Dead Beatles For Sale

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by GoldenBoy, Jan 10, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GoldenBoy

    GoldenBoy Purple People Eater Thread Starter

    Location:
    US
    Here's an article from Slate about the Beatles' solo careers. Sadly, with the exception of All Things Must Pass, Imagine and Plastic Ono Band, I have to agree with his assessment.

    Why Were Their Solo Albums So Awful?
     
  2. mcow1

    mcow1 Sommelier Gort

    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    And I have to think he's full of ****. Lennon a " lazy entertainment world hippie" with only a couple of good songs! Come on. I mean not all of Lennon's stuff was great by Beatle standards but it was better than the crap other people were doing and can stand by itself. So can quite a bit of Harrison's and most early McCartney.
     
  3. GuyDon

    GuyDon Senior Member

    All Things Must Pass, Imagine, Plastic Ono Band, Band On The Run and Ringo are all five star records and their songs can stand side by side with the work of the Beatles.

    I agree that maybe "second-tier" solo albums such as McCartney, Ram, Venus & Mars, Walls & Bridges, Living In The Material World, George Harrison and Thirty Three & 1/3 may not be as good as Revolver or Rubber Soul (what few other albums can even compare?), but as albums they surely rate as consistent and as good as releases by contemporary artists from the same time.
     
  4. Matt

    Matt New Member

    Location:
    Illinois
    Well, their post-Beatles output is patchy, but there are only a handful of albums that I would call awful, i.e. so bad, I have trouble listening to it start to finish. A lot of stuff is just so-so.

    I agree with GoldenBoy's choices (except for the third bonus Lp that came with "All Things Must Pass"). I'd also add many of Lennon's single-only releases and a few Lp tracks here and there. Some might add "Double Fantasy," but I'm not a big fan of the entire Lp.

    Ringo's "Ringo" was very good, and he did a few other good singles, too.

    I'm not a big fan of George's output after his first album, but there's some good songs scattered about, and even on so-so tracks, his guitar always shines. I'm not a big fan of the Jeff Lynne-produced material, but more for the production.

    Paul's the most frustrating. Most of "Band on the Run" and "Run Devil Run" are very good. He's got very good songs scattered everywhere, but the typical Macca album, to me, has a high filler-to-good track ratio. He's got great singles, though, and some great B-sides. Even on the bad stuff, though, Paul's singing is usually strong, and his bass playing is still great. I don't think any of the Beatles ever lost their chops in that respect.
     
  5. John B

    John B Once Blue Gort,<br>now just blue.

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    I'm with you Mike.

    When judged by Beatle standards, much of the solo material doesn't stack up. Plastic Ono Band was a highly original and influential work. John, Paul and George managed a number of great tunes. Ringo managed a few great ones too.

    "When judged by Beatle standards", who can compete?
     
  6. Joel Cairo

    Joel Cairo Video Gort / Paiute Warrior Staff

    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    Well, if **ever** there was an example of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts (which probably only violates a few laws of physics), it was The Beatles.

    Alternately, maybe there's a lot to be said for having three other editors (though of course, they were also contributors) working on your musical projects.

    -Kevin
     
  7. proufo

    proufo Forum Resident

    Location:
    Bogotá, Colombia
    Freeda people is a fave of mine. Can't get enough of the chorus.

    Mind Games is quite a listenable album.

    So it is not as good as The Beatles, Imagine and POB? Who the **** cares? Only writers with nothing original to say.
     
  8. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    Nothing or no one could reproduce the Magic of the 4. Not even them.
     
  9. JonUrban

    JonUrban SHF Member #497

    Location:
    Connecticut
    Boy, that was an ANNOYING column. You cannot compare music written 25 years ago to the stuff written today (thankfully). Let's rake poor George over the coals again for "He's So Fine". The Beatles are put on such a high pedastal by people that lived through it that younger folk who look at this stuff as their parents music find it easy to dismiss.

    The biggest problem with ALL Beatle solo stuff is that it gets compared to the groups output.

    QUESTION: Has any other group in the HISTORY of the world, ever had every member of the band have a #1 single on their own???? Rolling Stones? NO The Who? NO Pink Floyd NO Led Zepplin NO CSN&Y NO ..........you get the idea.

    Has any duo?? (Probably a better chance here)


    :-jon
     
  10. reb

    reb Money Beats Soul

    Location:
    Long Island
    I Love The Beatles.
     
  11. musicfan37

    musicfan37 Senior Member

    I totally disagree with the article. Quite a number of the solo albums were outstanding. The problem is people comparing the solo work to what the Beatles released collectively. In my opinion, no one has matched what the Beatles did in their years together. The magic that made the Beatles included all four guys.
     
  12. Todd Fredericks

    Todd Fredericks Senior Member

    Location:
    A New Yorker
    I don't even call that an article. I bet this writer wanted to be a Beatle and he was torn out of his fantasy. He seems pretty bitter. Maybe the editor didn't get laid recently when a Lennon song was playing on the radio...

    To0dd
     
  13. rontokyo

    rontokyo Senior Member

    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a Beatles album were referred to as "listenable," the remark would be construed as an insult. Why is it that "listenable" is good enough for their solo records?
     
  14. Jimbo

    Jimbo Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Zero/Zero Island
    A bit off topic, but interesting question. Can't think of any other act (group or duo) where all individual members scored #1 hits. Close call: Paul Simon hit #1 with "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover" and Art Garfunkel #9 with "All I Know."

    The best I can come up with for a larger group is--surprise!--New Edition. Bobby Brown had a #1 hit, while members Ralph Tresvant, Johnny Gill, and the spin-off trio Bell Biv Devoe all scored Top 10 hits. That covers every member of the group.
     
  15. pauljones

    pauljones Forum Chef

    Location:
    columbia, sc
    J just don't think it is fair to compare the solo efforts with the group efforts.

    Like I posted in another thread, as far as the Beatles went, 1+1+1+1=10.

    But they all had fine output on their own.

    Paul:)
     
  16. Roland Stone

    Roland Stone Offending Member

    Keep in mind the article is ostensibly a record review of three solo albums, but needed an editorial hook to tie the reviews together into a whole. Add water and personal anecdote, bake for five minutes, and you've got an article.

    The demands of instant (Internet/television/radio) journalism inevitably ratchet up the severity of any opinion piece. Do you think they're going to publish, "Why were the Beatles's solo records -- sometimes excellent, usually enjoyable, and occassionally lamentable -- not as powerful as the group efforts?"

    This isn't THE ATLANTIC or NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS. This is shooting from the hip, like THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP or CROSSFIRE, trying to catch someone's attention as they surf the web or remote. Take it for what it is: a puff piece to read and forget over your coffee.
     
  17. John Carsell

    John Carsell Forum Resident

    Location:
    Northwest Illinois
    The Beatles is an impossible act to follow.

    Even for an Ex-Beatle.

    That article was a buncha crap, by some clueless idiot.

    There's lots of good momemts in the Beatles solo careers.

    So they have their hits and misses. They're human. Some people tend to forget this.
     
  18. TSmithPage

    TSmithPage Ex Post Facto Member

    Location:
    Lexington, KY
    I get so tired of music critics slagging on Jeff Lynne. ELO had a bunch of albums in the 70s that were significantly better than most of what the Beatles were doing solo at the time. In my opinion, all the critics remember is the disco from Xanadu and Discovery. It's kind of like judging Stevie Wonder's career on I Just Called to Say I Love You. It's pretty clear from what else that was written about Harrison's last album that Dhani and Jeff followed George's script to the T in finishing Brainwashed. If you don't like the album, blame George and not Jeff Lynne!
     
  19. Matt

    Matt New Member

    Location:
    Illinois
    Actually Todd, Lynne has stated that he didn't follow George's instructions all the way through. George wanted a rawer, sparser production (which would've been very interesting to hear on George Harrison record; his solo records were usually heavily produced). Jeff said he thought the songs could use some more, so he went ahead and did it. All with the best intentions, of course, and you can hear exactly what he's done because he has such a distinctive style. However, I don't think it really helped Brainwashed, and I think his production on, say, Cloud Nine has dated quite a bit. The stuff I do like about Brainwashed, like the guitar, the songwriting (great melodies), and even George's own singing are George's alone.

    Not to trash Jeff's career or anything, ELO was probably more consistent than Paul's and definitely George's solo careers, but I don't think his work with George is his best.

    To each his own....
     
  20. czeskleba

    czeskleba Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    I don't think that's necessarily true. Remember that about a year before his death George made the comment along the lines of how he wasn't having Jeff Lynne produce his new album because he was tired of Lynne turning his songs into ELO songs. And Lynne himself has said something along the lines of that the finished Brainwashed is more polished, production-wise, than it would have been if George had done it himself. Without getting into the old debate about the faults of Jeff's production style, I think it's reasonable to speculate the album might have sounded quite different had George survived long enough to produce it himself.
     
  21. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    I agree, sadly he didn't get the chance. His wishes should have been followed in repect to the -Man-...:(
     
  22. TSmithPage

    TSmithPage Ex Post Facto Member

    Location:
    Lexington, KY
    By now this is old news, but Dhani was there to rein in Lynne to the extent necessary and has been quoted as saying that Lynne's production was true to George's wishes despite Lynne's quote that he may have "poshed" up the sound somewhat. Lynne has also been quoted as saying that he regretted George wasn't there to make some of the production decisions that weren't clearly spelled out in George's directions. I think Lynne gets too much credit for the sound of Cloud 9, and much of the sound on both records should be credited to Harrison and not Lynne.
     
  23. Johnny C.

    Johnny C. Ringo's Biggest Fan

    Location:
    Brooklyn, USA
    I think this guy's talking out of the back of his head.

    Who didn't enjoy the steady stream of solo Beatles songs on the radio?

    "It Don't Come Easy," "My Sweet Lord," "Imagine," "Photograph," etc.

    "Band On The Run" "Ringo" "Walls and Bridges"- through the mid 70s life was still good as far as having new Beatles songs to listen to.
     
  24. I would never have seen the article without this thread

    there was one really funny quote in the article

    "(An aging former record company mogul of the '70s told me that Paul McCartney once said in print that ELO was what the Beatles would have sounded like if they stayed together—praise that went to Lynne's head but that in retrospect seems like a fair explanation of why the Beatles had to break up.)"

    I like ELO, like the Harrison/Lynne/Willburys collaborations but it's still okay to skewer your idols every once in awhile.

    I have never seen Ringo or Paul play live, even though they've come to atlanta perhaps a dozen times between them in the 18 years I've been here. It wouldn't be what I really wanted to see, it would be at best a 6 generation removed image of what the Beatles were - so what would be the point of going? The price or one Macca ticket would buy new stereos for both of my kids.
     
  25. Beagle

    Beagle Senior Member

    Location:
    Ottawa
    Re: I would never have seen the article without this thread

    :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


    :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

    That was a great article! I laughed until I stopped.

    I don't agree with all of it, but I understand the point that was made. There were some cool solo songs but, like 10cc, the whole was greater than the sum of it's parts. When people are out of the group context and there is no tension or blending/clashing of talent/egos, the music often becomes a bit lame or self-indulgent. Still, one cannot deny the quality of Walls and Bridges or RAM. You just have to take the solo stuff out of context of The Beatles and compare it to the work of other solo artists from other bands.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine