I think its a testament to their amazing chemistry and the way their creativity melded together. Their solo careers are fantastic but when they made music as a foursome it was just that much better
I agree! It's the mix, the synergy, kinda like a chorus or seeing a rainbow. It is much easier to build a band out of one front man than it is to have a multi-faceted group. That's what makes The Beatles rare and outstanding.
If they stayed together noting would have changed - They still would have had incredible albums producing 1 Smash Hits. Just an incredible Band and talent
personally their solo projects do as much for me as their works together; especially paul since i've listened to his solo stuff more than the beatles themselves year.
If John wasn't murdered, I predict there would have been a brief reunion in 1993 marking 30th anniversary. This would have consisted of something similar to Anthology project, 4 new songs (one by each member) and a VH1 Unplugged like concert before calling it a day and back to solo careers.
Fellow Beatles tragic here since 1979. After all these years I feel that if the Beatles had stayed together for a few more years, they would sound like Paul's first three albums, perhaps more. Uncle Albert, Juniors Farm, Band on the Run, 1985, Baby I'm amazed and so many more.
When Clapton first saw the Beatles he thought they seemed like one person cloned. They functioned as a single unit. The only solo stuff after the breakup that hit the mark was by George. Paul is a wonderful person, but his solo stuff is very weak. The music of the Beatles was strong stuff, confidently experimental, ambitious on all kinds of levels. The team of Lennon and McCartney, just as songwriters, was magical. They were completely in each others' heads, and collaborated fairly effortlessly. The focus has always been on the difficulties between band members, and this gives a false picture. They were great friends, and the love that comes out of their music comes out of a love they felt for each other.
John and Paul’s egos were so huge, (and for good reason) they could barely tolerate being questioned or criticized. George was not able to fully optimize his talent. So yeah, it was too many cooks in the kitchen. Unfortunately, after the split, they didn’t have any more great collaborations. By the time John died solo Beatles didn’t have the same guaranteed success they did in the 60s. I believe if they stayed together till about the mid 80s, they could’ve maintained chart topping success. Even if a member dropped out. I like to believe that if the Stones could stay together for decades, surely the Beatles could’ve. But as the greatest band ever, they had a right to step away from the spotlight.
I just finished going through all 85 of the Beatles albums and their solo albums literally two days ago, and then today if you count Look Up which released today. While the Beatles work is definitely the best overall, I think a lot of their solo albums contend with their Beatles ones in terms of quality. Ones that come to mind are Ram, George Harrison, Plastic Ono Band, Goodnight Vienna etc. While it’s impossible to deny the Beatles had a better overall discography, I feel it does a disservice to each of their solo careers to say it’s not as good or doesn’t reach the same peaks
If they had stayed together and still sang the same songs from their post Beatles career you would still have liked most of their songs because they would have been selective with what they released --- imagine each Beatle album being composed of 4 McCartney songs, 4 Lennon songs, 4 Harrison songs and 1 Ringo song. Considering the good music they made later, each album in hindsight would have been a cultivated classic --- no fat, no tacky songs, only the best cuts. That is why the Beatle albums were mostly all great --- they took the cream of the crop from each members selected output. Also, as you stated in your video, they fed off each other and even contributed to the other's work in many ways --- that part would definitely have made many of those songs different and likely even better. All the other junk that you found weak in their solo careers (as many of us Beatle fans did) would not have been part of their official releases. But they would not have had time to breath as individuals, they would all have had a backlog of music that they would want to release but could not unless they agreed to do double albums each year in the post Beatle years.
I agree. I didn’t come up with this theory but consider this- Some say it’s because they didn’t write all of the Beatles songs. But they did write their solo songs. I know it’s hard to hear that but consider the official story. When they first met George Martin he wasn’t impressed with their playing ability or their songs. Then in short order they became the greatest pop band of all time. They were magical. They turned out 2 albums per year plus numerous singles that weren’t included on the albums. They did this while they had a relentless touring schedule. They made movies. Lennon even appeared in How I Won the War. He wrote a book during this time - In His Own Write. Yet John and Paul are on film saying they always had a difficult time getting any song writing done. They said they didn’t consider themselves to be good musicians. The official story that we all know contradicts what they were before being signed to a record contract. Was it divine intervention or did they have help from a team that did the heavy lifting? The official story defies logic.
Haha interesting theory! I think they did write all of their songs because, when you think about it, a lot of the tracks are short and to the point. I think they were just working constantly and didn’t overthink each song. It’s easy to get writing done when that’s all you do, and you only need to fill a 2-3 minute window. I guarantee George Martin had a LOT to do with the songs being finalized/produced, but they 100 percent wrote each song themselves or together. And that’s because each song feels like it came from them. That’s not something you can emulate or “fake”.
@ maybe it’s easy to do if you’re writing crappy songs but the quality of their songs will last for a long time. For John and Paul to say they have difficulty getting together and write and come up with anything doesn’t make sense. Here we are 60 years later and we still talk about them.
Even though I like much of the solo Beatle material, I think you hit on one of the major problems with a lot of it. Much of the time, there is no one that challenges them and lets them know they might be on the wrong track. Paul especially often can't tolerate criticism. In the Beatles, they kept each other in check and had George Martin's input as well.
No, I don't. In fact, I started as a crazy Beatles fan, George as my favorite. Then, after years of knowing them, turned into a Paul fan, as a solo artist. That is Paul being above The Beatles as a whole.
Personally I like all of their solo stuff too. But I do kind of get where you're coming from. Perfect example "A Day in the Life". Originally two separate songs. But put them together and voila a masterpiece! Each easily could have been a separate song that you may have heard off a John solo album and a Paul solo album. But just like most of their stuff it probably wouldn't have sounded the same without George Martin. But a lot of people contributed to the Beatles sounding as good and innovative as they did like Geoff Emerick. Without him dismantling the studio's Hammond organ and using its rotating amp as a mic of sorts to give Lennon's vocals an ethereal sound on "Tomorrow Never Knows" John would have literally tied himself to the ceiling of the studio and had someone swing him around the microphone while attached to a rope. No joke.
I think it just depends on what you're looking for! The Beatles have a certain feel for sure, but sometimes i want to just hear John Lennon scream and rock out with his live solo work, or Gerorge Harrison give me chills with his technical playing on stuff like Thanks For the Pepperoni or Plug Me In. I think the main thing the Beatles had that I think none of the other quite got down was that ascended feel and I'm not quite sure how to describe it. The perfect example for me is Across the Universe. It's just absolutely whimsical and I find that basically nowhere else
The actual beatles were all great musicians but what made them work so great as a band was the fact that they were all at their creative peak, and each one of them were able to filter out the good and the bad from each other, and give each other honest constructive feedback, once they ventured out on their own, NOBODY was going to tell a Beatle if their music sounded bad or not, it would practically be impossible for people like John Lennon or Paul McCartney to not get yes men. I've listened to every solo Paul, George and John album (About half of the Ringo albums too, but they're generally a slog to get through so I sorta gave up) and what I notice is the first few albums from each Beatle is generally their best, because they WERE in their creative peak, however, you can definetely pinpoint certain songs (Which can be pretty good) but that would have probably been better had they been filtered out by the other band members, once you go back and listen to the beatles tunes, you can really pinpoint where either Paul, John or George influenced a lot of songs. With all this being said, RAM is my all time favourite album!
i love paul's solo stuff. mccartney 3 in particular. the other three though, i rarely listen to their solo stuff. unpopular opinion, i feel mccartney was the star in any event. those bass lines alone
The Beatles White Album stuff is the most "solo"-stuff they released as Beatles. And indeed for me it has not really the magic of other albums of them.
Wings, a tour band, was never going to compete with the world's greatest studio band. George, the youngest, still had the creativity go on and produce a few masterpieces, admittedly amongst some forgettable howlers. John got bored, resentful and reliant on a strong willed crazy woman.
100% something was lost in their music after the break up. Yes they had their moments but mostly a good single here or there. Paul was probably IMHO the most successful with songs like Mull Of Kintyre, Live And Let Die, Band On The Run and Maybe I’m Amazed but the albums themselves were ho hum to me. George early on and Lennon who was sort of lost throughout the 70’s (although had he lived, I think he would have had a great 80’s) I’ll say this, the magic was gone but hey nothing lasts forever
Yup, I’m definitely grateful for all of the music they made, period. It was a sad ending for them, but a band that special happens so rarely, that we got lucky with how much they gave us.
I have literally every thing The Beatles have ever released and a lot of bootlegs too. But I only have the "greatest hits" albums of their solo stuff. Which I think is great by the way. But I never really got into their solo material beyond their greatest hits, because I don't think their deep dive stuff is that great to be honest. “The total was greater than the sum of the parts” is a great way to describe The Beatles as a band. I made an ex Beatles 4 album collection years & years ago containing their solo greatest hits compiled like Beatles albums. 5 or 6 John songs, 5 or 6 Paul songs, 2 George songs & 1 Ringo song per album. I made copies and gave it to my family and friends. They all thought it was great.
That’s awesome! Gotta check out the greatest hits albums to see if I missed any gems in there. Super cool that you made your own album too, reminds me of The Black Album that Ethan Hawke’s character talks about in Boyhood, if I remember correctly.
@@RioPeterson I made those Ex Beatles compilations back in the late 90s, dubbing CD tracks to cassettes. Then I made CD versions when CD burners were popular in the early 2000s.
In my opinion, Paul and John were past their peak as composers when George reached his. Both major classics on their last album were written by him. After the breakup, each of them went on to write good stuff. But hey, the Beatles weren´t good, they were among the greatest tunesmiths of all time, on par with Mozart and the rest. The only solo song that to me has that outstanding quality is Jealous Guy, a composition written in India 1968.
I’ll have to disagree here, I really like a lot of Beatles solo stuff. I think albums like All Things Must Pass, Ram, and Plastic Ono Band are up to par with top tier Beatles records too.
McCartney has maybe two good albums worth of material in my opinion. I like flaming pie, I think flowers in the attic. and maybe a dozen other songs throughout his career but not much. Ringo is vocally talentless. and George did some good stuff with the Wilbur's but probably has two good albums worth of material as well. same as lennon. on another note there solo stuff was only listened to because it was performed by Beatles
For me personally all of them have one great album George all things must past, Paul the ram album, John Lennon/ plastic Ono band. But they were better together in a lot of ways and more interesting as good there solo work was it’s not as good as the Beatles. Outside of the 3 albums most of there work is kinda mid with 1 good song. I do believe that if John didn’t die in 1980 the band would of got back together but Paul & Ringo are keeping the Beatles going and the fact that so many people still listen and play Beatles music just shows how popular they were together. How many time do we hear, imagine, live and let die, my sweet lord? Compared to their Beatles songs?
True! Those songs are just as iconic. Like I said in the video, I love their post Beatles solo work, it just hits different. Doesn’t scratch that same itch.
I agree with a lot of this, although, admittedly, in England, anyway, I hear Imagine & Live and let die non-stop like often daily, more than the Beatles really lol
in the 1st minute I am like we got opposite tastes Love Johns solo post beatles work, I love All thing must pass by george . I hate wings and not a fan of paul.
Obviously you have no idea why the Beatles broke up there's several factors You need to go back and watch some videos or do some damn research It it wasn't because they felt they had to do this and had to do that By the time they broke up they pretty much couldn't freaking stand each other So there you have it You heard it here first
I think its a testament to their amazing chemistry and the way their creativity melded together. Their solo careers are fantastic but when they made music as a foursome it was just that much better
The Beatles were greater than the sum of their parts.
What you said from 1:40-2:40 was one of the best explanations I've heard. Really nicely said.
Thank you! 🙏🏻
I get self conscious about how effectively I’m able to communicate what’s on my mind, so that’s really appreciated haha
i think you had it right. you were just looking for the word. it's called chemistry and it's what gives a band that special something.
YES. That’s exactly it. That goes such a long way too haha
I agree! It's the mix, the synergy, kinda like a chorus or seeing a rainbow. It is much easier to build a band out of one front man than it is to have a multi-faceted group. That's what makes The Beatles rare and outstanding.
If they stayed together noting would have changed - They still would have had incredible albums producing 1 Smash Hits. Just an incredible Band and talent
personally their solo projects do as much for me as their works together; especially paul since i've listened to his solo stuff more than the beatles themselves year.
If John wasn't murdered, I predict there would have been a brief reunion in 1993 marking 30th anniversary. This would have consisted of something similar to Anthology project, 4 new songs (one by each member) and a VH1 Unplugged like concert before calling it a day and back to solo careers.
Fellow Beatles tragic here since 1979. After all these years I feel that if the Beatles had stayed together for a few more years, they would sound like Paul's first three albums, perhaps more. Uncle Albert, Juniors Farm, Band on the Run, 1985, Baby I'm amazed and so many more.
When Clapton first saw the Beatles he thought they seemed like one person cloned. They functioned as a single unit. The only solo stuff after the breakup that hit the mark was by George. Paul is a wonderful person, but his solo stuff is very weak. The music of the Beatles was strong stuff, confidently experimental, ambitious on all kinds of levels. The team of Lennon and McCartney, just as songwriters, was magical. They were completely in each others' heads, and collaborated fairly effortlessly. The focus has always been on the difficulties between band members, and this gives a false picture. They were great friends, and the love that comes out of their music comes out of a love they felt for each other.
John and Paul’s egos were so huge, (and for good reason) they could barely tolerate being questioned or criticized. George was not able to fully optimize his talent. So yeah, it was too many cooks in the kitchen. Unfortunately, after the split, they didn’t have any more great collaborations. By the time John died solo Beatles didn’t have the same guaranteed success they did in the 60s. I believe if they stayed together till about the mid 80s, they could’ve maintained chart topping success. Even if a member dropped out. I like to believe that if the Stones could stay together for decades, surely the Beatles could’ve. But as the greatest band ever, they had a right to step away from the spotlight.
I just finished going through all 85 of the Beatles albums and their solo albums literally two days ago, and then today if you count Look Up which released today. While the Beatles work is definitely the best overall, I think a lot of their solo albums contend with their Beatles ones in terms of quality. Ones that come to mind are Ram, George Harrison, Plastic Ono Band, Goodnight Vienna etc. While it’s impossible to deny the Beatles had a better overall discography, I feel it does a disservice to each of their solo careers to say it’s not as good or doesn’t reach the same peaks
John Lennon's Greatest Hits from the mid 1990s is one of the best CDs... the "Let Me Roll It" drop in the movie Licorice Pizza is classic...
The combination of their voices was magic. Whenever I listen to the Lennon stuff I sorely miss McCartney's harmonies and vice versa.
If they had stayed together and still sang the same songs from their post Beatles career you would still have liked most of their songs because they would have been selective with what they released --- imagine each Beatle album being composed of 4 McCartney songs, 4 Lennon songs, 4 Harrison songs and 1 Ringo song. Considering the good music they made later, each album in hindsight would have been a cultivated classic --- no fat, no tacky songs, only the best cuts. That is why the Beatle albums were mostly all great --- they took the cream of the crop from each members selected output. Also, as you stated in your video, they fed off each other and even contributed to the other's work in many ways --- that part would definitely have made many of those songs different and likely even better. All the other junk that you found weak in their solo careers (as many of us Beatle fans did) would not have been part of their official releases. But they would not have had time to breath as individuals, they would all have had a backlog of music that they would want to release but could not unless they agreed to do double albums each year in the post Beatle years.
I agree. I didn’t come up with this theory but consider this- Some say it’s because they didn’t write all of the Beatles songs. But they did write their solo songs. I know it’s hard to hear that but consider the official story. When they first met George Martin he wasn’t impressed with their playing ability or their songs. Then in short order they became the greatest pop band of all time. They were magical. They turned out 2 albums per year plus numerous singles that weren’t included on the albums. They did this while they had a relentless touring schedule. They made movies. Lennon even appeared in How I Won the War. He wrote a book during this time - In His Own Write. Yet John and Paul are on film saying they always had a difficult time getting any song writing done. They said they didn’t consider themselves to be good musicians. The official story that we all know contradicts what they were before being signed to a record contract. Was it divine intervention or did they have help from a team that did the heavy lifting? The official story defies logic.
Haha interesting theory! I think they did write all of their songs because, when you think about it, a lot of the tracks are short and to the point. I think they were just working constantly and didn’t overthink each song. It’s easy to get writing done when that’s all you do, and you only need to fill a 2-3 minute window.
I guarantee George Martin had a LOT to do with the songs being finalized/produced, but they 100 percent wrote each song themselves or together. And that’s because each song feels like it came from them. That’s not something you can emulate or “fake”.
@ maybe it’s easy to do if you’re writing crappy songs but the quality of their songs will last for a long time. For John and Paul to say they have difficulty getting together and write and come up with anything doesn’t make sense. Here we are 60 years later and we still talk about them.
Even though I like much of the solo Beatle material, I think you hit on one of the major problems with a lot of it. Much of the time, there is no one that challenges them and lets them know they might be on the wrong track. Paul especially often can't tolerate criticism. In the Beatles, they kept each other in check and had George Martin's input as well.
With a Lennon Album you get 4 or so great Songs, McCartney the same. Get your 2 or so from George and there you are. A GREAT Beatles Album.
Bingo.
No, I don't. In fact, I started as a crazy Beatles fan, George as my favorite. Then, after years of knowing them, turned into a Paul fan, as a solo artist. That is Paul being above The Beatles as a whole.
Personally I like all of their solo stuff too. But I do kind of get where you're coming from. Perfect example "A Day in the Life". Originally two separate songs. But put them together and voila a masterpiece! Each easily could have been a separate song that you may have heard off a John solo album and a Paul solo album. But just like most of their stuff it probably wouldn't have sounded the same without George Martin. But a lot of people contributed to the Beatles sounding as good and innovative as they did like Geoff Emerick. Without him dismantling the studio's Hammond organ and using its rotating amp as a mic of sorts to give Lennon's vocals an ethereal sound on "Tomorrow Never Knows" John would have literally tied himself to the ceiling of the studio and had someone swing him around the microphone while attached to a rope. No joke.
I think it just depends on what you're looking for! The Beatles have a certain feel for sure, but sometimes i want to just hear John Lennon scream and rock out with his live solo work, or Gerorge Harrison give me chills with his technical playing on stuff like Thanks For the Pepperoni or Plug Me In. I think the main thing the Beatles had that I think none of the other quite got down was that ascended feel and I'm not quite sure how to describe it. The perfect example for me is Across the Universe. It's just absolutely whimsical and I find that basically nowhere else
True! Different vibes are always interesting for sure. And yeah, across the universe does that for me as well, so magical.
The actual beatles were all great musicians but what made them work so great as a band was the fact that they were all at their creative peak, and each one of them were able to filter out the good and the bad from each other, and give each other honest constructive feedback, once they ventured out on their own, NOBODY was going to tell a Beatle if their music sounded bad or not, it would practically be impossible for people like John Lennon or Paul McCartney to not get yes men.
I've listened to every solo Paul, George and John album (About half of the Ringo albums too, but they're generally a slog to get through so I sorta gave up) and what I notice is the first few albums from each Beatle is generally their best, because they WERE in their creative peak, however, you can definetely pinpoint certain songs (Which can be pretty good) but that would have probably been better had they been filtered out by the other band members, once you go back and listen to the beatles tunes, you can really pinpoint where either Paul, John or George influenced a lot of songs. With all this being said, RAM is my all time favourite album!
Very well said!
i love paul's solo stuff. mccartney 3 in particular. the other three though, i rarely listen to their solo stuff. unpopular opinion, i feel mccartney was the star in any event. those bass lines alone
The Beatles White Album stuff is the most "solo"-stuff they released as Beatles. And indeed for me it has not really the magic of other albums of them.
Ohhh I never thought of that, but yeah it’s like a compilation album almost. I love the White Album, but it is all over the place haha
Thank you, finally someone who can hear and feel through the hype!
No George Martin, no Beatles. Plain and simple.
100 percent!
@@RioPeterson Well, that was 13 minutes I will never get back. Love the real long pauses and the start and stop vocal delivery.
No Brian Epstein, no Beatles boom 💥 mic drop!!
No Elvis, no Beatles boom
No Julia Lennon, no Beatles boom
Wings, a tour band, was never going to compete with the world's greatest studio band. George, the youngest, still had the creativity go on and produce a few masterpieces, admittedly amongst some forgettable howlers. John got bored, resentful and reliant on a strong willed crazy woman.
Thought John's stuff was terribly produced.
Agreed. It all feels very rushed. Imagine and Instant Karma are solid tracks though.
100% something was lost in their music after the break up. Yes they had their moments but mostly a good single here or there.
Paul was probably IMHO the most successful with songs like Mull Of Kintyre, Live And Let Die, Band On The Run and Maybe I’m Amazed but the albums themselves were ho hum to me. George early on and Lennon who was sort of lost throughout the 70’s (although had he lived, I think he would have had a great 80’s)
I’ll say this, the magic was gone but hey nothing lasts forever
Yup, I’m definitely grateful for all of the music they made, period. It was a sad ending for them, but a band that special happens so rarely, that we got lucky with how much they gave us.
I have literally every thing The Beatles have ever released and a lot of bootlegs too. But I only have the "greatest hits" albums of their solo stuff. Which I think is great by the way. But I never really got into their solo material beyond their greatest hits, because I don't think their deep dive stuff is that great to be honest. “The total was greater than the sum of the parts” is a great way to describe The Beatles as a band. I made an ex Beatles 4 album collection years & years ago containing their solo greatest hits compiled like Beatles albums. 5 or 6 John songs, 5 or 6 Paul songs, 2 George songs & 1 Ringo song per album. I made copies and gave it to my family and friends. They all thought it was great.
That’s awesome! Gotta check out the greatest hits albums to see if I missed any gems in there. Super cool that you made your own album too, reminds me of The Black Album that Ethan Hawke’s character talks about in Boyhood, if I remember correctly.
@@RioPeterson I made those Ex Beatles compilations back in the late 90s, dubbing CD tracks to cassettes. Then I made CD versions when CD burners were popular in the early 2000s.
In my opinion, Paul and John were past their peak as composers when George reached his. Both major classics on their last album were written by him. After the breakup, each of them went on to write good stuff. But hey, the Beatles weren´t good, they were among the greatest tunesmiths of all time, on par with Mozart and the rest. The only solo song that to me has that outstanding quality is Jealous Guy, a composition written in India 1968.
I’ll have to disagree here, I really like a lot of Beatles solo stuff. I think albums like All Things Must Pass, Ram, and Plastic Ono Band are up to par with top tier Beatles records too.
McCartney has maybe two good albums worth of material in my opinion. I like flaming pie, I think flowers in the attic. and maybe a dozen other songs throughout his career but not much. Ringo is vocally talentless. and George did some good stuff with the Wilbur's but probably has two good albums worth of material as well. same as lennon. on another note there solo stuff was only listened to because it was performed by Beatles
For me personally all of them have one great album George all things must past, Paul the ram album, John Lennon/ plastic Ono band.
But they were better together in a lot of ways and more interesting as good there solo work was it’s not as good as the Beatles. Outside of the 3 albums most of there work is kinda mid with 1 good song.
I do believe that if John didn’t die in 1980 the band would of got back together but Paul & Ringo are keeping the Beatles going and the fact that so many people still listen and play Beatles music just shows how popular they were together. How many time do we hear, imagine, live and let die, my sweet lord? Compared to their Beatles songs?
True! Those songs are just as iconic. Like I said in the video, I love their post Beatles solo work, it just hits different. Doesn’t scratch that same itch.
I agree with a lot of this, although, admittedly, in England, anyway, I hear Imagine & Live and let die non-stop like often daily, more than the Beatles really lol
in the 1st minute I am like we got opposite tastes Love Johns solo post beatles work, I love All thing must pass by george . I hate wings and not a fan of paul.
Nope.
all things must pass and ram are better than half of the beatles catalogue
Absolutely no, Paul was in his peak from '70 to '74, and I honestly prefer listening that rather than early beatles era.
Obviously you have no idea why the Beatles broke up there's several factors You need to go back and watch some videos or do some damn research It it wasn't because they felt they had to do this and had to do that By the time they broke up they pretty much couldn't freaking stand each other So there you have it You heard it here first
I’m fully aware of that
@RioPeterson I'M 71 AND I KNOW MORE ABOUT THE BEATLES THAN YOU EVER SEE!!!!