Sort of. I mean, can you compile enough songs from Harrison's solo records to equal an album that would be on par with say "Rubber Soul" or Sgt, Peppers"? Not talking concept power here (i.e. Sgt, Pepper), just the relative material to rival what they did as the Beatles. 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. Paul would easily be the winner of that one, followed by Lennon (tied with Harrison?) I agree that Lennon pushed or inspired Paul to write better material. He very much seemed the quality control guy based on what I've read. But, if you look at his solo catalog ,,,,hmmm, who was the quality control guy there? Yoko? Phil Spector? No disrespect intended, my point is -they collectively inspired eachother, thus the quality ensued. Chemistry that we will see a few times every 75 years or so. > > Related: can you compile a few albums made up of solo >Beatles tracks from > 1969-1974 that would have made up a couple excellent >Beatles albums had > they stayed together? > > ======================================================================= > Detailed Audities-List information: > > To manage your Audities List settings or unsubscribe: >