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

Chazz I've always respected your opinions and I thoroughly enjoy your website, but you aren't making a lot of sense. It's fine if you aren't as fond of their solo careers as you were with their Beatles stuff, (I dare say a vast majority of people and fans feel the same way) but if you stopped buying the collective solo albums in 1977, what do you base your opinion on? If you haven't listened and studied the music how do you know that certain magic is no longer there?

Here's something else I don't understand. Why did the individual albums have to sound like Beatles records? Did Rubber Soul sound Sgt. Pepper? Did Help sound like Revolver? It makes sense they went into different directions, this was heard as early as Rubber Soul, maybe earlier. If you feel so inclined maybe you could discuss your opinion further. One thing we can agree on... the Beatles as innovators in 20th century pop music had no equal.... it's folly to think the individual members could equal or surpass this as solo artists. I think most of us who know the solo catalogue well would have a hard time assembling a comprehensive 2CD Greatest Hits collection, there's a lot of damn good music awaiting you all. Ron

 

if money talks and BS walks then

I own

Band on the Run
Run Devil Run
All Things Must Pass
Plastic Ono Band
Imagine
Mind Games

 

I mean this in all sincerity...

I've always felt that everything after Hamburg was all down hill.

 

And in all sincerity, were you in Hamburg from 1960-1962? Ron

 

I jokingly said the Beatles "sold out" when they went from the clubs to the world stage. They were a real bar band in those days. If all groups sell out by recording albums I would say that the Beatles, by changing their stage image with the suits,　kicking out Pete at such a critical time to "make it", doing very silly radio spots, TV appearances, lunch boxes and all the other related mop-top products, sold old out more than any band. In Germany they were the band. If I could go back in time this is when I would want to see them; not shaking their mops.

I read in Bill Wyman's book that, although the Beatles and Stones were lumped together in the States, there was a big division between the two bands in England. There were two camps and you liked on or the other. I take the Stones for attitude, but not for recording quality. I guess the Beatles sold out right by having Martin produce.

This is why I like Wings. Right back to the mini van and small venues. Make it or break it with the new tunes. I'm not crazy about Wings doing Beatles tunes (that's not the Beatles - I've heard the soundboard of Linda singing on Hey Jude ) or McCartney's solo tours doing Wings tunes (not Wings).

This post is all in fun. Try not to get too wound up.

 

Ahh, but you know what you're doing You say "jokingly", yet continue to say things people will respond sharply too. First of all the Beatles were not THE band in Germany. Ringo's group, Rory Storm and The Hurricane's were as big, and perhaps bigger for the first 18 months there. Other groups like the Big Three, Derry and The Senior's and of course Tony Sheridan were all as big as the Beatles were.

And I know you're sort of joking, but they didn't sell out. Certainly no more than any other Liverpool band that achieved success did. Gerry and The Pacemakers, The Swinging Bluejeans, and a score of others did the same silly radio spots, ditched their leather gear, went on TV... some even recorded at Abbey Road with George Martin and Ron Richards, other's recorded at bigger and better studios. The difference was overall talent, quality original songs and that something different the other bands just didn't have.

Hell, back then the Beatles were certainly not better instrumentalists than many of their contemporaries.... Until mid-1961 they had a bass player who could hardly play, then their piano player, part-time rhythm guitarist, switched to bass, the drummer, on his best day was average, their lead guitarist was all of 17, 18 years old! What you did have were three very unique voices that melded together better than any of the other's.

Sadly, none of us has ever heard them at this so-called peak either. To be honest, the so-called Quarremen tapes, the Decca session and the Tony Sheridan material is fair, at best. The only live recordings to surface, the Starclub tapes, were recorded the last day of 1962 (possibly a few songs from other dates as well) with Ringo in the band, suits on, and two original singles already released. Too bad we'll never "hear" the infamous Litherland Town Hall show or a smokin' set from Germany circa summer of 1961, then maybe, just maybe, we could say they were never better than they were back then. Ron

 

They had energy, attitude and raw talent. I'd like to see how the Beatles were in Germany in those days to see their "attitude" on stage (and their leather trousers). Were they more like the Stone, I wonder? They were pretty clean cut by '62 and the Stones were. . . well, I guess it doesn't matter on this post Beatles solo thread. Would be a good thread.

Wings: one of my favorite seventies bands.

 

My guess is that the Beatles crashed around and were fun on stage but not terribly musical.

 

No, my love for the "bar band" era was not unfortunately
derived from first hand experience.

I'm sad to report that I was not there.

My love for this era started in the fall of '87 when McCartney released
four "oldies" on two singles... tracks that ended up on his
"Choba B CCCP" album...


I remember deciding that it would be interesting to try to find all
of the rock and roll oldies that the Fabs were known to play
on stage...

At first, I started with the easy stuff... stuff like "Kansas City"
by Little Richard... which wasn't actually EASY - since Little
Richard did different versions of the song as did The Beatles
and McCartney.

Then I moved to finding the originals for the BBC material
and the bootleg quality Hamburg Star club recording.
This opened my eyes to people like Arthur Anderson
and The Jodimars. The Beatles aren't listed as
having played "Boom Boom My Bayou Baby" by
The Jodimars - but its an incredible rocking song
(by the guys who used to be Bill Haley's Comets)



After doing this for several months, I found a copy of
Lewisohn's "LIVE" book... the book that included dates
for every known performance - and songs that The
Beatles were known to have performed on stage...

Presumably those lists were compiled from interviews
Lewisohn conducted with people who remembered
hearing them play those songs on stage...

And Mark had some interesting tidbits - stuff like
"You're Feets Too Big" was PROBABLY a cover
of the Chubby Checker version - not a cover
of the Fats Waller original.

I eventually expanded my "search list" to include
ANYTHING that any of the four were known to
cover... so now rock and roll oldies albums
by John and Paul, and songs they were known
to have jammed on during the Jan 69 rehearsals
all became fair game.... as well as McCartney
sound checks (which made songs like Johnny
Cash's "Five Feet High and Rising" fair game)...

What I ended up with is a list of over 500 songs.

I tracked down the originals for probably 99%
of those songs. I'm still searching for Mario
Marini's "Honeyboot Sog" and maybe one or
two others that escape my mind right now.

On the way I discovered things that
were NOT published in books anywhere.
Like the Beatles version of "To Know Her
Is To Love Her" was probably a cover
of Emile Ford and The Checkmates - NOT
the original by The Teddybears.

I talked to a guy once who said he knew
someone who is writing a book in this
area and he is promising to reveal some
interesting tidbits in his book - like
the original source for "Beautiful
Dreamer"... I was shocked to hear
who that source is - and Ive been
sworn to secrecy on the subject.

It doesnt really matter on that
score anyway since I've never
found the record...


So what does this mean today ?


Well, when I go to a McCartney concert, I
sit there kind of bored until he gets around
to playing "Twenty Flight Rock" or "Midnight
Special"... and then all of a sudden I become
unglued like the baby boomers do when he
plays a british invasion era tune....

Ditto for when Ringo drums behind Bruce
Springsteen singing "Long Tall Sally" (as
happened at the Garden State Arts Center
in the summer of 89)...


I'll admit that my affection for the Hamburg
era is romanticized - because I wasn't lucky
enough to be there...

But my affection for that era is based firmly on
on a collection of 500+ songs that clearly served
as the building block for all that followed....

AND...

It's extremely fun to know those songs are
the first things that the four would
reach for when they start to play
for FUN (studio warmups, sound checks,
etc)...


Everything that came after that era
just seems to have too much WEIGHT
attached to it... in my opinion.


That doesn't mean I dont LIKE what
came after it... just that I'm less
impressed by it than most...

 

pig whisperer is not an




I like most of the Beatles' solo work, but, I would not trade it for 'The Beatles', though.

 

The devil in disguise?

 

No question!

 

I agree. As much as I love the Beatles as a group, I don't have much use for the solo recordings.

 

There are lots of groups that members love, but I only seem to like one album and can't get into the rest. If you like the Beatles wouldn't there be at least one solo album from any of them you could get into?

I'm not saying you must like the solo stuff, but if you get turned onto one album wouldn't that be worth checking out? I am always trying to find a new great album. It is becoming harder and harder to find something fresh. This forum did turn me onto "Back To The Egg" and "Red Rose Speedway". I had never heard these Wings albums before. And I couldn't get rid of "Chaos and Creation in the Backyard" fast enough.

 

I don't care for Paul's solo output from the 70's and 80's. I think it's highly overrated. Esepecially putting it against what Lennon was doing at the time.

 

None of the Beatles' solo stuff matches up to their work as a group, it is true. One can only "Imagine" what the others could have contributed to those tunes. BUT, some of the songs from 1970-75 would have made great Beatles songs("It Don't Come Easy", "Imagine", "What Is Life", "Live And Let Die"). I think if they had stayed together they would have only had about five good years left anyway, again judging by their solo work.

But to answer the question, I like a lot of their solo work. All Things Must Pass, Imagine, Ringo, and Band On The Run are all great albums.

Evan

 

At first I thought this thread was a bit of a joke, and members goofed around, but now that I think about it the thread is legitimate and we shouldn't string him up.

I am a big Van Morrison fan, especially of his eighties albums, but I am not a fan of his albums after "Enlightenment". The only one I've heard that I like is "Back On Top" which still doesn't connect with me like his seventies and eighties stuff, but I'm glad I own it. So I can see how someone who likes the stuff John, Paul, George and Ringo did during the sixties may not like the albums from the seventies and beyond. Especially if the style of the music is different which is what has kept me from Morrisons later albums.

 

Party pooper.

 

Blanket statements can cause.... I enjoy many solo post Beatle work

 

Sure - at the time they were first released, I enjoyed huge chunks of "McCartney" and "Ram". Also "Instant Karma", Ringo's various singles, and especially "All things must pass". But they haven't stuck with me as the Beatles albums have. If I listen to them at all it's out of a sense of nostalgia.

 

One outcome of the group splitting up was the John vs Paul wars. I mean, that photo of John and the pig was pretty bloody funny, and "How do you sleep?" was one of his best, albeit bile-filled, efforts. At the risk of taking it OT, how many others have mocked their former band-mates in song?

And whilst I'm at it, why didn't someone stop George ripping off "He's so fine", or did he do it deliberately?

 

I think he officially admitted to "unconscious borrowing." Sounds reasonable to me.

A similar plagiarism threat forced John Lennon's hand. Apparently the genesis of his ROCK & ROLL album was a potential suit, although I forget which song initiated the dispute. The publisher agreed to hold off if Lennon recorded a buncha songs in the publisher's songbook, resulting in the covers record.

 

If you don't get it, you don't get it. I think you should check your shoes... I think that they are way out of step. Pretty bold post, I'll give you that. That being said, whatever island you are exiling yourself to, I want to be on another one. ANY one. Definitely not yours!

 

Did I just respond to a "flamer"? It must be late in the night... jeez...

 

I can remember some idiot DJ at the time playing that back-to-back with "Come together", and remarking how it illustrated how far Lennon had sunk. Obviously, his doo-wop period hadn't started at that point.