FOT Forum
FOT Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: yesno on January 04, 2009, 01:09:34 AM
-
John Lennon: There's no doubt that he's the most overrated Beatle. But Imagine and Plastic Ono Band are both very good albums, and both would probably make my list of top 5 solo Beatles albums. I'm not enough of a Beatles nut to know which of the Lennon/McCartney songs are really just by Lennon, apart from Strawberry Fields, which is very good (not as good as Penny Lane, though). But I'd say that even if George Harrison solo had a more solid solo career than Lennon, Lennon contributed more to the actual Beatles than Harrison.
This is very controversial, I know. But I'd even go so far as to say that Lennon was a better Beatle than Ringo.
My ranking:
As Beatles:
McCartney
Lennon
Harrison
Starr
Solo:
Harrison
McCartney
Lennon
Starr
My choice for best Beatle overall, taking everything into account, has to be McCartney. It's only because of this board that I really have gotten into solo McCartney (I had been too scared by the mediocre 80s stuff). That plus what I know of him being the more talented of the Lennon/McCartney team pushes him over the edge.
-
It's only because of this board that I really have gotten into solo McCartney (I had been too scared by the mediocre 80s stuff).
I'm currently going through this phase right now. I listened to a lot of the Lennon solo stuff in high school and thought that Paul was too sappy for me. George is still my favorite solo, but lately I've really been coming around to Paul. I'm mad at myself for missing out on Ram all these years. Still not really a Wings fan though.
-
John Lennon: There's no doubt that he's the most overrated Beatle.
I'm not enough of a Beatles nut to know which of the Lennon/McCartney songs are really just by Lennon
You should consider looking into that before you call him the most overrated Beatle without a doubt in your mind... don't you think?
-
I also have this board to thank for the discovery of early solo McCartney, but as far as I'm concerned Lennon is responsible for the overwhelming majority of great Beatles songs. Almost all of my favorites are John's:
Tomorrow Never Knows
I Am the Walrus
Strawberry Fields Forever
Don't Let Me Down
Come Together
Across the Universe
Dear Prudence
A Day in the Life (partly Paul's, but mostly John)
She Said She Said
Paul wrote some great Beatles songs too, but not nearly as many as John. And he wrote Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, which is a pretty large check in the negative column.
Within the Beatles:
John
Paul
George
Ringo
Solo:
Like I said, I'm discovering (and appreciating) early McCartney. I agree with yesno that the first 2 Lennon solo albums are great (actually, I only like about half of Imagine, but the debut is a classic). George's All Things Must Pass is unquestionably the best album by a solo Beatle. I don't really know much beyond a song or two about the albums he released after All Things Must Pass, but he gets #1 anyway. Ringo is last by default because I know only a couple of songs.
George
Paul
John
Ringo
Overall:
I'm torn. In fact, I've changed my mind between voting in the poll and typing this post. Using a totally non-scientific ranking system, I'd probably rank Paul at overall #1. He took longer to nosedive into light-rock garbage than John (and his oldies album totally thrashes John's) and he's been responsible for more great moments than George. Overall, he's been the most consistent of the four.
Paul
John
George
Ringo
-
I will say that if John hadn't been doing such a huge amount of psychedelic drugs at the time, his solo stuff probably would have shone much brighter.
-
John Lennon: There's no doubt that he's the most overrated Beatle.
I'm not enough of a Beatles nut to know which of the Lennon/McCartney songs are really just by Lennon
You should consider looking into that before you call him the most overrated Beatle without a doubt in your mind... don't you think?
Shit! I'll do more research before wasting time on a message board next time.
I've actually read that a lot of the songs that are often said to be "by" one or the other often have significant input from both, except for in the last few years. For example, Eleanor Rigby. But Lennon is still overrated because he generally gets credit for being the artistic one, while Paul just wrote pop songs-- which, even if true , would be irrelevant, since there's nothing wrong with a good pop song. And it's not true. He wrote Helter Skelter.
-
I've actually read that a lot of the songs that are often said to be "by" one or the other often have significant input from both, except for in the last few years.
According to John in the Lennon Remembers interview, there was almost no collaboration between the two except for very early on. There may've been suggestions (John's famous suggestion that Paul keep the line "The movement you need is on your shoulder" in Hey Jude when Paul wanted to scrap it, for example), but generally they wrote alone. I could be misremembering because I haven't read that interview in a long time, but that's how I remember it.
The general rule of thumb that I've been told to follow with Lennon/McCartney Beatles songs is that the person singing lead vocals probably wrote it. I'm sure it's not 100% accurate, but it seems to be a pretty decent guidepost.
-
Sorry for the sidetrack (not worth its own thread), but if I purchase All Things Must Pass, should I get the 30th Anniversary Edition or the original? Any reason for one over the other? Sequencing? Mono versus stereo? Anything?
-
Sorry for the sidetrack (not worth its own thread), but if I purchase All Things Must Pass, should I get the 30th Anniversary Edition or the original? Any reason for one over the other? Sequencing? Mono versus stereo? Anything?
30th Anniversary edition probably sounds better than the original CD issue though it's not faultless - the song I Dig Love has a super-annoying ringing noise throughout that is probably a mastering defect. The bonus cuts are mostly garbage, but that's to be expected.
If original vinyl is out of the question, 30th Anniversary is the way to go.
-
"I Live For You" is on the resissue, which is a great song.
I actually have a number of George Harrison bootlegs from this time period that I was thinking of sharing: The Making of All Things Must Pass, The Alternate All Things Must Pass, and (a little different) A True Legend. They're available as FLACs all over the internet though.
-
Didn't Harrison literally outsell the other Beatles solo? If so, the dollar signs speak a great deal. I'm also appreciative of his efforts that benefited film-making. Terry Gilliam is one of my favorite directors. Life of Brian and Time Bandits are both classics, imo.
-
I will say that if John hadn't been doing such a huge amount of psychedelic drugs at the time, his solo stuff probably would have shone much brighter.
That's a common misconception.
John was not a fan of psychedelic drugs: he was actually an avid paint-huffer. The original jackets worn on the cover of Sgt Peppers started off as white with gold trimming, but by the end of the shoot he'd gotten so much paint smeared all over everything, and with so many different colors (it was 60's, and there was alot of experimentation with paint colors after all), that they had to color in the jackets with whatever paint was the most prominent. Photo prints of John with silver paint smeared in his beard fetch up to 25,000 at Sothesby's.
It was Yoko who moved him on to harder, more dangerous substances. In that famous live performance for "Imagine," that's not gum he's chewing, but a an ounce of mercury.
-
John Lennon: There's no doubt that he's the most overrated Beatle.
I'm not enough of a Beatles nut to know which of the Lennon/McCartney songs are really just by Lennon
You should consider looking into that before you call him the most overrated Beatle without a doubt in your mind... don't you think?
Shit! I'll do more research before wasting time on a message board next time.
Hey post what you want I'm just saying you should try to figure which Beatles tunes he influenced before deciding he's the most overrated.
And Spoony, he was just trying to taste those colors, man. It's all part of the trip.
-
As Ronald Thomas Clontle said, "Bang bang Maxwell's Silver Hammer came down upon his head..."
-
#1 Lennon/McCartney/Harrison (tie)
#2 Starr
-
In that famous live performance for "Imagine," that's not gum he's chewing, but a an ounce of mercury.
Wow, where did you hear that?
-
I don't like George's solo work very much... Actually, I never really liked any of the Beatles solo stuff a whole lot. The Beatles are easily my favorite band but I don't think any of them would be in my top 100 artists as solo artists.
As Beatles: John, Paul, George, Ringo
As solo: Paul, John, Ringo, George (I like the album Ringo plus he was the one who captured the spirit of The Beatles the most in his solo career... I suppose that has something to do with the fact that he had to rely on being an ex-Beatle to continue a career. Either way, I just can't get into Harrison's stuff.)
-
It's kind of unfair, though, McCartney has had 28 more years to do stuff.
-
Had it not been for Tom and this board, my current ranking of them as Beatles would be my overall ranking. That is
Lennon
McCartney
Harrison
Starr
As my Beatles-era rankings that won't change. So many of the Lennon songs are my favorite songs of the album they are on. Plus he sang so beautifully then (his voice never really sounded as good after the band broke up).
But having gotten into their solo work since this board (thanks Tom for putting Ram and All Things Must Pass and Wild Life into my life), I'd change my solo Beatle list to:
McCartney
Harrison
Lennon
Starr
Paul wins because he has 3 start-to-finish great albums. Harrison and Lennon have one each but since Harrison's is a double LP, he ranks higher.
As for McCartney having had more time, my caring of who is good/bad ends around 1975. After that good songs came out from any one of them every now and again, but never anything spectacular.
-
Beatlesongs by William J. Dowlding is a fantastic book which breaks down who plays what instruments on which songs and who wrote how much of each song.
I need to delve into more of the solo stuff from each of them, but as a Beatle John has been my favorite since 2nd grade.
-
my favorite is George, by far. not to mention, its a fairly well-known (relatively speaking) fact that George was not a prominent contributor during his time as a member of the Beatles because he was never "given the chance," as it has been stated in a number of publications that this was where his strife lay in the group.
secondly, i like mccartney. lennon and ringo i could give or take.
-
Pete Best
-
Pete Best
Murray the K
-
my favorite is George, by far. not to mention, its a fairly well-known (relatively speaking) fact that George was not a prominent contributor during his time as a member of the Beatles because he was never "given the chance," as it has been stated in a number of publications that this was where his strife lay in the group.
secondly, i like mccartney. lennon and ringo i could give or take.
Given how prolific he was after the Beatles, it's reasonable to assume that Harrison wrote songs at a pace more in tune with the average songwriter than with the insane prolific-ness of Lennon/McCartney, especially during that time period. He may have been rationed with the 2 songs/album thing, but I doubt that if he wasn't rationed, he'd be able to rise to that challenge. It's a challenge that only Robert Pollard, Jay Reatard and Will Oldham could have met.
Also, someone who could only give or take Lennon...man, that makes no sense to me. I get not buying into the myth and disliking his tendency to write songs like 'All You Need is Love' or whatever, but he's written so many great songs. So many.
-
Also, someone who could only give or take Lennon...man, that makes no sense to me. I get not buying into the myth and disliking his tendency to write songs like 'All You Need is Love' or whatever, but he's written so many great songs. So many.
What he said!!
-
Also, someone who could only give or take Lennon...man, that makes no sense to me. I get not buying into the myth and disliking his tendency to write songs like 'All You Need is Love' or whatever, but he's written so many great songs. So many.
What he said!!
i enjoy his songs and admittedly, i dont dislike John Lennon, i merely find myself not as impressed with him as i did many years ago.
-
I'd put McCartney at the top of the heap for both Beatles and post-Beatles. I'll also say that he's on a pretty great hot streak right now. Chaos & Creation..., Memory Almost Full & the latest Fireman album are all great, non-coasting artistic successes, given the fact that there has always been a cloying "love me" quality to his music.
If you read Ian McDonald's "Revolution in the Head," which you should really do if you like the Beatles, he writes that Lennon's melodic sense kind of abandoned him post-Revolver and that he was basically saved by innovative production in the latter albums. I would say that he lack of melodic invention kind of dooms most of his solo work for me as well. Lennon was more about passion than craft.
Given all of that, no Beatle ever made a better solo album than All Things Must Pass. That's just a fact, and Living in the Material World was almost as good. Unfortunately, George's albums kind of fell off a steep cliff after those two, although I really like Cloud Nine and the Travelling Wilbury's first album.
-
What is so great about All Things Must Pass? To me it sounds like every other crappy early 70's album and reminds me a lot of The Band.
-
There was a time I might have been a wiseacre and said George Martin, but then I heard his 'solo' album with Phil Collins and Sean Connery and those. That was soul-searingly bad.
-
What is so great about All Things Must Pass? To me it sounds like every other crappy early 70's album and reminds me a lot of The Band.
While I disagree, I appreciate your boldness.
I enjoy Ram and Band on the Run more than All Things Must Pass, but that doesn't mean it ain't awesome.
-
Listen to All Things Must Pass back to back with its contemporary album by the Moody Blues A Question of Balance and see if you can honestly say it isn't clearly the better album. I'm no Moody Blues hater at all, I'm probably more forgiving of them than most FOT, just sayin'.
-
I guess if you can't hear something in a song like "All Things Must Pass," I don't really know how to convince you...
(George-related: The tribute concert given for George at the Royal Albert Hall is one of my favorite Beatle-related albums/dvds. In fact, I may even regard some of the recordings from that concert as near-definitive versions. At any rate, if you like George's songs, you'll love this concert. It's heartfelt, moving, and beautifully filmed/recorded. Below is Paul singing "Something.")
<object width="320" height="265"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RwKTXyF_6B8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RwKTXyF_6B8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="320" height="265"></embed></object>
-
best beatles: (as ranked by how their names sound)
#1 Ringo
#2 George
#3 Paul
#4 John
-
I do like the song All Things Must Pass, but nothing else on the album comes remotely close to it.
-
I do like the song All Things Must Pass, but nothing else on the album comes remotely close to it.
Just about every song on that album (apart from the Apple Jam stuff) is a 5 star song for me. To each his own.
Incidentally, when I was 9 or 10 I loved Cloud 9. The music that kids that age are into from 8 to 12 is so random. One of my nephews was a big Bon Jovi fan because of the influence of my sister. Mind you, this was maybe 4 years ago.
-
george, ringo, the rest.