Jump to content

Best Beatle post-Beatles

Sbbruin

By Sbbruin
in Music

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sbbruin

Sbbruin 21938

Posted
Posted

For my money, I say George Harrison.  John and Paul tried to marginalize him and there are stories of them negging the inclusion of his songs on albums.  But when he went solo, he had some awesome songs.  “Give Me Love” “What is Life” and “My Sweet Lord” are unreal, and he had a lot of other good shit.  What say y’all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TonyTexas

TonyTexas 10587

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

McCartney obviously had a much longer career, and I could easily argue for him, but something about the best Harrison songs being better than the best McCartney songs.  At least to me.

All Things Might Pass might be the best solo ex Beatles album but that it ends there. I rank Harrison third after Paul and John. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vic Mackey

Vic Mackey 47435

Posted
Posted

George Harrison easily made the best music post Beatles. Then John Lennon. These 2 guys were the most creative to me while the Beatles were a band. Paul being far behind those 2 in terms of making the best music. Arguing who is bigger in terms of longevity and success is pointless seeing as George and Lennon died early on. I don't judge an artist by how many seats they fill. Tons of shitty acts stay around and fill seats (not to say Paul was shitty). And no point in discussing Ringo. Although, he was the perfect drummer for the Beatles I think. No matter how much flack he took.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

For my money, I say George Harrison.  John and Paul tried to marginalize him and there are stories of them negging the inclusion of his songs on albums.  But when he went solo, he had some awesome songs.  “Give Me Love” “What is Life” and “My Sweet Lord” are unreal, and he had a lot of other good shit.  What say y’all?

Was gonna say that. He was the most talented musician as a rock and roll artist. Paul is very talented, but he put out a lot of sappy shit.  John was talented, and a great song writer, but George was the rock and roll master.  

Ringo ?  He was the fucking drummer he didn't need talent, he just needed a sense of rhythm.

Edited by Onboard 2.0
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 26121

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

George Harrison easily made the best music post Beatles. Then John Lennon. These 2 guys were the most creative to me while the Beatles were a band. Paul being far behind those 2 in terms of making the best music. Arguing who is bigger in terms of longevity and success is pointless seeing as George and Lennon died early on. I don't judge an artist by how many seats they fill. Tons of shitty acts stay around and fill seats (not to say Paul was shitty). And no point in discussing Ringo. Although, he was the perfect drummer for the Beatles I think. No matter how much flack he took.

stick to fucking sweathogs. You're over your skis here.

6 minutes ago, TonyTexas said:

All Things Might Pass might be the best solo ex Beatles album but that it ends there. I rank Harrison third after Paul and John. 

All things MUST pass is a terrific, terrific album.    It's George's best, and it's every bit as good as Paul and John's best.   Here's the rub...Paul and John both have a ton of stuff that's really, really good.    They both go a lot deeper than George.  But fuck, George was a motherfucker, and I'm a huge fan. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 26121

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

George Harrison easily made the best music post Beatles. Then John Lennon. These 2 guys were the most creative to me while the Beatles were a band. Paul being far behind those 2 in terms of making the best music. Arguing who is bigger in terms of longevity and success is pointless seeing as George and Lennon died early on. I don't judge an artist by how many seats they fill. Tons of shitty acts stay around and fill seats (not to say Paul was shitty). And no point in discussing Ringo. Although, he was the perfect drummer for the Beatles I think. No matter how much flack he took.

See, I just find this fucking offensive.   You're uninformed, and yet you're blathering on like you know something.

Go ahead and tell us about all the great Beatles songs that George wrote (google is your friend).   You will find his output is about 10% of what Paul did. 

Paul has recently said that George was a "late bloomer" as a songwriter, and Paul is 100% correct.  George's post-Beatles stuff is far better than what he did in the Beatles. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

See, I just find this fucking offensive.   You're uninformed, and yet you're blathering on like you know something.

Go ahead and tell us about all the great Beatles songs that George wrote (google is your friend).   You will find his output is about 10% of what Paul did. 

Paul has recently said that George was a "late bloomer" as a songwriter, and Paul is 100% correct.  George's post-Beatles stuff is far better than what he did in the Beatles. 

 

Well he was competing with both John, and Paul, the leaders of the band.  He was able to provide the soundtrack to their words.  

I remember hearing a story where John challenged George to wrote a hard core piece of rock guitar music the result was was Helter skelter I think.

Edited by Onboard 2.0
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 26121

Posted
Posted

It's listed as a "Lennon-McCartney" song.  Harrison gets no credit.   I'm not an "expert", but I've never heard of a McCartney - Harrison collaboration.

I have heard Paul discuss George's contributions.  For example, Paul talked about "And I Love Her", and said it was fairly meh.  And out of nowhere, George comes up with the "bu Bum pa Bum" lick that makes the song the song. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 26121

Posted
Posted

also, I've heard Stern slobber on Paul's knob about how Helter was the first heavy metal song.  Paul says "I'll accept that" without mentioning George.   Now Paul certainly has an ego, but I don't think you could call him insecure.  If George made a significant contribution, I think he'd be credited. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PRONG HORN

PRONG HORN 3167

Posted
Posted

Didn't Mccartney wait until George and John were dead before he changed the official wording to say that all lyrics by paul mccartney rather than by "The Beatles".  He changed it on the older songs and albums.  Even if true why change the wording years later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kermit

Kermit 3160

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, PRONG HORN said:

Didn't Mccartney wait until George and John were dead before he changed the official wording to say that all lyrics by paul mccartney rather than by "The Beatles".  He changed it on the older songs and albums.  Even if true why change the wording years later?

He wanted the song writers name first, so on Paul compositions it would be McCartney/Lennon. Yoko predictably lost her shit. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

They were commercially very well received, particularly the first album (Vol. 3 performed almost as well on the charts/sales figures).  Many critics of the time didn't want to like them to seem aloof, but everybody came around after Vol. 3 came out (I have the only copy of Vol. 2 and will sell it to the highest bidder on this thread).  I know I played the hell out of Vol. 3 on my radio show from '91-'93 and it brought me an older audience while the young kids got to connect to Dylan, Harrison, Lynne, and Orbison.  

There was a great home video documentary that circulated after Tom Petty died about the whole band came together to cut that first record in such short order as Dylan and Orbison were heading out on long international tours.  There's a great scene where Petty, Harrison, and Lynne are standing in the house watching Orbison get out of an airport car to meet them in their new incarnation, and they're all giddy in there like kids waiting for the delivery truck and I think it's Petty says, "Oh man, I can't believe the legend Roy Orbison is gonna be in my band."  Anyway, the idea was really borne from George Harrison's and Jeff Lynne.  They immediately wanted to bring on Dylan and Orbison, both of whom were in relative lulls in their careers...at least in the United States.  Orbison was already a relic to me getting into oldies/rock music in the late 80's/early 90's.  He would do these nostalgia tours in Europe to keep making money and sell older hits for commercial/movie usage.  I didn't realize that at the time, he was barely older than I am now.  So everybody commits but they need a guy who can really write Americana Rock...and play bass.  Tom Petty becomes the final piece of the puzzle and really takes care of the logistics and production to actually get them all running and humming together.  

It was Harrison's brainchild, down to the fake name.  Harrison was maybe the chief songwriter, but barely.  I'd say he and Jeff Lynn shuffle between 1 & 1a.  Lynne was really credited among them with crafting the band's "sound."  By that I mean, what we know think of 30 years later as that unique Wilbury sound (it seems like it came from the 50's or the 2000's, it's sorta Americana, Rockabilly, twist of country, bit of folk, bit of just flat out heavy rock...like the Grateful Dead for people who don't smoke weed anymore).  But as rooted as it was in the tradition of American music...it's mainly from the vision of Lynne (and then Harrison), two of the most musically eclectic Brits that ever played popular music (listen to ELO and then tell me Lynne's not a genius for pivoting to the Wilbury sound in the middle of all that). 

So you've got the backbones of the band vision and sound (Harrison & Lynne), you pepper in Orbison for the voice and driving backbeat sound (I don't mean this negatively, but he was probably the least great songwriter of the 5...but that's a high honor like being last to graduate in your medical school class from Johns Hopkins).  Dylan comes along for lyrical prowess, and actually ends up lead singing more songs than most people realize (when you look at the list, he's the main vocalist on far more tracks that your brain remembers).  And Petty rounds it all out with a little bit of everything, a voice ideal for their vibe, songwriting, production/engineering prowess, and as the token "young guy"...he switches over to bass.  Harrison was the first to say they were all collaborative efforts in a true sense.  Very few songs of their full catalogue (including outtakes) were only written/influenced by some combo of the 5 and not the full band.  Obviously certain songs have more of a Harrison, or Dylan, or Petty fingerprint on them.  But again, the main drivers were always Harrison and Lynne with Lynne and Petty taking over control once they got into the studio.  That first album had them in that California country house and after Lynne kinda kicked things off, their goal was to write and record one song a day.  With all of them together writing/playing nearly the whole day at the same time. 

The reason the albums worked so well, and why their music has endured is because they represented 4 eras of rock music...Orbison from the 50's rock scene, then Harrison/Dylan's period of counter-culture and turning pop rock into something altogether different, then Lynne and the Move/ELO sound, and finally Tom Petty who at the time of the Wilburys---was probably on par with Harrison for having the most current commercial success.  Meshing those four eras together again fell largely to Harrison and Lynne.  And you know that did it brilliantly, because again---so many Wilbury's tracks seem to come from different decades, from the 50's to the 2000's.  A lot of bands try this and fail.  The Wilbury's had a baked in advantage, the voices and melodies you were hearing were actually from those decades.  

Anyway, if you get 10 minutes on the shitter today...look at how many great songs/bands have Jeff Lynne's influence on them.  Either as a songwriter, performer, session musician on myriad instruments, or as a producer...from his own bands to post-Beatles projects and dozens on top of that.  He probably had the least star power in the band at the time they cut these records, but the Jeff Lynne sound is all over great American and British rock music.  

And then go read the quick bio of Jim Keltner.  The LEAST interesting thing he's done in his music career was to be the drummer for the Traveling Wilburys.  That guy has played with everybody.  And when I mean everybody, I mean his CV list makes my brain hurt.  It starts with recording with every single Beatle at some point and somehow goes UP from there.  

I could talk about Harrison and Wilburys music composition all day.  Criminally underrated band and that sound is still studied today.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, DougO said:

Harrison had a lot of great stuff, but he also had some terrible stuff. Try listening to Gone Troppo all the way through.

Still, a strong second to Paul.

In many cases sure, but will ya still love me when I'm 64  ?  Maybe the schmaltziest song the Beatles ever recorded, written by sir Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

In many cases sure, but will ya still love me when I'm 64  ?  Maybe the schmaltziest song the Beatles ever recorded, written by sir Paul.

I pictured George Martin in the jamming sessions looking over at Paul, "Have you anything schmaltzy in the tank, my boy?"  

Yeah, if you want to be honest to yourself and the music...go back and listen...there were a lot of shit songs put out by the Beatles and all the projects that came after.  Lot of it just has to do with longevity and pressure to put out albums so frequently back then.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I pictured George Martin in the jamming sessions looking over at Paul, "Have you anything schmaltzy in the tank, my boy?"  

Yeah, if you want to be honest to yourself and the music...go back and listen...there were a lot of shit songs put out by the Beatles and all the projects that came after.  Lot of it just has to do with longevity and pressure to put out albums so frequently back then.  

Sure, their good stuff far outweighs the crap though, so I've always given them a pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mole

Mole 4338

Posted
Posted

If you want to write great songs, you have to burn through a lot of terrible ones as well. Part of genius is volume.

I think My Sweet Lord is a good song, but it feels a little strange to hold it up to demonstrate his song-writing prowess considering its history and connection with He’s So Fine. Imitation and inspiration have a fine line between them, but sometimes it’s pretty clear. 

I’ve been meaning to start a plagiarism thread for the past year or so. There’s a ton of meat in that topic beyond everyone suing Ed Sheeran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kermit

Kermit 3160

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Mole said:

If you want to write great songs, you have to burn through a lot of terrible ones as well. Part of genius is volume.

I think My Sweet Lord is a good song, but it feels a little strange to hold it up to demonstrate his song-writing prowess considering its history and connection with He’s So Fine. Imitation and inspiration have a fine line between them, but sometimes it’s pretty clear. 

I’ve been meaning to start a plagiarism thread for the past year or so. There’s a ton of meat in that topic beyond everyone suing Ed Sheeran.

Title the thread “Led Zeppelin and the Art of Song Stealing” and watch the battle-lines get drawn. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beantown Express 2.0

Beantown Express 2.0 6568

Posted
Posted

In my mind Paul was the most successful by far and not just because of longevity.  Between Wings and his solo stuff he put out a ton of pop hits that stand up still today.  I would  put John second and Harrison 3rd with Ringo a distant 4th just like he was in The Beatles.  If you take Johns last album, Double Fantasy, and take out the Yoko stuff there are some incredible songs on that album (Watching the Wheels, Woman, Starting Over, Beautiful Boy to name a few).  Also, the best song any of them put out after The Beatles was Imagine by John in my humble opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 26121

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

In my mind Paul was the most successful by far and not just because of longevity.  Between Wings and his solo stuff he put out a ton of pop hits that stand up still today.  I would  put John second and Harrison 3rd with Ringo a distant 4th just like he was in The Beatles.  If you take Johns last album, Double Fantasy, and take out the Yoko stuff there are some incredible songs on that album (Watching the Wheels, Woman, Starting Over, Beautiful Boy to name a few).  Also, the best song anybody ever put out  of them put out after The Beatles was Imagine by John in my humble opinion.

FIFY

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Napoleon

Napoleon 8733

Posted
Posted

Being in The Traveling Wilburys was akin to being hired to be a drummer for Spinal Tap, or a keyboardist for The Grateful Dead. 

Also, I kind of felt like The Wilburys was Jeff Lynn selecting famous ingredients to be in a(n) historic cake that he had long wanted to bake. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al_4_ISU

Al_4_ISU 12549

Posted
Posted

Paul is invalidated on account of "Wonderful Christmas Time".

He was definitely the most successful, but I don't think any of the Wings albums are as good as All Things Must Pass or Plastic Ono Band.  The Traveling Wilburys are a major notch on Harrison's belt, IMO, as well.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pokeNbeans

pokeNbeans 203

Posted
Posted (edited)

1. Paul McCartney. A prolific song writer and an undisputed musical genius.

2. John Lennon. Also a prolific song writer and an undisputed musical genius. Just less ambitious and lazier than Paul. Lennon didn't like to work very hard after getting into drugs and Yoko.

3. A very talented musician and had just enough talent as a song writer to produce a few gems. Not prolific and not genius level. Probably would have had a completely anonymous career if it hadn't been for McCartney and Lennon's influence.

Edited by pokeNbeans
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17902

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, pokeNbeans said:

1. Paul McCartney. A prolific song writer and an undisputed musical genius.

2. John Lennon. Also a prolific song writer and an undisputed musical genius. Just less ambitious and lazier than Paul. Lennon didn't like to work very hard after getting into drugs and Yoko.

3. A very talented musician and had just enough talent as a song writer to produce a few gems. Not prolific and not genius level. Probably would have had a completely anonymous career if it hadn't been for McCartney and Lennon's influence.

This is just the kind of take that emphasizes how much of a shadow George had to get out from under.  The guy who wrote While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Something and Here Comes the Sun, then comes out with arguably the best solo album of the three is summed up as mediocre.  Damn.

I think there's no doubt that Paul McCartney had the greatest post-Beatles career, partly just by being prolific, but man there's a lot of dreck in there.  Certainly the best debut was All Things Must Pass.  I find most of John Lennon's post Beatles work a bit of a let down.  He had some great single material, but most of the albums don't stand up so well.  Certainly he was on an upswing when he was murdered.  

It all just goes to show that they were at their best when they were together collaborating.  Editing out the extra and getting down to the meat.  McCartney's stuff when he was in a band (Wings or the band he's had for the last 20 years or so) shows how he needed some help to temper his self indulgence.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52765

Posted
Posted

Team Lennon. 

They all had some shit work, whether schmaltz or other sub-standard product.  But I think Lennon's best was better than the others' best.  No. 9 Dream, Watching the Wheels, Instant Karma, Imagine.  Shit, even his foray into the holiday genre with Happy Xmas was typical Lennon, challenging the listener's complacencies rather than a "fah, lah, lah, lah, lah" feelgood song. 

And I fully recognize that Lennon was twice the asshole as the other three combined.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17902

Posted
Posted

I've probably put it here and on tos a half dozen times, but if you are a Beatles fan and haven't read this book, you're missing out:

51gvbZCkhuL._SX332_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg'

 

There's a poignant anecdote in there about George Harrison making mix tapes of the former Beatles solo albums for his own personal listening pleasure.  Even he knew they were better together.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
qwertyu1234

qwertyu1234 496

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

I've probably put it here and on tos a half dozen times, but if you are a Beatles fan and haven't read this book, you're missing out:

51gvbZCkhuL._SX332_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg'

 

There's a poignant anecdote in there about George Harrison making mix tapes of the former Beatles solo albums for his own personal listening pleasure.  Even he knew they were better together.  

This, also i recommend this Beatles book too:

 

e2da2558591c1d3efc189ae573fe7810.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17902

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Napoleon said:

If George was so great, why didn’t fellow Wilburys Bob & Tom invite him for this collaboration?

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/musicians-for-free-range-chickens/n10072

Same reason he didn't get paid for this, I guess.

The video of an actual TV give this one Extra Texture of the times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...