Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nimrod]

In your honest opinion, and looking at all the solo albums made,  how do they stack up against recognised singer/sonwriters

Im talking people like Neil Young Bob Dylan Cat Stevens or your particular favourite

[Moogmodule]

An interesting question Kev. While it comes down to opinion, I actually tried recently to evaluate this somewhat objectively one rainy weekend when I had too much time on my hands.

My premise was, if the Beatles had never existed, and all we had was the solo careers of the main three, how would they be viewed today compared to other artists of the era.

I started by looking at single chart success in the US from 70 to 79. Looking at Number 1s, Top 10s, top 40 etc it showed that Paul was up there with Elton John and Stevie Wonder as a successful solo artist in that era. John and George had similar success to artists such as Paul Simon, James Taylor, Cat Stevens and Eric Clapton.

Below them in terms of single chart success were other  artists such a Don McLean and Carly Simon

So looking from that angle, John and George would have been significant artists of the era and still be remembered today as such. Paul would be considered a superstar.

I haven't looked at album success yet.  That analysis awaits another rainy day. As an indication though, George I think went US top 10 with all his solo albums until Thirty Three and a Third (which got to No 11) in 1976. And returned to the top ten with George Harrison in 78. Pretty decent success by any definition. 

This of course has nothing to do with critical acclaim. But in terms of how we might remember them today based on their 70s careers it's a bit of a pointer.

[nimrod]

But the impossible to answer question is

Would they have had that success if they had not been Beatles ?

[Hello Goodbye]

But the impossible to answer question is

Would they have had that success if they had not been Beatles ?

When, Kev?  In the 1960s or the 1970s?

I think Paul might have had some success as a solo artist in the early 1960s.  John too, to a slightly lesser extent.  He would have surpassed Paul in the late 60s when psychedelia was the rage.

In the 1970s, Paul would have made it easily.  Just the way he did it with Wings.

But it didn't happen that way at all.  We'll never know.

[nimrod]

When, Kev?  In the 1960s or the 1970s?

I think Paul might have had some success as a solo artist in the early 1960s.  John too, to a slightly lesser extent.  He would have surpassed Paul in the late 60s when psychedelia was the rage.

In the 1970s, Paul would have made it easily.  Just the way he did it with Wings.

But it didn't happen that way at all.  We'll never know.

No Baz Im talking about the solo albums they made after The Beatles

How do they compare to other singer/songwriters of the day

[Hello Goodbye]

I see, Kev.  Paul would have been most successful as a solo artist even if he didn't have a Beatle past.  He knew how to appeal to whatever audience he wanted to.  And he appealed to teenyboppers the best.  As he aged, he could still be successful rolling out his oldies and come up with some love songs aimed specifically at his contemporaries.

I think he proved it well in his long solo recording and touring career.  An amazing and talented artist for sure!

[Moogmodule]

But the impossible to answer question is

Would they have had that success if they had not been Beatles ?

Since it's impossible to answer I didn't try to answer that 

I certainly find the best of the three's solo material up there with the other singer songwriters of the day. As patchy as his albums were I'm more than happy to do a playlist of George solo material as I am of Dylan or other artists. 

The big issue with the Beatles as solo artists is that it didn't compare with their Beatle output. Even george who was clearly ascending as the Beatles finished could never top Something and Here Comes the Sun.

[Old Brown Shoe]

  May I jump in, joined awhile ago, have a post or two..... As much as I like Many bands and genre's of music I find M'self returning Home again and again to the magical sound that first thrilled Me as I started listening to "serious" music.
The Beatles were genius pure and simple. What blows My mind is the fact (at least for Me) , that the four separate were just as brilliant. I cite songs, just off the top of My head- "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey", "Jet", "Another Day" by McCartney...." Cold Turkey", How do You Sleep", "Mother", by Lennon...." Dark Horse", My Sweet Lord", What is Life" by Harrison..... "Photograph", "It don't Come Easy". "Get Back Boogaloo" by Starr.  I could name so many more for each of the four that I feel is brilliant in it's own right. But yes, as My subjective opinion I'd say that each of the Lads performed material that was world class and as good as Anything playing, and I am a Huge fan of all the other classic rock of that era, including those old scalawags, those rock and Rolling Stones.    All the Best, Old Brown Shoe

[nimrod]

May I jump in, joined awhile ago, have a post or two..... As much as I like Many bands and genre's of music I find M'self returning Home again and again to the magical sound that first thrilled Me as I started listening to "serious" music.
The Beatles were genius pure and simple. What blows My mind is the fact (at least for Me) , that the four separate were just as brilliant. I cite songs, just off the top of My head- "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey", "Jet", "Another Day" by McCartney...." Cold Turkey", How do You Sleep", "Mother", by Lennon...." Dark Horse", My Sweet Lord", What is Life" by Harrison..... "Photograph", "It don't Come Easy". "Get Back Boogaloo" by Starr.  I could name so many more for each of the four that I feel is brilliant in it's own right. But yes, as My subjective opinion I'd say that each of the Lads performed material that was world class and as good as Anything playing, and I am a Huge fan of all the other classic rock of that era, including those old scalawags, those rock and Rolling Stones.    All the Best, Old Brown Shoe

another old brown shoe ?

 

[Mr Mustard]

another old brown shoe ?

 

Shoes work best in pairs.




Unless your Paul's ex-wife.

[oldbrownshoe]

Can't be, there's only one oldbrownshoe, that's me!

The real oldbrownshoe's answer is that 'McCartney' is as good as any post-60s record made by anyone i.e. it's right up there with the artist I consider to be the benchmark for this subject.....Nick Drake.

[tkitna]

I think this comes back to why I like Paul's solo stuff more so then the others.  I think of Paul as I do the Stones in that most of their albums are a mismatch of stuff with some filler, but theres usually always that one or two songs that just floor you.  Of course they had exceptions with solid albums all the way through (or most of the way), but hopefully you understand what I'm getting at.

Getting back on topic,  more then a few times, my buddy and I have listened to  70's Elton John and I sat there and said, none of the Beatles solo stuff has ever been this good.  I don't know if that's true or not, but that's how I feel.  Could it be that I'm just so used to the lads solo stuff and can no longer give it a fair shake?  Who knows.

In conclusion - I think Paul would have been a pretty big star in the 70's according to his solo output.  He has enough variety and legendary songs that would push him into the forefront.

John, had a few legendary songs, but damn it if I don't feel like almost most of his solo stuff sounds all the same. He wrote Imagine so he would be remembered for that.  The rest of his solo stuff?  Not a lot there in my opinion.

I enjoy George Harrison solo records, but i'll be the first to admit that most of it is boring, twangy, and sounds a lot alike.  He wrote enough stuff to be remembered, but I doubt he would be associated with anything huge or mind blowing.  Throw him in the James Taylor category.

Ringo had a few hits, and a string of albums I thought were excellent, but I have a big gripe with Ringo and its that he always needs outside help to get a product made.  Lets face it, he struggles with songwriting chores.  Nothing to be ashamed of, but it happens.  Hell, tons of musical stars out there never wrote a song in their lives. Ringo would merit some mention due to some air play with 'It Don't Come Easy' and 'Photograph', but it starts to slide pretty drastically after that.  The 'No No Song' would have gotten some play too.  I'd give him props for being somewhere in the hierarchy of a 10cc or Climax.

[nimrod]

I'd give him props for being somewhere in the hierarchy of a 10cc

Dream on Todd

10cc had 4 top quality songwriters/singers

Ringo is neither of these

[Moogmodule]

I think this comes back to why I like Paul's solo stuff more so then the others.  I think of Paul as I do the Stones in that most of their albums are a mismatch of stuff with some filler, but theres usually always that one or two songs that just floor you.  Of course they had exceptions with solid albums all the way through (or most of the way), but hopefully you understand what I'm getting at.

Getting back on topic,  more then a few times, my buddy and I have listened to  70's Elton John and I sat there and said, none of the Beatles solo stuff has ever been this good.  I don't know if that's true or not, but that's how I feel.  Could it be that I'm just so used to the lads solo stuff and can no longer give it a fair shake?  Who knows.

In conclusion - I think Paul would have been a pretty big star in the 70's according to his solo output.  He has enough variety and legendary songs that would push him into the forefront.

John, had a few legendary songs, but damn it if I don't feel like almost most of his solo stuff sounds all the same. He wrote Imagine so he would be remembered for that.  The rest of his solo stuff?  Not a lot there in my opinion.

I enjoy George Harrison solo records, but i'll be the first to admit that most of it is boring, twangy, and sounds a lot alike.  He wrote enough stuff to be remembered, but I doubt he would be associated with anything huge or mind blowing.  Throw him in the James Taylor category.

Overall I think that's a pretty fair assessment. Paul always saw his job as a hit songwriter. He had a professional attitude to it and his success in the 70s was testament to it.

John and George suffered from thinking they had a mission beyond making good music. They still had their great moments in solo careers. But not too many. I like George's solo material. He's the ex-Beatle I listen the most to. But I admit it's a personal taste thing. Not because I think he's an underappreciated genius or anything. I think placing him in the James  Taylor/ Cat Stevens category is about right. A good singer songwriter with a few really good to great tunes and the rest a matter of taste.  One advantage of George to me was his post Beatle guitar work. He succeeded in developing a personal, recognisable style that I think adds to his appeal.

I don't talk much about Ringo. His two best post Beatle tunes were written by George (although George eschewed credit for It Don't Come Easy).

 

[nimrod]

Overall I think that's a pretty fair assessment. Paul always saw his job as a hit songwriter. He had a professional attitude to it and his success in the 70s was testament to it.

John and George suffered from thinking they had a mission beyond making good music. They still had their great moments in solo careers. But not too many. I like George's solo material. He's the ex-Beatle I listen the most to. But I admit it's a personal taste thing. Not because I think he's an underappreciated genius or anything. I think placing him in the James  Taylor/ Cat Stevens category is about right. A good singer songwriter with a few really good to great tunes and the rest a matter of taste.  One advantage of George to me was his post Beatle guitar work. He succeeded in developing a personal, recognisable style that I think adds to his appeal.

I don't talk much about Ringo. His two best post Beatle tunes were written by George (although George eschewed credit for It Don't Come Easy).

I concur with your summation Moog

Paul was more interested in chart success than any of the others in the 70's

Hardest working as well

John just lost his desire for it all when he, started tripping/met yoko

He could still knock out the odd good tune when he really tried but that wasnt often

Theres a hell of a lot of solo singer/songwriter LP's I put higher than solo Beatle ones though.

[tkitna]

I'd give him props for being somewhere in the hierarchy of a 10cc

Dream on Todd

10cc had 4 top quality songwriters/singers

Ringo is neither of these

10cc had 2 songs played here in America and that's it. 2. "I'm Not In Love" and "The Things We Do For Love".  Other then those two songs, nobody knows who the hell they are.  Hardly an awesome feat for 4 top quality songwriters and singers.  Ringos solo stuff is more well known.

[nimrod]

10cc had 2 songs played here in America and that's it. 2. "I'm Not In Love" and "The Things We Do For Love".  Other then those two songs, nobody knows who the hell they are.  Hardly an awesome feat for 4 top quality songwriters and singers.  Ringos solo stuff is more well known.

HaHa, thats only your country Todd, America is only 1 country, 10cc had numbers 1 hits (that they wrote) all over the world, Ringo cant write and cant sing, he is big only because of John & Paul, no other reason, if they handt have hired him he would still be playing in Butlins cabaret.

so you never heard of the songs  "Heart Full of Soul", "Evil Hearted You" and "For Your Love" for The Yardbirds, "Look Through Any Window" and "Bus Stop" for The Hollies and "No Milk Today", "East West" and "Listen People" for Herman's Hermits. Dreadlock Holiday, Im Mandy Fly Me

All written by 10cc members, when did Ringo write songs as good as these? All the 10cc guys are tremendously respected musicians/writers

I cant believe youve never heard this 

10 CC - DREADLOCK HOLIDAY

or this

Wall Street Shuffle - 10cc

and Hits before they were 10cc

The Mindbenders - A Groovy Kind Of Love

[tkitna]

HaHa, thats only your country Todd, America is only 1 country, 10cc had numbers 1 hits (that they wrote) all over the world,

How in the hell am I supposed to base an opinion?  Of course my opinion is coming from what I hear and know in my own country, and the fact is 10cc isn't sh*t over here.

Ringo cant write and cant sing, he is big only because of John & Paul, no other reason, if they handt have hired him he would still be playing in Butlins cabaret

.

What does that have to do with anything?  All I know is he has a few solo songs that got airplay and were recognized (like 10cc).

so you never heard of the songs  "Heart Full of Soul", "Evil Hearted You" and "For Your Love" for The Yardbirds, "Look Through Any Window" and "Bus Stop" for The Hollies and "No Milk Today", "East West" and "Listen People" for Herman's Hermits. Dreadlock Holiday, Im Mandy Fly Me

I've heard most of those, but not all.  Whats your point?  The Hollies, Hermans Hermits,  and Yardbirds are well known acts with many more songs in their catalog that people recognize then just those that you listed.

All written by 10cc members, when did Ringo write songs as good as these? All the 10cc guys are tremendously respected musicians/writers

Who gives a rats ass who wrote the songs? How great of a songwriter was Elvis?  We all know him and his songs.  What about Motown?  Does anybody give a sh*t that Holland-Dozier-Holland wrote a bunch of songs for the Supremes?  No.  All they know is that the Supremes sang them.  Hell, half the population probably thinks 'Twist And Shout' is a freaking Beatles song.  Justin Bieber and Britney Spears couldn't write a song if their life depended on it, but everybody knows who they are.

I cant believe youve never heard this 

10 CC - DREADLOCK HOLIDAY

or this

Wall Street Shuffle - 10cc

and Hits before they were 10cc

The Mindbenders - A Groovy Kind Of Love

I've heard 'A Groovy Kind Of Love' before, because I'm familiar with the Phil Collins version.  The other two I have never heard in my life.


Maybe I missed the point of this thread.  I thought it was to rate how the Beatles solo career would be if the Beatles hadent existed.  I was rating them off of their finished work that they already have.  I didn't know we we're dissecting them down to the very smallest detail and talent that they had.  If that's the case, George Harrison probably wouldn't have made any impact either, because he wouldn't have had his time to study the songwriting craft under Paul and John.

[tkitna]

Here's another example.  I love Bob Dylan songs,,,,,,but only when other people sing them.  I've never heard a cover that wasn't better then his originals.  Out of all his output, I only really like 'Tangled Up In Blues' and 'Hurricane'.  I could care less if I ever heard any of his other songs.  In that aspect, Dylan receives way more accolades for writing then he does actually singing and playing the songs.  I guess that would hold true with the members of 10cc too.

[nimrod]

ok keep yer hair on you grumpy sod