Best Beatle solo album

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
I stand by my statement. They reached their pinnacle with Revolver and Sgt. Pepper. Abbey Road is not brilliant as an album. It's merely a collection of what they wish they had saved for their solo efforts. I am a huge Beatles fan and used to play in a Beatles tribute band. Sgt Pepper is one of the greatest albums of all time by any band. The subsequent ...[text shortened]... effort by a formerly briliant songwriter. The Beatles should have never disbanded.

They reached their pinnacle with Revolver and Sgt. Pepper. Abbey Road is not brilliant as an album. It's merely a collection of what they wish they had saved for their solo efforts.

well, thats your opinion,and I disagree.
The white album was better than sgt.pepper in many ways, while sgt. pepper was mostly an album of fancy instruments and special effects, the white album was raw and more rock'n'roll (while my guitar gently weeps, happiness is a warm gun, yer blues, helter skelter), as well as melodic (julia, dear prudence).

The rest of the album is merely pleasant or downright stupid

here comes the sun, because, something? what about them?

McCartney simply concentrated on crass commercial garbage

thats true to a certain extent, but I think band on the run and even ram were pretty good.

The Beatles should have never disbanded.

did you want them to become another rolling stones? did you want george to have only two songs on each album?

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]They reached their pinnacle with Revolver and Sgt. Pepper. Abbey Road is not brilliant as an album. It's merely a collection of what they wish they had saved for their solo efforts.

well, thats your opinion,and I disagree.
The white album was better than sgt.pepper in many ways, while sgt. pepper was mostly an album of fancy instruments and m to become another rolling stones? did you want george to have only two songs on each album?[/b]

Perhaps my assessment is harsh, but other than plesantries like the Harrison songs you mention there is only one truly remarkable song in Abbey Rd: Come Together.

The White album rock songs are blatant, bad imitations of the hard rock of the day.

Unlike the Stones, the Beatles had song writing abilities the Stones could never aspire to. Comparing the Stones with the Beatles is sacrilege. The Stones had one decent album and then tweaked it in various forms for their later releases. While still together the Beatles were, despite my criticisms, better than most bands. Band on the run has the one half decent song. Ram? Excuse me fro sleeping through that release. Harrison's best solo efforts are at best a big yawn.

And, by the way, George did have almost half a song on each album. He thought too highly of himself and his fake eastern ideas. Never forget he was the only Beatle accused of plagiarism.

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
Perhaps my assessment is harsh, but other than plesantries like the Harrison songs you mention there is only one truly remarkable song in Abbey Rd: Come Together.

The White album rock songs are blatant, bad imitations of the hard rock of the day.

Unlike the Stones, the Beatles had song writing abilities the Stones could never aspire to. Comparing himself and his fake eastern ideas. Never forget he was the only Beatle accused of plagiarism.

Perhaps my assessment is harsh, but other than plesantries like the Harrison songs you mention there is only one truly remarkable song in Abbey Rd: Come Together.

I think because, and the end (the guitar solos) were alright.
what about let it be? it had some good tracks as well.

bad imitations of the hard rock of the day.

how is that even possible?

Unlike the Stones, the Beatles had song writing abilities the Stones could never aspire to.

well, the beatles had more complex lyrics, but I wouldn't underrate the stones like that. they did have some great albums.

Harrison's best solo efforts are at best a big yawn.

well, the albums from 1973-onwards were weaker than his first two, but they did have some reasonably good songs. Also, cloud nine was a good comeback. His last album, brainwashed was probably one of his best.

thought too highly of himself and his fake eastern ideas.

If anything, he was underrated when he was with the beatles. all things must pass proves this, since most songs from the album were written during his time in the beatles and rejected. George's songs were much better than mccartney's crappy nonsensical songs (birthday, obladi-oblada, etc).

Never forget he was the only Beatle accused of plagiarism.

thats true.


what about lennon's albums?
I think they were mostly good (with the exception of sometime in new york city).

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]Perhaps my assessment is harsh, but other than plesantries like the Harrison songs you mention there is only one truly remarkable song in Abbey Rd: Come Together.

I think because, and the end (the guitar solos) were alright.
what about let it be? it had some good tracks as well.

bad imitations of the hard rock of the day.

how i ...[text shortened]... s albums?
I think they were mostly good (with the exception of sometime in new york city).[/b]

There is no doubt that the Beatles were able to write pleasant songs as solo artists. No one questions these songs appeal. From my vantage point these songs were simply pop songs with no great significance or influence on others. I do not dislike this music, I am just of the opinion that it is just not that great compared to their past efforts.

Anything is better than obla di obla da. When we played at parties chics would demand this latter song and it would tic me off. But since they paid the bill, oh well.

As for the Stones, I only like the album on which Honky Tonk Woman is on. The rest is repetitive, blah, boring music.

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
There is no doubt that the Beatles were able to write pleasant songs as solo artists. No one questions these songs appeal. From my vantage point these songs were simply pop songs with no great significance or influence on others. I do not dislike this music, I am just of the opinion that it is just not that great compared to their past efforts.

Any ...[text shortened]... only like the album on which Honky Tonk Woman is on. The rest is repetitive, blah, boring music.

I'm guesing that you're around 20 yrs old "fake eastern ideas"? Where do you get off saying that about Harrison? You're calling him a phoney? Why?

Go back to your Lemonheads albums and stop making ludricvous remarks. Talk about something that you actually know about and stay away from such ignorant comments that you can't in any way justify.

Originally posted by badmoon
I'm guesing that you're around 20 yrs old "fake eastern ideas"? Where do you get off saying that about Harrison? You're calling him a phoney? Why?

Go back to your Lemonheads albums and stop making ludricvous remarks. Talk about something that you actually know about and stay away from such ignorant comments that you can't in any way justify.

I would suggest you first learn how to spell ludicrous then cast stones using said word. Harrison was a phony, plagiaristic non-entity. Real eastern in philosophy? Guess no one told him stealing songs is never a real moral thing. I happen to own every Beatles album and know what I am talking about. The Beatles were great together. On their own they never created even an approximation of their greatness. My band never had a single request for any solo Beatle song. Not once, not ever!

Excuse my typo Mr. Cover Band expert. I simply state that you have no right to condemn or dispute someone's prevate beliefs.

I think that it is very uniform for critcs to praise All Things. You differ and that is your right. But I ask that you keep to a musical topic and not integrate your bias against eastern religions or thought.

Originally posted by badmoon
Excuse my typo Mr. Cover Band expert. I simply state that you have no right to condemn or dispute someone's prevate beliefs.

I think that it is very uniform for critcs to praise All Things. You differ and that is your right. But I ask that you keep to a musical topic and not integrate your bias against eastern religions or thought.

What bias against eastern religion do you detect? It is not religion that is the problem, but Harrison's plagiarism. How could he purport to be so Eastern based and engage in drugs, immorality, womanizing, stealing other's songs. I have nothing against eastern religion. I also am not condemning him, merely offering a critique. I dispute anyone's belief who preaches for others to behave in manners they themselves are unwilling to do. Lastly, I am no expert on anything. Despite this, I stand by my opinion. Quite simply put, the Beatles rose to the top, bickered, and like many others before and after them, thought they could be equally effective soloists. Pop music is littered with the carcasses (musically speaking) of these wasted experiments. David Lee Roth comes to mind. You can like the Beatles solo efforts all you like. I do not. Perhaps together they kept one another creatively honest.

Fair enough. No one is saying that their solo efforts surpassed their Beatles compilations.

Originally posted by badmoon
Fair enough. No one is saying that their solo efforts surpassed their Beatles compilations.

WE reached consensus? Yippie! I'm glad you understand. Have you ever read leonard Bernstein's analysis of the Beatles? Really, really well written by a true American musical icon. He actually wrote an excellent article on pop music in general and the Beatles in particular. I saw your other posts. You seem like a decent guy. Thanks for the spirited debate!

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
I would suggest you first learn how to spell ludicrous then cast stones using said word. Harrison was a phony, plagiaristic non-entity. Real eastern in philosophy? Guess no one told him stealing songs is never a real moral thing. I happen to own every Beatles album and know what I am talking about. The Beatles were great together. On their own they neve ...[text shortened]... heir greatness. My band never had a single request for any solo Beatle song. Not once, not ever!

Harrison was a phony, plagiaristic non-entity

wow, thats harsh.
Plus it was only ONE song, he didn't spend his whole life copying other people's music.


My band never had a single request for any solo Beatle song. Not once, not ever!

yeah, like the rest of the world cares about what your little garage band thinks.

Originally posted by badmoon
Fair enough. No one is saying that their solo efforts surpassed their Beatles compilations.

agreed.

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]Harrison was a phony, plagiaristic non-entity

wow, thats harsh.
Plus it was only ONE song, he didn't spend his whole life copying other people's music.


My band never had a single request for any solo Beatle song. Not once, not ever!

yeah, like the rest of the world cares about what your little garage band thinks.[/b]

It is merely an informal survey. If no one requests soup, ever, then no retsurant would believe anyone wants it. What the rest of the world thinks is important to any band, even that corner of the world wher they may play. Would you rehearse songs you know no one would ever want to hear?

How many murders before you are considered a murderer? One plagiarized song makes you a plagiarist. How do you know there weren't other pilfered songs? Would you trust a plagiarist to not do it in whole or in part? Why is it harsh to call a spade a spade?

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
It is merely an informal survey. If no one requests soup, ever, then no retsurant would believe anyone wants it. What the rest of the world thinks is important to any band, even that corner of the world wher they may play. Would you rehearse songs you know no one would ever want to hear?

How many murders before you are considered a murderer? One plag ...[text shortened]... u trust a plagiarist to not do it in whole or in part? Why is it harsh to call a spade a spade?

How many murders before you are considered a murderer? One plagiarized song makes you a plagiarist. How do you know there weren't other pilfered songs? Would you trust a plagiarist to not do it in whole or in part? Why is it harsh to call a spade a spade?

There is no reason to believe he copied other people's songs (excluding my sweet lord) because there weren't any more lawsuits.

its as simple as that.

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]How many murders before you are considered a murderer? One plagiarized song makes you a plagiarist. How do you know there weren't other pilfered songs? Would you trust a plagiarist to not do it in whole or in part? Why is it harsh to call a spade a spade?

There is no reason to believe he copied other people's songs (excluding my sweet lord) because there weren't any more lawsuits.

its as simple as that.[/b]

I'd love to see you do closing arguments in court. But Your Honor, he only plagiarized once. Therefore, he is not really a plagiarist. After all, no more lawsuits, Your Honor. You're very forgiving. I, on the other hand, lost all respect for the man. If he could not write a simplistic song like My Sweet Lord, what makes you think he really wrote the more complex songs he was credited for? Why does an artist who has written very little through the Beatles history suddenly come up with two huge hits like on Abbey Road then revert to writing schlock? The man deserves little respect. At least lennon and mccartney appear to have written their post Beatles' schlock themselves.