|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 10, 2015 10:07:14 GMT -5
BTW, I can't agree that John's first two an pd Paul's first two are of equal quality. After hearing the Imagine album I forever realized that it was John, not Paul that was to be my favorite Beatle on a musical basis. Paul was my fav when I first discovered them, but John's stuff just blew me away, and Pauls music in those years jutted paled by comparison... Greetings anyone! Que pasa?! I am torn because I love both John and Paul early solo, being the author of The JSD Postulate and all. I personally agree that POB and Imagine are stronger as a whole than McCartney and Ram(Ram though is very close to Imagine IMO) but I was giving Paul the benefit of the doubt with his saying John did a, "lot of not great work." Even saying they are equal doesn't prove Paul's point as to those first two solo albums. Actually my scorecard would favor Paul on the men's first four solo albums because I think Wild Life is brilliant and STINYC is not its equal although there are moments on that album that thrill me. Most fans disagree with me and think both stink so another tie, not hardly making Paul's point. I have argued for the last few years that John's solo catalog starting with GPAC, IK, Live Peace In Toronto, POB, et al. is much better than the old CW was on it. John has been gone for almost 35 years and all we can get the radio to play is "Imagine" the song and his solo music was always released in poor sonics or fidelity but that was corrected with both the re-mixed versions of the early to mid-2000's then the remastered 2010 versions going back to the original mixes. I agree that Unfinished Music, all of it, is weird, forgettable stuff but I think Paul isn't even thinking of that stuff. John always preferred the muddy Spector-style production even when John was producing himself and that detracts from the strength of the songs he wrote in his solo years. Go to Side 2 of Menlove Avenue or all the great Lennon Anthology alternate takes and when just the core band, John's solo stuff sounds better, a lot better. John didn't like his own amazing voice and always messed with it on recordings but when you hear him do his solo stuff on those stripped bare versions, the songs come alive! Paul's early stuff likewise defies the old CW but that is the Postulate and I get grief from even the most ardent Macca fans over that who call BOTR and V&M Paul's highwater mark. Maybe commercially but not artistically to me!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 10, 2015 18:41:42 GMT -5
McCartney's first solo albums certainly get more play by me. I'd put any song on McCartney on a party tape or play the whole album at a party. Plastic Ono, I'd have to pick and choose.
Let's see, Long Haired Lady or I Don't Want to be a Soldier. That's a tough one. With a little skipping, Ram is a great party album, Imagine, although it has some great songs, it's a little slow in spots. Oh My Love, Jealous Guy, How..., Great songs but a little quiet. I'm not a fan of the sax on the album.
Sometime in New York is much better than it get's credit for. Get the band a little tighter on New York City and come up with another Don't Let Me Down and you've got an excellent album. Save John Sinclair for a b-side. Wings Wild Life has enough songs I like a whole lot for me to give it the pass over Sometime. I wasn't too old at the time to enjoy Bip Bop and I am Your Singer.
If the Medley on Red Rose Speedway had been stronger and Power Cut didn't have that dreadful "B I Love You So" chorus, it would have been a good album. The sound on Mind Game detracts from its power. It sounds a little sloppy/ muddled to work as a whole. I used to just play the last three songs on side 2 for company. Along with Material World, I was ready to quit solo Beatles (like a lot of people did at the time).
Live and Let Die, Helen Wheels and Band on the Run. I was about ready to join the Wings fan club. Paul was back.
Paul's Russian album is a hundred times better than the mess that Rock and Roll is, Stand By Me excluded.
Insert IMO where you need to see it.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 10, 2015 18:53:46 GMT -5
"I Am your singer."
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jul 10, 2015 20:07:05 GMT -5
Heard this on the radio the other day regarding this article; Did Yoko really say (regarding the Get Back Sessions I believe, or the 1969 year in general?)(Paraphrasing) "Paul's main contribution to that period was booking the sessions." ? Did I hear that correctly? As much as I defend Yoko, this was an idiotic thing for her to say - if she said it. Finally read the interview and sure enough Paul claims that Yoko made the remark.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 10, 2015 21:38:09 GMT -5
Who thinks Paul's solo career was the best?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 10, 2015 21:38:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 10, 2015 21:39:23 GMT -5
Who's not sure?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 10, 2015 21:39:55 GMT -5
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jul 11, 2015 10:59:38 GMT -5
Who thinks Paul's solo career was the best? How can you compare 45+ years of music making and recording, which Paul has had, to 10 short years for John, and 31 years for George? If you mean was Paul's solo career song output better than his Beatles output; for me; hands down; Paul and John's Beatle years win out. Even George, if you consider many of his early solo works were already waiting for space on Beatles records, but never made it out until after the breakup. I make that choice being a 1st Generation fan who lived through each succeeding Beatle album release in the 60's.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 11, 2015 14:20:24 GMT -5
Who thinks Paul's solo career was the best? I view this like lowbasso. John was only given 11 years(when including all of 1970 to and including all of 1980 that is 11 actual years) as a solo musician away from The Beatles and in that 11 years John voluntarily took a breather to help raise Sean for what five(he had no albums of new original songs in 1975 through and including 1979) . In the exercise I did above, and yes it is IMO, it was a close tie when able to match John albums to Paul albums. Even then John did not release an album of original material to match V&M, SOS, LT and BTTE but quantity alone does not equate to quality. I don't want to forget John's three iconic early solo singles GPAC(not so much the single itself but the chorus lives on forever), Cold Turkey and Instant Karma, the first two released in 1969 when The Beatles were still a working band. In the years that John did release solo material, he left us with a fine legacy. Things like Mind Games and RnR came alive with the mid-2000's remixed versions of them but they even sound great with the 2010 remasters using John's original mixes. The "Unplugged" material starting with Menlove Avenue then Lennon Anthology and some other releases really bring out the foundational strength of John's solo music. John was not always the best producer of his solo music, he tended to add too many layers and worse of all, mess with that amazing singing voice of his. John's solo material is becoming ever more forgotten because he is not here to plug it upon the re-issue. John can't go on Jimmy Fallon and play a new song then do a killer performance of "Watching The Wheels" or "Nobody Loves You When You're Down And Out." A widow and even sons are not the same as the artist himself to plug his own music and to actually perform it. Thank God we do have Paul who can do shows, can perform live the music off his older albums. Paul's solo music lives because Paul lives thank goodness. And Paul should, LOL, do more of it live! He has explored the Beatles catalog in depth yet he has barely mined another treasure trove of his. Having said all of that, I love Paul's solo catalog and for one we have much, much more to choose from, more to go in rotation to listen to. If I start with McCartney and work my way to New, I am ready to play McCartney again because that may have been weeks ago! When I start at POB(or even Toronto) and go to Double Fantasy(or even Milk and Honey), I am not quite ready for Toronto or POB again because it has only been a matter of days, there are much less albums for John. That is not John's fault nor would I blame him for the five years he wanted to give Sean and thus John's scorecard shouldn't be deducted from because of family leave and especially for being murdered halting any future musical output.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 11, 2015 14:42:12 GMT -5
I found the picture first, then thought of the question. Comparing the first albums though, I did go with Paul. Of course, I might be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 11, 2015 15:26:26 GMT -5
If John and George were alive today and the Beatles STILL had never gotten together, would it be fair to think that Paul's inclusion Beatles' songs during his post-2000 tours would be less than 10 songs?
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jul 11, 2015 16:09:31 GMT -5
I used to think the Beatles were talking to each other in a sort of code via their interviews when they were all still alive. So perhaps this is Paul's way of telling Yoko not to rewrite the history of the Beatles? And it would be wrong to say that the little digs have not been made down the years from Yoko at Paul and his music.
The other consideration is that a Macca/Lennon feud is good for publicity. It seemed to be over a decade ago when Yoko refused the McCartney/Lennon credit for Yesterday when "1" was being released. It's still one of the best selling Beatles albums and even in this decade sells around 50k units per annum.
But we don't really have any major Beatles or solo product that we know about at the moment. So is Paul trying to leave as much of his own 'historical correction' as he can while he can? It seems that way and it is also true that his memory is not as infallible as perhaps he thinks.
I'd prefer not to do a McCartney V Lennon comparison. They worked magic together and some of their solo output is as great as anything they achieved with the Beatles. The difference is that writing every track for any solo album was a lot harder than writing 4 or 5 tracks for a Beatles album. (I know London Town has a number of 'McCartney/Laine' tracks but Denny was no John Lennon). So in a different universe, where the Beatles never split up then perhaps we'd have only ever got the best of their best solo tracks on new albums throughout the 70s and beyond. A lot of the weaker tracks would have never made it beyond a rough jam session. Perhaps that would have been a good thing. Or maybe not?
There is so much to rediscover and re-evaluate in the solo catalogs. "Mind Games" and "Walls and Bridges" are nowhere near as full of dull filler songs as I once thought after they were remixed. After the JSD postulate I gave Paul's early albums a re-spin and "Wild Life" is actually a cool little album. Beyond my own insignificant opinion, "Ram" has been given significant re-appraisal in the 21st century. George's late 70s albums do not show a series of diminishing returns from his high point of ATMP despite the record sales alluding to it. Even Ringo has been churning out 3 or 4 decent tracks on each album since his 1990s return.
So Beatles history will always be re-written and re-evaulated long after we've all gone.
|
|