question about the BEATLES?

Question

I think the BEATLES were if not the greatest, one of the top three bands of all time. I like everyone of their songs (except the "newest" ones they did for the comp CDs).
My question is...what happened to their talent after that band? I have never heard any of their stuff after the Beatles that even touches the quality of the music they made with the band. Lennon had some OK stuff, McCartney stuff doesn't do anything for me, Ringo stuff is just goofy, and George Harrison solo records are more boring than Clapton's late 70's output. Would they have had a career in the 70's if the Beatle thing hadn't happened to them?

Answer 1

You know, it really wasn't as much a collaboration in that band as much as it was a competition. John would write "Stawberry Fields Forever" and then Paul would write "Penny Lane." Paul would write "Paperback Writer" and John would write "Rain," and then George would write "Taxman." Also, the demand George Martin had on them to produce songs was astronomical, producing a new single every three months and a new album every six. So it wasn't as much them wanting to become prolific songwriters as HAVING to become that. Once the band broke up, they no longer had that competition going on.

As far as solo projects go, I think George Harrison had the best one (hate to disagree with you) because George had so many songs that he couldn't record with the band. In the Beatles, he got one or two songs per album (save REVOLVER and THE WHITE ALBUM) so by the time he did ALL THINGS MUST PASS, he had a huge arsenal of songs. But things just didn't solidify. John was deep into Heroin (thanks Yoko) Paul didn't have his friendly competition anymore, and Ringo just wasn't much of a songwriter.

As far as what would have happened had the Beatles not happened, who knows. They might have had careers without eachother, but certainly not to the same caliber.

Answer 2

The Beatles suffered several problems that broke them up and destroyed their musical muse. John Lennon and Paul McCartney may claim to have written certain songs, but most of the time they collaborated which didn't happen after the break up.

First their old manager died. He ran their lives like clockwork, doing everything for the band or having it done. After they had to start doing some things for themselves it got complicated and was no longer all about the music.

The Beatles were on tour a lot any this is like living with each other, too much of that will break up any group or cause them to disband for a time to take a break.

Drugs have done as much harm to rock and roll as they have helped. I don't know what drugs or who was doing them, but when drugs entered the picture they destroy the creative output. Bobby Brown may have thought he was putting out better stuff when he was high, he certainly claimed it, but the fans hated it and that is what happened with the Beatles.

Yoko Ono happened. When John and Yoko got together she got in the way of the band and dragged John away from them. She has been given most of the credit (blame) for the breakup. I know that the song No. 9 on the White Album was inspired by here and is the worst single song I have ever heard and I hate rap. Give me rap any day rather than No. 9.

Finally, all good things come to an end. There is a finite amount of creativity that a group has. They need to do something to redefine themselves to start producing new quality work. It happens with every group at some time, even the Rolling Stones. When it happened to the Beatles they let it drive the band apart forever. The death of John Lennon insured that there would be no reunion. I always thought (hoped) there would be a reunion, but not while Yoko was alive, she would prevent it. She got on Paul's nerves too much I think.

Answer 3

Hmm....that's quite a question, especially when you consider how much the Beatles changed and influenced the music scene. How would music have been in the 60s and 70s without them? If they hadn't been around, would the British Invasion happened at all?
So, it's hard to say what kind of musicians they would be if the music scene was drastically different. Being former Beatles definetly helped their solo careers, but I think they each had enough talent to make it on their own. Lennon would probably still write his peace-loving songs, which would probably do well since it was the Vietnam era. Mccartney would probably still write songs that were catchy and marketable.(And he'd still have his boyish babyface, which is appealing. :D) George would probably still be very talented guitarist capable of turning out a quite a few good songs. Ringo...I don't know. I think his stuff is cute and fun to listen to, but it's hard to say. He might have drummed in other bands, because he was a capable drummer. Not being Beatles, their careers definetly wouldn't have been as earth-shattering and legendary as they truly are, but they might have had a nice stint of fame.
I say again, that was quite a question. :D I'm delighted this is just supposing and not fact... the Beatles are my favorite band.

Answer 4

To go along with others have said:

Yes, a lot of it was the creative collaboration/competition within the band. And don't forget both the collaboration with producer George Martin, as well as the influence/competition of outside acts like Bob Dylan & the Beach Boys. There was a cross polination going on in those days where they both influenced/challenged other acts as well as accepted influence & challenges from them.

A byproduct of all that was Georges first solo album 'All Things Must Pass'. A *MANDATORY* listen. Made up of a lot of songs that George couldn't get on the Beatles albums that clearly show that they deserved a place among them. Plus what originally made up the 3rd vinyl disc is a great jam session. While the influence of that can't match that of any Beatles release (and I'd say the same of any of their solo output), I find it to be my personal favorite thing that came from that tree (both Beatles & solo stuff). Unfortunately it seems George's output dropped off considerably after that (though Cloud Nine was OK).

After the breakup John in general became anti-beatle, wanting to break away from what he felt was 'overproduction' from Macca & George Martin. Plastic Ono Band was the immediate result, a sparse, raw record that noone probably expected at the time (especially considering that Phil Spector coproduced it). Then Imagine came, which was somewhat brighter, and had some of Spector's 'wall of sound'. Beatle fans should consider giving those 2 discs a spin if they haven't already. His output was fair after that, nothing special (though I like his Double Fantasy stuff which was 100% middle of the road pop).

Beatle Paul still seemed to exist for his first 2 solo albums (McCartney & Ram). Some songs (esp. on the 1st one) were Beatle era. Beatle fans should check these out as well. But after that, he got himself into a groove with Wings. Still a bit creative (but not compared to what other acts out there were doing from Stevie Wonder to the various progressive & fusion acts), and by no means influential, but still ranges from decent to pretty good. His 80's stuff after the relatively decent Tug of War is mostly unlistenable, and his 90's to today stuff ranges from ok to good. (A big problem with Macca is that he still sees himself as Beatle Paul).

Ringo was a drummer. An extremely underrated drummer, but a drummer nonetheless. With a novelty like voice. His solo output proved that. But he seemed to embrace his limitations and bring in lots and lots of outside help for his discs & tours. Some stuff with his name on the spine might be borderline pleasant, but nothing is essential.

But the 'Beatles' story is incomplete without Georges 'All Things...', Johns 'Plastic Ono Band' & 'Imagine', and Macca's 'McCartney' & 'Ram' (Imagine & Ram especially due to the messages being sent between Paul and John on the covers & songs).

Answer 5

Wasn't 95% of all Beatles music written by Lennon/McCartney anyway? They were great together. But anyway, Paul had lot's of hit's with Wings. John wrote Imagine, which is considered the greatest song ever made.

Answer 6

John and Paul's solo material had more popular appeal than George and Ringo. Although in my opinion George's album "All Things Must Pass" is one of the best albums of the 70's. And his work on "The Traveling Wilbury's" album, "Vol 1" is also a good listen.

Answer 7

Paul's music was pretty good. His days with Wings, he wrote some great songs. His newer songs were good to. John's solo career was okay, some of his songs were good. Ringo and george, your right , they never did anything after the Beatles,

Answer 8

Eh,

I like John's Solo music better. The Pop-driven beatles was holding back his full potential.

It's all good music, but Lennon took it to a "higher" level.

Answer 9

I LOVE THE BEATLES!!!!

Haha and I asked the same question to my dad and he said most likely no I mean that was Beatlemania, I really believe that they wouldn't have had so much success if they weren't all there in one band... They rock and most people think so too!!


♥ Beatles Forevr

Answer 10

I have to agree with Tommy Walker. It's combined creativity.

Each one of them had a little something going for them. Like a good recipe. Leave out one ingredient or even take it on it's own, it's not much. But blend them together and magic happens. Single them out and you find out who and what the individuals are.