Print

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

[DaveRam]

Paul McCartney and Wings were the # 2 best selling singles act on Billboard during the 70's, just behind Elton John at # 1.
I think you might be right Mr Mustard about Led Zeppelin when it comes to albums sales during the 70's , although i think ABBA and The Eagles may also give Led Zeppelin a run for their money .
ABBA inparticular sold mega amounts of both singles and albums during the 70's , i've seen figures of 500 million for them , which would be amazing seen as they did'nt crack open the American albums market  in the same way they did in the rest of the world.

[adamzero]

I think it goes in the order they were always referred in.
Paul John George Ringo.

I always thought that was John Paul George and Ringo.   But maybe I'm just imagining the voice of Ed Sullivan.  

[jjs]

I don't completely disagree with your points, but I'm not in total agreement either.  You do appear to have a real personal distaste for John Lennon, based on your posts.  You'll say you don't, and that's fine; that's my opinion based on what I've read.

"Just Like Starting Over" was also a #1 single posthumously.  "Imagine" hit #2.

"No one can compare John's solo career to Paul's in any way where John comes out on top."  Nonsense.  I'm doing just that, and I'm not going by chart positions or how many top 10s each Beatle had.  I'm going by the quality of the musical catalogue.  Here, John beats Paul by my scorecard.  Let's face it, Paul's had some great songs but has also written a ton of shmaltzy crap that tends to get his reputation hammered by critics.

And folks, the #1 act of the '70s was Led Zeppelin, hands down.  If you're keeping score by hit singles, then yeah, maybe Elton wins that crown.  Or maybe the Bee Gees, or Stevie Wonder.  But Zeppelin was the biggest band, with the most record sales, the most fans, the biggest tours.  They were the Godzillas of 1970s rock.

"Just Like Starting Over" was also a #1 single posthumously. Imagine" hit #2."

  Firstly, "Imagine" hit #3 in the US, not #2.   Second... I said he could not get a #1 hit "without help" and his death certainly helped, didn't it?

"Quality of the music" and "schmaltzy crap" are opinions. One man's quality is another's mundane crap, and one man's schmaltzy crap is another's quality. There is no right or wrong, therefore, this too is irrelevant.  

Success is measured the same way for John, Paul, George, and Ringo the same way it's measured for you and me. "Successful" means having  and maintaining success. John was in no way more or even equally as successful as Paul.  

I said: "No one can compare John's solo career to Paul's in any way where John comes out on top."  and you said: Nonsense.  I'm doing just that".

No, you're expressing an opinion about whose music you prefer.  More people bought Paul's records, more radio stations played his songs, more people went to his shows, and he was able to sustain this for 15 years after the Beatles. And this is what makes his a more successful career, unless (which is what my point was) you want to romanticize "success" into something that it really isn't.  

There are relatively few artists that can boast a career like Paul's in terms of the longevity of his success, but many, many artists made "better" albums than John Lennon.

That last statement might require a bit of careful thought on your part....

[Geoff]

Rubbish.

Let me get this straight. Voicing one's political opinions, in a forum where the possible error of those opinions has no repercussions, is the key to "relevance"?

Interesting.

What exactly does "associating" oneself with a "peace movement" have to do with career success, what exactly does it "mean", and how exactly does that make one's music career more than it was?  

Lennon's solo career was lukewarm compared to the Beatles, and compared to Paul's. I think he was a far better lyricist than Paul, but I find his solo stuff musically mundane. It's a fact that John couldn't fill stadiums. It's a fact that he couldn't hit the top of the singles chart without help. It's a guess that he gave up "the game" because his ego couldn't handle Paul's success. And, I'm sorry but laying in bed getting high in the name of "peace" doesn't somehow make one's career more than it was.

Well I guess it might, to a certain "market niche".

In any event, I smell a case of sour grapes here.  People who "favor" John cannot compare John and Paul's solo career in any way so that John comes out on top. So they (or, perhaps John and Yoko) invent this phony perception, which is complete rubbish. The political views of stoned, drug-addicted comic book characters are irrelevant.  

This could be stated more diplomatically, and I'd argue with bits of it here and there, but there's a lot to be said for the overall trend of the argument and Jim Colyer's absurd statement (to say nothing of his article) is a fairly serious provocation that invited a brick-throwing response. A serious re-evaluation of both John and Paul's solo careers with the critical / ideological blinders of the seventies removed is overdue and would be to the benefit of both of them and their music.

[JimmyMcCullochFan]

Paul has had the best solo career by far without a doubt.

[BlueMeanie]

  Firstly, "Imagine" hit #3 in the US, not #2.   Second... I said he could not get a #1 hit "without help" and his death certainly helped, didn't it?

"Quality of the music" and "schmaltzy crap" are opinions. One man's quality is another's mundane crap, and one man's schmaltzy crap is another's quality. There is no right or wrong, therefore, this too is irrelevant.  

Success is measured the same way for John, Paul, George, and Ringo the same way it's measured for you and me. "Successful" means having  and maintaining success. John was in no way more or even equally as successful as Paul.  

I said: "No one can compare John's solo career to Paul's in any way where John comes out on top."  and you said: Nonsense.  I'm doing just that".

No, you're expressing an opinion about whose music you prefer.  More people bought Paul's records, more radio stations played his songs, more people went to his shows, and he was able to sustain this for 15 years after the Beatles. And this is what makes his a more successful career, unless (which is what my point was) you want to romanticize "success" into something that it really isn't.  

There are relatively few artists that can boast a career like Paul's in terms of the longevity of his success, but many, many artists made "better" albums than John Lennon.

That last statement might require a bit of careful thought on your part....

Welcome to the forums JJS. Whilst I agree with most of what you say, you could be a little more diplomatic, not to say patient with others. One of the things we encourage on this board is discussion, and understandably sometimes that can get a little heated. Everyone has a different opinion, and thinks they're right. There's no need to come over as quite so angry, just because somebody said something you didn't like.

Peace.

[Mr. Mustard]

JJs, you're not getting the point here.  (And the fact that you'd split hairs over whether Imagine went to #3 or #2 is just an indication of your pettiness.  Does it really matter?)

The thread title, once again, because you're not getting this, is BEST SOLO CAREER.  Not "Most successful."  Not "Who had the most #1's?"  Not "Most successful songwriter according to Guiness."    Are you clear on that?  

No one is denying that Paul had the most success -- I stated that on my first post here.  That's not the point, blowhard!  It's "Best Solo Career" -- purely an opinion.  And John's catalogue was, simply, the best of the 4.  Paul's was second -- in my opinion.  George was third and Ringo fourth.  But if someone else has a preference for George, I'm not going to be offended and say "But he didn't have enough #1's couldn't sustain his career and blah blah blah..."  Seriously dude, grow up, quit being such a hater on John Lennon.  I'd never dis Paul the way you are on Mr. Lennon.  Are you sure you're a Beatles fan?

That statement might require some careful thought on your part.  That would be a new thing for you to try, wouldn't it?

You really think Paul didn't have 'help' to get to #1?  You think songs like Uncle Albert, or Ebony/Ivory, or Say Say Say, would have gone to #1 if he hadn't been a Beatle?  (And he also had Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson helping out there.)  Come on, learn your musical history.

And saying that "many artists made better albums than John Lennon" -- fine, but we're only talking about the Beatles, right?  And ultimately, that's just your opinion.  Not a fact.  And Paul hasn't made an album better that Plastic Ono Band.  

Come on, Lennon-hater.  I'm calling you out of your closet.

[Jane]

Take into consideration the fact that John`s albums came out 1970-1974 and then 1980. For 6 years he did the babbysitting, a very unfortunate episode from the point of view of the development of his solo career. Which means that if you want to compare the 2 careers compare only those years and the achievements they reached during those years. If you want to be FAIR. And you go on speaking about Paul`s 15-25 years of work saying that there are few musicians of his age who are able to produce good-quality music. Who argues with that? Noone.

BlueMeanie`s : Peace.

[Jane]

Mr. Mustard, I admire you! Reasonable, balanced, logical ! I personally think that very often one Lennon`s song is worth 5 or more Macca`s. Oh, please, don`t beat me for that! Nevertheless, i agree with most of you that Paul`s career is the most successful, the longest, the most prolific and wisely planned. Macca has always been very good at planning and thinking about himself while John always followed his heart, sometimes he shouldn`t have done it. For example, let Yoko shriek...,or listen to her advice in music..., but love is wicked...

[colleengirl95]

For me, Paul's solo career are nice and fine to listen to, they are so awesome especially Band On The Run

[DaveRam]

This is just my opinion but these are my favourite moments from The Beatles solo career's between 1970 and 1980 .
Which is one of the time frames they can be judged on for obvious reasons .

Paul's Best albums :

1/ Ram
2/ Band On The Run
3/ Venus And Mars
4/ Wings At The Speed Of Sound
5/ Wings Over America
6/ Back To The Egg

Paul's Best singles :

1/ Another Day
2/ Uncle Albert/Admerial Halsey
3/ My Love
4/ Live and Let Die
5/ Band On The Run
6/ Juniors Farm
7/ Listen To What The Man Said
8/ Silly Love Songs
9/ Let Em In
10/ Mull Of Kintyre/ Girls School (This song rocks )
11/ Old Siam Sir
12 / Coming Up (I like both the live version and studio version and the video is simply brilliant )

Paul's Tour's :

Wings Over the World/ America 1976 (The Best full stop)

John's Best albums :

1/ Imagine
2/ Mind Games
3/ Walls and Bridges

John's Best Singles:

1/ # 9 Dream
2/ Fame - David Bowie (John co - wrote this US # 1 and played and sang on it , I think he should have recorded more with Bowie i think that would have been a good career move )
3/ Watching The Wheels

George's Best Albums :

1/ All Things Must Pass
2/ Thirty Three and Third

George's Best singles :

1/ Give Me Love (Give Me Peace On Earth )
2/ Crackerbox Palace

George's Concert and Film work

1/ The Concert For Bangla - Desh
2/ The Life Of Brian - 1978 ( Hand Made Films producer )
3/  The Long Good Friday - 1979 ( Hand Made Films producer)

Ringo's Best Album :

1/ Ringo

1/ Ringo's Best singles :

1/ Photograph
2/ Back Off Boogaloo
3/ Goodnight Vienna (a favourite song written by John )

Ringo's film work :

1/ Born To Boogie 1972 ( Producer and Director of this Marc Bolan and T.rex film , i'm very proud of Ringo for making this film , 60 minutes of Bolan in all his glory , it's brilliant )

I like all four of The Beatles always have , and although i'm a bit nutty about  Paul , i would'nt be without John , George and Ringo to me thats what been a Beatle's fan is all about , there just simply four of the BEST .
We can argue till the cows come home about who individually is the most creative or successful and i hope we do in a freindly way .
Just looking over my list i'm more than pleased they gave us such great work from 1970 to 1980 to discuss and that's just one decade .




(thumbsup)(thumbsup)(thumbsup)(thumbsup)

[BlueMeanie]

Well said, sir!

For the decade 1970-1980 you can't deny that Paul's is the most successful and prolific. Paul is very eclectic, encompassing many different styles. He's obviously highly confident in whatever he does (Rockestra Theme aside), and therefore his quality control sometimes goes AWOL. But I believe that in that decade he produced far more high quality music than the other three put together.

John, on the other hand always struck me as a man full of self doubt - even with Yoko on board. It tends to show in his music. Paul did what he wanted, hit or miss. When John did this with 'Sometime In NYC' he immediately reverted when it bombed. I believe John would have benefited greatly had he followed Paul's route and formed a band. For me, his best post Beatles singles are the first three POB songs: Give Peace A Chance, Cold Turkey, Instant Karma.

Of all the four, George is the one that I would have expected to form a band to hide behind. Though maybe he'd had enough with being held back by his old band.

Funnily enough, my favourite ex-Beatles single is Ringo's 'Back Off Boogaloo', but even that is a collaboration with Marc Bolan.

All their best solo work was done very early on, in my opinion. Like this rush of creativity comes flooding out after the restraints of being part of a band. Of course we'll never know what else John would have come up with, but my guess is that he'd have done some kind of tour, and then disappeared again.

For the record here's my favourite stuff from each:

John
Best Single - Cold Turkey
Best Album - Imagine

Paul
Best Single - Hi Hi Hi/Juniors Farm (can't decide)
Best Album - Ram

George
Best Single - My Sweet Lord
Best Album - Living In The Material World

Ringo
Best Single - Back Off Boogaloo
Best Album - Ringo

My personal favourites:
Single - Back Off Boogaloo
Album - Ram

[Andy Smith]

and here's my list of the favourite individually

John
Best Single - Instant Karma (it was a cross between that & Give Peace A Chance)
Best Album - Imagine

Paul
Best single - Another Day
Best album - Ram (by a mile!)

George
Best single - Give Me Love
Best album - Brainwashed

Ringo
Best Single - Photograph
Best Album - Ringo

[jjs]

JJs, you're not getting the point here.  (And the fact that you'd split hairs over whether Imagine went to #3 or #2 is just an indication of your pettiness.  Does it really matter?)

The thread title, once again, because you're not getting this, is BEST SOLO CAREER.  Not "Most successful."  Not "Who had the most #1's?"  Not "Most successful songwriter according to Guiness."    Are you clear on that?  

No one is denying that Paul had the most success -- I stated that on my first post here.  That's not the point, blowhard!  It's "Best Solo Career" -- purely an opinion.  And John's catalogue was, simply, the best of the 4.  Paul's was second -- in my opinion.  George was third and Ringo fourth.  But if someone else has a preference for George, I'm not going to be offended and say "But he didn't have enough #1's couldn't sustain his career and blah blah blah..."  Seriously dude, grow up, quit being such a hater on John Lennon.  I'd never dis Paul the way you are on Mr. Lennon.  Are you sure you're a Beatles fan?

That statement might require some careful thought on your part.  That would be a new thing for you to try, wouldn't it?

You really think Paul didn't have 'help' to get to #1?  You think songs like Uncle Albert, or Ebony/Ivory, or Say Say Say, would have gone to #1 if he hadn't been a Beatle?  (And he also had Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson helping out there.)  Come on, learn your musical history.

And saying that "many artists made better albums than John Lennon" -- fine, but we're only talking about the Beatles, right?  And ultimately, that's just your opinion.  Not a fact.  And Paul hasn't made an album better that Plastic Ono Band.  

Come on, Lennon-hater.  I'm calling you out of your closet.

LOL!!!! No need for name calling.

If being a Beatle "helped" those songs to hit #1, why didn't it "help" "Woman is the black person of the World" hit #1? Your argument makes no sense!

[tkitna]

John's solo career is my least favorite out of all of them. He just comes across as always being upset about something to me. Depressing. I'll also go as far as saying that i'll put Ringo's last 5 or 6 albums up against any run of the other three guys and he'd win by a quality stand point.

Paul, George, Ringo, and John for me.

[tkitna]

People mentioned Paul's inconsistencies, yeah he had some stinkers for sure, but when your catalog is 10 times larger than the others, you'll have that.

[Sondra]

I think some great and valid points are being made in this thread and the discussion is quite interesting. I don't think there's any hate being thrown around. I just think that sometimes people can get a bit intense or passionate in their posting and sometimes it comes off as offensive. It should be taken with a grain of salt. As long as there are no personal attacks, which is our one and only rule here at DM's, then it's all good.


As for me, since the thread is Best Solo Career and we're saying what WE think is the best, I'd go with John. (However, I think then it should be called Favorite Solo Career) Only because I've had way too much exposure to Paul's over the years and I really can't listen to a lot of it anymore. John's however I just really got into a few years ago so it still sounds fresh to me. In a few years more, who knows. That's my opinion of course. Most successful I think we all agree is Paul hands down. So it would help to clarify what your discussing too because the thread title could go either way.  

[jjs]

Take into consideration the fact that John`s albums came out 1970-1974 and then 1980. For 6 years he did the babbysitting, a very unfortunate episode from the point of view of the development of his solo career. Which means that if you want to compare the 2 careers compare only those years and the achievements they reached during those years. If you want to be FAIR. And you go on speaking about Paul`s 15-25 years of work saying that there are few musicians of his age who are able to produce good-quality music. Who argues with that? Noone.

BlueMeanie`s : Peace.

Firstly, John's solo releases extended into 1975, not 1974.

The album "Plastic Ono Band" hit #6 in the USA, while "Sometime in NYC" peaked at #48, and sold less than 100,000 copies. The albums "Mind Games" and  "Shaved Fish" didn't even crack the top 10, and "Rock and Roll" hit "only" #6. Only two of John's first 7 album releases hit #1,  and only one single hit #1, and that with the help of Elton John. Meanwhile, Paul racked up 5 #1 singles and 5 #1 albums out of 6 during this time, the only one not to top the chart was the total P.O.S "WildLife", and P.O.S as it was, it still hit the top 10. Late during this period, Paul was preparing for his first large scale world tour. When released, "Band On The Run" was called by critics (paraphrasing) "The first worthwhile album by an ex-Beatle".

Things don't get rosier if we put everything into the context of 1970-1975, in fact they get worse.

You can compare the two careers however you want, but the results are still going to be the same. It doesn't matter whose music 'YOU' prefer, and it doesn't matter whose music 'I' prefer.  You can take John's music over Paul's 100 to 1, or 500 to 1. You can tell yourself John's songs were more "personal" so they were more "significant". You can tell yourself John's career "meant something" because he "aligned himself with the peace movement". You can tell yourself John's solo music was on par with the Beatles,  but in the end.... opinions don't matter, dear.... because the cold hard facts are listed above.   And, based on these facts, Paul had a significantly better career than John, unless "better" has taken on a new meaning, of which I am unaware.

Why are you disputing the facts? That's your idea of logic?

Wait... when comparing the  careers of rock musicians, let's not base "best" on prolonged, consistent success... in.... wait for it...  music... Let's base "best" on the ones who can successfully market themselves as political "activists".

Indeed.

[jjs]

Welcome to the forums JJS. Whilst I agree with most of what you say, you could be a little more diplomatic, not to say patient with others. One of the things we encourage on this board is discussion, and understandably sometimes that can get a little heated. Everyone has a different opinion, and thinks they're right. There's no need to come over as quite so angry, just because somebody said something you didn't like.

Peace.

I'm not angry, or particularly heated... I just tend to be a bit blunt, and relentless when people are ignoring facts in favor of opinion.  

If this thread was about Paul's lyrics, I'd be arguing how his lyrics are generally poorly constructed, incomplete, and rarely ever make a strong point or statement, which any 5th grade English teacher (and John Lennon) would tell you is a fact, and people would be accusing me of "hating" Paul.

Gimme Some Truth.

[jjs]

I'm not angry, or particularly heated... I just tend to be a bit blunt, and relentless when people are ignoring facts in favor of opinion.  

If this thread was about Paul's lyrics, I'd be arguing how his lyrics are generally poorly constructed, incomplete, and rarely ever make a strong point or statement, which any 5th grade English teacher (and John Lennon) would tell you is a fact, and people would be accusing me of "hating" Paul.

Gimme Some Truth.

I forgot to add: I'll try to "sugar-coat" my messages in the future...

Regards,

JJS