Were The Beatles better than the solo Beatles ? Why-Why not ?

They had some fantastic songs and collective chemistry, they grew up together and how can you write 'better' songs than "Yesterday"? But for me, I've always listened just as much to their solo records. Of course, it's more uneven, as is natural with life as you live it. The ups and downs. The Beatles lasted only seven years. McCartney's "Flaming Pie" is colored by a wife who is ill, "Chaos and Creation in the Backyard" is colored by a bad marriage and what was going on in his life in the mid-2000s. It's quite dark and melancholic. You can't find that kind of life-experience in McCartney's songs with The Beatles.

 

Their solo work was missing what the others had. Paul had great melodies, but lacked lyrics. John had great lyrics, but lacked melodies. Together they had both.

 

Well, if you re-read your post I quoted, you did say, "no matter who it is," which opens the debate up beyond Beatles and solo. But of course The Beatles were better together than solo, but they had already given their very best as a band. Everyone knows that. Silly thread, really. And done to death, many times over.

 

"Driving Rain" is colored by a wife who was deceiving, manipulative and dishonest.

 

Maybe. I think it's colored by new band members and do it quick, not unlike Wings "Wild Life".

 

there was a similar thread to this recently, basically to me its a no brainer, they were each others quality control, particularly John and Paul, without each other they were free to indulge themselves more ( and usually not in a good way ), but the others would also contribute too, making important suggestions etc etc ( like George's suggestion about changing the time in John's section of We can Work it out for just one out of many examples )

Also it is a lot easier to make a top album if you only have to provide 3, 4, 5 songs each instead of 10-14 so only their best work gets thru quality control and the rest is binned or stored for possible later use ( and this was also probably why the White album is so patchy to some including me ). To me its very simple and thats why they were better together, vastly better together, it is not even an arguement.

 

Are you always so free with your compliments?...

 

Waiting for the thread: What if the beatles started out solo and then merged to become the Beatles....would the music have been the same?

 

They reeled each other in from nonsense too. Like Paul singing the title of songs at the end of the song. (See anthology Lady Madonna and much of his solo stuff).

And John writing a mediocre 4th verse of songs that only need 3. (See Woman)

 

Like CSNY, we'd have JPGR (or LMHS)...

 

No it isn't.

 

That's far too general a statement. Within the Beatle years, Paul wrote lots of superb lyrics (She's leaving Home, Eleanor Rigby, Paperback Writer, Yesterday) and John had his share of great melodies (Strawberry Fields, I'm Only Sleeping, Norwegian Wood, Across The Universe).

Everything goes in cycles. By the seventies both John and Paul had exhausted the level of progressive creativity they effortlessly demonstrated in the 60's. Had they joined forces in the 70's, it's still no guarantee that the results would have been "stupendous". Yes, they were very good at editing one another as well as completing each other, musically. But within the context of The beatles they each proved repeatedly that they could each be successful at what the other was "typically" known for (John, lyrics; Paul, melody).

 

I don't agree with the statement that when they were free to indulge themselves usually it wasn't good!

See when I listen to their solo material what I hear is usually very good, it's only the few that aren't that good.

See to me that's one of those misconceptions that's been around for years, the total misconception that overall their solo material isn't that good.

I believe that overall their solo material is very good! Yes there are some albums that aren't that good, but the keyword is overall!

So I'm asking, why don't people make that distinction?

Why do some make it sound like OVERALL, their music after the Beatles isn't that good, because that's just not true?

 

better because it is difficult to hear only macca songs or ringo songs on an album!

 

These type threads go round and round, my take is that in classic rock there are different band types.

You have the band which is in effect a mouthpiece for a creative genius (but who bring something crucial to the sound) - The Who, The Kinks (with due respect to Entwistle and Dave), The Jam, Jethro Tull, Oasis possibly even Springsteen and the E Street Band, ELO etc etc

You have bands that rock to a great groove and often have two great writers broadly but not exclusively focused on Words and Lyrics independently - The Stones, Zeppelin etc

And The Beatles are an anomaly in that they have two creative geniuses who both work together and apart and are both great lead singers. There aren't many other examples in rock where this happens. There are bands with several singers but not really competing creativity (Beach Boys), you could argue for the Byrds and even CSNY but these guys tend to operate as individuals within the whole, whereas the Beatles managed to remain a single entity at least arguably until Epstein died.

This makes The Beatles perhaps even more than other great bands, more than the sum of their parts. I don't think it has anything to do with having more than one lead singer as many of the above examples dictate, it's about the weird historic anomaly that lead to Lennon and McCartney coming together. That is what retains our fascination over fifty years hence. That the met is hugely fortuitous, that they came along at a time of huge social and cultural change makes them mind blowing.

 

Keith V has touched on it a few posts ago.

Aside from the obvious group dynamics arguments, the simple fact is that John and Paul were the only two people on earth who could influence and somewhat control each other. Because of that, as Beatles we got the best from them all the time, because neither would permit the other to be mediocre. (At least not until 1969).

Do we think anyone EVER said to Paul McCartney "that's a load of crap" since he worked with John? And if we imagine Paul's musicality and insistence on excellence being a factor through the 70's, just think of how high Mind Games or Walls and Bridges might have soared if the two collaborated on them.

The solo Beatles produced a range of work, some of it truly excellent. After all, three of them were sometimes playing together. But the sustained excellence of the Beatles stands far above their solo work.

 

I couldn't think of a Beatles thread to start today so I'm posting here instead to keep this one on the front page.

 

You basically said it -- diversity, competitiveness and the "whole being greater than the sum of the parts" which is, I think, the major point.

All great bands are a case of the "whole being greater than the sum of the parts." Even those which have only one leading singer.

Lots of Beatle songs were either co-written or significantly improved by the input of the other band members.

 

I have to agree to at least some extent that the time context comparing when The Beatles were together with their later solo period makes it at least somewhat more complicated to answer the OP's question than otherwise. In other words it is difficult to isolate the variable here. And by time it is not merely when in history The Beatles were together, but when in the individual lives of the members they were. On the former point, they were existing and creating when high quality sound equipment was becoming common among even middle class homes, better recording techniques and of course use of various musical instrument sources. All this created a dynamic of an increased demand for what was increasingly possible, with The Beatles having both the incentive and practical ability to meet it. And on the second point take the apparently clear example of George, who carried material he'd been working on in the later stages of The Beatles into what most would agree was his solo best, All Things Must Pass. Hard to separate the two in his case given when The Beatles occurred and his solo career started in terms of his own life.

Having said that I also agree with all points made looking at the collaborative benefits they got from being together. By the White Album, as great as it is, their working more solo had a kind of effect on the output that has always struck me as less cohesive, than earlier efforts.

 

Yeah. Better tunes innit!

 

Much better as a group instead of solo.

 

Absolutely right.

The best example is perhaps when Nigel Godrich said to Paul that some songs for Chaos and Creation were very bad and needed more work, thats why Chaos is such a good album.

 

they also helped facilitate that social & cultural change as well as the musical probably more than any other one single factor, but the timing was right too, they kicked the door down that was waiting to be kicked.

What is remarkable is that they had such unfeasible talent to go with it, they were not a broom that could not sweep. That's were we all got lucky.

 

I agree with many of the points shared, my point is their solo material contains way way more good than bad, credit that it seems to very rarely get?

I find that a point that just can't be overlooked!

 

It's overlooked cos that's very arguable, in the 70's it would seem that they made about one great album each, thats a pretty small hit rate, although perhaps Lennon may squeeze two ( Imagine & POB ) and was inactive 75-80 and I discount Rock n Roll as an album of covers but even then thats 2 great vs 3 very mediocre ones at best.

Macca i think has however been much more consistent since the late 80's