George's criticisms of Macca
-
I th ink in a way that is one way that like John they kept the competitive sense of creativity going . Critisim or cretique is one way of helping each other to improve without letting ego get too much in the way love doris.
-
Heres a totally crazy thought I was having, out of the blue (Kathryn O?s favorite song btw!), thinking while reading this thread.. Isn?t the fact that John and George said so much bad stuff about Paul thru the years in the media, probably due in part to their own insecurities being exposed at the ?on the spot? moment of the interviews, and their auto-response of defense, or anger/tyring to overpower the situation? Its not so much pure disdain of Paul, as it was having their personal turmoil and obvious issues being well known by the public and the interviewer, some set-up questions by the interviewers, and then the over-compensating for their own feelings of being threatened in general. I think when you watch Paul in interviews, he does a lot of looking up, or to the side, after he?s asked questions. and actually thinking about his responses, and considering his words. I think John and George were the kinds of people who naturally carried a more aggressive spontaneous and some might say defensive chip on their shoulder. and maybe Paul had it too but was able to check himself. Especially in the 70?s interviews w John, he?s staring down the interviewer a lot of times. If you watch Paul he?s sitting back, relaxed, and trying to think
And there?s a lot of people who would be like John, its just most of them are not having globally broadcasted and written interviews done to capture every little thing they might say. That?s a big reason I cut John so much slack in the ?bashing Paul? stuff.. I think its just too transparent that it was about other things with John.. and John was a ragingly spontaneous person. also the fact that he?s being asked these questions during times when he was hot about some things, and the guy was always on the attack with everything anyway. And Georges comments I sort of feel similar about.. George loved Paul, but couldn?t stand playing music with him anymore, and had a lot of private gripes and fights with him. On the spot you?re going to get some dirt from him if you start broaching the subjects. And I think its mainly out of his own inability to deal with his own fame. Basically
I'm not a psychiatrist but I play one on the internet sometimes
I guess my point is just to say I can appreciate the effort and maturity it takes to conduct the kind of interviews Paul has, the way he has throughout some hard times. We can always say I wish he was more off the cuff or whatever, but I bet that?s a large reason why he?s not guilty of saying the kind of crap John and George were prone to saying. Paul?s just better built to handle stuff
-
In truth have you ever heard Paul say anything bad about anybody throughout his career in public? Maybe and exception would have been Allen Klein, but generally Paul seems to come from the if you can't say anything nice don't say it at all school. I'm guessing he knows how much words can hurt.
-
jlw44:
In truth have you ever heard Paul say anything bad about anybody throughout his career in public? Maybe and exception would have been Allen Klein, but generally Paul seems to come from the if you can't say anything nice don't say it at all school. I'm guessing he knows how much words can hurt.
He did once make a mean remark about Yoko in the early 200o's. He said something like "She's not the brightest button." But of course, that was in response to her ridiculous comment about him. It was either the remark where she dismissed his lyrics as "moon/june" simplistic rhymes compared to the great Lennon, or the one where she called him Salieri to John's Mozart. Either way, she had far worse coming to her than what Paul said.
As I recall, after Klein's death a year or two ago, Paul refused to criticize Klein, saying he didn't want to speak ill of the dead. And, needless to say, his behavior during the divorce was absolutely heroic, refusing to stoop to the garbage being hurled from the other side. I don't know how he did it. I'm sure he says plenty in private. But that's the way it should be. Most of these public pissing matches that people get into these days are just because one or the other party wants publicity.
-
kapoo:
Heres a totally crazy thought I was having, out of the blue (Kathryn O?s favorite song btw!), thinking while reading this thread.. Isn?t the fact that John and George said so much bad stuff about Paul thru the years in the media, probably due in part to their own insecurities being exposed at the ?on the spot? moment of the interviews, and their auto-response of defense, or anger/tyring to overpower the situation? Its not so much pure disdain of Paul, as it was having their personal turmoil and obvious issues being well known by the public and the interviewer, some set-up questions by the interviewers, and then the over-compensating for their own feelings of being threatened in general. I think when you watch Paul in interviews, he does a lot of looking up, or to the side, after he?s asked questions. and actually thinking about his responses, and considering his words. I think John and George were the kinds of people who naturally carried a more aggressive spontaneous and some might say defensive chip on their shoulder. and maybe Paul had it too but was able to check himself. Especially in the 70?s interviews w John, he?s staring down the interviewer a lot of times. If you watch Paul he?s sitting back, relaxed, and trying to think
And there?s a lot of people who would be like John, its just most of them are not having globally broadcasted and written interviews done to capture every little thing they might say. That?s a big reason I cut John so much slack in the ?bashing Paul? stuff.. I think its just too transparent that it was about other things with John.. and John was a ragingly spontaneous person. also the fact that he?s being asked these questions during times when he was hot about some things, and the guy was always on the attack with everything anyway. And Georges comments I sort of feel similar about.. George loved Paul, but couldn?t stand playing music with him anymore, and had a lot of private gripes and fights with him. On the spot you?re going to get some dirt from him if you start broaching the subjects. And I think its mainly out of his own inability to deal with his own fame. Basically
I'm not a psychiatrist but I play one on the internet sometimes
I guess my point is just to say I can appreciate the effort and maturity it takes to conduct the kind of interviews Paul has, the way he has throughout some hard times. We can always say I wish he was more off the cuff or whatever, but I bet that?s a large reason why he?s not guilty of saying the kind of crap John and George were prone to saying. Paul?s just better built to handle stuff
I read somewhere, John asked Paul, "do they play you off me the way they play me off you" Paul's reply was, yeah they do.. this was during the 70's
-
Michelley:
jlw44:
In truth have you ever heard Paul say anything bad about anybody throughout his career in public? Maybe and exception would have been Allen Klein, but generally Paul seems to come from the if you can't say anything nice don't say it at all school. I'm guessing he knows how much words can hurt.
He did once make a mean remark about Yoko in the early 200o's. He said something like "She's not the brightest button." But of course, that was in response to her ridiculous comment about him. It was either the remark where she dismissed his lyrics as "moon/june" simplistic rhymes compared to the great Lennon, or the one where she called him Salieri to John's Mozart. Either way, she had far worse coming to her than what Paul said.
As I recall, after Klein's death a year or two ago, Paul refused to criticize Klein, saying he didn't want to speak ill of the dead. And, needless to say, his behavior during the divorce was absolutely heroic, refusing to stoop to the garbage being hurled from the other side. I don't know how he did it. I'm sure he says plenty in private. But that's the way it should be. Most of these public pissing matches that people get into these days are just because one or the other party wants publicity.
Yoko (the screaming skull) Ono, can't stand the woman, she continues to try and rewrite the Beatles history, John would turn in his grave if he knew about some of the shite she's done using John's name, well done Paul for holding back all these years, don't know how you manage to keep your cool when she starts her verbal diarrhea.
-
Macsback:
whobeatle:
Macsback:
I guess we can safely say, George & Ringo's best years in the UK charts were from around 70-74 John's UK chart career was very much the same as his best period was during the same years, George did tho, make a couple of mini comebacks in the 80's John also had a surge in chart hits in the early 80's, sadly, we all know why..
With all due respect to the British or English Charts, In the English Speaking world, The US charts account for about six times more volume than the UK charts. And in the USA Harrison had 16 top forty hits after the Beatles, not counting what he did for Ringo, which would make it about 20 To Say Harrisons career waned after the mid seventies, totally ignores the huge success of the Traveling Wilburys, Cloud Nine and Brainwashed. The majority in the UK< and elsewhere, don't think much of George according your argument. I think sixteen top 40 hits ten gold or platinum studio albums plus the WIlburys and the Beatle/Anthology reunion, is pretty good. Not disparaging McCartney, haven't even gotten into his great work and achievements, but I can tell you with no reservation, most succesful recording artists dont have 16 top forties, a Dozen gold or Platinum albums to their credit. And Thats just sales, which often don't reflect someones true popularity, talent or measure, Maybe in the UK you folks don't appreciate all your native sons. I think just the nature of this thread illustrates, why Harrison may have carried some resentment, most people with those kind of success's don't have to defend themselves. And he cant he's dead! Personally I think George Harrison 79, CLoud Nine and Brainwashed are all first class, as well as both Wilburys albums thats five great albums in 28 years...in that same span McCartney has maybe 6-7 great albums by my count...and three or four average albums great ones since 79 Tug Of War FLowers in Dirt Flaming Pie Run Devil Run Chaos MAF not so good. Pipes Peace broadstreet Press To Play Off Ground Driving Rain Now is there valid cool tracks on those five "average" albums sure...Pipes of Peace "the Track" is a masterpiece to me. all those albums have some good songs...Cosmically conscious, Lonely Road Off The Ground.. They all have some good tracks... but really over a given span McCartney has perhaps more great work...but not that much more not really...more work.. but only a bit more great work Now if you are one of those people who thinks "Looking for Changes" "Rinse the Raindrops" are masterpieces. you are probably a McCartney-ista and there really isin't any reasoning with you because you have an irrational belief or preference to McCartneys work no matter what it sounds like.. and thats ok too. but to a musician or someone trying at least to be objective.. McCartney may be the greater talent, but not to the extent you portray it, Three good songs etc etc etc
Thats your opinion if you think "George Harrison 79, CLoud Nine and Brainwashed" are great albums, IMO they're not, at least we agree on the McCartney albums, even if you did, miss out a few. McCartney is the greater talent by a country mile, i don't know if your a musician or not but if you are, you should consider a career change if you think a few songs seperate them.
Well one of the Beatles, liked my work, and once told me to keep up the good work. But maybe I should take your opinion over his? Hmm I think not It wasn't Harrison by the way who said it. Although he and Jeff Lynne once let me use their guitars and amps to record one day. very nice gesture on their part, I guess they thought it was okay I was doing music too. What do you do bathe in a vat of Scotch whiskey and insult people? You think McCartney is the moon and Harrison was just a lucky mediocre guy on his coattails. I get your view. I don't think its accurate or well informed, but I understand what your saying. In my view you are a McCartney-ista, a rabid illogical defender of someone who is not being attacked, in the first place, at least not by me. I Love McCartney's work, and Lennon's and Harrisons, and think it is a unique situation in the history of rock, I don't believe there has ever been three songwriters of that talent in one group, before or since. You disagree with that view. So be it. I think George Harrison might have been better served on the one hand to be more polite in some of his public remarks about Paul McCartney post 1970, however, I think the majority here would sleight and short shrift him, regardless of that, to those actually offeneded by Harrisons remarks,, thats one thing, But I think for some its just an excuse to pile on. McCartney doesn't need to be defended, his work speaks for itself and he is quite capable of defending himself when he see's fit. I think Harrison did have cause for resentment, but I think many of his remarks are taken out of context, though (some) not all imply a sense of bitterness stemming from the sixties. Finally in regards to whether the USA charts are more significant than the UK or other European charts, I would say yes, only because they account for the majority of the English speaking world. The Beatles did after all sing in English, and more people speak English in the USA than anywhere else, therefore if you sell records or cds here, you are reaching the biggest market. I certainly don't think the American charts are more highbrow or have better taste, than the European charts or Canada or wherever. I do think probably, the Beach Boys are more loved in the UK< and the Beatles are more loved in the USA. But thats a generalization only. Sometimes people love the band from afar more than the band at home. As we witness with the brutal take on Harrison from many of our UK posters.
-
whobeatle:
Well one of the Beatles, liked my work, and once told me to keep up the good work. But maybe I should take your opinion over his? Hmm I think not It wasn't Harrison by the way who said it. Although he and Jeff Lynne once let me use their guitars and amps to record one day. very nice gesture on their part, I guess they thought it was okay I was doing music too. What do you do bathe in a vat of Scotch whiskey and insult people? You think McCartney is the moon and Harrison was just a lucky mediocre guy on his coattails. I get your view. I don't think its accurate or well informed, but I understand what your saying. In my view you are a McCartney-ista, a rabid illogical defender of someone who is not being attacked, in the first place, at least not by me. I Love McCartney's work, and Lennon's and Harrisons, and think it is a unique situation in the history of rock, I don't believe there has ever been three songwriters of that talent in one group, before or since. You disagree with that view. So be it. I think George Harrison might have been better served on the one hand to be more polite in some of his public remarks about Paul McCartney post 1970, however, I think the majority here would sleight and short shrift him, regardless of that, to those actually offeneded by Harrisons remarks,, thats one thing, But I think for some its just an excuse to pile on. McCartney doesn't need to be defended, his work speaks for itself and he is quite capable of defending himself when he see's fit. I think Harrison did have cause for resentment, but I think many of his remarks are taken out of context, though (some) not all imply a sense of bitterness stemming from the sixties. Finally in regards to whether the USA charts are more significant than the UK or other European charts, I would say yes, only because they account for the majority of the English speaking world. The Beatles did after all sing in English, and more people speak English in the USA than anywhere else, therefore if you sell records or cds here, you are reaching the biggest market. I certainly don't think the American charts are more highbrow or have better taste, than the European charts or Canada or wherever. I do think probably, the Beach Boys are more loved in the UK< and the Beatles are more loved in the USA. But thats a generalization only. Sometimes people love the band from afar more than the band at home. As we witness with the brutal take on Harrison from many of our UK posters.
The majority of people are of the opinion that although Harrison was good Lennon/McCartney were on a different level. For every classic from George theres atleast 5 from Lennon and McCartney. Paul is a perfectionist and although that is probably overbearing he made the effort during tough times to get not only his own songs on the money but John & George's too! Your probably right with your viewpoint on the charts. Theres 5x the population of Britain in America so I get that. But also you can't really quote who was more popular unless you go with sales per head of population. However, what was the need in this comment!.."What do you do bathe in a vat of Scotch whiskey and insult people?"
-
I read somewhere, John asked Paul, "do they play you off me the way they play me off you" Paul's reply was, yeah they do.. this was during the 70's
And yet somehow Paul mostly managed to resist "being played" while John apparently played right into their hands.
I think Harrison did have cause for resentment, but I think many of his remarks are taken out of context,
I don't, not really. He was NEVER Lennon and McCartney and he was never going to be within that band. So why not just play his role within the band without bitching about it and then do his own stuff on the side(which would have been quite easy from mid-1966 onward) and in fact he did do some of that stuff but even as he was doing his own projects and getting into his own interests outside the Beatles he was feeling all put out that he wasn't being treated more like an equal within it. It wouldn't matter if he was Mozart(and IMO he wasn't even close, he was a good songwriter, he was not in Lennon and McCartney's league though). His role in that band was not to be Mozart, it was to be the lead guitarist playing on mostly other people's songs.
-
so whobeatle, when did you meet Pete Best?
Was it Ringo? seriously I'm curious.
and on our father 3 hail marys each saturday night
-
[quote="high_wilusa"]
I read somewhere, John asked Paul, "do they play you off me the way they play me off you" Paul's reply was, yeah they do.. this was during the 70's
And yet somehow Paul mostly managed to resist "being played" while John apparently played right into their hands. true and maybe George got caught up in that situation to.
-
CMackbird:
whobeatle:
Well one of the Beatles, liked my work, and once told me to keep up the good work. But maybe I should take your opinion over his? Hmm I think not It wasn't Harrison by the way who said it. Although he and Jeff Lynne once let me use their guitars and amps to record one day. very nice gesture on their part, I guess they thought it was okay I was doing music too. What do you do bathe in a vat of Scotch whiskey and insult people? You think McCartney is the moon and Harrison was just a lucky mediocre guy on his coattails. I get your view. I don't think its accurate or well informed, but I understand what your saying. In my view you are a McCartney-ista, a rabid illogical defender of someone who is not being attacked, in the first place, at least not by me. I Love McCartney's work, and Lennon's and Harrisons, and think it is a unique situation in the history of rock, I don't believe there has ever been three songwriters of that talent in one group, before or since. You disagree with that view. So be it. I think George Harrison might have been better served on the one hand to be more polite in some of his public remarks about Paul McCartney post 1970, however, I think the majority here would sleight and short shrift him, regardless of that, to those actually offeneded by Harrisons remarks,, thats one thing, But I think for some its just an excuse to pile on. McCartney doesn't need to be defended, his work speaks for itself and he is quite capable of defending himself when he see's fit. I think Harrison did have cause for resentment, but I think many of his remarks are taken out of context, though (some) not all imply a sense of bitterness stemming from the sixties. Finally in regards to whether the USA charts are more significant than the UK or other European charts, I would say yes, only because they account for the majority of the English speaking world. The Beatles did after all sing in English, and more people speak English in the USA than anywhere else, therefore if you sell records or cds here, you are reaching the biggest market. I certainly don't think the American charts are more highbrow or have better taste, than the European charts or Canada or wherever. I do think probably, the Beach Boys are more loved in the UK< and the Beatles are more loved in the USA. But thats a generalization only. Sometimes people love the band from afar more than the band at home. As we witness with the brutal take on Harrison from many of our UK posters.
The majority of people are of the opinion that although Harrison was good Lennon/McCartney were on a different level. For every classic from George theres atleast 5 from Lennon and McCartney. Paul is a perfectionist and although that is probably overbearing he made the effort during tough times to get not only his own songs on the money but John & George's too! Your probably right with your viewpoint on the charts. Theres 5x the population of Britain in America so I get that. But also you can't really quote who was more popular unless you go with sales per head of population. However, what was the need in this comment!.."What do you do bathe in a vat of Scotch whiskey and insult people?"
The insults have been against every single person who dissagrees with Who-beatle, christ!!! just because he held Jeff Lynne's guitar, he thinks he's some kinda super guitar holder for the stars....
-
Macsback:
CMackbird:
whobeatle:
Well one of the Beatles, liked my work, and once told me to keep up the good work. But maybe I should take your opinion over his? Hmm I think not It wasn't Harrison by the way who said it. Although he and Jeff Lynne once let me use their guitars and amps to record one day. very nice gesture on their part, I guess they thought it was okay I was doing music too. What do you do bathe in a vat of Scotch whiskey and insult people? You think McCartney is the moon and Harrison was just a lucky mediocre guy on his coattails. I get your view. I don't think its accurate or well informed, but I understand what your saying. In my view you are a McCartney-ista, a rabid illogical defender of someone who is not being attacked, in the first place, at least not by me. I Love McCartney's work, and Lennon's and Harrisons, and think it is a unique situation in the history of rock, I don't believe there has ever been three songwriters of that talent in one group, before or since. You disagree with that view. So be it. I think George Harrison might have been better served on the one hand to be more polite in some of his public remarks about Paul McCartney post 1970, however, I think the majority here would sleight and short shrift him, regardless of that, to those actually offeneded by Harrisons remarks,, thats one thing, But I think for some its just an excuse to pile on. McCartney doesn't need to be defended, his work speaks for itself and he is quite capable of defending himself when he see's fit. I think Harrison did have cause for resentment, but I think many of his remarks are taken out of context, though (some) not all imply a sense of bitterness stemming from the sixties. Finally in regards to whether the USA charts are more significant than the UK or other European charts, I would say yes, only because they account for the majority of the English speaking world. The Beatles did after all sing in English, and more people speak English in the USA than anywhere else, therefore if you sell records or cds here, you are reaching the biggest market. I certainly don't think the American charts are more highbrow or have better taste, than the European charts or Canada or wherever. I do think probably, the Beach Boys are more loved in the UK< and the Beatles are more loved in the USA. But thats a generalization only. Sometimes people love the band from afar more than the band at home. As we witness with the brutal take on Harrison from many of our UK posters.
The majority of people are of the opinion that although Harrison was good Lennon/McCartney were on a different level. For every classic from George theres atleast 5 from Lennon and McCartney. Paul is a perfectionist and although that is probably overbearing he made the effort during tough times to get not only his own songs on the money but John & George's too! Your probably right with your viewpoint on the charts. Theres 5x the population of Britain in America so I get that. But also you can't really quote who was more popular unless you go with sales per head of population. However, what was the need in this comment!.."What do you do bathe in a vat of Scotch whiskey and insult people?"
The insults have been against every single person who dissagrees with Who-beatle, christ!!! just because he held Jeff Lynne's guitar, he thinks he's some kinda super guitar holder for the stars....
I know!!...I just thought that remark was bordering on (I wont play the card because i dont want to label people but you know what i mean). Maybe he's paul!....continually backing George so that gets us to big up the man.
-
I know!!...I just thought that remark was bordering on (I wont play the card because i dont want to label people but you know what i mean). Maybe he's paul!....continually backing George so that gets us to big up the man. Paul wouldn't stoop so low, who-beatle has shown himself up to be a really nasty piece of work after those not so nice comments about little o'l me
at least my comments about him were the truth, yes, i know sometimes the truth can hurt, who-beatle needed to be told that being a guitar holder for the stars isn't really a career in music. i'm off to call the Samaritans now as i'm still hurting here
-
This thread is getting really, really UGLY!!! I understand discussing a topic, but this is turning into something else. Not what The Beatles (individually or collectively) were about at all.
-
Sadie A:
This thread is getting really, really UGLY!!! I understand discussing a topic, but this is turning into something else. Not what The Beatles (individually or collectively) were about at all.
At least not until their bitter end.
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
Harrison has some wonderful songs on all his solo albums. Not all are wonderful, but more than he's given credit for writing. He's underestimated by most of you lot. But not by the cognescenti who really know about music. Also, some of the solo Fabs' songs are as good or almost as good as the best Beatles songs. Just my opinion, but to me, I'm right about this
Thats what I was getting at he seems to be underestimated in this topic
-
Macsback:
. I read somewhere, John asked Paul, "do they play you off me the way they play me off you" Paul's reply was, yeah they do.. this was during the 70's
We were just discussing this on another group about the Lennon vs McCartney debate! I wish I could actually source the quote.
-
Did anybody think that part of the reason McCartney and Lennon were so prolific with songs were that they had each other to bounce ideas off of espeically before the rifts between them started where Harrison was mostly a solo affair until he began working with other musicians outside the band?
-
high_wilusa:
I read somewhere, John asked Paul, "do they play you off me the way they play me off you" Paul's reply was, yeah they do.. this was during the 70's
And yet somehow Paul mostly managed to resist "being played" while John apparently played right into their hands.
I think Harrison did have cause for resentment, but I think many of his remarks are taken out of context,
I don't, not really. He was NEVER Lennon and McCartney and he was never going to be within that band. So why not just play his role within the band without bitching about it and then do his own stuff on the side(which would have been quite easy from mid-1966 onward) and in fact he did do some of that stuff but even as he was doing his own projects and getting into his own interests outside the Beatles he was feeling all put out that he wasn't being treated more like an equal within it. It wouldn't matter if he was Mozart(and IMO he wasn't even close, he was a good songwriter, he was not in Lennon and McCartney's league though). His role in that band was not to be Mozart, it was to be the lead guitarist playing on mostly other people's songs.
Reading this thread is like watching water circle down a drain. The same arguments keep going round and round. But I think High_Wilusa makes two great points here: 1. Somehow Paul managed to resist attacking his friends to reporters. However you want to rationalize George's and John's nastiness, they acted badly. Period. 2. George's role was to be lead guitarist -- not to be lead singer or lead songwriter or leader of the band. They weren't four equals. They were two equals who shaped the band's music and future, and two musicians who played crucial supporting roles, in a delicate balance that eventually went awry. In the end, the band fell apart because John and Paul's partnership fell apart. And even in that, Ringo and George played supporting roles. As for their solo careers, you're on a Paul forum. I would imagine it's not very surprising that most people here prefer Paul's music.