smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | <jim@groovedisques.com> |
| Subject | Re: McCartney is God Get over it |
| Date | Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:12:43 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain ISO8859-1 (1.7 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Scott wrote:
> Actually, that quip opens up a brand new thread!
> ...
> Can you compile "more than one album worth of quality
> material from each Beatle (solo efforts)to create a
> solid record(s) on par with any of the collective albums
> recorded by the Beatles"
> ???
>
> It's a bit hard to do. You might get 2 records worth
> from Macca, probably 1 from Lennon or Harrison.
>
> Yes, of course it's all opinion ... but indulge me
> please.
I could easily compile an album of killer solo material from all 4 Beatles - obviously with George and Ringo's material being "killer" in a relative sense. Even George's best work lacks depth, scope, and variety. His best would be on par with a great Tom Petty album.
There are definitely 2 absolutely great albums worth of solo McCartney and Lennon to be compiled. The Plastic Ono Band album alone gets you nearly halfway there.
Then someone else made the fine point:
> And you can't say, "sure, The Best of McCartney, done".
> As I wouldn't go that far, those best of comps put out
> by the label are usually NOT a true "best of". It seems > a dorky song or two is always placed there for some
> reason, (demands of the artist perhaps) dunno.
A friend and I once attempted to make the case that Ringo's standard-issue (ie, vinyl release from the days when the artists were still relevant) greatest hits album was as good as Shaved Fish and Harrison's standard-issue "best of" album. Shaved Fish is a prime example of a "best of" that contains a lot of stinkers for lord knows what reason. It was a fairly convincing case - at least we thought so - but not quite enough to top Shaved Fish.
Jim
http://www.rocktownhall.com
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.