Am I weird for prefering what the Beatles did Post-Beatles?

There are at least three songs that are easilly in my top one hundred -

Imagine by John Lennon.

Live and Let Die by Paul McCartney.

Mull of Kintyre by Paul McCartney.

And the one I forget the name of, with singing frogs, by Paul McCartney.

And I even liked Ringo’s narration of Thomas the Tank Engine as a kid.

And upon googling that - Pierce Brosnan??? (the new narrator) rarely have the letters W T and F been more fitting. (Then the same could probably have been said for Ringo)

And yet… I don’t like a single Beatles song. I fail to understand the fuss.

You want WTF…George Carlin did it for a while, at least in the US version.

I can’t really comment on their solo efforts because as well-deserved I feel their place in the zeitgeist is, I don’t like them enough to have given each individual more than a brief listen. That said, I’d still say that, if not weird, it’s probably uncommon and maybe a little peculiar.

De gustibus non est disputandum and all that, though.

Erm… Four. I meant to edit that to ‘Four’.

Yes. Yes you are.

I believe it is grounds for commitment to an asylum in nine states…

Yes. Absolutely yes. I don’t think there’s a single solo Beatle song I would put in my top 100, but there’s a handful of Beatles songs that’d make the cut. I just never thought any of their solo work was particularly great. Solid, yes. Great, no.

OHhhhhhh PLEEEZ commit me to an asylum!? Not only is every aspect of my existence managed by someone else, but I get so meet some of the most interesting people on the planet. (Because it is no doubt true that Lunatic asylums as portrayed by Hollywood are absolutely accurate.

Me sausage blue people for a wiggle. i am not a full floom. sperg sperg SPERG!

In some ways George came into his own as a writer only after the Beatles, or starting as the Beatles were dissolving. His first solo album contained some really good stuff the Beatles wouldn’t do because John and Paul didn’t want to share the spotlight. So I can see preferring his solo stuff. The others, I don’t know.

Sorry, but as a UK resident you get committed to one of those Victorian madhouses from gothic novels. That’s what you get for having socialized medicine! :wink:

The Beatles did some good stuff after they broke up – McCartney’s Band on the Run, Harrison’s All Things Must Pass are as good as many Beatles albums, and Lennon wrote some great songs. I certainly would list some of their work among their best songs.

But there is just too much great stuff as the Beatles that it overwhelms everything.

The Beatles cannot, and will not be put down in such a manner. They’re the top selling music group or individual of all time.

My God man, their songs are almost as popular now as they were 40+ years ago.

McCartney’s solo stuff was pop garbage.
Harrison did in fact record some good stuff post-Beatles.
Lennon had some interesting stuff and a lot of Yoko-influenced crap.
Ringo had what 3, 4 songs of interest after the Beatles?

No. No. The Beatles were, are, and always will be the group to which other artists aspire. I cannot imagine that the Beatles phenomenon will ever repeat itself. Yes. They were that good.

McCartney did a few good songs amid a pile of ordinary, occasionally annoying and sometimes downright embarassing pop. The same goes for the other ex-Beatles, except there were fewer good songs (I’ve piled on Lennon’s “Imagine” enough in other threads as a comically wretched example of post-drug abuse pseudo-significance to need to repeat that here).

The Beatles at their best (which occurred a lot) balanced out each others’ foibles, and their individual tendencies to be overly saccharine (Paul), overly Yoko (John) or undertalented as songwriters (George, Ringo) were diluted out or hidden.

If I had a top 100 song list no ex-Beatle stuff would be on it. Maybe 3 or 4 Beatles songs would make the grade. Similarly, there’s a moderate amount of Beatleiana on my Ipod (6-7 albums worth, counting unusual compilations), but no work by ex-Beatles.

Middle aged Brit here.

I enjoyed early Beatles music and particulary their Flower Power stuff but after that I think that they ran out of creativity.

Post Beatles I wasn’t wild about their individual stuff but i did like …

Working Class Hero
Cold Turkey By Lennon
Mull of Kyntyre
The Frog Song
Live and Let Die By McCartney

Unusual though they are I consider MoK and the FS to be works of genius.
Without any doubt at all McC is the most talented out of the four by a long stretch and actually qualifies as a creative genius.

All Things Must Pass is a classic. Backoff Bugaloo, not so much.

The only Beatles-related thing I’ve listed to in years has been The Anthology… So Far by Ringo Starr and His All Starr Band. And Ringo didn’t do much of the heavy lifting.

The Beatles’ chief contribution to the culture was inspiring every guy who could hold a guitar to start a garage band in 1964.

I don’t know if anyone else has this experience, but I’ve heard the Beatles so much that I can no longer enjoy them as music, only as sort of iconic symbols of music.

Which resulted in an awful lot of great music in the years since.

Hijack, I suppose, but can I just say…

If Ringo ends up being the sole surviving Beatle, then we will finally have objective proof that there is no God…

That is all.

[/hijack]

And yet… I don’t like a single Beatles song. I fail to understand the fuss.

To each his own. The reason they were so popular is because their message appealed to young kids which were the majority in America (boomers.) I personally thing some of their best songs are the ones that were not played 20 times a day. I have a very good sense about music, and I think “Revolver” was a flash of musical and lyrical genius. It was their most representative album IMHO. In addition, with exception to some Hawaiian and JS Bach pieces, I have never heard a more beautiful melody than “Julia” from the White Album. Go listen to it again and tell me if you agree.