George's criticisms of Macca
-
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.
-
Michelley:
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.
I wouldn't even compare John' and George's nastiness towards Paul.. John was openly nasty after the breakup and was quite complimentary of afterwords...even if he was critical of Paul, he'd praise him in the same interview,According to Andy Peebles, in his last interview with John 2 days before he died he brought up Paul every few minutes and was trying to find out desperately what Paul thought of Double Fantasy... The quote I remember from Peebles word for word was "the only two opinions that mattered to John were yoko Ono's and Paul McCartneys"!! George never gave a rats ass about anything Paul did or what he thought..All he ever wanted was to please John and be tight with John... Remember the quote, "oh John would have been a Wilbury in a second"... Oh really.. i don't think john would have ever done that.. Got to give Paul credit for not going full bore with the supergroups and all star recording sessions like the other 3 did..
-
Buds.
-
jlw44:
If you call preaching the same song over and over and playing the same guitar solo over and over a great creative mind then I guess he was one, but once he perfected that slide thing, it's all you hear. And his melodies mimic his own and others. His one later year 'hit' wasn't even his own composition, not that it matters, but he was reaching. And Brainwashed is dull. It has a few moments, the title song certainly not being one of them, especially since he is attempting to brianwash others during the song. I've listened to George extensively as I try to listen to all the Beatles solo work and quite honestly I find Ringo more diverse. At least he tried to change his sound with different producers. George was a one or two trick pony, and while some of his songs are pleasant, I still have to say that his work with the Beatles was greatly enhanced by the other musicians he used, including Paul, and after years of listening to the masters he came up with a few great songs.
Yea Here comes the sun, the most downloaded song of all the Beatles.. Quality not quantity that what I'm saying.
-
appletart2:
jlw44:
If you call preaching the same song over and over and playing the same guitar solo over and over a great creative mind then I guess he was one, but once he perfected that slide thing, it's all you hear. And his melodies mimic his own and others. His one later year 'hit' wasn't even his own composition, not that it matters, but he was reaching. And Brainwashed is dull. It has a few moments, the title song certainly not being one of them, especially since he is attempting to brianwash others during the song. I've listened to George extensively as I try to listen to all the Beatles solo work and quite honestly I find Ringo more diverse. At least he tried to change his sound with different producers. George was a one or two trick pony, and while some of his songs are pleasant, I still have to say that his work with the Beatles was greatly enhanced by the other musicians he used, including Paul, and after years of listening to the masters he came up with a few great songs.
Yea Here comes the sun, the most downloaded song of all the Beatles.. Quality not quantity that what I'm saying.
As I said, the song would have been nothing without the input of the others, especially Paul in this particular case.
-
jlw44:
appletart2:
jlw44:
If you call preaching the same song over and over and playing the same guitar solo over and over a great creative mind then I guess he was one, but once he perfected that slide thing, it's all you hear. And his melodies mimic his own and others. His one later year 'hit' wasn't even his own composition, not that it matters, but he was reaching. And Brainwashed is dull. It has a few moments, the title song certainly not being one of them, especially since he is attempting to brianwash others during the song. I've listened to George extensively as I try to listen to all the Beatles solo work and quite honestly I find Ringo more diverse. At least he tried to change his sound with different producers. George was a one or two trick pony, and while some of his songs are pleasant, I still have to say that his work with the Beatles was greatly enhanced by the other musicians he used, including Paul, and after years of listening to the masters he came up with a few great songs.
Yea Here comes the sun, the most downloaded song of all the Beatles.. Quality not quantity that what I'm saying.
As I said, the song would have been nothing without the input of the others, especially Paul in this particular case.
it seems to be lost to a lot of people, the work Paul put into the others songs.
-
luigiram:
I wouldn't even compare John' and George's nastiness towards Paul.. John was openly nasty after the breakup and was quite complimentary of afterwords...even if he was critical of Paul, he'd praise him in the same interview,According to Andy Peebles, in his last interview with John 2 days before he died he brought up Paul every few minutes and was trying to find out desperately what Paul thought of Double Fantasy... The quote I remember from Peebles word for word was "the only two opinions that mattered to John were yoko Ono's and Paul McCartneys"!! George never gave a rats ass about anything Paul did or what he thought..All he ever wanted was to please John and be tight with John... Remember the quote, "oh John would have been a Wilbury in a second"... Oh really.. i don't think john would have ever done that.. Got to give Paul credit for not going full bore with the supergroups and all star recording sessions like the other 3 did..
I think you're right about this. From George's early life following John and Cyn around, it was clear George idolized John. Unfortunately for George, John never saw him as an equal or as someone he wanted to write songs with. Maybe that's why George resented Paul so deeply. It was jealousy more than anything. My theory is that George thought he would replace Paul when the Lennon-McCartney bond fell apart. But John seemingly never considered that. He replaced Paul with Yoko. Perhaps that explains why -- out of George, Paul, and Ringo -- it was George who was the most blunt and negative about Yoko in the studio (both at the time and even years later in the Anthology. Jealousy, again. And John said some pretty critical things about George, too, over the years. I remember one interview where he was asked about George's intellect. And John said it was "an inch deep." And Yoko agreed in that interview. Notice, though, how George never publicly attacked John the way he attacked Paul. George cut John all kinds of slack. I guess I can understand George's resentment in all of this. I just think he often took it out on the wrong person.
-
Michelley:
luigiram:
I wouldn't even compare John' and George's nastiness towards Paul.. John was openly nasty after the breakup and was quite complimentary of afterwords...even if he was critical of Paul, he'd praise him in the same interview,According to Andy Peebles, in his last interview with John 2 days before he died he brought up Paul every few minutes and was trying to find out desperately what Paul thought of Double Fantasy... The quote I remember from Peebles word for word was "the only two opinions that mattered to John were yoko Ono's and Paul McCartneys"!! George never gave a rats ass about anything Paul did or what he thought..All he ever wanted was to please John and be tight with John... Remember the quote, "oh John would have been a Wilbury in a second"... Oh really.. i don't think john would have ever done that.. Got to give Paul credit for not going full bore with the supergroups and all star recording sessions like the other 3 did..
I think you're right about this. From George's early life following John and Cyn around, it was clear George idolized John. Unfortunately for George, John never saw him as an equal or as someone he wanted to write songs with. Maybe that's why George resented Paul so deeply. It was jealousy more than anything. My theory is that George thought he would replace Paul when the Lennon-McCartney bond fell apart. But John seemingly never considered that. He replaced Paul with Yoko. Perhaps that explains why -- out of George, Paul, and Ringo -- it was George who was the most blunt and negative about Yoko in the studio (both at the time and even years later in the Anthology. Jealousy, again. And John said some pretty critical things about George, too, over the years. I remember one interview where he was asked about George's intellect. And John said it was "an inch deep." And Yoko agreed in that interview. Notice, though, how George never publicly attacked John the way he attacked Paul. George cut John all kinds of slack. I guess I can understand George's resentment in all of this. I just think he often took it out on the wrong person.
All excellent observations, and in truth he was trying to 'side' with John against Paul so he'd be 'cool' too. And he knew Paul wouldn't attack back. Even Ringo has gone on a Paul attack on occasion. But I still feel that somewhere around the time of both Linda's and George's illnesses all the negativity faded away. I think this is the time they started to become close again, and Olivia always has nothing but nice things to say about Paul.
-
In his book Magical Mystery Tours, Tony Bramwell even said that the now famous arguement between George and Paul during Let It Be, had nothing to do with Paul, but George was taking his frustrations over Yoko out on Paul.. Hell, John even mentioned getting Eric Clapton in to take his place and Paul said no..If you guys remember during the Anthology when they met around the table, they were talking about when Ringo joined and how George "stuck him with you (Paul)"... It makes total sense..Paul never would have refused to help George, the only reason he didn't do Bangladesh is because it would have given Allen Klien credit for reuniting the Beatles on stage..John blew him off there and in 1974, more or less like he always did. John never mentioned George like he did Paul.. Paul and John had a really special bond, even during the Dick Cavett interviews, he called Paul his "best friend" and Yoko nodded in agreement.. I'm sure George resented that bond. It's sad.
-
Macsback:
well me old china, better dash the now as Paul & Ringo will be here soon for a cuppa. :
Don't lie. It's just gonna be Ringo, Paul is still in NY
-
milcon1998:
Macsback:
well me old china, better dash the now as Paul & Ringo will be here soon for a cuppa. :
Don't lie. It's just gonna be Ringo, Paul is still in NY
lol thanx for sticking me in it brb Paul's on the phone................ your right, he's in NY working on some ballet thingy, told me to say hi to everyone :
-
?Sometimes Paul would make us do these really fruity songs. I mean, my god, Maxwell?s Silver Hammer was so fruity.? - George Savoy Truffle and For You Blue were not, mind you.