Solo Beatles Overview |
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 พ.ค. 2023
- This overview of the Beatles solo careers is a critical look at how long the solo Beatles remained on the cutting edge of the rock and pop industry with respect to their peers. Three eras of the Solo Beatles include the Golden Era (1970-1982), the Chart Decline Era (1983-1994), and the Twilight Era (1997-present). How do you think John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr fared up against the top act of the 1970s?
SUPPORT Pop Goes the 60s on PATREON: rb.gy/nhcy3 - เพลง
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 69 | คู่เอก "กุหลาบดำ vs นาบิล"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PNM6U8e_HMo/mqdefault.jpg)
The first half of the 1970s were great. As the 1970s progressed, not only the Beatles solo albums became artistically weaker, but rock and popular music in general was becoming a commodity where selling units was the industry's only goal. The cutting-edge albums by anybody were a scarcity by the late '70s. That what caused punk to happen as a revolt against AOR rock radio and disco.
Good summation
Very sober (and accurate) review of their solo work. Dividing it into era's was a good move.
Thank you, Tim. I appreciate the comment.
How refreshing it is that someone like you has actually said what they feel without sugarcoating anything…well done 👍
I agree that post Beatles work is not up to the standard of the earlier recordings.
What were my first four solo Beatles records ? Electronic Music by George, Sentimental Journey by Ringo, Two Virgins by John ( and Yoko) and Wings Wildlife by Paul ( and Wings).
All stinkers in my opinion.
There was so much better music in the early 70s by Bowie, T Rex, Roxy Music, Elton John, etc etc.
Thank you, Rob. It felt good to say!
@@phillipanderson7398 finally the truth. No one to push and edit each other.
I never knew anyone thought the Beatles solo work was the equal of the group together. This was remarkably thorough, beyond anything I've seen or read about the former Beatles' solo albums. I think you were being fair and accurate. After those first few albums there was a long slide and to be honest I lost touch with a lot of the releases after the mid 70s. To be fair, most pop/rock artists have about two big years on the charts and the better ones five to seven. They were part of something bigger than themselves, a very big part of an incredible decade and that''s enough to ask of anyone.
Thank you for the feedback, John - much appreciated.
@@popgoesthe60s52 just to put this out there Matt, if you were to put all of the Top 40 Hits or even Top 10 Hits of The (Ex)Beatles together (as if They were the Beatles) against all the 70's Hits of (say) The Rolling Stones, ELO, The Eagles, or Queen how do they stack up???
Had they got a contract for an album every 2-3 years with four songs from each and freedom to work solo it would have been great. No stipulation to perform live. It would have been quality stuff.
I agree that I've never ever heard anyone consider their solo stuff equal. TBF, I think he meant that people compare the two, which is only natural. I don't think he was being fair, though. He's framing the artistic fall off - which is natural for any artist - as some sort of failure. If you wrote 'Hey Jude', 'A Day In the Life', or 'Here Comes The Sun', there is no failure. You get the gold star for life.
Excellent job of putting the Beatles' solo work into context of the times. What made it even more interesting was charting my own musical progression during the 1970s (high school and college), by looking at what was "cutting edge" during that time.
Thank you, Thomas!
I really, really enjoyed this clear eyed overview of the 70s. Thanks ☺️
Thank you, Anna. It felt good to say it!
I very much agree with your perspective. The top was in, around, 1971. I can imagine a doble album called Imagine, from the best of Ram and Imagine, two or three George-songs and maybe a Ringo song. After a one year break when they all did their solo albums. But in 1972, it's all over.
Thanks for these wonderful posts!
Matt, I've never heard anyone slam The Beatles so much in such a loving and respectful way. :) Seriously, you make a lot of good points and raised a hard truth that a lot of fans (including me) don't want to face: Rock 'n' roll is a young person's game (not just for young guys), and it's unrealistic to expect men in the 30s, 40s, and beyond to keep up with younger artists such as Bowie, Queen, The Police, and Prince. It could be argued that there was no reason for them to be cutting edge. They were each doing their own thing, and songs such as "Band on the Run," "Photograph," and "Blow Away" (still my favorite George song) were pleasant and fun and perennial radio companions. But certainly they lost a lot of the intensity that fueled younger artists.
Hey Greg, thank you for the kind words. I do love a lot of the solo Beatles work (especially the 3 you listed) but I simply can't rate them better than Steely Dan, Zeppelin, Joni Mitchell, Bowie etc. I typically listen to the solo stuff in playlists of the songs I love and leave the songs I can't stand unplayed.
@@popgoesthe60s52 agree. by the 70s The Beatles were not leading the charge. Other bands had taken over. Had they stayed together who knows...
I don't think Matt slammed the Beatles. I think he was comparing their work year by year with contemporary music for the time. He simply told the truth. Thank you, I enjoyed your comments.
They deserve to be slammed.
@@jammininthepast Thanks for the response. The smiley face at the end of the sentence was meant to indicate that it should be taken with a grain of salt.
Thank you for the honest and insightful analysis.... Just want to comment that Paul's Chaos and Creation in the Backyard is a great album. Also, when I'm a little beer buzzed and Let Me Roll It kicks in, I'm thankful that these guys got to go out and release some kick ass stuff on their own.
Yes! Chaos is Paul's best album after '73. I also love two of his albums as The Fireman -- Electric Arguments and Rushes. The producer Youth stretched him well on those.
A sensational video. I particularly like comparing their albums to other releases of the time. Brilliant.
Thank you, MrKaywyn! I wasn't sure how this video would be received.
Good job! I was 15 in 1970 and you truly summed up the feelings I had over the years concerning their solo material when compared to the real world. Cutting Edge is the best description. I was laughing at some of your comments, cuz they're true, but love the albums, and now and then something beatlesque pops out.
Thank you, Chris. I had to get this off my chest. This is a sign that I am coming after the fanboy worshipers!
I think there's more to pop music than being cutting edge. It is sometimes more difficult to maintain the quality of your established work rather than constantly coming up with something new and different and I give them credit for their efforts in that regard even when they were settling into a genre different than rock and roll.
You were pretty spot on with everything you said ❤
Thanks, Matt,
I'm just 5 minutes in and had to write. 70, 71 was last year of HS into college for me. Wonderful memories of the records and groups you mention. I got to see CSN&Y and Tull during these years. You really have a fantastic way of evoking the time. It's always a pleasure to see your latest videos! Now I can continue...
Hello, Cynthia. I appreciate the comments and the kind words. More to come!
Hi Matt, probably one of the best episodes you have ever done. I love hearing opinions and real comparisons with other artist of the period. It’s the million dollar question that we will never know, had the Beatles stayed together would they have put together fantastic music in the 70’s with other emerging bands. You mentioned a lot of legendary albums from new bands, that only the Beatles may have been able to compete with. Great episode!!!!
Thank you, Jim. I appreciate the feedback.
I think it would have been an improvement over their solo work. They had a constructive competition with each other.
@@frugalseverin2282 They would have been better together than apart due to their incredible arranging skills as a four-piece -- something they never came close to matching again. I'm talking about John bringing in "Come Together" as a Chuck Berry derivative and the others (especially Paul) turning it into something swampy and badass, with an iconic bass hook and incredible intro beat. Still, the Beatles were never going to be on the cutting edge again. It's not humanly possible to do it for that long. The only artist I can think of who revolutionized his genre multiple times over a longer time period was Miles Davis, and and that's partly because the jazz audience was more niche and wasn't quite as dependent on masses of 20-year-olds looking for young artists to identify with. Miles also didn't have to write lyrics, which is another dimension in which a pop-rock artist has to stay in step (or quickly lose cred).
Very interesting episode, my friend. What it did was to remind me why I didn't keep up with the Beatles' solo careers very consistently. The reason being that almost all the LPs you highlighted from other artists were so incredible! It reminded me of what I heard Phil Collins say about the Beatles in that they opened so many doors that no one even knew existed and all those albums were the result of what the Fab Four initiated. I think Phil said of Sgt. Pepper, "Oh, you mean we can go in there, too?" (or something like that). Brought back a lot of excellent musical memories, bro. Keep it up.
Thank you Flirolas.
The Fireman stuff is worth exploring
Another excellent video about the former Beatles and their solo career output, Matt! I have to agree that much of their solo work beyond 1972 just was not as high-quality, although each of them did have some very good songs after that year. It is also kind of unfair in a way for anyone to compare their solo work with what John, Paul, George and Ringo created as the Beatles.
Love this segment; well thought out. First time I've ever seen someone list the solo stuff against their contemporaries--quite revealing. It's hard to know, of course, what would have happened had they stayed together for any length of time after '69, but no matter, all these years later I still love their music from "Love Me Do" to "The Long and Winding Road." Thanks, Matt, for some great perspective!
Hey Marty - thank you for the kind words .
I very much agree with your points. It seems to me inevitable that as artists age they start losing that cutting edge you are talking about. It is hard to keep that up for many years and songs written! I agree that the Beatles' star was fading during all these years, with a few notable exceptions that you aptly pointed out. I still love Band on the Run, and listen to that one on a regular basis.
Wow you really crapped on Ringo
I have every Beatles album (as I assume just about everybody here also have). Over time I bought several solo Beatles albums - All Things Must Pass, Ram, Imagine, Walls and Bridges, 'Ringo', Living in the Material World, Band on the Run, 33 and a Third, 'George Harrison', Flaming Pie, Double Fantasy, Cloud 9, as well as many, many songs and singles songs from all the lads. I'm good for now!
Thanks again for your time and research Matt. 'Been following you for a little less than two years now, and I always find it insightful. I'm a little younger (45, though my hair is disappearing at a much faster rate than yours), but a huge fan of the rock/jazz/folk (pop) music from 1954 to 1976 (for me, it started to drastically peak in 1965 and began to dwindle after 1973, despite masterpieces being made before and after that period). I fear The Beatles will remain my favorite group of all time, but your perspectives on Jefferson (a top ten band for me), The Turtles, and your Rolling Stone critiques were, and are, nice eye-openers. Thanks again and looking forward to your solo Beatles' critiques... and of course, anything else on the '60s-'70s.
Thank you so much, François-Mark! More to come.
The first two Ringo cover albums are incredible. ESPECIALLY Sentimental Journey, as a jazz guy it absolutely knocks it out of the park. Totally nails that authentic old-school jazz legacy.
As traumatic as it was for the fans, it really was fortuitous for their legacy that the Beatles broke up when they did. They went out on top.
Very true. Few are able to do this and we were very fortunate that they broke up when they did.
Yes. I'm from the era, and my take then was the Beatles had run its course, so the breakup didn't bother me too much.
@@popgoesthe60s52& so were they..
I am so excited you’re gonna be delving into that solo work. I can’t wait till you talk about George Harrison’s self-titled 1978/79 album which has one of my favorite solo tracks of the Beatles, blow away
One of my favorite tracks too.
The demo version is better than the released version, although I think it's included on the album now.
I never really thought of it this way. You've raised a lot of good points.
You know...Back then (after the big break up) We kept listening to the solo albums and kept saying to ourselves, "Don't worry, the next album will be like The Beatles best again". We kept wishing and hoping that year after year after year...and the sad thing is, I keep thinking it might happen. Especially with McCartney's new releases....but it never does. But I still keep wishing....and anticipating a miracle that one day it all comes back again...Am I a sad and pathetic human being??....maybe....But there's always hope....and that's why we kept buying those solo albums...
It was (and is) something that could not possibly happen in the general culture, because "The Beatles" was (and is) an idea in our heads attached to too many precious time-locked personal and historical associations and fantasies. Some individuals (who perhaps have a less rose-tinted view of The Beatles legend, great as they were) appear able to have a different view of what some of them accomplished solo and can appreciate it's value. But as a culture, we were never going to be able to escape the vast gravitational pull of The Beatles myth.
Great Posts Gentlemen, Very well put.👍
Crap. I've finally met my twin! Kept waiting for the next MAC release... "you wait". No Beatle wrote a full album of stuff in the 60s. You should expect three or four edited and Beatlized tracks. Married. competing against legacy. coasting.
Excellent Matt! This was really quite good.
I very much appreciate your dispassionate approach to this topic. There is simply too much hagiography these days when "looking back" at the post Beatles era. Not to take a cheap shot, but there was a lot of competition at that time and the solo Beatles simply did not keep pace.
1976... what a year of stunning releases. Frampton, Boston, etc. Wow!
Keep up the great work!
Thank you, Neal. This topic needed a closer look!
Excellent watch, gotta say. It's nice to see someone come at this with a clear view. I agree completely that the Beatles solo stuff is often talked about in the same light as their group work, and it's like, "What? Wait. What are you talking about? The quality just isn't the same."
It's like, hey people. No artist is completely innovative on a legendary level for an entire career. It just doesn't happen.
Great concepts in here. Enjoyed! 😁
They needed each other to create that magic.
Thank you, Craig!
Hi Matt, this was a very interesting episode and you did a great job. I tend to think you were a little too KIND about their solo work in spots. A thought provoking theory that came to mind while watching, was that all the 'contemporary" artists had The Beatles as inspiration to greater or lesser degrees as their influence transcended many areas of music and society. The solo 70s Beatles couldn't be really inspired by their contemporaries because their contemporaries were inspired by THEM. So their inspiration came more from, family, politics (Lennon), religion (George), etc. as they then relied on the laurels of their own history. Just a thought and possibly not well expressed.. LOL. Excellent episode. Thanks.
Well I would say that the solo Beatles also had the Beatles as inspiration! I think some of the inspiration was actually derivative like McCartney's punk outings or Ringo's disco, but generally I think they tried NOT to be influenced, which may have been their collective problem. Thank you for the comments, Joe!
Wow! The format, detail, honesty, and information presented in this video is outstanding. What a presentation.
Thank you, Tunafish - much appreciated!
I appreciate your insight on the solo careers. You really broke it down well for me as a fan I have most all their music. I look forward to you going head to head with J. Heaton again.
Yes, John and I will be collaborating in a week or so with a focus on ol' Ringo!
Outstanding analysis, Matt!! Your comparisons of each of their solo output with the classic releases during those same years really shines a light in the difference in quality.
Excellent perspective. One of the best videos I’ve seen in quite a while.
Thank you, Al. I was a little worried but I'm glad this view is appreciated.
johns rookie solo record is awesome. stark, simple..in your face & pulls 0 punches. the lad was definitely not afraid to let the world see the chaos within him.
I lived thru the '70s and I remember it as a time when music fans were looking for the next Beatles whether it was Badfinger, the Bee Gees, Klaatu, Cheap Trick or Bay City Rollers. Remember the "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart Club Band" movie starring the Bee Gees and Peter Frampton, those big '70s stars? The Beatles' legacy was still huge, Capitol kept releasing more compilation albums. The solo Beatles were competing against themselves.
Meanwhile the ex-Beatles were trying NOT to sound like the Beatles. The "Ringo" album succeeded because he had the other 3 ex-Beatles lending a hand. I like a lot of their '70s albums; "Venus and Mars" sounded a little more modern but you're right they were not on the cutting edge. As a group they jumped on the sitar, the mellotron and the Moog early on. In the '70s they were guys at work, craftsmen but no longer leaders.
I was surprised at the harshness of your review at first. The Beatles were always my shining light on the hill. However, looking back, I realize I bought precious few solo albums from any of the Beatles from about 73' forward. I did not buy a single album by Ringo. I had two from both Paul and George and 4 from John. I have since rediscovered George and purchased three more. If I listen to music online, it is usually John's. I don't know if my change of choice is nostalgia or a deeper appreciation of their work. I only listened to Paul and Ringo when they had a song on the radio. So I guess I am harsh too. Good video Matt. It really made me think and remember.😊
Thank you, Vicki. I think we all want to support the guys we love and sometimes we overrate their work because of it.
Thanks Matt, enjoyed the review. On my CD player for the last week and what I was listening to when this popped up Ram, the remastered Revolver, Disc one of the White Album, Abbey Road, Let it Be and Sgt Pepper. I have always loved the Ram LP and put it on par with the last years of the Beatles work.
Rock and Roll is a young man's game, you can make your argument for any band from almost any era. The Stones are still together but in my mind they haven't put out any relevant new music after the 1970's, the same for Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Fleetwood Mac and the rest that are still active. Life changes for most of us and as you grow older your voice and thoughts are about middle age issues, you can't help that. The fact that all four of the Beatle's had some level of individual success after they broke up puts them way ahead of most other bands most of who are lucky if one of the band members is able to have some success after the breakup.
No other band has had every single individual member reach no 1 on the Billboard Hot 100. Just The Beatles. Maybe they were no longer cutting edge but they were still at the top of their game.
I tend to gravitate to Paul when I listen Beatles' solo stuff. Ram and Band on the Run are really good and as Matt said, the man can still write a song.
I must respectfully disagree about Bob Dylan though, imo he's continued to put out good stuff, and if you haven't yet, do check out Rough and Rowdy Ways from 2020 - it's amazing!
It's so funny, Matt. I remember talking to my Beatles friends about this exact topic ten years ago. I said something like "To be honest with you guys - I'd rather listen to Born To Run by Bruce than Extra Texture by George." They absolutely did not agree. Ha! But nonetheless - Excellent video, as usual!!!!
Hey, if someone wants to listen to Extra Texture all the way through, I would never try to stop them. I'll just put on Katy Lied and leave Extra Texture on the shelf. I listen to only 1 song on the album: Tired Of Midnight Blue.
I liked Extra Texture's cover. It was cool. And the little Apple core logo. But what was in the grooves never did a thing for me.@@popgoesthe60s52
Mind Games may not have been a great album, but the SONG Mind Games is one of my fave Lennon solo songs,
wow...this really is a half hour shot to the Pulitzer of YT pure genius! Well researched, well presented and crystal clear exposing of truths we all "missed", skipped or avoided as die hard Beatles fans all this time...I agree even with the "cutting edge" examples of the eras that don't really "ring a bell" in 2023 (although most of them became timeless jewels)...thank you Sir for this!!!
I appreciate the kind words! Thank you.
Now let's compare all of the competitors to Beatles albums and none of them come even close in quality and transcendense. Even if The Beatles ceased to be at the cutting edge, they were always the top influence for any new comers.
RAM will always be my favourite Beatles solo record for its sheer inventiveness and unrestrained creativity - just like with McCartney, Paul seems to try anything and just have fun, and since he's a musical genius, it works out amazingly.
McCartney, Ram, and Red Rose Speedway are/were mostly ignored or degraded by the press/Lennon-Harrison at the time they were released. It affected the history and true value of just how great the albums really were. Most of McCartney's early albums were fantastic. 🤏
GREAT analysis, I agree 100% 👍
I'd say that Ram rivals quite a lot of those other 1971 releases. The soundscapes that Paul and Linda create on that record I think were ahead of their time - sort of like a spiritual successor to Pet Sounds, which Paul owes a lot to.
I love Ram, and couldn't understand why critics dissed it in the 70s.
Some of them eventually came to view it as a great album. I've learned to love what I love, and to hell with the so-called critics!
@@RockandRollWoman Yes, at the end of the day it's all arguably subjective. Same goes for movies.
You are so so right, Johannes! Take Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey. That song is so layered. That song alone shows Paul's genius. I've always loved that album
agreed. Almost everything said in the video is utter nonsense. he's comparing apples with pears in most cases
@@RockandRollWoman i'll tell you why. There was a different review from RS that Jann nixed, and after the JOhn interviews, he put out the Ram sucks review. Many followed. The Fountain of Wayne guys are totally queer for Ram. It has its fans.
Matt, Fantastic Job!! Reminded me of old albums of the 70's I have to re-listen to.
Appreciated the video and really liked the format you used to frame it. That this topic continues to drive interest and debate -- it certainly brought me here -- only proves the lasting relevance of The Beatles. But even so, one can argue that to even ask the question is unfair. No other band, no matter how giant or cutting edge has been held up to the same scrutiny. No other former members held up to the same expectations. Bands are fluid. Members come and go. They breakup. Some put out solo albums. Some are successful. Some are not. Very few remain cutting edge or even relevant. We don't spend hours analysing Robert Plant's solo career for example. The Beatles solo success stands out more for how unlikely it was than for how disappointing it was. They ALL had successful solo careers. Was that due to mere legacy loyalty? Sure, some people might buy anything they put out. But I don't think so. They each still had something to contribute and people liked what they heard.
Great comments, Kieop. The cream of the crop from the collective Beatles solo careers is quite impressive. I generally make playlists of the good stuff and avoid the annoying stuff. If we were to discuss Robert Plant, we'd would be saying similar things about Plant that we've said about the Beatles solo career. Everyone has their time but the solo Beatles material is granted special privilege by virtue of having been Beatles. That is also something that is routinely overlooked.
Very interesting analysis, in context and perspective, although I could hardly expect any relevant artist or performer to indefinitely remain at the top of their game. Forgot to mention George Harrison's double album Live In Japan.
Beautiful job, Matt...
Thank you, Lee.
Brilliant idea and format! Excellent context for the ex Beatles output. Nice one, dude!
Thanks DooDah... This was a satisfying one to do.
Hi Matt! A long time suscriber here, and I love your videos. I pretty much agree with your view of the Beatles solo catalog. And, basically, you're proving they disbanded probably at the right time, and at the top of their game. They stopped being "on the cutting edge" pretty soon, that's a fact. But, is that not the case with any other artist? For how long were The Who, Steely Dan, Jethro Tull, Queen, The Rolling Stones, The Eagles, or whoever, on the cutting edge? How do each of those band's members' solo albums compare to their bands' music and to their contemporaries? Or... How good are Elton John's albums released since the 2000s, compared to his early 70s albums or to their 2000s contemporaries?
Let me just add a few comments up for discussion:
1. No artist can be on the cutting edge forever.
2. Even if they could, does it really matter that much? Because all music ever recorded and released, now (2023) coexists, and is just there waiting to be listened to. And you can now listen to the Sex Pistols if you want, next to Ringo Starr, then to Fleetwood Mac, then to The Hollies, and so on and so forth. That's certainly what I do (and I'm pretty sure you and many of us here do too)
3. Isn't "being on the cutting edge" just being trendy at any given moment?
4. You can enjoy say, Wild Life, and also Led Zeppelin IV.
5. If you think about it, Paul is only good at being Paul, John at being John, Queen at being Queen, Deep Purple at being Deep Purple, James Taylor at being James Taylor.... You can always choose and listen to any music that you want/like/fit your mood at any given time.
6. People listen to and buy (bought) music for variuos reasons. I guess maybe 1% of Beatle fans have bought or listened to their whole solo catalog. Probably the same percentage of that specific 1% think their solo material is at the same artistic level of the band (as a whole) output. But they bought it probably for sentimental reasons, or just for the sake of completeness. The same happens, I think, if you are a very intense Black Sabbath/Stones/whatever band fan.
7. At the end of the day, the greatness of the Beatles (and of any other artist) is about the number of people they've touched and made somehow better, not about being "on the cutting edge" (or on the changing fads of popular music)
1.Yes, every artist that replaced the solo Beatles themselves fell off the cutting edge. Success is fleeting and dominance is rare.
2. yes we all listen to variety, but that doesn't mean you can't compare the relevance of Zeppelin 4 vs Band on the Run.
3. No, being on the cutting edge does not mean trendy. The albums I compared the solo Beatles work to where chosen because they have stood the test of time.
4. not being on the cutting does not mean one can't enjoy it. For example I love the Archies.
7. Some people don't like topics like this and say things like "its about the greatness, etc." Some people want to have discussions outside of fanboy topics and they are sometime harder discussions to have.
2. Of course. Relevance and enjoyment don't necessarily go together. It's better when they do though.😉
3. I meant that, say, the singer-songwriter era was a thing in thet early 70s (it was "trendy" at that time), and the solo Beatles couldn't do that kind of music even if they wanted. They were, as you imply, from another era (you're right!). Of course, the best singer-songwriter stuff have stood the test of time, while 95% of the solo Beatles stuff haven't. We agree: they just made the music they were able to make, and were lucky they had a fan base from the sixties (smaller as time keeps going by) that would go and listen to whatever they released... Prog-rock was "trendy" in the 70s (not in the eighties, and certainly not now, you must concur), and yet it doesn't prevent Fragile, Selling England By The Pound, The Dark Sinde Of The Moon and the like from having stood the test of time.
Great video! I disagree on some points, but you explained your perspective very well.
Some corrections though:
Paul MCartney DID have a top 10 hit in the "Twilight Era." FourFiveSeconds, which he wrote and recorded with Kanye West and Rhianna.
Paul also released more albums than Ringo during this era, if you count his classical albums, and collaborative albums with Youth under the name "The Fireman." If the Travelling Wilbury's count for George, then these would count for Paul.
I think I agree on most points - the only thing I might mention is that I've never watched the Broad Street movie but I love the "No more lonely nights" single which is a great ballad and has a tasteful David Gilmour solo in it.
If you think of the movie as simply a vehicle for some pretty good music videos (which is precisely what the movie is) then you might enjoy it more.
This was very thought provoking. I tried to think of a band that was at the forefront for most of the 60;s that remained relevant by the end of the 70;s, and I couldn't think of any. Not The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Beach boys, The Kinks, Dylan , etc.. It seems like there was such a cultural shift along with a musical change that made it extremely difficult for these bands to stay relevant. Really enjoyed this! 🏆
I would probably agree with you, with the exception of the Stones. Some Girls Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You were all top selling albums of the late 70s. Also, their tours were all sellouts.
Although "Give the People What they Want" by Kinks was released in 81. It proved that the Kinks still had a large audience
@@TheSchemel Very good point!
Thank you, G MAN! Yes there was a major shift with almost all 60s bands that though they inspired so many to after them, they essential influenced themselves out of the industry.
Man when you ran down what was released from 70 on by other artist it solidified in my mind what a great era that was for rock. As you exhaust the 60s hope there is a Pop Goes the 70s! Also greatly appreciate the shout out for one of my favorite bands ELP.
Thanks John! I keep crossing 60s bands off my list. I may do a couple of stray 70s artists so stay tuned!
Excellent analysis. Arguably Ringo was most successful in terms of reinventing himself going from a bit of a joke in the 70s and the guy who "just had dumb luck" joining the Beatles to a guy that many drummers now respect and credit as being an inspiration based on his Beatles work. As for McCartney - I think Chaos and Creation in the Backyard is the only other album that deserves a mention as a high point - it has good songs but also not in the least due to Greg Kurstin's production work. John of course never really had a chance in the 80s or later to redeem himself or make a "come back", it's anyone's guess what would have happened with his musical career.
I think you mean Nigel Godrich, not Greg Kurstin.
Matt you are amazing! Best 60's channel by far!
I appreciate that Matthew! Thank you.
Very well presented. I liked the comparisons of their solo work versus what was cutting edge at the time.
Love the year album comparisons Matt. All Things Must Pass, Ram, Wings Over America, Band On The Run and Travelling Wilburys, that was it for me. Ringo was Ringo, bless him. Enough already!
Couldn't help but notice that the albums the solo Beatles were being compared to were by artists who themselves had trouble staying relevant after their first cutting edge releases. It's a shame the Beatles have to be held to such a different standard even when they are not the Beatles anymore.
Interesting, compelling work. Thank you, you are appreciated.
Hi Matt, I'm fairly convinced by your analysis of the Golden Era and the Chart Decline era, though I would have liked more comparisons with the competition in the Chart Decline era, a period when pop and rock in general completely lost the plot. But I completely disagree with your dismissal of McCartney's music in the so-called Twilight era. For me, he underwent a profound renaissance in this period, starting with Flaming Pie, but getting even better with Driving Rain and Chaos and Confusion in the Backyard, not to mention his classical music, culminating with Ocean's Kingdom, and the experimental work in Electric Arguments. I also think there's a flaw in your assumption that the solo Beatles' material is a measure of the quality of what they might have done together. The astonishing cutting edge quality of Abbey Road demonstrates that the Beatles were innovating right up to the end, and there is no reason to think that they would not have continued to develop as a band. I hope that your upcoming discussion of the Beatles' solo material includes an attempt to justify your dismissal of albums like Driving Rain.
Hey Tom. Paul's work in the Twilight era appeals to a niche audience, and I said some positive things about his work from this period. I simply don't care or it. I didn't dismiss Driving Rain. I didn't even mention it. As for their 70s solo stuff, I was mainly comparing their solo work to their contemporaries. Period. The fact that all of them "fell off the cutting edge" (along with several other 1960s heavies I might add) suggests that Beatles could not have remained "at the top."
@@popgoesthe60s52 Paul didn’t fall off the edge. McCartney II has been very influential to electronica, bedroom pop, and lofi artists. Paul was still influencing genres 10 years after the Beatles split
Btw, Lennon's album Rock and Roll, was produced solely due to a lawsuit obligation. The publisher of Chuck Berry's songs flivolously sued Lennon, claiming that Come Together was a rip off of a Berry song. The settlement was reached when Lennon agreed to record an album consisting solely of songs owned by the same publisher.
I thought Harrison's Gone Troppo was another contactual obligation effort and so wasn't surprised when only a few tracks came up to the usual standards to other Harrisongs. And I certainly don't fault any missteps they took in dealing with Lennon's murder.
The shady background of the music industry always results in bringing out the worst of an artist
Excellent video, thank you, Matt!
Great video. I loved the presentation. Also good to hear a critical voice. I was entranced by the continuity and the judgment calls. Thanks.
Some of John Lennon's archival material made me appreciate stuff from Mind Games and Walls and Bridges more. The Lennon Anthology box and Menlove Ave offer us stuff that undoes bad choices like the falsetto on One Day at a Time and the worst Spector production choices on Walls and Bridges. Steel and Glass and Nobody Loves You are haunting and striking in their sparser versions. When I did a deep dive on all the solo Beatles stuff in 2020 I was surprised how much I liked Ringo's Old Wave, the song Hopeless was so out of character, I loved the lyrics.Tim Riley's Tell Me Why book ends with a very fair and evenhanded look at the 70's and 80's solo Beatles albums. The good is recognized but the various Beatles rehashing past glories and treading water is called out.
Great point on Lennons Anthology stuff. I think that it does enhance the original recordings.
Hi Matt, very thought provoking as usual - however I must pull you up on the McCartney discography - although not listed as McCartney albums The Fireman albums are every bit as experimental and more so in most cases that the supposed ‘cutting edge’ pop/rock music of the time. Probably not every McCartney fans favourite and that is probably one of the reasons he kept his anonymity for these albums. These album only prove that like it or not Paul McCartney never lost his appetite for experimentation - despite his years. Cutting edge - not just a young man’s game! Cheers Matt. PS glad to see the Electric Light Orchestra getting a mention - Eldorado is a classic album!
Hey Matt, I did omit those along with that Oratorio stuff because I simply can't take this stuff seriously. If McCartney was doing that stuff in the 60s or 70s it would have been a real risk. But in the twilight of his career, it's safe and been done before. He has nothing to prove but he seems intent on proving something, which comes off as insecure. I have listened to some of that just to be in the know and I think its for McCartney completists only. I know you'll disagree with me on this one but that is my take. I appreciate the comments!
@@popgoesthe60s52 it’s fine to have an opinion and I respect yours - that’s why I enjoy your informative videos. I just have a different take on McCartneys later years and there are several albums from his late period which rate highly IMHO. I am not necessarily looking for cutting edge either - there is pleasure in listening to well crafted and memorable songs. Cheers Matt
Very nicely put.
I remember being blown away with Roll It by Paul McCartney. I also remember being embarrassed hearing Coming Up by Paul McCartney.
Continued success to you and your channel.
My heart wants to say you're full of it but of course you're 100% right. After watching Get Back you can see how they worked bouncing off each other and I think one or two albums after Abbey Road could have been spectacular. We just have to appreciate what they did from 1964 - 1970 because it's why you can list all those great albums that followed. Without the Beatles in the 60s, changing music, we don't see those albums because most of those artists never would have picked up a guitar or tried writing a song. Just my thoughts on a great episode.
Hey Rick, thank you for the kind words. The influence of the Beatles must not be underestimated and you are quite right about the great bands that followed owing a debt to the Fabs. I appreciate the comment!
Excellent analysis, fairly argued.
Great upload 🤘
Thank you, Scott! I appreciate the feedback.
AWESOME, you snuck in The Streak! Great episode!
yeah but I forgot Basketball Jones!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Ha! Another classic!
Excellent overview. I don't think you were harsh at all, spot on in fact! I stopped with the Beatles solo work with "Venus and Mars" in recent years. I remember listening to "Mind Games" a few years ago and thinking how surprisingly bad it was (I won't include the Harrison/Starr LP's from the era and beyond). I can't really tell you what the post '76 LP's sounded like excpet what received airplay. Great job and keep putting out the great vids! Thanks for the hard work.
Thank you, Junior. I really don't listen to any of the solo album all the way through and I pretty much cap it off at 1979.
your videos always manage to scratch my itch for the beatles no other content creator can, hope to see more coming, take care :)
Thank you, I appreciate that! Plenty more to come.
I really like & admire your content…& this was real informative & accurate
Thank you so much 🙂
Hello. Interesting video and a very personal overview. But i think that McCartney's albums Chaos and creation, Flaming pie, Electric Arguments (Firemen) and McCartney 3 far ar more interesting and creative than Wings at the speed of sound an London Town. And those four albums that i mentioned are from the "decline period" as you call it. Even Brainwashed is far more solid album than Extra texture or Dark Horse. So i don't see the named decline era. Every period has their ups and downs. And that goes for every artist no matter the style and the time. Cheers from France
Spot on!
One of your best videos, I appreciate the frankness.
I appreciate that! thank you.
I want to say upfront that I love all your work , the Beatles stuff in particular. But wow! This one was great the best yet! I've watched it a couple of times.
Thank you Jake!
Well Done Matt! The individual Beatles were NEVER as good as the Whole! They completed each other and that was easily seen over their solo years.
Personally, I love Ringo's solo career. I like it more than Paul and John. Though to be fair to John he had less time.
Don't really care for Ram. I've found I gel with Paul's music the least, both when with The Beatles and solo. Meanwhile I think Mind Games is probably my favorite Lennon album.
Even so, I look forward to your future videos on their solo stuff! You always have very objective and analytical takes, even when bringing up your own personal preferences, and it's refreshing.
Hi Ani - the next review on a solo effort will be on the Ringo album with my friend John Heaton, so stay tuned!
Matt, God bless you for sitting thru Ringo the 4th....that's dedication man!...love your videos...great one this time around...Monkees soon please!
Hi Perry! I do have one other "biggie" that will be a multi parter. That will be in July. Once I complete that, the Monkees will find a place on the schedule, so stay tuned!
As a big Beatles fan, and fond of McCartneys solo work, I totally agree with this assessment of the “solo years”. I think McCartney has the most enjoyable output of the four overall. To me anyway.The only veteran artists of the 60’s with strong output today have been the Zombies, and the late David Crosby. In my opinion. As usual, enjoy your videos. Appreciate all your hard work. Take care!
Thank you, Shawn, Great call on the Zombies and Crosby!
Great job Matt. Really love the comparison with the albums if the era. Brilliant idea. You are 100% correct that the solo stuff, for the most part, doesn't stand up to the competition. My favorite solo Lennon, by a large margin, is the primal album.
A fascinating analysis, thanks!
Thanks Matt! Very entertaining!
This was stupendous. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the AI mashups we are seeing on TH-cam. Having Lennon on McCartney songs and viceversa. I know ultimately it isn’t your thing, nor mine, but I find it more genuinely interesting than auto tuning; it tries to give us something impossible but not to hide imperfections, to fulfill nostalgia and see what might have been (in a limited way).
I haven't heard too many of the AI examples but this seems like my type of topic, so stay auto tuned!
A brutally fair take and very much appreciated the era breakdowns. For me, so much of their work was overplayed as a child in the 70s and I wanted something different. I share your disappointment Matt lol!
Right on Matt
George was not done a favor by doing a double album. He was not a prolific writer and it only SEEMED like he was when he was coming into the Get Back sessions with a new song everyday. He had never had 2 weeks or a month to write a complete album as Lennon and McCartney had. John knew that the band members were no longer cutting edge and I believe that is kind of what he referred to in the mid seventies in his interviews. “ is it a good idea?Well if we have something to say then sure. But I don’t gel like putting it together.”. John needed Paul and Vice versa to stay relevant.
Terrific video Matt, I'm sure that a lot of work went into it and its appreciated! I don't think you are being overly harsh, The Beatles reached such extraordinary heights in the 1960's, any honest comparison with their solo work is naturally going to seem critical. I envy people who continued to enjoy The Beatles solo albums or any of the rock music which came out in the 1970's, I didn't care for the direction in which rock was going and I moved on to jazz. There were individual cuts off Beatles solo albums which I liked, as well as songs from other groups but I can't recall buying any of the Beatles solo albums or any rock albums throughout the 70's.
For me, it was all about progress, was the music moving forward, creatively advancing. During the 60's with groups like the Beatles, Stones, Traffic, Cream, Moody Blues, etc., each album seemed better than the previous one. The creative output during that time period was astonishing and as a fan, it kept me interested. I might have been overly critical because it prevented me from enjoying music which fell short of a standard which I had come to expect. Rock became interesting again in the 1980's but it was only in recent years that I started listening to the albums you cover in this video.
Maybe if the Beatles had stayed together for one more year, their group output would have been better than their initial solo albums? Once again, this was a very informative and enjoyable video, thanks!
Thank you for the comments, Gene!
I think the phrase , "cutting edge" is exactly right. How do they match up to what is going on at the time should be the first way to judge their work- critically.... and then commercially. Then, how good is it to the subjective listener on its own merit out of context. The Beatles were cutting edge at the time, how long did they keep that as solo artists? Were they breaking new ground or just being pop fabulous or missing both? I think the short answer was they stopped being cutting edge by early 1972. They stayed pop fabulous for longer; especially McCartney. JL/POB and All Things Must Pass are amazing albums that stand as an extension of the great work done by the Beatles. Unique sounds and great messages and performances. Band on The Run is an underrated excellent Pop Album. Everything else is spotty at best. The only reason I extend their relevance to early 1972 is because The Concert for Bangla Desh was an epic event and Imagine gave the appearance that things would be continuing in a solid direction. Paul fell down out of the gate and stayed down for a while and never tried to be more than a pop star, as did Ringo. Lennon's relevance was done after STINYC and George showed by 1973 that ATMP was really all he had in him as an artist of major import. As to being pop fabulous, the Solo Beatles always had great songs and were legitimate top 40 artists until 1975 for the three and 1982 for Paul. I love their solo stuff, but it doesn't rate with their contemporaries as cutting edge. They really needed each other. But I do think they split at the right time. No way they could have maintained both critical and commercial mastery through the 70's. Commercial to be sure, but not critical.
Thanks for your well-reasoned response, Christian!
I really like the analysis of the 1970s. Thanks for the video.
Compelling info presented in a way I haven't seen before. Thought-provoking and astute. THANKS, MATT!
My pleasure, Jim.
Magnificent video/review.
Thank you so much. This was one I had to get off my mind! 🙂
Something I realized is the first half of the 70s feels like an extension of the 60s, at least in the rock world. Most of the big names you mentioned had some notoriety in the 60s. I'd argue if the Beatles would continue into the 70s, they'd remain strong until around 1973. Their solo careers really thrived in the early 70s, John and George especially.
Honestly I could also see an alternate reality where they reunited in 1973 and made an album. Mind Games, Living in Material World, Band on the Run, and Ringo all have a more Beatlesque sound that wasn't on their previous albums. So if you combined those four albums together you'd get a pretty solid album in my opinion.
Thanks Matt
Was great you mentioned some Prog stuff!!
I love your honesty, Matt, I agree with so much of what you have to say here. You hit the nail on the head with your comments on “selling PRODUCT” because that’s what’s happened, regardless of musical quality. I saw the dreaded late 70’s “Ringo The Fourth” album at a record store recently brand new for forty fricking bucks! I’ve heard it, and that record was a cut-out before it was even recorded, that’s how bad it is! I can’t imagine the justification of even reissuing that album. Looking at it all they made so many breakthroughs musically in the 60’s, it would be maybe impossible for anybody to continue doing that their whole career, and with the money coming in, they have no incentive to do otherwise. Showing the records by other artists that were cutting edge in each year, really helps drive the point home, excellent perspective. Thanks for another great show!
p.s. I n my unpopular opinion, Jeff Lynne should only produce his own albums, that production style really gets in the way sometimes. Lotsa fluff.
I agree with your Jeff Lynne comment. These reissues - especially the box sets - are ridiculous! Does Ringo's catalog deserve special treatment?
@@popgoesthe60s52 The box sets will just keep coming, but I won’t be buying. The 2 cd “Revolver” was plenty enough for me, but why weren’t they released this way in the first place? The Byrds reissues from the 90’s were excellent, including bonus tracks. How many times are people going to buy the same album? There’s plenty of modern artists worth hearing that are ignored and worth supporting.
@@Mandrake591 When the babyboomers are gone, I think the veneration of these mediocre albums will stop.
Hi Matt, I enjoyed the analysis and I agree with pretty much all you say. When you look at it the way you did here, it confirms the Beatles were up against some amazing new talent. So like you, I still love The Beatles for what they did. Maybe they could have done another year or two and an album or two if circumstances had been different but not much more. There was some good stuff after 1972, but I agree, it wasn't cutting edge. Great channel. 👍
Much thanks, mrGman!
Excellent video am glad someone see just because their Beatles does mean their still all that great
Great video and I agree with basically all of it. It's of course interesting to speculate to what extent an alternate reality still-united Beatles could have combatted their inevitable decline into the 1970s. I guess the most likely answer is that they would have kept the quality higher, partly by helping each other writing/performing but mostly by culling the best of their tracks into one album per year, later to move to one album every 2-3 years. But they couldn't have stayed on the forefront, that would have been nigh on impossible. And the Beatles would not have their almost pristine, perfect arc as they ended up having.
Definitely agree with you Matt on 95% of your Beatles solo analysis! PLAY LOUD
Nicely done
Honesty is the best policy . great video