There seems to have been a tendency (I wouldn't call it a policy) to keep singles and albums separate in the UK up until about the early to mid seventies. "Mother " and "Woman Is the black person Of The World" were also album tracks that were US but not UK singles. About half of The Beatles' UK singles weren't included on their original sixties albums, and only "Something / Come Together" was taken from an already issued album (but "A Hard Day's Night" and "Eleanor Rigby / Yellow Submarine" were issued simultaneously with albums, though - I think ).
Or think of The Rolling Stones' Decca singles: none of the A sides were issued on UK albums (unless "In Another Land" and "She's A Rainbow" were released as singles in England as well as America), and only two B sides were.
As late as 1973 Paul was opposed to putting "Helen Wheels" -already issued as single - on Band On The Run, but he agreed to Al Coury's suggestion that it be included on the American version of the album.
In the states there was much furor over the decision to release the UK versions of the Beatles albums on CD. The US albums were terrible as far as I'm concerned, and I'm glad they released the UK albums done as the Beatles and George Martin intended. The only two exceptions to this is that they released the US versions of "MMT" and "Band On The Run", which included non-original album singles. I think was the right thing to do.
I think that Paul lost it though in the 2000's. there is just no room for him here hate to say. I love Macca but some things are better left remembered. MAF might have fit in over in the UK but here I don't think so, even if he wasn't targeting a younger audience.
In the last 7 years, Paul has released four platinum albums (Wingspan, Chaos, Back In The U.S., MAF) and one gold album (Driving Rain) has had two enormously successful world tours and dozens of successful one-off shows.
What exactly are you basing your opinions on? Certainly not the facts.... I wonder if you're channeling Mustard?
I think they all had their ups and downs in their solo careers. I voted for George. I think George had a great solo career because he could basically go into hiding and people, for the most part, would leave him alone. When he wanted to tour he could, people would go see him.
I can understand why people are voting for Paul. He's still going, he's still saling out concerts, and releasing albums and singles. He has done so much these past few years.
Ringo is a good one too. He is touring and all his albums did pretty good. People just love Ringo.
John of course had some great singles. But I think his personal life just swelled up into his buisness life and of course is solo career was cut short. Double Fantasy shows though that he was getting back on track, and I think he would have had the most successful solo career.
~Floating down the stream of time, from life to life with me~
Four Lads Who Stole the World's Heart and Never Gave it Back
I agree with DarkSweetLady! Paul`s career is the best, but John`s career was cut short, first by his retreat into family life (maybe it was a crisis, maybe Yoko`s dealings, maybe John needed a rest, in fact it doesn`t matter why he did it- though you, jjs, claim you know the reason: weak career, you say...) John knew he had his life before him...Second, you know what happened - death. I, like DarkSweetLady, think that John`s career would have been the best. Ok, we are not speaking about what would have been IF. Another question: Is it also wrong to vote for George? According to you it is. So you should start putting George down too. Why don`t you do it? It is because you don`t care for George or Ringo, you just seem to hate John and attack everybody who loves him without taking into consideration other people`s feelings. And this very fact of your attacking is weird. Besides, Paul`s world tours are enormously successful because people go to listen to his Beatles` songs, to Let It Be and Yesterday and so on but not to his latest songs, cause in the majority the audience doesn`t even know them (please, be honest here!) and because he is a legend, one of the two great artists. Don`t be jealous, in due time Paul will sure be a god like John, it is just not proper to worship a living person that much!
You all see that question, right? (I can't believe there are certain posters who aren't getting this!) That was the original question that started this thread. The question is NOT (and read this carefully, 'jj', and whoever else has been continually misinterpreting not only the purpose of this thread but all my previous points, because I've already said this several times), "Who was most successful?" If so, then all one would have to do would be to consult the Guiness record book and it would confirm Paul as the most successful songwriter.
So we're agreed on that, right? Good. Now here's where people seem to start getting confused. The solo career that I LIKE THE BEST, as the question originally asked, is John's. Because I like his solo musical catalogue better than Paul's. Period. That's it. There isn't really any opposition to that, is there? I mean, how can there be? I think Plastic Ono Band, Imagine, and Double Fantasy (at least John's half) are better than any of Paul's albums. My opinion. If you prefer the others, I'm sure you have reasons. If you hate all the Beatles' solo stuff and would rather listen to Bob Marley, great! I'm not going to tell you you're wrong and start citing chart positions, which is no indication of how great an artist is.
Now jj, you're not incorrect for preferring Paul. But here's where you are wrong: first, you shoehorn your own suspect opinions into your 'facts.' They're little untruthful statements you pass off as factual and you think won't be challenged. Such as, John only had one #1 hit. No, he had two (in the U.S.). Not a big deal, but come on, let's be factual. Such as, John 'needed help' but Paul didn't. That's a crock of BS. We all knew Paul sold a ton of records based on his history with the band. Such as, Imagine only became an iconic song after John's death. That''s just an ignorant statement, or it's a lie -- take your pick. Such as, John couldn't fill stadiums. Merely your opinion. Such as, most people didn't like John's music. More BS. His records charted quite well, he just didn't record as many as Paul. YOU don't like his music, or him personally, for some reason and project that upon 'most people.'
But your crowning error is that if you only prefer Paul BECAUSE of his material success, and not because of the quality of his music, then that makes an unfortunate statement about you: you're someone that follows the crowd rather than makes up your own mind about what you like. I'm starting to think that if the Stones or the Who had more hits than the Beatles, you'd say they were better. Right, jj?
If a Rolling Stones fan posted that he preferred the Stones and never dug the Beatles, would you answer by telling him that he was wrong, and support your thesis by citing record sales and chart positions? You'd lose that argument.
By the way, Led Zeppelin didn't have one #1 song in their career, yet they were more successful in the '70s than any solo Beatle.
And by your logic, jj, the Osmonds were better than the Velvet Underground, New Kids on the Block were light years better than the Clash, and Britney Spears is better than Jimi Hendrix.
Are you starting to see the flaw in your logic? I'm sensing you aren't. Oh well, just remember the original question in this thread. And you don't need to follow the crowd.
Well stated points Jane. I have a feeling you and I are speaking for the vast majority of the people who've been reading and posting on this thread.
Wow all S**t aside for me personally McCartney had the better Solo career im not basing this answer on Album sales just on what i prefer to listen too.
And Mr Mustard when you voice you're opinion on which is better remember to state that it is you're opinion m8 and not just "Paul hasn't made an album better that Plastic Ono Band" because thats were other folk are getting thrown off
You all see that question, right? (I can't believe there are certain posters who aren't getting this!) That was the original question that started this thread. The question is NOT (and read this carefully, 'jj', and whoever else has been continually misinterpreting not only the purpose of this thread but all my previous points, because I've already said this several times), "Who was most successful?" If so, then all one would have to do would be to consult the Guiness record book and it would confirm Paul as the most successful songwriter.
So we're agreed on that, right? Good. Now here's where people seem to start getting confused. The solo career that I LIKE THE BEST, as the question originally asked, is John's. Because I like his solo musical catalogue better than Paul's. Period. That's it. There isn't really any opposition to that, is there? I mean, how can there be? I think Plastic Ono Band, Imagine, and Double Fantasy (at least John's half) are better than any of Paul's albums. My opinion. If you prefer the others, I'm sure you have reasons. If you hate all the Beatles' solo stuff and would rather listen to Bob Marley, great! I'm not going to tell you you're wrong and start citing chart positions, which is no indication of how great an artist is.
Now jj, you're not incorrect for preferring Paul. But here's where you are wrong: first, you shoehorn your own suspect opinions into your 'facts.' They're little untruthful statements you pass off as factual and you think won't be challenged. Such as, John only had one #1 hit. No, he had two (in the U.S.). Not a big deal, but come on, let's be factual. Such as, John 'needed help' but Paul didn't. That's a crock of BS. We all knew Paul sold a ton of records based on his history with the band. Such as, Imagine only became an iconic song after John's death. That''s just an ignorant statement, or it's a lie -- take your pick. Such as, John couldn't fill stadiums. Merely your opinion. Such as, most people didn't like John's music. More BS. His records charted quite well, he just didn't record as many as Paul. YOU don't like his music, or him personally, for some reason and project that upon 'most people.'
But your crowning error is that if you only prefer Paul BECAUSE of his material success, and not because of the quality of his music, then that makes an unfortunate statement about you: you're someone that follows the crowd rather than makes up your own mind about what you like. I'm starting to think that if the Stones or the Who had more hits than the Beatles, you'd say they were better. Right, jj?
If a Rolling Stones fan posted that he preferred the Stones and never dug the Beatles, would you answer by telling him that he was wrong, and support your thesis by citing record sales and chart positions? You'd lose that argument.
By the way, Led Zeppelin didn't have one #1 song in their career, yet they were more successful in the '70s than any solo Beatle.
And by your logic, jj, the Osmonds were better than the Velvet Underground, New Kids on the Block were light years better than the Clash, and Britney Spears is better than Jimi Hendrix.
Are you starting to see the flaw in your logic? I'm sensing you aren't. Oh well, just remember the original question in this thread. And you don't need to follow the crowd.
Well stated points Jane. I have a feeling you and I are speaking for the vast majority of the people who've been reading and posting on this thread.
You are quite the windbag of hot air aren't you? If you are wondering what the majority of people are thinking, the poll RESULTS at the top of the PAGE should answer any questions that you might have.
It doesn't matter what you think. You can think mess smells like roses, and John Lennon has the "best" solo career, but thinking it doesn't make it so. It doesn't matter. What matters is FACTS. The FACT is, the guy WHOSE MUSIC FEWER PEOPLE LIKED did not have the "best" solo career anywhere but in the fantasy land in which you live.
threads like this would be more enjoyable if people would get off their high horses, stating facts to rub in peoples faces telling them how what THEY LIKE is wrong.
It would be more enjoyable if people weren't attacked for having a like or dislike.
I would say "treat people how you would want to be treated" in not challenging people's opinions but frankly most people are ignorant to the fact that they're not liked and could care less how a person views or treats them because they enjoy treating that person the same.
Oh, that this too, too solid flesh would melt... Zap! My skin's soaked right through to the skin! "The Beatles will exist without us"
Wow all S**t aside for me personally McCartney had the better Solo career im not basing this answer on Album sales just on what i prefer to listen too.
And Mr Mustard when you voice you're opinion on which is better remember to state that it is you're opinion m8 and not just "Paul hasn't made an album better that Plastic Ono Band" because thats were other folk are getting thrown off
Don't let Mustard Gas' rants throw you. I'm not basing anything solely on albums sales. I'm basing it on albums sales, single sales, chart positions, repeatability, concert attendance, longevity, originality... and that MORE PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR THE SONGS, all of which are indications that tell me someone HAS HAD a BETTER career than someone else. As I said, unless "better" means something else of which I am unaware...
If Mustard Gas just wants to argue about "better songs", well in the 70's "Band On The Run" was considered by MORE PEOPLE and MORE CRITICS to be a "better" album than POB.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
jjs
Female
Male
). 
Logged
