George's criticisms of Macca
-
lazydynamite88:
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!
I got that message too. Sad. His comments will be missed.
-
i totally understand his point because i have been there myself. i just hope he thinks twice and rises above the underhanded bullshit that obviously took place. i did and i live to tell the tale.sometimes you got to button your lip and bide your time.the mask always slips.the true colours always come out in the end. im actually just quite glad that more people are seeing it on here. 'we all stand together' bum bum
-
lazydynamite88:
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!
Well I think I know who you're talking about. And it would be a shame if that person allows himself to be driven away from a forum he enjoys, and from a place where his views are valued (at least by some people here). You can't give someone else that much control, however irritating you may find them. I hope he comes back after a bit of a cooling off.
-
How many more have to leave the board?
-
I don't recall a lot of Paul bashing by George, I believe you that some of that transpired now and then, but I doubt it was continuous and ongoing to the extent some claim. I don't think George was consumed with seething resentment. He just felt twinges at times. After all, Paul was a huge factor in the Beatles' amazing success. To be sure Harrison didn't despise his own enormous success and popularity as a Beatle and would rather have remained poor and obscure. He couldn't have had all that without Paul.
-
I remeber reading somewhere a quote by George in which he said that Paul's records should be sold in supermarkets, next to soap powder. : The worst thing about it all is that this resentment went on for years and years... John could say even worse things, but he never failed to admit when he was wrong and tried to mend his mistakes. Something else I'd like to add: everybody praises All Things Must Pass for being the first triple album in history and are all like: "OMG! Look at how many songs John and Paul kept George from showing!!" Actually, I remember reading that only Hear Me Lord, the title track and The Art of Dying were ready by the time the Beatles broke up. Furthermore, the third disc consists only of jams. And each side of the two other discs has only 4 songs at the most. So it could easily be a simple album, with 8 songs on each side :
-
[quote="maribeatlecrazy"]I remeber reading somewhere a quote by George in which he said that Paul's records should be sold in supermarkets, next to soap powder. : The worst thing about it all is that this resentment went on for years and years... John could say even worse things, but he never failed to admit when he was wrong and tried to mend his mistakes. Something else I'd like to add: everybody praises All Things Must Pass for being the first triple album in history and are all like: "OMG! Look at how many songs John and Paul kept George from showing!!" I bought the album back in the late 1988 and it bored me.. There are some great songs on it but it bored the shite outta me. Paul's album's never bore me his resentment did get worse overtime, whereas John's subsided considerably.
-
yes too true. i think this thread [like george] is getting dried up now. only a fool could still question whether george said some nasty stuff about paul or not. he basically made a solo career out of snide remarks about mccartneys music and intentions. sad but true,i doubt they were actually that close at the end either. paul seemed to get on with his life just fine considering his loss.it was nothing as earth shattering as linda in 1998. perhaps the mods should come in with the red pen and close this thread down too.
-
CMackbird:
I would put money on it that she was the one who shopped Paul to the police in Japan. Nasty piece of work.
Anyone entering Japan through customs have their baggage searched. Linda packed the bags on this occasion (Rose wasn't with them in New York on this trip) and left the grass on top of the clothes in full view. The poor customs guy was as shocked as Paul was, but the tv cameras were focused on what the customs officer was doing so he had no choice but to do his job. The whole issue was 100% Linda's fault and nothing to do with Yoko or John. But Paul being Paul stepped forward to take the blame and protect his wife which i think was a nice thing for him to do.
-
As requested in our previous Admin edit, we ask that all members treat each other with respect without the need for insults. Although we value opinions, we will not tolerate verbal harrassment towards other members. If you do not like someone please ignore them, please do not inflame the situation by posting to upset or provoke them. This is all detailed clearly in our guidelines, along with our Warning and Banning Procedure: http://maccaboard.paulmccartney.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14764 Please also note: any more off topic/offensive posts will be removed without further notice. We would ask that you please post respectfully to each other and also keep this thread on topic. thanks, Admin
-
How difficult is it? We're all intelligent on here (no, don't laugh and roll your eyes, it's true!... ), that's why we love Macca and the boys... We are harbingers of good taste and have the ability to shower heaps of love on those less fortunate than ourselves, like Just-in Dweeber fans and those who like James Blunt or The Rolling Stones.... But sometimes kiddywinks it gets a little too heated, all the toys come out of the prams and handbags are drawn and all hell breaks loose. It can be funny to just watch it all unfold, but mostly not. One or two raise their petticoats and skedaddle looking for sanctuary and some peace, whilst others stand toe to toe and slug it out, last one standing. Look, if you have an opinion fine, share it, that's what a forum's for. If you disagree with someone else's opinion fine too, it's allowed, but do so in a constructive not a personal manner. Let's not follow the modern preference for slaughtering each other and spitting acid at every turn, we're better than that. With regards Paul and George.....well it's Paul's business not ours. He knows the truth and we can have an opinion but in the end I'll let the great one make his own mind up. If you have a complaint about a post that has infringed the rules set down in stone many hundreds of years ago by some mystical being when this site was nowt but an egg then inform the Mods in their black suits and shades who will send the boys round to the said miscreant and thrash 'em within an inch of their lives using a rolled up copy of an Up and Coming tour programme. If you can't do that, if you can't play together nicely, if you're so enraged that your eyes are bulging out of your head and you feel that your whole bonce is gonna explode then go read a book and count to one hundred!..... You know it makes sense. That is all!
-
whobeatle:
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..
Forgive me for coming late to the party--very interesting thread and I'm only up to page 3 or 4, but I had to add some commentary here about two of George's "hits." Well Taxman wasn't really a hit was it. But remember on two of these songs he had his friends play the lead because he wasn't quite up to the task himself. On Taxman, it was Paul playing the lead guitar and bass making a significant contribution to this song. And then on "Gently Weeps" it was his friend Eric Clapton who picked up the gauntlet and laid down the lead guitar--adding his own unique signature to the song. Years ago in my informative years I fashioned the notion that John was the creative genius of the Beatles and George was my favorite Beatle. I felt that Paul was too pop and perhaps even believed it when Ringo said he was the best drummer in the world. I now realize how terribly wrong I was on all counts! Paul was a better writer and singer than John, a better guitar player than George, and probably a better drummer than Ringo. George probably never would have written songs like "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun" if he didn't spend all those years next to Paul and John. There are a couple good songs on All Things Must Pass, but a lot of the songs were things he'd written that Paul and John said were sub par for inclusion on a Beatles album. Certainly his post Beatle work suffered greatly without having Paul's help. The stuff he did with Jeff Lynn I personally can't stand and I think even less of the Wilbury's but there were other major artists in that "group" for those that do like them. George certainly had his own unique brand of talent, but it always irritated me to hear about what a "gift" Jeff Lynn was to his music and production. Heck, was never even in the same class as the Beatles! Maybe he should have been more thankful for the gift of all those years with Paul McCartney (and John Lennon). [Update] I just saw that the thread got quite heated towards page 20 or so, so let's try and keep the debate civil and interesting. This is an interesting discussion if it doesn't go astray again.
-
Erik in NJ:
whobeatle:
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..
Forgive me for coming late to the party--very interesting thread and I'm only up to page 3 or 4, but I had to add some commentary here about two of George's "hits." Well Taxman wasn't really a hit was it. But remember on two of these songs he had his friends play the lead because he wasn't quite up to the task himself. On Taxman, it was Paul playing the lead guitar and bass making a significant contribution to this song. And then on "Gently Weeps" it was his friend Eric Clapton who picked up the gauntlet and laid down the lead guitar--adding his own unique signature to the song. Years ago in my informative years I fashioned the notion that John was the creative genius of the Beatles and George was my favorite Beatle. I felt that Paul was too pop and perhaps even believed it when Ringo said he was the best drummer in the world. I now realize how terribly wrong I was on all counts! Paul was a better writer and singer than John, a better guitar player than George, and probably a better drummer than Ringo. George probably never would have written songs like "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun" if he didn't spend all those years next to Paul and John. There are a couple good songs on All Things Must Pass, but a lot of the songs were things he'd written that Paul and John said were sub par for inclusion on a Beatles album. Certainly his post Beatle work suffered greatly without having Paul's help. The stuff he did with Jeff Lynn I personally can't stand and I think even less of the Wilbury's but there were other major artists in that "group" for those that do like them. George certainly had his own unique brand of talent, but it always irritated me to hear about what a "gift" Jeff Lynn was to his music and production. Heck, was never even in the same class as the Beatles! Maybe he should have been more thankful for the gift of all those years with Paul McCartney (and John Lennon). [Update] I just saw that the thread got quite heated towards page 20 or so, so let's try and keep the debate civil and interesting. This is an interesting discussion if it doesn't go astray again.
Um, no, Paul played lead guitar on Taxman because George LET him. Are you saying when John played bass on Let It Be, Long And Winding Road, Helter Skelter, and Back In The USSR, it was because Paul wasn't up to it? And Clapton was INVITED by George to play on WMGGW because Paul and John were being a**holes in the studio, and he believed they would play nicer if an outside musician was brought in. Paul played drums on some Beatles tracks because Ringo was absent, not because Ringo wasn't up to Paul's playing. Paul was very impatient, and rather than let Ringo learn his parts or work up a part, he would just do the drums himself. I suspect if Ringo played drums on Dear Prudence or Band On The Run, the drums would have more authority and even more presence. Paul was an obvious force in the Beatles, and really came into his own during Sgt. Pepper's. But before that, he really was second in command to John, who tended to dominate in many ways. John wrote the titles of the Beatles first two films, and the Hard Day's Night LP was almost a Lennon solo album. Certainly, being in a band with John and Paul influenced George's writing. But Paul in no way "helped" George write Something or Here Comes The Sun, his two biggest Beatle songs. George's career will always be overshadowed by Lennon and McCartney, but taken on his own, he was one of the best songwriters of the 60s and 70s, IMO. We should try and remember, George went through what he went through, we didn't. It's easy to say he should have just been grateful to be in a band with Paul, but to George, Paul was an equal, a person he had known since his early teens, and in Let It Be, you can see George get tired of Paul's demanding ways. For George, there was really no reason to tolerate it, no matter how much a fan says they would.
-
RMartinez:
Um, no, Paul played lead guitar on Taxman because George LET him. Are you saying when John played bass on Let It Be, Long And Winding Road, Helter Skelter, and Back In The USSR, it was because Paul wasn't up to it? And Clapton was INVITED by George to play on WMGGW because Paul and John were being a**holes in the studio, and he believed they would play nicer if an outside musician was brought in. Paul played drums on some Beatles tracks because Ringo was absent, not because Ringo wasn't up to Paul's playing. Paul was very impatient, and rather than let Ringo learn his parts or work up a part, he would just do the drums himself. I suspect if Ringo played drums on Dear Prudence or Band On The Run, the drums would have more authority and even more presence. Paul was an obvious force in the Beatles, and really came into his own during Sgt. Pepper's. But before that, he really was second in command to John, who tended to dominate in many ways. John wrote the titles of the Beatles first two films, and the Hard Day's Night LP was almost a Lennon solo album. Certainly, being in a band with John and Paul influenced George's writing. But Paul in no way "helped" George write Something or Here Comes The Sun, his two biggest Beatle songs. George's career will always be overshadowed by Lennon and McCartney, but taken on his own, he was one of the best songwriters of the 60s and 70s, IMO. We should try and remember, George went through what he went through, we didn't. It's easy to say he should have just been grateful to be in a band with Paul, but to George, Paul was an equal, a person he had known since his early teens, and in Let It Be, you can see George get tired of Paul's demanding ways. For George, there was really no reason to tolerate it, no matter how much a fan says they would.
One question: I thought it was George Martin who asked Paul to try the lead in Taxman because George was having trouble with it? (so you are right, then George let Paul do it)
-
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
Um, no, Paul played lead guitar on Taxman because George LET him. Are you saying when John played bass on Let It Be, Long And Winding Road, Helter Skelter, and Back In The USSR, it was because Paul wasn't up to it? And Clapton was INVITED by George to play on WMGGW because Paul and John were being a**holes in the studio, and he believed they would play nicer if an outside musician was brought in. Paul played drums on some Beatles tracks because Ringo was absent, not because Ringo wasn't up to Paul's playing. Paul was very impatient, and rather than let Ringo learn his parts or work up a part, he would just do the drums himself. I suspect if Ringo played drums on Dear Prudence or Band On The Run, the drums would have more authority and even more presence. Paul was an obvious force in the Beatles, and really came into his own during Sgt. Pepper's. But before that, he really was second in command to John, who tended to dominate in many ways. John wrote the titles of the Beatles first two films, and the Hard Day's Night LP was almost a Lennon solo album. Certainly, being in a band with John and Paul influenced George's writing. But Paul in no way "helped" George write Something or Here Comes The Sun, his two biggest Beatle songs. George's career will always be overshadowed by Lennon and McCartney, but taken on his own, he was one of the best songwriters of the 60s and 70s, IMO. We should try and remember, George went through what he went through, we didn't. It's easy to say he should have just been grateful to be in a band with Paul, but to George, Paul was an equal, a person he had known since his early teens, and in Let It Be, you can see George get tired of Paul's demanding ways. For George, there was really no reason to tolerate it, no matter how much a fan says they would.
One question: I thought it was George Martin who asked Paul to try the lead in Taxman because George was having trouble with it? (so you are right, then George let Paul do it)
I don't know. All I have ever read is that Paul plays the lead guitar on Taxman, and as a nod to his friend George, he played an Indian sitar type note progression which is brilliant, IMO.
-
RMartinez:
Um, no, Paul played lead guitar on Taxman because George LET him. Are you saying when John played bass on Let It Be, Long And Winding Road, Helter Skelter, and Back In The USSR, it was because Paul wasn't up to it? And Clapton was INVITED by George to play on WMGGW because Paul and John were being a**holes in the studio, and he believed they would play nicer if an outside musician was brought in. Paul played drums on some Beatles tracks because Ringo was absent, not because Ringo wasn't up to Paul's playing. Paul was very impatient, and rather than let Ringo learn his parts or work up a part, he would just do the drums himself. I suspect if Ringo played drums on Dear Prudence or Band On The Run, the drums would have more authority and even more presence. Paul was an obvious force in the Beatles, and really came into his own during Sgt. Pepper's. But before that, he really was second in command to John, who tended to dominate in many ways. John wrote the titles of the Beatles first two films, and the Hard Day's Night LP was almost a Lennon solo album. Certainly, being in a band with John and Paul influenced George's writing. But Paul in no way "helped" George write Something or Here Comes The Sun, his two biggest Beatle songs. George's career will always be overshadowed by Lennon and McCartney, but taken on his own, he was one of the best songwriters of the 60s and 70s, IMO. We should try and remember, George went through what he went through, we didn't. It's easy to say he should have just been grateful to be in a band with Paul, but to George, Paul was an equal, a person he had known since his early teens, and in Let It Be, you can see George get tired of Paul's demanding ways. For George, there was really no reason to tolerate it, no matter how much a fan says they would.
I had to double check my sources on this. Nancy is correct in that George was originally having trouble with the lead. Paul wanted more of a raw lead played on this song, a bit like the Jimi Hendrix Experience, and George couldn't seem to do it. Remember John and Paul still had veto power over George if they thought his songs were sub par (Long, Long, Long is one that should have been vetoed, so they were fairly liberal with him). Paul jumped on the guitar and essentially nailed the lead in one take. There was no "nod" to George by playing the lead like a sitar solo, at least not intentionally. Neither of them was a sitar player in the proper sense. Harrison tuned the sitar like a guitar when he "played" it. You are right in that George invited Clapton to the recording session as he thought the others would be on their best behavior (I would not have put John and Paul's behavior like you wrote it) with a guest of that stature in the studio. The iconic lead on Gently Weeps of course was Clapton's signature style. Harrison's guitar work was nothing like that and in fact if you have listened to any of the live versions of that song with Harrison on guitar it sounds quite different and not nearly as good as the studio version. Now regarding Lennon playing bass, it's like Denny Laine playing bass in Wings--it was done live and in live-studio takes when Paul was busy playing piano, etc. Even on some of the Let It Be live-studio takes, Paul would later overdub his own bass playing before the final mix as Lennon's bass playing was quite rudimentary. Occaisionally John and Paul would get bored and let the other play their part on guitar or bass, but this was somewhat rare and certainly not done for the same reason as we discussed above with George on Taxman. Paul certainly was not second in command on Revolver and several other albums prior to Sgt. Pepper. Hard Day's Night might be one of the very few if not the only Lennon heavy album they did, but Paul wrote two of the finest songs and biggest hits on that album: "Can't Buy Me Love" and "And I Love Her" and certainly contributed parts to many of John's songs. Ringo was never a drummer with "authority and presence"--more of a good timekeeper for the band in my opinion. Ginger Baker and Keith Moon just to name two had "authority and presence", but not Ringo. In fact when playing live (even going back to Bangladesh) he always seems to have a second drummer playing next to him. Most of the Wings drummers were far better drummers than Ringo, and I for one am glad he was never part of Wings. Some of the above is fact and some is my opinion--it's pretty clear which is which. Now here's my opinion: George could write a really good song every now and then ("Give Me Love" and "Cracker Box Palace"), but post Beatles he wrote and recorded a heck of a lot of duds too. I have seen people hold up George Harrison (1979) and Brainwashed as great pieces of work. I bought the '79 album in '79 and although "Blow Away" and "Love Comes to Everyone" were pleasant enough tunes and got a bit or airplay at the time, there were a lot of duds like "Faster" and "Dark Sweet Lady" and others with sophmoric wordplay in the titles like "Soft-Hearted Hannah", and "Here Comes the Moon." I don't see what some see in Brainwashed at all, I find it very difficult to sit through and don't think I ever have. I think he gave up some of his raw guitar playing talent when he started to get heavily into playing slide guitar which I feel should have been used more sparingly. I also find his Jeff Lynn produced hits like "I Got My Mind Set on You" embarrasingly bad, but again that's just my opinion. George was talented for sure, but he never seemed to really get it all together after the Beatles. He was better with them in the studio (not to mention George Martin), but John and especially Paul were never worse in the studio for lack of George and Ringo. (end of opinion statement )
-
Erik in NJ:
RMartinez:
Um, no, Paul played lead guitar on Taxman because George LET him. Are you saying when John played bass on Let It Be, Long And Winding Road, Helter Skelter, and Back In The USSR, it was because Paul wasn't up to it? And Clapton was INVITED by George to play on WMGGW because Paul and John were being a**holes in the studio, and he believed they would play nicer if an outside musician was brought in. Paul played drums on some Beatles tracks because Ringo was absent, not because Ringo wasn't up to Paul's playing. Paul was very impatient, and rather than let Ringo learn his parts or work up a part, he would just do the drums himself. I suspect if Ringo played drums on Dear Prudence or Band On The Run, the drums would have more authority and even more presence. Paul was an obvious force in the Beatles, and really came into his own during Sgt. Pepper's. But before that, he really was second in command to John, who tended to dominate in many ways. John wrote the titles of the Beatles first two films, and the Hard Day's Night LP was almost a Lennon solo album. Certainly, being in a band with John and Paul influenced George's writing. But Paul in no way "helped" George write Something or Here Comes The Sun, his two biggest Beatle songs. George's career will always be overshadowed by Lennon and McCartney, but taken on his own, he was one of the best songwriters of the 60s and 70s, IMO. We should try and remember, George went through what he went through, we didn't. It's easy to say he should have just been grateful to be in a band with Paul, but to George, Paul was an equal, a person he had known since his early teens, and in Let It Be, you can see George get tired of Paul's demanding ways. For George, there was really no reason to tolerate it, no matter how much a fan says they would.
I had to double check my sources on this. Nancy is correct in that George was originally having trouble with the lead. Paul wanted more of a raw lead played on this song, a bit like the Jimi Hendrix Experience, and George couldn't seem to do it. Remember John and Paul still had veto power over George if they thought his songs were sub par (Long, Long, Long is one that should have been vetoed, so they were fairly liberal with him). Paul jumped on the guitar and essentially nailed the lead in one take. There was no "nod" to George by playing the lead like a sitar solo, at least not intentionally. Neither of them was a sitar player in the proper sense. Harrison tuned the sitar like a guitar when he "played" it. You are right in that George invited Clapton to the recording session as he thought the others would be on their best behavior (I would not have put John and Paul's behavior like you wrote it) with a guest of that stature in the studio. The iconic lead on Gently Weeps of course was Clapton's signature style. Harrison's guitar work was nothing like that and in fact if you have listened to any of the live versions of that song with Harrison on guitar it sounds quite different and not nearly as good as the studio version. Now regarding Lennon playing bass, it's like Denny Laine playing bass in Wings--it was done live and in live-studio takes when Paul was busy playing piano, etc. Even on some of the Let It Be live-studio takes, Paul would later overdub his own bass playing before the final mix as Lennon's bass playing was quite rudimentary. Occaisionally John and Paul would get bored and let the other play their part on guitar or bass, but this was somewhat rare and certainly not done for the same reason as we discussed above with George on Taxman. Paul certainly was not second in command on Revolver and several other albums prior to Sgt. Pepper. Hard Day's Night might be one of the very few if not the only Lennon heavy album they did, but Paul wrote two of the finest songs and biggest hits on that album: "Can't Buy Me Love" and "And I Love Her" and certainly contributed parts to many of John's songs. Ringo was never a drummer with "authority and presence"--more of a good timekeeper for the band in my opinion. Ginger Baker and Keith Moon just to name two had "authority and presence", but not Ringo. In fact when playing live (even going back to Bangladesh) he always seems to have a second drummer playing next to him. Most of the Wings drummers were far better drummers than Ringo, and I for one am glad he was never part of Wings. Some of the above is fact and some is my opinion--it's pretty clear which is which. Now here's my opinion: George could write a really good song every now and then ("Give Me Love" and "Cracker Box Palace"), but post Beatles he wrote and recorded a heck of a lot of duds too. I have seen people hold up George Harrison (1979) and Brainwashed as great pieces of work. I bought the '79 album in '79 and although "Blow Away" and "Love Comes to Everyone" were pleasant enough tunes and got a bit or airplay at the time, there were a lot of duds like "Faster" and "Dark Sweet Lady" and others with sophmoric wordplay in the titles like "Soft-Hearted Hannah", and "Here Comes the Moon." I don't see what some see in Brainwashed at all, I find it very difficult to sit through and don't think I ever have. I think he gave up some of his raw guitar playing talent when he started to get heavily into playing slide guitar which I feel should have been used more sparingly. I also find his Jeff Lynn produced hits like "I Got My Mind Set on You" embarrasingly bad, but again that's just my opinion. George was talented for sure, but he never seemed to really get it all together after the Beatles. He was better with them in the studio (not to mention George Martin), but John and especially Paul were never worse in the studio for lack of George and Ringo. (end of opinion statement )
This is your opinion. I disagree. Clapton's playing on WMGGW was nothing like his typical playing. He even said he wanted a sound so it would be "Beatle-ish." Your comments about Ringo's drumming show you really are inexperienced about drumming, bands, and what the Beatles went through as a live band that could not hear anything nor be heard. Lennon himself said the Beatles would not have made it if not for Ringo. I believe him. They were going to lose their record deal if they did not get a professional drummer. How much bigger were the Beatles going to be if they had a "better" drummer? The argument is ridiculous. And it may be hard for you to accept, but McCartney recorded PLENTY of duds as a solo artist. So did Lennon. So did Ringo. All had hits in the 70s. Even Ringo! As far as guitar playing, yes, Paul had a more aggressive style when playing electric, so I can see the Beatles having Paul play the solo for that type of playing. But Paul can't play George's slide style, nor can he play the style of solo George played on All My Loving. Paul was "saddled" with the bass because NO ONE in the band thought losing him as a guitar player was a problem. He even had a chance at being the lead player for the early Beatles and blew it. The Beatles needed all four members to become the phenomenon they became. Whatever the dynamic, I never heard Paul or John say they could have done it all without George or Ringo. You can speculate all you want, but it matters very little. Paul said it best the other night. Any band with just him, or just John, or just Ringo, or just George, would have been a pretty good band. But the Beatles with the four of them was a magical combination that was unstoppable.
-
I think this is an interesting read: http://www.warr.org/solobeats.html Their reviews are fair, and not fan raves. Certainly many will disagree, but I found their opinions very thought provoking, regarding solo Beatle recordings.
-
RMartinez:
Your comments about Ringo's drumming show you really are inexperienced about drumming, bands, and what the Beatles went through as a live band that could not hear anything nor be heard. Lennon himself said the Beatles would not have made it if not for Ringo. I believe him. They were going to lose their record deal if they did not get a professional drummer. How much bigger were the Beatles going to be if they had a "better" drummer? The argument is ridiculous. And it may be hard for you to accept, but McCartney recorded PLENTY of duds as a solo artist. So did Lennon. So did Ringo. All had hits in the 70s. Even Ringo! As far as guitar playing, yes, Paul had a more aggressive style when playing electric, so I can see the Beatles having Paul play the solo for that type of playing. But Paul can't play George's slide style, nor can he play the style of solo George played on All My Loving. Paul was "saddled" with the bass because NO ONE in the band thought losing him as a guitar player was a problem. He even had a chance at being the lead player for the early Beatles and blew it. The Beatles needed all four members to become the phenomenon they became. Whatever the dynamic, I never heard Paul or John say they could have done it all without George or Ringo. You can speculate all you want, but it matters very little. Paul said it best the other night. Any band with just him, or just John, or just Ringo, or just George, would have been a pretty good band. But the Beatles with the four of them was a magical combination that was unstoppable.
This is where the forum starts to fall apart with these aggressive, unsupported, personal attacks "Your comments about Ringo's drumming show you really are inexperienced about drumming, bands, and what the Beatles went through as a live band " and as far as I'm concerned should be removed by the moderators. Yes, Lennon said a lot of things over the years, so I would not use that statement as a barometer of truth or fact. I think I poved my points, with facts, that you stated were erroneous "Um, no..." and I'm not interested in further defending my opinions.
-
Erik in NJ:
RMartinez:
Your comments about Ringo's drumming show you really are inexperienced about drumming, bands, and what the Beatles went through as a live band that could not hear anything nor be heard. Lennon himself said the Beatles would not have made it if not for Ringo. I believe him. They were going to lose their record deal if they did not get a professional drummer. How much bigger were the Beatles going to be if they had a "better" drummer? The argument is ridiculous. And it may be hard for you to accept, but McCartney recorded PLENTY of duds as a solo artist. So did Lennon. So did Ringo. All had hits in the 70s. Even Ringo! As far as guitar playing, yes, Paul had a more aggressive style when playing electric, so I can see the Beatles having Paul play the solo for that type of playing. But Paul can't play George's slide style, nor can he play the style of solo George played on All My Loving. Paul was "saddled" with the bass because NO ONE in the band thought losing him as a guitar player was a problem. He even had a chance at being the lead player for the early Beatles and blew it. The Beatles needed all four members to become the phenomenon they became. Whatever the dynamic, I never heard Paul or John say they could have done it all without George or Ringo. You can speculate all you want, but it matters very little. Paul said it best the other night. Any band with just him, or just John, or just Ringo, or just George, would have been a pretty good band. But the Beatles with the four of them was a magical combination that was unstoppable.
This is where the forum starts to fall apart with these aggressive, unsupported, personal attacks "Your comments about Ringo's drumming show you really are inexperienced about drumming, bands, and what the Beatles went through as a live band " and as far as I'm concerned should be removed by the moderators. Yes, Lennon said a lot of things over the years, so I would not use that statement as a barometer of truth or fact. I think I poved my points, with facts, that you stated were erroneous "Um, no..." and I'm not interested in further defending my opinions.
Good.