Just my opinion – John Lennon had a way better quality solo career than McCartney

I won't pummel you, because I do agree there really is no contest: I think it's an impossible comparison.

1 - Their solo careers have been dedicated toward different aims (and personal aesthetics) and guided by different muses.

2 - The profiles of their solo careers have been vastly different. Wings and their tours and albums were as part of a band, not a solo project...and both in Wings and outside of Wings, Paul toured often. John removed himself from recording for 5 years, to raise a son, and only played a handful of solo live shows.

3 - "Better quality" is an incredible intangible. "Better quality" in terms of commercial success? "Better quality" in terms of the artist's artistic satisfaction with a released work? "Better quality" in terms of public's satisfaction with released work? They're all different. And both tie back into points 1 and 2... and it all ties into point 4:

4 - Their solo careers were of vastly different durations (and the perception of them is forever tied into how they end). John's solo career lasted until December 8, 1980. Paul's is still open ended, and he's had the freedom of another 27 years thus far to live and make music in.

With discrepancies like that, in amount of time, in intent, in profile, in numbers of releases, in number of tours... it's an unfair comparison. And in the ways that they've ended - a murdered man versus one who wants to see what people think of him now that he actually is 64... The whole thing takes on morbid overtones.

Even if you tried to compare their solo careers for the span between 1970 and 1980 (1984 is an unfair cutoff, for though John still had albums come out then, they don't necessarily indicate the same timeline or final product that might have been), they wouldn't line up for most of the same reasons.

If they'd both thrown themselves exactly as fully into the same sorts of solo careers, essentially putting themselves on truly competitive paths - aiming for commercial music (while still indulging in occasional experimental forays) and releasing that music as often, touring contemporaneously, not taking time off for family, and either dying on the same day or both living until today... only then would it be a fair comparison.

But that's not how it went down... and the fact that John and Paul both engaged in such different careers after leaving the Beatles speaks volumes - John didn't participate as if it was a contest either.

Anything else ends up coming out subjective, based on the criteria we impose (and we each person's criteria is clearly different), our own aesthetics, and the unconscious awareness that one of these two artists will never again be able to make the case for themselves.



Also, guys, be careful... the conversation could end up playing out like this.

 

I have been trying to say what you just wrote for several posts, hopefully this thread will die now you have a great way with words Steve

 

Very well thought-out post that makes a lot of good points. I still believe, however, that the period from 1970 - 1975 offers a fair comparison, when both men were in the same situation as ex-Beatles who still had the public's ear, and were recording new material at roughly the same rate as each other.

 

I think their solo careers have highlighted both their strengths and weaknesses. Bot of them tried to prove that they could write on their own songs as good if not better than when they used to write together. Didn't happen, because where one was weak, the other one was very strong. Both lost their edge when they split, since they used to push each other to the max.

Which one has "more quality" depends on everyone's taste...

 

Sun Ra beat hell out of both of 'em, but then, he was working a different side o' the galaxy, right?

 

The thing I don't like about comparing Lennon and McCartney is that both are compared to The Beatles, and then to each other with The Beatles as the standard to meet. Elton John was never in the Beatles so as far as I'm concerned I can compare him to John Lennon from 1970 on if I want. They were both solo artists. They were both out there writing and playing. Should I think that Elton John was probably worse than some band that never existed. Should I compare him to the Beatles? I could compare Todd Rundgren to Paul McCartney because the same is true for them. They were two musicians, and that's it. Neither The Nazz or The Beatles enter into the picture.

I guess people will compare Lennon and McCartney forever, but I simply don't think it makes a lot of sense. It's apples and oranges. I think it would be more illuminating (or at least more accurate) to compare the two to other people who were trying to basically do the same kind of work. After 1969, Lennon and McCartney had completely different ideas as to what their music should sound like and where their careers should go.

 

Totally Agree! or pick a Lennon song and McCartney song and discuss the merits of each song? (what if this song had been a Beatles song, what could McCartney have added to Imagine etc) but to try and sum up the whole careers

 

That doesn't necessarily mean the critics were wrong...

 

I guess it's fun for speculation, but you may as well ask what Alice Cooper would've contributed to "Mind Games".

 

I disagree. I ignore the first three solo LP's as they are nothing but garbage but starting from "Live Peace In Toronto" (side one only) through "Milk & Honey", Lennon's albums just aren't as strong as McCartney's. Most of 1970's "Plastic Ono Band" is a sloppy, miserable mess. The scream therapy gets on my nerves and his use of curse words is downright saddening. "Imagine" is pretty much a great album. "Mind Games" is rather laid back and a nice listen. As a single, the title track deserved a better fate than #18. "Walls & Bridges" is his best album (no second wife leeching onto him) but "Sometime In NYC" is waste of my listening time. "Rock & Roll" is ok but it's all covers and no big deal. "Double Fantasy" and "Milk & Honey" are tarnished by the second wife. Save a for a chosen few, McCartney's album are solid. Mind you, he has had some klinker tunes ("Big Boys Bickering"? Give me a break!) and let's remember that Lennon took a five year break (1975-80). Of course, we all know what happened in December, 1980 so who knows what he would have given us from that point until now. If one combines the Lennon tracks from "DF" and "M&H", one has an excellent John Lennon album. I must say that like the direction he was taking (no more politics) so maybe by this time, he could have taken the lead over McCartney but that is something we will never know.

 

Lennon would have really done well in the 90's.
Especially during the "Grunge" period.

 

Yeah! but its better surely than trying to compare their solo careers and it turning into a slug fest!

 

Hello GV1967 is your avatar 'Shaftsbury, Dorset, UK' I used to live their!

 

I think now is the appropriate time to really stir things up with some Beatle Blasphemy! After reading all of this, and seeing that for the most part there is agreement on both sides that most all of the post-Beatle solo albums have some deal of filler, the logical thing is to eliminate the filler on all of the albums and distill down the great music. I have done this for 1970 and I love the results, but what do you folks think, and how would you change it? Please keep in mind that I am saving some great George songs for Beatle Blasphemy 1971 and Beatle Blasphemy 1972, since his follow -up album doesn't come out until 1973 and I doubt the lads would have allowed him much more than three songs anyway.

Beatle Blasphemy 1970 - All Things Must Pass /running time 77+ minutes
-----------------------------------------------------------
01 All Things Must Pass - George Harrison.mp3
02 Maybe I'm Amazed - Paul McCartney.mp3
03 It Don't Come Easy - Ringo Starr.mp3
04 Working class hero - John Lennon.mp3
05 Every Night - Paul McCartney.mp3
06 Mother - John Lennon.mp3
07 Junk - Paul McCartney.mp3
08 Well, well, well - John Lennon.mp3
09 That Would Be Something - Paul McCartney.mp3
10 Look at me - John Lennon.mp3
11 Oo You - Paul McCartney.mp3
12 God - John Lennon.mp3
13 My Sweet Lord - George Harrison.mp3
14 I found out - John Lennon.mp3
15 Teddy Boy - Paul McCartney.mp3
16 Hold on - John Lennon.mp3
17 Wah-Wah - George Harrison.mp3
18 Isolation - John Lennon.mp3
19 Early 1970 - Ringo Starr.mp3
20 Man We Was Lonely - Paul McCartney.mp3
21 Remember - John Lennon.mp3
22 Love - John Lennon.mp3

 

Excellent

Love it- I've done this as well.

I'd change the running order a bit:

01 It Don't Come Easy - RS
02 What is Life - GH
03 Maybe I'm Amazed - PM
04 Love - JL
Give Ringo his due -- with the rolling cymbal IDCE is a great opener- especially as in our altered reality it would nicely feature all Beatles on backing vocal!

 

I've been thinking of doing that, too. And in talking with Brainwashed recently, I figured that with songs from All Things Must Pass alone, George would have had material for Beatle-albums through 1978. I did some research online to see what other folks have thought - these are two separate compilations of theirs...

Hot As Sun (the late 1970 album, as sequenced by The Fab Faux)
It Don't Come Easy (R)
Instant Karma! (J)
My Sweet Lord (G)
OO You (P)
Gimme Some Truth (J)
Another Day (P)
Jealous Guy (J)
Hot As Sun / Glasses / Suicide (P)
Every Night (P)
Remember (J)
Mother (J)
Maybe I'm Amazed (P)
What Is Life (G)
All Things Must Pass (G)

Isolation (as compiled by Daslob, on his "Dablog")
Side 1
OO You (P)
Isolation (J)
What Is Life (G)
Maybe I'm Amazed (P)
Working Class Hero (J)
It Don't Come Easy (R)
Mother (J)
The Lovely Linda (P)
Side 2
Every Night (P)
Love (J)
My Sweet Lord (G)
Junk (P)
Early 1970 (R)
God (J)
All Things Must Pass (G)


This fellow goes ALL out, putting together albums for 1970, 1971, 1972, and forward, blowing the whole solo songbook on double-albums for each year (resulting in a lean 1972 that collects a lot of the jams from All Things Must Pass). He then goes one further, creating the fantasy of a 4-album-set by the lads for 1973, and then a "Green Album / Beatles 1970-1973" companion for the Red and Blue albums.

Finally, this guy creates a speculative timeline for 1970-1971 that includes specific lineups and musical contributions from each of the Beatles for singles and albums, and includes the idea of the band playing the Concert for Bangladesh together before embarking on a final tour that ends at Midnight on December 31, 1971. His 1970 Cavern LP runs as follows (though I recommend you give his page a read to see the details he specifies for each song... very interesting):

Cavern
Side 1
What Is Life? (G)
Teddy Boy (P)
I Found Out (J)
Every Night (P)
That Would Be Something (P)
My Mummy's Dead (J)
Mother (J)
Side 2
Singalong Junk (P)
It Don't Come Easy (R)
The Ballad of Sir Frankie Crisp (G)
Power to the People (J)
The Lovely Linda (P)
Isolation (J)
Junk (P)
Love (J)

 

Yeah, I noticed the first time I heard it. Years later when I learned to play the riff from "Roll it," I realized I was playing "Beef Jerky" as well.

 

This McCartney thread is getting out of hand! If you want to talk about a solo comps come and post in this one, its not just about McCartney and Lennon???

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=112081

 

It seems to me that Plastic Ono Band is an excellent example of how "curse words" can sometimes be perfectly suited to an artist's material. Heck, Lennon doesn't even go as far as Joyce did in his book Ulysses way back in 1922. In any event, the lyrics on POB are a model of decorum compared to many of the lyrics used by pop, rock, rap, and hip-hop artists over the course of the last 20 years.

As for your characterization of POB as "a sloppy, miserable mess"--well, all I can say is that McCartney, during this period, was himself often sloppy and messy, albeit in a way that tended to be "cloying" rather than "miserable." But, of course, rock is a genre in which messiness and sloppiness are a crucial part of the landscape.

 

Some priceless unintentional irony in this statement.

 

Yeah, I think you are probably right about Ringo's It Don't Come Easy, but I like Love where it is. Love is a great album closer, and the titles of the last few tracks form kind of a post Beatle story - Hold on...Wah-Wah...Isolation... Early 1970...Man We Was Lonely....Remember...Love? I didn't use What is Life because it is on my 1971 compilation that I will share soon.

 

This kind of thing is interesting to think about. In theory, the "POB John Lennon" would have done well in the Punk era (allowing him to be both abrasive and do stripped-down rock), but when Punk did come around, his mind was elsewhere.

But I'd love to hear some Grunge Lennon. Maybe it would have sounded something like King Crimson's "Dinosaur":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOtsOh4GmeY