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

Except for the boring Jam session on ATMP

 

I agree. Pretty boring stuff. But Back in the U.S. is a cool live album. Some nifty rearrangements of Beatles songs. (At least he seems to know where his strongest material lay.)

 

For what its worth...


I think the Beatles albums benefited from the obvious.

1.) They had contrast. Meaning 12 Paul
songs in a row will never sound as good as
5 Paul songs intermingled with 5 John songs
and 1 song each by George and Ringo.

2.) Musically, they formed a perfect set.
Paul on bass with John on rhythm, George
on lead guitar, and Ringo on drums happens
to work better than any other set of musicians
they played with after the breakup.


That being said, I really don't think the
actual SONGWRITING changed tremendously
after the breakup. What changed was
how it was being presented.


If there are Paul songs you like from The
Beatles era, I don't think its hard to find
Paul songs you like from the POST-Beatles
era. Ditto for Paul songs you don't
like.

Where I think the argument gets confused
is you have people who prefer John's
material (both Beatles era material
and post-Beatles material) but they
pull up Paul's post Beatle work as
an example of why all post Beatles
material stinks....


I tend to think all four of them did
interesting stuff after the breakup.
And I leave it at that. No sense
in trying to convince someone else
what they like...


Paul clearly has released the most
records post-Beatles.... so its
fairly easy to point to a ton of stuff you
like or a ton of stuff you dont
like.

George clearly released more stuff
as a solo artist than he did
within the context of the beatles
were he was allowed 1 or 2 songs
per album. Some people like
that - some people dont.
But either way - I dont think
its hard to argue that George's
songwriting skills were underutilized
during the Beatle era.

John's solo stuff suffers - in my
mind - from the obvious. His
solo career is fairly short.
Unfortunately, John was inactive
for 5 of his 10 post-Beatle years..
Even more sadly, his output
stopped in 1980 :-(
Add in the fact that his personal
life was in turmoil for a large
part of his 5 active years and
it becomes almost impossible to
make any meaningful comparison
between his solo work (vs
other Beatles) or his Beatle
work... I honestly think
John was about to enter
a period of amazing productivy
when his life was cut short :-( :-(


Ringo rarely wrote songs before
the breakup and after... so its
hard to say if he really diminished.

All I know is the All Starr band thing
is a great concert format... and
entirely consistent with his role
as a star support player in The
Beatles...

 

Well said Twist

 

I just wish people who make negative comments about the solo Beatles could back up their words. It's silly when someone disses an entire album based on hearing, and not liking, the chosen single. I can't tell you how many people say they "hate" Cloud Nine because of Got My Mind Set On You.... or say Tug Of War sux because they couldn't stand Ebony And Ivory. It's just pointless saying such things. What's worse, is when people say the first few albums for each of them was good, but they ALL went downhill from there. No reasons given, just a blanket statement covering each solo Beatle. Oh well... Ron

 

Here's a very quick list of McCartney songs that I think are as good or better than some Beatle songs!

Juniors Farm
Maybe I'm Amazed
Band On The Run
Silly Love Songs
Jet
Let Me Roll it
Souvenir
Call Me Back Again
Too Many people
The Mess
Girlschool
Cafe on The Left Bank
1985
Stranglehold
C'mon People
Your Loving Flame
Best Friend
Listen To What The Man Said
Getting Closer
My Love
Too Much Rain
Rough Ride
This Never Happened Before
Soily
Beware My Love
Lonely Road
So Glad To See You Here
keep Coming Back To Love
Put It There
Somebody Who Cares
One of These Days
Great Day
Hi Hi Hi

This is just a few, but these are just as good as some of the Beatles songs!!

 

We know you dig Macca Don't you find it surprising how many people dismiss the collective solo material, yet don't, or can't give rational reasons for it. Or say silly things like it's not as strong lyrically.... I mean c'mon, it's all rock and roll, isn't it? And since when did every Lennon/McCartney song have deep and profound lyrics? Ron

 

Yes I dig McCartney, but I can also list songs by Lennon that I think are as good as some of the Beatles Material, some that instantly come to mind are...

Instant Karma
Cold Turkey
Mother
Beef Jerky
Meat City
New York City
It's So Hard
Whatever Gets You Thru The NIght
Beautiful Boy
Jealous Guy
Crippled Inside
How Do You Sleep
Isolation
Going Down On Love
Old Dirt Road
What You Got
Mind Games
Watching The Wheels
Just Like Starting Over
Cleanup Time

These songs are just as good as some of the Beatles material!

My Main complaint about Lennon is that after the Beatles broke up, the guy stopped rocking, and he was a monster rocker?? He came out with a rock and roll album, but he made a crucial mistake with the album, it doesn't rock??

 

I do wish he had rocked a little more in the solo years. His live version of "Well (Baby Please Don't Go)" rocks great and has the perfect JL vocal, unfortunately his better half decided to join him on the microphone.

Try giving Milk and Honey another listen. I don't think you mentioned any songs from it on your JL list. He rocks out a little more on this album and the band has more of a rough edge on these demos than what you hear on Double Fantasy.

"What You Got" from Walls and Bridges is pretty rockin'. How on earth he ever got his voice to sound that way is beyond me, but I love it.

 

In my humble opinion any Beatle fan should like McCartney (first lp), Band On The Run, Lennon's Plastic Ono Band and Legend comp. (all the great singles). Harrison's All Things... and Cloud Nine. And damned if Ringo didn't have one of the best singles with It Don't Come Easy!!!!

 

The three albums I enjoy most these days:

Wings - Wild Life
Lennon - Walls And Bridges
George Harrison (eponymous)

 

It is almost impossible to dispute this logic. Where we got 13 albums of material between 1970-1973 from the broken up Beatles. Had they stayed together we would have gotten two or three, and they would have had a lot of the same songs as these albums because many of the songs were already being worked on when they were still Beatles. No, I too am glad they broke up.

 

So 'With The Beatles' is not dated sounding? I don't get it. And we must have heard different Beatles solo albums. Many of them are alive with that 'fundamental' instrumentation.

I enjoy a number of their solo albums equally as much as some Beatles albums. I'd rather listen to McCartney's or Wings albums of the '70's than early pre-Help Beatles albums. (5 outa 6 times that is). Same with All Things Must Pass, Ringo, POB, Imagine, Mind Games, or Walls & Bridges - all wonderful albums.

Part of this is I find much of the early Beatles to be too 'ear candy' to take in large doses. (And why I prefer albums like Let It Be or the white album for example). An album like Mind Games is a very refreshing change, lacking the Beatles-ish pop hooks & bright harmonies.

Maybe there are too many old fogeys who couldn't accept their solo days. I have a number of friends who are in their twenties and early thirties, and its interesting that John seems to be seen as an edgy modern persona & artist whose work hasn't dated, and still relevant. There is a lot of older stuff out there they find curiously dated or set in time, but surprisingly, the solo Beatles don't seem to be there.

 

Whilst I sometimes claim to not like the Beatles and have been fairly critical of Mr M's solo work, I think that I fall into the rather childlike trap of just being contrarian for the sake of so being.

After reflection I believe:
1 The Beatles made some fabulous music and deserve the accolades
2 Three of the four members went on to make some almost equally great music post the break up. We could all list 10 solo gems from George, Paul and John.
3 It is surprising that those three made so much good music in isolation from each other and after their original peak of creativity and motivation.

 

To me Lennon and McCartney were complementary, with Lennon bringing shade and tension to the music that is otherwise lacking. One of my favourite McCartney efforts is Flowers in the Dirt where EC seemed to play that role to some extent. Some more thoughts here.

Tim

 

As the years go by, folks will take shots at the Beatles because of their stature. The further away we get from the "real time" of the releases, the easier it will be to dismiss them. The results will be circular, like most "internet arguments". Music is really "of a time", and something new in 1973 can be of the time, yet when played 35 years later to someone who has never heard it may seem trite.

Just like sports figures, inventions, movies, anything that become "classics" to a particular genre will be targets for those who don't see it.

The end of Abbey Road a bunch of throw away bits? To this high school senior back when it came out it was much more than that, and that perception stays with me today. I can still listen to that ending and be entertained, and "feel" the music. Other may think "crap". I don't care, they don't have to listen.

" Hey, what about that Stephen Foster. What an over-rated composer! "

j/k

 

I just saw this thread.

I'm not very happy with myself after my first 8 years either.

 

I don't care for John or Paul's solo efforts, but I like George.
I haven't listened to Ringo's.

 

I would say that the solo Beatles have often disappointed. But look at the high points... and I personally like John's "softer" sound in the '70's. Mind Games is one of my favorite albums. George's Cloud 9 is one of my favorites as well.

 

"The Dream Is Over"
--John Lennon, 1970

 

I don't like anything except Paul's solo / Wings stuff up to about 1976...

 

No

(except for the early 70's Lennono stuff)

 

I believe each of the guys released some great material. I don't think there is anyone who can compare to the Beatles creative output...and that includes John, Paul, George, and Ringo.

 

i never listen to any of it very much. i always liked instant karma and what is life. the beatles were definately more than the sum of their parts.