Fie! The Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking and Amused to Death are both masterpieces.
Not necessarily “sucks”, but John Fogerty’s solo stuff isn’t a patch on his CCR stuff. Yet he wrote, arranged, sang, and played lead guitar on all the CCR songs before Mardi Gras …
Wrong. It’s extraordinarily, mind-boggling awful.
I think I’d have to disagree with two of my favorite Pink Floyd albums (Animals and The Wall) being considered a low point in their career. But then, I do like Roger over David…if I were forced to pick one.
The Rolling Stones. Keith and Mick’s solo work is awful.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with one of my sons and his friend last summer. His friend was talking about seeing Rob Zombie in concert. I mentioned that I had seen White Zombie in concert, before they were born. Blank stares, followed by “What is White Zombie?”
The Replacements were a terrific band, and many predicted great things for a solo Paul Westerberg: he was never terrible on his own, but just seemed to peter out into mediocrity. Ditto Blondie: Debbie Harry’s solo career would have seemed to be a matter of just showing up and collecting the cheques, but apart from a couple of what were virtually novelty singles, she shipped water fast.
Phil Collins is one of my all time favorite drummers. His solo work was very successful.
But I hate it. I fucking HATE IT!
Also, Geddy Lee’s solo album sucked.
They would be a lot better with Gilmour’s musicality and voice. Water’s voice on its own with no counterpoint is wearing. I wouldn’t Waters sucks on his own though, it’s just not as well rounded as Pink Floyd at their best.
I was afraid I’d be castigated here if I was the first to say that. I think before the breakup, while he was writing he kept in the back of his mind what Lennon might have to say about something. Which tended to dial down the sap content of his work.
Very true. But I’d take it over Lennon’s sellout crap.
Based nothing more on the radio hits, I was never a huge fan of his solo or Wings work, but I watched a documentary on the making of NEW and it sounded pretty good, but I haven’t actually listened to the album. I don’t know how much a difference it made that Mark Ronson (and two others) produced it.
People say this, but the more I listen the less I find it’s true. For sure, every time I hear his damn Christmas song, I feel like ripping my ears out. However, if you take his best work from his solo career and compare it to the Beatles songs that are 100% his, I’m not sure there is that much of a gap in quality – certainly not in tone.
He had lots of sappy, somewhat corny stuff with the Beatles. Is Maybe I’m Amazed sappier than Yesterday? Band on the Run is a lot like Paul’s contributions to the Abbey Road medley. He was always about trying whatever he felt like, and he felt like trying a lot of things. In the 60s there was still a lot of uncharted territory in rock and roll, and so tracks like Helter Skelter, Obla-di-obla-da, or even Honey Pie were edgy because no other rocker had gone there before. By the 70s though, there was much less that hadn’t been done. Paul kept on doing what the hell he felt like. Sometimes it was crap, sometimes it was great, but there’s no way he could go on running in front of the pack.
If you’re going to forgive him tracks like Maxwell’s Silver Hammer you have to give him credit for stuff like Nothing Too Much Just Out Of Sight.
True. But Neil Young is greater than CSN&Y.
So another way to say that would be she sold out or went pop. Of course, it would have been hard to keep No Doubt together, as they were in the 90’s, as the Ska movement went away and Gwen/Tony broke up.
FTR, I can’t stand Gwen’s solo career, but I really did like No Doubt. I never did think about her ‘selling out’ until just now. The band broke up, she moved on (as did the rest of them, but you don’t usually hear about the other band mates, just the front man).
But as far as the public is concerned, Gwen and Tony were always broken up. And they managed to create one great album and two pretty good ones over six years.
Jack White’s solo stuff isn’t fit to be on the same shelf as albums from The White Stripes. Which is a big problem if you like to alphabetize your CDs.
I tend to agree. I didn’t think his solo stuff was bad. It was solid, I didn’t like his work with the Raconteurs much, but the Stripes had the best songs, and a great stomp and charm to them I’ve felt his other works lack. I’m not a Jack White aficionado, but if I’m in the mood for his excellent, anarchic guitar work, I will always reach for those Stripes records. (Or, rather, hit the playlist in iTunes.)
jovan, good post. McCartney has certainly released some weak material. But IMO, his best solo work has been excellent and on par with the writing skills we saw of him in the Beatles. His chords, his harmonies, his song’s structures–he can still to this day write amazing stuff. He is such a clever composer.
I don’t like it when he phones stuff in, but that has not been the signature of his solo career. “Paul’s solo career is sappy pop songs” is one of those statements that seems clueless to me.
I don’t think either Simon or Garfunkel have produced a solo work as ethereally awesome as S&G did on a regular basis.
Phil Collins first two albums are great. I just ignore everything after.
As for Paul McCartney…I agree it’s wrong to dismiss his solo stuff. “Band on the Run” would be my second favorite solo Beatles album.