George's criticisms of Macca
-
Michelley:
I think its important to remember Harrison didin't want to write hit songs and be a public recording artist all the time, if he had so desired, I am sure he could have knocked off another half a dozen albums and written another half dozen hits, I think he had to be in the mood much like Lennon later in his life.. I think its a mistake to think, just because Harrison didint release more work, that he couldnt have.
I can't believe you're serious with point. If George Harrison had had any hit songs to offer, he would have recorded them. Why is it such a terrible thing to suggest that he burned out early in the 70s and then got his groove back later in life. We can only judge his work based on the music he released -- not on the assumption of what he might have released or what might be in his private possession. The guy needed the money badly and if he'd had the goods to offer, he would have offered them. Personally, I think All Things Must Pass is a mixed bag -- some very good songs, some so-so, and some boring. It's funny how people go out of their way to praise ATMP and then admit that the production on the album is horrible, that the third album is unlistenable, and that Harrison's vocals are thin. So, tell me, how again is it a "masterpiece"? I like George. But I'm in the camp that thinks he's a distant second to Lennon-McCartney. I think people want to root for the underdog so they inflate the quality of his work. I often wonder: If McCartney had written Here Comes the Sun, would anyone think it was such as amazing tune? Probably not, because Paul had written so many other equally and more amazing tunes.
Spot on Michelley, Harrison was great but when i play his albums, i find myself getting bored IMO he is wayyyyyyyyyyy down the list when it comes to being one of the greatest songwriters of all time, Whobeatle mentions all the stuff George has in his archives, if it was that good, it would have been released at the time, you will probably find a couple of hidden gems but thats about it. The Beatles, then Lennons anthology would prove that point, were both of those anthologies bursting with great new songs? methinks not.
-
CMackbird:
Most people are given him his due as a talent. He's not on the same level as Lennon/McCartney tho because nobody is.
George had a great talent, nobody would dispute that but to put him in the same league as Lennon & McCartney is total nonsense.
-
Macsback:
CMackbird:
Most people are given him his due as a talent. He's not on the same level as Lennon/McCartney tho because nobody is.
George had a great talent, nobody would dispute that but to put him in the same league as Lennon & McCartney is total nonsense.
Because he never showed it. Im not saying he is or isnt as good but I dont think he ever had as much chance to shine with the beatles like Lennon and McCartney. He had his moments but he could of had more but was pushed back.
-
whobeatle:
[quote the guy had incidentally sixteen top forty hits as a solo.... SIXTEEN so you know give the guy his due
how many did ringo have?..... your still banging the same drum 'whobeatle'. your not going to convince anyone with this. i think everyone accepts that george wrote two or three great songs in the beatles.he then did a decent album which was a bit too long as a solo artist but basically never really reached any heights again .there was the odd moment but he was basically dried up by the time 'wings' were taking over the world again by the mid 1970s. i actually think george gets way too much credit these days for his important but limited role in the beatles.its well documented on here just how overboard people go about 'lennons' part in the beatles but the 'harrison' revisionists are probably worse. at least the 'lennonites' have a ligitimate case at times,their man WAS a complete genius and he did lead the band after all. we all know the truth of course that 'mccartney' was the real top bananna but its a justifyable case that john was at least his equal at times. as for george?.....im sorry but i see he dissed 'wings' alot.thats probably because he knew that if he was in them [wings] he would probably only get a poultry weekly salary just like the rest of the band.
-
beatles1909:
Macsback:
CMackbird:
Most people are given him his due as a talent. He's not on the same level as Lennon/McCartney tho because nobody is.
George had a great talent, nobody would dispute that but to put him in the same league as Lennon & McCartney is total nonsense.
Because he never showed it. Im not saying he is or isnt as good but I dont think he ever had as much chance to shine with the beatles like Lennon and McCartney. He had his moments but he could of had more but was pushed back.
if george was held back by lennon/mac partnership then how come there are so many downright average 'harrison' tracks in the beatles cannon? okay there are 2/3 complete gems and perhaps another 2 decent efforts.the rest of his songs are complete lowpoints. at least the mccartney songs that i dont like much are just annoying. there is no doubting the melodic skills [yellow submarine,obadioblada e.tc] however when harrison got it wrong it was a tuneless dirge[piggies,savoy truffle]
-
beatles1909:
Macsback:
CMackbird:
Most people are given him his due as a talent. He's not on the same level as Lennon/McCartney tho because nobody is.
George had a great talent, nobody would dispute that but to put him in the same league as Lennon & McCartney is total nonsense.
Because he never showed it. Im not saying he is or isnt as good but I dont think he ever had as much chance to shine with the beatles like Lennon and McCartney. He had his moments but he could of had more but was pushed back.
he had plenty of years to shine after the split.
-
George Harrisons UK chart history SINGLES 1971. my sweet lord. 1 1971. bangla desh. 10 1973. give me love. 8 1974. ding dong. 38 1975. you. 38 1979. blow away. 51 1981. all those years ago. 13 1987. got my mind set on you. 2 1988. when we was fab. 25 1988. this is love. 55 2002. my sweet lord (re-issue) 1 2003. any road. 37 true love 77, its what you value 77 & faster 79, didnt chart. ALBUMS 1970. all things must pass. 1 1973. living in the material world. 2 1975. extra texture. 16 1976. 33 and a third. 35 1979. george harrison. 39 1981. somewhere in england. 13 1987. cloud nine. 10 2001. all things must pass (re-issue). 68 2002. brainwashed. 29 dark horse 74 & gone troppo 82 didnt chart. 1971. concert for bangladesh. #1 wasnt credited to George, (see guinness book of hit albums)
-
Ringo uk singles 71. it dont come easy. #4 72. back off boogaloo. #2 73. photograph. #8 74. your sixteen. #4 74. only you. # 28 92. weight of the world. #74 ALBUMS 70. SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY. #7 73. RINGO. #7 74. GOODNIGHT VIENNA#30
-
lazydynamite88:
beatles1909:
Macsback:
CMackbird:
Most people are given him his due as a talent. He's not on the same level as Lennon/McCartney tho because nobody is.
George had a great talent, nobody would dispute that but to put him in the same league as Lennon & McCartney is total nonsense.
Because he never showed it. Im not saying he is or isnt as good but I dont think he ever had as much chance to shine with the beatles like Lennon and McCartney. He had his moments but he could of had more but was pushed back.
if george was held back by lennon/mac partnership then how come there are so many downright average 'harrison' tracks in the beatles cannon? okay there are 2/3 complete gems and perhaps another 2 decent efforts.the rest of his songs are complete lowpoints. at least the mccartney songs that i dont like much are just annoying. there is no doubting the melodic skills [yellow submarine,obadioblada e.tc] however when harrison got it wrong it was a tuneless dirge[piggies,savoy truffle]
Everyone has a talent in life LazyD, and I think you have found yours! congratulations, and keep up the good work! I would point out you state your opinions as facts, and they are not actually facts, but rather opinions. Don't let that give you pause though. Are you American? If so the Tea Party could probably use a guy like you, put that talent to use! best wishes
-
I guess we can safely say, George & Ringo's best years in the UK charts were from around 70-74 John's UK chart career was very much the same as his best period was during the same years, George did tho, make a couple of mini comebacks in the 80's John also had a surge in chart hits in the early 80's, sadly, we all know why..
-
whobeatle:
lazydynamite88:
beatles1909:
Macsback:
CMackbird:
Most people are given him his due as a talent. He's not on the same level as Lennon/McCartney tho because nobody is.
George had a great talent, nobody would dispute that but to put him in the same league as Lennon & McCartney is total nonsense.
Because he never showed it. Im not saying he is or isnt as good but I dont think he ever had as much chance to shine with the beatles like Lennon and McCartney. He had his moments but he could of had more but was pushed back.
if george was held back by lennon/mac partnership then how come there are so many downright average 'harrison' tracks in the beatles cannon? okay there are 2/3 complete gems and perhaps another 2 decent efforts.the rest of his songs are complete lowpoints. at least the mccartney songs that i dont like much are just annoying. there is no doubting the melodic skills [yellow submarine,obadioblada e.tc] however when harrison got it wrong it was a tuneless dirge[piggies,savoy truffle]
Everyone has a talent in life LazyD, and I think you have found yours! congratulations, and keep up the good work! I would point out you state your opinions as facts, and they are not actually facts, but rather opinions. Don't let that give you pause though. Are you American? If so the Tea Party could probably use a guy like you, put that talent to use! best wishes
I've given you some facts, by 73-74 John, George & Ringo's careers were on the wane, Beatles fans were no longer buying their solo singles & albums in the same numbers for one reason or another, Paul on the other hand went from strength to strength with not only Beatles fans on board but a whole new generation of Wings fans.
-
Harrison has some wonderful songs on all his solo albums. Not all are wonderful, but more than he's given credit for writing. He's underestimated by most of you lot. But not by the cognescenti who really know about music. Also, some of the solo Fabs' songs are as good or almost as good as the best Beatles songs. Just my opinion, but to me, I'm right about this
-
If you call preaching the same song over and over and playing the same guitar solo over and over a great creative mind then I guess he was one, but once he perfected that slide thing, it's all you hear. And his melodies mimic his own and others. His one later year 'hit' wasn't even his own composition, not that it matters, but he was reaching. And Brainwashed is dull. It has a few moments, the title song certainly not being one of them, especially since he is attempting to brianwash others during the song. I've listened to George extensively as I try to listen to all the Beatles solo work and quite honestly I find Ringo more diverse. At least he tried to change his sound with different producers. George was a one or two trick pony, and while some of his songs are pleasant, I still have to say that his work with the Beatles was greatly enhanced by the other musicians he used, including Paul, and after years of listening to the masters he came up with a few great songs.
-
jlw44:
If you call preaching the same song over and over and playing the same guitar solo over and over a great creative mind then I guess he was one, but once he perfected that slide thing, it's all you hear. And his melodies mimic his own and others. His one later year 'hit' wasn't even his own composition, not that it matters, but he was reaching. And Brainwashed is dull. It has a few moments, the title song certainly not being one of them, especially since he is attempting to brianwash others during the song. I've listened to George extensively as I try to listen to all the Beatles solo work and quite honestly I find Ringo more diverse. At least he tried to change his sound with different producers. George was a one or two trick pony, and while some of his songs are pleasant, I still have to say that his work with the Beatles was greatly enhanced by the other musicians he used, including Paul, and after years of listening to the masters he came up with a few great songs.
very well put jlw44
-
You guys obviously haven't listened to all his albums.
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
You guys obviously haven't listened to all his albums.
I've listened extensively to all of his albums. Have the originals and have the remastered ones and boxed set, which includes his extremely lackluster Japan concert. Even Eric couldn't prompt him to put some personality into it. I'd say that other then the Beatles and Paul, George is probably in the top 10 of people I have listened to throughout the years, and my sentiments haven't changed at all. In fact I just finished listening to ATMP on a road trip this weekend and with the exception of a few songs it is not a pleasant album to listen to. It's loud and grating and as someone pointed out, that third disc doesn't have any redeeming value.
-
Macsback:
I guess we can safely say, George & Ringo's best years in the UK charts were from around 70-74 John's UK chart career was very much the same as his best period was during the same years, George did tho, make a couple of mini comebacks in the 80's John also had a surge in chart hits in the early 80's, sadly, we all know why..
With all due respect to the British or English Charts, In the English Speaking world, The US charts account for about six times more volume than the UK charts. And in the USA Harrison had 16 top forty hits after the Beatles, not counting what he did for Ringo, which would make it about 20 To Say Harrisons career waned after the mid seventies, totally ignores the huge success of the Traveling Wilburys, Cloud Nine and Brainwashed. The majority in the UK< and elsewhere, don't think much of George according your argument. I think sixteen top 40 hits ten gold or platinum studio albums plus the WIlburys and the Beatle/Anthology reunion, is pretty good. Not disparaging McCartney, haven't even gotten into his great work and achievements, but I can tell you with no reservation, most succesful recording artists dont have 16 top forties, a Dozen gold or Platinum albums to their credit. And Thats just sales, which often don't reflect someones true popularity, talent or measure, Maybe in the UK you folks don't appreciate all your native sons. I think just the nature of this thread illustrates, why Harrison may have carried some resentment, most people with those kind of success's don't have to defend themselves. And he cant he's dead! Personally I think George Harrison 79, CLoud Nine and Brainwashed are all first class, as well as both Wilburys albums thats five great albums in 28 years...in that same span McCartney has maybe 6-7 great albums by my count...and three or four average albums great ones since 79 Tug Of War FLowers in Dirt Flaming Pie Run Devil Run Chaos MAF not so good. Pipes Peace broadstreet Press To Play Off Ground Driving Rain Now is there valid cool tracks on those five "average" albums sure...Pipes of Peace "the Track" is a masterpiece to me. all those albums have some good songs...Cosmically conscious, Lonely Road Off The Ground.. They all have some good tracks... but really over a given span McCartney has perhaps more great work...but not that much more not really...more work.. but only a bit more great work Now if you are one of those people who thinks "Looking for Changes" "Rinse the Raindrops" are masterpieces. you are probably a McCartney-ista and there really isin't any reasoning with you because you have an irrational belief or preference to McCartneys work no matter what it sounds like.. and thats ok too. but to a musician or someone trying at least to be objective.. McCartney may be the greater talent, but not to the extent you portray it, Three good songs etc etc etc
-
And in the USA Harrison had 16 top forty hits after the Beatles
So we're using Billboard top-40 charts as a measure of their success? So if Paul, as a solo artist, was in the Billboard top 40 charts 35 times, and George was on those charts 16 times, by my math, that makes Paul twice as good a solo artist as George. Or do we still need to keep beating this dead horse? I'm not sure I remember what the point of all this was? Oh, yes, why was George so crabby about Paul all the time? Jealousy? Resentment? Who knows? But I for one wish George had practiced what he preached a bit more when it came to commenting on Paul's work.
-
whobeatle:
In the English Speaking world, The US charts account for about six times more volume than the UK charts.
What on earth are you trying to say with this??? US charts are more important? :
-
whobeatle:
Macsback:
I guess we can safely say, George & Ringo's best years in the UK charts were from around 70-74 John's UK chart career was very much the same as his best period was during the same years, George did tho, make a couple of mini comebacks in the 80's John also had a surge in chart hits in the early 80's, sadly, we all know why..
With all due respect to the British or English Charts, In the English Speaking world, The US charts account for about six times more volume than the UK charts. And in the USA Harrison had 16 top forty hits after the Beatles, not counting what he did for Ringo, which would make it about 20 To Say Harrisons career waned after the mid seventies, totally ignores the huge success of the Traveling Wilburys, Cloud Nine and Brainwashed. The majority in the UK< and elsewhere, don't think much of George according your argument. I think sixteen top 40 hits ten gold or platinum studio albums plus the WIlburys and the Beatle/Anthology reunion, is pretty good. Not disparaging McCartney, haven't even gotten into his great work and achievements, but I can tell you with no reservation, most succesful recording artists dont have 16 top forties, a Dozen gold or Platinum albums to their credit. And Thats just sales, which often don't reflect someones true popularity, talent or measure, Maybe in the UK you folks don't appreciate all your native sons. I think just the nature of this thread illustrates, why Harrison may have carried some resentment, most people with those kind of success's don't have to defend themselves. And he cant he's dead! Personally I think George Harrison 79, CLoud Nine and Brainwashed are all first class, as well as both Wilburys albums thats five great albums in 28 years...in that same span McCartney has maybe 6-7 great albums by my count...and three or four average albums great ones since 79 Tug Of War FLowers in Dirt Flaming Pie Run Devil Run Chaos MAF not so good. Pipes Peace broadstreet Press To Play Off Ground Driving Rain Now is there valid cool tracks on those five "average" albums sure...Pipes of Peace "the Track" is a masterpiece to me. all those albums have some good songs...Cosmically conscious, Lonely Road Off The Ground.. They all have some good tracks... but really over a given span McCartney has perhaps more great work...but not that much more not really...more work.. but only a bit more great work Now if you are one of those people who thinks "Looking for Changes" "Rinse the Raindrops" are masterpieces. you are probably a McCartney-ista and there really isin't any reasoning with you because you have an irrational belief or preference to McCartneys work no matter what it sounds like.. and thats ok too. but to a musician or someone trying at least to be objective.. McCartney may be the greater talent, but not to the extent you portray it, Three good songs etc etc etc
Thats your opinion if you think "George Harrison 79, CLoud Nine and Brainwashed" are great albums, IMO they're not, at least we agree on the McCartney albums, even if you did, miss out a few. McCartney is the greater talent by a country mile, i don't know if your a musician or not but if you are, you should consider a career change if you think a few songs seperate them.