Jump to content

joe (Liverpool)

Members
  • Posts

    2,620
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by joe (Liverpool)

  1. Thanks for all these kind responses. I wish it could change what has gone on, but at least it certainly makes me realise even more how pathetic these people are. You people with such positive and warm comments have had exactly the same dealings with me. It is the CHOICE of those fools to be bitter and nasty and engage in spiteful games. What a life choice, eh? Thanks again.

  2. I don't envy you Planted but with having lost so many to cancer in recent years, I sure appreciate the job that you and your collegues do :)

    I second that, when my father in law was dying the Macmillan nurses were absolutely brilliant, so keep up the good work Planted, people like yourself give the families much needed reassurance

  3. But at least George doesn't have an out an out embarrassment like Some Time In New York City in his solo discography...as 'bad' as George's albums like Dark Horse, Extra Texture (my personal favourite!) or Gone Troppo are perceived to be, once you actually sit down and listen to the things, you'll find at least a couple good tunes on each.

    No, George Harrison may not have been a 'rocker' per se, but ya can't really say a helluva lot of Lennon's solo work 'rocks out', either...most of the Mind Games and -especially- Walls And Bridges LP's come pretty damn close to straight Adult Contemporary Pop. It seems like every time John tried to 'rock out' on his solo albums it almost sounds forced.

    Again, as 'bad' as some of Paul's albums are considered to be (Wild Life and Pipes Of Peace seem to be considered his 'worst') none of them come close to Some Time In New York City. I don't think either Lennon nor McCartney had much of a serious impact as solo artists, they were just ex-Beatles putting out records with varying degrees of quality and/or success. I mean, they weren't really considered heavy hitters in the same way as, say, Zeppelin or The Stones were. That said, I reckon a lot of Paul's music has undergone a critical reappraisal over the years (for example, Ram was pretty much panned when it first came out, whereas now it is considered one of his best)

    Ultimately it's kind of unfair to compare Lennon's solo career to McCartney's...for one thing, John's 'career' as a solo artist really only lasted about five or six years, and he never played live in any serious way. Whereas Paul has put out a zillion different albums, and put on massive tours. It's really a moot argument anyway- nothing they did as solo artists came close to what they did in The Beatles- Imagine and Band On The Run probably come closest, but even with those albums there's a couple of iffy moments...I mean, people nowadays tend to praise Harrison's All Things Must Pass as 'best Beatles solo album' but not even ATMP is close to being of The Beatles' caliber.

    I personally think that Wild Life is Pauls best album, All Things Must Pass, has about 5 good songs on it, and that includes both versions of Isn't It A Pity, Walls and Bridges has Nobody Loves You When You're Down and Out on it, Ringo did Photograph which is a brilliant song from a brilliant album. Overall I don't think that you can compare their solo careers, as they are so different. I agree that they didn't equal what they achieved in The Beatles, but then no other group has done that and probably never will.

×
×
  • Create New...