is his solo work better than the beatles?

>>72814112
God no, not at all. Why would you even think that?

>>72814112
which one the 1st or 2nd?

and 'Paul McCartney' fucking sucks.

>>72814112
Another Paul is dead clue

>>72814112
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.

>>72814155
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.

>>72814112

>solo stuff better than the beatles
>Paul

No, no. You're looking for George Harrison

>>72814470
Half of his albums were garbage tho

>>72814112
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdlnIYiCr8g

>>72814502

>Half

Still a better track record than Paul.

>>72814747
Not really. Paul released more great albums than George.

File: revolverpep.jpg (104KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 600x300px

>>72814112
>the beatles
Speaking of real music, what should I listen to after pic related, Magical Myustery Tour and Abbey Road?

>>72814920
MMT

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

>>72814155
Agree

>>72814502
Quite a few of them have filler, yeah, but only Gone Troppo and debatably Brainwashed are garbage.

>>72816705
Brainwashed is a lot better than it had any right to be.

>>72814155
This

>>72816705
Brainwashed is very good. In my George Harrison top 3

>>72814112
it is even worse than the beatles