was john lennon washed up after the beatles

[dereklovesugly]

I think Lennon's post beatles music was great. He got a little darker but his music actually got deep. Plastic Ono band was a classic album. Imagine was great. Instant karma I think is easily his best song post beatles. Yoko is awful.

**** all the Paul haters. His solo career wasn't too bad. You've got to understand that when Paul left the beatles he was still interested in making silly love songs. He did the damn thing. I think a decent amount of his music was pretty swell for pop. Musically, some of it was so so, but still catchy. Band on the run and Flaming Pie are classic albums. I think flaming pie is my favorite post beatles album by any of them.

On another note, I'll be seeing Paul the 24th, 1st row VIP. Pretty stoked

 

[Desdinova]

Wow, this is an old thread.

Paul's Greatest solo effort:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBUJgIT1ddQ

 

[dereklovesugly]

Lol I had to get in on the beatles discussion.

 

[Atom Smasher]

John and Paul were massively successful as The Beatles because they were in competition with each other and they wrote in order to out-do and impress each other.

Once that dynamic was gone, the quality of music had to die. It couldn't have been otherwise. Truly, a band is greater than the sum of its parts, and the Beatles are probably the most vivid example of this.

Their relationship was in many ways like a marriage. It is that way in any band. Once women came into the picture and diluted their attention and energies, the dynamic changed and the implosion occured.

The Beatles were an incredibly complex (and fortuitous) chemical reaction that exploded beyond the properties of the individual ingredients. The catalyst for the reaction was the 60s, and all these properties converged to produce a spectacular explosion that lasted for but a millisecond in time (relative to the history of mankind).

It's the "Right person (or people)/right time" principle.

I personally (as a musician) think that their solo stuff (John and Paul) is woefully inferior to what they wrote when they were in competition with each other, and even woefully inferior to the music of their peers at any given time. I mean astoundingly inferior. People take offense at that simply because they have a preconceived notion that "It just can't be", but let's be real and tell it like it is. Together they transcended former musical boundaries and created new worlds of expression. Apart they were merely baking soda and vinegar.

 

[bigneil]

"I've had enough of watching scenes with schizophrenic, egocentric, paranoid, primadonnas - all I want is the truth. Just give me some truth."

John Lennon 1971

(i.e. not really)

As someone who personally purchased every single Beatles, Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and even Starr album (on CD) I will admit that the quality went down after they broke up, but every one of them still had more good tunes than most of today's bands (post-breakup).

All Things Must Pass (1970, Harrison)
Imagine (1971, Lennon)
Band on the Run (1973, McCartney)
Ringo (1973, Starr)

All four are classic LP's.

Also check out these LP's:

Ram (1971, McCartney)
Mind Games (1973, Lennon)
Blast from your Past (1976, Ringo)
Cloud Nine (1987, Harrison)

 

[bigneil]

John and Paul were massively successful as The Beatles because they were in competition with each other and they wrote in order to out-do and impress each other.

As one critic so elegantly wrote: "Lennon had a way of keeping McCartney's mawkish sentimentality within tolerable bounds."

 

[Atom Smasher]

I think I am being a little too hard on them as soloists, but my real point is that they rose to such dizzying heights largely because they were writing to impress each other, a competition if you will. It's amazing what genius can come out of such motivation. As a musician myself I can clearly see that dynamic going on in my life. When you're in a band, there is no better accolade than when a peer who you respect says, "That is awesome."

I like the mawkish sentimentality quote. That's another great aspect of their success, actually. Many times the other person will grind down the rough edges, or roughen up the overly soft and sentimental. If that's what John did, though, he sure did cut it close!

Anyway, we all agree that the Beatles transcended anything that was seen before or has been seen since. Even the stuff that is totally played out can stun you after not listening to it for a while.

Finally, I've always said that Paul McCartney is the most under-rated bass player in the history of music. He was brilliant. Yes, a great guitarist, too, but his bass playing is never fully appreciated for its brilliance. Sometimes his note choices and technique were simply astounding.

 

[bigneil]

I agree Atom Smasher. The Beatles were the best band ever, and McCartney was the best bass player (see Hey Bulldog and Mrs. Vandebilt).