"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture" - Frank Zappa or Elvis Costello
Dancing About Architecture
March 29, 2024, 06:18:24 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to SMF For Free
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

The Solo Beatles

Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: The Solo Beatles  (Read 1716 times)
Charlie
Administrator
Jr. Member
*****
Posts: 61


View Profile
« on: July 13, 2010, 07:36:08 am »

The #1 fan here of what is indisputably the World's most important and influential rock act ever.  (I'll let you decide if they were the best which is not the same thing).

The solo stuff:

John - When he was good (Plastic Ono Band, Imagine, Double Fantasy, Milk & Honey) he was great.  However, he often was too bizarre for my taste, especially when he released outrageous stuff simply for the sake of being outrageous.  I often thought he was just trying to impress his avant garde princess.

Paul was like John - very inconsistent.  His bad stuff was putrid and it was the opposite of John's: childishly silly.  Just like the rest of you I feel "Let Em In," reeks as do all of the later Wings albums (Back to the Egg - UGH!)  It's hard to believe that the man who wrote the fabulous "Eleanor Rigby" could release so much junk.  His only good studio albums before 1997 are McCartney, Band On The Run, Venus and Mars, Tug Of War, and Flowers In The Dirt.  Since then, beginning with Flaming Pie, he has been much better.  He has either stopped smoking dope or matured because he's made a nice comeback in the new century.   Paul has some good live discs too but as far as studio albums go that's about it.

When inspired George was very, very good.  He made 3 great solo albums, especially the outstanding All Things Must Pass, the best solo disc by any Beatle.  Having learned his craft from two masters this album proved that by the time The Beatles broke up George was just as good as they were.  Cloud 9 and Brainwashed are also top notch.  The rest of his work was mediocre yet he never sank to the depths of Lennon & McCartney who both believed they could release any **** simply because ________ (fill in the blank).   BTW, If you haven't paid attention to most of George's Beatle stuff from Rubber Soul and beyond you're missing a lot.  His songs were far more hit than miss and they make you understand why he was so pissed at having to fight for space on The Beatles' albums.

Ringo always needs a good collaborator.  When he has one he does OK.  When he's left on his own he offers us very maudlin songs about his old band and his life back in Liverpool.  Most of them are too cute for their own good.  He is not a super-talented guy.  Ringo once admitted that he was the luckiest man in history for hooking up with the other three Beatles.  Believe it!  A good greatest hits package is all that you need.

For whatever the reason the whole was far, far, better than its parts.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 07:10:32 pm by Charlie » Report Spam   Logged


Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy