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.
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.
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".
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.
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...
JJ, who cares about "Woman is the black person of the World"? Who cares how it charted? When you listen to music, does the 'chart position' of the song affect your enjoyment of the song? By that logic, "Hello Goodbye" is a far better song than "A Day in the Life" -- because "Hello" happened to be released as a single, and went to #1. "A Day in the Life" wasn't released, so therefore never charted. Does this mean "ADitL" is somehow inferior? Come on, people. You're Beatles fans. You should know better than this.
When you hear "I am the Walrus," do you think, 'I don't like this song, it didn't even break the top 50!' If so, you're not hearing the music correctly.
Who cares what each Beatle's best single was? IT'S NOT ABOUT SINGLES. It's about songs. Whether that song is "A Day in the Life," "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," "In My Life," side 2 of Abbey Road, "God," "Hold On," "Working Class Hero," "#9 Dream," who cares where (or if) they charted? Those chart positions are temporary. The songs are permanent.
Wow, I see that the N-word automatically becomes the phrase "black person" when you post it. The problem is, that's racist -- on the part of the governing body that believes that "N-word" is describing a black person. When John Lennon wrote the song, he wasn't talking about dark-skinned people -- he was talking about the prejudice against women (and specifically the prejudice against Yoko Ono, probably).
Even in ultra-politically correct America, I'm a little shocked that "N-word" was automatically converted into "black person."
If I was black, that would offend the hell out of me.
Wow, I see that the N-word automatically becomes the phrase "black person" when you post it. The problem is, that's racist -- on the part of the governing body that believes that "N-word" is describing a black person. When John Lennon wrote the song, he wasn't talking about dark-skinned people -- he was talking about the prejudice against women (and specifically the prejudice against Yoko Ono, probably).
Even in ultra-politically correct America, I'm a little shocked that "N-word" was automatically converted into "black person."
If I was black, that would offend the hell out of me.
Mr. M. go to your profile, and in the left hand column click 'Board Settings. Check the box that says 'Disable Censored Words'.
I just want you to reassure him - talk to him, make him see the error of his ways. Then I'll hit him.
Wow, I see that the N-word automatically becomes the phrase "black person" when you post it. The problem is, that's racist -- on the part of the governing body that believes that "N-word" is describing a black person. When John Lennon wrote the song, he wasn't talking about dark-skinned people -- he was talking about the prejudice against women (and specifically the prejudice against Yoko Ono, probably).
Even in ultra-politically correct America, I'm a little shocked that "N-word" was automatically converted into "black person."
If I was black, that would offend the hell out of me.
I see your point Mr. M, but John used the 'N' word in direct comparison between the true meaning (a black person and how they were treated) to a woman and how she is treated. Does the 'N' word have any other meaning then a slant and racist tone towards a black person? If so, I have yet to see that definition.
I'm also sure that more than just a couple of black people were upset with the title of that song.
When i first started getting into music in the early 70's John was very much a Godhead figure , almost mythical . And when i heard the POB album for the first time i thought this is deep stuff . I liked his voice and the way he screamed like a madman on " Well Well Well " . The older i've got the less i like this album , apart from the song " God " i don't really care for this posh lads tale of woe , however heartfelt it is . There's something very "Jerry Springer " about this album ? If your going to do male angst then do it like Dylan's " Blood On The Tracks " . I suppose i don't revere John in the same way now . His solo career could have been so much better , if he'd had the balls to tell the wife too butt out .
jjs, DEAR, read my posts, i have never argued with the fact that Paul`s career is better. It is better! I am not disputing the facts. I agree with them. But the way you react, express yourself as if you were king or god, and speak to people (dear), using uncompromising language, irritable tone as if you were insulted, is very strange, to put it mildly. What`s wrong with you? Calm down, nobody is attacking you, it is you who is striking back, fighting some imaginary enemies. There are no enemies here, only friends. Is Star Wars your favourite film? Your albums chart is perfect, dear. I like it. So calm down, relax, drink some water. Negative emotions are bad for health.
I don't think its fair to say. John didn't live as long as Paul, not even close. Who's to say, if John were alive, his songs could be AMAZING, I mean over the top good. Same to George & Ringo. In my opinion they were all good in the solo work areas. But there song writing styles were obvis. very "different" as well. But statistically, it would be Paul no doubt. But I think its better to say they were all great, in their own rights.
"Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup, They slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe. Pools of sorrow waves of joy are drifting through my opened mind, Possessing and caressing me." "About a lucky man who made the grade" "I'm coming down fast but I'm miles above you."
Wow, I see that the N-word automatically becomes the phrase "black person" when you post it. The problem is, that's racist -- on the part of the governing body that believes that "N-word" is describing a black person. When John Lennon wrote the song, he wasn't talking about dark-skinned people -- he was talking about the prejudice against women (and specifically the prejudice against Yoko Ono, probably).
Even in ultra-politically correct America, I'm a little shocked that "N-word" was automatically converted into "black person."
If I was black, that would offend the hell out of me.
It surprised the hell out of me when I read it. We've been censored! And what we've been censored with is worse than the original word!
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
tkitna
Male
Female
Logged
