George's criticisms of Macca
-
Other musicians such as Eric Clapton, Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Tom Petty etc hold George in very high favour. He was considered a musician's musician; they actually played instruments with him, they would know. Also musicologists who write books about George's contributions hold him in high esteem. Simon Leng's book is very good at dissecting George's talents, I highly recommend it.
-
lazydynamite88:
george was a great guitarist and for a while was a decent songwriter too. the truth will always be that he was a lucky lucky boy. perhaps not as lucky as ringo but along the same lines. he was caught in the slipstream of the greatest artistic fusion of genius that ever was. mccartney and lennon in a kind of personal game to better each other and move musical milestones. im also of a belief that lennon was also fortunate to have been in the songwriting head to head with mccartney also.it brought the best out in him. it probably motivated and inspired him to try and better the amazing and constant gift for song that mccartney was coming up with on an almost daily basis. of course likewise paul benefited from john too but its quite obvious which on of them suffered the most when they went their seperate ways. george main role in all of this was to play it straight,keep his head down and accept his gift from the gods .for a while he was happy to do this but soon his ego got in the way . of course his ego didnt stop him going cap in hand back to mccartney with regards the anthology project but money can swallow many so called values. im not going to change history here but despite all the misty eyed romance that exist on here its pretty obvious to me that the beatles legend and brilliance would have happened with almost ANY guitarist and of course drummer. mccartney and lennon were the reason,almost 100%. it might not be a popular view buts its true. george was a lucky boy,but he did a great job.
Very well said, I agree 100% (including Lennon point) for Anthology I want to add these points that are obvious to see on the growing up George and Paul: 1. The project was to be named (The Long And Winding Road) but GEORGE did not agree to name it after a McCartney song! (whether we agree or not with the name but the reason of his refusal was mean) 2. during the part when G.Martin ask about the bass on Abbey Road, George two awful remarks (which album was that? and the bass part) 3. the part when they jam together at George's studio, George's dont want to play more and after Paul asks him gently he answers something like " ok but this is the last one!" 4. projects like writing together or completing "Now and Then" were killed out of George's desire. just like the Beatles playing live on the TV in 1969 which was changed to play on the roof instead. yes George was talented, but he was very very lucky to be with the greatest songwriters of all time. he was a very good guitarist but it was also a challenge for him to put his solo in songs of two good melodic guitarist, so he improved in guitar because of them. even at the Beatles his best solos in songs came from Eric Clapton and Paul himself "Taxman"!
-
whobeatle:
Its ludicrous to say Harrison is some guy who was lucky... I'll tell you what...go write two songs as good as Something and While My Guitar gently weeps.... then write two solo smashes... as good as My Sweet Lord and Give Me Love... then write another for Ringo... (it dont come easy) and after you have done that,,, come back and tell me Harrison was lucky
I can see you didn't get the meaning behind "Lazydynmite" saying George was Lucky. ok the point is : We all agree that John and Paul are the greatest composers in the world and history and their composing developed through the years. they inspired EVERYBODY in music industry and band members to compose, they inspired EVERYBODY to develop in order to compete with them. I will say one example "Jagger and Richard" in 1963 saw Paul and John ONCE finishing writing a simple song in front of them "Wanna be your Man" , they took that gift"the simple song" and begun composing by themselves till they made some of the best songs near 1966 till 1969. of course if they were not talented they would not do it. how about someone who plays guitar well with John and Paul and see from inside how they write songs, how they got ideas, words, how they use different instruments in the right place?! won't you be a lucky person to be that one????? wont you at least compose simple songs and develop day by day and make a couple of great songs after 10 years living with those two legends????? this is Luck man! Lucky to be the only student inside the best Academy in composing in history! so don't challenge "Lazydynamite" to go and come back with a couple of great songs like that if you didn't give him the chance or THE LUCK of being inside the Beatles studying from Paul and John while they were developing day by day! By the way, the solo smash on 'While my Guitar" and "My sweet lord" were by EClapton, while "Give me Love" solo was not a smash at all ! and I dont mean he has not made very good solos, if he was not he would not be in a band like the Beatles! his solo on Something was his best! George was talented and very lucky . and we love him, he was ridiculous with Paul out of jealousy. thats all!
-
The bottom line is, George was a good song writer for a short period, Lennon & McCartney were juggernauts who time after time wrote classics to keep The Beatles ahead of the pack!! George wrote two great songs for Abbey Road, for some on here, that's good enough to put him on par with Lennon & McCartney : Out of the four Beatles, I would say McCartney would have made some sort of mark on music, if his meeting with Lennon never happened, McCartney was already writing songs before he met Lennon, he was also more musically minded, had more drive in him to be successful and was an excellent pr man even back in the early days. Meeting McCartney spurred Lennon into writing & playing better, not the other way around as some would have us believe. I honestly don't know if John would have made any impact on the music scene, if the meeting with Paul never happened, remember what it was like back then, music executives were fickle and prefered stars to have a Cliff Richard image, John had many issues and a lot of anger going on and because of his "i couldn't give a toss attitude" record companies would have given him a wide berth. George would have ended up playing in a local band and maybe have ended up being a session musician if he never met Paul Ringo would still be playing Butlins holiday camps & signing autographs for kids on their summer holidays if Pete had more of a personality.. All that's hypothetical but i'm sure many on here will take offence to me putting McCartney in such high esteem, one things for sure, he deserves much more credit than he gets from some quarters. I would also put Paul's best solo/wings albums ahead of both John & George's while they were all recording between 1970-1975, Ram, Band on the Run & Venus & Mars IMO are better than Plastic Ono Band (johns best) Imagine & Walls & Bridges, while George never bettered All Things Must Pass, I should also give a mention to McCartney,Wildlife & Red Rose Speedway, they are a lot better than a lot of people give them credit for, yeah i'm a Paul McCartney fan
-
Macsback:
The bottom line is, George was a good song writer for a short period, Lennon & McCartney were juggernauts who time after time wrote classics to keep The Beatles ahead of the pack!! George wrote two great songs for Abbey Road, for some on here, that's good enough to put him on par with Lennon & McCartney : Out of the four Beatles, I would say McCartney would have made some sort of mark on music, if his meeting with Lennon never happened, McCartney was already writing songs before he met Lennon, he was also more musically minded, had more drive in him to be successful and was an excellent pr man even back in the early days. Meeting McCartney spurred Lennon into writing & playing better, not the other way around as some would have us believe. I honestly don't know if John would have made any impact on the music scene, if the meeting with Paul never happened, remember what it was like back then, music executives were fickle and prefered stars to have a Cliff Richard image, John had many issues and a lot of anger going on and because of his "i couldn't give a toss attitude" record companies would have given him a wide berth. George would have ended up playing in a local band and maybe have ended up being a session musician if he never met Paul Ringo would still be playing Butlins holiday camps & signing autographs for kids on their summer holidays if Pete had more of a personality.. All that's hypothetical but i'm sure many on here will take offence to me putting McCartney in such high esteem, one things for sure, he deserves much more credit than he gets from some quarters. I would also put Paul's best solo/wings albums ahead of both John & George's while they were all recording between 1970-1975, Ram, Band on the Run & Venus & Mars IMO are better than Plastic Ono Band (johns best) Imagine & Walls & Bridges, while George never bettered All Things Must Pass, I should also give a mention to McCartney,Wildlife & Red Rose Speedway, they are a lot better than a lot of people give them credit for, yeah i'm a Paul McCartney fan
But Really, a Paul fan!?...On a Paul McCartney forum!!
-
CMackbird:
Macsback:
The bottom line is, George was a good song writer for a short period, Lennon & McCartney were juggernauts who time after time wrote classics to keep The Beatles ahead of the pack!! George wrote two great songs for Abbey Road, for some on here, that's good enough to put him on par with Lennon & McCartney : Out of the four Beatles, I would say McCartney would have made some sort of mark on music, if his meeting with Lennon never happened, McCartney was already writing songs before he met Lennon, he was also more musically minded, had more drive in him to be successful and was an excellent pr man even back in the early days. Meeting McCartney spurred Lennon into writing & playing better, not the other way around as some would have us believe. I honestly don't know if John would have made any impact on the music scene, if the meeting with Paul never happened, remember what it was like back then, music executives were fickle and prefered stars to have a Cliff Richard image, John had many issues and a lot of anger going on and because of his "i couldn't give a toss attitude" record companies would have given him a wide berth. George would have ended up playing in a local band and maybe have ended up being a session musician if he never met Paul Ringo would still be playing Butlins holiday camps & signing autographs for kids on their summer holidays if Pete had more of a personality.. All that's hypothetical but i'm sure many on here will take offence to me putting McCartney in such high esteem, one things for sure, he deserves much more credit than he gets from some quarters. I would also put Paul's best solo/wings albums ahead of both John & George's while they were all recording between 1970-1975, Ram, Band on the Run & Venus & Mars IMO are better than Plastic Ono Band (johns best) Imagine & Walls & Bridges, while George never bettered All Things Must Pass, I should also give a mention to McCartney,Wildlife & Red Rose Speedway, they are a lot better than a lot of people give them credit for, yeah i'm a Paul McCartney fan
But Really, a Paul fan!?...On a Paul McCartney forum!!
sometimes i wonder
-
I don't agree with you again whobeatle...George Harrison's voice is awesome! Brainwashed is brilliant, I think it's his best solo album...heartfelt and very deep. George Harrison's guitar is one of the most beautiful voices on Earth...his love and wisdom is always weeping out of his guitar...if you heard nothing but his guitar you would know that Harrison was a giant talent and an amazing human being. George Harrison was very intelligent and complicated. His contribution to the Beatles was much greater than just a great guitarist and composer. George Harrison's sarcasm and pragmatism was one of the great equalizers of the band and his 'no bulls***' outlook reigned in and balanced some the excessive tendencies of Lennon and the goofy, spotlight craving, pie-in-the sky schemes of McCartney. Sometimes George is my favorite Beatle. But he was nowhere near the songwriting talent of Lennon/McCartney...no shame in that...nobody is.
-
Blue Ruins:
I don't agree with you again whobeatle...George Harrison's voice is awesome! Brainwashed is brilliant, I think it's his best solo album...heartfelt and very deep. George Harrison's guitar is one of the most beautiful voices on Earth...his love and wisdom is always weeping out of his guitar...if you heard nothing but his guitar you would know that Harrison was a giant talent and an amazing human being. George Harrison was very intelligent and complicated. His contribution to the Beatles was much greater than just a great guitarist and composer. George Harrison's sarcasm and pragmatism was one of the great equalizers of the band and his 'no bulls***' outlook reigned in and balanced some the excessive tendencies of Lennon and the goofy, spotlight craving, pie-in-the sky schemes of McCartney. Sometimes George is my favorite Beatle. But he was nowhere near the songwriting talent of Lennon/McCartney...no shame in that...nobody is.
George musically is tremendous... "Blow Away" to me is as good as anything he or any other Beatle did as a solo act, his voice was always good..It's been pointed out that George was very conscious of his voice during the Beatles.. Paul had to encourage him to record "The Inner Light" because he hated how his voice came across but he had nothing to be ashamed about but as a composer he wasn't as prolific as John and Paul were... John even joked once about Paul coming in with a dozen or so songs ready to go and told Paul give me a few days to knock some off.. Those 2 were a handful to compete against, but that being said John envied George's position in the group being an understudy for the 2 best songwriters
-
Macsback:
I honestly don't know if John would have made any impact on the music scene, if the meeting with Paul never happened
John's voice and belief, and unique train of thought and songwriting. and knowledge of rock n roll and his ability to embody and convey that spirit. thats what Epstein discovered in Hamburg. or in Liverpool or where ever the Beatles were discovered. even Paul credits John for teaching him to go for it in the studio. I think its safe to say John wouldn't have been as huge in the music scene and historically without Paul, but he would have had his day in the sun. He was way too original and flat out sounded amazing. and great at what he did. the greatest IMO. Paul definitely would have had his day in the sun without John as well, don't get me wrong. but none of them IMO would have gotten so far so fast without Lennon. am I just lame for coming on a Paul board and flying the John flag : I'll stop. for all I know I'm way off base
-
kapoo:
Macsback:
I honestly don't know if John would have made any impact on the music scene, if the meeting with Paul never happened
John's voice and belief, and unique train of thought and songwriting. and knowledge of rock n roll and his ability to embody and convey that spirit. thats what Epstein discovered in Hamburg. or in Liverpool or where ever the Beatles were discovered. even Paul credits John for teaching him to go for it in the studio. I think its safe to say John wouldn't have been as huge in the music scene and historically without Paul, but he would have had his day in the sun. He was way too original and flat out sounded amazing. and great at what he did. the greatest IMO. Paul definitely would have had his day in the sun without John as well, don't get me wrong. but none of them IMO would have gotten so far so fast without Lennon. am I just lame for coming on a Paul board and flying the John flag : I'll stop. for all I know I'm way off base
No your not lame, i've looked at some John sites and no one is objective when it comes to Paul over there. I love allthe Beatles as well but it seems that most George fans and John fans like to rip Macca a new one and Macca fans are at least kind even in criticism of the others
-
luigiram:
kapoo:
Macsback:
I honestly don't know if John would have made any impact on the music scene, if the meeting with Paul never happened
John's voice and belief, and unique train of thought and songwriting. and knowledge of rock n roll and his ability to embody and convey that spirit. thats what Epstein discovered in Hamburg. or in Liverpool or where ever the Beatles were discovered. even Paul credits John for teaching him to go for it in the studio. I think its safe to say John wouldn't have been as huge in the music scene and historically without Paul, but he would have had his day in the sun. He was way too original and flat out sounded amazing. and great at what he did. the greatest IMO. Paul definitely would have had his day in the sun without John as well, don't get me wrong. but none of them IMO would have gotten so far so fast without Lennon. am I just lame for coming on a Paul board and flying the John flag : I'll stop. for all I know I'm way off base
No your not lame, i've looked at some John sites and no one is objective when it comes to Paul over there. I love allthe Beatles as well but it seems that most George fans and John fans like to rip Macca a new one and Macca fans are at least kind even in criticism of the others
Naa, your not lame Kapoo, we all love The Beatles and we all have our favourite
-
John Lennon was one talented MoFo...I can't tell who was a better songwriter, Paul was a better musician, but a case could be made for either of them when it comes to talent. I think John was a bit more of a unique natural talent..but I think part of the reason he dropped out of the Beatles is that he felt that he had been bested by Paul McCartney. I think that in the contest of wills that was the Beatles, Paul wore Lennon down with his tenacity. Paul was just more driven, focused and he never stopped reaching and learning.
-
Blue Ruins:
John Lennon was one talented MoFo...I can't tell who was a better songwriter, Paul was a better musician, but a case could be made for either of them when it comes to talent. I think John was a bit more of a unique natural talent..but I think part of the reason he dropped out of the Beatles is that he felt that he had been bested by Paul McCartney. I think that in the contest of wills that was the Beatles, Paul wore Lennon down with his tenacity. Paul was just more driven, focused and he never stopped reaching and learning.
Paul was as much of a natural talent as John, in my view, but in a different way. There's a reason why Paul's demos sound an awful lot like the final versions. He came up with it all in his head. Paul's melodic genius isn't something you can learn. You either have it or you don't. Plus, Paul never had formal training on any instrument (except I think a few abandoned piano lessons). When someone can play the piano, the guitar, the bass, the mandolin, the ukelele, etc., etc., -- and play them well, without extensive training -- that's something you're born with.
-
kapoo:
Macsback:
I honestly don't know if John would have made any impact on the music scene, if the meeting with Paul never happened
John's voice and belief, and unique train of thought and songwriting. and knowledge of rock n roll and his ability to embody and convey that spirit. thats what Epstein discovered in Hamburg. or in Liverpool or where ever the Beatles were discovered. even Paul credits John for teaching him to go for it in the studio. I think its safe to say John wouldn't have been as huge in the music scene and historically without Paul, but he would have had his day in the sun. He was way too original and flat out sounded amazing. and great at what he did. the greatest IMO. Paul definitely would have had his day in the sun without John as well, don't get me wrong. but none of them IMO would have gotten so far so fast without Lennon. am I just lame for coming on a Paul board and flying the John flag : I'll stop. for all I know I'm way off base
I read an interesting quote a while back from one of the Quarrymen who were touring for John's 70th. The guy said that before Paul came along, everyone in the Quarrymen, including John, was in the band as a lark. None of them really viewed it as a career, not even John, this guy said. He said that it was Paul's arrival that changed that. Paul "professionalized" John, in a way. I don't think John would have made it out of Liverpool without Paul. Sure, John might have become a colorful local character but he needed someone with discipline -- ie, Paul, to actually make it in the music business (not to mention someone who actually knew how to play and tune a guitar). And Paul would have been a successful musician but maybe he wouldn't have been much more successful than his own father -- without John. As John put it once, "Paul was good but he wasn't strong enough to make it on his own." I thought that was an interesting thing to say, and I think John meant that Paul was maybe more sensitive to criticism and setbacks when he was younger. (For example, way back when Paul flubbed his first big guitar solo and decided he didn't want to play lead guitar anymore). John's "fuck it all" attitude gave Paul strength and the edge that Paul lacked. John kinda taught Paul how to not be such a nice boy, if you know what I mean. Interesting to speculate about all this. Thank goodness they met.
-
As usual I agree with you michelley...I said that Lennon was a more unique talent...just an opinion, but I find John's songs are a little more unconventional...much like their respective personalities.
-
Cool, I'm just glad the people on this board are cool to different view points etc.. everyone should love Paul IMO! the main thing Paul and John both had was the updated sound. they could do any style and bring it up to date, and make it totally interesting and believable and like 'oh you can do that?!' the thing about Paul, even if you're not the biggest fan of some of his songs, he is always taking his music in a new direction, and going full bore with it. and doing whatever it is literally as good as its ever been done. in most cases. When he went sappy you got some of the best sappy songs you'll ever hear. lets give it up for So Bad for petes sake! and No MOre Lonely Nights! and when he went a style like I'm more hip to, Maybe I'm Amazed, Hi Hi Hi, that cover of Love Is Strange off WildLife anything from Wings, its just the best stuff around. and he's older and wiser so his music reflects that today, but his sound is like his own world of music, no one touches it. for the rock n roller in me, and the love of most things dangerous (not to portray myself as a badass...), and of like Blue Ruins said, my love for unique, far out rock-based stylistic songwriting, and the sense that you are experiencing real things in the consumption of the art, there us none like JL. And individuality, and being true to ones self, and the journey of real life. and the fight to better ones self and try to figure out your way in life. and plus the kickass singing voice and John had that inexplicable talent of being able to read you the telephone book but spin it out into something totally consumable and understandable and thought provoking. one of those auto salesmen, you know? could sell anything to anyone I'm sure. got Harry Nilsson a record contract! John and Paul for what they did well, were both inexplicable talents. no rational way to explain their process, but you just know you love it. thats why with my love for John and Paul, I literally feel like I'm maximizing all there is to love about each of them. in the end they're both so amazing, it just ends up being 'who do you want to listen to more often?' which is sweet and how off topic am I right now?
-
kapoo:
.and how off topic am I right now?
just lack of mentioning George. otherwise, it was good.
-
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.
-
That has to be a joke. Not much of a song really. People here like to count apples and oranges and thats fine but the simple truth is Harrison's best songs are as good as Lennon or McCartneys best songs, Its also true he didin't write as many great songs. The Idea Harrison only wrote three or four great songs is ridiculous and just goes to the sychophant mentality that tends to prevail here. I Love all the Beatles work and most of their solo output and I am the first one in line to buy the new album when one of them has a new album out. The Chemistry they had in the recording studio has never been matched by any of them solo, sad but true. I am always rooting for them to really do something great and sometimes they have, but the simple fact is the sum total of the Beatles was greater than the individuals, Is it because great rocknroll is done in your twenties? maybe. Look at almost any artist with few exceptions, The Beatles Brian Wilson Pete Townshend, Bob Dylan, Elvis, PInk FLoyd Crosby Stills Nash and Young, whoever you think is great Did any of those people really do their best work past the age of 25-35 years of age? Led Zeppelin? The Kinks? whoever Generally and I couldnt say why, the times? the world at large? recording techniques? Whatever it is, most of the great rocknroll and recording took place a long time ago ,, mostly by young men, some women, and McCartney the workhouse still churns out lots of albums, some of them quite good, But none of it can touch what the Beatles did over at Abbey Road with George Martin, in the sixties, so you can put Harrison down or Lennon, say whatever you want But something changed, because none of those people I have just mentioned have done their best work in recent decades, and the living ones are all still plugging away Sounds like some of you folks need to go back to music history 101 no offense Its really not fair to say Harrison didint write anything as good after Something, Because with just a handful of exceptions Lennon and McCartney never wrote anything as good as Strawberry Fields or Hey Jude or Penny Lane again either.. Its one thing to keep putting out decent work, its quite another to release a new record as good as Penny Lane.. I think he would have done so if he was capable of it. Band on the Run Might be. almost.. Chaos and Creation, MAF, and The Electric whatevers... are all good Harrison might be the last one to write a true classic with Handle With Care, or Any Road couldnt say for sure Its not the quantity or the delivery its the quality.
-
but thats your opinion 'whobeatle'. yoiu see i see it differently. i think something like 'choas' is better than many beatle efforts .i enjoy the album more than 'let it be' ,the white album ' but i know that most people would dissagree. but thats my opinion and its the only one i know of. i also DO think that george harrison has possible got about one albums worth of good songs full stop/entire career.[with 2/3 being classics] but thats it...my opinion. to compare him to the best work of lennon/mac is just plain wrong. he isnt even in the same league. you see to me the mccartney flow of genius did not stop in 1969.it just went on and on.whether it was the beatles or not. mccartney continued to write fantastic tunes all the way through his career. even his weaker albums contain stuff that is light years ahead of solo george. sorry mate but thats the way i see it. i would also say that lennons solo cannon looks pretty empty compared to mccartney although he too produced much better work than george especially when yoko wasn't so prominant. i stand by my statement that george was a great guitarist [although limited] who was in the right place at the right time.his songwriting had a suprising quality to it for a couple of years but he was never talented enough to keep it up.