DM's Beatles forums

Solo forums => John Lennon => Microscopes => Topic started by: Bobber on September 27, 2012, 03:12:52 PM

Title: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Bobber on September 27, 2012, 03:12:52 PM
(http://www.dmrockmusic.com/assets/covers/701.jpg)

Whenever a cover is more popular than the record it's holding, there is a problem. Two Virgins was Johns first solo record and before writing this Microscope I had listened to it only once. In order to write a proper Microscope I decided to listen to it once more. My mind has not changed. It's still unlistenable. I promise you I will never listen to it again.

What's on this record? It's just noises, some little snippets of conversation and Yoko screaming, whining and attempting to sing. Is it the sound of Yoko's orgasm? If so, it's not even erotic. It's plain painful to the ears and embarrassing at best. The best part of the album is John's voice at the end of side 1. He's saying: Excuse Me. That was the only sensible thing to put on a record like this. How did this ever get on vinyl in the first place and what on earth was John trying to accomplish with a commercial release? Compared to Two Virgins, Revolution #9 ánd What's The New Mary Jane? are masterpieces.

So why a Microscope thread on Two Virgins?
To prove that John Lennon's solo output was not an overall success. John-fans tend to point towards McCartney II and Paul's 80's stuff to say they don't like Pauls music. But this (and I will be reviewing Life With The Lions and The Wedding Album as well) is a John Lennon record, commercially released and usually neglected by all fans.

Did anybody on this forum ever listen to this album? I challenge you all to have a listen yourself and try to prove me wrong on all accounts.  ;D  Good luck.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Kevin on September 27, 2012, 05:10:57 PM
Hi Bobber.
First, no, I've never listened to it. But I'm not sure that's the point.
Lennon seems to have been a man who needed a muse (the less charitable might say he was easily influenced by others, or that he needed to be led.)
Stu and Brian were dead and he wasn't trying to be Dylan any more. So he fell under the spell of Yoko. Bagism, instant music, avante garde, sound collages blah blah were more her than him.
And I think this album was more a statement of intent by him regarding his new life than a seriuos release he expected you to listen to. Least I hope so.
So I won't bash it too much.  I'll save that for Mind Games and Double Fantasy.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on September 27, 2012, 09:30:16 PM
So why a Microscope thread on Two Virgins?
To prove that John Lennon's solo output was not an overall success. John-fans tend to point towards McCartney II and Paul's 80's stuff to say they don't like Pauls music. But this (and I will be reviewing Life With The Lions and The Wedding Album as well) is a John Lennon record, commercially released and usually neglected by all fans.

Did anybody on this forum ever listen to this album? I challenge you all to have a listen yourself and try to prove me wrong on all accounts.  ;D  Good luck.

I've never listened to this record and I'm not interested to listen to it. But I don't think it's fair to judge John's solo career on base of experiments like this. I prefer John's solo career because I like his 1970-75 albums more than Paul's. I don't judge Paul's solo work from his supposedly "bad" albums, I just don't like most of the stuff he did, even in the 1970's; I would only save Band On The Run as a good piece of work (an oasis in the desert). I think that Plastic Ono Band and Imagine are better than anything Paul did after the Beatles, and give me Mind Games, Walls And Bridges and Rock 'N' Roll before sappy records like Ram and Red Rose Speedway. I admit that Paul worked harder than John, obtaining a more refined sound; but give me John's songs all the time, at least he had something to say lyrically.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: tkitna on September 28, 2012, 01:42:55 AM
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing002.gif) Good lord, you were serious. I really didnt think you were going to go there. I've heard pieces of it, but never indulged in the torture it would be to listen to the entire thing. I never saw any reason. My hats off to you for doing so though good man. It must have been tough.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Yeshelloitsmehereagain on September 28, 2012, 03:46:10 AM
I've not heard it entirely either. At least you can say that it gets better from here on in.

I think probably Sometime in NYC and Mind Games are John's weakest albums.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on September 28, 2012, 04:26:46 AM
I think probably Sometime in NYC and Mind Games are John's weakest albums.

I think Mind Games is quite underrated. I'm not saying that it's a great album, but it has some enjoyable moments at least. On the other hand, I was never a big fan of Double Fantasy, and I'm not even taking into account the Yoko songs.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Bobber on September 28, 2012, 08:35:35 AM
And I think this album was more a statement of intent by him regarding his new life than a seriuos release he expected you to listen to.
He presented us an out of tune howling woman, who let us hear her voice almost continuously for half an hour. I understand all the muse-thing, but John and Yoko could have made a more acceptable first impression.

Quote
Least I hope so.
I don't know. It was commercially released so I guess he intended to reach a large audience.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Bobber on September 28, 2012, 08:36:42 AM
I've not heard it entirely either. At least you can say that it gets better from here on in.

I hope so. I admit I have never listened to Life With The Lions and the Wedding Album up till now. It can hardly be worse.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Snoopy66 on September 28, 2012, 08:37:32 AM
Stu and Brian were dead and he wasn't trying to be Dylan any more. So he fell under the spell of Yoko. Bagism, instant music, avante garde, sound collages blah blah were more her than him.
And I think this album was more a statement of intent by him regarding his new life than a seriuos release he expected you to listen to.
Good point; I absolutely agree  :)

I've never listened to this album (mostly because I can't stand Yoko's voice  roll:)), otherwise I'd give it a try. Anyway, I see the whole thing as purely experimental, nothing more and nothing less.

Snoopy
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Bobber on September 28, 2012, 08:41:04 AM
I prefer John's solo career because I like his 1970-75 albums more than Paul's.

I'm not trying to create another John vs Paul thing here. But in fact John's solo carreer started with Two Virgins, followed by Life With The Lions and The Wedding Album. We're not letting Pauls solo carreer start with Ram and skip to Band On The Run, are we? I am not judging John's solo carreer on base of experiments (if it is an experiment in the first place) like this, but I'm judging it as a complete catalogue.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Bobber on September 28, 2012, 08:42:19 AM
Good point; I absolutely agree  :)

I've never listened to this album (mostly because I can't stand Yoko's voice  roll:)), otherwise I'd give it a try. Anyway, I see the whole thing as purely experimental, nothing more and nothing less.

Snoopy

And why should this be regarded as an experiment? Just because it is a unlistenable album?
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Snoopy66 on September 28, 2012, 09:09:01 AM
And why should this be regarded as an experiment? Just because it is a unlistenable album?
Again: I haven't listened to this album. But as far as I know, it contains more sounds and musical pieces on it, rather than "real" songs. So what's wrong with calling this "experimental" ?

Snoopy
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Snoopy66 on September 28, 2012, 09:11:08 AM
I admit that Paul worked harder than John, obtaining a more refined sound; but give me John's songs all the time, at least he had something to say lyrically.
Absolutely; I see it that way too.

Snoopy
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Bobber on September 28, 2012, 09:23:18 AM
Again: I haven't listened to this album. But as far as I know, it contains more sounds and musical pieces on it, rather than "real" songs. So what's wrong with calling this "experimental" ?

Snoopy

Well, it puts us into a debate of what's experimental and what's not. But experimental has the tag of 'don't expect too much from it', or 'let's not take this all too serious'. And I refuse to accept that particular tag. It was a commercial release. Quote from Bruce Spizer: "The February 1, 1969, Rolling Stone reported that Tetragammaton ordered 200,000 copies of the album. Company president Arthur Mogull stated that he would be 'stunned if it didn't sell a couple of million'.
What I'm trying to point out that I find it remarkable that John fans let his solo carreer start in 1970 with the release of Plastic Ono Band, completely neglecting the three albums he released before. I'm not sure whether John regarded these albums as experimental.

On a sidenote, also from Bruce Spizer's book: "When EMI head Sir Joseph Lockwood warned John that the cover would ruin the Beatles image, Yoko told him it was "art". Sir Joe replied, "Well, I should find some better bodies to put on the cover than you two. They're not very attractive." ha2ha
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Yeshelloitsmehereagain on September 28, 2012, 12:34:08 PM
To be fair to John Lennon he was in two bands at the time. When was this? 1968? He was also doing the 2 LP thing and it wasn't too long until Cold Turkey. I will listen to it (eventually) but I doubt I'd have bought it in 1969 either. I mean it has a couple of not particularly great looing Heroin users naked on the front cover, in this day and age that is a reason not to buy it. In 1969? Bloody hell. people probably bought it for the purpose of having something to diss or laugh at, it's another stunt, more controversial publictity. It is artistic expression. It's raw, painfull to hear perhaps. I think John and Yoko loved each other in numerous different ways, that was a pretty complex relationship there. If you don't like it why are you going on about it? I think compulsive is a good word.

I haven't bought any of Paul's Classical albums nor George's Indian albums. I have 3 Ringo albums and one of them is a "Best of".

Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Kevin on September 28, 2012, 01:18:43 PM
Quote from Bruce Spizer: "The February 1, 1969, Rolling Stone reported that Tetragammaton ordered 200,000 copies of the album. Company president Arthur Mogull stated that he would be 'stunned if it didn't sell a couple of million'.

I think in 1968  the news of a John Lennon solo album would have had most people in the industry reaching for their cheque books long before their needles actually cut into the said vinyl.. This was by a Beatle –how bad could it be? However  I’m not sure their enthusiasm would have survived the play back party.
The key question seems to be Lennon’s intent. Was it a commercial release? Obviously. Did he consider it a serious piece of work? I don’t doubt that.
But would we put Harrison’s Wonderwall under such scrutiny. It too was supposed to belong to a genre outside the familiar Beatle pop/rock (which was probably its point.) As its not a genre I understand or like or willing to buy  I’m loathe to judge it.
Likewise I wouldn’t consider McCartney’s classical works alongside RAM or Band On The Run. It was never intended by its maker to be so. As I am very unfamiliar with classical music I am in no position to judge it.
It may surprise you that I’m not a major Lennon fan, but however niaive or misguided it took balls for him to stand naked like that on the cover. I can’t imagine another major rock star doing that. He exposed himself more than in the literal sense.  Again  he was declaring intent –“this is different.”  I’ll give him a nod for that.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Snoopy66 on September 28, 2012, 01:32:10 PM
What I'm trying to point out that I find it remarkable that John fans let his solo carreer start in 1970 with the release of Plastic Ono Band, completely neglecting the three albums he released before. I'm not sure whether John regarded these albums as experimental.
It's true that most John-fans (including me) let his "real" solo-career start with POP. But maybe it's also because in 1970 the Beatles were separated, which wasn't the case in 1968.

I'm not sure either whether John regarded these albums as experimental, but I guess they weren't perceived as "commercial" by most of his fans.

Snoopy
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Snoopy66 on September 28, 2012, 01:36:19 PM
It may surprise you that I’m not a major Lennon fan, but however niaive or misguided it took balls for him to stand naked like that on the cover. I can’t imagine another major rock star doing that. He exposed himself more than in the literal sense.  Again  he was declaring intent –“this is different.”  I’ll give him a nod for that.
Yeah, it was quite bold to stand naked for an album-cover like John did. Though it's obvious that he was under heavy drug-influence when doing so; still...  :-\

Snoopy
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on September 28, 2012, 03:09:31 PM
I'm not trying to create another John vs Paul thing here. But in fact John's solo carreer started with Two Virgins, followed by Life With The Lions and The Wedding Album. We're not letting Pauls solo carreer start with Ram and skip to Band On The Run, are we? I am not judging John's solo carreer on base of experiments (if it is an experiment in the first place) like this, but I'm judging it as a complete catalogue.

Ok, if you want to judge their solo careers as a whole, it's fair to say that both had high and low moments; and Paul had a much longer career (even when John was alive), that's why it's easier to find painful moments in his catalog. But at the end of the day the only thing that matters is how much you enjoy your favorite albums made by them. I don't care about Two Virgins, Life With The Lions or The Wedding Album because I never listen to them, I just know that I enjoy a higher number of John's albums than Paul's, and that's how I judge their work.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Kevin on September 28, 2012, 03:22:56 PM
I don't care about Two Virgins, Life With The Lions or The Wedding Album because I never listen to them, I just know that I enjoy a higher number of John's albums than Paul's, and that's how I judge their work.

Fair enough too. I just guess that the point of these microscope threads is to give us an oppotunity to do some "serious" critiquing (sp) of their work (even for albums we don't particularly like.) It's fun and a nice change from endless favourites lists.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Snoopy66 on September 29, 2012, 03:11:34 PM
Fair enough too. I just guess that the point of these microscope threads is to give us an oppotunity to do some "serious" critiquing (sp) of their work (even for albums we don't particularly like.) It's fun and a nice change from endless favourites lists.
Indeed  :)

It's fun to discuss the bad and the good albums, whatever our opinions are. I found it just a bit difficult to write my opinion down for an album that I haven't listened to. The cover is really faaar more "popular" than the songs on it  ;D

Snoopy
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on September 29, 2012, 06:42:26 PM
Fair enough too. I just guess that the point of these microscope threads is to give us an oppotunity to do some "serious" critiquing (sp) of their work (even for albums we don't particularly like.) It's fun and a nice change from endless favourites lists.

Yes. I said that I don't care about these "experimental" records, but this doesn't mean that they shouldn't be analysed. Electronic Sound is said to be even more unlistenable. I tried to listen to it from youtube and I couldn't resist more than 1 minute!
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Snoopy66 on October 01, 2012, 07:25:03 AM
Yes. I said that I don't care about these "experimental" records, but this doesn't mean that they shouldn't be analysed. Electronic Sound is said to be even more unlistenable. I tried to listen to it from youtube and I couldn't resist more than 1 minute!
Yeah, I know what you mean  roll:)

I've tried to listen to "Electronic Sound" too.. and couldn't resist more than 30 seconds  ;D

Snoopy
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on October 01, 2012, 12:59:36 PM
I've tried to listen to "Electronic Sound" too.. and couldn't resist more than 30 seconds  ;D

Yeah, it may bring you brain damage! ;D
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Snoopy66 on October 01, 2012, 01:06:35 PM
Yeah, it may bring you brain damage! ;D
Indeed  :P

I wouldn't mind listening to some instrumental stuff, but I just can't stand Yoko's screaming...how the hell could John accept this  ??? Aah yes, maybe you have to be "stoned" to listen to it  glassesslip

Snoopy
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: tkitna on October 01, 2012, 11:57:27 PM
But would we put Harrison’s Wonderwall under such scrutiny. It too was supposed to belong to a genre outside the familiar Beatle pop/rock (which was probably its point.) As its not a genre I understand or like or willing to buy  I’m loathe to judge it.

"Wonderwall Music' actually doesnt bother me as I take it for what it is. I can listen to it (except for Microbes), but I would definitely put 'Electronic Sound' in the same category as Lennon's first three crap fests.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: nimrod on October 02, 2012, 01:03:29 AM

So why a Microscope thread on Two Virgins?
To prove that John Lennon's solo output was not an overall success. John-fans tend to point towards McCartney II and Paul's 80's stuff to say they don't like Pauls music.

Whooaahh....too divisive this John v Paul stuff for me bobber mate ;)

the only comment I would make is, whatever trip John was on when he made this record, I dont think he was bothered whether it got to No 1 (although I could be wrong)

Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Bobber on October 02, 2012, 06:45:39 AM
Whooaahh....too divisive this John v Paul stuff for me bobber mate ;)

I just wanted to point out that John's solo carreer was not a complete triumph, as is often suggested.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Snoopy66 on October 02, 2012, 07:51:55 AM
I just wanted to point out that John's solo carreer was not a complete triumph, as is often suggested.
Well, no one of the ex-Beatles had a "complete triumph" in his solo-career (who can claim so anyway ?). Personally, I've never heard or read any suggestions that John's (short) solo-career was throughout successful. Besides, I don't think it's the point of such an album-analysis to evaluate the music by sold-albums or chart-position.

Snoopy
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Bobber on October 02, 2012, 08:58:15 AM
Well, no one of the ex-Beatles had a "complete triumph" in his solo-career (who can claim so anyway ?). Personally, I've never heard or read any suggestions that John's (short) solo-career was throughout successful. Besides, I don't think it's the point of such an album-analysis to evaluate the music by sold-albums or chart-position.

Snoopy

I even read in this thread alone: "but give me John's songs all the time, at least he had something to say lyrically."

Anyway, I'm putting this album under the microscope because in my opinion it's a part of John's solo carreer.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Snoopy66 on October 02, 2012, 09:33:44 AM
I even read in this thread alone: "but give me John's songs all the time, at least he had something to say lyrically."

Anyway, I'm putting this album under the microscope because in my opinion it's a part of John's solo carreer.
Oh, you are refering to this quote... Well, it could be from me too  ;D Well, I guess the poster just wanted to express that he enjoys more John's than Paul's songs because of the "deeper" messages of the lyrics (but I don't want to value Paul's songs or lyrics in this thread, as it's not the right place). I presume that John's songs are to him personally "a complete triumph", which is just a subjective opinion.

... and of course it's o.k. to put this album under the microscope (better a "bad" starting, than no start at all  ;))

Snoopy
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Bobber on October 02, 2012, 09:47:01 AM
Oh, you are refering to this quote...

I just took it as an example.

Oh and thank you for allowing me to start this microscope thread.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: tkitna on October 02, 2012, 10:43:06 AM
Oh and thank you for allowing me to start this microscope thread.


(http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/snork.gif)
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on October 02, 2012, 03:42:57 PM
I even read in this thread alone: "but give me John's songs all the time, at least he had something to say lyrically."

Anyway, I'm putting this album under the microscope because in my opinion it's a part of John's solo carreer.

Yeah, I said that, but I don't think John's solo career was a complete triumph. I was just making a comparison, as I think that John's songwriting was more interesting than Paul's, while Paul was musically more ambitious but I find most of his work to be pretty silly.

It's valid analysing this album and if you want to use it to prove that John's solo career had several awful moments, I can't really argue. But as I said before, I base my general opinion on how many albums from each artist I really enjoy.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Bobber on November 29, 2013, 10:23:10 AM
(http://beatlephotoblog.com/photos/2013/11/23.jpg3.jpg)
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Moogmodule on December 20, 2013, 11:34:33 PM
I think my favourite part of this album was hearing Ringo talk about it on Anthology. Something like when John showed him the cover "oh you've got the Times on there". One of the funniest moments in Anthology.

Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: nimrod on December 21, 2013, 04:06:39 AM
Well, no one of the ex-Beatles had a "complete triumph" in his solo-career (who can claim so anyway ?). Personally, I've never heard or read any suggestions that John's (short) solo-career was throughout successful. Besides, I don't think it's the point of such an album-analysis to evaluate the music by sold-albums or chart-position.

Snoopy

Your right snoopy, collectively the fabs were monumentally fantastic, the best best in the world by miles, STELLAR.........even their poorer albums were triumphs, as solo artists they were ordinary, crappy, boring and completely uninteresting, even Johns best LP Imagine was average at best. And as for Paul, just catchy chart obsessed teen girly nonsense (he had no-one to tell him no anymore), Georges stuff was preachy self obsessed and droning and Ringo well, he's just Ringo, singing cast offs from the others.

My views entirely of course :)
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Ovi on December 21, 2013, 08:38:47 AM
Your right snoopy, collectively the fabs were monumentally fantastic, the best best in the world by miles, STELLAR.........even their poorer albums were triumphs, as solo artists they were ordinary, crappy, boring and completely uninteresting, even Johns best LP Imagine was average at best. And as for Paul, just catchy chart obsessed teen girly nonsense (he had no-one to tell him no anymore), Georges stuff was preachy self obsessed and droning and Ringo well, he's just Ringo, singing cast offs from the others.

My views entirely of course :)

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?  ;)
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on December 21, 2013, 12:55:01 PM
Your right snoopy, collectively the fabs were monumentally fantastic, the best best in the world by miles, STELLAR.........even their poorer albums were triumphs, as solo artists they were ordinary, crappy, boring and completely uninteresting, even Johns best LP Imagine was average at best. And as for Paul, just catchy chart obsessed teen girly nonsense (he had no-one to tell him no anymore), Georges stuff was preachy self obsessed and droning and Ringo well, he's just Ringo, singing cast offs from the others.

My views entirely of course :)

I'd say that Imagine, Band On The Run and All Things Must Pass are better than Please Please Me, With The Beatles, Beatles For Sale and Let It Be, but I tend to agree with you, none of their solo careers was a triumph and none of their solo albums was an absolute masterpiece. I prefer John's solo career over the others just because I like his songwriting better, especially the lyrics, but his records lacked of instrumental merits.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Moogmodule on December 21, 2013, 01:02:31 PM
That's some pretty harsh views on their solo careers. I'd certainly agree they were inconsistent. But I think each had their solo merits. While George might not reach the popular acclaim heights of Something and Here Comes the Sun, I do think he had some great moments in his solo career. A little too few and far between perhaps but they were there. It's harder to argue that John and Paul ever reached their Beatle heights. Cos they were pretty amazingly high heights. But it doesn't mean to me at least that there wasnt some interesting songwriting and performances going on.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Moogmodule on December 21, 2013, 01:09:51 PM
I should add that I don't think Something and Here Comes the Sun are just popular. I think they are truly great songs. And clearly they'd be Exhibit 1 and 2 in the case for George's musical longevity. In his solo career only My Sweet Lord would come close.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on December 21, 2013, 01:15:39 PM
That's some pretty harsh views on their solo careers. I'd certainly agree they were inconsistent. But I think each had their solo merits. While George might not reach the popular acclaim heights of Something and Here Comes the Sun, I do think he had some great moments in his solo career. A little too few and far between perhaps but they were there. It's harder to argue that John and Paul ever reached their Beatle heights. Cos they were pretty amazingly high heights. But it doesn't mean to me at least that there wasnt some interesting songwriting and performances going on.

The point is, at least in my opinion, that their solo careers didn't even reach the heights of lots of other 1960's bands. The air of the times was also an influence.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Moogmodule on December 21, 2013, 08:45:21 PM
The point is, at least in my opinion, that their solo careers didn't even reach the heights of lots of other 1960's bands. The air of the times was also an influence.

Yes that's a fair assessment. I like a lot of the post Beatle work. I have pretty long playlists of songs I enjoy from them. But I don't consider it singular work amongst its peers like I do most of the Beatle stuff. It's just another category of music that competes with all the other stuff I listen to.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: nimrod on December 22, 2013, 01:04:15 AM
That's some pretty harsh views on their solo careers. I'd certainly agree they were inconsistent. But I think each had their solo merits. While George might not reach the popular acclaim heights of Something and Here Comes the Sun, I do think he had some great moments in his solo career. A little too few and far between perhaps but they were there. It's harder to argue that John and Paul ever reached their Beatle heights. Cos they were pretty amazingly high heights. But it doesn't mean to me at least that there wasnt some interesting songwriting and performances going on.

the odd decent song yeah but on the whole poor..................... interesting songwriting ? you could say that about a thousand songwriters over the years, collectively they were gods, individually they were average at best.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Moogmodule on December 22, 2013, 01:43:30 AM
the odd decent song yeah but on the whole poor..................... interesting songwriting ? you could say that about a thousand songwriters over the years, collectively they were gods, individually they were average at best.

It does almost seem The Beatles were created to give the prime example of "greater than the sum of their parts".

It is interesting just how good they were together compared to later (and I agree it's unarguable that the Beatle stuff was well, well above their solo careers).  It brings to mind the comments by Clapton in the Scorcese film on George that the chemistry between them was almost a little eerie. I recall he mentioned they moved almost as a single unit.



Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: nimrod on December 22, 2013, 01:58:52 AM
It does almost seem The Beatles were created to give the prime example of "greater than the sum of their parts".

It is interesting just how good they were together compared to later (and I agree it's unarguable that the Beatle stuff was well, well above their solo careers).  It brings to mind the comments by Clapton in the Scorcese film on George that the chemistry between them was almost a little eerie. I recall he mentioned they moved almost as a single unit.





Yes mate, there was a chemistry, Clapton saw it

I remember someone else (I cant remember who) said he was in a room with all 4 of them and it was like this weird aura
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Hello Goodbye on December 22, 2013, 02:05:02 AM
I remember someone else (I cant remember who) said he was in a room with all 4 of them and it was like this weird aura

Peter Fonda?    ;D
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Moogmodule on December 22, 2013, 02:14:56 AM
Peter Fonda?    ;D

 I'm sure Pete was seeing auras on everything at that particular life stage.

Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: nimrod on December 22, 2013, 08:03:55 AM
Peter Fonda?    ;D

no not him Baz, maybe Billy Preston, Im not sure, anyway the aura was wrecked the minute Yuko walked in :(
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Snoopy66 on December 22, 2013, 07:16:37 PM
Your right snoopy, collectively the fabs were monumentally fantastic, the best best in the world by miles, STELLAR.........even their poorer albums were triumphs, as solo artists they were ordinary, crappy, boring and completely uninteresting, even Johns best LP Imagine was average at best. And as for Paul, just catchy chart obsessed teen girly nonsense (he had no-one to tell him no anymore), Georges stuff was preachy self obsessed and droning and Ringo well, he's just Ringo, singing cast offs from the others.
Well, I wouldn't be so harsh and describe the ex-Beatles solo works as "crappy and boring". This would be unfair since all four had some interesting stuff (Band on the Run, Imagine, Material world), even if the level isn't above average. Still, do find a separated group in which their members all had some success on their own.

Interesting, that you call George's stuff "preachy self-obsessed", is that really so ? I'm not so into his solo-stuff, so I can't judge it. I'm more used to hear that John was self-obsessed...  ;D

Snoopy
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Moogmodule on December 22, 2013, 09:33:25 PM

Interesting, that you call George's stuff "preachy self-obsessed", is that really so ? I'm not so into his solo-stuff, so I can't judge it. I'm more used to hear that John was self-obsessed...  ;D

Snoopy

I think George became the classic singer-songwriter. Which is practically synonymous with preachy and self-obsessed.  ;)

George was by all accounts a funny and engaging guy. It's probably his greatest deficiency as a songwriter that he so rarely showed that side in his music.

Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: nimrod on December 22, 2013, 10:53:03 PM
Well, I wouldn't be so harsh and describe the ex-Beatles solo works as "crappy and boring". This would be unfair since all four had some interesting stuff (Band on the Run, Imagine, Material world), even if the level isn't above average. Still, do find a separated group in which their members all had some success on their own.

Interesting, that you call George's stuff "preachy self-obsessed", is that really so ? I'm not so into his solo-stuff, so I can't judge it. I'm more used to hear that John was self-obsessed...  ;D

Snoopy

On the whole (imo of course) it is in the main crappy and boring , theres the odd good song of course, but I never play any of it, I never thought Imagine or Band On The Run were great albums, however,  if you like the solo stuff then good for you, its all subjective, Im just giving my opinion on it, Ive said it before, Im a huge Beatle fan but not a fan of their solo stuff, there was much much better music on offer in the 70's ...........Its my opinion also, and has been for years, that Johns persona was wrecked by acid/dope/heroin/booze, as was Hendrix, Brian Jones,  Syd Barrett and Peter Green, he lost interest really in the later Beatle years and became lazy and yes, self obsessed, he turned from an ambitious rocker to a self obsessed loner living in the countryside....Paul was of course a workaholic of sorts and mostly had to coax John to do the next project, Paul took over the band as we all know and became bossy (maybe he had too)

I think George became the classic singer-songwriter. Which is practically synonymous with preachy and self-obsessed.  ;)

George was by all accounts a funny and engaging guy. It's probably his greatest deficiency as a songwriter that he so rarely showed that side in his music.



that's a great point moog, Im not and never will be interested in mantras, hare Krishna, or any form of Indian music, tbh it bores me to death, that's what I meant by preachy, in that way George became self obsessed, even a bit cranky, growing very long hair and long beard, resembling a garden gnome, banging on about religion - materialism and the concreting over of the planet, meanwhile living like a Lord in a huge 70 room mansion complete with state of the art recording studio on 120 acres with other houses in LA, Australia (that I know of) and a collection of Ferraris, and exotic supercars etc etc
John was similarly going nuts with yuko, singing Imagine no possessions whilst sitting in his very own countryside mansion.

I don't have a problem with people living in mansions if they've earned the money, but I do object when they start preaching about how materialism is bad at the same time, and that we shouldn't want to live like that, in other words its ok for them but not the world as a whole.

Anyway, I digress, George actually made the best solo album, but most of its material was written whilst he was a Beatle so it doesn't really count :D

Paul just concentrated on Fluffy pop music that couldn't be taken seriously by 70's rock fans, compare his wings/solo albums to the likes of Blood On The Tracks or After The Goldrush or Tumbleweed Connection or Tea For The Tillerman, all very successful albums by serious singer songwriters, albums that were taken in a serious way as works that had something to say but also with great melodies.......Paul just went more banal and twee, with his silly seemingly meaningless lyrics and having his obviously non musical wife in the band.

Unfortunately none of the 3 of them had what it takes to carve out a career as a singer songwriting solo artist that is taken seriously like a Neil Young or a Bob Dylan, Roger Waters thought he didn't need the other Pink Floyd Guys but he has produced nothing of note since Floyd split.
The fabs needed each other, without each other they weren't fab.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Moogmodule on December 22, 2013, 11:02:38 PM


I don't have a problem with people living in mansions if they've earned the money, but I do object when they start preaching about how materialism is bad at the same time.


Well. You have to admit it takes some skill to be self-obsessed and yet so self-detached at the same time.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on December 23, 2013, 08:24:12 PM
Still, do find a separated group in which their members all had some success on their own.

I could mention the Byrds, though not all as solo careers, but all the original members were part of an important act after the separation. Gene Clark, the first byrd that flew from the band, certainly recorded some strong solo albums, especially his solo debut in 1967. David Crosby was essential part of the famous supergroup Crosby-Stills-Nash (& Young). Chris Hillman (along with brief time byrd Gram Parsons) was leader of the Flying Burrito Brothers, a very important band for the early development of country rock; the Byrds' original drummer Mike Clarke also joined the group later. And Roger McGuinn continued using the name of the Byrds during few more years, but since late-1968 it was a completely new project commanded by him.

If you just talk about chart success, well, only CSN&Y got high chart positions, but certainly all the Byrds' members were part of recognized acts that left a footprint in rock history. (And I guess it's always easier for an ex-beatle to get chart success beyond the quality of his music.)
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Moogmodule on December 23, 2013, 11:22:38 PM
I could mention the Byrds, though not all as solo careers, but all the original members were part of an important act after the separation. Gene Clark, the first byrd that flew from the band, certainly recorded some strong solo albums, especially his solo debut in 1967. David Crosby was essential part of the famous supergroup Crosby-Stills-Nash (& Young). Chris Hillman (along with brief time byrd Gram Parsons) was leader of the Flying Burrito Brothers, a very important band for the early development of country rock; the Byrds' original drummer Mike Clarke also joined the group later. And Roger McGuinn continued using the name of the Byrds during few more years, but since late-1968 it was a completely new project commanded by him.

If you just talk about chart success, well, only CSN&Y got high chart positions, but certainly all the Byrds' members were part of recognized acts that left a footprint in rock history. (And I guess it's always easier for an ex-beatle to get chart success beyond the quality of his music.)

I think chart success would see the ex Beatles streets ahead of any other major band that broke up. All four had US no 1s. Macca was the most successful act of the 70s in chart toppers (I think). George had good chart success with his first few releases and then again with his Got My Mind... cover. So if you want to take a clinical numerical approach the Ex Fabs win hands down. But as you say being an ex Beatle was worth at least a bit in garnering attention and a base level of sales. And not many of the chart toppers actually make my current ex Beatle playlists. (Photograph is the only one I think). Critical appreciation is a whole other ballpark.

I'm trying to think of any major bands with reasonably comparable situations. The Who were basically a one man songwriting show with the exception of a few John Entwistle tunes. Pete had some solo succceess but i think Entwistle's releases were more admired for quirkiness than anything. The Kinks had Dave Davies but neither he not ray did much as solo acts. I guess the Stones had some individual success during hiatuses. (Je Suis Un Rock Star anyone). The Yardbirds maybe with Clapton, Beck and then Page going in with Zep. Velvet Underground as well. Although John Cale didn't bother the Chartists much he garners critical acclaim. Dire Straits' second songwriter brother David had minor success I think.  Nirvana might have had a chance of two good post Nirvana careers if Kurt had kept himself alive long enough to break the band up. NZ band Split Enz saw Neil Finn lead Crowded House to worldwide success while his brother Tim had some solo wins.   

The Commodores, Destiny's Child, Abba?? Or am I going from the sublime to the ridiculous? 

I think I've exhausted my top of my head knowledge.




Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: tkitna on December 24, 2013, 12:29:50 AM
but I tend to agree with you, none of their solo careers was a triumph

What?

Of course their solo careers were triumphs. Paul and Ringo are still signed to record labels and making albums 40 years after their first. They all have had chart success and good album sales at some point and they all have written and recorded solo tunes that will probably go down as legendary in popular music terms. How can anybody say that none of them had a triumphant solo career?
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on December 24, 2013, 12:48:10 AM
I think chart success would see the ex Beatles streets ahead of any other major band that broke up. All four had US no 1s. Macca was the most successful act of the 70s in chart toppers (I think). George had good chart success with his first few releases and then again with his Got My Mind... cover. So if you want to take a clinical numerical approach the Ex Fabs win hands down. But as you say being an ex Beatle was worth at least a bit in garnering attention and a base level of sales. And not many of the chart toppers actually make my current ex Beatle playlists. (Photograph is the only one I think). Critical appreciation is a whole other ballpark.

I'm trying to think of any major bands with reasonably comparable situations. The Who were basically a one man songwriting show with the exception of a few John Entwistle tunes. Pete had some solo succceess but i think Entwistle's releases were more admired for quirkiness than anything. The Kinks had Dave Davies but neither he not ray did much as solo acts. I guess the Stones had some individual success during hiatuses. (Je Suis Un Rock Star anyone). The Yardbirds maybe with Clapton, Beck and then Page going in with Zep. Velvet Underground as well. Although John Cale didn't bother the Chartists much he garners critical acclaim. Dire Straits' second songwriter brother David had minor success I think.  Nirvana might have had a chance of two good post Nirvana careers if Kurt had kept himself alive long enough to break the band up. NZ band Split Enz saw Neil Finn lead Crowded House to worldwide success while his brother Tim had some solo wins.   

The Commodores, Destiny's Child, Abba?? Or am I going from the sublime to the ridiculous? 

I think I've exhausted my top of my head knowledge.

That's why I mentioned the Byrds as probably the only band that could be compared to the Beatles in terms of post-group careers. Not on the chart issue, but on the impact on rock music.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Moogmodule on December 24, 2013, 12:55:33 AM
That's why I mentioned the Byrds as probably the only band that could be compared to the Beatles in terms of post-group careers. Not on the chart issue, but on the impact on rock music.

Yep. The Byrds are looking pretty good in that respect.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on December 24, 2013, 12:58:57 AM
What?

Of course their solo careers were triumphs. Paul and Ringo are still signed to record labels and making albums 40 years after their first. They all have had chart success and good album sales at some point and they all have written and recorded solo tunes that will probably go down as legendary in popular music terms. How can anybody say that none of them had a triumphant solo career?

I should have said "artistic triumphs", even though that's a subjective appreciation. It would be fair to use the charts as an objective parameter, but then how many successful crappy artists careers would be considered a triumph? At the end of the day it all depends on each one's personal tastes; and the fabs solo careers were far from being crappy, of course, but in my opinion they weren't more interesting than minor 60's bands like the Association, Moby Grape or Quicksilver Messenger Service.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on December 24, 2013, 01:06:48 AM
Yep. The Byrds are looking pretty good in that respect.

Another close example could be Buffalo Springfield: Stephen Stills was part of CSN; Neil Young joined them later and had a very important solo career; and Richie Furay was leader of Poco. We could add Jim Messina too (from Loggins & Messina), though he was just a part-time member of Buffalo Springfield.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Ovi on December 24, 2013, 08:36:45 AM
My 3 favourite solo albums ever are Lou Reed's 'Berlin', Dennis Wilson's 'Pacific Ocean Blue' and Paul McCartney's 'Ram', though I think only the first one can easily compete with any other album released by the artist's preceding band (The Velvet Underground).
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Snoopy66 on December 24, 2013, 06:30:23 PM
The fabs needed each other, without each other they weren't fab.
Well, no-one is perfect... Still, all ex-Beatles left a musical-print in the 70's to me. When I was a kid, I truly enjoyed the Wings, which were often heard on our radio-station. "Imagine" became meanwhile a worldwide classic, so did "Happy X-Mas" by John, which I just heard this afternoon. George's "My sweet Lord" is well-known, besides his concert for Bangladesh. Ringo was the first ex-Beatle to have a number one hit in the Billboard's with "Photograph". On the whole, they did pretty good on their own and I do enjoy their solo-stuff, although not as much as the Beatles.

They were extraordinary as a band, but every one remains "fab" to me even after the split of the Beatles. Two of them are still active musically and who knows how it would have been, if John and George were still alive.

Snoopy
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: nimrod on December 24, 2013, 10:49:53 PM
Well, no-one is perfect... Still, all ex-Beatles left a musical-print in the 70's to me. When I was a kid, I truly enjoyed the Wings, which were often heard on our radio-station. "Imagine" became meanwhile a worldwide classic, so did "Happy X-Mas" by John, which I just heard this afternoon. George's "My sweet Lord" is well-known, besides his concert for Bangladesh. Ringo was the first ex-Beatle to have a number one hit in the Billboard's with "Photograph". On the whole, they did pretty good on their own and I do enjoy their solo-stuff, although not as much as the Beatles.

Snoopy

like I said 'the odd good song' mediocre on the whole though, Im glad you truly enjoyed Wings as a kid, good for you. :)
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Hello Goodbye on December 25, 2013, 01:13:37 AM
At the end of the day it all depends on each one's personal tastes; and the fabs solo careers were far from being crappy, of course, but in my opinion they weren't more interesting than minor 60's bands like the Association, Moby Grape or Quicksilver Messenger Service.

You're right.  It all depends on personal tastes.  Are there any other groups at the bottom of your barrel that you would like to compare them to?  I'm curious.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Hello Goodbye on December 25, 2013, 01:56:06 AM
Well, no-one is perfect... Still, all ex-Beatles left a musical-print in the 70's to me. When I was a kid, I truly enjoyed the Wings, which were often heard on our radio-station. "Imagine" became meanwhile a worldwide classic, so did "Happy X-Mas" by John, which I just heard this afternoon. George's "My sweet Lord" is well-known, besides his concert for Bangladesh. Ringo was the first ex-Beatle to have a number one hit in the Billboard's with "Photograph". On the whole, they did pretty good on their own and I do enjoy their solo-stuff, although not as much as the Beatles.

They were extraordinary as a band, but every one remains "fab" to me even after the split of the Beatles. Two of them are still active musically and who knows how it would have been, if John and George were still alive.

Snoopy

Snoopy, here in the United States it was George who had the first #1 hit with My Sweet Lord in 1970.

Yes, I feel as you do that each of The Beatles remained "fab" after they split up.  Paul is still very productive and is a legend on tour.  Ringo is also enjoyable to watch and hear.  We can only wonder, unfortunately, what John and George would be doing today.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on December 25, 2013, 08:31:11 PM
You're right.  It all depends on personal tastes.  Are there any other groups at the bottom of your barrel that you would like to compare them to?  I'm curious.

But those bands I mentioned (The Association, Moby Grape, Quicksilver Messenger Service) are not at the bottom of my barrel, since I actually like them. I just don't consider that they are among the very best 60's groups (nor the worst ones), as I don't consider that the solo Beatles careers reached the level of the cream of that decade. I would also compare them to Poco or the Turtles, always talking in terms of general quality, not style.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Hello Goodbye on December 26, 2013, 03:01:35 AM
But those bands I mentioned (The Association, Moby Grape, Quicksilver Messenger Service) are not at the bottom of my barrel, since I actually like them. I just don't consider that they are among the very best 60's groups (nor the worst ones), as I don't consider that the solo Beatles careers reached the level of the cream of that decade. I would also compare them to Poco or the Turtles, always talking in terms of general quality, not style.

When you make summary comparisons to other groups, I have no way of knowing how you feel about them.  The same thing, here, with Poco and The Turtles.

The Beatles, in their solo careers, can be evaluated on their own merits.  It's hard to compare their band to others, especially those of different genres.  But that's just my way of thinking and enjoying music.
Title: Re: Microscope: Unfinished Music #1: Two Virgins
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on December 26, 2013, 03:14:13 AM
When you make summary comparisons to other groups, I have no way of knowing how you feel about them.  The same thing, here, with Poco and The Turtles.

The Beatles, in their solo careers, can be evaluated on their own merits.  It's hard to compare their band to others, especially those of different genres.  But that's just my way of thinking and enjoying music.

Don't worry, I like all these bands I'm mentioning, and in a good day I could compare the Beatles' solo careers to more talented acts like Donovan, the Hollies or the Lovin' Spoonful. I'm just doing a comparison in quality, according to how much I enjoy the artists, no need to say that this is a subjective analysis and you don't have to know how I feel about those artists.

I'm just trying to state my opinion that the level of their solo careers was not only lower than the Beatles as a band, but also lower than many essential 60's groups, because the Beatles' music not only depended on their talent but also on the spirit of the time. Take the same individuals together in the 50's or the 70's, and it would have not been the same.