George's criticisms of Macca
-
lazydynamite88:
how long before the obigatory 'they were all equal,all four parts.nobody is more important than the other' mince
for my money i will define the beatles in percentages. i will not include managers/producers though.. 4th .ringo 5%.[a decent drummer who played his supporting role well] 3rd. george 10%[a good basic guitarist who ended up writing a couple of great songs.shame his bitterness got in the way at the end. 2nd.john 40%[the bands formal leader and undoubted genius.amazing songwriter and effective vocalist.used his rivalry with 'mac' in the tunesmith dept to maximum effect.impossible to imagine the beatles without him] 1st.paul 45%.[often overlooked how important his gift for melody was to the band.pushed the best out of lennon.worked his balls off.amazing singer.great all round musical talent.the songs that he wrote are the main difference between the beatles still being head and shoulders above any other artists.pushed the best out of 'lennon' which was equally important.
I couldn't agree with this more. Although I might make Ringo and George a bit more equal. Maybe 7% Ringo, for his personality and persona which helped tremendously in the beginning, and 8% for George, his main contribution, imo was having the same sensibilities as Paul and John and being driven enough to want to learn to play guitar,something that didn't come all that naturally to him.
-
These threads remind me of Fox News or MSNBC one far left the other far right, and no one ever changes their minds, or revises their opinions on those channels, I can see I am not going to change peoples minds through discussion here.. If people want to believe, Lazy Dynamite or Mary Had a little Lamb are great songs and records, no amount of discussion will change that. I think most post Beatle solo albums, have several good songs on them and some mediocre ones. There are some exceptions, Ringo's Ringo album Band on The Run, Imagine, ATMP, Brainwashed. Chaos, Flaming Pie I don't think people are interested in poring over the solo catalogues and actually listening to all the songs! Some people here are hip to all the songs and have reasoned opinions based on being familiar with the work.. But I think many of the people saying Harrisons work was just mediocre, are saying that without actually being familiar with it. I do object to this whole notion of McCartney was the Beatles I think Lennon said in the Playboy interview shortly before his murder paraphrasing from Memory "People think Paul was king Beatle, but it was me" end quote I'm tired of defending the quality of Harrisons abilities, too time consuming, and worse, not one person is gonna change their mind Hopefully maybe one or two people will actually, be given pause and actually listen to some of his work before entering judgement Luckily we haven't gotten into lyrics so much as melody, but then again many people hear may not be that concerned with the lyrics to songs beyond the hook I Love this place because there are so many threads
-
If we are discussing post beatle work, I would say Ram is the best post beatle album. I would also go as far to say that Monkberry Moon Delight is Paul's best vocal. Infact, Im going to listen to this album on the the way to work!
-
whobeatle...based on your tastes I would highly recommend the band XTC to you if you're not hip to them. They had 2 songwriters, 1 of whom is an absolute genius. Mind you, he's no Lennon/McCartney but (all together now) no shame in that, nobody is. I guess Nonesuch would probably be a great album to start with if you're starting out...took me quite a few spins to get into the singers voice, but the lyrics are impossibly good and the melodies and variety and vision are stellar as well. This thread must be very frustrating for you as passionate as you are, but you've taken it all in stride and handled it well IMO. I think that the point I differ on with you is that I believe that it is the scope and volume of Lennon/McCartney's songwriting that are a testament to their superiority. Almost every serious writer has a great song or two in them...this is why there are so many one-hit-wonders. To write classic after classic and hit after hit after hit while constantly evolving and pushing the envelope of pop music is what distinguishes John & Paul from all others. Some of Paul's lyrics may be a bit daft, but look at all the approaches he takes and how many experiments turned into gold. Many of his lyrics are deceptively simple and harder to appreciate but he really takes a back seat to very few in this regard...just try it and you'll see. And of course, Lennon's gift of wordplay and imagination are otherworldly, emotive and unique. Harrison is more of a confessional type songwriter, whereas Paul is more of a painter...evoking myriad scenes of everyday life with a few brilliant strokes...a lot harder to master.
-
Oh and melody.... Nobody has even come close to Paul McCartney...the greatest melodic talent of the century! Lennon's behind him. Paul Simon is a not so close third.
-
Blue Ruins:
Oh and melody.... Nobody has even come close to Paul McCartney...the greatest melodic talent of the century! Lennon's behind him. Paul Simon is a not so close third.
Blue, Dylan even gushed over Macca's melodic gifts last year in aRolling Stone interview..He's is truly Mr Melody!!!
-
Now we are really getting off subject l'll nominate Tim Finn can sit at the same table.
-
Blue Ruins:
Oh and melody.... Nobody has even come close to Paul McCartney...the greatest melodic talent of the century! Lennon's behind him. Paul Simon is a not so close third.
I consider Paul Simon a genius and even more of an inspiration to my life then Paul or the Beatles but I always associated his strong points with his lyrics which are the most incredible I've ever heard in English.
-
Brain Wilson deserves a seat at the all-time melodist table as well. Say (and this guy deserves a thread of his own, and some recognition in general), any one familiar with the name Max Martin? he's a songsmith who wrote the key hits of pop acts like Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, Kelly Clarkson, Pink, and the list goes on.. the guys no doubt a genius. I have no idea how many #1's he's written overall, in excess of 20 easily I'm guessing. anyone know the answer to that one? he's scary. beatlish in terms of his writing success. and no one knows him lol check him out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Martin
-
dear 'whobeatle'. amongst your many many quite repetative and boring posts on this subject you wrote... "Driving Rain I thought was horrid". well your entitled to your opinion but your talking shite. if this is the kind of shitty opinion you are offering then why should any of your other opinions be valid. you see 'driving rain' is not 'horrid'. some people love it [me included] and some people are not so keen.ive never heard a socalled mccartney fan member describe any of his albums as 'horrid'. to be honest im sure that quote is right out of the george harrison handbook. believe me ,there are many 'weak' george harrison collections but im sure nobody on here have described them as 'horrid'. anyway 'driving rain' is better than anything solo george could muster full stop.even 'all things must pass' is completely overated and should never have been a double album!. lets face it 'harrison ' was washed up by the mid 1970s FULL STOP. i did love him but if im honest he was a decent guitarist,hit n miss songwriter,average beatle .
-
kapoo:
Brain Wilson deserves a seat at the all-time melodist table as well. Say (and this guy deserves a thread of his own, and some recognition in general), any one familiar with the name Max Martin? he's a songsmith who wrote the key hits of pop acts like Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, Kelly Clarkson, Pink, and the list goes on.. the guys no doubt a genius. I have no idea how many #1's he's written overall, in excess of 20 easily I'm guessing. anyone know the answer to that one? he's scary. beatlish in terms of his writing success. and no one knows him lol check him out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Martin
what next, Stock, Aitken & Waterman?
-
I'm a bit late on the discussion, but I'd like to give my two cents. No matter how much I read about how Paul and George spent hours talking and holding hands before he died, nothing convinces me that George passed away in good terms with Paul. Well, he was about to die... of course they would share one last moment together, forgetting about the differences. But what if George had been killed unexpectedly, like John? As we all know, George spent the 70s bitching about Paul's albums and about how they'd never play together again. Fine. Maybe that was supposed to change after John's death, right? Maybe they'd realize life was very short and there was no time for fussing and fighting. I don't know about Paul, since he was always so diplomatic and never said shit about anyone in the press (that's a fact, whether you think he was being phony or not), but I clearly remember George saying that Paul had ran out of good songs of his own and hadn't attended the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame cerimony to "show off". I wish I could find the video. That was about 15 years after the Beatles broke up. And then comes the Anthology. Honestly, you only don't see how unconfortable George and Paul were around each other if you don't want to. 25 years after the break-up. I think it's sooo weird. I mean, Eric Clapton stole George's wife, for God's sake. And they remained in good terms. What the heck did Paul do to justify such bitterness from George? Was it still because his songs were not taken seriously back in 68/69, even though John was also to blame for it? I wonder if there was something more serious going on between Paul and George. I must say that George's behaviour annoys me a little, since he claimed to be so spiritual and all that. Sorry, I love him, but I have to be honest.
-
lazydynamite88:
dear 'whobeatle'. amongst your many many quite repetative and boring posts on this subject you wrote... "Driving Rain I thought was horrid". well your entitled to your opinion but your talking shite. if this is the kind of sh**ty opinion you are offering then why should any of your other opinions be valid. you see 'driving rain' is not 'horrid'. some people love it [me included] and some people are not so keen.ive never heard a socalled mccartney fan member describe any of his albums as 'horrid'. to be honest im sure that quote is right out of the george harrison handbook. believe me ,there are many 'weak' george harrison collections but im sure nobody on here have described them as 'horrid'. anyway 'driving rain' is better than anything solo george could muster full stop.even 'all things must pass' is completely overated and should never have been a double album!. lets face it 'harrison ' was washed up by the mid 1970s FULL STOP. i did love him but if im honest he was a decent guitarist,hit n miss songwriter,average beatle .
Hm. As much as I agree with you about Driving Rain, I disagree that Harrison was washed up by the mid-70s. His 1979 self-titled album is a rather splendid piece of work, and let's not forget that the released version of Somewhere In England was a pale imitation of the album that George originally had in mind (and indeed recorded) due to idiotic interference from his label. It's true that Gone Troppo represents a dip in quality, despite some absolutely lovely songs on there (Mystical One). Cloud 9 sounds dated in that 80s sort of way, but still has some vintage Harrison high points (Is This Love, Someplace Else). Lastly, Brainwashed, despite being bookended by very poor opening and closing tracks, is a spectacular return to form after a few years away from it all. All in all, I'm very happy with Harrison's solo output, and would rate it above Lennon's. My one main gripe is his choice of producer, Lynne, who, to my mind, was a one trick pony. He seemed to encourage George's obsession with weeping guitar sounds, rather than the elegant short bursts he favoured in his Beatle days. George's solo back catalogue is mystifying, intriguing and, in some pithy way, quite tragic - I would advise anyone and everyone to listen carefully and repeatedly to all his albums; there are undiscovered gems everywhere.
-
Blue Ruins:
whobeatle...based on your tastes I would highly recommend the band XTC to you if you're not hip to them. They had 2 songwriters, 1 of whom is an absolute genius. Mind you, he's no Lennon/McCartney but (all together now) no shame in that, nobody is. I guess Nonesuch would probably be a great album to start with if you're starting out...took me quite a few spins to get into the singers voice, but the lyrics are impossibly good and the melodies and variety and vision are stellar as well. This thread must be very frustrating for you as passionate as you are, but you've taken it all in stride and handled it well IMO. I think that the point I differ on with you is that I believe that it is the scope and volume of Lennon/McCartney's songwriting that are a testament to their superiority. Almost every serious writer has a great song or two in them...this is why there are so many one-hit-wonders. To write classic after classic and hit after hit after hit while constantly evolving and pushing the envelope of pop music is what distinguishes John & Paul from all others. Some of Paul's lyrics may be a bit daft, but look at all the approaches he takes and how many experiments turned into gold. Many of his lyrics are deceptively simple and harder to appreciate but he really takes a back seat to very few in this regard...just try it and you'll see. And of course, Lennon's gift of wordplay and imagination are otherworldly, emotive and unique. Harrison is more of a confessional type songwriter, whereas Paul is more of a painter...evoking myriad scenes of everyday life with a few brilliant strokes...a lot harder to master.
Yeah I love XTC, just superb. I prefer the second half of their career, when their records became more layered and produced, from Skylarking onward. I guess Partridge has some sort of physical or emotional problem that prevents him from working now. Moudling doesn't want to reunite with him either sadly. I think they rivaled the Beatles briefly , but their songs were a little too complex maybe, to be commercial Yes I agree Lennon and McCartney are superior to Harrison as songwriters in the sense that,, they were more prolific, particularly McCartney. I think McCartney releases a lot of so so songs.. But I buy them anyway because I like everything he does, or The WHO or Dylan or the Kinks or Brian Wilson. None of them ever do anything as good as what they did years ago, but I still like their work better than anybody elses. Usually. Mostly I come to these forums looking for news on upcoming releases or information on unreleased material. Occasionally I get sucked into a thread. I try and stay out of the mythology of Lennon the martyr or McCartney the "real" genius of the Beatles, I Just think they made records that I enjoy more than anyone else in history. I dont know how many kids Ringo has or What McCartneys kids do for a living, or Dhani Harrisons new album. I dont care about that, I just care about the great music the Beatles made and some of the great solo music they made. I still believe Harrison is given some short shrift, here and in general I think when he wanted to be, he had his moments every bit as brilliant as Lennon or McCartney, I'm glad McCartney has taken a lot of time and care on his Chaos and MAF albums, and on Flaming Pie, I think his solo albums turn out better when he has good people and takes his time. Ironically in the Beatles they worked very quickly, but perhaps as a solo in his late sixties, he is better off polishing the work more carefully I think its important to remember Harrison didin't want to write hit songs and be a public recording artist all the time, if he had so desired, I am sure he could have knocked off another half a dozen albums and written another half dozen hits, I think he had to be in the mood much like Lennon later in his life.. I think its a mistake to think, just because Harrison didint release more work, that he couldnt have. Apparently there are hundreds of songs in his archives. Even Lennon as it turns out...all the claims of how he didint write songs for five years before double fantasy is not true..it turns out he had at least two dozen songs from his so called retirement period. I would say though, hands down McCartney is the most commercial Beatle at least through around 1990 or so. But when Lennon was in the mood he could craft an Instant Karma or Starting over in two days or less. Same With Harrison, when he felt like it.. I think Harrison after all his success as a Beatle and a solo, felt less driven to keep proving it again. Brainwashed is a heck of an album, very very strong, except for a few weak vocals done after his cancer surgeries. Even so very poignant,
-
lazydynamite88:
dear 'whobeatle'. amongst your many many quite repetative and boring posts on this subject you wrote... "Driving Rain I thought was horrid". well your entitled to your opinion but your talking shite. if this is the kind of sh**ty opinion you are offering then why should any of your other opinions be valid. you see 'driving rain' is not 'horrid'. some people love it [me included] and some people are not so keen.ive never heard a socalled mccartney fan member describe any of his albums as 'horrid'. to be honest im sure that quote is right out of the george harrison handbook. believe me ,there are many 'weak' george harrison collections but im sure nobody on here have described them as 'horrid'. anyway 'driving rain' is better than anything solo george could muster full stop.even 'all things must pass' is completely overated and should never have been a double album!. lets face it 'harrison ' was washed up by the mid 1970s FULL STOP. i did love him but if im honest he was a decent guitarist,hit n miss songwriter,average beatle .
I disagree about the Harrison being washed up though he had a bad lull in the early 80s. Brainwashed is one of his best albums and the song Horse to Water (credited to RIP productions as he knew he was dying) has spoken to me like no other song in a long time. McCartney's are prettier and I enjoy them, but a lot of Paul's music doesn't always speak to me. It's just really good pure entertainment, and some of the best I might add. George knew how to touch my soul and still does.
-
maribeatlecrazy:
. I must say that George's behaviour annoys me a little, since he claimed to be so spiritual and all that. Sorry, I love him, but I have to be honest.
opening another can of worms, I don't know where people get the idea that religous or spiritual people are all nice and lovey dovey. Most of them can be incredibly cruel and very grumpy on better days and George was no exception. Yes, I noticed the uncomfortableness between George and Paul in the Anthology and saw it right away when it first aired. THey do look a lot more relaxed with each other in the scenes that were deleted. I believe they were friends when they died based on what I know about George's spirituality. He worked to make peace even visiting the Maharishi asking for forgiveness for what the Beatles did to him. it was his way. Whatever had kept them apart was gone by the 90s even with the problems during the Anthology. Like someone else pointed out, Paul let George use his house in LA to die inside. That alone speaks of closeness (and Tom Hanks talks about it at George's Walk of Fame ceremony if you want proof it happened) As far as Clapton and George (and Ringo and George since George had an affair with his wife too) anyone who is into polyamorous loving understands that part of his life very well.
-
People can say all they want about Paul's and George's relationship but guess what you were'nt there.
-
whobeatle:
Yeah I love XTC, just superb. I prefer the second half of their career, when their records became more layered and produced, from Skylarking onward. I guess Partridge has some sort of physical or emotional problem that prevents him from working now. Moudling doesn't want to reunite with him either sadly. I think they rivaled the Beatles briefly , but their songs were a little too complex maybe, to be commercial Yes I agree Lennon and McCartney are superior to Harrison as songwriters in the sense that,, they were more prolific, particularly McCartney. I think McCartney releases a lot of so so songs.. But I buy them anyway because I like everything he does, or The WHO or Dylan or the Kinks or Brian Wilson. None of them ever do anything as good as what they did years ago, but I still like their work better than anybody elses. Usually. Mostly I come to these forums looking for news on upcoming releases or information on unreleased material. Occasionally I get sucked into a thread. I try and stay out of the mythology of Lennon the martyr or McCartney the "real" genius of the Beatles, I Just think they made records that I enjoy more than anyone else in history. I dont know how many kids Ringo has or What McCartneys kids do for a living, or Dhani Harrisons new album. I dont care about that, I just care about the great music the Beatles made and some of the great solo music they made. I still believe Harrison is given some short shrift, here and in general I think when he wanted to be, he had his moments every bit as brilliant as Lennon or McCartney, I'm glad McCartney has taken a lot of time and care on his Chaos and MAF albums, and on Flaming Pie, I think his solo albums turn out better when he has good people and takes his time. Ironically in the Beatles they worked very quickly, but perhaps as a solo in his late sixties, he is better off polishing the work more carefully I think its important to remember Harrison didin't want to write hit songs and be a public recording artist all the time, if he had so desired, I am sure he could have knocked off another half a dozen albums and written another half dozen hits, I think he had to be in the mood much like Lennon later in his life.. I think its a mistake to think, just because Harrison didint release more work, that he couldnt have. Apparently there are hundreds of songs in his archives. Even Lennon as it turns out...all the claims of how he didint write songs for five years before double fantasy is not true..it turns out he had at least two dozen songs from his so called retirement period. I would say though, hands down McCartney is the most commercial Beatle at least through around 1990 or so. But when Lennon was in the mood he could craft an Instant Karma or Starting over in two days or less. Same With Harrison, when he felt like it.. I think Harrison after all his success as a Beatle and a solo, felt less driven to keep proving it again. Brainwashed is a heck of an album, very very strong, except for a few weak vocals done after his cancer surgeries. Even so very poignant,
I've been thinking about this subject for the last month...why most artists careers seem to be unable to sustain the brilliance of youth. I think one of the reasons is that it becomes harder to distinguish your great work from your good work. And how many astounding permutations can they build off of their talents...at some point they're running up against physical limitations as to what their voice can support (I don't mean age I mean potential). And yes, as you've pointed out, there is the fact that they grow comfortable in what they've achieved...less to prove. The aspect I enjoy so much about the Beatles (and XTC) is the clear focus and intent of most of their songs. Contemporary songs are very seldom this way. In the Beatles, the subjects were clearly defined and illustrated. For example; "Lucy in the Sky.." you can picture yourself in a boat on a river because they paint a complete beautiful musical kaleidescope for you to see. It's why I think Yellow Submarine is an amazing song...it takes you to an alternate universe...escapism is part of why I listen. "Eleanor Rigby" takes me to meet someone and I feel that I've actually met her. "Penny Lane"...been there but I've never been there. "Mr. Bellamy" is a great example of this on MAF. Paul has taken a picture in his mind and illustrated it for us all to see (although some people around here saw some weird sh**...doesn't matter, they saw something). Too often I feel that songs are just about a diffuse feeling...sometimes that's okay, but it's the difference between the Beatles and the rest of the world. George did a wonderful job of it with "Piggies", "Savoy Truffle" and almost all of his Beatles work as well. Paul's most successful works are almost always ones that really paint a picture... Oh and whobeatle, you did get me to bust out ATMP and Brainwashed for a few deep listenings last week when you started your spirited defense of Mr. Harrison, thanks! Still spinning ATMP on the way to work as a matter of fact. Glad to meet another XTC fan.
-
One thing I've noticed on Anthology, is when Paul is talking about the harmonies being off at the end of the Beatles touring days, George starts to really bristle. I can only imagine the loads of criticism that George had to take from our dear Paul over the years. Paul is a seriously driven individual, and people like that will become mini-tyrants to achieve their goals. Especially when fed the massive approval and incentive of the entire world waiting for your next work. Thank God Paul was like that for our sakes, but pity poor George for taking the brunt of it.
-
I?m going to take a flyer on what George had a problem with Paul about (and no I wasn?t there and no I?m not Paul himself!
) , I?m guessing George saw Paul as a manipulative and in some ways possibly shallow, ego driven know it all, and someone who has always gotten his way through force of will. And someone with those credentials who also told George what to do one too many times. That?s probably about what it was. And you know what, he probably told Paul exactly that, and Paul probably told him he didn?t give a shit
and that?s probably where it stood pretty much until then end. Just guessing here. And they both probably saw John as a crazy person.. but how can you not love crazy people who are crazy in the ways John was
artistic to the point of detriment to ones self. Macsback, I wasn?t familiar actually with the writing trio you mentioned, but they do look to be pretty great, as writers. I have no problem throwing Max Martin in the hat of names of the greatest pop songwriters in history. Numbers don?t lie. Of course, I?ll take A Day In The Life over Hit Me Baby One More Time, no question there. But especially related to Macca, Max Martin is his and any pop artists competition as a songwriter. Max launches pop acts in much the same way the Beatles did early on giving away their original songs. Paul likes writing #1 hits, and Max is currently one of the best at it. I bet Paul admires that dudes writing abilities, and abilities to write for the scene. The obvious difference being that Paul is also the performer of his songs
However, I?ve said this before too, I think Paul could have many more #1 songs than he does if he gave more away to fresh hungry young artists to sing/produce. Not that he?s not a great singer obviously, just that I think in some cases certain artists tend to perform certain styles better than anyone else. Paul?s written so many diff styles, there?s probably artists out there who could have done amazing things with some of Paul?s songs. And could have seen something in them and jumped on it in different ways then Paul did. Look at Harry Nilsson with One Is The Loneliest Number. For Harry it was great, timeless, but not a hit. Three Dog Night knocked it out of the park. I actually like Harry?s better, but its all about selling records. snap back to topic! I'm with Blue Ruins.. I feel a George Harrison bender coming on. you've got my interest kindled a bit whobeatle