George's criticisms of Macca
-
kapoo:
I always thought it was John who offered more help to George throughout the Beatle days.. I've read that in multiple places. Taxman for instance, John basically helped with the lyrics, Paul he said couldn't be bothered. Maybe time spent in the studio working on tracks favored Paul, but as far as collaborating with George, I always thought John was a bit more willing to help and provide input. Could be wrong.
I think that's been a common misperception that's only recently begun to be corrected. It's true that John would, once in awhile, help George with a lyric. But it was Paul who helped musically. Much, much more than John. As Peter Doggett writes in his book, You Never Give Me Your Money, John often found a way to be out of the studio when it came time to record George's songs. I've posted about this before so I'm repeating myself, but John doesn't play or sing on the following George songs: Long, Long, Long Savoy Truffle, Here comes the Sun Something I, Me Mine Love You To. And John also did next to nothing on While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Yet George never said much about John's absenteeism and lack of support but never hesitated to go after Paul. It's very odd. But I liked a quote that someone posted here a few pages back from Eric Clapton who, talking about Paul and George said something like, "I never knew two people who loved each other more yet didn't know it."
-
Michelley:
John often found a way to be out of the studio when it came time to record George's songs.
That?s hilarious Michelley, ?sorry guys, doc says I need a physical, have fun on Savoy Truffle? I?d like to hear all the excuses John used throughout the years.. I agree that Paul was the man in the studio. The guy is probably the greatest producer on earth who?s day job isn?t strictly classified as pro ?Producer?. I think Paul could ghost-write for and produce bands with enormous success. His sounds are brilliant, and his songs are brilliant. Good point jlw about the guitar solo in Taxman, Paul just shreds it. to the point you almost wonder how many of the songs would have sounded had Paul just dubbed the solos in the studio!! Georges are great though.. yes Paul was instrumental (literally and figuratively) in the studio, more so than any other Beatle. Lazy, I?m with you about Paul deserving more credit, and he gets a lot of credit as it is I think. But not everyone out there understands just how freaking good this guy is. He can literally do it all, nearly better at everything than anyone else. I say nearly because I think there are obviously some better guitarists out there, better drummers, no better bass players that I know of , perhaps better producers.. but not many. and no one who has done it all for so long at such a high level. about John, and now I'm potificating my own opinions 1o0%, Paul (and most) loved the uniqueness of John?s writing, and what he could do with those songs. John?s work is always interesting, and has the X factor very few have. The way his words, chords and voice resonate. Experience, pain, honestly, its all there all the time. no fluff or bs. The thing that makes it tricky to judge who brought more what to who?s music, is that everything Paul brought can clearly be heard on the records, via instruments he?s playing, and melodies he?s written. I think John helped everyone write, and add bridges or little ideas to complete songs. and I think thats where John's genius lies, in being able to come up with something hot really quickly. What he lacked was discipline and focus.. but those types of contributions are harder for us to know about.. actually we can't know about them really. But I think the fact that Paul loved working with him, George loved working with him, Ringo and Harry loved working with him, Bowie, Elton, pretty much anyone who ever worked with him said it was a great experience (save for Pil Spector at times). and they'd have a hot record done in a hot second thats how John worked. and it was a bit limiting, and perhaps caused some underacheivement, because he might fail to realize the musical potential of what he was writing at times.. But its pretty miraculous to be able to do that. and to be able to so freely apply your art to any given topic or feeling, and make it into something that 'sticks'. k I need to quit rambling
-
[quote="kapoo"]
Michelley:
about John, and now I'm potificating my own opinions 1o0%, Paul (and most) loved the uniqueness of John?s writing, and what he could do with those songs. John?s work is always interesting, and has the X factor very few have. The way his words, chords and voice resonate. Experience, pain, honestly, its all there all the time. no fluff or bs. The thing that makes it tricky to judge who brought more what to who?s music, is that everything Paul brought can clearly be heard on the records, via instruments he?s playing, and melodies he?s written. I think John helped everyone write, and add bridges or little ideas to complete songs. and I think thats where John's genius lies, in being able to come up with something hot really quickly. What he lacked was discipline and focus.. but those types of contributions are harder for us to know about.. actually we can't know about them really. But I think the fact that Paul loved working with him, George loved working with him, Ringo and Harry loved working with him, Bowie, Elton, pretty much anyone who ever worked with him said it was a great experience (save for Pil Spector at times). and they'd have a hot record done in a hot second thats how John worked. and it was a bit limiting, and perhaps caused some underacheivement, because he might fail to realize the musical potential of what he was writing at times.. But its pretty miraculous to be able to do that. and to be able to so freely apply your art to any given topic or feeling, and make it into something that 'sticks'. k I need to quit rambling
Ramble away. I enjoyed it. And I agree. John had great instincts, about lyrics especially. About what worked and what sounded cheesy. And he was one of the few people whose opinion Paul trusted. I didn't know the man of course but it sounds like John was the sort of person who would tell you when he thought something sucked. He could tell Paul "That wasn't good enough" or "You can do better" or "That lyric is shit." And Paul listened. On the other hand, Paul provided the amazing musical instincts (knowing exactly what a song needed) and the discipline that John so desperately lacked. Sometimes doing a song fast, as John preferred, produces great stuff; but sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes, taking the time to work on a song can make it better. Paul's bass lines, according to Geoff Emerick's book, came from hours of painstaking effort on Paul's part, playing till his fingers were bleeding. That's a far different approach from John's but it's equally effective. It's been said before by people far smarter than me, but both had qualities the other lacked, which is what made them such a formidable team. George, from what I've read, worked very slowly and methodically on his songs, doing take after take. Maybe that's why John didn't participate much. He didn't have the patience for that. ... And lets face it, John never viewed George as an equal musically, the way John viewed Paul. OK, now I'll stop rambling.
-
Yeah you nailed it there M. those guys each did what they did exceptionally well. and I bet Paul was really good at guitar already (at least for a 15 yr old) when he met John. John was pretty quick to be like 'yup, you're in, and all of you are out!' I wonder how good Paul was at first. we knew he could at least tune a guitar, and knew the words to 20 Flight Rock. but he's so good at everything, you wonder if he was like a quazi prodigy more than you hear about. btw I don't think George outright stole Something or Here Comes The Sun from John or Paul. I never really thought Something was even that great. But Sinatra apparently loved it.. I only have a little ramble left in me right now, need to go do it in the Nilsson thread! I got something to say
-
kapoo:
Yeah you nailed it there M. those guys each did what they did exceptionally well. and I bet Paul was really good at guitar already (at least for a 15 yr old) when he met John. John was pretty quick to be like 'yup, you're in, and all of you are out!' I wonder how good Paul was at first. we knew he could at least tune a guitar, and knew the words to 20 Flight Rock. but he's so good at everything, you wonder if he was like a quazi prodigy more than you hear about. btw I don't think George outright stole Something or Here Comes The Sun from John or Paul. I never really thought Something was even that great. But Sinatra apparently loved it.. I only have a little ramble left in me right now, need to go do it in the Nilsson thread! I got something to say
Paul must have been pretty damned good because ordinarily John was insecure enough not to hang around with a kid almost 2 years his junior and one who probably looked even younger than he was. Another reason he never took to George.
-
its good to see Macca getting credit on his own site, Lazy got it spot-on, without Macca's drive and determination, The Beatles could have been finished after Sgt Peppers, every fan on here should give him the recognition he deserves, because without him, we might only be talking about Sgt Peppers, the way Beach Boys fans, talk about Pet Sounds.
-
You know if you actually step back and take alook at their situation. As artists, Paul ,George, John and ringo were and still considered the top of their game. In order to improve sometimes constructive critisim of others in their feild might be harder to get from a lot of other sources. When they criticized each others work it was more like from where i see it as giving each other constructive critisism. This is a in its own way a way of encouraging and nudging each other to improve in their art. I see it not necessarily as a bad thing but a blessing in disguise. love doris
-
Yeah but to be honest I can't see much in George's criticism that is at all useful. I don't think it was a good, even if harsh, kind of criticism, I think it came from a place of jealousy/resentment.
-
Still a bit mystified by this topic. I wracked my brains and still can't recall any examples of George bad mouthing Paul, and there are supposed to be so many. And I've read a mountain of Beatle books and articles. You guys must be exaggerating a lot. Course out of all that material I read nobody could remember a great deal or even much of it, unless they have a photographic memory.
-
high_wilusa:
Yeah but to be honest I can't see much in George's criticism that is at all useful. I don't think it was a good, even if harsh, kind of criticism, I think it came from a place of jealousy/resentment.
your spot on with your jealousy/resentment comment, George may have wrote, Something, WMGGW etc but no way does that put him in the same bracket as Lennon & McCartney, his continuing pettiness towards Macca, long after The Beatles split, was that of a man, who as you say, was jealous, the question we've got to ask ourselves is, why didnt he show the same resentment in public towards John? could it be that he jumped on the "lets slag off Paul bandwagon" and didnt know how to get back off again? it must have fecked him right off when he had to kowtow and do the Beatles Anthology, Paul done the project for all the right reasons while George had no choice but to do it because of his money troubles. The main thing is, all four Beatles eventually made peace with each other, the John/Paul feud was over after a few years and if it wasnt for Yoko, I have no doubt, The Beatles would have done something together again. Yoko even to this day, still likes to stick the boot into Macca, personally I wouldnt give that woman light of day on this site. on finishing, I can understand George having some resentment towards Paul, considering they were mates before meeting John, its probably not a nice feeling being pushed into the background and this more than likely bugged George for years, my only gripe about it all, is, he (George) kept it going far to long and its to Paul's credit, he never openly came out to defend himself by slagging his old mates off.
-
lazydynamite88:
infact mccartney amongst other things still dosent get enough credit for what he brought to the other beatles songs. not bad for a so called 'selfish b**tard' when it comes to music. 'george' was very ungrateful at times and at other times he was just a nasty piece of work. if i had been around in 1969 i would have said that the 'other three' would have crashed and burned without mccartney......and i would have been 100% correct. ringo obviously became a peripheral showbiz character,george became a moody dried up recluse whilst john completely underachieved in all areas despite his immense talents before he was tragically taken down. mccartney deserves more respect,thats all im saying.he might not have been the dominant force in the beatles when they burst through,but he certainly became the dominant force when the important art was created.the art that still gets lauded today.the art that makes the beatles so much more than just another great band.
I've been lucky enough to attend a college that offers a class on The Beatles (which was really just an excuse to get together for two hours a couple times a week to watch videos and listen to music, but whatever), and, to your point, even though the professor was clearly a 'John guy,' his love of music in general would occasionally burst through and at times he'd just lavish praise on Paul. One of the last class sessions, we just listened to Abbey Road. After we listened to "Come Together" and "Something" back to back, he paused the album, noted the litany of ideas and contributions Paul gave to make these two songs so classic, and he was like "Look, you guys want to be young and 'cool,' so you just write off Paul McCartney. But man, listen to that ... if only from a musical standpoint, you should really want Paul on your team." You could tell that a lot of the people in class bristled at the thought, but to me he was preaching to the choir.
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
Still a bit mystified by this topic. I wracked my brains and still can't recall any examples of George bad mouthing Paul, and there are supposed to be so many. And I've read a mountain of Beatle books and articles. You guys must be exaggerating a lot. Course out of all that material I read nobody could remember a great deal or even much of it, unless they have a photographic memory.
Suzy, here is an example on You Tube,
, granted the ahole interviewer baited him a bit, but he got a kick out of it too... -
Macsback:
high_wilusa:
Yeah but to be honest I can't see much in George's criticism that is at all useful. I don't think it was a good, even if harsh, kind of criticism, I think it came from a place of jealousy/resentment.
your spot on with your jealousy/resentment comment, George may have wrote, Something, WMGGW etc but no way does that put him in the same bracket as Lennon & McCartney, his continuing pettiness towards Macca, long after The Beatles split, was that of a man, who as you say, was jealous, the question we've got to ask ourselves is, why didnt he show the same resentment in public towards John? could it be that he jumped on the "lets slag off Paul bandwagon" and didnt know how to get back off again? it must have fecked him right off when he had to kowtow and do the Beatles Anthology, Paul done the project for all the right reasons while George had no choice but to do it because of his money troubles. The main thing is, all four Beatles eventually made peace with each other, the John/Paul feud was over after a few years and if it wasnt for Yoko, I have no doubt, The Beatles would have done something together again. Yoko even to this day, still likes to stick the boot into Macca, personally I wouldnt give that woman light of day on this site. on finishing, I can understand George having some resentment towards Paul, considering they were mates before meeting John, its probably not a nice feeling being pushed into the background and this more than likely bugged George for years, my only gripe about it all, is, he (George) kept it going far to long and its to Paul's credit, he never openly came out to defend himself by slagging his old mates off.
Good post Macs...I reckon without Yoko John & Paul would have been a lot closer again in the 70s and possibly even writing again. They were best friends at the end of the day. That's Paul for you, it shows his class for not slagging folk off in public and that s the way it should be. At the end of the day without Paul George wouldn't have been a beatle.
-
CMackbird:
Macsback:
high_wilusa:
Yeah but to be honest I can't see much in George's criticism that is at all useful. I don't think it was a good, even if harsh, kind of criticism, I think it came from a place of jealousy/resentment.
your spot on with your jealousy/resentment comment, George may have wrote, Something, WMGGW etc but no way does that put him in the same bracket as Lennon & McCartney, his continuing pettiness towards Macca, long after The Beatles split, was that of a man, who as you say, was jealous, the question we've got to ask ourselves is, why didnt he show the same resentment in public towards John? could it be that he jumped on the "lets slag off Paul bandwagon" and didnt know how to get back off again? it must have fecked him right off when he had to kowtow and do the Beatles Anthology, Paul done the project for all the right reasons while George had no choice but to do it because of his money troubles. The main thing is, all four Beatles eventually made peace with each other, the John/Paul feud was over after a few years and if it wasnt for Yoko, I have no doubt, The Beatles would have done something together again. Yoko even to this day, still likes to stick the boot into Macca, personally I wouldnt give that woman light of day on this site. on finishing, I can understand George having some resentment towards Paul, considering they were mates before meeting John, its probably not a nice feeling being pushed into the background and this more than likely bugged George for years, my only gripe about it all, is, he (George) kept it going far to long and its to Paul's credit, he never openly came out to defend himself by slagging his old mates off.
Good post Macs...I reckon without Yoko John & Paul would have been a lot closer again in the 70s and possibly even writing again. They were best friends at the end of the day. That's Paul for you, it shows his class for not slagging folk off in public and that s the way it should be. At the end of the day without Paul George wouldn't have been a beatle.
Right on CM, even listen to John and Yoko during this clip talking about Paul and Wild Life from 1972 and John isn't snide or looking to kick Paul in the head like George liked to in the previous video I posted, he was straight forward and really respectful and it shows.. he wasn't baited
-
luigiram:
CMackbird:
Macsback:
high_wilusa:
Yeah but to be honest I can't see much in George's criticism that is at all useful. I don't think it was a good, even if harsh, kind of criticism, I think it came from a place of jealousy/resentment.
your spot on with your jealousy/resentment comment, George may have wrote, Something, WMGGW etc but no way does that put him in the same bracket as Lennon & McCartney, his continuing pettiness towards Macca, long after The Beatles split, was that of a man, who as you say, was jealous, the question we've got to ask ourselves is, why didnt he show the same resentment in public towards John? could it be that he jumped on the "lets slag off Paul bandwagon" and didnt know how to get back off again? it must have fecked him right off when he had to kowtow and do the Beatles Anthology, Paul done the project for all the right reasons while George had no choice but to do it because of his money troubles. The main thing is, all four Beatles eventually made peace with each other, the John/Paul feud was over after a few years and if it wasnt for Yoko, I have no doubt, The Beatles would have done something together again. Yoko even to this day, still likes to stick the boot into Macca, personally I wouldnt give that woman light of day on this site. on finishing, I can understand George having some resentment towards Paul, considering they were mates before meeting John, its probably not a nice feeling being pushed into the background and this more than likely bugged George for years, my only gripe about it all, is, he (George) kept it going far to long and its to Paul's credit, he never openly came out to defend himself by slagging his old mates off.
Good post Macs...I reckon without Yoko John & Paul would have been a lot closer again in the 70s and possibly even writing again. They were best friends at the end of the day. That's Paul for you, it shows his class for not slagging folk off in public and that s the way it should be. At the end of the day without Paul George wouldn't have been a beatle.
Right on CM, even listen to John and Yoko during this clip talking about Paul and Wild Life from 1972 and John isn't snide or looking to kick Paul in the head like George liked to in the previous video I posted, he was straight forward and really respectful and it shows.. he wasn't baited
Yeah exactly. Like Paul has said numerous times alot of it was a front with John and not to appear weak infront of the public but I bet privately he missed the beatles and he missed his best friend. I can't stand Yoko for that....I don't mind that she got together with John its the fact she kept him from Paul and I would put money on it that she was the one who shopped Paul to the police in Japan. Nasty piece of work.
-
luigiram:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Still a bit mystified by this topic. I wracked my brains and still can't recall any examples of George bad mouthing Paul, and there are supposed to be so many. And I've read a mountain of Beatle books and articles. You guys must be exaggerating a lot. Course out of all that material I read nobody could remember a great deal or even much of it, unless they have a photographic memory.
Suzy, here is an example on You Tube,
, granted the ahole interviewer baited him a bit, but he got a kick out of it too...Ive seen that before but forgot how snide & vile George comes across in that video. George was talented but his jealousy shows through in that so much. I mean George has wrote some good music but he's not even in the same Galaxy as Paul. Admin Edit: Please Note: Certain previous posts have been removed from this thread. We ask that all members treat each other with respect without resorting to insults and name calling. Please respect each other's opinions and do not resort to group intimidation of members. Anyone continuing to conduct themselves in this way will receive a Warning. See the Forum Guidelines for clarity if unsure: http://maccaboard.paulmccartney.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14764 thanks, Admin
-
CMackbird:
luigiram:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Still a bit mystified by this topic. I wracked my brains and still can't recall any examples of George bad mouthing Paul, and there are supposed to be so many. And I've read a mountain of Beatle books and articles. You guys must be exaggerating a lot. Course out of all that material I read nobody could remember a great deal or even much of it, unless they have a photographic memory.
Suzy, here is an example on You Tube,
, granted the ahole interviewer baited him a bit, but he got a kick out of it too...Ive seen that before but forgot how snide & vile George comes across in that video. George was talented but his jealousy shows through in that so much. I mean George has wrote some good music but he's not even in the same Galaxy as Paul. Admin Edit: Please Note: Certain previous posts have been removed from this thread. We ask that all members treat each other with respect without resorting to insults and name calling. Please respect each other's opinions and do not resort to group intimidation of members. Anyone continuing to conduct themselves in this way will receive a Warning. See the Forum Guidelines for clarity if unsure: http://maccaboard.paulmccartney.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14764 thanks, Admin
Make no mistake about it, he interviewer was a weasel, but George didn't beat around the bush.. First off that comment about running out of good songs of his own is crap!!! and George knew that it was, gave him a good giggle didn't it?? Some people attribute it to his sense of humor but I found him arrogant and condescending .. after all George was the first ex Beatle to tour and in a 12 song set sang a Lennon/McCartney cover and a Dylan cover..so guess who didnt have enough good songs
-
yes yes yes. george never said anything bad about paul at all. certain 'troublecausers' are just making it all up. anyone who even comes close to telling an honest opinion WILL be sent to the hole. its much better to live in a complete fantasy than discuss meaningful points. and if my granny had a cock she would be my grandad one thing is true though,i have been called various nasty things on here from 'sexist' to 'racist' and even 'english' funny though i have never once complained to the moderators[who do a great job by the way]. in this case though i believe that the free speech on this forum has become cloudy. if anyone wants to start throwing mud they should have the decency accept a response!
-
lazydynamite88:
yes yes yes. george never said anything bad about paul at all. certain 'troublecausers' are just making it all up. anyone who even comes close to telling an honest opinion WILL be sent to the hole. its much better to live in a complete fantasy than discuss meaningful points. and if my granny had a cock she would be my grandad one thing is true though,i have been called various nasty things on here from 'sexist' to 'racist' and even 'english' funny though i have never once complained to the moderators[who do a great job by the way]. in this case though i believe that the free speech on this forum has become cloudy. if anyone wants to start throwing mud they should have the decency accept a response!
sent to the hole...hahaha... Really, what is going on here. Who has such pull to make the mods get all uppity? (good job though, otherwise) Whomever complains should be named. So & so doesn't like what you said. At least you'd know who to stay away from. What is going on???
-
well i can tell you that i recieved a PM from a very decent member on here who is debating NEVER setting foot on this board again. it cant be right that certain other members get away with this kind of 'skull duggery' every time. im pretty disgusted actually!