Quoted from Biscuit_Power

You've gotta be kidding... If writing the best selling music ever isn't good enough to be labeled a genius, then I seriously don't know what is... You're just not making any sense here.

I couldnt have said it any better.

This whole thread reminds me of something Maria said many moons ago, that after George died, his music would be more highly praised than Pauls. That may have been the stupidest thing i've ever read. I love George and his solo stuff, but outside of the more intense Beatle fans, his music is almost forgotten NOW. Sad but true.

I think most of you folk posting in this thread don't quite realize how long 500 years is. In 1505 (500 years ago), there was a wealth of popular songs - as in all times. Virtually all of them are now long forgotten. Same applies to literature, all sorts of music, art. Only the very best survive. My point is that only a few Beatles works will survive if any: and they will be Lennon's, as the songs of his I gave earlier are more than "pop hits" of their day. They feel to me to have a timeless quality, which is part of their attraction.

But Paul McCartney remembered for his work OTHER THAN AS A BEATLE? Oh no. I think that's as certain as anything can be. You think people will be talking about Band On the Run in 500 years? Come on, that's silly.

Some of you need to be educated in some other forms of music too. The person who said he never hears Beethoven etc on the radio ain't listening to suitable stations!

Quoted from tkitna

I couldnt have said it any better.

This whole thread reminds me of something Maria said many moons ago, that after George died, his music would be more highly praised than Pauls. That may have been the stupidest thing i've ever read. I love George and his solo stuff, but outside of the more intense Beatle fans, his music is almost forgotten NOW. Sad but true.

In some circles, George's work is much more praised than McCartney's. I think a lot of Paul's revisionism stems from the realization that only his Beatle work is respected and of lasting value. His whole solo career is pretty empty - there were good times, and lots of people come to his concerts still. But only coz he was a Beatle. Do you think Flaming Pie or McCartney (1) or Red Rose Speedway or Flowers In The Dirt would have gone anywhere if Paul had NOT been a Beatle?

George's Beatle work (playing and some of his songs) are respected, AND some of his solo work is wonderful, and is so valued. Paul's silly love songs haunt him, that's for sure.

Could someone please list a bunch of solo songs from each so we can sort of see and compare. I'm not that into their solo stuff, so I'm only familiar with the popular stuff. But I'd like to know which songs you all would say are thier best. Like if you list 10 or more songs from each maybe it will paint a better picture.

But I don't even know if that would be fair, since Paul has made an enormous amount more than John. So Paul would have more "best" songs to choose from.

But maybe that kind of settles it, eh?

Yeah, but lots of people think after the 70's he sort of lost it. So maybe just stuff from that era. Did George do much after the 70's? I mean besides the Traveling Wilburys?

Actually he went on a solo tour in '74, but it was panned.

(The Traveling Wilburys were in the 80s, I think)

Yes, definitely the 80's. I remember it! I mean did he do anything SOLO after the 70's. I have no idea.

Oh. Um.. Got My Mind Set on You in '87. :p

George released his worst album during the 80s (Gone Troppo) and one of his best (Cloud Nine)

Thanks for the info Bruno.

'I've Got Mind Set On You' is a nice tune.

But it doesn't have much artistic merit.

^what does that mean?

It's a pop piece. Not like his usual dreamy, real thought-out, intricate music. You know? Sorry, I'm not very good at explaining things. Gr. It sounded better in my head.