George's criticisms of Macca
-
Ammar:
one of the reasons the Beatles reunion didn't happen in 1974-1975 time was George didn't want to play with Paul again. he said it in one of his interviews and Ringo stated that fact also at that time. any how, the reason why George was negative at Paul is jealousy ... just like John. besides George liked to imitate John! there is an old thread about Paul and George http://maccaboard.paulmccartney.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=74364
I always thought that George was jealous of Paul's relationship with John. If watch the Anthology, you see George talk about how the LSD trip with John put their relationship at a different level than with the others and how John thought of him as more of an equal since then.. really..... It was crap when George stated that in 1973/74, "It's nothing personal, but i'd never join a band with Paul McCartney again", Paul made mention of that somewhere years later and it is a hurtful staement. George even pissed John off after hardly mentioning him in George;s book, I, Me MIne because John felt that he helped George's career more than anyone and got mentioned like 15 times... Well Paul only got mentioned 12 times and he was the one who convinced John to let him into the Beatles. For a religious dude, he was pretty uptight alot..
-
larainefan:
I thought I read somewhere that John and Ringo kind of publicly put down Paul's first solo album, and that George said something nice about it?
Larainefan, George said the only 2 tracks that were greeat were "Maybe I'm Amazed" and "That Would Be Something" and the others needed work and wondered how the band would have recorded them. I know he said of Wild Life, "c'mon Paul, we know you can do better than that'!
-
George was the quite Beatle and should have remained the quite ex-Beatle. you get the feeling he slept through the whole Beatle thing and woke up just at the end and never wanted to be reminded of what had happened. Like everything happened by magic and the '70s onwards was going to be his era forgetting how he got there. Like John said George could remember every part time musician he played with but not the ones who helped the most.
-
Ammar:
one of the reasons the Beatles reunion didn't happen in 1974-1975 time was George didn't want to play with Paul again. he said it in one of his interviews and Ringo stated that fact also at that time. any how, the reason why George was negative at Paul is jealousy ... just like John. besides George liked to imitate John! there is an old thread about Paul and George http://maccaboard.paulmccartney.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=74364
when your friend sues you, it has a way of getting in between the friendships.
-
appletart2:
Ammar:
one of the reasons the Beatles reunion didn't happen in 1974-1975 time was George didn't want to play with Paul again. he said it in one of his interviews and Ringo stated that fact also at that time. any how, the reason why George was negative at Paul is jealousy ... just like John. besides George liked to imitate John! there is an old thread about Paul and George http://maccaboard.paulmccartney.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=74364
when your friend sues you, it has a way of getting in between the friendships.
as Paul once said that he had no other choice... "we saved their fortunes. and they all thanked me for it later!!"
-
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.
-
Nonsense! Yes its probably fair to say,, McCartney and Lennon were the two greatest talents in the beatles. They had the best voices and they wrote the majority of the great songs, McCartney perhaps writing the most great songs, but perhaps...Lennons best were even greater... subjective question, This is not subjective however... Harrison wrote Gently Weeps. Something, Here Comes The Sun, Taxman, etc etc and those songs are every bit as good as the rest of the Beatles "A" List songs, Hey Jude, Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields, Help Get Back, etc etc etc etc Harrison harbored some resentment no doubt, for just this type of view, we are discussing, that Harrison was less than.. Listen wake up smell the coffee, Len/Mac were better singers, they developed earlier as writers, they were more prolific but anybody and I mean anybody, who can compose WHile My Guitar Gently Weeps and Something, doesn't take a back seat to anybody period... Do you realize what your saying when you say Harrison was just lucky or it could have been anybody there instead of him? Bob Dylan has another view... in a nutshell. Dylan believes the Beatles kept Harrison from writing more classics, because of the limited amount of tracks and growth permitted him in the Beatles, because of the great Len/Mac songwriting And... let me give you this analogy... The great black baseball player..Satchel Paige... didint get to debut as a major league player until well into his forties..because of the color barrier...but he still played well for a couple of years pushing fifty! It is grossly unfair to say Harrison didint have the chops as a writer because he didint continue to write and record prolifically 20-30 years later... in fact he(probably) did but its in still in the archives When Harrison was a young man, along with Len/Mac.... he was sorely restricted and dampened rather than encouraged... stifled... he could have written another 20 classic beatle tunes or more... but the Beatles had a deep deep bench... and Harrison didint get to be the star very often 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 The thing about the Beatles is they were so incredibly good. it boggles the mind... they were so good, some people take the guy who wrote "Something" and say he was just average run of the mill Lets take Crosby/Stills/Nash (sometimes0 Young they did about three albums... as good as the beatles...probably.. unbelievable stuff... then what happened? fizzled out...couldnt maintain it... not Young he has kept on going... but never again have they managed another... classic album The Beatles did it twelve times in seven years! Its almost like a movie no one would believe you, if they didint know already.. I think Harrison resented Len/Mac.... because of an impossible unwinnable situation... the third best guy in the band was good enough to write "Something" one more thing... the chemistry when they recorded together with George Martin...has never been equaled by any of them again They have had great individual songs, and albums... but never have they been able to do something as great as Abbey Road or the WHite album on their own... no one can.. not just them Some of Harrisons resentment was displaced fear or anger... and or petty but in some ways Harrison was terribly unfortunate.. someone of his caliber being called "average" boggles the mind
-
Ok i, alittle late cause everyone has written what I was thinking but im jsut going to summon up that without George there is no Beatles. But thats what you say about all of them there is no Beatles without Paul, without John, without ringo. Just wanted to be in the conversation
-
sorry mate but 'baseball' ?... who cares ,not a good anology. crosby ,stills,nash have three albums as good as the beatles?... i dont think so,maybe in your mind. so where are all those classic harrison songs that lennon/mac held him back from writing? okay 'all things must pass ' is a nice tune but terribly overlong album. 'cloud nine' is pretty average although his wilburys stuff was quite good. i cant think of much else.i did enjoy his guitar uncomplicated playing mind.at its best it was just right for thebeatles fantastic melodies. george wrote 2 or 3 classic beatle songs.after that is really stretching it. something and here comes the sun are classics. while my guitar is pretty good too taxman is alright[mainly because of the bassline] but thats about it im afraid.
-
It seems to me you both go to far. George Harrison was indeed very fortunate to be a part of the Beatles...Lennon/McCartney were destined for greatness...George Harrison without them? I believe his talent would have made him successful, but nowhere near the degree. It is likely that Mr. Harrison regretted becoming so famous and that contributed to his conflict with Paul. Paul loved the success and was always aiming higher and striving to have them all reach new heights...I think George may have viewed it as unhealthy, excessive and shallow by the end. But of course his ego wanted credit too. George had a very unique gift on the guitar for embellishing a song with the right tone and energy...much like Ringo in that respect...they played for the song. The guitar parts that Harrison wrote were little hooks unto themselves and his unique voice really helped distinguish the Beatles from other groups. I don't know why you keep bringing up this archived material whobeatle?...George Harrison was a pretty good songwriter...his best songs were recorded with the Beatles. They made him work for it. I've been writing songs for 25 years and I'm obviously no George Harrison, but I can tell you that if I had Ringo, Lennon, McCartney on my team at the height of their powers, I guarantee I would have recorded a few hits myself. Both Ringo and Harrison were integral to the success of the Beatles. They would have been nowhere near as endearing without Ringo's quiet eccentricity and nowhere near as meaningful without George Harrison's spiritual influence and writing. The uniqueness of all 4 men captivated their generation and many of us in those to follow. The complexity and variety of their work is what makes the Beatles so rewarding and enduring. Their solo projects all lack that depth of character that the band were able to achieve over and over again. Lennon/McCartney would have been a success with or without George and Ringo, but I don't think they would likely have reached near as high without the other 2. They are the greatest band of all time..and that's because of each of their unique talents.
-
George developed latterly with the beatles and wrote some good songs, infact some incredible songs, but he just wasn't as efficient and couldn't measure up with the level of quality Lennon/McCartney produced on a consistant basis. Lennon/McCartney have classics and hit songs on every album whereas George had 3 classics and a handful of other good songs. But as has been said...The Beatles woulnd't have been the Beatles without John, Paul, George or Ringo.
-
I think the way McCartney and Lennon treated George although may have been unfair it probably eventually benefitted George as a song writer, he had to learn his craft and wasnt really allowed to come out with sub standard songs, thats part of the reason All things must pass is such a great album
-
to this day i believe the beatles grow too democratic for their own purpose . i still submit 'the white album' as exhibit A. far too long and far too many poor tracks.
-
When Harrison was a young man, along with Len/Mac.... he was sorely restricted and dampened rather than encouraged... stifled... he could have written another 20 classic beatle tunes or more... but the Beatles had a deep deep bench... and Harrison didint get to be the star very often.
Lets not rewrite history. The fact is: George's songwriting skills didn't blossom until late in the game. For most of the Beatles time together, he was bringing in a lot of mediocre material and maybe one good song here and there like Taxman -- a song, I might add, that was improved by John lyrically and by Paul musically, and led off Revolver. John and Paul weren't exactly restricting George by letting his song lead off the album, were they? If he'd had the goods, they would have put them on the albums. But instead, George produced stuff like Within You Without You and Blue Jay Way. It was his choice to focus on the sitar stuff and they accommodated his interest. Heck, they all followed him to India. But the reality is George didn't bring in truly great songs (All Things Must Pass, Something, Here Comes the Sun) until 1969. It wasn't like he came to the studio with Here Comes the Sun in 1967 and John and Paul cruelly turned him away. It was George's bad luck to blossom as a songwriter just at the point when John was bored of the band, and Paul was obviously distracted by losing his partnership with John. Were John and Paul too caught up in their own stuff to open their eyes and see that George was starting to produce great songs just at the point where they were both feeling exhausted? Maybe. But given all that they'd been through, you can understand why.
-
i just find it a bit of a cheek the way he dissed mccartney and wings around that time. talk about forgetting were your bread was buttered. lennon of course was equally scathing of pauls early work and the mud that was thrown pauls way from both of them is still being percieved as 'truth' by certain music fans and critics. i could also accept the shit they said about pauls music if there was an element of truth about it. to this day i would take 'mccartney' and 'ram' over any of john and georges albums.
-
Susy, here is Pattie in an interview speaking of the duality between George's spirituality and his excesses, the interviewer is Ken Sharp. Q: Discuss the duality of George. On one hand, he was a seeker of enlightenment and spirituality and the other he was having affairs on the side. A: George was a human being. He was human, terribly good-looking and very famous. He had his ups and downs. Temptations were thrown at him constantly. If you're gonna decide that you're gonna be a priest it's very difficult. I think George was far more aware than other people of the continual battle of one's demons...He struggled with it. He always wanted to be a good man and do the right thing. Q: In describing your two husbands, you describe George as your 'soulmate.' A: George was a true spiritual seeker. We had a very special friendship/relationship that would last all our lives. I knew that. George was always there for me. He was a sweet and gentle person. So what if he had demons. He'd been trying so hard to be good and spiritual. ********** I think George would have been far happier if he'd had more moderation in his life; instead, he was an all-or-nothing person. Pattie often speaks of how he was indeed capable of going long periods of time, abstaining from drugs and alcohol, promoting celibacy (even within the marriage, which couldn't have been easy on Pattie!) Then he'd bounce in the other direction and partake of everything again as if he couldn't get enough, then the long self-imposed ban again on drugs and sex. But even his spiritual advisers declared they'd never known anyone try as hard as George to be good, to want that so much. I will say that Paul's long marriage and fidelity once he did marry are one of the things that most impress me about Paul. When I want a true sense of who George was, I often reread his life from birth to about age 20, that I feel is the true core of who George was. After that we're viewing him through a filter-haze of drugs and unprecedented fame and the drama and the psychological trauma which seemed to happen to him with Beatlemania. But at heart, at his core, he was still that same George, apparently an uncommonly kind, thoughtful person; he was just trying to find his way to reconnect with himself.
-
Thanks for reminding me, Laraine, I've read Pattie's book about George's long periods of celibacy and staying "clean" of drugs and drinking and smoking...he could keep that up for longer than many in his position, but then would indulge to excess again. It's understandable. He was very human, but tried very hard, much of the time to be uncommonly 'good.' Harrison will come to be more and more appreciated for his amazing special gifts, I believe. He wrote a lot of truly amazing songs, and was interesting and often displayed a great deal of humor and natural wit. One of his songs that goes "ring out the false ring in the true" was inspired by a Lord Alfred Tennyson poem, so he was obviously a reader, largely self-educated and became more cultured and cultivated through his world travels and exposure to Indian thought and culture, etc. Trying to keep up with Lennon and McCartney's brilliance made him really "stretch" and grow as a songwriter and musician. He could play guitar much better than Lennon, and perhaps (some or much of the time) play guitar better than Paul. My impression was always that George was the greatest guitarist in the band. Is that true? As noted, George's greatest works are on a par with John and Paul's greatest songs. If he did feel somewhat stifled, overlooked and neglected in the Beatles' partnership, it's only natural some bitterness emerge in later years, and it did.Paul would treat him like a kid brother and therefore boss him around a bit, a left over from their early years together as schoolchildren. I've read that George really looked up to John in something like awe and hero worship when they were children, which is a bit like being in a subserviant position-- tinges of that were left over in the Beatles years as well, which could lead to him feeling an under dog. Resentment resulted from that. He was only human, they were all so human especially John, who didn't try to be what he was not. Sported a defiant "take me as I am, or sod off" stance. Macca was more the perfectionist people pleaser type of "star" which could lead to his being perceived by his band mates as thinking he was better than they were. But I don't think Paul really felt he was superior and 'better.' It's just that his prodigious talents couldn't be suppressed (and shouldn't have been)-- brilliance burst out of him daily and was overwhelming. Paul didn't sing "I'm getting better all the time" (LOL) it was, "It's getting better all the time" Maybe it was his Liverpool grounding which kept him relatively down to earth in those heady times.
-
larainefan:
I thought I read somewhere that John and Ringo kind of publicly put down Paul's first solo album, and that George said something nice about it?
Yeah, George had nice things to say about 'Maybe I'm Amazed', 'That would be something', when the album came out. I think George soured as the 70s when on, as the critics (and fan reception) seemed to get worse album after album, then there was the My Sweet Lord lawsuit, his record label dropping him, etc. I think he took some of it out on being a "Beatle", and he became more resentful of Paul (& John) in public. Thats my opinion. People forget by 'Gone Troppo' (1983) his low point, he was not held in high regard at all by critics and fans and the public.
-
yeah I like George. Laraine wrote something interesting about evaluating Georges personality by who he was early in life, I think at the root that is always true. people change a lot thru life but basically because of gained experience, trust, mistrust, success, new temptations etc. but George early in life I've read was a very private, quiet and introverted person to begin with. and for someone like that to be thrust into the all-time biggest act on earth, where everyones talking about you and in your business constantly, it was extremely hard for him to deal with I think. harder than for the others. even though he handled it relatively well actually, I think he always had that chip on his shoulder simply from having to deal with the fame and life as a beatle under the microscope. I will also say though, musically, it didn't matter who played guitar on I Wanna Hold Your Hand. Thats the deal of the Beatle. John and Paul were the songwriters in that band, writing songs for John and Paul. and occasionally Ringo I disagree Lazy! Walls & Bridges and Imagine are both better pound for pound I'd say than McCartney and RAM. for me W&B dominates that mix of 4. although I do love RAM. Band On The Run however is right there with it. as is V&M. both albums, just sick
-
George Harrison wrote a lot more than four good songs! OH MY GOD This is what I mean! Do you folks believe that when you say things like that? Harrison only had three classic songs? ATMP was the only good album he ever did on his own! WHAT Have you ever heard Brainwashed or Cloud Nine, or George Harrison 79 Anyway, here we are in 2011, 50 years after it all got rolling,, and people are still insisting Harrison was lucky and had no special talent! OH MY GOD Listen the real truth is, they all needed each other,because none of them have done the quality of work they did together in their twenties, on primitive almost archaic recording equipment. Lennon and McCartney and Harrison all have a clutch of songs that may rival their Beatle songs, in their respective solo catalogues, but they aren't generally produced as well, and the harmonies of the other Beatles and their added touches, made it special, Hey I like SIng The Changes or Mama only knows or A Fine Line but those songs and albums, good though they are, dont really come close to Helter Skelter or Penny Lane or any of thats stuff A lot of it is the singing, McCartney always has a strong vocal so people listen on a superficial level and say oh yeah great, and Harrison sometimes had lousy vocals on his solo records... not always but sometimes, and he had some great songs overlooked because his delivery or performance wasn't so commercial, if Paul had been singing the high part, and George Martin had been twiddling the knobs, we would probably add lots more HArrison songs to the "classic" list Its not Like Lennon or McCartney have released a lot of records to rival Strawberry fields and Hey Jude! A few, maybe I'm amazed, Imagine, Band on the Run, mostly their solo output just had better singing, their best stuff is behind them also