sympathy vote. I would rate Walls and Bridges ahead.

 

But that's ok, To each there own.

 

I'll have to disagree here. There is one element that almost everyone has missed in this thread... and that is that with George Martin producing, and the same engineering team (Ken Scott et al), we would have had much better sounding albums than the bloated and murky ATMP, the muddy POB, the bland sounding McCartney, the out-of-phase Ram, and so on. Someone mentioned the lack of harmonies, and that's a great point but even more telling was the lack of professionalism in recording the first few solo albums. John, Paul and George all BLEW IT from a production standpoint. Think how *brilliant* two albums comprised of the best early solo tracks (including Ringo's "It Don't Come Easy" and "Photograph") would have sounded had they been recorded at ol' No. 2 with Messrs. Martin and Scott at the helm.

 

I don't find POB particularly muddy, at least not my vintage vinyl.

 

POB was maybe more "ambiguous" than muddy and I'm not sure if it was the production or the mix.

 

Re: Am I the only one who hates the Beatles' solo efforts?

Yes, there actually is somone who agrees with you. Hate is too strong a word here, maybe even "tremendous letdown" is too strong. But it was a letdown. I always got the feeling that the individual Beatles believed they all qualified as solo artists simply by virtue of having been in the group The Beatles. And they all knew that people would buy their solo albums for that reason, regardless of what the records actually contained. This was especially true of Ringo and George Harrison. Did any members of the Dave Clarke Five ever have solo careers? But the Beatles, well, they were different of course. The Beatles' solo careers were simply enlargements of what their roles had been in the Beatles, and predictably taken to their extremes. Ringo sentimental and never taking himself too seriously, George the quiet, serious one who got just plain weird, cute Paul who got just plain silly, and cynical John Lennon who's cynicism actually worked as a solo act to some degree. I would say of the four that Lennon pulled off the solo act best, but that all were presumptuous in believing that because they had been Beatles that the world would have stopped revolving had they decided to go back to art school.

 

I don't loathe it, but for me the greats are few and far between.

George's All Things Must Pass, except for the jams, I never tire of. Crackerbox Palace was a classic IMO.

I like some of Paul's earliest--Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey is my favorite of his.

Ringo was great with It Don't Come Easy and a good deal of his Ringo album.

John's #9 Dream is my favorite of his.

But for my money all four lost the story after their breakup. Lennon, for the most part, forgot how to consistently craft those beautiful melodies he did as part of the four. Ditto McCartney. Harrison blossomed on ATMP, then faltered. Ringo, well...

Really, except for ATMP, most of the solo catalog is very fogettable as far as I'm concerned.

To me, The Beatles were the perfect example of artistic synergy. They were good individually, but great together.

Dale

 

Re: Am I the only one who hates the Beatles' solo efforts?

Yes, yes, yes......

 

I'm MUCH less fond of the solo stuff than The Beatles. Although I have tended to keep up on Lennon stuff. With the exception of some bootlegs and a few of the live albums, I haven't bought any Paul, George or Ringo albums since 1977. I don't really know why I favor John. I guess it's because he was my favorite when they were together and throughout most of the 1970s, I wasn't too interested in the solo stuff. When he died in 1980, I sort of felt like I needed to retain his memory or something. But then again, I didn't feel that need with George. So I don't really know.

The sum of the parts is not as great as the whole. I like the sound of The Beatles which, I feel, they maintained for their first few solo albums (ones that I'm still quite fond of) but after the second or third solo albums by each, they began to just sound like John, Paul, George or Ringo. Plus, I don't think the material was as innovative a The Beatles