George's criticisms of Macca
-
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
-
Other musicians such as Eric Clapton, Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Tom Petty etc hold George in very high favour. He was considered a musician's musician; they actually played instruments with him, they would know. Also musicologists who write books about George's contributions hold him in high esteem. Simon Leng's book is very good at dissecting George's talents, I highly recommend it.
-
lazydynamite88:
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.
Very well said, I agree 100% (including Lennon point) for Anthology I want to add these points that are obvious to see on the growing up George and Paul: 1. The project was to be named (The Long And Winding Road) but GEORGE did not agree to name it after a McCartney song! (whether we agree or not with the name but the reason of his refusal was mean) 2. during the part when G.Martin ask about the bass on Abbey Road, George two awful remarks (which album was that? and the bass part) 3. the part when they jam together at George's studio, George's dont want to play more and after Paul asks him gently he answers something like " ok but this is the last one!" 4. projects like writing together or completing "Now and Then" were killed out of George's desire. just like the Beatles playing live on the TV in 1969 which was changed to play on the roof instead. yes George was talented, but he was very very lucky to be with the greatest songwriters of all time. he was a very good guitarist but it was also a challenge for him to put his solo in songs of two good melodic guitarist, so he improved in guitar because of them. even at the Beatles his best solos in songs came from Eric Clapton and Paul himself "Taxman"!
-
whobeatle:
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
I can see you didn't get the meaning behind "Lazydynmite" saying George was Lucky. ok the point is : We all agree that John and Paul are the greatest composers in the world and history and their composing developed through the years. they inspired EVERYBODY in music industry and band members to compose, they inspired EVERYBODY to develop in order to compete with them. I will say one example "Jagger and Richard" in 1963 saw Paul and John ONCE finishing writing a simple song in front of them "Wanna be your Man" , they took that gift"the simple song" and begun composing by themselves till they made some of the best songs near 1966 till 1969. of course if they were not talented they would not do it. how about someone who plays guitar well with John and Paul and see from inside how they write songs, how they got ideas, words, how they use different instruments in the right place?! won't you be a lucky person to be that one????? wont you at least compose simple songs and develop day by day and make a couple of great songs after 10 years living with those two legends????? this is Luck man! Lucky to be the only student inside the best Academy in composing in history! so don't challenge "Lazydynamite" to go and come back with a couple of great songs like that if you didn't give him the chance or THE LUCK of being inside the Beatles studying from Paul and John while they were developing day by day! By the way, the solo smash on 'While my Guitar" and "My sweet lord" were by EClapton, while "Give me Love" solo was not a smash at all ! and I dont mean he has not made very good solos, if he was not he would not be in a band like the Beatles! his solo on Something was his best! George was talented and very lucky . and we love him, he was ridiculous with Paul out of jealousy. thats all!
-
The bottom line is, George was a good song writer for a short period, Lennon & McCartney were juggernauts who time after time wrote classics to keep The Beatles ahead of the pack!! George wrote two great songs for Abbey Road, for some on here, that's good enough to put him on par with Lennon & McCartney
: Out of the four Beatles, I would say McCartney would have made some sort of mark on music, if his meeting with Lennon never happened, McCartney was already writing songs before he met Lennon, he was also more musically minded, had more drive in him to be successful and was an excellent pr man even back in the early days. Meeting McCartney spurred Lennon into writing & playing better, not the other way around as some would have us believe. I honestly don't know if John would have made any impact on the music scene, if the meeting with Paul never happened, remember what it was like back then, music executives were fickle and prefered stars to have a Cliff Richard image, John had many issues and a lot of anger going on and because of his "i couldn't give a toss attitude" record companies would have given him a wide berth. George would have ended up playing in a local band and maybe have ended up being a session musician if he never met Paul Ringo would still be playing Butlins holiday camps & signing autographs for kids on their summer holidays if Pete had more of a personality.. All that's hypothetical but i'm sure many on here will take offence to me putting McCartney in such high esteem, one things for sure, he deserves much more credit than he gets from some quarters. I would also put Paul's best solo/wings albums ahead of both John & George's while they were all recording between 1970-1975, Ram, Band on the Run & Venus & Mars IMO are better than Plastic Ono Band (johns best) Imagine & Walls & Bridges, while George never bettered All Things Must Pass, I should also give a mention to McCartney,Wildlife & Red Rose Speedway, they are a lot better than a lot of people give them credit for, yeah i'm a Paul McCartney fan
-
Macsback:
The bottom line is, George was a good song writer for a short period, Lennon & McCartney were juggernauts who time after time wrote classics to keep The Beatles ahead of the pack!! George wrote two great songs for Abbey Road, for some on here, that's good enough to put him on par with Lennon & McCartney
: Out of the four Beatles, I would say McCartney would have made some sort of mark on music, if his meeting with Lennon never happened, McCartney was already writing songs before he met Lennon, he was also more musically minded, had more drive in him to be successful and was an excellent pr man even back in the early days. Meeting McCartney spurred Lennon into writing & playing better, not the other way around as some would have us believe. I honestly don't know if John would have made any impact on the music scene, if the meeting with Paul never happened, remember what it was like back then, music executives were fickle and prefered stars to have a Cliff Richard image, John had many issues and a lot of anger going on and because of his "i couldn't give a toss attitude" record companies would have given him a wide berth. George would have ended up playing in a local band and maybe have ended up being a session musician if he never met Paul Ringo would still be playing Butlins holiday camps & signing autographs for kids on their summer holidays if Pete had more of a personality.. All that's hypothetical but i'm sure many on here will take offence to me putting McCartney in such high esteem, one things for sure, he deserves much more credit than he gets from some quarters. I would also put Paul's best solo/wings albums ahead of both John & George's while they were all recording between 1970-1975, Ram, Band on the Run & Venus & Mars IMO are better than Plastic Ono Band (johns best) Imagine & Walls & Bridges, while George never bettered All Things Must Pass, I should also give a mention to McCartney,Wildlife & Red Rose Speedway, they are a lot better than a lot of people give them credit for, yeah i'm a Paul McCartney fan
But Really, a Paul fan!?...On a Paul McCartney forum!!
-
CMackbird:
Macsback:
The bottom line is, George was a good song writer for a short period, Lennon & McCartney were juggernauts who time after time wrote classics to keep The Beatles ahead of the pack!! George wrote two great songs for Abbey Road, for some on here, that's good enough to put him on par with Lennon & McCartney
: Out of the four Beatles, I would say McCartney would have made some sort of mark on music, if his meeting with Lennon never happened, McCartney was already writing songs before he met Lennon, he was also more musically minded, had more drive in him to be successful and was an excellent pr man even back in the early days. Meeting McCartney spurred Lennon into writing & playing better, not the other way around as some would have us believe. I honestly don't know if John would have made any impact on the music scene, if the meeting with Paul never happened, remember what it was like back then, music executives were fickle and prefered stars to have a Cliff Richard image, John had many issues and a lot of anger going on and because of his "i couldn't give a toss attitude" record companies would have given him a wide berth. George would have ended up playing in a local band and maybe have ended up being a session musician if he never met Paul Ringo would still be playing Butlins holiday camps & signing autographs for kids on their summer holidays if Pete had more of a personality.. All that's hypothetical but i'm sure many on here will take offence to me putting McCartney in such high esteem, one things for sure, he deserves much more credit than he gets from some quarters. I would also put Paul's best solo/wings albums ahead of both John & George's while they were all recording between 1970-1975, Ram, Band on the Run & Venus & Mars IMO are better than Plastic Ono Band (johns best) Imagine & Walls & Bridges, while George never bettered All Things Must Pass, I should also give a mention to McCartney,Wildlife & Red Rose Speedway, they are a lot better than a lot of people give them credit for, yeah i'm a Paul McCartney fan
But Really, a Paul fan!?...On a Paul McCartney forum!!
sometimes i wonder
-
I don't agree with you again whobeatle...George Harrison's voice is awesome! Brainwashed is brilliant, I think it's his best solo album...heartfelt and very deep. George Harrison's guitar is one of the most beautiful voices on Earth...his love and wisdom is always weeping out of his guitar...if you heard nothing but his guitar you would know that Harrison was a giant talent and an amazing human being. George Harrison was very intelligent and complicated. His contribution to the Beatles was much greater than just a great guitarist and composer. George Harrison's sarcasm and pragmatism was one of the great equalizers of the band and his 'no bulls***' outlook reigned in and balanced some the excessive tendencies of Lennon and the goofy, spotlight craving, pie-in-the sky schemes of McCartney. Sometimes George is my favorite Beatle. But he was nowhere near the songwriting talent of Lennon/McCartney...no shame in that...nobody is.
-
Blue Ruins:
I don't agree with you again whobeatle...George Harrison's voice is awesome! Brainwashed is brilliant, I think it's his best solo album...heartfelt and very deep. George Harrison's guitar is one of the most beautiful voices on Earth...his love and wisdom is always weeping out of his guitar...if you heard nothing but his guitar you would know that Harrison was a giant talent and an amazing human being. George Harrison was very intelligent and complicated. His contribution to the Beatles was much greater than just a great guitarist and composer. George Harrison's sarcasm and pragmatism was one of the great equalizers of the band and his 'no bulls***' outlook reigned in and balanced some the excessive tendencies of Lennon and the goofy, spotlight craving, pie-in-the sky schemes of McCartney. Sometimes George is my favorite Beatle. But he was nowhere near the songwriting talent of Lennon/McCartney...no shame in that...nobody is.
George musically is tremendous... "Blow Away" to me is as good as anything he or any other Beatle did as a solo act, his voice was always good..It's been pointed out that George was very conscious of his voice during the Beatles.. Paul had to encourage him to record "The Inner Light" because he hated how his voice came across but he had nothing to be ashamed about but as a composer he wasn't as prolific as John and Paul were... John even joked once about Paul coming in with a dozen or so songs ready to go and told Paul give me a few days to knock some off.. Those 2 were a handful to compete against, but that being said John envied George's position in the group being an understudy for the 2 best songwriters
-
Macsback:
I honestly don't know if John would have made any impact on the music scene, if the meeting with Paul never happened
John's voice and belief, and unique train of thought and songwriting. and knowledge of rock n roll and his ability to embody and convey that spirit. thats what Epstein discovered in Hamburg. or in Liverpool or where ever the Beatles were discovered. even Paul credits John for teaching him to go for it in the studio. I think its safe to say John wouldn't have been as huge in the music scene and historically without Paul, but he would have had his day in the sun. He was way too original and flat out sounded amazing. and great at what he did. the greatest IMO. Paul definitely would have had his day in the sun without John as well, don't get me wrong. but none of them IMO would have gotten so far so fast without Lennon. am I just lame for coming on a Paul board and flying the John flag
:
I'll stop. for all I know I'm way off base
-
kapoo:
Macsback:
I honestly don't know if John would have made any impact on the music scene, if the meeting with Paul never happened
John's voice and belief, and unique train of thought and songwriting. and knowledge of rock n roll and his ability to embody and convey that spirit. thats what Epstein discovered in Hamburg. or in Liverpool or where ever the Beatles were discovered. even Paul credits John for teaching him to go for it in the studio. I think its safe to say John wouldn't have been as huge in the music scene and historically without Paul, but he would have had his day in the sun. He was way too original and flat out sounded amazing. and great at what he did. the greatest IMO. Paul definitely would have had his day in the sun without John as well, don't get me wrong. but none of them IMO would have gotten so far so fast without Lennon. am I just lame for coming on a Paul board and flying the John flag
:
I'll stop. for all I know I'm way off base
No your not lame, i've looked at some John sites and no one is objective when it comes to Paul over there. I love allthe Beatles as well but it seems that most George fans and John fans like to rip Macca a new one and Macca fans are at least kind even in criticism of the others
-
luigiram:
kapoo:
Macsback:
I honestly don't know if John would have made any impact on the music scene, if the meeting with Paul never happened
John's voice and belief, and unique train of thought and songwriting. and knowledge of rock n roll and his ability to embody and convey that spirit. thats what Epstein discovered in Hamburg. or in Liverpool or where ever the Beatles were discovered. even Paul credits John for teaching him to go for it in the studio. I think its safe to say John wouldn't have been as huge in the music scene and historically without Paul, but he would have had his day in the sun. He was way too original and flat out sounded amazing. and great at what he did. the greatest IMO. Paul definitely would have had his day in the sun without John as well, don't get me wrong. but none of them IMO would have gotten so far so fast without Lennon. am I just lame for coming on a Paul board and flying the John flag
:
I'll stop. for all I know I'm way off base
No your not lame, i've looked at some John sites and no one is objective when it comes to Paul over there. I love allthe Beatles as well but it seems that most George fans and John fans like to rip Macca a new one and Macca fans are at least kind even in criticism of the others
Naa, your not lame Kapoo, we all love The Beatles and we all have our favourite
-
John Lennon was one talented MoFo...I can't tell who was a better songwriter, Paul was a better musician, but a case could be made for either of them when it comes to talent. I think John was a bit more of a unique natural talent..but I think part of the reason he dropped out of the Beatles is that he felt that he had been bested by Paul McCartney. I think that in the contest of wills that was the Beatles, Paul wore Lennon down with his tenacity. Paul was just more driven, focused and he never stopped reaching and learning.