George's criticisms of Macca
-
3-4 great beatle songs, I certainly wasn't counting his solo output. But if you were to count his solo output there is alot of good songs out there but nowhere near as good as Paul or John's. You seem shocked that people on a paul forum would say these things. George's best beatle songs are up there with Lennon/McCartney's but theres only maybe 3 that are, how many Paul or John song's are there!? Nobody is disputing George wasn't talented as a musician and as a songwriter but he isn't anywhere close to Lennon/McCartney and there's no shame in that because nobody is.
-
CMackbird:
3-4 great beatle songs, I certainly wasn't counting his solo output. But if you were to count his solo output there is alot of good songs out there but nowhere near as good as Paul or John's. You seem shocked that people on a paul forum would say these things. George's best beatle songs are up there with Lennon/McCartney's but theres only maybe 3 that are, how many Paul or John song's are there!? Nobody is disputing George wasn't talented as a musician and as a songwriter but he isn't anywhere close to Lennon/McCartney and there's no shame in that because nobody is.
That is an oversimplified, distortion of the truth, although I do realize it is subjective. I do own every album McCartney ever did by the way, as well as all the B sides, non album singles, hard to find rarities etc etc, I certainly wouldn't have gone through all that collecting, if I didin't admire the mans work, and hold him on a pedestal, However once again, people who think albums like Wildlife or Back To The Egg are on par with the Beatles, are to put it kindly misinformed. Even though it is something of a subjective thing similarly people who think Harrison had three great songs and thats it, either don't know his work or maybe are just sychophants THere are groupies and sychophants for Elvis and Michael Jackson and Madonna and probably Lady Gaga, and I suppose its okay The Beatle albums were better, and one of the reasons is because George Harrison was there, as a writer, innovator with sitar, and various stringed instruments, as the third voice in the fabulous "beatle vocals" By the same token, if this thread was anti McCartney or Lennon I would defend them too. It amazes me that at this late date, many people, even fans, still don't quite understand how much talent was in that band.. If Brian Wilson, had had somebody else as good as him. or Pete Townshend or Elton John, Or Ray Davies, maybe then we could have seen a second group that rivaled the Beatles, maybe.. But all those people were in bands that didin't have a depth of songwriting talent beyond the one member, and in most cases only one lead vccalist.. I am not a McCartney knocker, I am a Beatle defender! Harrison deserves more credit, than many people here give him. Many people are in the Lennon camp or McCartney or sometimes Harrison the actual truth is, its unbelievable one band had three people in it that were that good. Crosby Stills and Nash, used to sing as well. and wrote a few great great songs for a couple years...but they couldn't maintain the quality. The Beach boys were amazing vocally, but Brian Wilson was the only one who wrote good songs, with a few exceptions... Townshend same thing with the WHO he was the only real writer.. Its the fact the Beatles who had three guys of that quality that is dumbfounding, very very rare, perhaps unique There are any number of people who may be as good, but never three people in one band like that, before or since. Even Ringo I believe has written or cowritten four top five hits on his own There is no other paradigm like that. In History,, it would be like Elvis, Roy Orbison and Buddy Holly all in the same band McCartney is an amazing artist, but no one person, can create an album so full of turns, and contrasts, like the Beatles could with multi vocalists and writers, and a great producer.. McCartney has tried to make "New albums" that were like the new ABbey Road or whatever...with Ram and Venus and Mars and good as they are, in their own way, the contrasts he tried to put in, to make it rival the Beatles, cant be done by one guy Venus and Mars is a deliberate attempt to make something akin to a new Beatle album with Call Me Back Again as the "Oh Darling" of the album, and Letting Go.... as the "Lennon track" and Laine and McCulloch each taking a turn on one song,,, The Venus & Mars reprise ala the Sgt Pepper reprise.. yes it was Wings... it was a wings version of a Beatle paradigm... instead of the Ringo song.. or the George song..we had the Laine vocal and the McCulloch song... Its obvious what he was trying to craft... and its a heck of an album does it touch Abbey Road? hardly Chaos and MAF>..really are good and more real...Flaming Pie and Tug of War.. are genius.... Flowers in the Dirt...is different people on every track, but most of the songs are killer... and well produced.. Band on the Run is so homogenous and great...so great none of them touch the Beatles though , not really how could they. But when people start saying obscure songs from Red Rose Speedway surpass the Beatles, its really time to consider if you might be a sychophant, Whatever turns your world I suppose, I listen to those albums too... I love all the outtakes from Red Rose... but I dont think to myself...oh wow this is Better than Sgt Pepper while I am doing it I think people here knocking Harrisons work probably half of them have never really even listened to it.. He did two bad albums in my opinion, the rest of them were great,
-
Good points all whobeatle..but George still wasn't the equal songwriting wise of Lennon/McCartney...
-
whobeatle:
CMackbird:
3-4 great beatle songs, I certainly wasn't counting his solo output. But if you were to count his solo output there is alot of good songs out there but nowhere near as good as Paul or John's. You seem shocked that people on a paul forum would say these things. George's best beatle songs are up there with Lennon/McCartney's but theres only maybe 3 that are, how many Paul or John song's are there!? Nobody is disputing George wasn't talented as a musician and as a songwriter but he isn't anywhere close to Lennon/McCartney and there's no shame in that because nobody is.
That is an oversimplified, distortion of the truth, although I do realize it is subjective. I do own every album McCartney ever did by the way, as well as all the B sides, non album singles, hard to find rarities etc etc, I certainly wouldn't have gone through all that collecting, if I didin't admire the mans work, and hold him on a pedestal, However once again, people who think albums like Wildlife or Back To The Egg are on par with the Beatles, are to put it kindly misinformed. Even though it is something of a subjective thing similarly people who think Harrison had three great songs and thats it, either don't know his work or maybe are just sychophants THere are groupies and sychophants for Elvis and Michael Jackson and Madonna and probably Lady Gaga, and I suppose its okay The Beatle albums were better, and one of the reasons is because George Harrison was there, as a writer, innovator with sitar, and various stringed instruments, as the third voice in the fabulous "beatle vocals" By the same token, if this thread was anti McCartney or Lennon I would defend them too. It amazes me that at this late date, many people, even fans, still don't quite understand how much talent was in that band.. If Brian Wilson, had had somebody else as good as him. or Pete Townshend or Elton John, Or Ray Davies, maybe then we could have seen a second group that rivaled the Beatles, maybe.. But all those people were in bands that didin't have a depth of songwriting talent beyond the one member, and in most cases only one lead vccalist.. I am not a McCartney knocker, I am a Beatle defender! Harrison deserves more credit, than many people here give him. Many people are in the Lennon camp or McCartney or sometimes Harrison the actual truth is, its unbelievable one band had three people in it that were that good. Crosby Stills and Nash, used to sing as well. and wrote a few great great songs for a couple years...but they couldn't maintain the quality. The Beach boys were amazing vocally, but Brian Wilson was the only one who wrote good songs, with a few exceptions... Townshend same thing with the WHO he was the only real writer.. Its the fact the Beatles who had three guys of that quality that is dumbfounding, very very rare, perhaps unique There are any number of people who may be as good, but never three people in one band like that, before or since. Even Ringo I believe has written or cowritten four top five hits on his own There is no other paradigm like that. In History,, it would be like Elvis, Roy Orbison and Buddy Holly all in the same band McCartney is an amazing artist, but no one person, can create an album so full of turns, and contrasts, like the Beatles could with multi vocalists and writers, and a great producer.. McCartney has tried to make "New albums" that were like the new ABbey Road or whatever...with Ram and Venus and Mars and good as they are, in their own way, the contrasts he tried to put in, to make it rival the Beatles, cant be done by one guy Venus and Mars is a deliberate attempt to make something akin to a new Beatle album with Call Me Back Again as the "Oh Darling" of the album, and Letting Go.... as the "Lennon track" and Laine and McCulloch each taking a turn on one song,,, The Venus & Mars reprise ala the Sgt Pepper reprise.. yes it was Wings... it was a wings version of a Beatle paradigm... instead of the Ringo song.. or the George song..we had the Laine vocal and the McCulloch song... Its obvious what he was trying to craft... and its a heck of an album does it touch Abbey Road? hardly Chaos and MAF>..really are good and more real...Flaming Pie and Tug of War.. are genius.... Flowers in the Dirt...is different people on every track, but most of the songs are killer... and well produced.. Band on the Run is so homogenous and great...so great none of them touch the Beatles though , not really how could they. But when people start saying obscure songs from Red Rose Speedway surpass the Beatles, its really time to consider if you might be a sychophant, Whatever turns your world I suppose, I listen to those albums too... I love all the outtakes from Red Rose... but I dont think to myself...oh wow this is Better than Sgt Pepper while I am doing it I think people here knocking Harrisons work probably half of them have never really even listened to it.. He did two bad albums in my opinion, the rest of them were great,
You don't seem to read what people are trying to say that well and are more interested in trying to come over as some sort of know-it-all, with there history lessons, who IS right even though its people's opinions. I have clearly stated aswell that the beatles wouldn't have been the beatles without the four of them and each of them brought something to the group. As Ive said Geroge Harrison was a very talented musician and songwriter and whenever I have mentioned 3/4 songs it has been in the context of the beatles: Something Here Comes The Sun Within You Without You While My Guitar Gently Weeps. I do also love Savoy Truffle, I Me Mine & I Need You to name a few and ATMP Is a fantastic album. The point I am trying to make and alot of other people are trying to make is as talented as George was, Lennon/McCartney were on a different planet. As the beatles and as solo artists. You obviously don't agree and you have the right to your opinion just as everybody else does...that's what makes the world so interesting.
-
At the end of the day we should remember the following: - Paul was there for George when he died. As somebody else said, the fact it was Paul speaks volumes. George had a lot of friends in music, film, religion? but it must have been that brotherly bond that meant the most in the end. - George asked Paul to be his best man in 1966 ahead of his own brothers, ahead of John or Ringo. George was the only Beatle invited to Pauls? wedding in 1969. - Paul and George were the first Beatles to be friends. They had a relationship before there was ever a band to speak of; they didn?t just come together for the sake of the group. (In many ways this could be a reason for some of the troubles at the end of the Beatles, is that a friendship had turned into profession. I?ve heard many other artists talk about that being hard. Also the insult to injury that Paul so often spoke of the wondrous Lennon/McCartney collaboration and it?s often overlooked (even by Paul) that actually he and George learned guitar together and played together first. It would hurt that Paul replaced his music-buddy with John.) - George said PLENTY of nice things about Paul in that ?sticky? 70s/mid80s period, which all gets ignored or forgotten. He complimented songs on Paul?s first album which is more than John/Ringo ever did. He openly talked about how generous Paul was on his songs, and how good some of his contributions were. According to George, they were hanging out and going out as friends again by the 80s, but it?s also noted that George attended a number of Pauls? concerts in the 70s, and was at the ?Band on the Run? launch party. Paul also attended Georges? ?Dark Horse? concert. To me, their relationship is very complex, yes. But ultimately it can be summed up quite basically: I think they really were like brothers. Those two perhaps even more so than any of the other Beatles. George did say some quite cutting things about Paul publically in the 70s, but his dry Liverpudlian sense of humour can often be misinterpreted, especially on paper. It?s a northern thing to get at each other like that, particularly the famous ?probably cos he?s got none of his own? quote. Come on, he didn?t really mean that! Paul was more polite, yes, and more of a PR, but I?m sure he made his fair share of snipes in private. Like said, at the end of the day a lot of it comes down to hurt. George was hurt by Paul for the suing incident and his refusal of the ?Concert for Bangladesh?. Paul was very hurt by Georges? ?I wouldn?t work with Paul? quote in 1974. Hurt is the main thing that leads to bitterness, but they wouldn?t be quite so intensely hurt if there wasn?t such an intensely loving relationship to cause the sting in the first place.
-
You can't just listen to Beatles music all the time, fantastic as it is. There's a longing for different and new music from these dynamic music genuises, Paul, John and George--bless them they've given that and John would have given more if able. It's a revelation and transcendent joy to discover a song from Paul and George (especially Paul) you've never heard before, to explore their entire ouevre. Tremendously exciting!! I appreciate these (for lack of a better word) novelties as much as Beatles music, in a different way. It's something different and new. (Ringo has some good music too.)
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
You can't just listen to Beatles music all the time, fantastic as it is. There's a longing for different and new music from these dynamic music genuises, Paul, John and George--bless them they've given that and John would have given more if able. It's a revelation and transcendent joy to discover a song from Paul and George (especially Paul) you've never heard before, to explore their entire ouevre. I appreciate these (for lack of a better word) novelties as much as Beatles music, in a different way. It's something different and new. (Ringo has some good music too.)
I agree, I seek out rare b sides and ultra rare material by the solo Beatles and or Beatles and a few other groups I like such as the WHO and Beach Boys... because I have listened to official canon so much, I Long to hear something fresh, McCartney still makes new albums. and I always get a kick at first was very pleased with his last three studio albums, good stuff Driving Rain I thought was horrid, but his wife had just died, and I thought, well at least he is working out his demons and recording. I dont understand why McCartneys current band is so so very good and the one album they got to play on all the tracks is so awful David Kahne maybe his fault anyway., I stick to my guns, for every ten great McCartney songs Harrison might only have three, but that smaller number are just as good. I think trying to be objective, I would say Brainwashed was a better album certainly than MAF< and probably even Chaos. But rather than compare, I would just say they are all really good albums. I wish I liked some other band as much as I like the Beatles and solo beatles, it would give me more to listen to Getting into the Kinks now to give me more to listen to, they were fantastic, but more one dimensional with just one singer And I am not a know it all by any means, I just know Harrisons best songs are as good as Len-Macs. there just aren't as many, and he wasn't as strong a lead vocalist, though charming in his own way. Supposedly, the new Scorsese documentary will have a couple of eye popping Harrison recordings from the Beatle era that no one has ever heard before. Which may end up leading credence to the idea, that he had a ton of good songs in the wings, in the Beatle era, perhaps going back to 65-66 and they just didint get recorded because of Len-Mac we may actually get to hear some of that unused stuff soon
-
I'm just trying to figure out what prompts whobeatle to hit 'return' all the time when posting forming those columns if you will, all very interesting whobeatle, name me one George song as good as Hey Jude, Helter Skelter, Penny Lane, or Revolution, Day Tripper, Ticket To Ride, Live & Let Die, New York City, Whatever Gets You Thru The Night, Imagine, Band on the Run, Jet, Isolation/.. I actually cannot think of one better than any of those. Here Comes The Sun maybe better than Whatever Gets You Through the Night point is IMO his best are not as good as J&P's best.
-
kapoo:
I'm just trying to figure out what prompts whobeatle to hit 'return' all the time when posting forming those columns if you will, all very interesting whobeatle, name me one George song as good as Hey Jude, Helter Skelter, Penny Lane, or Revolution, Day Tripper, Ticket To Ride, Live & Let Die, New York City, Whatever Gets You Thru The Night, Imagine, Band on the Run, Jet, Isolation/.. I actually cannot think of one better than any of those. Here Comes The Sun maybe better than Whatever Gets You Through the Night point is IMO his best are not as good as J&P's best.
the better thing to do is look at J&P's bad songs.. neither wrote a song where you (or at least I) can listen to it and not find something awesome about it, or something that points at their ridiculous talent and knack for crafting songs. George's (and a lot of artists) bad songs are quite average. J&P sort of stopped writing bad songs around 1965. and their best are timeless.
-
I can't name them, but I've heard various tracks from all George's solo albums that really knocked me out, that I'd never heard before His time of being underestimated won't last forever!! Harrison's very last cd "Brainwashed" knocked me on my a--s, it's sooooooooooooo mindblowingly fantastic
-
kapoo:
I'm just trying to figure out what prompts whobeatle to hit 'return' all the time when posting forming those columns if you will, all very interesting whobeatle, name me one George song as good as Hey Jude, Helter Skelter, Penny Lane, or Revolution, Day Tripper, Ticket To Ride, Live & Let Die, New York City, Whatever Gets You Thru The Night, Imagine, Band on the Run, Jet, Isolation/.. I actually cannot think of one better than any of those. Here Comes The Sun maybe better than Whatever Gets You Through the Night point is IMO his best are not as good as J&P's best.
It boils down to taste. A lot of George songs that I love are not the ones people talk about. The Art of Dying. Out of the Blue. (My favorite song ever!) I remember Jeep. HOrse to Water. Let it Roll. Beware of Darkness (the version sung by Joe Brown at Concert for George is fantastic). I listen to those songs more frequently then any of the ones you mentioned. It's just my personal taste.
-
It is about tastes, I listen to solo George over and over daily, I love the depth of feeling in what he says. He was so wise and humble, and his music so melodic! I have one Lennon solo CD, which I love when I'm in the mood for it. I need to aquaint myself with Paul's and Ringo's solo work, I'm in no position to say one way or the other there. Some of Ringo's work I do listen to on youtube if George was somehow involved in it.
-
lazydynamite88:
how long before the obigatory 'they were all equal,all four parts.nobody is more important than the other' mince for my money i will define the beatles in percentages. i will not include managers/producers though.. 4th .ringo 5%.[a decent drummer who played his supporting role well] 3rd. george 10%[a good basic guitarist who ended up writing a couple of great songs.shame his bitterness got in the way at the end. 2nd.john 40%[the bands formal leader and undoubted genius.amazing songwriter and effective vocalist.used his rivalry with 'mac' in the tunesmith dept to maximum effect.impossible to imagine the beatles without him] 1st.paul 45%.[often overlooked how important his gift for melody was to the band.pushed the best out of lennon.worked his balls off.amazing singer.great all round musical talent.the songs that he wrote are the main difference between the beatles still being head and shoulders above any other artists.pushed the best out of 'lennon' which was equally important.
I couldn't agree with this more. Although I might make Ringo and George a bit more equal. Maybe 7% Ringo, for his personality and persona which helped tremendously in the beginning, and 8% for George, his main contribution, imo was having the same sensibilities as Paul and John and being driven enough to want to learn to play guitar,something that didn't come all that naturally to him.
-
These threads remind me of Fox News or MSNBC one far left the other far right, and no one ever changes their minds, or revises their opinions on those channels, I can see I am not going to change peoples minds through discussion here.. If people want to believe, Lazy Dynamite or Mary Had a little Lamb are great songs and records, no amount of discussion will change that. I think most post Beatle solo albums, have several good songs on them and some mediocre ones. There are some exceptions, Ringo's Ringo album Band on The Run, Imagine, ATMP, Brainwashed. Chaos, Flaming Pie I don't think people are interested in poring over the solo catalogues and actually listening to all the songs! Some people here are hip to all the songs and have reasoned opinions based on being familiar with the work.. But I think many of the people saying Harrisons work was just mediocre, are saying that without actually being familiar with it. I do object to this whole notion of McCartney was the Beatles I think Lennon said in the Playboy interview shortly before his murder paraphrasing from Memory "People think Paul was king Beatle, but it was me" end quote I'm tired of defending the quality of Harrisons abilities, too time consuming, and worse, not one person is gonna change their mind Hopefully maybe one or two people will actually, be given pause and actually listen to some of his work before entering judgement Luckily we haven't gotten into lyrics so much as melody, but then again many people hear may not be that concerned with the lyrics to songs beyond the hook I Love this place because there are so many threads
-
If we are discussing post beatle work, I would say Ram is the best post beatle album. I would also go as far to say that Monkberry Moon Delight is Paul's best vocal. Infact, Im going to listen to this album on the the way to work!
-
whobeatle...based on your tastes I would highly recommend the band XTC to you if you're not hip to them. They had 2 songwriters, 1 of whom is an absolute genius. Mind you, he's no Lennon/McCartney but (all together now) no shame in that, nobody is. I guess Nonesuch would probably be a great album to start with if you're starting out...took me quite a few spins to get into the singers voice, but the lyrics are impossibly good and the melodies and variety and vision are stellar as well. This thread must be very frustrating for you as passionate as you are, but you've taken it all in stride and handled it well IMO. I think that the point I differ on with you is that I believe that it is the scope and volume of Lennon/McCartney's songwriting that are a testament to their superiority. Almost every serious writer has a great song or two in them...this is why there are so many one-hit-wonders. To write classic after classic and hit after hit after hit while constantly evolving and pushing the envelope of pop music is what distinguishes John & Paul from all others. Some of Paul's lyrics may be a bit daft, but look at all the approaches he takes and how many experiments turned into gold. Many of his lyrics are deceptively simple and harder to appreciate but he really takes a back seat to very few in this regard...just try it and you'll see. And of course, Lennon's gift of wordplay and imagination are otherworldly, emotive and unique. Harrison is more of a confessional type songwriter, whereas Paul is more of a painter...evoking myriad scenes of everyday life with a few brilliant strokes...a lot harder to master.
-
Oh and melody.... Nobody has even come close to Paul McCartney...the greatest melodic talent of the century! Lennon's behind him. Paul Simon is a not so close third.
-
Blue Ruins:
Oh and melody.... Nobody has even come close to Paul McCartney...the greatest melodic talent of the century! Lennon's behind him. Paul Simon is a not so close third.
Blue, Dylan even gushed over Macca's melodic gifts last year in aRolling Stone interview..He's is truly Mr Melody!!!
-
Now we are really getting off subject l'll nominate Tim Finn can sit at the same table.
-
Blue Ruins:
Oh and melody.... Nobody has even come close to Paul McCartney...the greatest melodic talent of the century! Lennon's behind him. Paul Simon is a not so close third.
I consider Paul Simon a genius and even more of an inspiration to my life then Paul or the Beatles but I always associated his strong points with his lyrics which are the most incredible I've ever heard in English.