George's criticisms of Macca
-
I find it strange how George Harrison always went out of his way to knock Paul down in interviews for being "selfish" about recording his songs first and about the "ego" within the band.. But when you look at the last 2-3 of the Beatles recordings, you can see and hear Paul's contributions to George's songs and John hardly played on any of them!!! If you read Tony Bramwell's book Magical Mystery Tours, the big arguement between George and Paul was spurred on by Yoko irritating George and him taking it out on Paul.. If you read some of their interviews after like 1971, George, not John is the one who gave Paul the most crap.. John was usually quite complimentary towards Macca after 1971.. Even on the Dick Cavett show he referred to Paul as his "best friend" and Yoko agreed... There's a video from like 1987 or 88 from MTV I think on You Tube where during an interview , George was asked about Paul saying he wanted to do some Lennon songs live, to which he responded.. "he's probably run out of good ones of his own"... This from a guy who did a 12 song set on tour in 1974 and included a cover of "In My Life" and a Dylan cover of "If Not For You", that was crap, Paul would have done anything for George.
-
It`s sad and I don`t understand it either. There was a period when George could have been my favourite Beatle, but his constant bitching about Paul put me off.It didn`t chime too well with his Hari Krishna beliefs, but then neither did his use of stimulants.
-
I didn't live through any of the bitterness after The Beatles, all I know of John and George is the image that was protrayed after their deaths. You have to say that's pretty nasty of George to still be saying things like that nearly 20 years after the break up. I was watching parts of anthology recently and I thought it was pretty clear in some scenes that George still didn't like Paul.
-
I remember George describing Broad Street as "another ego trip for Paul" - as if Paul wasn`t getting enough flack for that film! He also accused Paul of using the Beatles for publicity - a bit rich from the composer of "When We Was Fab"! Yeah,isn`t it a pity.
-
I think the fact that 'Yoko pissed him off and he took it out on Paul' in that 1969 argument pretty much backs up what John said: "We took it out on each other cos we were the only ones each other had." It's like with families. Unfortunately in life, we hurt those that are closest to us, and we feel comfortable enough with to hurt. Sad but true. I think Paul and Georges' post-Beatles relationship was complex, and there's probably stuff that we don't know. After all, you're right; Paul contributed loads to Georges' songs, and John often contributed nothing. I'm sure there has to be something else that George resented that he maybe didn't speak about. In an interview Patti was asked 'Which Beatle was George closest to?' and she replied, 'I'm not sure. Probably Paul. No, all of them really.', and it was after all Paul that George asked to be best man in 1966, ahead of his own brothers. I think George was mostly bitter about the suing malarky actually. I think it was all a mixture of hurt and miscommunications. In the 80s there's that interview with George where he says, 'People try and make out that there are problems, but at the end of the day I love him, he's my mate, and that's all there is to it.' As long as they knew the other one loved them, that's all that matters.
-
cfergoid:
I didn't live through any of the bitterness after The Beatles, all I know of John and George is the image that was protrayed after their deaths. You have to say that's pretty nasty of George to still be saying things like that nearly 20 years after the break up. I was watching parts of anthology recently and I thought it was pretty clear in some scenes that George still didn't like Paul.
I remember the one part where George Martin was trying to tell George that Paul wasn't playing bass on "Golden Slumbers" and George was going on about Paul being "keen" to do that and laughing about it to himself. There was a bit George said once about Paul using his tours to stir up a Beatles reunion for publicity. That was crap cause they ALL were always asked when they were hooking up again, even after John died and if George had bothered to tour like Paul and Ringo did, maybe he'd of seen those same questions as well. The great thing about Paul is that he never threw any of the ex Beatles under the bus, EVER, he always took the high road.
-
femaleanimal:
I remember George describing Broad Street as "another ego trip for Paul" - as if Paul wasn`t getting enough flack for that film! He also accused Paul of using the Beatles for publicity - a bit rich from the composer of "When We Was Fab"! Yeah,isn`t it a pity.
George also said that personally, he "liked the film", but told Paul he shouldn't do it without help with rewriting the scripts.. He did praise "No More Lonely Nights" too.
-
Paul was at Georges' side as he was dying, holding his hand. He does beautiful tributes to George in concert. In the end they reconciled and were friends and brothers again. That's all that matters. You should let it go.
-
hihopes1964:
I think the fact that 'Yoko pissed him off and he took it out on Paul' in that 1969 argument pretty much backs up what John said: "We took it out on each other cos we were the only ones each other had." It's like with families. Unfortunately in life, we hurt those that are closest to us, and we feel comfortable enough with to hurt. Sad but true. I think Paul and Georges' post-Beatles relationship was complex, and there's probably stuff that we don't know. After all, you're right; Paul contributed loads to Georges' songs, and John often contributed nothing. I'm sure there has to be something else that George resented that he maybe didn't speak about.
It was probably just fear. I suppose George was afraid of confronting John -- afraid of how John would react, afraid of getting torn to shreds verbally or otherwise. So he took his resentment at Yoko out on Paul because (1) George was already resentful of Paul for telling George what to do in the studio and (2) Paul was a much easier, less intimidating target. I've always thought that George hoped to step into Paul's shoes when John and Paul's relationship began to unravel. Maybe George saw an opening and thought that he would finally get to write with John, someone he'd always looked up to. He must have been hurt/angry when, instead, John replaced Paul with Yoko. Peter Doggett's book You Never Give Me Your Money talks about how John often "found a way to be out of the studio" when it came time to record George's songs. And it is interesting when you look at the songs: John doesn't play or sing on Here Comes the Sun (tho that may be related to his car accident); he's not on Savoy Truffle or Long Long Long. John didn't do anything for Love You To (on Revolver). And John didn't do much on Something either (apparently he played some piano bit that wasn't used much.) It's odd that George never expressed any resentment at John for that lack of involvement. FYI, by coincidence, there's already a thread on George-Paul in Not Such a Bad Boy (not sure why it's over there rather than here). Here's the link: http://macca.paulmccartney.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=79711&start=0&sid=d13142fb043b8985e8c91be9e77460d8 Paul and George's relationship is hard to understand. But when you consider that, of all the people George could have asked for help when he was dying (George had many friends in the music and film worlds), he turned to Paul, I guess that says something about who George trusted, at heart.
-
femaleanimal:
It`s sad and I don`t understand it either. There was a period when George could have been my favourite Beatle, but his constant bitching about Paul put me off.It didn`t chime too well with his Hari Krishna beliefs, but then neither did his use of stimulants.
Nor did his use of tobacco nor his having sex (at least after he got into Krishna except for procreation) I could go on and on and on. I love George a lot but his bitching about Paul is a phase I didn't like and I breathed a sigh of releif when it was over in 1990 and I read about it in the paper on how they had found a new understanding with each other. I said to myself, "well, that's about time." Of course George did most of his bitching through the 80s and he was a tough row to hoe back then according to what I read about him especially in Dark Horse. (Yeah, I know...guilliano is suspect). He was doing a lot of coke and being just generally nasty. He even threw one of his old Krishna buddies out of his house saying, "Go get a few beers in you. You're boring." Which is not the George of the mid-70s with the Krishnas. He seemed to be going through a bad time all around just before he finally made Cloud 9.
-
Tobacco, of course, is a stimulant. As is sex, I suppose.
-
He even threw one of his old Krishna buddies out of his house saying, "Go get a few beers in you. You're boring."
Well maybe the guy WAS boring.
-
femaleanimal:
Tobacco, of course, is a stimulant. As is sex, I suppose.
both are forbidden under Krishna doctrines. I'm not an inititate, but I stayed with the Krishna's by the Fisher Mansion for three weeks once when I was homeless and learned a lot about them. We were just married. Try staying somewhere where newlyweds weren't allowed to have sex? I also spent time with City of God and those Krishnas aren't as boring but mentioning them among the SRF sects and you get shocked looks and big wide eyes staring at you.
-
Michelley:
He even threw one of his old Krishna buddies out of his house saying, "Go get a few beers in you. You're boring."
Well maybe the guy WAS boring.
they can be. I bet George got boring when he lectured. One fan recently told a bunch of us a fantastic story where she visited Henley and had to walk in front of Friar Park to look in the gates. She managed to get a chance encounter with Olivia, George's wife. They had a pleasant chat where she told Olivia where she was staying and she learned that George was out of town. Two days later her phone rang in the room of the inn she was staying and Olivia was inviting her up to the house for tea. Yes, George was there. When she got there, she wast taken to the library where George was sitting waiting to greet her. He was surrounded by dozens of copies of the Krishna book in many languages and he asked her politely which copy she wanted. She thought that was great but I found it slightly disturbing myself. (Though I always wanted to read that book for my own information).
-
George (and probably all the Beatles) also said their problems with one another weren't really that bad, but being in the public eye, the press magnified and distorted and exaggerated everything.
-
The entire thrust of this thread, is too one dimensional in my view. "George bitching about Paul" how petty of Harrison how hypocritical. Thats a narrow simplistic view of a long running complex relationship between the two of them. IMO First off the remark used as an example at the beginning of the thread, Harrison quipped McCartney was doing some Lennon songs "because he ran out of good one's of his own" I saw the footage of that comment recently, and it was just an acerbic Liverpudlian quip by Harrison, stereotypical sarcastic Harrison wit, thats all. Harrison harbored some resentment against McCartney for decades, but it did mellow, they did record (even compose) together, and hung out as friends also, from I dont know, the 80's onward. While McCartney has been more polite in public remarks than Lennon or Harrison were sometimes, I think it was some of the things McCartney may have done privately that irked Harrison, One example would be, when he negotiated for a higher royalty rate on Beatles record sales, than the other three got. The other three considered this a betrayal. Now McCartney has explained, how that was his own contract re-negotiation that only had to do with him. He was selling more records as a solo artist so he negotiated a higher rate for himself, to re-sign as a solo with EMI But it pissed off the other three, and McCartney kept it secret and never told them about it... Or when he tried to foist the Eastmans onto the other three Beatles instead of Klein as manager.. Sure McCartney ended up being right about Klein, but it was still wrong to try and have his father in law manage the other three you don't have to be a genius to see a conflict of interest there. And there is McCartney always trying to do more of his songs than anyone elses,, and being generally bossy and seeking control you didint mention any of those things, Frankly none of that is any of our business, lets talk about the music instead I would say yes Paul McCartney is the most polite Beatle, perhaps he also, was a little unfair behind the scenes. All the Beatles were/are fairly decent as human beings, I hate to see any of the four of them trashed... In the end, as was said in an earlier post, Paul McCartney and George Harrison got past any resentments they may have had. They recorded together, ate together, went to see each other socially developed the anthology series, Love, Yellow Submarine Songtrack And you will notice, in all those latter projects,... Harrisons slice of involvement was somewhat larger, than when the Beatles were a functioning band... Better late than never to make up for Harrisons second class treatment in the sixties, by George Martin and McCartney and Lennon Harrison may have been petty, but he was not the only one.. When he died and McCartney said " I have lost my baby brother" thats rather condescending in a way dont you think.. ? When Lennon died McCartney didin't say " I lost my big brother" Why? Because McCartney and the other beatles are all ego-centric people. Believe me they are /were all very very self absorbed guys Having said that, they all deserve many kudos, as parents, donors to charity,, political or social awareness, and their great great work
-
i wouldnt mind being a 'second class' beatle behind lennon and mccartney! you go on about fairness but i would say much of the last post was as speculative as some of the posts you are complaining about. taken in isolation any quirky comment by george in the the post beatle years about paul could quite easily be labelled a bit of sarcastic beatle humour. however there were far too many of them [anti paul comments] for them to be so inconsequent. all things being equal ,george harrison had alot to thankfull to paul mccartney for.its a shame that whilst he was alive that there appears to be almost no public recognition of what mccartney's brilliant music and mind did for his career.
-
Good post LazyD. A bit too much ' dwho as I say not as I dwho '.
-
lazydynamite88:
i wouldnt mind being a 'second class' beatle behind lennon and mccartney! you go on about fairness but i would say much of the last post was as speculative as some of the posts you are complaining about. taken in isolation any quirky comment by george in the the post beatle years about paul could quite easily be labelled a bit of sarcastic beatle humour. however there were far too many of them [anti paul comments] for them to be so inconsequent. all things being equal ,george harrison had alot to thankfull to paul mccartney for.its a shame that whilst he was alive that there appears to be almost no public recognition of what mccartney's brilliant music and mind did for his career.
Yahtzee, lazydynamite.
Anything taken in isolation can be put down to "oh it's just a quip" when it happens for years with almost no recognition going the other way...especially towards someone who very rarely says anything bad the person doing the 'badmouthing'. -
Or when he tried to foist the Eastmans onto the other three Beatles instead of Klein as manager.. Sure McCartney ended up being right about Klein, but it was still wrong to try and have his father in law manage the other three you don't have to be a genius to see a conflict of interest there.
You're ignoring a key fact: The Eastmans had an excellent reputation for managing artists. And how, do tell, did McCartney "foist" the Eastmans on his bandmates? He wanted the others to consider the Eastmans. He never forced anything. How could he have? And second, it was John who acted FIRST. He's the one who went and signed with Klein, without any consideration for what his bandmates thought. That sounds like foisting his choice on the others to me. John went his own way and said to hell with what the rest of you think. It's all kind of ridiculous when you think about it -- as if there were only two people in the whole world that could have managed the Beatles, Eastman or Klein. But John was unwilling to compromise or to back down. And, apparently, neither was Paul. But the fact is: It was John who started the ball rolling. And it was John whose misguided choice of Klein ended up costing John, George, and Ringo a lot of money. LazyD is absolutely right. Your post is as filled with conjecture as all of the rest of ours. The band had internal contract/financial disputes -- like any band. What they said/did to one another privately is not something we can debate with any accuracy here because we have no way of knowing what was said or done privately. What people are pointing out is the constant, belittling remarks that George made publically about Paul. And we're also pointing out that Paul never made public insults about George's songs or music or musical skills. That's all people are saying. Finally, it's not surprising that Paul viewed George as a younger brother. Paul was a year ahead of George in school. George WAS younger. Paul was the one who got George into the band when John thought he was too young. That was the pecking order that developed. I don't see how you can spin Paul's heartfelt comment about George after he died as an insult.
