George's criticisms of Macca
-
Blue Ruins:
John Lennon was one talented MoFo...I can't tell who was a better songwriter, Paul was a better musician, but a case could be made for either of them when it comes to talent. I think John was a bit more of a unique natural talent..but I think part of the reason he dropped out of the Beatles is that he felt that he had been bested by Paul McCartney. I think that in the contest of wills that was the Beatles, Paul wore Lennon down with his tenacity. Paul was just more driven, focused and he never stopped reaching and learning.
Paul was as much of a natural talent as John, in my view, but in a different way. There's a reason why Paul's demos sound an awful lot like the final versions. He came up with it all in his head. Paul's melodic genius isn't something you can learn. You either have it or you don't. Plus, Paul never had formal training on any instrument (except I think a few abandoned piano lessons). When someone can play the piano, the guitar, the bass, the mandolin, the ukelele, etc., etc., -- and play them well, without extensive training -- that's something you're born with.
-
kapoo:
Macsback:
I honestly don't know if John would have made any impact on the music scene, if the meeting with Paul never happened
John's voice and belief, and unique train of thought and songwriting. and knowledge of rock n roll and his ability to embody and convey that spirit. thats what Epstein discovered in Hamburg. or in Liverpool or where ever the Beatles were discovered. even Paul credits John for teaching him to go for it in the studio. I think its safe to say John wouldn't have been as huge in the music scene and historically without Paul, but he would have had his day in the sun. He was way too original and flat out sounded amazing. and great at what he did. the greatest IMO. Paul definitely would have had his day in the sun without John as well, don't get me wrong. but none of them IMO would have gotten so far so fast without Lennon. am I just lame for coming on a Paul board and flying the John flag
:
I'll stop. for all I know I'm way off base
I read an interesting quote a while back from one of the Quarrymen who were touring for John's 70th. The guy said that before Paul came along, everyone in the Quarrymen, including John, was in the band as a lark. None of them really viewed it as a career, not even John, this guy said. He said that it was Paul's arrival that changed that. Paul "professionalized" John, in a way. I don't think John would have made it out of Liverpool without Paul. Sure, John might have become a colorful local character but he needed someone with discipline -- ie, Paul, to actually make it in the music business (not to mention someone who actually knew how to play and tune a guitar). And Paul would have been a successful musician but maybe he wouldn't have been much more successful than his own father -- without John. As John put it once, "Paul was good but he wasn't strong enough to make it on his own." I thought that was an interesting thing to say, and I think John meant that Paul was maybe more sensitive to criticism and setbacks when he was younger. (For example, way back when Paul flubbed his first big guitar solo and decided he didn't want to play lead guitar anymore). John's "fuck it all" attitude gave Paul strength and the edge that Paul lacked. John kinda taught Paul how to not be such a nice boy, if you know what I mean. Interesting to speculate about all this. Thank goodness they met.
-
As usual I agree with you michelley...I said that Lennon was a more unique talent...just an opinion, but I find John's songs are a little more unconventional...much like their respective personalities.
-
Cool, I'm just glad the people on this board are cool to different view points etc.. everyone should love Paul IMO! the main thing Paul and John both had was the updated sound. they could do any style and bring it up to date, and make it totally interesting and believable and like 'oh you can do that?!' the thing about Paul, even if you're not the biggest fan of some of his songs, he is always taking his music in a new direction, and going full bore with it. and doing whatever it is literally as good as its ever been done. in most cases. When he went sappy you got some of the best sappy songs you'll ever hear. lets give it up for So Bad for petes sake! and No MOre Lonely Nights! and when he went a style like I'm more hip to, Maybe I'm Amazed, Hi Hi Hi, that cover of Love Is Strange off WildLife
anything from Wings, its just the best stuff around. and he's older and wiser so his music reflects that today, but his sound is like his own world of music, no one touches it. for the rock n roller in me, and the love of most things dangerous (not to portray myself as a badass...), and of like Blue Ruins said, my love for unique, far out rock-based stylistic songwriting, and the sense that you are experiencing real things in the consumption of the art, there us none like JL. And individuality, and being true to ones self, and the journey of real life. and the fight to better ones self and try to figure out your way in life. and plus the kickass singing voice
and John had that inexplicable talent of being able to read you the telephone book but spin it out into something totally consumable and understandable and thought provoking. one of those auto salesmen, you know? could sell anything to anyone I'm sure. got Harry Nilsson a record contract! John and Paul for what they did well, were both inexplicable talents. no rational way to explain their process, but you just know you love it. thats why with my love for John and Paul, I literally feel like I'm maximizing all there is to love about each of them. in the end they're both so amazing, it just ends up being 'who do you want to listen to more often?' which is sweet
and how off topic am I right now?
-
kapoo:
.and how off topic am I right now?
just lack of mentioning George. otherwise, it was good.
-
how long before the obigatory 'they were all equal,all four parts.nobody is more important than the other' mince
for my money i will define the beatles in percentages. i will not include managers/producers though.. 4th .ringo 5%.[a decent drummer who played his supporting role well] 3rd. george 10%[a good basic guitarist who ended up writing a couple of great songs.shame his bitterness got in the way at the end. 2nd.john 40%[the bands formal leader and undoubted genius.amazing songwriter and effective vocalist.used his rivalry with 'mac' in the tunesmith dept to maximum effect.impossible to imagine the beatles without him] 1st.paul 45%.[often overlooked how important his gift for melody was to the band.pushed the best out of lennon.worked his balls off.amazing singer.great all round musical talent.the songs that he wrote are the main difference between the beatles still being head and shoulders above any other artists.pushed the best out of 'lennon' which was equally important.
-
That has to be a joke. Not much of a song really. People here like to count apples and oranges and thats fine but the simple truth is Harrison's best songs are as good as Lennon or McCartneys best songs, Its also true he didin't write as many great songs. The Idea Harrison only wrote three or four great songs is ridiculous and just goes to the sychophant mentality that tends to prevail here. I Love all the Beatles work and most of their solo output and I am the first one in line to buy the new album when one of them has a new album out. The Chemistry they had in the recording studio has never been matched by any of them solo, sad but true. I am always rooting for them to really do something great and sometimes they have, but the simple fact is the sum total of the Beatles was greater than the individuals, Is it because great rocknroll is done in your twenties? maybe. Look at almost any artist with few exceptions, The Beatles Brian Wilson Pete Townshend, Bob Dylan, Elvis, PInk FLoyd Crosby Stills Nash and Young, whoever you think is great Did any of those people really do their best work past the age of 25-35 years of age? Led Zeppelin? The Kinks? whoever Generally and I couldnt say why, the times? the world at large? recording techniques? Whatever it is, most of the great rocknroll and recording took place a long time ago ,, mostly by young men, some women, and McCartney the workhouse still churns out lots of albums, some of them quite good, But none of it can touch what the Beatles did over at Abbey Road with George Martin, in the sixties, so you can put Harrison down or Lennon, say whatever you want But something changed, because none of those people I have just mentioned have done their best work in recent decades, and the living ones are all still plugging away Sounds like some of you folks need to go back to music history 101 no offense Its really not fair to say Harrison didint write anything as good after Something, Because with just a handful of exceptions Lennon and McCartney never wrote anything as good as Strawberry Fields or Hey Jude or Penny Lane again either.. Its one thing to keep putting out decent work, its quite another to release a new record as good as Penny Lane.. I think he would have done so if he was capable of it. Band on the Run Might be. almost.. Chaos and Creation, MAF, and The Electric whatevers... are all good Harrison might be the last one to write a true classic with Handle With Care, or Any Road couldnt say for sure Its not the quantity or the delivery its the quality.
-
but thats your opinion 'whobeatle'. yoiu see i see it differently. i think something like 'choas' is better than many beatle efforts .i enjoy the album more than 'let it be' ,the white album ' but i know that most people would dissagree. but thats my opinion and its the only one i know of. i also DO think that george harrison has possible got about one albums worth of good songs full stop/entire career.[with 2/3 being classics] but thats it...my opinion. to compare him to the best work of lennon/mac is just plain wrong. he isnt even in the same league. you see to me the mccartney flow of genius did not stop in 1969.it just went on and on.whether it was the beatles or not. mccartney continued to write fantastic tunes all the way through his career. even his weaker albums contain stuff that is light years ahead of solo george. sorry mate but thats the way i see it. i would also say that lennons solo cannon looks pretty empty compared to mccartney although he too produced much better work than george especially when yoko wasn't so prominant. i stand by my statement that george was a great guitarist [although limited] who was in the right place at the right time.his songwriting had a suprising quality to it for a couple of years but he was never talented enough to keep it up.
-
3-4 great beatle songs, I certainly wasn't counting his solo output. But if you were to count his solo output there is alot of good songs out there but nowhere near as good as Paul or John's. You seem shocked that people on a paul forum would say these things. George's best beatle songs are up there with Lennon/McCartney's but theres only maybe 3 that are, how many Paul or John song's are there!? Nobody is disputing George wasn't talented as a musician and as a songwriter but he isn't anywhere close to Lennon/McCartney and there's no shame in that because nobody is.
-
CMackbird:
3-4 great beatle songs, I certainly wasn't counting his solo output. But if you were to count his solo output there is alot of good songs out there but nowhere near as good as Paul or John's. You seem shocked that people on a paul forum would say these things. George's best beatle songs are up there with Lennon/McCartney's but theres only maybe 3 that are, how many Paul or John song's are there!? Nobody is disputing George wasn't talented as a musician and as a songwriter but he isn't anywhere close to Lennon/McCartney and there's no shame in that because nobody is.
That is an oversimplified, distortion of the truth, although I do realize it is subjective. I do own every album McCartney ever did by the way, as well as all the B sides, non album singles, hard to find rarities etc etc, I certainly wouldn't have gone through all that collecting, if I didin't admire the mans work, and hold him on a pedestal, However once again, people who think albums like Wildlife or Back To The Egg are on par with the Beatles, are to put it kindly misinformed. Even though it is something of a subjective thing similarly people who think Harrison had three great songs and thats it, either don't know his work or maybe are just sychophants THere are groupies and sychophants for Elvis and Michael Jackson and Madonna and probably Lady Gaga, and I suppose its okay The Beatle albums were better, and one of the reasons is because George Harrison was there, as a writer, innovator with sitar, and various stringed instruments, as the third voice in the fabulous "beatle vocals" By the same token, if this thread was anti McCartney or Lennon I would defend them too. It amazes me that at this late date, many people, even fans, still don't quite understand how much talent was in that band.. If Brian Wilson, had had somebody else as good as him. or Pete Townshend or Elton John, Or Ray Davies, maybe then we could have seen a second group that rivaled the Beatles, maybe.. But all those people were in bands that didin't have a depth of songwriting talent beyond the one member, and in most cases only one lead vccalist.. I am not a McCartney knocker, I am a Beatle defender! Harrison deserves more credit, than many people here give him. Many people are in the Lennon camp or McCartney or sometimes Harrison the actual truth is, its unbelievable one band had three people in it that were that good. Crosby Stills and Nash, used to sing as well. and wrote a few great great songs for a couple years...but they couldn't maintain the quality. The Beach boys were amazing vocally, but Brian Wilson was the only one who wrote good songs, with a few exceptions... Townshend same thing with the WHO he was the only real writer.. Its the fact the Beatles who had three guys of that quality that is dumbfounding, very very rare, perhaps unique There are any number of people who may be as good, but never three people in one band like that, before or since. Even Ringo I believe has written or cowritten four top five hits on his own There is no other paradigm like that. In History,, it would be like Elvis, Roy Orbison and Buddy Holly all in the same band McCartney is an amazing artist, but no one person, can create an album so full of turns, and contrasts, like the Beatles could with multi vocalists and writers, and a great producer.. McCartney has tried to make "New albums" that were like the new ABbey Road or whatever...with Ram and Venus and Mars and good as they are, in their own way, the contrasts he tried to put in, to make it rival the Beatles, cant be done by one guy Venus and Mars is a deliberate attempt to make something akin to a new Beatle album with Call Me Back Again as the "Oh Darling" of the album, and Letting Go.... as the "Lennon track" and Laine and McCulloch each taking a turn on one song,,, The Venus & Mars reprise ala the Sgt Pepper reprise.. yes it was Wings... it was a wings version of a Beatle paradigm... instead of the Ringo song.. or the George song..we had the Laine vocal and the McCulloch song... Its obvious what he was trying to craft... and its a heck of an album does it touch Abbey Road? hardly Chaos and MAF>..really are good and more real...Flaming Pie and Tug of War.. are genius.... Flowers in the Dirt...is different people on every track, but most of the songs are killer... and well produced.. Band on the Run is so homogenous and great...so great none of them touch the Beatles though , not really how could they. But when people start saying obscure songs from Red Rose Speedway surpass the Beatles, its really time to consider if you might be a sychophant, Whatever turns your world I suppose, I listen to those albums too... I love all the outtakes from Red Rose... but I dont think to myself...oh wow this is Better than Sgt Pepper while I am doing it I think people here knocking Harrisons work probably half of them have never really even listened to it.. He did two bad albums in my opinion, the rest of them were great,
-
Good points all whobeatle..but George still wasn't the equal songwriting wise of Lennon/McCartney...
-
whobeatle:
CMackbird:
3-4 great beatle songs, I certainly wasn't counting his solo output. But if you were to count his solo output there is alot of good songs out there but nowhere near as good as Paul or John's. You seem shocked that people on a paul forum would say these things. George's best beatle songs are up there with Lennon/McCartney's but theres only maybe 3 that are, how many Paul or John song's are there!? Nobody is disputing George wasn't talented as a musician and as a songwriter but he isn't anywhere close to Lennon/McCartney and there's no shame in that because nobody is.
That is an oversimplified, distortion of the truth, although I do realize it is subjective. I do own every album McCartney ever did by the way, as well as all the B sides, non album singles, hard to find rarities etc etc, I certainly wouldn't have gone through all that collecting, if I didin't admire the mans work, and hold him on a pedestal, However once again, people who think albums like Wildlife or Back To The Egg are on par with the Beatles, are to put it kindly misinformed. Even though it is something of a subjective thing similarly people who think Harrison had three great songs and thats it, either don't know his work or maybe are just sychophants THere are groupies and sychophants for Elvis and Michael Jackson and Madonna and probably Lady Gaga, and I suppose its okay The Beatle albums were better, and one of the reasons is because George Harrison was there, as a writer, innovator with sitar, and various stringed instruments, as the third voice in the fabulous "beatle vocals" By the same token, if this thread was anti McCartney or Lennon I would defend them too. It amazes me that at this late date, many people, even fans, still don't quite understand how much talent was in that band.. If Brian Wilson, had had somebody else as good as him. or Pete Townshend or Elton John, Or Ray Davies, maybe then we could have seen a second group that rivaled the Beatles, maybe.. But all those people were in bands that didin't have a depth of songwriting talent beyond the one member, and in most cases only one lead vccalist.. I am not a McCartney knocker, I am a Beatle defender! Harrison deserves more credit, than many people here give him. Many people are in the Lennon camp or McCartney or sometimes Harrison the actual truth is, its unbelievable one band had three people in it that were that good. Crosby Stills and Nash, used to sing as well. and wrote a few great great songs for a couple years...but they couldn't maintain the quality. The Beach boys were amazing vocally, but Brian Wilson was the only one who wrote good songs, with a few exceptions... Townshend same thing with the WHO he was the only real writer.. Its the fact the Beatles who had three guys of that quality that is dumbfounding, very very rare, perhaps unique There are any number of people who may be as good, but never three people in one band like that, before or since. Even Ringo I believe has written or cowritten four top five hits on his own There is no other paradigm like that. In History,, it would be like Elvis, Roy Orbison and Buddy Holly all in the same band McCartney is an amazing artist, but no one person, can create an album so full of turns, and contrasts, like the Beatles could with multi vocalists and writers, and a great producer.. McCartney has tried to make "New albums" that were like the new ABbey Road or whatever...with Ram and Venus and Mars and good as they are, in their own way, the contrasts he tried to put in, to make it rival the Beatles, cant be done by one guy Venus and Mars is a deliberate attempt to make something akin to a new Beatle album with Call Me Back Again as the "Oh Darling" of the album, and Letting Go.... as the "Lennon track" and Laine and McCulloch each taking a turn on one song,,, The Venus & Mars reprise ala the Sgt Pepper reprise.. yes it was Wings... it was a wings version of a Beatle paradigm... instead of the Ringo song.. or the George song..we had the Laine vocal and the McCulloch song... Its obvious what he was trying to craft... and its a heck of an album does it touch Abbey Road? hardly Chaos and MAF>..really are good and more real...Flaming Pie and Tug of War.. are genius.... Flowers in the Dirt...is different people on every track, but most of the songs are killer... and well produced.. Band on the Run is so homogenous and great...so great none of them touch the Beatles though , not really how could they. But when people start saying obscure songs from Red Rose Speedway surpass the Beatles, its really time to consider if you might be a sychophant, Whatever turns your world I suppose, I listen to those albums too... I love all the outtakes from Red Rose... but I dont think to myself...oh wow this is Better than Sgt Pepper while I am doing it I think people here knocking Harrisons work probably half of them have never really even listened to it.. He did two bad albums in my opinion, the rest of them were great,
You don't seem to read what people are trying to say that well and are more interested in trying to come over as some sort of know-it-all, with there history lessons, who IS right even though its people's opinions. I have clearly stated aswell that the beatles wouldn't have been the beatles without the four of them and each of them brought something to the group. As Ive said Geroge Harrison was a very talented musician and songwriter and whenever I have mentioned 3/4 songs it has been in the context of the beatles: Something Here Comes The Sun Within You Without You While My Guitar Gently Weeps. I do also love Savoy Truffle, I Me Mine & I Need You to name a few and ATMP Is a fantastic album. The point I am trying to make and alot of other people are trying to make is as talented as George was, Lennon/McCartney were on a different planet. As the beatles and as solo artists. You obviously don't agree and you have the right to your opinion just as everybody else does...that's what makes the world so interesting.
-
At the end of the day we should remember the following: - Paul was there for George when he died. As somebody else said, the fact it was Paul speaks volumes. George had a lot of friends in music, film, religion? but it must have been that brotherly bond that meant the most in the end. - George asked Paul to be his best man in 1966 ahead of his own brothers, ahead of John or Ringo. George was the only Beatle invited to Pauls? wedding in 1969. - Paul and George were the first Beatles to be friends. They had a relationship before there was ever a band to speak of; they didn?t just come together for the sake of the group. (In many ways this could be a reason for some of the troubles at the end of the Beatles, is that a friendship had turned into profession. I?ve heard many other artists talk about that being hard. Also the insult to injury that Paul so often spoke of the wondrous Lennon/McCartney collaboration and it?s often overlooked (even by Paul) that actually he and George learned guitar together and played together first. It would hurt that Paul replaced his music-buddy with John.) - George said PLENTY of nice things about Paul in that ?sticky? 70s/mid80s period, which all gets ignored or forgotten. He complimented songs on Paul?s first album which is more than John/Ringo ever did. He openly talked about how generous Paul was on his songs, and how good some of his contributions were. According to George, they were hanging out and going out as friends again by the 80s, but it?s also noted that George attended a number of Pauls? concerts in the 70s, and was at the ?Band on the Run? launch party. Paul also attended Georges? ?Dark Horse? concert. To me, their relationship is very complex, yes. But ultimately it can be summed up quite basically: I think they really were like brothers. Those two perhaps even more so than any of the other Beatles. George did say some quite cutting things about Paul publically in the 70s, but his dry Liverpudlian sense of humour can often be misinterpreted, especially on paper. It?s a northern thing to get at each other like that, particularly the famous ?probably cos he?s got none of his own? quote. Come on, he didn?t really mean that! Paul was more polite, yes, and more of a PR, but I?m sure he made his fair share of snipes in private. Like said, at the end of the day a lot of it comes down to hurt. George was hurt by Paul for the suing incident and his refusal of the ?Concert for Bangladesh?. Paul was very hurt by Georges? ?I wouldn?t work with Paul? quote in 1974. Hurt is the main thing that leads to bitterness, but they wouldn?t be quite so intensely hurt if there wasn?t such an intensely loving relationship to cause the sting in the first place.
-
You can't just listen to Beatles music all the time, fantastic as it is. There's a longing for different and new music from these dynamic music genuises, Paul, John and George--bless them they've given that and John would have given more if able. It's a revelation and transcendent joy to discover a song from Paul and George (especially Paul) you've never heard before, to explore their entire ouevre. Tremendously exciting!! I appreciate these (for lack of a better word) novelties as much as Beatles music, in a different way. It's something different and new. (Ringo has some good music too.)
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
You can't just listen to Beatles music all the time, fantastic as it is. There's a longing for different and new music from these dynamic music genuises, Paul, John and George--bless them they've given that and John would have given more if able. It's a revelation and transcendent joy to discover a song from Paul and George (especially Paul) you've never heard before, to explore their entire ouevre. I appreciate these (for lack of a better word) novelties as much as Beatles music, in a different way. It's something different and new. (Ringo has some good music too.)
I agree, I seek out rare b sides and ultra rare material by the solo Beatles and or Beatles and a few other groups I like such as the WHO and Beach Boys... because I have listened to official canon so much, I Long to hear something fresh, McCartney still makes new albums. and I always get a kick at first was very pleased with his last three studio albums, good stuff Driving Rain I thought was horrid, but his wife had just died, and I thought, well at least he is working out his demons and recording. I dont understand why McCartneys current band is so so very good and the one album they got to play on all the tracks is so awful David Kahne maybe his fault anyway., I stick to my guns, for every ten great McCartney songs Harrison might only have three, but that smaller number are just as good. I think trying to be objective, I would say Brainwashed was a better album certainly than MAF< and probably even Chaos. But rather than compare, I would just say they are all really good albums. I wish I liked some other band as much as I like the Beatles and solo beatles, it would give me more to listen to Getting into the Kinks now to give me more to listen to, they were fantastic, but more one dimensional with just one singer And I am not a know it all by any means, I just know Harrisons best songs are as good as Len-Macs. there just aren't as many, and he wasn't as strong a lead vocalist, though charming in his own way. Supposedly, the new Scorsese documentary will have a couple of eye popping Harrison recordings from the Beatle era that no one has ever heard before. Which may end up leading credence to the idea, that he had a ton of good songs in the wings, in the Beatle era, perhaps going back to 65-66 and they just didint get recorded because of Len-Mac we may actually get to hear some of that unused stuff soon
-
I'm just trying to figure out what prompts whobeatle to hit 'return' all the time when posting
forming those columns if you will, all very interesting
whobeatle, name me one George song as good as Hey Jude, Helter Skelter, Penny Lane, or Revolution, Day Tripper, Ticket To Ride, Live & Let Die, New York City, Whatever Gets You Thru The Night, Imagine, Band on the Run, Jet, Isolation/.. I actually cannot think of one better than any of those. Here Comes The Sun maybe better than Whatever Gets You Through the Night
point is IMO his best are not as good as J&P's best.
-
kapoo:
I'm just trying to figure out what prompts whobeatle to hit 'return' all the time when posting
forming those columns if you will, all very interesting
whobeatle, name me one George song as good as Hey Jude, Helter Skelter, Penny Lane, or Revolution, Day Tripper, Ticket To Ride, Live & Let Die, New York City, Whatever Gets You Thru The Night, Imagine, Band on the Run, Jet, Isolation/.. I actually cannot think of one better than any of those. Here Comes The Sun maybe better than Whatever Gets You Through the Night
point is IMO his best are not as good as J&P's best.
the better thing to do is look at J&P's bad songs.. neither wrote a song where you (or at least I) can listen to it and not find something awesome about it, or something that points at their ridiculous talent and knack for crafting songs. George's (and a lot of artists) bad songs are quite average. J&P sort of stopped writing bad songs around 1965. and their best are timeless.
-
I can't name them, but I've heard various tracks from all George's solo albums that really knocked me out, that I'd never heard before
His time of being underestimated won't last forever!! Harrison's very last cd "Brainwashed" knocked me on my a--s, it's sooooooooooooo mindblowingly fantastic
-
kapoo:
I'm just trying to figure out what prompts whobeatle to hit 'return' all the time when posting
forming those columns if you will, all very interesting
whobeatle, name me one George song as good as Hey Jude, Helter Skelter, Penny Lane, or Revolution, Day Tripper, Ticket To Ride, Live & Let Die, New York City, Whatever Gets You Thru The Night, Imagine, Band on the Run, Jet, Isolation/.. I actually cannot think of one better than any of those. Here Comes The Sun maybe better than Whatever Gets You Through the Night
point is IMO his best are not as good as J&P's best.
It boils down to taste. A lot of George songs that I love are not the ones people talk about. The Art of Dying. Out of the Blue. (My favorite song ever!) I remember Jeep. HOrse to Water. Let it Roll. Beware of Darkness (the version sung by Joe Brown at Concert for George is fantastic). I listen to those songs more frequently then any of the ones you mentioned. It's just my personal taste.
-
It is about tastes, I listen to solo George over and over daily, I love the depth of feeling in what he says. He was so wise and humble, and his music so melodic! I have one Lennon solo CD, which I love when I'm in the mood for it. I need to aquaint myself with Paul's and Ringo's solo work, I'm in no position to say one way or the other there. Some of Ringo's work I do listen to on youtube if George was somehow involved in it.