Is his solo work better than the beatles?

is his solo work better than the beatles?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jdlnIYiCr8g
twitter.com/AnonBabble

God no, not at all. Why would you even think that?

which one the 1st or 2nd?

and 'Paul McCartney' fucking sucks.

Another Paul is dead clue

From 1970-1980, yes. Ram and Band On The Run are better than any Beatles album, and his worst album during that period (Red Rose Speedway imo) is still better than Please Please Me, With The Beatles, and Beatles For Sale.

kek

The problem with Paul's solo material was his unchecked twee and wistfulness that detracted form any sort of legitimate artistic statement. He was very good at bullshitting melodies himself, but that in itself is useless without any soul or meaning to back it up. That's why he needed John Lennon, as much as Lennon needed him for the opposite reason.

Red Rose Speedway, Band on The Run and RAM are all good though. The rest is various proportions of hit and miss.

>solo stuff better than the beatles
>Paul

No, no. You're looking for George Harrison

Half of his albums were garbage tho

Of course not.

paul was always the one beatle making those weird old timey songs like honey pie, which was basically the *tips fedora, of Beatles songs.

youtube.com/watch?v=jdlnIYiCr8g

>Half

Still a better track record than Paul.

Not really. Paul released more great albums than George.

>the beatles
Speaking of real music, what should I listen to after pic related, Magical Myustery Tour and Abbey Road?

MMT

Go in order you fool. it finishes their psychedelic trilogy albums

Agree

Quite a few of them have filler, yeah, but only Gone Troppo and debatably Brainwashed are garbage.

Brainwashed is a lot better than it had any right to be.

This

Brainwashed is very good. In my George Harrison top 3

it is even worse than the beatles