Macca Macca Macca!!!!!!  

Quoted from JimColyer

John Lennon associated himself with the peace movement, so his solo work meant something.  Paul's solo work is pointless.

The Beatles  http://jimcolyer.com/papers/entry?id=61

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.  

Paul`s solo career is greater, but i am sure John`s comes second. The whole world remembers what John did in terms of peace, and it was new and unprecedented. (i mean his way of protesting) certainly he didn`t establish peace but who else followed suit?

Quoted from Jane

Paul`s solo career is greater, but i am sure John`s comes second. The whole world remembers what John did in terms of peace, and it was new and unprecedented. (i mean his way of protesting) certainly he didn`t establish peace but who else followed suit?

Several musical acts in the 60's wrote songs about "peace and love" before John Lennon did, and many wrote more. Also, ten million hippies were involved in the "peace movement" before John Lennon ever was, and certainly, many gave up more for their "cause". The notion that John's involvement in the "peace movement"  was "unprecedented" or anything special is completely absurd. It's just more of the same "The Beatles were the first to do this and the Beatles were the first to do that" BS, which in almost all cases is totally false.

Secondly, and perhaps off topic, the whole "peace movement" was a festering pile of BS anyway. How many involved were committing acts of terrorism to further the cause for "peace"? That sounds suspiciously like a war to me. The rest were just a bunch of cowards. You either fight your enemies or let someone else do it for you. But either way, just shut up about it.

Quoted from jjs

Several musical acts in the 60's wrote songs about "peace and love" before John Lennon did, and many wrote more. Also, ten million hippies were involved in the "peace movement" before John Lennon ever was, and certainly, many gave up more for their "cause". The notion that John's involvement in the "peace movement"  was "unprecedented" or anything special is completely absurd. It's just more of the same "The Beatles were the first to do this and the Beatles were the first to do that" BS, which in almost all cases is totally false.

Secondly, and perhaps off topic, the whole "peace movement" was a festering pile of BS anyway. How many involved were committing acts of terrorism to further the cause for "peace"? That sounds suspiciously like a war to me. The rest were just a bunch of cowards. You either fight your enemies or let someone else do it for you. But either way, just shut up about it.

Okay, who pissed in JJs Cheerios?  Fess up?

I'd have to say Paul, he was the most successful as well as my personal favorite. I just think he's got a great variety of stuff and is always trying something completely different on each album. But I do love the solo careers of the other three too, some amazing songs. I think they all four did great.

Several musical acts in the 60s... who are they? Noone remembers. You say acts instead of names. 10 mil hippies - are faceless, we need someone, a representative of the movement. A name. Maybe he wasn`t the most important, and the effort was lost but at that time it seemed significant. And it is he who is remembered for his pursuit. By the way - for his nonviolent protest, through the mass media, which is a very modern way of protesting. He wasn`t committing terracts. Now we know that it`s stupid to give more for the cause, though you insist on it, on fighting the enemies! How ? With weapons? Maybe you mean give up one`s life? On the one hand, you criticise John for not sacrificing more, on the other hand, you say peace movement is BS. Well, it is. John got involved in it paying tribute to the times but acted in a very modern way! You say it`s war, it`s not, it`s a demonstration of one`s position, a civil stand of those concerned. Now people, too, go out in the streets, it seldom helps.  

Quoted from Beatlemaniac64

I'd have to say Paul, he was the most successful as well as my personal favorite. I just think he's got a great variety of stuff and is always trying something completely different on each album.

i totally agree, i always & still do think he goes from one musical variation to another, various
albums have proved this, Ram, Band on the Run, Venus & Mars & his last one MAF.
yes, people do critisize him for stuff like Mull of Kintyre, We All Stand Together & recently
Dance Tonight, but i say fair play to him, at least he has the guts to put them out!
Macca's always top on any musician's list for me persoanlly.  

Obviously Paul's solo career is the 'most successful:' Most hits, another successful band, many huge tours, etc.

But I still prefer John's catalogue.  And for jjs, who seems to have an irrational dislike of John Lennon, you made a few erroneous points.  John couldn't do it by himself?  What's that supposed to mean?  His best solo work stands up to his Beatles work.  Sure it was uneven, but so were the solo careers of the other 3.  (I personally love John's Double Fantasy songs -- Woman, Watching the Wheels, Beautiful Boy, Just Like Starting Over.... maybe you don't.  That's your problem.)  John couldn't fill up a stadium?  When did John decide to do a solo world tour?  If he had, I think he would have filled stadiums.  But apparently Beatledom had permanently soured him on tours.  Can you blame him?  Did he need the money, or the aggravation at that point?

Paul's had a fantastic solo career , every Wings single hit the Billboard top 40 and the group had 5# 1 albums in a row on Billboard album chart , and still people question wether they were a propper group ?
Paul and Wings were just behind  " Elton John " as the 70's most successful act .
And yes after Wings he never hit those heights again , but albums like Tug Of War ,Flowers in the Dirt , Flaming Pie ,Chaos and Creation in the Backyard and Memory Almost Full , still show he can hit the higher reaches of the charts worldwide , the latter two albums are among the best released by a 60+ artist .
I also think the other three Beatles had very good solo careers ,  "Robbie Williams" would have killed for Ringo's solo Success in America  
Both John and George produced very successful albums , i think "All Things Must Pass" is still the most successful post Beatles album ?

I used to be very much a John person, but as far as solo careers go, I like Paul's stuff more and more all the time. There's probably some merit in the usual objections of rock critics, but most of them take "rock's" sillier pretensions too seriously.  

Quoted from DaveRam

Both John and George produced very successful albums , i think "All Things Must Pass" is still the most successful post Beatles album ?

Ah Dave, you always bring a smile to my face.

I voted for George because ATMP is definitely a classic-- whole new surprising direction and completely "solo" sound. I suppose we can say Lennon's experimental work definitely falls into this category, but I personally dislike it. I enjoy George's solo catalog more than what I've heard of the others, although they all did some very nice songs. So I selfishly voted for George because... he's who I listen to!

Quoted from DaveRam

Paul's had a fantastic solo career , every Wings single hit the Billboard top 40 and the group had 5# 1 albums in a row on Billboard album chart , and still people question wether they were a propper group ?
Paul and Wings were just behind  " Elton John " as the 70's most successful act .
And yes after Wings he never hit those heights again , but albums like Tug Of War ,Flowers in the Dirt , Flaming Pie ,Chaos and Creation in the Backyard and Memory Almost Full , still show he can hit the higher reaches of the charts worldwide , the latter two albums are among the best released by a 60+ artist .
I also think the other three Beatles had very good solo careers ,  "Robbie Williams" would have killed for Ringo's solo Success in America  
Both John and George produced very successful albums , i think "All Things Must Pass" is still the most successful post Beatles album ?

Hello,

I think "Tug Of War" is generally regarded as one of his best albums, and "Ebony And Ivory" is one of his most successful chart toppers. "Pipes of Peace" was a British #1... so your assertion that he "never hit those heights again" isn't quite true...

Quoted from Mr. Mustard

Obviously Paul's solo career is the 'most successful:' Most hits, another successful band, many huge tours, etc.

But I still prefer John's catalogue.  And for jjs, who seems to have an irrational dislike of John Lennon, you made a few erroneous points.  John couldn't do it by himself?  What's that supposed to mean?  His best solo work stands up to his Beatles work.  Sure it was uneven, but so were the solo careers of the other 3.  (I personally love John's Double Fantasy songs -- Woman, Watching the Wheels, Beautiful Boy, Just Like Starting Over.... maybe you don't.  That's your problem.)  John couldn't fill up a stadium?  When did John decide to do a solo world tour?  If he had, I think he would have filled stadiums.  But apparently Beatledom had permanently soured him on tours.  Can you blame him?  Did he need the money, or the aggravation at that point?

JJS has no dislike for John.  

JJS dislikes the notion that his solo career was somehow rendered "more important" than it actually was, solely because of his political views.  As I said, no one can compare John's solo career to Paul's in any way where John comes out on top. So this ridiculous notion was invented.

I prefer to judge his (and the rest of the Beatles) solo careers without all that silliness.

"John couldn't do it by himself?  What's that supposed to mean?" It means that John couldn't crank out #1's singles like Paul could.  His only #1 single was "Whatever Gets you Through the Night"... with help from Elton John. Part of the reason the Beatles broke up was because John was sick of "being a sideman for Paul." He was upset because Paul got the "A" side while his songs got the "B" side, although personally I don't see this. After the Beatles, John's singles didn't hit the top of the charts... and then of course when the #1 hits weren't coming so easily, such "commercial" success suddenly became unimportant.

"John couldn't fill up a stadium?  When did John decide to do a solo world tour? "  John toured early on... and his management company quietly bought up empty seats. No one could trust they weren't going to get 45 minutes of Yoko shrieking.... so his attempt to play concert dates flopped.  George also had a failed tour in the mid 70's.

I like "Double Fantasy".  IMO, songs from these sessions  were among the strongest written, most consistent,  and best produced Solo-Beatles material (I tend to combine DF and M&H sans Yoko.) I think "Cloud Nine" is similarly strong, and "ATMP" too.

I've written endless posts with my opinion that Paul's solo songs almost always sound unfinished to me, and that his lyrics most often seem like unrelated phrases that "allude" to a point without ever actually making it.  I also don't care for the mushy production on his albums either. Jack Douglas' job on "DF" ranks as my favorite solo album production.

I'm not playing favorites here... Just telling it how I see it.

Quoted from Andy Smith

i totally agree, i always & still do think he goes from one musical variation to another, various
albums have proved this, Ram, Band on the Run, Venus & Mars & his last one MAF.
yes, people do critisize him for stuff like Mull of Kintyre, We All Stand Together & recently
Dance Tonight, but i say fair play to him, at least he has the guts to put them out!
Macca's always top on any musician's list for me persoanlly.  

Criticize him for "Mull Of Kintyre"? That song is/was loved all over the world... It just wasn't a style Americans are used to.

Who criticized this song?