Beatles vs Solo Beatles. ... Maybe Solo Beatles Was Better Than Beatles? ....Just Sayin..

Cool thread idea. Personally, I don’t enjoy any of the Fab Four’s solo albums because IMO they come nowhere close to the Beatles’ discography in terms of quality. POB, Imagine, ATMP, BOTR, Goodnight Vienna and Ram just don’t hold a candle to the Beatles’ albums IMO. I’m happy to just listen to the Beatles’ albums and not bother with their sub par solo work. I know it’s sacrilege to say this but it’s my opinion.

 

100%

 

I'd take George's solo career over the stuff he wrote or sang for The Beatles (but not over the Lennon/McCartney written and sung numbers)

It's pretty much a toss up for me between Ringo's solo career and the stuff he wrote or sang for The Beatles

I'd take the Lennon McCartney tunes that were largely Paul's over the stuff he did solo - but not by a huge margin.

I'd take the Lennon McCartney tunes that were largely John's over the stuff he did solo - in this case by a huge margin.

With only George's solo aren't coming out clearly on top of his Beatles contibutions, the gold medal goes to The Beatles.

 

Yeah, no.

 

I don't think it's a fair assessment with George as you're only putting up one CD's worth of songs (speaking of his originals) against ten albums' worth or so. George was also developing his songwriting in the very early Beatle years..by Rubber Soul onward, I think one can safely say (okay, "arguably") that any of his Beatle songs stacked up to (and in a couple of cases surpassed)the best of his solo material.

 

I'm all for contrarian threads. I support the OP's right to have the incorrect opinion.

 

Thanks

 

Yes George and Ringo's solo careers both have significant advantages in this game given their smaller Beatles output, and John's solo career is disdvantaged by brevity.