George's criticisms of Macca
-
I think this says it all. Here's the track listing from "The Best Of George Harrison:" 1. Something 2. If I Needed Someone 3. Here Comes The Sun 4. Taxman 5. Think For Yourself 6. For You Blue 7. While My Guitar Gently Weeps 8. My Sweet Lord 9. Give Me Love (Give Me Peace On Earth) 10. You 11. Bangladesh 12. Dark Horse 13. What Is Life More than half of the songs are from when he was with the Beatles. I could argue that "Crackerbox Palace" and one or two other songs should have been on this compilation and "Bangladesh" should not have been included. Some may argue that it's a Capitol release, so here's the Dark Horse "Best Of" (this is stretching it a bit) which is a selection of songs, many of which never even received airplay (and some I've never heard of before). 1. Poor Little Girl 2. Blow Away 3. That's The Way It Goes 4. Cockamamie Business 5. Wake Up My Love 6. Life Itself 7. Got My Mind Set On You 8. Crackerbox Palace 9. Cloud 9 10. Here Comes The Moon 11. Gone Troppo 12. When We Was Fab 13. Love Comes To Everyone 14. All Those Years Ago 15. Cheer Down So there you have it, despite my admiration for George, there's barely enough hit songs to fill a "Best Of" album. Many will argue that a hit song does not neccessarily equate to a good song and I agree--I simply thought I'd post some factual evidence regarding George's solo catalog as quantitative evidence to support my original thesis.
-
Erik in NJ:
I think this says it all. Here's the track listing from "The Best Of George Harrison:" 1. Something 2. If I Needed Someone 3. Here Comes The Sun 4. Taxman 5. Think For Yourself 6. For You Blue 7. While My Guitar Gently Weeps 8. My Sweet Lord 9. Give Me Love (Give Me Peace On Earth) 10. You 11. Bangladesh 12. Dark Horse 13. What Is Life More than half of the songs are from when he was with the Beatles. I could argue that "Crackerbox Palace" and one or two other songs should have been on this compilation and "Bangladesh" should not have been included. Some may argue that it's a Capitol release, so here's the Dark Horse "Best Of" (this is stretching it a bit) which is a selection of songs, many of which never even received airplay (and some I've never heard of before). 1. Poor Little Girl 2. Blow Away 3. That's The Way It Goes 4. Cockamamie Business 5. Wake Up My Love 6. Life Itself 7. Got My Mind Set On You 8. Crackerbox Palace 9. Cloud 9 10. Here Comes The Moon 11. Gone Troppo 12. When We Was Fab 13. Love Comes To Everyone 14. All Those Years Ago 15. Cheer Down So there you have it, despite my admiration for George, there's barely enough hit songs to fill a "Best Of" album. Many will argue that a hit song does not neccessarily equate to a good song and I agree--I simply thought I'd post some factual evidence regarding George's solo catalog as quantitative evidence to support my original thesis.
Don't forget: Don't Bother Me I Need You It's All Too Much All Things Must Pass You actually illustrate a point I have been making, and that is, George Harrison had a pretty illustrious career. I don't think he had the drive or ambition McCartney has, but who does? Any other artist with Harrison's track record would be called a success. But being in a band with Lennon and McCartney, he was overshadowed. Eric Clapton would have been too. Sorry, Erik, I just don't dislike Harrison the way you do.
-
Agreed! Actually I don't dislike George--as I said he was actually my favorite Beatle back in the late 70s and 80s when I used to eat, sleep, and breathe the Beatles My tastes have changed somewhat over the years and my appreciation of McCartney has greatly increased over the years. I still think George was quite good in many respects. I think he could have had a much better solo music career (I mean "If I Needed Someone" and "Don't Bother Me" were really, really amazing songs in retrospect), but he made some bad choices and chose to surround himself with certain musicians that really didn't help his career as far as I'm concerned. I can't fault him for that though as hindsight is 20-20 and he probably wanted to be more. Certainly he was overshadowed by Mac/Len and I agree even Clapton would have been. Incidently I don't think Clapton's solo career was all it could have been either...Cream for him was a bit like the Beatles, I mean they broke a lot of new ground and had three incredible musicians. Sadly they only lasted 3 years as opposed to the 10 that the Beatles stayed together. George once said in an interview that Paul had this gift were he could simply come up with these beautiful melodies seemingly out of nowhere. It's certainly not easy to compete with that as it's a gift not many have. By the way, one of the most beautiful George solo songs (and lyric) that sadly almost never gets mentioned (I'm sure many here don't even know of it) though I was quite fond of it back in the day was "Far East Man." I think I'll try to learn it on guitar this weekend
-
Erik in NJ:
Agreed! Actually I don't dislike George--as I said he was actually my favorite Beatle back in the late 70s and 80s when I used to eat, sleep, and breathe the Beatles My tastes have changed somewhat over the years and my appreciation of McCartney has greatly increased over the years. I still think George was quite good in many respects. I think he could have had a much better solo music career (I mean "If I Needed Someone" and "Don't Bother Me" were really, really amazing songs in retrospect), but he made some bad choices and chose to surround himself with certain musicians that really didn't help his career as far as I'm concerned. I can't fault him for that though as hindsight is 20-20 and he probably wanted to be more. Certainly he was overshadowed by Mac/Len and I agree even Clapton would have been. Incidently I don't think Clapton's solo career was all it could have been either...Cream for him was a bit like the Beatles, I mean they broke a lot of new ground and had three incredible musicians. Sadly they only lasted 3 years as opposed to the 10 that the Beatles stayed together. George once said in an interview that Paul had this gift were he could simply come up with these beautiful melodies seemingly out of nowhere. It's certainly not easy to compete with that as it's a gift not many have. By the way, one of the most beautiful George solo songs (and lyric) that sadly almost never gets mentioned (I'm sure many here don't even know of it) though I was quite fond of it back in the day was "Far East Man." I think I'll try to learn it on guitar this weekend
When I was younger, I always thought, "John and Paul were the Beatles. George and Ringo were really just lucky to be there." But as I have gotten older, I have learned to appreciate the contributions of all four members. No one can take away from McCartney what he has contributed and created for modern music. But I am not convinced he would be the major star he is today had he not been in a band with John, George and Ringo. And the same goes for the other three. Looking at video of the Beatles in 1963 -66, they are all very much viable members of the band. I suppose I have become a bit of an apologist for George and Ringo, because it is my belief they were crucial to the success of the Beatles. Now, measuring each members contribution gets sticky. Same with The Who, Led Zep, and any other band. But chemistry is something that cannot be purchased or practiced. And the Beatles certainly had it.
-
Don't sleep on Got My Mind Set On You!
-
By the way, I don't really have the time (or desire) to go back and read 19 pages of discussion on the subject.....so can someone just help me answer this one question - "was George just a cranky jealous a** at times?" Maybe there is no need to overanalyze this much more than that. Some of the interviews I have seen make him come across as bitter and cranky and downright jerky. Considering Paul brought him into the fold to begin with.....seems uncalled for.
-
LiveForever:
By the way, I don't really have the time (or desire) to go back and read 19 pages of discussion on the subject.....so can someone just help me answer this one question - "was George just a cranky jealous a** at times?" Maybe there is no need to overanalyze this much more than that. Some of the interviews I have seen make him come across as bitter and cranky and downright jerky. Considering Paul brought him into the fold to begin with.....seems uncalled for.
I think he was at times, sure. So was John. And I'd bet Paul could be too, though he is generally more careful not to show it in public. Big talents tend to have strong personalities and big egos -- it comes with the territory -- and the results aren't always pretty.
-
Not having John and George around gives Paul freedom not to do but to say what he wants, with regards Beatles legacy, largely unopposed. Ringo is too nice or not interested to engage him. Although he did say something recently along the lines of "Paul thinks he's the only living Beatle..." So even Ringo can get a jibe in. At the 50th anniversary concert it is Ringo who first acknowledges John and George - then Paul follows with what sounds to me, "oh yes, I'd better say something about them too!" Criticism can be good. And on occasion, criticism of Paul is absolutely warranted: absolutely.
-
moptops:
Not having John and George around gives Paul freedom not to do but to say what he wants, with regards Beatles legacy, largely unopposed. Ringo is too nice or not interested to engage him. Although he did say something recently along the lines of "Paul thinks he's the only living Beatle..." So even Ringo can get a jibe in. At the 50th anniversary concert it is Ringo who first acknowledges John and George - then Paul follows with what sounds to me, "oh yes, I'd better say something about them too!" Criticism can be good. And on occasion, criticism of Paul is absolutely warranted: absolutely.
-
moptops:
Not having John and George around gives Paul freedom not to do but to say what he wants, with regards Beatles legacy, largely unopposed. Ringo is too nice or not interested to engage him. Although he did say something recently along the lines of "Paul thinks he's the only living Beatle..." So even Ringo can get a jibe in. At the 50th anniversary concert it is Ringo who first acknowledges John and George - then Paul follows with what sounds to me, "oh yes, I'd better say something about them too!" Criticism can be good. And on occasion, criticism of Paul is absolutely warranted: absolutely.
You can't really blame Paul for trying to set the record straight on a lot of things as perhaps most aptly pointed out in the lyric: Now everybody seems to have their own opinion Who did this and who did that As one of the better and more even-handed Beatle historians, Lewisohn most recently points out that even the four Beatles sometimes all had different recollections on the same thing. Lennon, it would seem, was often wrong about things he "recalled" -- he had a hard time remembering the names of his own songs mistakenly calling "Glass Onion" "Green Onion" in his Playboy interview before the shooting. For example, Paul for years insisted that he'd sung backing vocals on "Come Together"...John and the others denied it. It wasn't until they analyzed the individual tracks for RockBand that Paul was in fact correct! Lennon as we all know so well had this reputation of being the "avant-gard creative genius" behind the Beatles and after his untimely death that myth grew exponentially. The facts bear out that in many cases Paul was really more of an "avant-gard creative genius" than John and it must be difficult having to live with the "Saint Lennon" myth, much of it orchestrated by Yoko. Of course, the flip side of the coin is that John is not here to correct the record and give credit where credit is due. Not unlike Denny Laine, I feel that George and Ringo always felt they were overshadowed by McCartney and Lennon--and they were--who wouldn't have been?!?!. Like Denny Laine it leads to bitterness and resentment. Paul to his credit I think has been the least critical of the others in the press. So I have no problem with Paul trying to set the record straight. I think if he's trying to change facts that history and the wealth of information we now have on the Beatles will correct that and it will show him in a bad light. But for the most part Paul is "spot on" with things that he remembers and I for one am glad that he still with us, making music, and trying to set the record straight on who did what, etc. I have to say that in all of the interviews I have heard as of late he has been quite complimentary towards John in particular and he has said many nice things about George as well.
-
RMartinez:
moptops:
Not having John and George around gives Paul freedom not to do but to say what he wants, with regards Beatles legacy, largely unopposed. Ringo is too nice or not interested to engage him. Although he did say something recently along the lines of "Paul thinks he's the only living Beatle..." So even Ringo can get a jibe in. At the 50th anniversary concert it is Ringo who first acknowledges John and George - then Paul follows with what sounds to me, "oh yes, I'd better say something about them too!" Criticism can be good. And on occasion, criticism of Paul is absolutely warranted: absolutely.
I watched the "Beatles Anthology" on Netflix a few weeks ago. There were a lot of interviews with Paul, George and Ringo together and separately. Most of the time Ringo seemed unable to remember details of songs etc. Ringo sang "Yellow Submarine" on the Grammy's salute to the Beatles and I never heard him give a shoutout to Paul for writing the song. That seemed pretty unusual. When Paul performed "I Saw Her Standing There" he gave John Lennon credit for co-writing the song. I am surprised that there is so much animosity to Paul on this site when it is a Paul McCartney site. I can understand some criticism, but a few of the posters are really snarky towards Paul
-
I didn't realize that Wah-Wah was a swipe at McCartney...certainly Sue Me, Sue You Blues was. I read I, Me, Mine so long ago when it first came out that I don't remember the whole story with the song. I remember George saying a "Wah-Wah" was slang for a headache. If it was about Macca, I found the following lyric revealing: Wah-wah You made me such a big star Being there at the right time Cheaper than a dime Wah-wah, you've given me your wah-wah, wah-wah Not easy to listen to this track as it's another Spector bucket of sound and echo--listening to it gives me a Wah-Wah
-
Interesting perspective about Paul finally setting the record straight and perhaps doing so with - maybe - the slightest bit of fabrication or at least maybe some exaggeration (maybe). Not saying he is or he isn't but interesting points raised here about him being able to do it largely uncontested if he wanted to. Interestingly enough I came across this article earlier from last summer. Headline: Paul McCartney reclaims co-ownership of ?Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite' Paul seems to be in a situation "damned if you do, damned if you don't." If you read the comment section in the article, people are calling Paul out for being "petty and childish." But on the other hand, I can certainly see why he would want to set the record straight. It is funny though that when I saw him perform Kite live in DC this past July, my first thought was "wow, he's singing a John song." So, again, I could see why he would want to be getting this out there if he truly did co-write it. Who wouldn't want credit for their work?? Article linked below. http://www.examiner.com/article/paul-mccartney-reclaims-co-ownership-of-being-for-the-benefit-of-mr-kite
-
Erik in NJ:
I didn't realize that Wah-Wah was a swipe at McCartney...certainly Sue Me, Sue You Blues was. I read I, Me, Mine so long ago when it first came out that I don't remember the whole story with the song. I remember George saying a "Wah-Wah" was slang for a headache. If it was about Macca, I found the following lyric revealing: Wah-wah You made me such a big star Being there at the right time Cheaper than a dime Wah-wah, you've given me your wah-wah, wah-wah Not easy to listen to this track as it's another Spector bucket of sound and echo--listening to it gives me a Wah-Wah
Geroge wrote it after the fight with Paul during LEt it Be where he stormed off for a few days
-
KO, Thanks for the context. I'm quite interested in the middle three lines--is he saying that Paul made him a big star and that he was in the right place at the right time. In the third line it seems that he's complaining about money again...not unusual for George. Good ol' George...I find a certain irony in his preaching about the "material world" and then buying the ostentatious Friar Park Mansion which was perhaps the biggest of the Beatle estates at the time. I'd read an article about George in his latter years still being quite bitter about money (not having enough) and the British tax system. I give Paul and Linda so much credit for living on that farm in Scotland during those years. Now that was a fairly spartan existence and it seems they were closer to practicing what George was preaching. Maybe he should have been more true to himself and he would have been a happier man.
-
LiveForever:
Interesting perspective about Paul finally setting the record straight and perhaps doing so with - maybe - the slightest bit of fabrication or at least maybe some exaggeration (maybe). Not saying he is or he isn't but interesting points raised here about him being able to do it largely uncontested if he wanted to. Interestingly enough I came across this article earlier from last summer. Headline: Paul McCartney reclaims co-ownership of ?Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite' Paul seems to be in a situation "damned if you do, damned if you don't." If you read the comment section in the article, people are calling Paul out for being "petty and childish." But on the other hand, I can certainly see why he would want to set the record straight. It is funny though that when I saw him perform Kite live in DC this past July, my first thought was "wow, he's singing a John song." So, again, I could see why he would want to be getting this out there if he truly did co-write it. Who wouldn't want credit for their work?? Article linked below. http://www.examiner.com/article/paul-mccartney-reclaims-co-ownership-of-being-for-the-benefit-of-mr-kite
Thanks brother! Good short article. I for one am glad that he's setting the record straight on things like this as it's important to know the true extent of his work (and same for the others)...it just seems that Paul's reach was much greater than what has been previously made public. I have the Barry Miles book on order "Many Years From Now" which is supposed to go a long way into setting the record straight by Paul himself.
-
moptops:
Not having John and George around gives Paul freedom not to do but to say what he wants, with regards Beatles legacy, largely unopposed. Ringo is too nice or not interested to engage him. Although he did say something recently along the lines of "Paul thinks he's the only living Beatle..." So even Ringo can get a jibe in. At the 50th anniversary concert it is Ringo who first acknowledges John and George - then Paul follows with what sounds to me, "oh yes, I'd better say something about them too!" Criticism can be good. And on occasion, criticism of Paul is absolutely warranted: absolutely.
My guess is they agreed which one of them would verbalize their tribute to John and George before they performed. To think they wouldn't say something about the other two doesn't make sense, to me anyway.
-
Erik in NJ:
moptops:
Not having John and George around gives Paul freedom not to do but to say what he wants, with regards Beatles legacy, largely unopposed. Ringo is too nice or not interested to engage him. Although he did say something recently along the lines of "Paul thinks he's the only living Beatle..." So even Ringo can get a jibe in. At the 50th anniversary concert it is Ringo who first acknowledges John and George - then Paul follows with what sounds to me, "oh yes, I'd better say something about them too!" Criticism can be good. And on occasion, criticism of Paul is absolutely warranted: absolutely.
You can't really blame Paul for trying to set the record straight on a lot of things as perhaps most aptly pointed out in the lyric: Now everybody seems to have their own opinion Who did this and who did that As one of the better and more even-handed Beatle historians, Lewisohn most recently points out that even the four Beatles sometimes all had different recollections on the same thing. Lennon, it would seem, was often wrong about things he "recalled" -- he had a hard time remembering the names of his own songs mistakenly calling "Glass Onion" "Green Onion" in his Playboy interview before the shooting. For example, Paul for years insisted that he'd sung backing vocals on "Come Together"...John and the others denied it. It wasn't until they analyzed the individual tracks for RockBand that Paul was in fact correct! Lennon as we all know so well had this reputation of being the "avant-gard creative genius" behind the Beatles and after his untimely death that myth grew exponentially. The facts bear out that in many cases Paul was really more of an "avant-gard creative genius" than John and it must be difficult having to live with the "Saint Lennon" myth, much of it orchestrated by Yoko. Of course, the flip side of the coin is that John is not here to correct the record and give credit where credit is due. Not unlike Denny Laine, I feel that George and Ringo always felt they were overshadowed by McCartney and Lennon--and they were--who wouldn't have been?!?!. Like Denny Laine it leads to bitterness and resentment. Paul to his credit I think has been the least critical of the others in the press. So I have no problem with Paul trying to set the record straight. I think if he's trying to change facts that history and the wealth of information we now have on the Beatles will correct that and it will show him in a bad light. But for the most part Paul is "spot on" with things that he remembers and I for one am glad that he still with us, making music, and trying to set the record straight on who did what, etc. I have to say that in all of the interviews I have heard as of late he has been quite complimentary towards John in particular and he has said many nice things about George as well.
Not thinking that any of them is either an angel or the opposite in saying this b/c no one has a perfect memory, but having been a heroin addict (John) and an alcoholic (Ringo) and a preaching but non-practicing love-person to his first wife (George--if Pattie's book is accurate he carried on an affair with Ringo's first wife while Pattie was in the house on more than one occasion) , my money is on Paul.
-
Here's a very entertaining radio interview in which Paul addresses a few of the points in this discussion. I kept it because it's VERY funny and unusual in that Paul seems completely relaxed and unguarded with this interviewer. I don't blame him for trying to set the record straight on some of his personal history. I know that I would feel as he does considering the wealth of misinformation that is floating around about Paul McCartney and the rest of the Beatles!! Enjoy! http://www.absoluteradio.co.uk/player/Paul-McCartney/10541/Interview.html
-
Erik in NJ:
KO, Thanks for the context. I'm quite interested in the middle three lines--is he saying that Paul made him a big star and that he was in the right place at the right time. In the third line it seems that he's complaining about money again...not unusual for George. Good ol' George...I find a certain irony in his preaching about the "material world" and then buying the ostentatious Friar Park Mansion which was perhaps the biggest of the Beatle estates at the time. I'd read an article about George in his latter years still being quite bitter about money (not having enough) and the British tax system. I give Paul and Linda so much credit for living on that farm in Scotland during those years. Now that was a fairly spartan existence and it seems they were closer to practicing what George was preaching. Maybe he should have been more true to himself and he would have been a happier man.
I don't think he was an unhappy man. In fact I'd have rather had a beer with George than with Paul.