rasta man

I personal, think the beatles are ***. (well, there last 2 members that are still alive anyway).

Double X

I like the dead ones way more, they did all the best beatles stuff and had the better solo careers. Most of Paul's stuff is really boring and Ringo is a joke as a solo artist.

Wifey Boozer

I think Lennon's solo career was ****ing fascinating. Y'know, people disown/wanttokill Yoko Ono for "breaking up the Beatles", and despite the fact that I'm a rather huge Beatles fan, I loved Lennon's career just as much, if not more. It was just obscure and to me, the songs were original and weird, even if they were allegedly naive and overly-hopeful. Good intentions n good tunes. I love any couple that stays up in bed for a week at the Amsterdam Hilton with guitars and sing weird songs to the press.

__________________


... Stalin had a FANTASTIC moustache.

Formerly known as the Prime Minister of Spain.

[backintheubbr]

Minstrel

Magical Mystery Tour
Rubber Soul
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Help!
Abbey Road
The White Album
Revolver

I think Help! is extremely underrated. I think it's almost as great, in terms of quality, as Sgt. Pepper's. Sgt. Pepper's gets much more attention for being "ground-breaking," but it's not much ahead of Help! in terms of musical quality. "Ticket To Ride" is a fabulous song.

__________________
"Blow your tuneless trumpet, the choice is yours / We don't want the glamour, the pomp and the drums / The Dublin messiah scattering crumbs"

FaSho

****ing troll

__________________

The Monkey

All of the Beatles' solo careers were mediocre. (George's is probably the one I like most.) John solo stuff is extremely overrated. Sure, Imagine is a nice tune (not even close to being his best, though), and he got some other decent ones, but 90% of the rest is garbage.

Paul gets lots of undeserved criticism IMO. The genius of The Beatles laid in all four members (as their solo careers show). A lot of people say that Paul is arrogant, but if you listen to interviews with John, there really isn't a big difference.

__________________

Now another stranger seems to want you to ignore his dreams as though they were the burden of some other

My Last.fm

lucifer_sam

See, the thing about Lennon is he was a great songwriter. But what did he write about after they broke up? At least 50% of his material post-Beatles was written about - you guessed it - not being able to write what he wanted while he was in the Beatles. But John was by far the most interesting Beatle, even if he had his head up his ass 90% of the time.

I give credit to McCartney for keeping them together. He really was the most level-headed of the group, and even though his leadership role probably resulted in their breakup, it was really him that kept them in the studio.

__________________
first.am

Double X

George had the best album (by far) and 4 other good ones, and John had two or three excellent albums. Paul has released Ram and Band On the Run...and then oodles of mediocre stuff. And I was talking about McCartney's solo stuff as being boring.

ProggyMan

Paul's domineering was dually responsible for several of the best albums ever and the breakup of the greatest band ever...

sleepy jack

Um, it's more Yoko's controlling over John thats to blame for the break up over the Beatles. Paul did keep them together.

__________________