Which Beatle had the better solo career: Lennon; McCartney; Ringo: o,r George???
JOHN LENNON:
PAUL MCCARTNEY
RINGO STARR
GEORGE HARRISON
JOHN LENNON:
PAUL MCCARTNEY
RINGO STARR
GEORGE HARRISON
Which Beatle had the better solo career: Lennon; McCartney; Ringo: or, George???
- Thread starter Post_ShockTherapy_MackDaddy
- Start date
George Harrison. IMO All Things Must Pass is a better Album than all post Beatle albums. While I loved Band on the Run and Double Fantasy All Things Must Pass is amazing.
If opinion is the measure then pick one and argue.
If charts are the measure than its not close at all: McCartney.
If charts are the measure than its not close at all: McCartney.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
I agree, but I don't think McCartney did anything as good as 'Imagine' on his own. Lennon would have had the better solo career IMO had he not been killed at such a young age.
A lot of Lennon’s solo work stinks, in my opinion. McCartney’s stuff obviously sold better than all of them. If I had to listen to the solo work of just one of them however, it would be a George.
George Harrison CRUSHED John and Paul.
Look who had the first #1 single hits and albums.
Look who had the first #1 single hits and albums.
No way sir. Disagree.
George had already destroyed John and Paul as well; Paul was light years ahead of John.
McCartney is a genius but I think he did put out a lot of junk music. I think he needed Johns darker side to offset his. Band on the Run is a great album. Venus and Mars is also excellent and IMO does not get the acclaim it should.
But I'm on team George as a post Beatle fan.
I believe they all have had superb solo careers; they're all so frigging talented. Too bad Lennon’s only lasted about 10 years.
The survey seems more like a popularity contest than anything else; because they all produced well in their solo careers. I really don’t have a favorite Beatle, because I really like them all; but I am so impressed with Ringo’s versatility. Great drummer, good singer, and made numerous country sounding recordings with many country music stars; I’m not even a country music fan.
Ringo, although not receiving many votes in this survey, played with so many other super musicians. To me, Ringo seems to be the most personable, and humble. Ringo has played with so many of the best musicians in our time; he’s formed, played, and recorded with many great all star bands.
The survey seems more like a popularity contest than anything else; because they all produced well in their solo careers. I really don’t have a favorite Beatle, because I really like them all; but I am so impressed with Ringo’s versatility. Great drummer, good singer, and made numerous country sounding recordings with many country music stars; I’m not even a country music fan.
Ringo, although not receiving many votes in this survey, played with so many other super musicians. To me, Ringo seems to be the most personable, and humble. Ringo has played with so many of the best musicians in our time; he’s formed, played, and recorded with many great all star bands.
totally agree. Paul was the guy that added the upbeat melody and John added the grit and earthiness.McCartney is a genius but I think he did put out a lot of junk music. I think he needed Johns darker side to offset his. Band on the Run is a great album. Venus and Mars is also excellent and IMO does not get the acclaim it should.
But I'm on team George as a post Beatle fan.
clearly, John would have been the most prolific beatle had that idiot not killed him. McCartney clearly was the top beatle, post john, and over time. But GH and RS both had nice runs as single artists. One of GH's best friends ended up being Eric Clapton.
IDK, If I wouldn't go as far as saying John would have been the most prolific if he hadn't been killed.
I mean he did some really good stuff right after the break up but there was that 5 yr period, before double fantasy, where he just was a stay home dad. McCartney was by far the most prolific but like I said before, at least IMO, put out a lot of junk music along with some really amazing music.
Harrison and Clapton were always friends, even after Clapton and Patti Boyd got together. Now thats a true friendship.
Do we count George's time with The Traveling Wilbury's?
I feel like John was the guy that would have made meaningful music that would have lasted a lifetime. McCartney, for the most part, was just pop music. Wham! with the beatles name to it. OK, that may have been a little harsh. However, it happened, John made McCartney better. Even the great solo stuff McC did when he was in the band, was due to a desire to break out and away from John.IDK, If I wouldn't go as far as saying John would have been the most prolific if he hadn't been killed.
I mean he did some really good stuff right after the break up but there was that 5 yr period, before double fantasy, where he just was a stay home dad. McCartney was by far the most prolific but like I said before, at least IMO, put out a lot of junk music along with some really amazing music.
Harrison and Clapton were always friends, even after Clapton and Patti Boyd got together. Now thats a true friendship.
Do we count George's time with The Traveling Wilbury's?
I think they both made meaningful solo music that will last a lifetime but Lennon's Imagine pretty much blows anything Paul did away. And probably Harrison's My Sweet Lord and All Things Must pass (title song) and maybe even Give me Love might be better than Paul's best.
Thats just strictly MO though.
And yea they really did need each other.
They (all The Beatles) were so freaking good that we are having this conversation 50 years later.
Thats just crazy.
Sorry Ringo. You never had a chance here.
My personal solo favorite is Harrison. Paul wrote a crap ton of great pop songs. But that genre didn't appeal to me as much at the time. Though now I recognize his genius. John died before I really figured out what music I liked and that probably kept me from figuring out how he fit into my lineup.
When I look at all The Beatles songs and compare by who wrote which songs, it's a tossup. John and Paul were equally incredible. I couldn't pick between the two. And the songs Harrison wrote were equally incredible -- just didn't write nearly as many.
My personal solo favorite is Harrison. Paul wrote a crap ton of great pop songs. But that genre didn't appeal to me as much at the time. Though now I recognize his genius. John died before I really figured out what music I liked and that probably kept me from figuring out how he fit into my lineup.
When I look at all The Beatles songs and compare by who wrote which songs, it's a tossup. John and Paul were equally incredible. I couldn't pick between the two. And the songs Harrison wrote were equally incredible -- just didn't write nearly as many.
Yes you count that Wilbury time!!IDK, If I wouldn't go as far as saying John would have been the most prolific if he hadn't been killed.
I mean he did some really good stuff right after the break up but there was that 5 yr period, before double fantasy, where he just was a stay home dad. McCartney was by far the most prolific but like I said before, at least IMO, put out a lot of junk music along with some really amazing music.
Harrison and Clapton were always friends, even after Clapton and Patti Boyd got together. Now thats a true friendship.
Do we count George's time with The Traveling Wilbury's?
Ringo seems to be really well liked by everyone that works with him. His bands have also been pretty talented in their own right.
George was just hitting his stride as a songwriter when the Beatles broke up, and the dam burst with "All Things Must Pass." All those years of living in John and Paul's shadow were put to rest by that, the single greatest post-Beatles album, and whatever's in second place isn't even close. (My vote goes to either "Plastic Ono Band" or "Band on the Run" as #2.)
Unfortunately, the lawsuit over "My Sweet Lord" and his reluctance to tour (and bad reviews when he did) seemed to take a lot out of George and he never came close to those heights again. There are plenty of nice moments in the rest of his catalog but to me it always felt like he took his foot off the gas after "All Things Must Pass." In particular, I always enjoyed "This Song" and the rest of that album (titled "33& 1/3") but it was nowhere near an "All Things Must Pass."
I think you'd have to say that Paul had the best solo career. Certainly the most sustained and the most records sold. John seemed to have finally matured as an individual around the time of Double Fantasy, it's sad that we'll never know what direction he would've taken.
Unfortunately, the lawsuit over "My Sweet Lord" and his reluctance to tour (and bad reviews when he did) seemed to take a lot out of George and he never came close to those heights again. There are plenty of nice moments in the rest of his catalog but to me it always felt like he took his foot off the gas after "All Things Must Pass." In particular, I always enjoyed "This Song" and the rest of that album (titled "33& 1/3") but it was nowhere near an "All Things Must Pass."
I think you'd have to say that Paul had the best solo career. Certainly the most sustained and the most records sold. John seemed to have finally matured as an individual around the time of Double Fantasy, it's sad that we'll never know what direction he would've taken.
This song is really good but I always like Cracker Box Palace,LOL, from 33 1/3.
I think his last album Cloud Nine was excellent.
Still go with George over Paul solo wise sir. We Agee to disagree. Love them both.
When you take into account the John Paul domination of the Beatles with their antiGeorge producer, George wins hands down after their breakup!!
You can't go wrong with any of them (unless you picked Ringo).
I've always been amazed by the Beatles. I mean, what are the odds that three of the best musicians and song writers in history found each other in Liverpool? It's like Michael Jordan, Lebron James, Wilt Chamberlain, Kobe Bryant and Shaq growing up in Harrisburg together.
I've always been amazed by the Beatles. I mean, what are the odds that three of the best musicians and song writers in history found each other in Liverpool? It's like Michael Jordan, Lebron James, Wilt Chamberlain, Kobe Bryant and Shaq growing up in Harrisburg together.
I think that both John and Paul had far more gravitas in general post-Beatles, and that allowed them to experiment with their music, ergo some of the 'crap' being referred to. They could afford to take chances; John could afford to include Yoko's experimental music, Paul could write prolifically and always have plenty of talented people who wanted to record and tour with him. Paul even tried writing classical music. I still really like McCartney's first two solo albums post-Beatles, McCartney and RAM. Really good stuff on both. I liked a whole of Wings stuff too, but none of it all-time great, imo.
A good friend of mine late 70s-early 80s had a band and was a serious rock aficionado. I always respected his opinions on music. We talked music all the time - he was also a big Beatles fan. I remember him being so disappointed in Double Fantasy. I thought it was really really good; he thought John sold out commercially.
George was always more introspective, we were told, and his music reflected that in many ways. Many great singles.
I gotta admit, I really liked Ringo's first album. Just good ol' fun R&R. Seems he is far more respected by his fellow musicians than us mere mortal fans. I recall that Paul and John both wrote and gave a number of songs to Ringo for him to record and use on tour.
We all know that the Beatles wrote and gave away songs to other groups and artists at times. (Badfinger comes to mind, iirc?) I remember reading an article that told the story of John writing songs by the dozens in the 70s while in NYC. He had a producer friend who was working with some fresh bands. John would give him these songs to give to a band to play so he could give John an outside assessment of how it sounded in full. This new band finally figured out the were the experiment for Lennon's new songs.
Speaking of Badfinger - imo, "Baby Blue" playing over the final scene in Breaking Bad was absolute perfection.
A good friend of mine late 70s-early 80s had a band and was a serious rock aficionado. I always respected his opinions on music. We talked music all the time - he was also a big Beatles fan. I remember him being so disappointed in Double Fantasy. I thought it was really really good; he thought John sold out commercially.
George was always more introspective, we were told, and his music reflected that in many ways. Many great singles.
I gotta admit, I really liked Ringo's first album. Just good ol' fun R&R. Seems he is far more respected by his fellow musicians than us mere mortal fans. I recall that Paul and John both wrote and gave a number of songs to Ringo for him to record and use on tour.
We all know that the Beatles wrote and gave away songs to other groups and artists at times. (Badfinger comes to mind, iirc?) I remember reading an article that told the story of John writing songs by the dozens in the 70s while in NYC. He had a producer friend who was working with some fresh bands. John would give him these songs to give to a band to play so he could give John an outside assessment of how it sounded in full. This new band finally figured out the were the experiment for Lennon's new songs.
Speaking of Badfinger - imo, "Baby Blue" playing over the final scene in Breaking Bad was absolute perfection.
Wrong!!! They were all different, but all great. You could make the case for any of them; by just using some facts. That’s the beauty of this discussion after 50 years.
If you listen to the Beatles Channel on Sirius Radio, then you’ll realize that Ringo is equal to the others. That station features much of his later work.
Remember they were called the Fab 4, and NOT the Fab 3, for good reason.
Pretty much sums up the sentiments I was going to share coming into the thread.
Although I really like a lot of George’s solo stuff too, including the Wilbury work... damn, this is hard!
I too like George's solo stuff better than Paul's. I just think that by any objective measure, Paul had the "better solo career" which is the premise of this thread.
Cheers!
Just saw today that Georges music is the most STREAMED music of any former Beatle!!
Congratulations George!!
Take the pretty-boy Paul!
