Would a 1970 Beatles album have been their greatest work? Aka higher level Fab 4 discussion
Comments
-
The Beatles suck.
Take that to the higher discussion board.
SUCK, I say.
-
-
I'm not much of a fan of anything Paul did post Beatles though I only know a small percentage of what he recorded.
You could compile a greatest hits of the 70s from John and George and blow anything the Beatles did as a group out of the water in terms of sheer # of great songs. I think those two, especially Lennon, kept Paul from going too light hearted and goofy. Paul kept Lennon a little more grounded and his music a little more consistently listenable since he couldn't let Paul be the only one producing #1 hits.. Keep them all together for another decade and I'm pretty sure they would have kept doing great things as a group. -
There was a joke back in the daychuck said:I'm not much of a fan of anything Paul did post Beatles though I only know a small percentage of what he recorded.
You could compile a greatest hits of the 70s from John and George and blow anything the Beatles did as a group out of the water in terms of sheer # of great songs. I think those two, especially Lennon, kept Paul from going too light hearted and goofy. Paul kept Lennon a little more grounded and his music a little more consistently listenable since he couldn't let Paul be the only one producing #1 hits.. Keep them all together for another decade and I'm pretty sure they would have kept doing great things as a group.
Who were the Beatles?
The band Paul played in before Wings
By 1970 no one listened to the Beatles. Done. Finished. Kaput -
Perhaps because they didn't exist by 1970? Paul post 1970 was featherweight, easy listening shit...which is why he was more popular than the others. George and John both put out better or at least more interesting music after the breakup than they did as Beatles.RaceBannon said:
There was a joke back in the daychuck said:I'm not much of a fan of anything Paul did post Beatles though I only know a small percentage of what he recorded.
You could compile a greatest hits of the 70s from John and George and blow anything the Beatles did as a group out of the water in terms of sheer # of great songs. I think those two, especially Lennon, kept Paul from going too light hearted and goofy. Paul kept Lennon a little more grounded and his music a little more consistently listenable since he couldn't let Paul be the only one producing #1 hits.. Keep them all together for another decade and I'm pretty sure they would have kept doing great things as a group.
Who were the Beatles?
The band Paul played in before Wings
By 1970 no one listened to the Beatles. Done. Finished. Kaput -
I wasn't alive in 1970 and have to defer to the elder statesman on this one. I can envision them not being as hip as the new acts that launched in 1969/70 or even the Stones who had just returned to touring and were hitting their peak. But Abbey Road and Let it Be were both #1 chart toppers around the world so someone was still buying their records.RaceBannon said:
There was a joke back in the daychuck said:I'm not much of a fan of anything Paul did post Beatles though I only know a small percentage of what he recorded.
You could compile a greatest hits of the 70s from John and George and blow anything the Beatles did as a group out of the water in terms of sheer # of great songs. I think those two, especially Lennon, kept Paul from going too light hearted and goofy. Paul kept Lennon a little more grounded and his music a little more consistently listenable since he couldn't let Paul be the only one producing #1 hits.. Keep them all together for another decade and I'm pretty sure they would have kept doing great things as a group.
Who were the Beatles?
The band Paul played in before Wings
By 1970 no one listened to the Beatles. Done. Finished. Kaput -
Maybe you're too young for classic rock but you didn't have to exist to get airtime well into the 90'schuck said:
Perhaps because they didn't exist by 1970? Paul post 1970 was featherweight, easy listening shit...which is why he was more popular than the others. George and John both put out better or at least more interesting music after the breakup than they did as Beatles.RaceBannon said:
There was a joke back in the daychuck said:I'm not much of a fan of anything Paul did post Beatles though I only know a small percentage of what he recorded.
You could compile a greatest hits of the 70s from John and George and blow anything the Beatles did as a group out of the water in terms of sheer # of great songs. I think those two, especially Lennon, kept Paul from going too light hearted and goofy. Paul kept Lennon a little more grounded and his music a little more consistently listenable since he couldn't let Paul be the only one producing #1 hits.. Keep them all together for another decade and I'm pretty sure they would have kept doing great things as a group.
Who were the Beatles?
The band Paul played in before Wings
By 1970 no one listened to the Beatles. Done. Finished. Kaput -
Speaking of classic rock -
When we were meeting the Beatles in the early 60's in the living room my mom would bring up Frank Sinatra
We'd go he's decades old. You'll never catch us still listening to acts that old -
Sounds like your mother had good taste in music. Frank was still putting out good records in the mid 60's too.RaceBannon said:Speaking of classic rock -
When we were meeting the Beatles in the early 60's in the living room my mom would bring up Frank Sinatra
We'd go he's decades old. You'll never catch us still listening to acts that old -
I think they still would have split up by the early 70's, regardless. Just too many creative differences. But there's no question John and Paul were better in a group than outside of one. John didn't really have many good songs post Imagine (1971) and Paul left to his own devices, was a lightweight, indeed.chuck said:I'm not much of a fan of anything Paul did post Beatles though I only know a small percentage of what he recorded.
You could compile a greatest hits of the 70s from John and George and blow anything the Beatles did as a group out of the water in terms of sheer # of great songs. I think those two, especially Lennon, kept Paul from going too light hearted and goofy. Paul kept Lennon a little more grounded and his music a little more consistently listenable since he couldn't let Paul be the only one producing #1 hits.. Keep them all together for another decade and I'm pretty sure they would have kept doing great things as a group.
