Ranking the Beatles

[Matt C]

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?

[Gilly]

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.)

[Steve of Bloomington]

It's kind of unfair, though, McCartney has had 28 more years to do stuff.

[ericluxury]

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.

[Steeley Chris]

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.

[iAmBaronVonTito]

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. 

[Andy]

Pete Best

[yesno]

Pete Best

Murray the K

[ericluxury]

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.

[erika]

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!!

[iAmBaronVonTito]

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. 

[pscan]

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.

[Gilly]

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.

[Steve of Bloomington]

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.

[ericluxury]

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.