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

I didn't mean to imply that I hadn't listened to them. If fact, I've heard most of the post-1977 stuff and that was enough to tell me I wasn't interested in buying them. I also have a LOT of unreleased recordings from the solo years. As for studying them, no not really (other than the unreleased recordings). But this isnt to say that I think they are bad albums. They just don't move me and are of little interest to me. Would I like to have all the solo stuff? Certainly. But I spend a LOT of money on music and it just hasn't been financially prudent to spend money on something that would get little play.

As I mentioned, I've maintained a certain affinity for Lennon's work due, in part, to the Lost Lennon Tapes series and I think Paul, George and even Ringo continued to be talented musical craftsmen and entertainer. But in the early 1980s, my music listening choices went in different directions and the solo Beatles stuff just didn't fit in.

While I haven't bought the albums, I've ALWAYS kept up on what they are doing. So I'm quite familiar with the music via the radio, concerts, the internet, television, bootlegs, borrowing from friends, etc. I've also had many of the albums simply given to me. So, while I haven't bought them, I do own many of them. Sure, I haven't heard EVERYTHING but my opinion is not baseless.

 

I'm a Beatles fan, not an ex-Beatles fan. There is a big difference.

However, that doesn't mean I don't have my fair share of solo albums. I just don't have all of them!

 

Interesting observations, thanks. Ron

 

There are solo Beatle songs that are just as good or better than some Beatle songs!!

No one, absolutely no one can touch what the Beatles accomplished, but if we're talking strictly about the music, each of them has done something as good or better than some of their Beatle material.

Especially Ringo, did he ever do anything in the Beatles as good as the song Photograph?

Lennon has produced songs that are as good as some of his Beatle material.

I won't even try to state how many songs Paul has written that are as good or better than some of the Beatle material!

I'm not a George fan, but he has also done his share of great music since the band broke up, so I totally disagree with the blanket statement that none of their post Beatles music is as good!

 

No doubt there was something special about the Beatles as a GROUP that was lacking from much of the solo output. Call it the Beatle magic or whatever works for you as a definition.

I do wonder about what changes would have been made to the solo work had they been recorded by the Beatles. At that point John & Paul were not writing together anyway, but they were influencing eachother. It may have been as subtle as John telling Paul to keep the line "the movement you need is on your shoulder", it may have been as obvious as merging a John & a Paul song into "I've got a feeling".

Part of it could be George Martin's influence. Maybe it was partially Ringo being the band "glue". Who knows?

But for sure, the "solo" songs would have been different if recorded by the group. Perhaps the lesser songs would have not made the album & the best stuff would have floated to the top? Maybe, John & Paul would have balanced out eachothers more extreme tendencies?

Abbey Road is my favorite album (Beatle or otherwise). And, yes, as was stated earlier, the suite is made up of incomplete bits & pieces. As the suite is the last musical word from the band it is almost fitting that the whole is so much greater than the sum of the parts.

 

This pretty much sums up my view. If you actually listen to "It Don't Come Easy" or "All Things Must Pass" or recent works like "Stuck Inside a Cloud" or the whole of Chaos and Creation and don't see work that stands well beside the Beatles catalogue, then remind me never to recommend music for your enjoyment.

 

Yes indeed, "Jet" and "God" are better than "She's Leaving Home" and "Maxwell's Silver Hammer". It would be hard to argue against this.

 

I neglected to reply to your second paragraph...

I don't really know how to describe what I mean by "not sounding like The Beatles". It's just something I feel. At the start of 1970, when The Beatles broke up, my three top favorite bands were The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and The Who. Clearly, it would be completely theory, but I don't know if I would have continued to follow The Beatles had stayed together. But I followed The Stones until Bill Wyman left (year?) and I followed The Who until the end in 1982 ("It's Hard"). I can only guess that I would have continued to like The Beatles. So I have to attribute it to their solo works just not doing it for me.

The last Beatles solo album I bought when it was released was "London Town" (besides the live albums) and I remember that it just didn't do it for me and was enough to make me lose interest. Perhaps, had I continued to buy solo albums, my opinion today would be different.

Now, I really like "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love" because, to me, they sound like The Beatles. It must have something to do with how their individual styles mesh into a single sound. It do know that it's how John's, Paul's and George's voices sound together.

It might also have to do with how their individual styles are juxtaposed (sp?) on a single album. For instance, I've made a 2CD compilation of tracks by each JPG&R from each of their first 3-4 solo efforts. When I play it, it sounds like I'm listening to a Beatles album. Perhaps, a single album by any ONE of them was not enough to hold my interest.

 

Well, see that you don't do that again . Just knowing you compiled and seemingly enjoyed making and listening to a 2-CD solo comp shows me you like this stuff more than you lead on. Believe me, the Beatles magic is uniquely their own, but some solo material...even AFTER their first 3 or 4 albums can be compared quite favorably not only to their own earlier solo material, but also in context to their Beatles songs. Without question, it certainly compares very favorably to other pop music of the era.

We have similar musical tastes Chazz. Think of Pete Townshend's solo albums. No, they are not the Who, and I think he purposely released music NOT similar to what they had recorded. While the music may not be as magical as what the The Who created, if you're a fan, it's damn good music regardless. I think the same with much of Entwistle's solo masterial. No, it's NOT quite as cool as his Who contributions, but still, very very good.

Personally, every Harrison solo album is a treasure (no, not everyone is great by any means), simply because he did relatively little material with the Fabs. And Ringo, for all the grief he gets, has also recorded more than his fair share of quality material, that easily equals his meager output with the Beatles. I'd love to compile another 2-CD set for you and have you review the song selection. If you have the track listing of your comp, PM me, and I'll make a volume 2 for you. All the best, Ron

 

And don't forget, "Crackerbox Palace" is better than "You Know What To Do."

 

Some of the solo work in the years following the breakup was amazing, but I can't say I've thought much of anything released by any of them since Band on the Run. Since then, it's been a few good tunes and a bunch of garbage.

 

McCartney from 1971 onward is a perfect example of what happens when you smoke too much pot (and lose your edge via content domesticity, although that's an unenviable truth). I didn't like anything he did in the studio after the Beatles broke up except "Take It Away," and even that didn't have much longevity past my middle-school years.

I have Back in the U.S., and I really like that one, partially because of the more ambient "Band on the Run" (much more appealing than the studio version), but mostly due, of course, to the myriad Beatles inclusions. But I don't understand why he edited out all of his between-song banter. It takes a lot of the charm out of the concert and makes it seem like Paul is more cold and aloof than he really is.

I like John Lennon through Imagine and then "Power to the People." Nothing after that really did anything for me except for the "Mind Games" title track and the obvious few on his final album. Too much of his mid-'70s stuff sounded like James Taylor and "contemporary" tripe like that, with the apt faux-salsa rhythms and weak melodic ideas.

As far as I'm concerned, Harrison ended with All Things Must Pass (too bad about the religious songs, but the outstanding tracks beat all of his Beatles songs except "Here Comes the Sun" into the zebra-crossed asphalt), and I've never liked anything by Ringo (especially that country nonsense).

The truly brilliant post-Beatles songs were all by Lennon. The only tracks that come close to Beatles quality, though, came out in 1970 and '71.

After having systematically destroyed his ego via acid in the late '60s, John was extremely mentally vulnerable and went on to attach himself to any new personal leader who came along. Magic Alex, then Maharishi, then Yoko, then Allen Klein, then Janov the Primal Screamer, then the political extremists who caused him to focus a lot more on his reactionary, agenda-filled lyrics than on innovation or melodic quality. The Imagine album gloriously caught him between these "give me someone to follow" phases, and it's the only post-Beatles album by any of them that I wouldn't want to live without.

 

Yes, Jonathan

(how's that Chris? I added the "rolleyes" for extra texture)


BTW I'm a big fan of Harrison's "George Harrison" album. Imagine if "All Things Must Pass" had a studio polish like this one?

 

(Responding to the original post, just got back from a trip)

I agree with you, with one big exception- Wonderwall, which I still find to be a great, strong album.

Otherwise, I've never been impressed by any of the solo/post breakup Beatles albums.

I really like a few of the songs (My Sweet Lord, Just Like Starting Over, Woman, The No No Song...) but the albums have all been weak.

 

Excellent! Plus ten points for referring to the Harrison album.

 

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

He turned me into a Newt!, I got better.

 

If you really want to be persuasive, I think you might need to try. I don't mind bits of Ram, but I consider Band on the Run, for instance, to be all production and no ideas. And if anyone dares to mention "Ebony and ivory", be warned that that may be closely followed by the sound of an explosion.

 

I've recently discovered "Flaming Pie", so I strongly disagree with you. There is some great music/rock'n'roll on that cd. Other than that, your post sets with me, well, ok. Garbage? Lighten up.

 

I actually find myself listening to more solo Beatles albums than Beatles albums, perhaps because there are so many more solo albums. Even derided albums like 'Ringo the 4th' and 'Bad Boy' I love, personally!

I genuinely like stuff on each and every one of them. The only one I can say I rarely ever listen to, apart from the avant guarde experimental stuff, is 'McCartney II'.

 

Taken last week when I visited Hamburg.

 

I don't own a single solo album now that I can think of and although each of them have some good music, I am not a fan of any of them individually. John Lennon did the best and may have done even better had he lived. George was a good lead guitarist, but not much of a singer and very limited songwriter. I might try to find a good compilation of each sometime, but there is no urge now. Paul has made money, but not much music of any lasting significance since the Beatles quit recording.

Chris

 

I've said this to other's on this thread too.... If you don't have the music how can you possibly make comments, good or bad, on it? Is this based on hearing a few singles on radio and not caring for them? Harrison may not have been as gifted a songwriter as Lennon/McCartney were in their prime, but he surely developed into a fine one in his solo career. It would help to listen to the music before making suppositions. And your last comment sounds like Lennon circa 1970... "Paul has made money, but not much music of any lasting significance since the Beatles quit recording?" What is your rational for saying that? It's fine to have personal opinions, but when there's nothing backing your words up, it rings hollow, for me anyway. Ron

 

These may be two of the silliest statements I've ever read here.

 

I agree... George wasn't that good of a lead guitarist, and Paul has made a ****load of money.

 

Beatles together were "all killer - (almost) no filler."

Apart, a lot of filler in those albums.