Who's solo career do you like best?

Mine used to be George's but recently I'm obsessed with Paul's so that's who I voted for.

I voted for Paul because he has had the best solo career after the Beatles despite mostly mediocre albums with lots of hit singles & a few masterpieces.  

i think the most succesful was pauls, but i prefer john...mayb

Paulie

Nice to see Paul is winning.

odd to see no ones voted for anyone else

Paul might be the only one you could have made it without The Beatles.

Quoted from Bobber

Paul might be the only one you could have made it without The Beatles.

That's an interesting thought.
1963 - Oppotunity Knocks - 2 contestants by chance from Liverpool, Paul MCCartney and John Lennon, each step up to the mike and sing a song, accompanied by their own guitar.
Who would have got through? Paul for sure, I guess. John wouldn't have had the looks/stage charisma to be a solo artist*. Songwriter yes. Sole frontman in a band without a McCartney? Again, he might have got away with it, but nothing too successful**.
Would have made a good Rolling Stone.
Paul solo - yes. Sole front man of a band - yes.
George, no and no.
Ringo - yes, as some kind of drum novelty act (The Amazing Ringo Starr and his Singing Drums!)

* F**k. Now I'm thinking Roy Orbison. I give up.
** hold that thought. If someone as personality free as Steve Winwood can front Traffic, then John could have fronted another band. (Sorry-stupid on my part)

As some of you know (hehe!) I don't know much about Paul's solo stuff. But, judging from mostly compiliation albums, I would say that John made more great music in 5+1 years than the others put together in all they did.

Quoted from GreenApple

As some of you know (hehe!) I don't know much about Paul's solo stuff. But, judging from mostly compiliation albums, I would say that John made more great music in 5+1 years than the others put together in all they did.

John made only 2.5 good lp's in his solocarreer. With All Things Must Pass, George alone put 3.0 good lp's forward.

Hmmmm...I'm with you to a point - I acquired ATMP recently. It's really good. Just on the subject, don't you feel I Dig Love just sounds so Lennon-esque?

Also, there's the thing that John influenced George in the Beatles' days, and A Hard Day's Write says that John was upset when George didn't mention his influence on George in his autobiography.

As for the '1/2' a good album, are you thinking of John's half of his 1980 album? Have you heard Yoko's songs on that album? I heard them years ago. Oh dear..!

Quoted from GreenApple

As some of you know (hehe!) I don't know much about Paul's solo stuff. But, judging from mostly compiliation albums, I would say that John made more great music in 5+1 years than the others put together in all they did.

Have you got a deathwish?
In my humble opinion John went from brilliant (POB) to good (imagine), mediochre (Mindgames & Walls and Bridges), bland (Rock'n'Roll) and awful (Double Fantasy).
Many, of course, disagree.

Quoted from GreenApple

Hmmmm...I'm with you to a point - I acquired ATMP recently. It's really good. Just on the subject, don't you feel I Dig Love just sounds so Lennon-esque?  

All Things Must Pass was released before any other solo-album. So maybe, and with the same arguments, you could say that John sounds Harrison-esque.

Quoted from GreenApple

Also, there's the thing that John influenced George in the Beatles' days, and A Hard Day's Write says that John was upset when George didn't mention his influence on George in his autobiography.

John was upset, of course. But I think they all influenced each other. I'm pretty sure George had an influence on John as well. John may have had an influence as a songwriter, George vice versa as a leadguitarist.

Quoted from GreenApple

As for the '1/2' a good album, are you thinking of John's half of his 1980 album? Have you heard Yoko's songs on that album? I heard them years ago. Oh dear..!

No. It's my humble opinion that Double Fantasy is not a good album. I'm counting Plastic Ono Band as one, Imagine as two and a few songs here and there from Mind Games and Walls And Bridges as a half.

That "only 2.5 good lp's " could be Plastic Ono Band, Imagine and Double Fantasy, and they are great but Mind Games and Walls + Bridges are quite good too (Mind Games my favourite one).

I've heard the most of John's solo career and I really like his music. I've just recently bought Paul Mccartney, Chaos and Creation in the backyard and it's great too. Everyone from the beatles were good. I think they all added something special to the group and to me it wouldn't be the same if it was just one of them. They are better together.

Definitely Paul. Followed by John, George and Ringo. Though I love all of their solo careers equally.

Quoted from kevin_b

** hold that thought. If someone as personality free as Steve Winwood can front Traffic, then John could have fronted another band. (Sorry-stupid on my part)

I agree Winwood may be personality free, but his voice sure isn't.  One of the best in rock-n-roll.  And a great player too (nice keys on Voodoo Chile).  Too bad he made so many bland records.  The 94 Traffic reunion album is pretty weak (picked it up at the pawnshop, wasn't worth it).  

It's a shame none of the Beatles was able to bond artistically in any extended collaboration with other musicians in another band setting.

I guess the exception is George and the Wilburys which had their moments.  

John fronting another band would have been really cool--I guess the only problem would have been Yoko horning in.  Only the likes of Elephant's Memory were up for that gig.

I'm leaning back towards George's solo again, I just cant get enough of My Sweet Lord

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

Just because Paul didn't have bed-ins doesn't mean he wasn't for peace. And since when should someone's music be "pointless" just because it's not overtly political?

Its "point" was LOVE.
High "point", isn't it?

Quoted from Jim_Colyer

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

That's ridiculous. And no, I'm not gonna read your article.

Quoted from raxo

Its "point" was LOVE.
High "point", isn't it?

Great reply.

And the answer the poll asks is George. I particularly like his collabs with Clapton and The Travelling Wilburys.

Quoted from Jim_Colyer

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

A bit narrowed minded as a statement. Still, Beatle fans that to choose to dis-like one of the group tend to narrow their enjoyment of the whole thing. Is Paul being a Sir really that much of a yuk for you?

You could (if you wanted to) put Lennon down by accusing him of using political protest to line his pockets, whilst Paul opened up about real love. That sounds about as absurd as your comparison though. lol

Horses for courses, no harm meant.

I don't know enough to comment on this (Solo output)....from what I have heard....undecided....They all underachieved after The Beatles as far as I am concerned.

We're being unfair with this guy: have any of you read the article? (I'm with Bobber and I'm not going to read it) but perhaps...  


Just kidding, OK?  

Mr Colyer seems to be quite mad.

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

If you ever come back here I'd love you to explain that statement to us all. I wonder if that means that Jim also thought all The Beatles output pointless too. I've read some sweeping statements here, but that one takes the biscuit.

Quoted from Wayne L.

I voted for Paul because he has had the best solo career after the Beatles despite mostly mediocre albums with lots of hit singles & a few masterpieces.  

^^^^^That's exactly what I was thinking.......

Definitely it is Paul.

Macca

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 ?