Did George Harrison have the best solo career of all the Beatles?

I think George Martin had the best solo career of all the Beatles. He did really nice work with America, Jeff Beck, Stackridge, Seatrain, mahavishnu, Paul Winter, etc.,

His biggest stumble was working with UFO, he polished off the edges too much.

 

Nah.

 

He's definitely in the top 4.

 

I think the Dark Horse album and tour smashed him, and so did his bad health. When he made it back to some kind of settled life, he made two Excellent records, 33 and GH. All Things, Bangla Desh and Living In The Material World are not the albums of someone who 'wasn't burning' to express themselves. George was as driven as anyone up until 74ish. Remember George put a lot of work into Splinter as well in 74. Lennon's bad health and turmoil resulted in Walls And Bridges, a gutsy, funky hard ass Album. But John was a tougher hombre. George lost focus and direction and maybe lost his connection with the trajectory he had been swept along with from the Sixties, because his musical muse and intensity seemed to go hand in hand with his passion for the world and humanity via his Spirituality. Lennon was a much more Existentialist type of man. Macca's muse and drive did not come from outward directions as much as Lennon and Harrison.

 

Yes that's my point---"after 1973".

I don't agree. Lennon was louder and craved more attention. I'd say George and Paul were "tougher".
Seemingly Lennon and Starr delved the hardest into drink/drugs----due, in large part to being very sensitive individuals---numbing the pain. Not a judgement at all but an observation.

 

I agree with you. I study George s solo period for many years now. It s his own style that i admire!

 

Imo no. ATMP is good but for me not as good as many other think. The rest of his solo-albums varies from brilliant to boring. However I really enjoy the calmness in his music-it s a spritual thing. Travellin Wilburys first album is a gem. John made some otherwordly things but Paul is my favourite here. A bit unfair to compare though since his career is a bit longer. But overall he is my man. Ram, Band on the Run, Chaos all the hit-singles and he is still at it. In fact I like New more than most of Georges stuff. But it s all there for us to enjoy so there is really no reason to compare.It s all good.

 

I think all four did pretty good. McCartney is musically most varied maybe with everything from pop, rock (and a myriad of genres within it), standards and classical music. But then again, Harrison produced some great Hindustani Classical Music albums by Ravi Shankar. Lennon, a personal singer/songwriter with songs from his heart and soul. And Ringo, plenty of hits in the early 70s and plenty of hits on my stereo to this day.

 

For the millionth time, the third LP is NOT "All Things Must Pass"! The third LP is in fact a free bonus disc called "Apple Jam" that came packaged with ATMP. Two totally different things.

 

I agree. Harrison best solo album, but Lennon best solo career. I'm sure it's a minority view but only Band on the Run does it for me with Macca as real top notch, maybe Ram. Ringo, forget it. Travellin' Wilburys anyone ?

 

George's voice is just too bland and limited in range for his solo work to ever be my favorite. And I'm not partial to his guitar noodling, either. So no, his solo music doesn't grab me like the best solo work of both Paul and John -- not even All Things Must Pass (though I love the song itself). Funny how Ethan Hawke (of all people) came up with the best description of what's wrong with all of their solo work:

I still agree with that. But if I'm going to listen to them separately, it's going to be Paul, and then John.

 

One thing that struck me from the Anthology revisited last year was George's comment from 1969----promoting Abbey Road I believe----that he was happy with his role in the band.

I know Klein had them waxing positive while Let It Be was in post-production. But I also think it rings true that Paul and George thought John might change his mind about leaving.

 

The thing I like with Georges music is yhat he uses chord-changes that are unusual in rock, there is generally a spiritual touch that makes me calm when hearing it, he is a brilliant guitar-player and at his best have some lovely melodies.
With John I think he has a truly great rock n roll voice, when he didn t preach he wrote some astonishing lyrics and some of his solo-songs belongs to the best songs ever written.
With Paul I certanely like his willingness to experiment, his diversity, his unique knack of making timeless hits, his great melodies and all the classic songs he has delivered since the Beatles break up. In Pauls legacy one also can find some of the best songs ever written.
They are all great

 

I said nothing about specific songs, I said too many good ones. Off the ground is 93, Paul had 2 full decades of material prior to that. And George for me always struggled with vocal timing on many songs so they seemed forced.

 

IMO, George Harrison most certainly has the best solo career of the Beatles but that's because he is my favorite of the four. Though there are a few weaker tracks, the only bad song he recorded was his crummy remake of "Bye Bye Love".


And yes, "All Things Must Pass" is the best solo Beatles album bar none.

 

Yes if the world end in 1970....

 

In which case his solo career is weighed down by two stand alone albums that are utterly worthless. Apple Jam and Electronic Sound. And I can't say I got much out of Wonderwall Music, Extra Texture, Somewhere In England, Gone Troppo or Live in Japan either. He has a few good ones though.

 

Wait - if you mean he should have just put out an album every 4 years in the last couple decades or so, then sure - maybe...

However I hope you don't mean in the 70s when an album a year was still the norm for just about everyone. Taking 4 years off between releases back then would be like taking (at least) a full decade off would be nowadays.

Paul put out two albums some years of the 70s, but in every case the following year had no album (I'd assume because he wanted to rush an album out before Christmas whenever possible).

Examples:

mid 71 - Ram
Dec 71 - Wild Life
1972 - no album

mid 73 - RRS
Dec 73 - BOTR
1974 - no album

mid 76 - Speed Of Sound
Dec 76 - WOA
1977 - no album

So averaged out (71-75), Paul didnt release any more albums than John did, although Paul did put out several non-album singles, which I guess if compiled together would (more or less) equal one more album's worth of music than John released within that time period.

 

Actually I'd say its an utterly brilliant album and a half, with side four dragging the double album - as a whole - down to just above "very good" status.

 

Yes, he did.

 

I don't think any of their solo work is/was worth a damn.

 

I don't know who set the standard of 1 album a year. The Beatles usually did two a year (1 in 1966 though).

If the solo Beatles had realized they did not have to release an album every year, and had released one every other, their solo albums would be incredible.

That is why you only get a couple "great" albums from John (POB & Imagine) and Paul (Ram & BOTR). And I would argue only 1 fantastic album for George (ATMP) and surprisingly 1 for Ringo (Ringo).

 

I think all four of them peaked in the immediate years after the Beatles broke up and were pretty mediocre after that.

 

No. I think he may have had the best solo album in All Things Must Pass, but I don't think his overall body of solo work was as consistently good as McCartney's and Lennon's (and they both certainly had inconsistencies).