George's criticisms of Macca
-
George knew the real Paul, not the sham public image fans have to contend with. If George was ever critical of Paul then its no doubt deserved.
-
Kestrel:
George knew the real Paul, not the sham public image fans have to contend with. If George was ever critical of Paul then its no doubt deserved.
Because George's motives were always pure? He never acted out of self-interest. My what a saint that George was. Not. Given all the crabby remarks George made in public (about all sorts of things, not just Paul -- he made crabby remarks about fans and about other artists, too), it was merely his personality to snark at people. I don't see how we can judge whether Paul deserved it. And it's one thing to say George had the right to call Paul on his bossy behavior. Fair enough. But again, I'm referring to insults that George made about Paul's talents as a musician and songwriter, and about Paul's music. That is what I find uncalled for.
-
alots been said on this thread, so not sure if I'm exactly following the conversation here, but a couple points. regarding Paul's lack of digs in the press, or lack of much of anything quotable, I've said it before, but most times the quietest guy in the room is the one with the most dirt on him. Yeah Paul never said much. but its possible thats because he knew he had been running the Beatles like his own little band for a long time and laid down the law with George in particular a lot of times, and didn't want to get himself into a public arguement he knew would end up making him look bad. and as for John's behavior, signing with Klein and saying whatever to everyone else, that seems crazy, but John didn't care at all about the Beatles in the context of conforming to their deals, their music or their direction. He wanted to be done with the Beatles and didn't know how to go about it, so he just started doing it his way. the others could take it or leave it. Ringo and George took it. Paul left it. I like Paul but there's a lot of his fans who aparently think he did no wrong in the whole thing. and he did as much as any of them. its all the same shade of gray. so many comments on here like John is unforgiveable, blah blah blah. John's the man with the vision and the heart like no other. and the voice of a generation. peeps best recognize.
-
Good points both of you Harrison was snarkey to use your word Look... uh.. when are you gonna get a haircut, "oh I had one last week" How do you find America "Turn Left at Greenland" you know come on,... two quotes from Harrison and Lennon, as I am sure you all know Harrison harbored unjustified resentment, and is petty as a result. To me that is what our poster says is the basis of the thread, when he/she created this thread. I am simply saying, yes Paul McCartney is the most obviously polite Beatle (and thats a good quality) He is probably the most normal in terms of being a regular parent, he is the only one who was faithful to his first wife (thats a good quality) and he is arguably the most talented beatle (though I rate them even) Len-Mac-Harrison Yes its true Harrison made a lot of superficially disparaging remarks about McCartney, but he also played music with him, ate with him visited with him, agreed and organized various projects with him such as Anthology, Love and Yellow Submarine Songtrack, the "ONE" album and whatever else in later years. So I think it is an oversimplified pot shot at George, taking a complex relationship out of context and over dramatizing one thing, that I think was largely sarcastic humor Harrison was behind the Rutles, or at least financed them, and he took the p^$$ out of the Beatles, himself, McCartney and Lennon all the time He actually made one remark where he said "Lennons songwriting" near the end was "off" or he went off" Harrison left Lennon out of his "I ME MINE" book as a jibe at Lennon I think many of Harrisons remarks are just caustic, sarcastic wit there may be an underlying hostility when someone uses that kind of sarcastic humor. The idea Harrison owes his career to McCartney is ridiculous, McCartney may be the most talented, by many people's definition, but the chemistry of the Beatles, the timing, it was all of them , maybe even fate or destiny from God who knows There are plenty of things McCartney did, that can be laid bare in a thread like this one, and make him seem like such a petty man, and I hate to see that said about either McCartney or Harrison. Remember they became friendly, "subjective definition" for years compared to the frostiness of earlier post beatle years. Harrison was treated fairly badly by Len-Mac-G Martin at least as a creative collaborator, at least Harrison felt that way, Ken Scott often echos this, as does George Martin himself, among many many other biographers and witnesses I think Harrison was a bit jealous, a bit joking around, and still a bit resentful, about the no show for Bangladesh, the Eastman/Klein business "the you only get two songs per album...even though you are writing Gently Weeps and Something quality songs now.. Some people say McCartney fosters the idea, or lets others foster the idea that Harrisons contributions were second rate compared to his (McCartney's) in the Beatles.. Geoff Emerick is always spouting that point of view...but Ken Scott vehemently denies this..as do other old Abbey Road engineers... and Emerick is always getting high paying jobs from McCartney HMM? my personal view..."There has never been a band in history that had three songwriters of that quality" "Broke so much new innovative ground in the studio" "had such charm and wit" "were so prolific" It moves me greatly to this day. Harrisons remarks are being overblown and taken out of a bigger context. IMO
-
Some people say McCartney fosters the idea, or lets others foster the idea that Harrisons contributions were second rate compared to his (McCartney's) in the Beatles.. Geoff Emerick is always spouting that point of view...but Ken Scott vehemently denies this..as do other old Abbey Road engineers... and Emerick is always getting high paying jobs from McCartney HMM?
Well Ken Scott also got "high-paying" jobs from George Harrison. That doesn't make him unbiased, either, does it? And Ken Scott still gets work from George's estate, just like Geoff Emerick still works with Paul. Plus Ken Scott wasn't even involved with the Beatles for Help, Rubber Soul, Revolver, or Sgt. Pepper, was he? Clearly all the Beatles had their partisans and allies in Abbey Raod. And of course they were all petty at times. (Aren't we all?) But too often, it seems, Paul is the only one who gets the blame. And I think that's unfair and inaccurate.
-
The engineer Norman Smith said he couldn't believe how George was spoken to in the studio, how Paul thought George couldn't do anything right, and he gave George a lot of credit for all the years he put up with it. I guess in the remarks some keep referring to as angry and bitter, I see as pain. Pain is nearly always the emotion behind anger anyhow. What about the way John and Paul set about to systematically chip away at George's self-esteem, two people who were supposed to be among his closest friends?
-
Its true what everyone is saying and that nobody can know what went on totally apart from four guys. They were like brothers who loved each other but its true, you take things out on the ones closest too you. Nobody was completely innocent but Paul didn't resort to public slagging. Whatever went on between them shouldn't have esculated into public slagging or trying to put each other down professionally.
-
larainefan:
The engineer Norman Smith said he couldn't believe how George was spoken to in the studio, how Paul thought George couldn't do anything right, and he gave George a lot of credit for all the years he put up with it. I guess in the remarks some keep referring to as angry and bitter, I see as pain. Pain is nearly always the emotion behind anger anyhow. What about the way John and Paul set about to systematically chip away at George's self-esteem, two people who were supposed to be among his closest friends?
And Geoff Emerick and others paint a completely different picture -- that George, in fact, did repeatedly have difficulties getting his guitar parts "right." Who are we to believe? We weren't there. In the end, all we can judge is the end product of the Beatles work, which was often phenomenal. I've heard plenty of musicians talk about how the creative process isn't always pretty. I heard one musician talk about how when he was working in the studio with his brother there were absolutely moments when they hated each other's guts and treated each other very badly. It's hard, he said, to express how each of you wants something to sound, and someone has to prevail. Look, I'm sure Paul and John could be tough. They were strong personalities and their collaboration drove the band. The thing is, George was clearly no shrinking violet, either. Ever. He managed to speak up for himself quite well. I'm sorry I just can't join the pity party that seems to forever surround George in discussions about the band's dynamic. The fact is, he was lucky to work with John and Paul. He learned song writing from two of the greatest ever, and if they weren't always lovey-dovey in the process of making music together, well, that just doesn't surprise me.
-
Paul tends to be pretty good at not making public jibes but he is certainly far from being a saint, the closer you are to someone the better you know them. I think their relationship was under constant strain especially when things got very ugly. I never know how best to approach these conversations because that becomes their personal live and I'm sure Paul has his arsey moments
-
whobeatle:
When he died and McCartney said " I have lost my baby brother" thats rather condescending in a way dont you think.. ?
Michelley:
Finally, it's not surprising that Paul viewed George as a younger brother. Paul was a year ahead of George in school. George WAS younger. Paul was the one who got George into the band when John thought he was too young. That was the pecking order that developed. I don't see how you can spin Paul's heartfelt comment about George after he died as an insult.
Kestrel:
George knew the real Paul, not the sham public image fans have to contend with. If George was ever critical of Paul then its no doubt deserved.
In the Anthology film George said something along the lines of, "Paul was always nine months older than me... even now he's still nine months older than me." I always took that as a jab towards Paul, that George felt he was always being treated as a youngster by Paul, perhaps by suggesting/acting as though Paul always knew more than George simply because he was older, even during their adult lives. Y'know, schoolboy-type stuff and something Paul never displayed publicly. But that's just my interpretation of the quote.
whobeatle:
Harrison left Lennon out of his "I ME MINE" book as a jibe at Lennon
Actually, Lennon is included in the book, just not as often as John probably felt he should've have been. I don't know the exact number but I've read somewhere that John is mentioned in the book more times than Paul is, so there's another bit for people to chew on.
-
DCBeatle64:
Paul tends to be pretty good at not making public jibes but he is certainly far from being a saint, the closer you are to someone the better you know them. I think their relationship was under constant strain especially when things got very ugly. I never know how best to approach these conversations because that becomes their personal live and I'm sure Paul has his arsey moments
I'm sure Paul had plenty of arsey moments. Peter Doggett's book makes very clear that they all behaved badly at various times. It just seems like people feel like it's fair game to tear Paul apart for being arrogant and bossy and controlling, etc., etc., but you say one critical thing about "poor" George, and people act like you're kicking a puppy. In my view, George behaved badly at times, too. He's not above criticism.
-
I guess one of the points I think is being misconstrued is that those of us that are critical of George Harrison are assuming Paul McCartney is blameless. I think most of us here are perfectly willing to believe that Paul is just as much to blame. What we are seeking are more specific reasons for the snarkiness...'cuz the ones listed seem too petty to equal the public disregard for Paul's feelings. Paul's negotiating a higher royalty takes nothing away from the other Beatles...only EMI. I'm sure there would be reasons why EMI would ask to keep this from the others who would in turn be negotiating with them. I'm sure it was irritation, but was Paul supposed to negotiate for less???? The given explanations for Mr. Harrisons attitude seem disproportionate considering what we know...that is why people are commenting. Nobody's really hating on George, just seeking answers.
-
I remember George being particularly negative on Paul during the late 70s. In particular, his 1977 Crawdaddy interview.
-
I don't recall many George disses of Paul. I don't remember specific ones, you guys must have photographic memories, or you're exaggerating? I have a general impression that George could be crabby and snarl about something at times, but who whom is human does not? I still thought George would be more "sweetness and light" than the others due to his trumpeted spiritual beliefs, and hold the impression he didn't live up to those high ideals as much as I'd expect. Have read about his drinking, drugging, smoking, womanizing all through the years.Even about his consorting with a "call girl" or two :
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
I still thought George would be more "sweetness and light" than the others due to his trumpeted spiritual beliefs, and hold the impression he didn't live up to those high ideals as much as I'd expect. Have read about his drinking, drugging, smoking, womanizing all through the years.Even about his consorting with a "call girl" or two :
He was a rock star. Those are things rock stars do. But all of those things involve George's private life -- about which I don't think any of us, and certainly not me, are in any position to judge. Personally I think he was sincere about his religious beliefs. And if he sometimes fell short in his personal life, well, that's his business. The only things I feel are fair game to evaluate, and share our opinions on, are his public statements, and his music.
-
I don't remember any "public statements' by Harrison so I commented on what I've read about his behavior, not that you can really know if it was true or not. I've always heard not to speak ill of the dead, and should have said nothing
-
whobeatle:
The entire thrust of this thread, is too one dimensional in my view. "George bitching about Paul" how petty of Harrison how hypocritical. Thats a narrow simplistic view of a long running complex relationship between the two of them. IMO First off the remark used as an example at the beginning of the thread, Harrison quipped McCartney was doing some Lennon songs "because he ran out of good one's of his own" I saw the footage of that comment recently, and it was just an acerbic Liverpudlian quip by Harrison, stereotypical sarcastic Harrison wit, thats all. Harrison harbored some resentment against McCartney for decades, but it did mellow, they did record (even compose) together, and hung out as friends also, from I dont know, the 80's onward. While McCartney has been more polite in public remarks than Lennon or Harrison were sometimes, I think it was some of the things McCartney may have done privately that irked Harrison, One example would be, when he negotiated for a higher royalty rate on Beatles record sales, than the other three got. The other three considered this a betrayal. Now McCartney has explained, how that was his own contract re-negotiation that only had to do with him. He was selling more records as a solo artist so he negotiated a higher rate for himself, to re-sign as a solo with EMI But it pissed off the other three, and McCartney kept it secret and never told them about it... Or when he tried to foist the Eastmans onto the other three Beatles instead of Klein as manager.. Sure McCartney ended up being right about Klein, but it was still wrong to try and have his father in law manage the other three you don't have to be a genius to see a conflict of interest there. And there is McCartney always trying to do more of his songs than anyone elses,, and being generally bossy and seeking control you didint mention any of those things, Frankly none of that is any of our business, lets talk about the music instead I would say yes Paul McCartney is the most polite Beatle, perhaps he also, was a little unfair behind the scenes. All the Beatles were/are fairly decent as human beings, I hate to see any of the four of them trashed... In the end, as was said in an earlier post, Paul McCartney and George Harrison got past any resentments they may have had. They recorded together, ate together, went to see each other socially developed the anthology series, Love, Yellow Submarine Songtrack And you will notice, in all those latter projects,... Harrisons slice of involvement was somewhat larger, than when the Beatles were a functioning band... Better late than never to make up for Harrisons second class treatment in the sixties, by George Martin and McCartney and Lennon Harrison may have been petty, but he was not the only one.. When he died and McCartney said " I have lost my baby brother" thats rather condescending in a way dont you think.. ? When Lennon died McCartney didin't say " I lost my big brother" Why? Because McCartney and the other beatles are all ego-centric people. Believe me they are /were all very very self absorbed guys Having said that, they all deserve many kudos, as parents, donors to charity,, political or social awareness, and their great great work
I didn't start this thread to put George down in favor of Paul,but it's totally obvious that George was downright shitty to Paul in the press after the breakup and I wonder why? I'm not saying that Paul was free from blame but a lot of it was crap, Ringo except on a rare occasion always talked well of everyone and even when John talked shit about Paul, it would usually be tongue in cheek..Read his Playboy interview from 1980, first he says "The Long and Winding Road" was the last gasp from him", then he goes on to call ""Coming Up" "a damn good piece of work!!" John's love for Paul was obvious and in reality George's wasn't..
-
beatlesfanrandy:
Paul was at Georges' side as he was dying, holding his hand. He does beautiful tributes to George in concert. In the end they reconciled and were friends and brothers again. That's all that matters. You should let it go.
That is so true!
-
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 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?