Just for balance against the "worst Macca" thread.
Only those made when he was alive count.
Quite a few to choose from, but I'd have to go for Double Fantasy. The Working Class Hero returns with an album so bland and sickly-fm- friendly-sweet it probably made Mother Theresa chuck.
Mind, everything after Sometime In New York City is bargain-bin material.
So much for the self-proclaimed genius.
And if it wasn't for Imagine he'd be remembered as the guy that wrote "that christmas song."

Do you mind if I try and add a useless list aka poll to this thread?

It could get lonely on this thread Kev. Double Fantasy - pile of crap. Though Mind Games runs it a close second. If we were including compilations (which we're not) then Menlove Avenue deserves a mention. I've never even heard it, but the thought of an album of outtakes from Rock 'n' Roll and Walls And Bridges has me reaching for the sick bag. You should have made a poll, though thinking about it we may have been the only ones to vote!

There's been heated discussions before. I remember Frightwolf's retoric question: 'Am I the only that thinks that Plactic Ono Band is garbage?'  So thanks to Kevin's questioning whether John was really God, we have learned to look at John's solo-output with open mind. Personally I don't care for Sometime In NYC and Double Fantasy, mainly because of Mrs Lennon's contribution.

Quoted from Bobber

There's been heated discussions before. I remember Frightwolf's retoric question: 'Am I the only that thinks that Plactic Ono Band is garbage?'  So thanks to Kevin's questioning whether John was really God, we have learned to look at John's solo-output with open mind. Personally I don't care for Sometime In NYC and Double Fantasy, mainly because of Mrs Lennon's contribution.

Are you trying to get me lynched?
I came to this board completely believing the Lennon myth.* It was the late great Ydoll Glynn/Maria and Juniorsfarm/Sallyg/Dwarfmcdougall/Duane and your friend and mine Ttkina that got me looking at John's music objectively.

*I was like a confused homosexual. After a while I thought "I don't like these John Lennon Lennon Albums." Was there something wrong with me? I wasn't like all the other boys. Had all those Jim Reeves and Rolf Harris albums of my youth REALLY done some permanent damage? Then one day on DM's I found I wasn't alone.
Thanks DM's.

Remarkable that both Ydoll and Junior's were somehow forced to leave the forum.

Quoted from Bobber

Remarkable that both Ydoll and Junior's were somehow forced to leave the forum.

Ydoll never recovered from being sprung as Maria, especially since "she" had been flirting with Wayne. I believe "she" had pert breasts. Fantastic.
Junior was a loss. But his inability to engage in discussion without resorting to personal abuse was intolerable. A shame.

Quoted from Kevin

Are you trying to get me lynched?
I came to this board completely believing the Lennon myth.* It was the late great Ydoll Glynn/Maria and Juniorsfarm/Sallyg/Dwarfmcdougall/Duane and your friend and mine Ttkina that got me looking at John's music objectively.

*I was like a confused homosexual. After a while I thought "I don't like these John Lennon Lennon Albums." Was there something wrong with me? I wasn't like all the other boys. Had all those Jim Reeves and Rolf Harris albums of my youth REALLY done some permanent damage? Then one day on DM's I found I wasn't alone.
Thanks DM's.

I've never been a huge fan of any of them, solo wise, though I've bought the odd album over the years, so that now I actually have quite a few. But do I really like them? Or am I deluding myself because they are records made by ex-Beatles? Certainly, when I came to examine Lennons' catalogue it was a huge disappointment to me, having believed all the hype. And how many 'great' albums has McCartney really made over the years? A couple? I can't comment on George and Ringo, as I haven't heard enough, but what I have heard of George easily matches the best of Lennon and McCartney's in my opinion.

Once John got past his introspective/angry/political phase he seems to have run out of ideas. I don't think he didn't make an album for 5 years because he didn't want to, but because he didn't have a clue. And it shows on Double Fantasy. 5 years and he gives half of his album over to his musically untalented wife. You'd have thought he'd have been bursting!

I think the mauling he got over New York City really damaged his confidence. People didn't want "Politically  angry Lennon", they wanted "Imagine lennon" with nice tunes and words you can sing along to. And he tried with Mind Games and Walls and Bridges and couldn't deliver. And it must have got to him. especially as it coincided exactly with Macca 's critical/commercial rennaicance with BOTR and Venus and Mars.
I agree about the retirement thing. He wanted to be a commercially successful artist and he had no idea what to do to do that. Going away was his only choice.
George's career I don't rank either. After ATMP and Material World he was at best nice, most often mundane. He too tried to be a solo star and but just wasn't up to it.
Proof of the adage 'the whole is greater than the sum of the parts." Without each other the Superheroes became mortal.

Quoted from BlueMeanie

what I have heard of George easily matches the best of Lennon and McCartney's in my opinion.

agreed! All things Must Pass alone gives him credibility in my opinion, and there are a number of other good songs on his other albums

I only have JLPOB and Imagine (I really should get more but once you get into Beatles solo stuff, theres a lot to wade through!)
I enjoy both albums but don't see them as incredibly talented, or commercially likeable
I'm open to the fact that I most likely only like them because of Lennon's context, and if I knew nothing about the man, I may be a lot faster to brand the music as 'nothing special'. I prefer imagine though so POB is the worst in my opinion of the only 2 albums i know. I hear that these two albums are better than his other stuff though- so my input is a bit worthless on the matter of worst album

Sorry that's all a bit off topic. I will get back to you when I own all the albums Lennon made (give me a couple of years!  )

Quoted from tangerine

agreed! All things Must Pass alone gives him credibility in my opinion, and there are a number of other good songs on his other albums

Hi Tangerine. That pretty well does sum up George's career. I'd bet a few pounds though that in 1970 he (and the world at large) would have expected it to amount to a little bit more.

Quoted from Kevin

Hi Tangerine. That pretty well does sum up George's career. I'd bet a few pounds though that in 1970 he (and the world at large) would have expected it to amount to a little bit more.

well yes, all things must pass was certainly his peak, so it is just as well that he made it. However I would be willing to argue that Brainwashed is a pretty decent album and he therefore made good music right up to the end. Then again, perhaps your point is that from All Things Must Pass onwards, it was only 'decent' and not better than 'decent'? Though albums after ATMP werent (in my opinion) as good, I hardly think they were dissapointing. Feel free to disagree (as I expect you will!)  

Quoted from tangerine

well yes, all things must pass was certainly his peak, so it is just as well that he made it. However I would be willing to argue that Brainwashed is a pretty decent album and he therefore made good music right up to the end. Then again, perhaps your point is that from All Things Must Pass onwards, it was only 'decent' and not better than 'decent'? Though albums after ATMP werent (in my opinion) as good, I hardly think they were dissapointing. Feel free to disagree (as I expect you will!)  

Not at all. He probably suffers from creating his masterpiece first off, so that everything thereafter was always going to be a bit of a dissapointment.(it seems generally agreed that the only way was up for Macca after McCartney and Wildlife) I just think they and us expected greater things from Beatles than just decent. but then again, they're the ones who set the bar so high in the first place. Life can be so unfair.

Like Tangerine, I'm not familiar enough with John's solo albums to comment. *is instantly booted off thread*

These comments seem key to me:

Quoted from BlueMeanie

Once John got past his introspective/angry/political phase he seems to have run out of ideas.

Quoted from Kevin

I think the mauling he got over New York City really damaged his confidence.

To me, successful creativity is a combination of having something to say and being able to say it with confidence. All the ex-Beatles took their drubbings in the press, and I think it affected all of them. I personally think the critics were unfairly harsh against some of the solo albums, because people were expecting so much (as Kevin said), and no one could match up to the Beatles, including ex-Beatles. With the perspective of time, I think most of us are realizing just how rare and wonderful that initial combination of talent was.

Nevertheless, in John's case, I think there was more going on than loss of confidence. He had some personal challenges, to say no more, that can't have helped his solo output or quality. I just watched this very good interview last night. In part 2 here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN8RFQfh3ro - he starts talking about how "Rock & Roll" came about, and he really was looking for some different approach from the angry, political Lennon. But he really didn't know what to do, so fell back to producing these old standards. In short, he couldn't figure out what he wanted to "say". (Er, that's me editorializing; he didn't actually say that.)

It's a vicious circle. You want to be creative and unique, but you also want to be commercially viable (so you can keep doing your thing). But you can't be too "creative" or too commercial, or you turn people off. Is it a wonder that people often can produce "only" one masterpiece? Getting the stars to align just right is mighty tricky. I'm inclined to be generous towards anyone who has had their "one" success. You have to overcome a lot of obstacles to do it even once; to keep doing it is something of a miracle.

Quoted from harihead

. Is it a wonder that people often can produce "only" one masterpiece? Getting the stars to align just right is mighty tricky. I'm inclined to be generous towards anyone who has had their "one" success. You have to overcome a lot of obstacles to do it even once; to keep doing it is something of a miracle.

And thar she blows. True words.I can forgive Paul and George, but John called himself a genius. Silly boy.

Quoted from tangerine

well yes, all things must pass was certainly his peak, so it is just as well that he made it. However I would be willing to argue that Brainwashed is a pretty decent album and he therefore made good music right up to the end. Then again, perhaps your point is that from All Things Must Pass onwards, it was only 'decent' and not better than 'decent'? Though albums after ATMP werent (in my opinion) as good, I hardly think they were dissapointing. Feel free to disagree (as I expect you will!)  

I think George's bigest mistake was in releasing a triple album. Even though a portion of it was made up of studio jams, it was a lot of material to dispense with in one hit. Had he released a single album and then taken the best of the remainder and put it together with the best material from LITMW I believe he'd have had himself two equally excellent albums. He basically blew his chance of being the biggest star on the planet.

Quoted from harihead

To me, successful creativity is a combination of having something to say and being able to say it with confidence. All the ex-Beatles took their drubbings in the press, and I think it affected all of them. I personally think the critics were unfairly harsh against some of the solo albums, because people were expecting so much (as Kevin said), and no one could match up to the Beatles, including ex-Beatles. With the perspective of time, I think most of us are realizing just how rare and wonderful that initial combination of talent was.

Absolutely. Saying something convincingly and sincerely is the key for most songwriters, unless you're able to do what McCartney has done so much in the past - knock out a 3 minute song about nothing, married to a brilliant but simple melody. Lennon's problem was that his songs always had to be based on hard fact. Either about him or some issue in the world, and when it comes to just writing a song for the sake of it - making up the story - he fails.

Quoted from BlueMeanie

I think George's bigest mistake was in releasing a triple album. Even though a portion of it was made up of studio jams, it was a lot of material to dispense with in one hit. Had he released a single album and then taken the best of the remainder and put it together with the best material from LITMW I believe he'd have had himself two equally excellent albums. He basically blew his chance of being the biggest star on the planet.

I will weep forever over this. ...Well, maybe not forever. Still, George created so much great stuff, and blew his credibility by not managing his releases in any way, shape or form. I really regret that he didn't have an editor (producer, whatever) sitting over his shoulder saying "NO!" when it was needed. *sigh*

Quoted from BlueMeanie

unless you're able to do what McCartney has done so much in the past - knock out a 3 minute song about nothing, married to a brilliant but simple melody.

True. Paul is very keen on pleasing people. He never really wanted to do anything much beyond write entertaining pop songs, and succeeded in that. But because of the lack of depth, his solo songs have difficulty holding my attention. Generally I find John and George's solo work more interesting to listen to.

The only John album i couldn't care much for is Sometime in New York City, i think its a very poor
piece of work by John
I don't think paul realizes what a great lyrirists he is at times, simple & direct.
if i choose between john & george has a great lyrisists, i'd choose George- he was so underated.
his lyrics were always written from the heart, & i think he didn't get enough encoragment from people in the 80's when his albums were selling poorly .

No problem on this one ,SOMETIME IN NEW YORK CITY  .Even JOHN made mistakes and this album is a big one  

Rock 'N' Roll. Bad versions of great tunes. Sounds awful. Any mono mixes of POB or any of John's stuff?

Quoted from BlueMeanie

Once John got past his introspective/angry/political phase he seems to have run out of ideas. I don't think he didn't make an album for 5 years because he didn't want to, but because he didn't have a clue. And it shows on Double Fantasy. 5 years and he gives half of his album over to his musically untalented wife. You'd have thought he'd have been bursting!

Should he have connected himself to another songwriter, especially of that period, to get him going again? Maybe a co-operation with David Bowie and/or Iggy Pop. Fame was a good song. It might have been interesting. But I agree, John seems to have run out of ideas by trying on his own.

gosh yes Lennon-Bowie would be excellent (they did collaborate a tiny bit didn't they? It would have done them good to have done more)

Quoted from Bobber

Should he have connected himself to another songwriter, especially of that period, to get him going again? Maybe a co-operation with David Bowie and/or Iggy Pop. Fame was a good song. It might have been interesting. But I agree, John seems to have run out of ideas by trying on his own.

I would have loved to have seen John connect himself to another songwriter. John on his own was very good at giving himself permission not to work-- the bane of the self-employed person! He certainly earned his rest after all the effort of the Beatles, but... I like his songs! If he had a partner, I think he would have been happier because he was working, and we would have been happier because there'd be more to listen to.

It breaks my heart to hear how John and Paul danced around the question of working together again. I sure wish they could have done it. But I think John would have enjoyed working with anyone who had real talent. As a non-Beatles effort, I think he could have had more fun with it. If he worked with Paul, the world would be watching, and that kind of pressure was perhaps not what he'd want to get started again.

He was over the music business, said what he wanted to say with 'Plastic Ono Band' and 'Imagine'. 'Sometime in New York City' is just that, snapshots of that time in NYC, never intended to be a masterpiece or spectacular. During 'Mind Games' and 'Walls and Bridges' he is lost.

Quoted from 724

He was over the music business, said what he wanted to say with 'Plastic Ono Band' and 'Imagine'. 'Sometime in New York City' is just that, snapshots of that time in NYC, never intended to be a masterpiece or spectacular.

That's a very bold statement. Can you support that with anything? Evidence please of this remarkable change of heart by Mr Lennon.
A double album with Phil Spector producing,  5 months in the making and it wasn't intended to impress?
Damned if I can find them now, but I have read many a time that John had intended STINYC to be exactly that: his masterpiece.
From Wiki (again):," Lennon was devastated at its commercial failure and would not record any music for almost an entire year."
And Yoko's recent revelation that John used to lay awake sleepless at night because he couldn't write hit songs like Paul anymore?
And read these interviews from John in 1971: http://www.instantkarma.com/balladjohnmintz.html
It is obvious that poltics has consumed John. Read these and tell me that John didn't intend STINYC to be a major statement.

Quoted from Kevin

" Lennon was devastated at its commercial failure and would not record any music for almost an entire year."
And Yoko's recent revelation that John used to lay awake sleepless at night because he couldn't write hit songs like Paul anymore?

It's the fame and adulation thing isn't it. 12 years of writing hit pop songs, and all of a sudden he can't do it any more. If he'd realised/accepted that his musical direction had changed and just wrote and recorded what came naturally at the time, his work post STINYC may have been better. Instead of trying to write and record what people expected of him. The old insecurity thing again. This is the difference between him and McCartney. Paul always seems to have done whatever he felt like doing at the time, whether it be pop, ambient, orchestral, soundtrack or rock 'n' roll. I'm sure he wants his hit singles, but I bet he never lost any sleep when one wasn't a hit (Back Seat Of My Car, Figure Of Eight, etc. etc.).

Quoted from BlueMeanie

It's the fame and adulation thing isn't it. 12 years of writing hit pop songs, and all of a sudden he can't do it any more. If he'd realised/accepted that his musical direction had changed and just wrote and recorded what came naturally at the time, his work post STINYC may have been better. Instead of trying to write and record what people expected of him. The old insecurity thing again. This is the difference between him and McCartney. Paul always seems to have done whatever he felt like doing at the time, whether it be pop, ambient, orchestral, soundtrack or rock 'n' roll. I'm sure he wants his hit singles, but I bet he never lost any sleep when one wasn't a hit (Back Seat Of My Car, Figure Of Eight, etc. etc.).

Right on. I think too Paul was a realist - he saw himself as nothing other than what he was - a very talented songwriter. John got it into his head that he was some kind of messiah, and fell with an awful crunch when he found out he was just flesh and bone.

It's said that Yoko gave him the confidence he needed. But maybe it was too much. He started to believe what everybody else (mistakenly) thought.

Quoted from BlueMeanie

It's said that Yoko gave him the confidence he needed. But maybe it was too much. He started to believe what everybody else (mistakenly) thought.

Poor old John. Most of my knowledge is decades old so I can't give sources, but I rember reading that he was mightily affected at being called the Fat Beatle and by 66 he was scared his voice was going. Combine that with the stopping of touring, Epsteins death and he was right for the pickin'.
I don't think (unfortunately) that he would have found the confidence he needed within the band. They appear to be a particuly mercernary lot by then (apart from good old Ringo.) I just wish he'd shacked up with someone like Elton John instead of Yoko.

Im not keen on Double Fantasy although it contains one of my favourite John songs Watching the Wheels .
I think he could have worked well with David Bowie ,a bit of a missed opportunity their.

DaveRam

Quoted from Kevin

That's a very bold statement. Can you support that with anything? Evidence please of this remarkable change of heart by Mr Lennon.
A double album with Phil Spector producing,  5 months in the making and it wasn't intended to impress?
Damned if I can find them now, but I have read many a time that John had intended STINYC to be exactly that: his masterpiece.
From Wiki (again):," Lennon was devastated at its commercial failure and would not record any music for almost an entire year."
And Yoko's recent revelation that John used to lay awake sleepless at night because he couldn't write hit songs like Paul anymore?
And read these interviews from John in 1971: http://www.instantkarma.com/balladjohnmintz.html
It is obvious that poltics has consumed John. Read these and tell me that John didn't intend STINYC to be a major statement.

John was wrong about it then. As daft as the next fella. I'm sorry for you that he wasn't the 'God' you thought he was.

Quoted from 724

John was wrong about it then.

But I'm asking how you know this, because it's quite a revelation.
It's that "why" part of me that you don't understand at work again.

Quoted from Kevin

But I'm asking how you know this, because it's quite a revelation.
It's that "why" part of me that you don't understand at work again.

Because you seem to think it was meant to be a masterpiece, whereas with hindsight it wasn't. How can I not understand the "why" part Kevin?

Quoted from 724

Because you seem to think it was meant to be a masterpiece, whereas with hindsight it wasn't. How can I not understand the "why" part Kevin?

I was referring to out other conversation in the book department. Sorry - it was how, not why. Was supposed to be a joke.
Back to STINYC - R Carr in his book said John intended the album to be his definitive statement.
Wiki says he was devasted by its failure.
Everything I've ever read about Lennon has indicated that he cared deeply about the success of his work. I'm asking how it is you know that John didn't consider this to be a masterpiece to stand alongside POB and Imagine, because it goes against everything I've read. (the fact that it wasn't a masterpiece isn't really the issue)
You must have a quote, or read something. Anything. I'm not looking for a fight - I want to know

Just food for thought, but here's some Lennon quotes:
1971 Interview with Ali and Black:
"that's why I'm putting out more heavy statements now and trying to shake off the teeny-bopper image.
I want to get through to the right people, and I want to make what I have to say very simple and direct."
Hardly the words of a man who'd said all he had to say.

1972 Interview with Hit Parader:
Q: "Are you now remotely interested in singles or chart success?"
JOHN: "Sure. I get all the musical papers and the daily papers. I get my world chart thing and Billboard, and the other one... . I get a kick out of it because I'm getting through to all those people, and because I'm doing it on my own or with Yoko."
After Imagine.

1975, RollingStone, when talking about how politics affected his career (he confesses it almost destroyed it)
Q: "How did all of this affect your work?"
JOHN: "It almost ruined it, in a way. It became journalism and not poetry. And I basically feel that I'm a poet. Even if it does go ba-deeble, eedle, eedle, it, da-deedle, deedle, it. I'm not a formalized poet, I have no education, so I have to write in the simplest forms usually. And I realized that over a period of time - and not just 'cause I met Jerry Rubin off the plane - but that was like a culmination. I realized that we were poets but we were really folk poets, and rock & roll was folk poetry - I've always felt that. Rock & roll was folk music. Then I began to take it seriously on another level, saying, "Well, I am reflecting what is going on, right?" And then I was making an effort to reflect what was going on. Well, it doesn't work like that. It doesn't work as pop music or what I want to do. It just doesn't make sense."

John was wrong about the album and that period, whatever he intended it to be it wasn't. There's something in Skywriting about him saying it was the most regretable period of his career. Maybe I was wrong? He did intend for it to have a huge impact. It didn't. Still better than Rock 'N' Roll.