Do the Beatles all deserve to be in the Rock Hall of Fame as individuals?

The are obviously in there as a band (inducted in 1988), but they are also all in there as solo artists.

Do they all deserve it?

1. Paul was by far the most successful post-Beatles, both solo and with Wings. He had 11 number 1 hits with Wings or solo. He was inducted in 1999 and well deserved

2. John Lennon had an odd solo career. He put out 8 studio albums, and didn't have great commercial success. He only had two number 1 singles in the United States: Imagine and Whatever Gets You Through the Night. Both singles stayed just one week at #1. None of his singles ever reached #1 in England until his death. He was inducted in 1994. I will say deserved, but not a slam dunk.

3. George Harrison was prolific as a solo artist, mostly playing on other people's albums or producing. He did have three number 1 hits, second only to Paul. He also founded the Traveling Wilburys. I will say deserved, but also not a slam dunk.He was inducted in 2004.

4. Ring Starr, surprisingly has as many number 1 songs as John Lennon, with two. He was also a prolific artist, making lots of albums and playing on the songs of many other artists. He is not in the Rock Hall as a performer, but for "Musical Excellence" which is like an honorary title. Inducted in 2015. I would put him the same as Ringo and George.

So, really Paul is the only well deserved inductee. The others likely wouldn't get it without their prior Beatles membership.


ETA: But the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame has a bunch of really shitty artists in it, so in that respect, they all deserve it.

ETA: I love the Beatles, and I love them all as solo artists.