As much as I love The Beatles, their solo work really pales in comparison. I don't know if its because of having a different engineer, or a different producer, or whether its just because.

I would like to think its because Lennon was McCartney's Ying, and McCartney was Lennon's Yang, but that would be untrue. During the last few Beatle years, they worked separately on their own songs.

Anyway, there are obviously a lot of hits out there from all four of the ex-Beatles, but not all of them are fan favorites. Some you may even hate, despite the fact that it went to Number One on the Billboard Hot 100.

John Lennon's solo work, I feel, is wasted. The best he did was on Double Fantasy, with producer Jack Douglas, with songs like (Just Like) Starting Over and, particularily for me, Woman. Sure they're Paulesque, something Lennon himself criticized Paul for doing, but those songs for Lennon really made him shine. The songs sound great. His albums in the early 70's sound really weak...despite the song Imagine, which is terrific, I think his then-producer Phil Spector ruined Lennon's songs.

George Harrison, same thing. I believe Phil Spector was his producer, and Harrison's songs sound like they're missing some pazazz. What Is Life is a great song, however.

I think Ringo Starr got things right. His songs No No Song, Photograph and It Don't Come Easy really hold up through the years. His tunes really don't sound dated to a particular time period, unlike the rest of the Beatles.

Now we come to Paul McCartney. Sure, he had the most success as a solo artist, but a lot of his songs really don't resonate as "Beatle Music." I guess its right, perhaps, that he didn't do it like before, since he was getting a new start with a new band, et al. Either way, though, the lack of Beatleesque is what makes some of McCartney's tunes sound really wimpy.

If I had to pick an absolute favorite of all the songs between the four musicians, I'd have to pick Woman by John Lennon. Followed a close-second by No No Song by Ringo Starr

I don't like the following hit singles: Back off Boogalo (Ringo); Whatever Gets You Through The Night (John); Hi Hi Hi or Helen Wheels (Paul)

a very good personal assessment of the Beatles solo years. I don't neccessarily agree you on the John part (I think beyond "Imagine", "Jealous Guy" is a beautiful piece, but yeah, a LOT of his output post-beatle years is drug drenched)

about Paul, I TOTALLY agree w/ you as far as general wimpiness ("Wings At the speed Of Sound" is horrendous as well as parts of Ram and "London Town" (ugh)..BUT, his FIRST solo LP is an excellent freshman effort (I mean as far as "solo" outings are concerned)He STILL hasnt equaled it, in my opinion.

George: I'm bias here. Harrison has always been number one w/ me, but "Extra Texture", "33 and a Third", and "Gone Troppo" were terrible---BUT ATMP, LIVING IN THE MATERIAL WORD, DARK HORSE, CLOUD NINE are great works

(I'm not the biggest Spector fan, but I think he added needed elements to all the Beatle projects he was involved in (just my opinion)(i.e., Let It Be, Imagine, All Things Must Pass..etc..)

Ringo :  I believe w/ "Sentimental Journey", he was just "testing the waters", so to speak--to see how the record-buying public would respond to him. I'm GLAD to say, with open arms. Ringo is a "known quantity"--we know he isnt the composer the other 3 are, but he is such a beloved member of the Fab, it was inevitable ppl would grab his solo output. They were pleasantly surprised. "Beaucoup of Blues" (recorded in Nashville) was a FINE sophmore effort, but 1973's "Ringo" was certainly his best work, bar none (especially with all the help he got from George and John)

Everybody has their own musical tastes, but dont listen to a solo effort expecting the Beatles.

I enjoy the solo efforts more nowdays that the Beatles stuff actually.