|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Dec 6, 2019 18:07:52 GMT
Ringo actually probably has the most least bad solo career.
|
|
|
|
Post by darknessfish on Dec 6, 2019 21:21:07 GMT
From what I've heard, I think you could make a case for George Harrison, and some of Lennon's stuff is ok. Paul McCartney's back-catalogue is so bad it probably violates multiple human rights laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Dec 6, 2019 22:07:58 GMT
I think George Harrison produced the best songs post-Beatles, but Paul is so addicted to the limelight you could say he's had the most successful post-Beatles career simply because he refuses to go away. Most of his music is fluff though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 6, 2019 22:59:26 GMT
I am mostly familiar with the solo work of Paul McCartney i have the albums McCartney and RAM and Pure McCartney - Deluxe Edition (4CD) and Wings over America and i think his solo work in the 1970s are pretty good, but the stuff from 1980s and to present not so much
The only solo works i have heard of George Harrison are the albums All things must pass and Dark Horse, All Things must Pass is a brilliant album, Dark Horse has some good songs.
The only John Lennon album i have is a greatest hits album from his solo work, and i think the songs on that album are pretty good but its only 20 songs.
I am really not familiar at all with the solo work of Ringo, but i like the song Photograph and a newer song called Liverpool 8.
But yes the work they did together is superior to the solo work they did.
|
|
Dayodead
Junior Member
@dayodead
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 378
|
Post by Dayodead on Dec 6, 2019 23:46:38 GMT
Lennon made two great albums(Plastic Ono and Imagine), three good albums (Mind Games, Walls and Bridges, Rock and Roll), one jumbled album (Sometime in NY), a few experimental missteps and a final album with some good songs and some bad Yoko on it (Double Fantasy)..Never bothered with Milk & Honey
Paul is pretty horrible all round. He needed the editing from the other Beatles more than any of them.
George has some nice songs
Ringo is Ringo
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Dec 7, 2019 1:35:32 GMT
There was a shitload of good stuff from the Beatles, post breakup.
|
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Dec 7, 2019 1:54:21 GMT
Always the negativist.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Dec 7, 2019 1:57:34 GMT
Meat for the base.
|
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Dec 7, 2019 13:08:19 GMT
Ringo actually probably has the most least bad FhiM
|
|
alejandro
Sophomore
Formerly Algroth
@alejandro
Posts: 109
Likes: 69
|
Post by alejandro on Dec 7, 2019 13:52:20 GMT
From what I've heard, I think you could make a case for George Harrison, and some of Lennon's stuff is ok. Paul McCartney's back-catalogue is so bad it probably violates multiple human rights laws. This, pretty much. I actually think the only worthwhile album released since the split was All Things Must Pass (which I do think it's a very good album). Don't much care for most of Lennon's stuff either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Dec 11, 2019 13:13:53 GMT
Stupid question, all have done good, okay and rubbish solo stuff like everyone else from big bands including Rolling Stones and Who and Pink Floyd members. Robert Plant probably come out top of all the megaband members for solo stuff.
|
|
alejandro
Sophomore
Formerly Algroth
@alejandro
Posts: 109
Likes: 69
|
Post by alejandro on Dec 11, 2019 13:20:19 GMT
Stupid question, all have done good, okay and rubbish solo stuff like everyone else from big bands including Rolling Stones and Who and Pink Floyd members. Robert Plant probably come out top of all the megaband members for solo stuff. Peter Gabriel would like to dispute that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Dec 11, 2019 17:50:37 GMT
Stupid question, all have done good, okay and rubbish solo stuff like everyone else from big bands including Rolling Stones and Who and Pink Floyd members. Robert Plant probably come out top of all the megaband members for solo stuff. Peter Gabriel would like to dispute that. Good point, and the God awful Phil Collins probably outsold them all put together. I adore Genesis with Gabriel but I wouldn't put them in the same "mega" catagory as the others though. That said "Selling England" is better than any LP the others did IMHO.
|
|
alejandro
Sophomore
Formerly Algroth
@alejandro
Posts: 109
Likes: 69
|
Post by alejandro on Dec 11, 2019 18:09:37 GMT
Peter Gabriel would like to dispute that. Good point, and the God awful Phil Collins probably outsold them all put together. I adore Genesis with Gabriel but I wouldn't put them in the same "mega" catagory as the others though. That said "Selling England" is better than any LP the others did IMHO. What would you define as "mega" though? Whilst I understand The Beatles or the Stones being there, I don't see how you could include the likes of Led Zep or Pink Floyd and make an exclusion for Genesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Dec 11, 2019 21:07:36 GMT
Good point, and the God awful Phil Collins probably outsold them all put together. I adore Genesis with Gabriel but I wouldn't put them in the same "mega" catagory as the others though. That said "Selling England" is better than any LP the others did IMHO. What would you define as "mega" though? Whilst I understand The Beatles or the Stones being there, I don't see how you could include the likes of Led Zep or Pink Floyd and make an exclusion for Genesis. Genesis in the Gabriel era sold well in the UK, but not in the U.S., where Selling peaked at #70, Lamb got to #41, and nothing else charted. Considered a prog band.
|
|
alejandro
Sophomore
Formerly Algroth
@alejandro
Posts: 109
Likes: 69
|
Post by alejandro on Dec 11, 2019 21:40:12 GMT
What would you define as "mega" though? Whilst I understand The Beatles or the Stones being there, I don't see how you could include the likes of Led Zep or Pink Floyd and make an exclusion for Genesis. Genesis in the Gabriel era sold well in the UK, but not in the U.S., where Selling peaked at #70, Lamb got to #41, and nothing else charted. Considered a prog band. Meanwhile in Argentina it remains one of the most influential acts for our own rock scene as well as producing swathes of *imitators* - not just artists inspired and influenced by them - across the world, all to the point of basically giving birth to a whole new subgenre in their wake with neo-prog. Heck, I'd argue they've had a more enduring legacy than several other undisputed "mega" bands like the Who.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Dec 12, 2019 17:00:43 GMT
Good point, and the God awful Phil Collins probably outsold them all put together. I adore Genesis with Gabriel but I wouldn't put them in the same "mega" catagory as the others though. That said "Selling England" is better than any LP the others did IMHO. What would you define as "mega" though? Whilst I understand The Beatles or the Stones being there, I don't see how you could include the likes of Led Zep or Pink Floyd and make an exclusion for Genesis. Yeah, you knock off Floyd I suppose but Zepellin's record breaking tours put them up with the big boys. All just opinion though, innit?
|
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Dec 12, 2019 17:04:24 GMT
Genesis in the Gabriel era sold well in the UK, but not in the U.S., where Selling peaked at #70, Lamb got to #41, and nothing else charted. Considered a prog band. Meanwhile in Argentina it remains one of the most influential acts for our own rock scene as well as producing swathes of *imitators* - not just artists inspired and influenced by them - across the world, all to the point of basically giving birth to a whole new subgenre in their wake with neo-prog. Heck, I'd argue they've had a more enduring legacy than several other undisputed "mega" bands like the Who. Fair enough, I love the band. Even up to "Trick" and "Wuthering" before Hackett left and they stopped being the truly English "pastoral" band they had been up to that point. Along with the "Canterbury" bands they were the most quintessential of Englishness. Tony Banks is all right hand though. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Dec 12, 2019 17:05:23 GMT
What would you define as "mega" though? Whilst I understand The Beatles or the Stones being there, I don't see how you could include the likes of Led Zep or Pink Floyd and make an exclusion for Genesis. Genesis in the Gabriel era sold well in the UK, but not in the U.S., where Selling peaked at #70, Lamb got to #41, and nothing else charted. Considered a prog band. Just too English for some markets. Doesn't travel well. A bit like "southern rock" from the US.
|
|
