I was driving home tonight listening to my mixed tape of solo John Lennon on side one and solo Paul McCartney on side two. Yeah, yeah I know. I'm not even living in the 90's, I'm living in the 80's. One of these days I'll put down the money to get a cd player, and will then, and only then, be considered a part of the modern era. But I know the second that I get a cd player in my car, cd's will be obsolete and MP3 car players will be all the rage. I guess I'll always be a decade or so behind.

Anyways...

Is it fair to compare solo Paul and solo John? I mean, the John Lennon side of the tape (hush now) is this really really good, emotional music. And then the tape switches to Paul's side (quit laughing) and I have to switch from listening to John Lennon making this really great music, to Paul McCartney singing "Band on the Run." It's so weird to hear just how different they were as songwriters. Paul was always the more melodic of the two, whereas John wrote songs that could rip your heart out.

Is it fair to compare Lennon's "Imagine" to McCartney's "Silly Love Songs?" Or Lennon's "God" to McCartney's "Jet?"

Not that all of Lennon's solo work was excellent. Some of it is actually pretty bad. But it seemed like John was more willing to take artistic risks, whereas Paul was more reluctant to break out of a nice little niche he made for himself.

But then again, it's not like George Harrison was keeping it completely real either. He rocked it with "All Things Must Pass" (which for my money is the best post-Beatles solo album of any of the four). But then George kinda went by the way of the Beach Boys' "Kokomo" by releasing, "I've Got My Mind Set On You." What was that crap?

And don't get me started on Ringo. ;-)

matt out