Would you like John, Paul, George, and Ringo based solely on their solo work?

If there were no Beatles and ONLY had their solo careers to listen to, would you like them the same? The same goes for any of your favorite bands that had members go off solo, would you have liked them alone without "The Band" bringing them stardom first?

 

I like their solo work today, so I don't see why I wouldn't have liked it if there were no Beatles. They were magical together, but very talented solo as well.

 

John or Ringo probably not.
George or Paul yes.

 

If I had to be completely honest with myself, I'd have say... probably, but not as much. I genuinely like their solo output. But a major reason I like Paul (or George, john or Ringo) is what he did with the boys in the Beatles. You'd effectively be washing history clean of modern music's greatest contributors. And that isn't good for anyone's career.

 

...But would you have been drawn to their solo work with no Beatles? If you heard only Another Day would you THEN want to hear more of McCartney?

 

Yeah, you've explained it well. For a first generation fan and maybe others its impossible to erase all the Beatles memories and try to assess the solo work in a vacuum.
Some forum folks here probably STARTED listening by getting a McCartney solo album or similar though, and eventually went backwards and got into the Beatles after exploring a solo album or albums first, so their opinions will be different than mine.

 

I would like all of John's solo work, some of Paul's and George's and probably a couple of singles from Ringo, same as i do now.

 

Well, you have to assume that they would have had some 60s output so some of their work would have existed in some form. But even if we started with Ram or Imagine or ATMP, I think I would have been into them. Ringo is the only one I'd have to ponder a bit more, but I think I would have dug him too.

 

George, yes. Not sure about the others.

 

If there were no Beatles, then the individual members wouldn't have the level of contentment that existed by having already accomplished so much that their solo work would be different.

The continuum would be completey different in that time line.

 

Yeah, sorry I pretty much meant their careers start with McCartney, POB, ATMP, and Sentimental Journey.

 

Sentimental Journey I think I would have passed on. But "Ringo" I probably would have liked, in this alternate reality.

 

But would the other Beatles have still been on Ringo?

 

George and John yes. George would've really been seen as a great breakthrough talent if ATMP was the first anyone heard of him.

Paul might not have had a major label deal if only based on his 1st album.

Not sure Ringo would've ever had a big career.

 

Well, I hardly like John, George, and Ringo's solo careers already. Without the Beatle connection I probably wouldn't have bothered even listening to half of these albums even once. I bought a lot these cassette tapes in the dusty Woolworth's $2.99 bin when I was 10 or 11 and my Beatle interest was in full swing. I don't regret hearing them but as an adult I have little desire to revisit them and when I do (as I just did with some of George's albums due to the remastering hooplah) I wish I hadn't bothered. There are lots of better music out there more worthy my attention. This isn't to say I don't love "All Things Must Pass" and the greatest hits of Lennon and Starr, but a lot of their stuff just doesn't register with me.

 

Or George on "Imagine"? And on and on. I have to judge the solo works as they are, or else they there's simply no way to know.

 

I will admit that I overall love their solo work, but without the music of The Beatles I am not sure I would find as much enjoyment. Much of their 70's output has a darker tone, mostly serious vibe. While I like it, the 60's sound has a more pleasant sound and I am more drawn too. If there were no Beatles I may not have given them solo as much of a chance.

 

John definitely, Paul and George probably. Ringo? I do like a few of his solo songs, especially "It Don't Come Easy" and "Photograph", but I doubt I'd have explored his solo work much beyond those.

 

Not much. Probably wouldn't be interested in any of it other than for Plastic Ono Band, especially if they hadn't been the Beatles in the first place.
McCartney is cute, but if it weren't from a former Beatle how would it even get a notice?

 

I would still enjoy some of their music but they would be minor artists at best.

 

I'd like John. Not the other three. I do love All Things Must Pass, but had George not been a Beatle I wouldn't have given it a chance.

 

Sentimental Journey never could have existed if Ringo hadn't been a Beatle. It's just not possible.

 

Umm, if those songs were his first output. Or do you mean without The Beatles he wouldn't have a solo album?

 

I'm sure I'd still enjoy most of their '70s releases. It Don't Come Easy and Uncle Albert definitely would've got my attention as singles at the time, and I would've at least gotten Blast From Your Past and Wings Greatest when they came out.

 

I think McCartney would be considered more impressive as a true debut album. A guy comes out of nowhere with an album where he plays all the instruments and writes songs like "Maybe I'm Amazed" and "Every Night" and "Junk"? Sure, the rest of the songs aren't as good, but it's the debut fr0m a very promising talent, not a followup to "Hey Jude" and "Let It Be."

I don't know how to separate John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band from the Beatles history. It's an album which assumes you already know who John and Yoko and the Beatles are and care what John Lennon has to say. Its dramatic climax is when John declares he doesn't believe in Beatles! It doesn't make any sense as the work of a new artist.