When did the Beatles jump the shark?

[Deja Q]

Early 60s = pioneers.

Mid 60s (thru 66) = pioneers.

But 67 onward? They became FOLLOWERS. Hell, they even took notice of a stunt Jefferson Airplane did a couple months prior to (that U2 would also do some 20 years later) by going up top a hotel and playing for free. (can't blame them, JA was the best thing to happen to the mid-late 60s...)

By 1970, their music was drek - only when compared to what they had done before. John Lenno nadn Paul McCartney were two of the world's best. But still, the Beatles of the mid-late 60s were definitely more of a follower band than a trailblazing one.

[Taverner]

1. HUH???? WTF????

Youre going to tell me White Album, Let it Be and Abbey Road weren't pioneer albums????

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

2. I don't think they ever really "jumped the shark" the way that, say, Elvis

did. By which I mean descended into being lame and pathetic.

I still think "Let it Be" is a good album though not their best.

[sendero]

3. As far as I'm concerned...

... the only dissapointing album they ever released was Let It Be. Which was actually recorded before Abbey Road.

I don't think they need to apologize for Abbey Road, it is great.

[Wat_Tyler]

4. I think they jumped the shark and then dejumped.

Let's face it, Let It Be is totally substandard for The Beatles.

[Liberal_Andy]

5. It would have been the Magical Mystery Tour TV Movie, except...

the White Album and Abbey Road followed, so no shark jump.

[Magrittes Pipe]

6. "Yellow Submarine"

The song, not the movie (which was fucking brilliant).

Here's the thing: minus that song, Revolver would likely be the finest album ever recorded. But that single little slice of godawfulness that even Paul "Wussy" McCartney realized was too stupid to sing himself, and so he gave it to poor Ringo... that song was just so out of place, so useless, so horrid, that it knocks the entire album down about 40 spots for me.

Afterward, they were never the same. The annoying excesses of Pepper (Revolver's opposite -- the later platter only had one GOOD song on it, the sublime "A Day in the Life"), The Beatles a half-too-long double album with far too many crap songs on it (cut out most McCartney compositions, and it would rank among their best work), the inconsistency of Abbey Road, the unfinished-ness of Let It Be.... It was all downhill.

[sendero]

12. While I agree ..

... that Yellow Submarine was insipid and silly, I disagree with just about everything else you say :)

Almost every song on Sgt Pepper is great (I could live without Mr Kite) and it is not considered an all-time classic for nothing.

Even my absolute favorite bands always have at least one and often 3-4 clunker songs on an otherwise brilliant recording. Name some albums that have no throwaway songs, I double dog dare ya!

[Orsino]

14. Yeah, they had a few clunkers...

...but that's okay by me, considering the typical brilliance of their experimentation. Otherwise, they weren't together long enough to reach a sucking phase that I would call "jumping the shark."

They had the decency to break up and leave us wanting more.

[NightTrain]

7. I don't think the Beatles, as a group, ever jumped the shark.

However, the solo Beatles all jumped the shark pretty damned quickly!

[Wat_Tyler]

8. WHAT THE FUCK?

Have you even listened to 'All Things Must Pass'?

Of course, if you mean anything George put out afterwards, then you have a point. I just wanted my Skittles moment.

[NightTrain]

I said "quickly," not "immediately."

Specifically (and keep in mind, this is only my opinion):

Ringo's best solo effort was 1973's "Photograph" (on which he had help from both Lennon and Harrison). After that, he pretty well sucked consistently.

John made some decent stuff up until around 1974, but I really wish he hadn't bothered with ROCK AND ROLL.

You pretty well summed it up about Harrison. ALL THINGS MUST PASS may very well have been the best album by an ex-Beatle, but little of Harrison's subsequent efforts were up to his old group's standards.

As for McCartney, he ran hot and cold in the '70s and has pretty well sucked since (to be charitable) his ill-advised duets with Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson. To think that an ex-Beatle could have put out singles as horrid as "Ebony & Ivory" and "The Girl Is Mine!" :puke:

[elperromagico]

13. Yes, you can usually tie the solo Beatle sharkjumping

to a specific album.

John - Sometime in New York City
Paul - McCartney
George - Dark Horse
Ringo - Well, nobody expected much from Ringo, did they?

But, they each had at least one good album after that point.

The whole problem with the Beatles as solo artists is that, instead of having to fill half an album (in John or Paul's case) or two tracks of an album (George), or just one track (Ringo), they now had to fill whole albums.

A lot of subpar material that would have gotten the thumbs-down in the Beatles made it onto their solo albums, simply because they now had to each fill a whole album.

[jonnyblitz]

15. Paul McCartney got so cheesy. nt

[candy]

9. When John and Yoko got together IMHO.

[Lefty48197]

10. The Beatles started out as a corporate product

which they had to fight to overcome and finally play the music that they really loved. They got better as time went on, if you ask me.

BTW HypnoToad, I've hit the alert button on you for this post, you're obviously a freeper troll. :evilgrin:

[Bok_Tukalo]

11. I think a better question about bands is when did they peak.

Like "Life's Rich Pageant" for R.E.M.

For The Beatles, I say Rubber Soul.