I'm a huge George guy. Always have been. I think he wrote some wonderful songs before Here Comes the Sun. Its like some people think his songwriting began with Abbey Road. I never claimed he was John/Paul but he was an excellent songwriter and a talented guitarist.
I'm not going to go on a crazy defense of George. As a matter of fact I would say that George carried this grudge way too long.
In the last days of his life George stayed at a house Paul owned. Paul spent time with him, holding his hand and comforting his old friend.
I choose to focus on this part of their relationship.
I am a longtime meditation and yoga instructor. Practicing all the time does not make you free of troubles. It simply helps you surf the waves of life better.
George's practice helped him cope I am sure, but he was still a human.
I’m not arguing with your very interesting comment. However, I’ve seen alot of conflicting sources about whether it’s true that George stayed at a home owned by Paul while dying. In this article, Paul is quoted as denying that the rumor is true:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1723109.stm#:~:text=BBC%20News%20%7C%20MUSIC%20%7C%20Harrison%20did%20not%20die%20at%20McCartney%20home&text=Sir%20Paul%20McCartney%20has%20denied,final%20days%20of%20his%20life.
I have read multiple articles on this. The house thing seems sketchy now that I've seen this.
But Paul himself has said in several interviews that he was with George at the end and specifically mentioned holding George's hand as that was a very un-Liverpool thing for men to do.
To me, this is the key part of the story anyway.
Thx for being cool about it...
Hey! That’s an awesome bit of info that Paul has confirmed that he was with George at his death. I agree—that’s 100% the important part of this story. That speaks volumes about their relationship. Thanks!
"We held hands. It’s funny, even at the height of our friendship — as guys — you would never hold hands. It just wasn’t a Liverpool thing. But it was lovely. I sat with him for a few hours when he was in treatment just outside New York. He was about 10 days away from his death, as I recall. He was very poorly. But it was lovely, really lovely, and the years just stripped back. We joked about things. One of the things I remember him saying, because he’d been moved from, like, Switzerland to a clinic in New York, and then to a clinic somewhere else — because you do, you sort of follow the treatment — and at one point he said (exasperated), ‘Can’t we just stop in one place?’ And I was going, ‘Yeah! Let’s go to Speke Hall!’ It’s an old Tudor tourist place in Speke [Liverpool], where me and George are from. ‘We should go to Speke Hall.’ And he’s going, ‘Oh, that’d be great.’ Just amusing, nutty stuff. It was good. It was like we were dreaming. He was my little baby brother, almost, because I’d known him that long.” - Paul McCartney (in response to the question, “What was it like when you last saw [George, in the autumn of 2001]?”), Uncut, August 2008
“The last time I met him, he was very sick and I held his hand for four hours. As I was doing it I was thinking ‘I’ve never held his hand before, ever. This is not what two Liverpool fellas do, no matter how well you know each other.’ I kept thinking, ‘he’s going to smack me here.’ But he didn’t. He just stroked my hand with his thumb and I thought ‘Ah, this is OK, this is life. It’s tough but it’s lovely. That’s how it is.’ I knew George before I knew any of the others and I loved that man. I’m so proud to have known him. Still, as sad as it was, you take the great bit, which was that last time you saw him, and that’s what you remember. That and all the other lovely memories.” - Paul McCartney, The Mirror, 7 April 2003 (x)
Pretty sure Paul likes to keep his good works under wraps. I think it is an old Irish thing to do good works without claiming credit. The nuns taught us that. But who knows about the house. Paul loved him no matter how salty George got.
I understand George's bitterness towards Paul but yeah he carried that grudge far too long unfortunately. Even in the 90s I got the impression he didn't like Paul too much.
After Paul went veggie there's video of them getting together for some reason. Paul's wearing a leather jacket. Big hug...then George says, " Is that one of those *vegetarian* leather jackets?"
Funny...but hurtful as well.
I think George's feelings were valid, it is entirely possible Paul really did hurt him and damage his self esteem. I think he was unfair to be so petty and talk so much shit in public post breakup , but he has the right to feel the way he did.
I think it's unfair of FANS to be so hyper critical of Paul's treatment of George. We all love the results of Paul being a bossy perfectionist in the studio (inb4 'but Maxwell!!', for fucks sake, that is far from the only song he was involved in...), who are we to complain about how they got there? Would we really prefer an inferior body of work for the sake of appeasing George's ego? I have yet to see any evidence of Paul being legitimately mean, or aggressive, or bullying, or insulting in the studio. The reality is that Paul was perfectly capable of hurting George's feelings without being cruel - simply rejecting a guitar part, or taking over a solo that George was struggling with, or making him re-do takes to get it right, is enough to cause bitterness and resentment without Paul actually having done anything wrong. And we all reap the rewards of his insensitivity and determination to get things right.
In regards to the difference between John and Paul: John was more open to input and criticism in the studio, and much more relaxed about getting it right, so he probably was genuinely less overbearing. But George hero-worshipped him. He saw Paul as more of an equal, so Paul's superior position must have felt more unfair. He could also criticize Paul in public knowing perfectly well Paul would not do the same and would forgive him for it, instead of John who may go nuclear in the press at any perceived slight. Plus, obviously... Paul sued them. He was always gonna be on the outs post breakup.
This is exactly what I have always said, George's feelings are completely fair and valid, but Paul was very clearly never trying to be mean or hateful. Paul knew how he wanted a song, that was probably the biggest issue, everyone would come in with kind of a half song, and not really have a clear idea where to take it, so they were up to be given suggestions, wheras Paul very clearly had a clear idea how he wanted his songs to sound. From the Get Back documentry, personally, I thought he was pretty supportive of george. It seemed more like tough love to me. This is why it always bothers me slightly when people get annoyed, on George's behalf, as if the end product was not more often than not, incredible.
All this. I definitely think Paul and George always had a little hero-worship/older brother thing about John stemming from their early days, whereas you mention, Paul and George are closer in age so their more like rivals. Paul has also said in interviews that him being just a little bit older gave him a little superiority over George- always referring to him as “my baby brother” (even in to their old age) and admitted to being condescending toward him.
They were all pretty much brothers and like with actual blood siblings those kind of complexes/dynamics last into adulthood. I think because of this, plus his bossy/workaholic/perfectionist ways, it was easier for George to be pissy with Paul being dismissive. I’m sure there was also some George animosity toward John around this time too, but it was probably easier to focus that on Yoko (“she ate my biscuits and sat on an amp!”) and that John was more checked out at the time.
It could be said John was happy to let Paul finish his songs with George Martin. As they were partners. And Paul’s opinion is, even toward the end of the band when they supposedly hate each other, is the main one he wanted.
Totally right about John being willing to let Paul and George Martin finish up. And then years later would say he wanted to re record all his songs because those two sabotaged them.
>he saw Paul as an equal
Which is honestly a totally wild take when talking about songwriting. Paul has a large classic body of work through the 60s and 70s that George cannot touch. Harrison has a total of 2 songs that are at the equivalent quality of Paul's normal output (something and here comes the sun). He's a great writer but he is NO Paul, and while I don't think Paul treated him fairly, it's just not true that they were on the same level.
That being said, George was absolutely a perfect guitarist for the Beatles and I think Paul didn't really recognize or appreciate that in the way that he should've.
It's terrible how things unfolded, but dang like the Beatles wouldn't have gotten even half as far without Paul, and I feel like George and John always failed to recognize that. Paul was always going to be successful, but his chemistry with the boss was undeniable and made them the biggest band in the world
He saw Paul as an equal in terms of male hierarchies, not in terms of talent. He thought they were fellow betas to John’s alpha. I guess he would have reluctantly acknowledged that Paul was the better musician and songwriter, but would say that he (George) had other talents that McCartney did not. Spirituality, lack of ego, common sense, that kind of thing. Above all George hated being talked down to, and Paul (as he himself acknowledged - see the brilliant juxtaposition of interview clips at the beginning of Anthology) was guilty of that on occasion.
George considered John a genius (he said this in an interview), which is not something you would normally think of a friend. We as Beatles fans have to realize Lennon was a very big personality and a bit of a multifaceted genius, he wasn´t just great composer and a rythm guitarist for The Beatles. So I imagine that alot of people were intimidated by his mind (verbally, cognitively, creatively). So I believe George couldn´t be as critical of John due to this status. But to be fair, Paul at the time was overbearing and controlling, especially towards George and Ringo. So I understand how they could become frustrated. John was open to input into his songs, which is why we see Paul, Ringo, George, Martin etc. have such nice moments on his songs, because he allowed them to be creative on his songs. Paul had clear vision of what his song was supposed to sound like, so it left little room for creative input from the others. I find myself between Paul and George in this conflict, I think it´s fair tha the composer of the song is in control of how it´s produced, but at the same time when you´re in a band you don´t reduce your fellow members to studionmusicians, you have to allow them some creative input.
I think the entire ATMP album is equal to Paul’s entire solo career. Isn’t It A Pity deserves to be said in the same breath as Something and HCTS. It’s like a pool, Paul is the shallow easy end and George is the deep difficult end.
It is people who say this kind of thing that perpetuates the George vs Paul myth.
ATMP is good. Overly long, and messy, but definitely in the realm of good music. And it happened precisely because George had spent soo much time around others (like Paul) who knew how to get results in a studio.
George emerged from the Beatles with room to grow into his own. And grow he did.
Paul, by contrast, emerged from the Beatles as their primary creative driver, and thus, was able to subsequently form an entirely new band, and construct an entirely new catalog of hits - something no other Beatle could do, at least until George leaned on the star power of the Travelling Wilburys.
Big disagree there. ATMP is a good album, great even, but it's unfocused and produced in kind of a sterile way. It quite frankly doesn't even come close to approaching the quality of anything on Abbey Road. Almost nothing he did besides the triple album of backlogged songs he wrote while in the Beatles is very notable
I used to feel the same way, that George was underutilized, but then I started teaching music, and the fact is that George was occasionally a great writer, but Paul writes in a way that is SO elegant and shows a deep and fluid understanding of harmony and melody at a level that George doesn't really reach. The only time he comes close is on something, and if we're being real, Paul's bassline on that song elevated that song to where it is. It doesn't hit the way it does without his bonkers bassline
You can make an argument about Paul's lyrics being better or worse because yes, he's occasionally goofy as fuck and very pop minded, but musically he runs circles around John and George, something John admitted later on.
>We all love the results of Paul being a bossy perfectionist in the studio, who are we to complain about how they got there?
In this case it's not a big deal but in general I think it's not a great idea to dismiss the means if the ends are good.
The exaggerated example is "the Autobahn is great, who are we to complain about how it go there?"
Yeah I definitely wouldn't use 'the means justify the ends' as a general philosophy for life. It just comes across as hypocritical for a fanbase to be so reverent of a band's music and then turn around and complain about the guy who spent so much time and effort perfecting it.
I totally feel you.
For me it was more like being enlightened that Paul wasn't perfect. More than any other Beatles he kept the negative stuff under wraps the longest.
And even with him being domineering (and I'd say it's that too rather than perfectionism entirely) over George in particular, I still think he comes across better than John in the big picture lol
And in that specific case, Paul *definitely* turned out to be right in the long run.
Man, imagine if Paul had realized what a bad look suggesting his father-in-law to be the band's lawyer was and had found another candidate, or prompted the Stones to contact the other Beatles and lay out just how awful Allen Klein was.
Paul did bring Mick Jagger in to meet the other guys to get the lowdown on Klein. Much to their surprise Klein showed up that day. Mick saw him and backed down.
And Paul also proposed other managers when his idea of Lee Eastman rightfully went over like a lead balloon, but John was too head-over-heels for Klein for it to even register.
I love John but I can't for the life of me understand how he just went to Klein. He kissed John and Yoko's asses at 1 dinner...boom...he signed with him.
But then why did George support Klein as well? You know all of them said they were totally naive when they signed with Brian in 1962. One of them said it was like some deal in a back alley.. So here we are 7 years or so down the road and George is still entirely naive as to Klein. I don't get that
Because they were broke in both instances. That affects their judgement. Klein did succeed at getting them paid but it had hidden costs. They weren’t the only ones to fall for Klein. He had marketable qualities and other negative characteristics that were well swept under the rug. Had the band all agreed to follow Klein’s plan, they wouldn’t have needed to split up, but Klein would pad his pockets handsomely while under contract. He didn’t fail them at what they asked of him at that point in ‘69. And because he couldn’t get Macca’s support, he began driving wedges. He didn’t plan on driving them apart from the very beginning, but Macca brought in a competition with Eastman and Klein would stop at nothing to win the biggest band in the world, even suffering casualties along the way.
Proof that John didn't respect him??
He performed on the Rock and Roll Circus that year (The Dirty Mac). If John didn't respect Mick then why agree to be on the show?
Rock and Roll Circus? Why not? It was a business decision. Nothing is personal. Lennon was willing to still work with Jagger. His involvement in the project isn’t evidence that he had a high level of respect for Jagger.
The interviews present plenty of evidence. Lennon and McCartney were convinced that the Stones were thoroughly imitating the Beatles throughout the 60s. But Lennon was never more convinced of this than after December 1967, 15 months prior to Jagger’s warnings about Klein.
Lennon penned an attack on the Stones in a Beatles song in the same month he met Klein, so the feelings were still very fresh in his mind.
Just over a year after Jagger warned the Beatles about Klein, Lennon told Rolling Stone magazine: “Jagger was around a bit when Allen first started coming in, and I think Jagger got jealous.” You see, if Lennon felt Jagger was jealous, would he accept his business advice? Lennon was very upset that the Stones were reportedly better paid than the Beatles, Klein was credited for this fact, and Jagger telling Lennon to stay away from Klein would have been suspicious to Lennon.
Later in the 70s they would go on to patch things up and collaborate with one another. Obviously, if you wait a while with Lennon he will change his mind on some strong feelings he once had. But my point isn’t to paint with a broad brush, I’m specifically narrowing down the moment Jagger would have been warning Lennon of Klein. My point was that it may have even backfired. If Lennon thought he was so jealous of the Beatles this isn’t a stretch to imagine.
McCartney was very different than Lennon in this respect. McCartney is less emotional than Lennon in many ways. McCartney’s opinion is more calculated and does not fluctuate. But despite coming to it from very different angles, both McCartney and Lennon agreed that the Rolling Stones were not on their level musically, and both accused the Stones of following their path too closely.
Lennon and McCartney penned the Stones' first hit and so they liked the Stones and wished them success but they really only loved them as their little brother. Everything would remain fine if the Stones stayed in their lane in this little brother role they’ve been assigned. Lennon and McCartney believed that everything that came after I Wanna Be Your Man was, for the most part, credited to them helping get the Stones started, or because the Stones imitated their artistic direction “two months” after each album. I love the Stones, personally, but not only do I agree that they imitated the Beatles, I believe they imitated the Kinks and the Who as well early on until they managed to find their identity well into their career. Ironically, this was about the time the Beatles met Klein.
To what degree the catalog of the Stones is owed the Beatles is certainly debatable, but this debate doesn’t exist in the minds of Lennon and McCartney. They were both convinced of this fact. Lennon would give them credit for making “funky music” once they got over “imitating us.” It is implied this refers to their catalog from 1968, or later, onward.
No, they didn’t see the Stones as their rivals or equals either. Lennon would not have taken business advice from Jagger. But despite his feeling towards Jagger’s inferiority to them musically, McCartney was more willing to listen to Jagger about Klein. McCartney says this is because Jagger studied finance even though Jagger dropped out of university. I believe McCartney is being diplomatic when crediting Jagger’s familiarity with finance. I believe Jagger’s opinion simply resonated with McCartney's gut instincts about Klein, and Jagger told McCartney exactly what he wanted to hear.
If John and Mick sat down for an hour or two and had a cuppa I just think that maybe Mick could have filled him in on Klein's shady dealings. Maybe not. I don't think Paul would have even brought Mick in if he didn't think there was at least a shot of making John think about it.
The one thing Mick said to them about bringing Klein in to manage them was, "Sure...if you like that sort of thing."
And I'm sorry but I take the whole Lennon Remembers interview with a huge block of salt. John was bitter and angry. He took back almost everything he said and admitted later that he lied often in that interview.
Its cool that you support your ideas with references but a lot of people now don't consider that interview to be a reliable source anymore.
1 — You’re exaggerating my reliance on the Rolling Stone interview. I mention it once.
2 —. The Rolling Stone interview is hours long. He was emotional. Does that mean it’s reasonable to discredit all the information heard in it? Consider its context, Lennon was still on good terms with Klein at the time of the interview. Why would these feelings expressed in Rolling Stone not be representative of the exact point we’re talking about less than a year prior? His feelings were the same.
3 — Lennon was smitten by Klein. Klein was burning bridges with Jagger. What would Klein tell Lennon about Jagger? Who would Lennon side with? Jagger? Really? Klein drove a wedge between Lennon and McCartney. You really think Jagger would convince Lennon to stay away from Klein over a cup of tea?
4 — Why dismiss comments made in Rolling Stone that resonate with feelings Lennon expressed before AND after that interview? Why dismiss comments in Rolling Stone made by Lennon that resonate with McCartney?
5 — I love how you want to explain to me that the Rolling Stone interview is now considered unreliable as if I need to be brought into the present time, as if the present time is defined by people that spout the same rhetoric repeatedly that such a primary source must be completely expunged from the record without using critical thought and context. It’s called interpretation.
6 — Where’s your evidence that Lennon valued Jagger’s career advice?
7 — McCartney brings Jagger because he sides with McCartney. This isn’t complicated.
Never once did I say to disregard the interview. All I said was I take it with a grain of salt. And I noticed that you didn't have anything to say about John admitting that he lied often in it.
Most would interpret a grain of salt being equal to disregard, but I digress.
He did spout off and bitch. But he was spouting off and bitching when he met Klein. You’re missing the point. The credibility of the interview is not relevant. The point is that his feelings in the interview represent his feelings at the time he met Klein. That’s why his feelings ARE relevant in the interview, no matter how credible they were, his feelings in ‘69 were just as irrational. The Rolling Stone interview is a snapshot into the mind of the man at the time. They weren’t lies. They were feelings he felt but didn’t hold onto nor agree with retrospectively.
His feelings on the Stones didn’t change before or after the interview. He held those feelings for years. McCartney agreed with him. When Lennon is saying he lied, he’s not talking about every hour of that interview. He’s certainly not talking about his feelings in the Stones. The Stones would go on to earn their acclaim in the industry over that period.
I notice you have nothing to say about many things.
Honestly being right could've made the resentment worse. It's much easier to forgive someone for being wrong than for being right, and I think Paul was right too often for anyone's liking. Maybe not George but John definitely reacted like that:
>So we went through a lot of those problems. But the nice thing was afterwards each one of them in turn very, very quietly and very briefly said, ‘Oh, thanks for that.’ That was about all I ever heard about it.
>But again, John turned it round. He said, ‘But you’re always right, aren’t you?’ See, there was always this thing. I mean, it seemed crazy for me because I thought the idea was to try and get it right, you know. It was quite surprising to find that if you did get it right, people could then turn that one around and say: ‘But you’re always right aren’t you?’ It’s like moving the goal posts.
LOL I wanna see where Paul said this. He definitely saved the legacy of the Beatles in those years, so I feel for him in that case, even if I would not like to have him as a long term bandmate.
source is [https://www.the-paulmccartney-project.com/interview/paul-mccartney-an-innocent-man](https://www.the-paulmccartney-project.com/interview/paul-mccartney-an-innocent-man)
I think life is full of these petty emotions or actions. We are human.
We only obsess over it because our lives feel inedaquate compared to our idols.
The fuller story is that Paul later held George's hand in his final days. Love is all you need.
They were two childhood friends who grew together and parted over differences. They lived extraordinary lives. They could not have done it without each other.
I have fallen out with my childhood friends over the same kind of stuff. I have regrets and grievances. I have been right and wrong. I'm glad people don't publically debate my life choices.
I often wish I had more music from these guys when they were together and in their creative peak. I blame them both for my grief.
I think the main reason he was bitter with Paul was because he secretly wanted to be the partner with Paul like John. This is what keep eating him, he may thought that John won't do it but Paul should. But Paul never paid attention to that part, because at that time Paul was trying desperately to get more mutual work with John. The main culprit was that they never talked their problems sufficiently which led confusion and bitterness.
Imagine Paul and George writing songs as partners as John was slowly resigning from leadership. The band could have done more wonders. And possibly spark motivation in John to get back and do better than them.
This. George saw the partnership between Paul and John and of course he longed to feel something like that. And of course he resented Paul for taking John as a partner. They all looked up to John.
This also completely explains why George would later be so over the moon about his “partnership” with Bob Dylan. George saw in Bob Dylan a counterpart that matched the energy of the creative partnership between Lennon/McCartney.
George was “in love” with Bob, and Bob Dylan was blown away by George’s ear and musical ability.
Let me know you, let me show you, let me into your heart.
It was a kind of love letter to Bob Dylan that George had been waiting to write ever since Paul first swooped in and took John away all those years ago.
Not to mention Dylan was pretty much single-handedly as famous as the Beatles, so being able to have him as an equal probably felt quite good after years of being "second class" in the Beatles.
Right. Although there were not many ‘equals’ to the Beatles anywhere at that time. But Bob Dylan was. And Bob was incredibly impressed by George’s ability to take wildly different chords than Bob would normally use, and then string a compelling melody across them…
Bob, a singular kind of genius, a voice of his generation type of guy, had never worked with anyone as an equal like that either. Their ‘love affair’ was real and genuine and, I think, helpful for both of them.
The problem is, Paul did genuinely have these beautiful songs trapped in his head and he didn’t have the interpersonal language he had with John to express what he meant to George in the same way. It’s very very difficult to verbally express a musical idea so I do understand Paul’s frustration, but he was also too impatient with George and his frustration made him patronising
George was always the third wheel. Paul began doing lead guitar at the end of 64 and throughout their career.
If George wasn't getting it first time around Paul would do it.
George kept quiet for many years and it only came to a head when other problems poured in in 1968. Paul despite loving the band he unfortunately could be an overbearing asshole...but only to George...John would have told him to fuck right off if he felt Paul was dismissive.
When John found Yoko poor George felt abandoned against Paul.
It was only when his songs were so fucking good that Paul pulled his head out of his own arse.
P.S....George was a notorious fucking moan even at the best of times🤣🥰✌️
I don’t know about the John telling Paul to fuck off thing. In the Get Back tapes, John backs down to Paul every time. Paul just straight up tells John what to do, even on John’s songs, just like he does the others. And John goes with it, no argument. It could be that John didn’t have an ego about Paul at the time - he knew they were equals - whereas George took it harder.
He first comes in and John doesn’t even know what key to sing “Don’t Let Me Down” in. Paul had to take the reins - no one else was.
Yea..you are correct.maybe he was conscious of the camaras being there too.. John was made docile by heroin and some days he was a mess. Its true I suppose he no longer cared coz he had yoko now.. but he had been organising Klein behind Paul's back.
Literally two days after the Let It Be project John George and Ringo went with Klein..and John started tearing Paul apart for the next two years.
I was trying to make the point that George was so easily dismissed at times by both Paul and John. 🙏✌️
I don´t know all the issues George had with Paul, I do know one issue was that he felt Paul micromanaged his guitar playing. Whoever brought in the song was basically in charge of the song, and Paul took full advantage of that, telling George exactly what to play. George wanted to add his own flavor to Paul´s songs, but Paul didn´t allow it. John on the other hand was more open to other band members ideas, so George didn´t feel John bossed him around. That can be one reason George was more resentful towards Paul. I saw one interview where George said "Paul ruined him as a guitarist".
I´ve personally never understood the supposed resentment from George for not getting enough songs on the albums. After Abbey Road he deserved to be equal with Lennon and McCartney, but before that he hadn´t really proven himself to be on their level (Yes, While My Guitar Gently Weeps was a great one). John and Paul had produced amazing songs for many years, so George needed to prove himself. He did in the end, but it wasn´t like he had Something and Here Comes The Sun in 1965.
I think I read somewhere that one of the arguments they had in the buildup to the breakup started with Paul saying that exact thing, i.e. that George's songs hadn't been up to scratch until Abbey Road - and then John pointed out that the rest of the Beatles hated a lot of Paul's silly pop songs like Ob-la-di Ob-la-da and Maxwell's Silver Hammer so he wasn't really one to talk.
No. The conversation about Obladi Oblada was brought up before George's songs were. John wa saying those songs would only be used for singles or for other artists and no longer for Beatles album tracks.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fo782qnvzwzl31.jpg
https://www.amazon.co.uk/John-Lennon-Personal-Biography-Seventies/dp/0394177541
Fawcett was John's assistant and he was tasked with taping this meeting for the missing Ringo.
If you enable closed captioning during Get Back you will understand a lot more of the conversations. The Beatles had a shorthand communication method between themselves that is hard for outsiders to understand. What I do remember was John absolutely ridiculing and destroying one of Harrison's Let It Be songs during a rehearsal break in a private conversation with him and Paul. I never saw Paul ridicule Harrison like this in the entire movie.. Surely the issue George had with Paul was beyond the music they were making. I think he didn't like being treated like the little kid he was when he joined the band. He wanted more respect from them. That said I think George's contributions to Let It Be was crap compared to Abbey Road
> I think he didn't like being treated like the little kid he was when he joined the band. He wanted more respect from them.
This is a big part of it. Imagine being treated like a hero and worshiped by some of the biggest acts in the business, but treated like a minor contributor and punk kid in your band. And as great an artist as Paul is, I would have hated to be in a band with him.
John was George's hero. All his resentment for his perceived poor position was blamed on Paul because of how much he idolized John. I also think he'd have been happy to play second fiddle to John in a band. Just not second fiddle to two people. Paul's bossiness did not help matters but George was never going to talk about John how he talked about Paul. He was also going to be more forgiving of John's transgressions than he would be of Paul's.
Add to that John and Paul were two different people. While John could be meaner, there were probably more moments were John made a genuine effort of connection, whereas Paul may have been more in his own bubble and not really understood exactly what he was doing wrong. It's much easier to make amends when you know what you are doing is wrong like John with his put downs but harder when Paul was oblivious to what exactly he was doing that was upsetting George.
George and Paul were friends before Paul met John and brought George in. I don't think he ever forgave Paul for "elevating" himself to be an equal and partner of John. Then again, a lot of animosity seems to have come in retrospect, after the breakup and the lawsuit. In comments he made in 1970 he was perfectly fine with continuing to play with Paul in the Beatles every now and then, after a few years he was suddenly "musically incompatible" with him.
Well put. I think George was ok with it all until 1968 when Paul ‘lost it’ for a while. Cocaine, casual girlfriends, ‘a little Prince’ (I think Francie Schwartz called him), generally taking himself way too seriously. He had masterminded Sgt Pepper, widely acclaimed at the time as the greatest album ever made, and George went along with it all fairly passively, and then defiantly Paul crashed and burned with Magical Mystery Tour. Even Derek Taylor, the most mild mannered of men, said ‘I have never hated anyone as much as I hated Paul McCartney in 1968’. And then of course Paul was (allegedly, if rightly) very mean about George’s suggested guitar fills on Hey Jude. The Paul of Get Back had found Linda and seems to have learned more consideration and humility.
1968, yeah, Paul was probably quite full of himself. Then again we shouldn’t forget that George was a little prince himself, his affair with Charlotte Martin under Pattie’s nose in early ‘69 when they all lived at Kinfauns was something even Paul wouldn’t do…
under Pattie’s nose in early ‘69 when they all lived at Kinfauns was something even Paul wouldn’t do…
HMMM, I dont think Jane Asher would agree with you there, especially after she caught Paul in her bed when she came home early to surprise him.
i think george and paul always kind of looked up to john as the big brother whose approval they always wanted. during the split I think George calculated that he needed an ally, but I agree that John certainly didn’t respect him and treat him any better than Paul. I do have compassion for George who seemed to always want more from John and Paul than they wanted from him. I always felt the same way towards my two older brothers. i can’t imagine having to be a third wheel between john and pauls intense relationship
After watching Get Back, I was able to see Paul’s perspective more clearly. They’re under all this pressure to crank an album out under this specific deadline. John has checked out and George— though a great songwriter— is still growing in his abilities. Paul knows that the songs that he has are going to be the easiest to complete and learn and record. While I think he appreciated George’s willingness to help write songs, under the pressure from the cameras and everyone, I think Paul realized they didn’t have time to waste teaching someone how to write songs. He wanted to get the thing done and fast.
The only things more complicated than navigating the nuances of longterm relationships are longterm relationships that also involve money and obsessive spectatorship. This is all pretty predictable. No judgement directed toward either party from this fan.
John seemed to feel that George was upset with John as well since John didn't really have much a presence in George's book, I, Me, Mine.
John had said in an interview that this bothered John very much. I don't believe John and George had reconciled over this when John passed away.
I think we collectively as fans read too much into the situation and their relationships based on limited context, like what we see in documentaries. We can't say whethe3 George was unfair or his grudge was justified because we just don't know enough and never will.
I've thought something similar to this for a number of years, ever since reading Peter Doggett's *You Never Give Me Your Money*. It's clear from Doggett's book that Paul and George had a warm and close but private relationship from the mid-70s to the end, but in public George is the resentful "younger brother" lashing out while Paul quietly just takes it because he knows George doesn't actually mean it. In other words, George's trash comments over the years seem like an act for a public who wanted to see that, and I kinda imagine the two of them sitting outside in the gardens at Friar Park one night in 80s, smoking joints, and laughing about how the world thinks they hate each other.
Lots of good comments on here, I'd just like to add that George knew Paul since before they knew John, and once they met John he was sort of the "cool, older fellow we all wanted to sit next to on the bus" (Paul on Anthology IIRC). I think that dynamic likely stayed somewhere in their (and hence George's) minds, even if Paul took the reigns later on musically.
Sometimes I wonder if Paul alienated the other guys because of his hyper-focus on creating music at the time. He was a machine back then and sometimes in interviews and footage it seems like he was in his own little world. If so, maybe the others felt left out or took it personally. George was also writing constantly at this time but seemed to really want a creative partner. It’s possibly George felt cut off or Paul might have shut everyone else out subconsciously or not. Their dynamics will eternally fascinate me.
I think the so called grudge of George with Paul has been exaggerated. Like it is his only defining feature. They are not characters in a play, they are far more complex.
John is not only disinterested in George's songs in Get Back, at one point George is playing them a new one and John pats him on the head like he's a little kid. Which, given George was the youngest in the group and really had to prove he was good enough to be there when Paul first brought him in, struck me as a very nasty thing to do. Especially when George is just trying to pitch in with some songs while John is not in the most creative place, to put it mildly: and John at this point already has a track record of not turning up on George's songs.
I do think the tensions between Paul and George, and Paul and John, get overplayed while the John/George tension gets ignored. Easy to do when George worked with John so soon afterwards, it looks like they weren't the problem. But there were flashpoints between those two as well. By all accounts George was the most hostile to Yoko being a constant presence in studio.
I think because it’s not on film. The last film we have of George and John is the Imagine documentary (I think it’s the last film of those two). They’re getting along. And he’s playing a fantastic guitar part on How Do you Sleep. So I think it’s natural to think that George and John stayed close. Even though by all accounts they were never that close again and had an uglier fall out that any of the others. John was still saying Paul was his best friend in interviews even around this time.
John and Paul were certainly closer, they had a special bond. The fact that they made up after that nasty conflict after the breakup proves how close they were, because you only forgive the people you love when they´ve mistreated you. But even though John and George weren´t as good friends, I believe George genuinely had much bigger issues with Paul. There are many interviews that show his resentment towards Paul in particular. We as Beatles fans can think it´s fair or unfair, but George´s main resentment was towards Paul.
> Even though by all accounts they were never that close again and had an uglier fall out that any of the others.
John was particularly stung that George completely left him out of his "I Me Mine" book.
And I think George was hurt John wouldn’t go onstage for his 74 tour or Bangladesh. It’s just stupid these four men couldn’t just get in a room and figure their shit out.
" **Was George unfair to Paul?"**
I think George was more unfair to Ringo's marriage! But these questions are meaningless between us fans, who are only acquainted with the music and the lore. Really can't make judgements like this from as far outside the historical action as we are...
I think by that time George viewed John as the cool older brother and Paul as the square Dad, even though they both treated George the same way. Paul's personality of "always being diplomatic" rubbed George the wrong way as well. John being an outright asshole seemed more authentic to George.
Just to be clear, I'm not judging or saying he's wrong or right. They were so young the whole time they were Beatles, which is forgotten a lot of the time when looking at their actions retrospectively.
A couple of things that are worth remembering about Harrison was that he’d spent almost his entire adult life being in the Beatles, and people change a lot in the early adult years. He’s still only 26 in the *Get Back* footage. And, in a lot of ways, in their heads, he was still that slightly younger brother to Lennon and McCartney despite that he had obviously become his own person outside of their (enormous) shadows.
And what is clear in the *Get Back* footage is that McCartney is the one keeping the Beatles together at that point, and Harrison has decidedly mixed feelings about that because he has mixed feelings about the gilded cage that was his Beatles experience. It’s fair to say that McCartney misjudged how to deal with Harrison at that point. In contrast, Lennon very obviously has mixed feelings about the Beatles in 1969, and so it’s not him being bossy about stuff - it’s McCartney who is the one with the most stake in the game, and who has an intuitive ‘little brother’ frame for Harrison. But sure, McCartney is being bossy because John has not brought his A-game to those sessions, and comes across as very passive, and these things fundamentally alter the group dynamic in ways that do cause tension for the others.
Harrison working with Lennon and not McCartney after the breakup is strongly influenced by the Allen Klein/Linda’s dad situation more than his feelings about McCartney, I’d say - ultimately Klein was a shark who the Beatles should never have let themselves get entangled with, but Linda’s dad would ultimately be looking after McCartney’s interests and was not a viable manager for the rest of them. But once the lawyers got involved, it was fine for Lennon and Harrison to do things together but if Harrison was communicating with McCartney about business matters - which music was - it was necessarily through the lawyers.
(I do wonder how the presence of McCartney on ‘Six O’Clock’ on *Ringo* in 1972 was negotiated - but that album’s ’I’m The Greatest’ was the last time Lennon and Harrison appeared on the same track, so it’s not like Harrison and Lennon’s working together lasted that much longer than the Beatles)
the dynamics are that Paul can be rather annoying in his self-infatuation and George was not someone who would willingly pretend to like someone because he was kind of a curmudgeon too.
The first person to be thoroughly pissed off with Paul during rehearsals was a horn player on For No One.
A year later, Ringo was so pissed off with Paul he walked out.
A year later, George was so pissed off with Paul he walked out.
In the late 60s-early 70s he surpassed Paul. And his top moments in his solo career, when he actually made an effort instead of just doing non musical things, are better than Paul's imho.
Ahh but in that window of 1969-71 he was right up there.. and yet Paul poured cold water on the idea of splitting a post-Abbey Road album in 1/3rds between him, John & George (not counting the one standard Ringo song per album, that is) because he still didn't consider George's writing good enough to warrant a 1/3rd of a Beatles album for him?
George had good reason to be bitter, and he had enough great songs written to make that 1/3rd of a Beatles album probably through to at least 1972.
Except Paul did not pour ”cold water” on the idea. If you did around on the sub you’ll find a full report of that meeting and he was agreeable to the idea.
It is incredibly annoying, isn’t it.
I really wish I had saved the full report on the meeting somebody posted not long ago so I could just post it anytime the 4-4-4-2 meeting comes up.
I do have Anthony Fawcett’s One Day At A Time book stored somewhere in the basement. I should dig it out and transcribe the section, huh?
I think George & John both didn’t like Paul after the breakup and what happened with Klein.
Plus the diss tracks they did on each other didn’t help.
George wrote “I Me Mine”, “Wah-Wah”, about Paul’s dominance and John’s lack of interest.
Paul wrote “Too Many People” about John
John wrote “How Do You Sleep?” About Paul - with George on guitar.
Paul never dissed George. George was quite bitter about it to be honest.
I think George and John went on a “spread as much BS as possible” crusade in the 70s and (just George) 80s.
I never realised that - thanks for the detail!
Thinking about it now, I wonder if the opening lyrics: “Everyone has a choice, when to and not to raise their voices. It’s you that decides” is about Paul being quite dominant towards George.
Most of George's time spent with the Beatles , he was essentially told to be quiet and play some chords. He spent a lot of time observing John and Paul's egos clash, and he wanted to get involved. He had things to say. Things to write about.
I think he was a bit ...dramatic. emotional. Bitter. But he's an artist. Of course he's gonna be that way. I totally get why he got fed up and reacted the way he did. It was a culmination of every time he put up with it.
I think the solo career bitterness probably was more about the lawsuits and finances and how the Beatles dissolved, than just Paul's behavior during the Get Back sessions.
Also the Maxwell's Silver Hammer sessions probably went a long way to wipe out any good will Paul may have gotten helping with George's songs. Even Ringo is outspoken about hating working on it.
Everyone's talking about the Let it Be & Get Back footage, which certainly shows a critical time, but they are pretty aware that they are on camera.
What is painful for me is watching Anthology - the body language makes it incredibly obvious that George barely tolerates being there with Paul, and is doing it for the paycheck.
I am so glad they made up in the end.
At the end of the day, Paul always helped George record George’s Beatle songs, while John made fun of them or refused to even attend George’s sessions.
People’s stories and relationships are rarely black and white.
The Beatles, pre epstein's death, were mostly lead by John but also didn't need a strong leader because Epstein did a lot of that heavy lifting
Post Epstein's death, john checked out and Paul filled the void. but the result is that he was, for years, overbearing on his more pop oriented interests (versus John and George's interests), pushed his ideas, and also just had to be the bad guy for basic stuff around getting the band to put out albums at all. And then after the split Paul was the first one to get a solo album out and did so in a way that undermined the other 3
So was George unfair? kinda. Paul probably kept the band productive longer than it would have been otherwise, but I think that also makes it understandable that George would place the bulk of his resentment in Paul's heavy handed leadership
What? John and Paul were co-leaders since the early days. It was just easier for them all to say John was because he was the oldest of the OG three and Epstein favored him. Also, John and George both put out multiple solo albums and singles almost two years before Paul put out anything.
john and george exclusively put out non commercial, experimental work pre breakup. Paul was the first to release a pop album. There is a notable story, that John/george/ringo didn't like Paul doing it when he was, and sent ringo to go talk Paul into delaying the album until after Let it Be, which Paul angrily refused.
My other point is obviously more subjective, but I've read from scholars that, despite the democratic nature of the group, the early Beatles had John as their main creative driving force, whereas Paul took that role by the end
John put out “Cold Turkey”, “Give Peace a Chance”, and “Instant Karma” all commercial money makers months before Paul even announced his album. Ringo also didn’t “ask” Paul to delay his album, which its release date was already agreed upon by the four of them mind you, John took it upon himself to force Paul to delay his album because “Let it Be” was going to be done earlier than expected and they wanted to release it first. John released several singles/albums around the same time as Beatles releases. So why should Paul have to wait? John had ZERO right to do that and John changed it just to fuck with Paul. They didn’t talk to him about it first, they didn’t negotiate anything, they just said “Look we made this decision ourselves because fuck you, lol.” There’s no excuse in the world for any of that except they wanted to piss him off. Well—it worked!
**related side note .**.. If Paul hadn't got them all back into the studio for Abbey Road we would have gotten *Here Comes the Son and Something* on *All Things Must Pass* making it perhaps the greatest album ever
technically a three disc record. But your point is well taken.
Record three was nothing but bad jams.
OG fan here, the album was so expensive! because it was a triple album.
I remember being a little resentful that it cost so much because it was three records and one record was basically unlistenable.
Was it not priced as if it were a double?
https://preview.redd.it/es881ix17oxc1.jpeg?width=1574&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=64abe910571c2ff4c8dd859e99ab3018478319b4
I think George was a saint to bear so much bossiness and outright rudeness from Paul.
No wonder he left the bad during the Let It Be / Get Back sessions.
Are you aware that George was very mad at John during the Let It Be sessions?
One of his big reasons for leaving is because John and George had a fight at a band meeting that happened the weekend before George left.
This meeting wasn’t filmed. George got very angry at John because would not speak for himself at the meeting. Instead Yoko spoke for John. George was extremely frustrated with John for not giving his own opinions.
p.s. No human being is a saint.
Yes, I am completely aware that George was very mad at John at one point during the Let It Be sessions, and completely aware of the whole 'fight' (which, by the way, did not get physical) thing.
But you cannot go making single statements like that without giving some context.
This was a relatively isolated incident (although George also apparently blew up when he - in the control room - observed Yoko, down in the studio, going over and taking one of his biscuits).
But George's experience of being talked down to by Paul was not an isolated incident.
That was a well-established problem by the time of the Let It Be sessions.
I'm a huge George guy. Always have been. I think he wrote some wonderful songs before Here Comes the Sun. Its like some people think his songwriting began with Abbey Road. I never claimed he was John/Paul but he was an excellent songwriter and a talented guitarist. I'm not going to go on a crazy defense of George. As a matter of fact I would say that George carried this grudge way too long. In the last days of his life George stayed at a house Paul owned. Paul spent time with him, holding his hand and comforting his old friend. I choose to focus on this part of their relationship.
"I think we have now grown old enough to realize that we’re both pretty damn cute!" - George Harrison
Typical George sense of humor...he was so funny.
And it’s odd that a guy who was so influenced by Indian music and culture would carry a grudge and remain angry as long as he did.
George's lifelong struggle between spirituality and earthly desires and concerns. He wrote songs about it. Living in the Material World, for example.
He owned an actual mansion lol. Love George and he was a great gardener and steward, but yeah.
I am a big George guy. But...he was a complicated dude. John and Paul too.
That was falling apart and about to be demolished. He sunk a lot of time and money into it.
Hypocritical George.
He was spiritual but also fucked anything that moved including ringos wife
Earthly desires...
I am a longtime meditation and yoga instructor. Practicing all the time does not make you free of troubles. It simply helps you surf the waves of life better. George's practice helped him cope I am sure, but he was still a human.
Religion tends to be for people that need it.
I’m not arguing with your very interesting comment. However, I’ve seen alot of conflicting sources about whether it’s true that George stayed at a home owned by Paul while dying. In this article, Paul is quoted as denying that the rumor is true: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1723109.stm#:~:text=BBC%20News%20%7C%20MUSIC%20%7C%20Harrison%20did%20not%20die%20at%20McCartney%20home&text=Sir%20Paul%20McCartney%20has%20denied,final%20days%20of%20his%20life.
I have read multiple articles on this. The house thing seems sketchy now that I've seen this. But Paul himself has said in several interviews that he was with George at the end and specifically mentioned holding George's hand as that was a very un-Liverpool thing for men to do. To me, this is the key part of the story anyway. Thx for being cool about it...
Hey! That’s an awesome bit of info that Paul has confirmed that he was with George at his death. I agree—that’s 100% the important part of this story. That speaks volumes about their relationship. Thanks!
"We held hands. It’s funny, even at the height of our friendship — as guys — you would never hold hands. It just wasn’t a Liverpool thing. But it was lovely. I sat with him for a few hours when he was in treatment just outside New York. He was about 10 days away from his death, as I recall. He was very poorly. But it was lovely, really lovely, and the years just stripped back. We joked about things. One of the things I remember him saying, because he’d been moved from, like, Switzerland to a clinic in New York, and then to a clinic somewhere else — because you do, you sort of follow the treatment — and at one point he said (exasperated), ‘Can’t we just stop in one place?’ And I was going, ‘Yeah! Let’s go to Speke Hall!’ It’s an old Tudor tourist place in Speke [Liverpool], where me and George are from. ‘We should go to Speke Hall.’ And he’s going, ‘Oh, that’d be great.’ Just amusing, nutty stuff. It was good. It was like we were dreaming. He was my little baby brother, almost, because I’d known him that long.” - Paul McCartney (in response to the question, “What was it like when you last saw [George, in the autumn of 2001]?”), Uncut, August 2008 “The last time I met him, he was very sick and I held his hand for four hours. As I was doing it I was thinking ‘I’ve never held his hand before, ever. This is not what two Liverpool fellas do, no matter how well you know each other.’ I kept thinking, ‘he’s going to smack me here.’ But he didn’t. He just stroked my hand with his thumb and I thought ‘Ah, this is OK, this is life. It’s tough but it’s lovely. That’s how it is.’ I knew George before I knew any of the others and I loved that man. I’m so proud to have known him. Still, as sad as it was, you take the great bit, which was that last time you saw him, and that’s what you remember. That and all the other lovely memories.” - Paul McCartney, The Mirror, 7 April 2003 (x)
I’m not crying, you’re crying 😢
Definitely not me..
Thanks so much for carving this out. I am so glad that I read it, and I won't forget it.
Wow. That’s was great to read. Thanks!
Pretty sure Paul likes to keep his good works under wraps. I think it is an old Irish thing to do good works without claiming credit. The nuns taught us that. But who knows about the house. Paul loved him no matter how salty George got.
Too right. John didn’t even visit George in hospital!
Umm..well ..that’s 1000% certain.
Gee, I wonder why.
I understand George's bitterness towards Paul but yeah he carried that grudge far too long unfortunately. Even in the 90s I got the impression he didn't like Paul too much.
After Paul went veggie there's video of them getting together for some reason. Paul's wearing a leather jacket. Big hug...then George says, " Is that one of those *vegetarian* leather jackets?" Funny...but hurtful as well.
I thought George too was a vegetarian cause of the Hare Krishna interest. I just considered that a light joke and not hurtful.
Oh...maybe that's true...probably is...it's just that George had that snarky sense of humor!
Why is this written as though the post is responding to a comment you made or an article you wrote?
OP commenting on the George/Paul relationship? Nothing to do with me. I did post some interview comments from Paul after my initial response.
I think George's feelings were valid, it is entirely possible Paul really did hurt him and damage his self esteem. I think he was unfair to be so petty and talk so much shit in public post breakup , but he has the right to feel the way he did. I think it's unfair of FANS to be so hyper critical of Paul's treatment of George. We all love the results of Paul being a bossy perfectionist in the studio (inb4 'but Maxwell!!', for fucks sake, that is far from the only song he was involved in...), who are we to complain about how they got there? Would we really prefer an inferior body of work for the sake of appeasing George's ego? I have yet to see any evidence of Paul being legitimately mean, or aggressive, or bullying, or insulting in the studio. The reality is that Paul was perfectly capable of hurting George's feelings without being cruel - simply rejecting a guitar part, or taking over a solo that George was struggling with, or making him re-do takes to get it right, is enough to cause bitterness and resentment without Paul actually having done anything wrong. And we all reap the rewards of his insensitivity and determination to get things right. In regards to the difference between John and Paul: John was more open to input and criticism in the studio, and much more relaxed about getting it right, so he probably was genuinely less overbearing. But George hero-worshipped him. He saw Paul as more of an equal, so Paul's superior position must have felt more unfair. He could also criticize Paul in public knowing perfectly well Paul would not do the same and would forgive him for it, instead of John who may go nuclear in the press at any perceived slight. Plus, obviously... Paul sued them. He was always gonna be on the outs post breakup.
This is exactly what I have always said, George's feelings are completely fair and valid, but Paul was very clearly never trying to be mean or hateful. Paul knew how he wanted a song, that was probably the biggest issue, everyone would come in with kind of a half song, and not really have a clear idea where to take it, so they were up to be given suggestions, wheras Paul very clearly had a clear idea how he wanted his songs to sound. From the Get Back documentry, personally, I thought he was pretty supportive of george. It seemed more like tough love to me. This is why it always bothers me slightly when people get annoyed, on George's behalf, as if the end product was not more often than not, incredible.
All this. I definitely think Paul and George always had a little hero-worship/older brother thing about John stemming from their early days, whereas you mention, Paul and George are closer in age so their more like rivals. Paul has also said in interviews that him being just a little bit older gave him a little superiority over George- always referring to him as “my baby brother” (even in to their old age) and admitted to being condescending toward him. They were all pretty much brothers and like with actual blood siblings those kind of complexes/dynamics last into adulthood. I think because of this, plus his bossy/workaholic/perfectionist ways, it was easier for George to be pissy with Paul being dismissive. I’m sure there was also some George animosity toward John around this time too, but it was probably easier to focus that on Yoko (“she ate my biscuits and sat on an amp!”) and that John was more checked out at the time.
It could be said John was happy to let Paul finish his songs with George Martin. As they were partners. And Paul’s opinion is, even toward the end of the band when they supposedly hate each other, is the main one he wanted.
Totally right about John being willing to let Paul and George Martin finish up. And then years later would say he wanted to re record all his songs because those two sabotaged them.
John was not mentally stable at that point.
>he saw Paul as an equal Which is honestly a totally wild take when talking about songwriting. Paul has a large classic body of work through the 60s and 70s that George cannot touch. Harrison has a total of 2 songs that are at the equivalent quality of Paul's normal output (something and here comes the sun). He's a great writer but he is NO Paul, and while I don't think Paul treated him fairly, it's just not true that they were on the same level. That being said, George was absolutely a perfect guitarist for the Beatles and I think Paul didn't really recognize or appreciate that in the way that he should've. It's terrible how things unfolded, but dang like the Beatles wouldn't have gotten even half as far without Paul, and I feel like George and John always failed to recognize that. Paul was always going to be successful, but his chemistry with the boss was undeniable and made them the biggest band in the world
He saw Paul as an equal in terms of male hierarchies, not in terms of talent. He thought they were fellow betas to John’s alpha. I guess he would have reluctantly acknowledged that Paul was the better musician and songwriter, but would say that he (George) had other talents that McCartney did not. Spirituality, lack of ego, common sense, that kind of thing. Above all George hated being talked down to, and Paul (as he himself acknowledged - see the brilliant juxtaposition of interview clips at the beginning of Anthology) was guilty of that on occasion.
George considered John a genius (he said this in an interview), which is not something you would normally think of a friend. We as Beatles fans have to realize Lennon was a very big personality and a bit of a multifaceted genius, he wasn´t just great composer and a rythm guitarist for The Beatles. So I imagine that alot of people were intimidated by his mind (verbally, cognitively, creatively). So I believe George couldn´t be as critical of John due to this status. But to be fair, Paul at the time was overbearing and controlling, especially towards George and Ringo. So I understand how they could become frustrated. John was open to input into his songs, which is why we see Paul, Ringo, George, Martin etc. have such nice moments on his songs, because he allowed them to be creative on his songs. Paul had clear vision of what his song was supposed to sound like, so it left little room for creative input from the others. I find myself between Paul and George in this conflict, I think it´s fair tha the composer of the song is in control of how it´s produced, but at the same time when you´re in a band you don´t reduce your fellow members to studionmusicians, you have to allow them some creative input.
George had an ego. A big ego, that why he held grudges for so-long.
I think the entire ATMP album is equal to Paul’s entire solo career. Isn’t It A Pity deserves to be said in the same breath as Something and HCTS. It’s like a pool, Paul is the shallow easy end and George is the deep difficult end.
It is people who say this kind of thing that perpetuates the George vs Paul myth. ATMP is good. Overly long, and messy, but definitely in the realm of good music. And it happened precisely because George had spent soo much time around others (like Paul) who knew how to get results in a studio. George emerged from the Beatles with room to grow into his own. And grow he did. Paul, by contrast, emerged from the Beatles as their primary creative driver, and thus, was able to subsequently form an entirely new band, and construct an entirely new catalog of hits - something no other Beatle could do, at least until George leaned on the star power of the Travelling Wilburys.
Big disagree there. ATMP is a good album, great even, but it's unfocused and produced in kind of a sterile way. It quite frankly doesn't even come close to approaching the quality of anything on Abbey Road. Almost nothing he did besides the triple album of backlogged songs he wrote while in the Beatles is very notable I used to feel the same way, that George was underutilized, but then I started teaching music, and the fact is that George was occasionally a great writer, but Paul writes in a way that is SO elegant and shows a deep and fluid understanding of harmony and melody at a level that George doesn't really reach. The only time he comes close is on something, and if we're being real, Paul's bassline on that song elevated that song to where it is. It doesn't hit the way it does without his bonkers bassline You can make an argument about Paul's lyrics being better or worse because yes, he's occasionally goofy as fuck and very pop minded, but musically he runs circles around John and George, something John admitted later on.
I really hope you’re not serious. You don’t know anything about music if you really think that…
>We all love the results of Paul being a bossy perfectionist in the studio, who are we to complain about how they got there? In this case it's not a big deal but in general I think it's not a great idea to dismiss the means if the ends are good. The exaggerated example is "the Autobahn is great, who are we to complain about how it go there?"
Yeah I definitely wouldn't use 'the means justify the ends' as a general philosophy for life. It just comes across as hypocritical for a fanbase to be so reverent of a band's music and then turn around and complain about the guy who spent so much time and effort perfecting it.
I totally feel you. For me it was more like being enlightened that Paul wasn't perfect. More than any other Beatles he kept the negative stuff under wraps the longest. And even with him being domineering (and I'd say it's that too rather than perfectionism entirely) over George in particular, I still think he comes across better than John in the big picture lol
A lot of the bitterness over the split came over the Klein/Eastman battle, rather than the music.
And in that specific case, Paul *definitely* turned out to be right in the long run. Man, imagine if Paul had realized what a bad look suggesting his father-in-law to be the band's lawyer was and had found another candidate, or prompted the Stones to contact the other Beatles and lay out just how awful Allen Klein was.
Paul did bring Mick Jagger in to meet the other guys to get the lowdown on Klein. Much to their surprise Klein showed up that day. Mick saw him and backed down.
And Paul also proposed other managers when his idea of Lee Eastman rightfully went over like a lead balloon, but John was too head-over-heels for Klein for it to even register.
I love John but I can't for the life of me understand how he just went to Klein. He kissed John and Yoko's asses at 1 dinner...boom...he signed with him.
John always had to have a guru, but his judgement wasn’t always that good. Magic Alex and Klein were both con artists for example.
A guru or a companion. Always... Pete Shotton Stu Paul Brian Maharishi Yoko Klein
But then why did George support Klein as well? You know all of them said they were totally naive when they signed with Brian in 1962. One of them said it was like some deal in a back alley.. So here we are 7 years or so down the road and George is still entirely naive as to Klein. I don't get that
Because they were broke in both instances. That affects their judgement. Klein did succeed at getting them paid but it had hidden costs. They weren’t the only ones to fall for Klein. He had marketable qualities and other negative characteristics that were well swept under the rug. Had the band all agreed to follow Klein’s plan, they wouldn’t have needed to split up, but Klein would pad his pockets handsomely while under contract. He didn’t fail them at what they asked of him at that point in ‘69. And because he couldn’t get Macca’s support, he began driving wedges. He didn’t plan on driving them apart from the very beginning, but Macca brought in a competition with Eastman and Klein would stop at nothing to win the biggest band in the world, even suffering casualties along the way.
Good read thanks
Would Jagger influence Lennon’s stance on Klein? Not in the least. It might have hardened Lennon’s stance. Lennon didn’t respect Jagger at that point.
Proof that John didn't respect him?? He performed on the Rock and Roll Circus that year (The Dirty Mac). If John didn't respect Mick then why agree to be on the show?
Rock and Roll Circus? Why not? It was a business decision. Nothing is personal. Lennon was willing to still work with Jagger. His involvement in the project isn’t evidence that he had a high level of respect for Jagger. The interviews present plenty of evidence. Lennon and McCartney were convinced that the Stones were thoroughly imitating the Beatles throughout the 60s. But Lennon was never more convinced of this than after December 1967, 15 months prior to Jagger’s warnings about Klein. Lennon penned an attack on the Stones in a Beatles song in the same month he met Klein, so the feelings were still very fresh in his mind. Just over a year after Jagger warned the Beatles about Klein, Lennon told Rolling Stone magazine: “Jagger was around a bit when Allen first started coming in, and I think Jagger got jealous.” You see, if Lennon felt Jagger was jealous, would he accept his business advice? Lennon was very upset that the Stones were reportedly better paid than the Beatles, Klein was credited for this fact, and Jagger telling Lennon to stay away from Klein would have been suspicious to Lennon. Later in the 70s they would go on to patch things up and collaborate with one another. Obviously, if you wait a while with Lennon he will change his mind on some strong feelings he once had. But my point isn’t to paint with a broad brush, I’m specifically narrowing down the moment Jagger would have been warning Lennon of Klein. My point was that it may have even backfired. If Lennon thought he was so jealous of the Beatles this isn’t a stretch to imagine. McCartney was very different than Lennon in this respect. McCartney is less emotional than Lennon in many ways. McCartney’s opinion is more calculated and does not fluctuate. But despite coming to it from very different angles, both McCartney and Lennon agreed that the Rolling Stones were not on their level musically, and both accused the Stones of following their path too closely. Lennon and McCartney penned the Stones' first hit and so they liked the Stones and wished them success but they really only loved them as their little brother. Everything would remain fine if the Stones stayed in their lane in this little brother role they’ve been assigned. Lennon and McCartney believed that everything that came after I Wanna Be Your Man was, for the most part, credited to them helping get the Stones started, or because the Stones imitated their artistic direction “two months” after each album. I love the Stones, personally, but not only do I agree that they imitated the Beatles, I believe they imitated the Kinks and the Who as well early on until they managed to find their identity well into their career. Ironically, this was about the time the Beatles met Klein. To what degree the catalog of the Stones is owed the Beatles is certainly debatable, but this debate doesn’t exist in the minds of Lennon and McCartney. They were both convinced of this fact. Lennon would give them credit for making “funky music” once they got over “imitating us.” It is implied this refers to their catalog from 1968, or later, onward. No, they didn’t see the Stones as their rivals or equals either. Lennon would not have taken business advice from Jagger. But despite his feeling towards Jagger’s inferiority to them musically, McCartney was more willing to listen to Jagger about Klein. McCartney says this is because Jagger studied finance even though Jagger dropped out of university. I believe McCartney is being diplomatic when crediting Jagger’s familiarity with finance. I believe Jagger’s opinion simply resonated with McCartney's gut instincts about Klein, and Jagger told McCartney exactly what he wanted to hear.
If John and Mick sat down for an hour or two and had a cuppa I just think that maybe Mick could have filled him in on Klein's shady dealings. Maybe not. I don't think Paul would have even brought Mick in if he didn't think there was at least a shot of making John think about it. The one thing Mick said to them about bringing Klein in to manage them was, "Sure...if you like that sort of thing." And I'm sorry but I take the whole Lennon Remembers interview with a huge block of salt. John was bitter and angry. He took back almost everything he said and admitted later that he lied often in that interview. Its cool that you support your ideas with references but a lot of people now don't consider that interview to be a reliable source anymore.
1 — You’re exaggerating my reliance on the Rolling Stone interview. I mention it once. 2 —. The Rolling Stone interview is hours long. He was emotional. Does that mean it’s reasonable to discredit all the information heard in it? Consider its context, Lennon was still on good terms with Klein at the time of the interview. Why would these feelings expressed in Rolling Stone not be representative of the exact point we’re talking about less than a year prior? His feelings were the same. 3 — Lennon was smitten by Klein. Klein was burning bridges with Jagger. What would Klein tell Lennon about Jagger? Who would Lennon side with? Jagger? Really? Klein drove a wedge between Lennon and McCartney. You really think Jagger would convince Lennon to stay away from Klein over a cup of tea? 4 — Why dismiss comments made in Rolling Stone that resonate with feelings Lennon expressed before AND after that interview? Why dismiss comments in Rolling Stone made by Lennon that resonate with McCartney? 5 — I love how you want to explain to me that the Rolling Stone interview is now considered unreliable as if I need to be brought into the present time, as if the present time is defined by people that spout the same rhetoric repeatedly that such a primary source must be completely expunged from the record without using critical thought and context. It’s called interpretation. 6 — Where’s your evidence that Lennon valued Jagger’s career advice? 7 — McCartney brings Jagger because he sides with McCartney. This isn’t complicated.
Never once did I say to disregard the interview. All I said was I take it with a grain of salt. And I noticed that you didn't have anything to say about John admitting that he lied often in it.
Most would interpret a grain of salt being equal to disregard, but I digress. He did spout off and bitch. But he was spouting off and bitching when he met Klein. You’re missing the point. The credibility of the interview is not relevant. The point is that his feelings in the interview represent his feelings at the time he met Klein. That’s why his feelings ARE relevant in the interview, no matter how credible they were, his feelings in ‘69 were just as irrational. The Rolling Stone interview is a snapshot into the mind of the man at the time. They weren’t lies. They were feelings he felt but didn’t hold onto nor agree with retrospectively. His feelings on the Stones didn’t change before or after the interview. He held those feelings for years. McCartney agreed with him. When Lennon is saying he lied, he’s not talking about every hour of that interview. He’s certainly not talking about his feelings in the Stones. The Stones would go on to earn their acclaim in the industry over that period. I notice you have nothing to say about many things.
Honestly being right could've made the resentment worse. It's much easier to forgive someone for being wrong than for being right, and I think Paul was right too often for anyone's liking. Maybe not George but John definitely reacted like that: >So we went through a lot of those problems. But the nice thing was afterwards each one of them in turn very, very quietly and very briefly said, ‘Oh, thanks for that.’ That was about all I ever heard about it. >But again, John turned it round. He said, ‘But you’re always right, aren’t you?’ See, there was always this thing. I mean, it seemed crazy for me because I thought the idea was to try and get it right, you know. It was quite surprising to find that if you did get it right, people could then turn that one around and say: ‘But you’re always right aren’t you?’ It’s like moving the goal posts.
LOL I wanna see where Paul said this. He definitely saved the legacy of the Beatles in those years, so I feel for him in that case, even if I would not like to have him as a long term bandmate.
source is [https://www.the-paulmccartney-project.com/interview/paul-mccartney-an-innocent-man](https://www.the-paulmccartney-project.com/interview/paul-mccartney-an-innocent-man)
I think life is full of these petty emotions or actions. We are human. We only obsess over it because our lives feel inedaquate compared to our idols. The fuller story is that Paul later held George's hand in his final days. Love is all you need. They were two childhood friends who grew together and parted over differences. They lived extraordinary lives. They could not have done it without each other. I have fallen out with my childhood friends over the same kind of stuff. I have regrets and grievances. I have been right and wrong. I'm glad people don't publically debate my life choices. I often wish I had more music from these guys when they were together and in their creative peak. I blame them both for my grief.
Throughout the 70s and 80s, George would trash Paul in interviews. They were obviously still close, but George still carried resentment towards Paul.
Paul would get his own back by talking about Beatles reunions knowing it pissed George off because the press would hound him.
I think the main reason he was bitter with Paul was because he secretly wanted to be the partner with Paul like John. This is what keep eating him, he may thought that John won't do it but Paul should. But Paul never paid attention to that part, because at that time Paul was trying desperately to get more mutual work with John. The main culprit was that they never talked their problems sufficiently which led confusion and bitterness. Imagine Paul and George writing songs as partners as John was slowly resigning from leadership. The band could have done more wonders. And possibly spark motivation in John to get back and do better than them.
This. George saw the partnership between Paul and John and of course he longed to feel something like that. And of course he resented Paul for taking John as a partner. They all looked up to John. This also completely explains why George would later be so over the moon about his “partnership” with Bob Dylan. George saw in Bob Dylan a counterpart that matched the energy of the creative partnership between Lennon/McCartney. George was “in love” with Bob, and Bob Dylan was blown away by George’s ear and musical ability. Let me know you, let me show you, let me into your heart. It was a kind of love letter to Bob Dylan that George had been waiting to write ever since Paul first swooped in and took John away all those years ago.
Not to mention Dylan was pretty much single-handedly as famous as the Beatles, so being able to have him as an equal probably felt quite good after years of being "second class" in the Beatles.
Right. Although there were not many ‘equals’ to the Beatles anywhere at that time. But Bob Dylan was. And Bob was incredibly impressed by George’s ability to take wildly different chords than Bob would normally use, and then string a compelling melody across them… Bob, a singular kind of genius, a voice of his generation type of guy, had never worked with anyone as an equal like that either. Their ‘love affair’ was real and genuine and, I think, helpful for both of them.
The problem is, Paul did genuinely have these beautiful songs trapped in his head and he didn’t have the interpersonal language he had with John to express what he meant to George in the same way. It’s very very difficult to verbally express a musical idea so I do understand Paul’s frustration, but he was also too impatient with George and his frustration made him patronising
Definitely. I found that after watching Get Back and Let It Be my opinions definitely shifted in favor of Paul in the situation.
George was always the third wheel. Paul began doing lead guitar at the end of 64 and throughout their career. If George wasn't getting it first time around Paul would do it. George kept quiet for many years and it only came to a head when other problems poured in in 1968. Paul despite loving the band he unfortunately could be an overbearing asshole...but only to George...John would have told him to fuck right off if he felt Paul was dismissive. When John found Yoko poor George felt abandoned against Paul. It was only when his songs were so fucking good that Paul pulled his head out of his own arse. P.S....George was a notorious fucking moan even at the best of times🤣🥰✌️
I don’t know about the John telling Paul to fuck off thing. In the Get Back tapes, John backs down to Paul every time. Paul just straight up tells John what to do, even on John’s songs, just like he does the others. And John goes with it, no argument. It could be that John didn’t have an ego about Paul at the time - he knew they were equals - whereas George took it harder. He first comes in and John doesn’t even know what key to sing “Don’t Let Me Down” in. Paul had to take the reins - no one else was.
Yea..you are correct.maybe he was conscious of the camaras being there too.. John was made docile by heroin and some days he was a mess. Its true I suppose he no longer cared coz he had yoko now.. but he had been organising Klein behind Paul's back. Literally two days after the Let It Be project John George and Ringo went with Klein..and John started tearing Paul apart for the next two years. I was trying to make the point that George was so easily dismissed at times by both Paul and John. 🙏✌️
I don´t know all the issues George had with Paul, I do know one issue was that he felt Paul micromanaged his guitar playing. Whoever brought in the song was basically in charge of the song, and Paul took full advantage of that, telling George exactly what to play. George wanted to add his own flavor to Paul´s songs, but Paul didn´t allow it. John on the other hand was more open to other band members ideas, so George didn´t feel John bossed him around. That can be one reason George was more resentful towards Paul. I saw one interview where George said "Paul ruined him as a guitarist". I´ve personally never understood the supposed resentment from George for not getting enough songs on the albums. After Abbey Road he deserved to be equal with Lennon and McCartney, but before that he hadn´t really proven himself to be on their level (Yes, While My Guitar Gently Weeps was a great one). John and Paul had produced amazing songs for many years, so George needed to prove himself. He did in the end, but it wasn´t like he had Something and Here Comes The Sun in 1965.
I think I read somewhere that one of the arguments they had in the buildup to the breakup started with Paul saying that exact thing, i.e. that George's songs hadn't been up to scratch until Abbey Road - and then John pointed out that the rest of the Beatles hated a lot of Paul's silly pop songs like Ob-la-di Ob-la-da and Maxwell's Silver Hammer so he wasn't really one to talk.
No. The conversation about Obladi Oblada was brought up before George's songs were. John wa saying those songs would only be used for singles or for other artists and no longer for Beatles album tracks. https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fo782qnvzwzl31.jpg
John’s my boy but he was so wrong about Obladi. That song grooves hard.
Do you happen to know what book that’s from?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/John-Lennon-Personal-Biography-Seventies/dp/0394177541 Fawcett was John's assistant and he was tasked with taping this meeting for the missing Ringo.
I don’t think it was so much that John was more open to ideas - I think he often came in with half a song and let Paul finish it/arrange it for him.
If you enable closed captioning during Get Back you will understand a lot more of the conversations. The Beatles had a shorthand communication method between themselves that is hard for outsiders to understand. What I do remember was John absolutely ridiculing and destroying one of Harrison's Let It Be songs during a rehearsal break in a private conversation with him and Paul. I never saw Paul ridicule Harrison like this in the entire movie.. Surely the issue George had with Paul was beyond the music they were making. I think he didn't like being treated like the little kid he was when he joined the band. He wanted more respect from them. That said I think George's contributions to Let It Be was crap compared to Abbey Road
> I think he didn't like being treated like the little kid he was when he joined the band. He wanted more respect from them. This is a big part of it. Imagine being treated like a hero and worshiped by some of the biggest acts in the business, but treated like a minor contributor and punk kid in your band. And as great an artist as Paul is, I would have hated to be in a band with him.
John was George's hero. All his resentment for his perceived poor position was blamed on Paul because of how much he idolized John. I also think he'd have been happy to play second fiddle to John in a band. Just not second fiddle to two people. Paul's bossiness did not help matters but George was never going to talk about John how he talked about Paul. He was also going to be more forgiving of John's transgressions than he would be of Paul's. Add to that John and Paul were two different people. While John could be meaner, there were probably more moments were John made a genuine effort of connection, whereas Paul may have been more in his own bubble and not really understood exactly what he was doing wrong. It's much easier to make amends when you know what you are doing is wrong like John with his put downs but harder when Paul was oblivious to what exactly he was doing that was upsetting George.
George and Paul were friends before Paul met John and brought George in. I don't think he ever forgave Paul for "elevating" himself to be an equal and partner of John. Then again, a lot of animosity seems to have come in retrospect, after the breakup and the lawsuit. In comments he made in 1970 he was perfectly fine with continuing to play with Paul in the Beatles every now and then, after a few years he was suddenly "musically incompatible" with him.
Well put. I think George was ok with it all until 1968 when Paul ‘lost it’ for a while. Cocaine, casual girlfriends, ‘a little Prince’ (I think Francie Schwartz called him), generally taking himself way too seriously. He had masterminded Sgt Pepper, widely acclaimed at the time as the greatest album ever made, and George went along with it all fairly passively, and then defiantly Paul crashed and burned with Magical Mystery Tour. Even Derek Taylor, the most mild mannered of men, said ‘I have never hated anyone as much as I hated Paul McCartney in 1968’. And then of course Paul was (allegedly, if rightly) very mean about George’s suggested guitar fills on Hey Jude. The Paul of Get Back had found Linda and seems to have learned more consideration and humility.
1968, yeah, Paul was probably quite full of himself. Then again we shouldn’t forget that George was a little prince himself, his affair with Charlotte Martin under Pattie’s nose in early ‘69 when they all lived at Kinfauns was something even Paul wouldn’t do…
under Pattie’s nose in early ‘69 when they all lived at Kinfauns was something even Paul wouldn’t do… HMMM, I dont think Jane Asher would agree with you there, especially after she caught Paul in her bed when she came home early to surprise him.
Yeah, Paul tried to keep his affairs to when Jane was away (even if he eventually failed). George had both living in the same house at the same time…
As a girl. I can tell you that sneaking around is worse than openly cheating.
I’m pretty sure George had his share of sneaking as well.
i think george and paul always kind of looked up to john as the big brother whose approval they always wanted. during the split I think George calculated that he needed an ally, but I agree that John certainly didn’t respect him and treat him any better than Paul. I do have compassion for George who seemed to always want more from John and Paul than they wanted from him. I always felt the same way towards my two older brothers. i can’t imagine having to be a third wheel between john and pauls intense relationship
The more you discover and learn about the Beatles the more you realize and appreciate how complex, flawed and beautiful their relationships are.
After watching Get Back, I was able to see Paul’s perspective more clearly. They’re under all this pressure to crank an album out under this specific deadline. John has checked out and George— though a great songwriter— is still growing in his abilities. Paul knows that the songs that he has are going to be the easiest to complete and learn and record. While I think he appreciated George’s willingness to help write songs, under the pressure from the cameras and everyone, I think Paul realized they didn’t have time to waste teaching someone how to write songs. He wanted to get the thing done and fast.
OTOH they both worked hard w George on All Things Must Pass and Something. Loved hearing and seeing that.
The only things more complicated than navigating the nuances of longterm relationships are longterm relationships that also involve money and obsessive spectatorship. This is all pretty predictable. No judgement directed toward either party from this fan.
John seemed to feel that George was upset with John as well since John didn't really have much a presence in George's book, I, Me, Mine. John had said in an interview that this bothered John very much. I don't believe John and George had reconciled over this when John passed away.
I think we collectively as fans read too much into the situation and their relationships based on limited context, like what we see in documentaries. We can't say whethe3 George was unfair or his grudge was justified because we just don't know enough and never will.
Paul is the type of friend you know you can trash him in public and he'll forgive you and won't retaliate
I've thought something similar to this for a number of years, ever since reading Peter Doggett's *You Never Give Me Your Money*. It's clear from Doggett's book that Paul and George had a warm and close but private relationship from the mid-70s to the end, but in public George is the resentful "younger brother" lashing out while Paul quietly just takes it because he knows George doesn't actually mean it. In other words, George's trash comments over the years seem like an act for a public who wanted to see that, and I kinda imagine the two of them sitting outside in the gardens at Friar Park one night in 80s, smoking joints, and laughing about how the world thinks they hate each other.
Lots of good comments on here, I'd just like to add that George knew Paul since before they knew John, and once they met John he was sort of the "cool, older fellow we all wanted to sit next to on the bus" (Paul on Anthology IIRC). I think that dynamic likely stayed somewhere in their (and hence George's) minds, even if Paul took the reigns later on musically.
Sometimes I wonder if Paul alienated the other guys because of his hyper-focus on creating music at the time. He was a machine back then and sometimes in interviews and footage it seems like he was in his own little world. If so, maybe the others felt left out or took it personally. George was also writing constantly at this time but seemed to really want a creative partner. It’s possibly George felt cut off or Paul might have shut everyone else out subconsciously or not. Their dynamics will eternally fascinate me.
I think the so called grudge of George with Paul has been exaggerated. Like it is his only defining feature. They are not characters in a play, they are far more complex.
John is not only disinterested in George's songs in Get Back, at one point George is playing them a new one and John pats him on the head like he's a little kid. Which, given George was the youngest in the group and really had to prove he was good enough to be there when Paul first brought him in, struck me as a very nasty thing to do. Especially when George is just trying to pitch in with some songs while John is not in the most creative place, to put it mildly: and John at this point already has a track record of not turning up on George's songs. I do think the tensions between Paul and George, and Paul and John, get overplayed while the John/George tension gets ignored. Easy to do when George worked with John so soon afterwards, it looks like they weren't the problem. But there were flashpoints between those two as well. By all accounts George was the most hostile to Yoko being a constant presence in studio.
I think because it’s not on film. The last film we have of George and John is the Imagine documentary (I think it’s the last film of those two). They’re getting along. And he’s playing a fantastic guitar part on How Do you Sleep. So I think it’s natural to think that George and John stayed close. Even though by all accounts they were never that close again and had an uglier fall out that any of the others. John was still saying Paul was his best friend in interviews even around this time.
John and Paul were certainly closer, they had a special bond. The fact that they made up after that nasty conflict after the breakup proves how close they were, because you only forgive the people you love when they´ve mistreated you. But even though John and George weren´t as good friends, I believe George genuinely had much bigger issues with Paul. There are many interviews that show his resentment towards Paul in particular. We as Beatles fans can think it´s fair or unfair, but George´s main resentment was towards Paul.
> Even though by all accounts they were never that close again and had an uglier fall out that any of the others. John was particularly stung that George completely left him out of his "I Me Mine" book.
And I think George was hurt John wouldn’t go onstage for his 74 tour or Bangladesh. It’s just stupid these four men couldn’t just get in a room and figure their shit out.
Bangladesh in particular, yeah. They never seem as friendly again after that.
Yeah I agree. Whereas the ONLY real evidence of tension in the group in Let It Be is between Paul and George. Images endure.
" **Was George unfair to Paul?"** I think George was more unfair to Ringo's marriage! But these questions are meaningless between us fans, who are only acquainted with the music and the lore. Really can't make judgements like this from as far outside the historical action as we are...
How Ringo got over George and Maureen's affair is a testament to Ringo's ability to forgive. I couldn't.
I think by that time George viewed John as the cool older brother and Paul as the square Dad, even though they both treated George the same way. Paul's personality of "always being diplomatic" rubbed George the wrong way as well. John being an outright asshole seemed more authentic to George. Just to be clear, I'm not judging or saying he's wrong or right. They were so young the whole time they were Beatles, which is forgotten a lot of the time when looking at their actions retrospectively.
A couple of things that are worth remembering about Harrison was that he’d spent almost his entire adult life being in the Beatles, and people change a lot in the early adult years. He’s still only 26 in the *Get Back* footage. And, in a lot of ways, in their heads, he was still that slightly younger brother to Lennon and McCartney despite that he had obviously become his own person outside of their (enormous) shadows. And what is clear in the *Get Back* footage is that McCartney is the one keeping the Beatles together at that point, and Harrison has decidedly mixed feelings about that because he has mixed feelings about the gilded cage that was his Beatles experience. It’s fair to say that McCartney misjudged how to deal with Harrison at that point. In contrast, Lennon very obviously has mixed feelings about the Beatles in 1969, and so it’s not him being bossy about stuff - it’s McCartney who is the one with the most stake in the game, and who has an intuitive ‘little brother’ frame for Harrison. But sure, McCartney is being bossy because John has not brought his A-game to those sessions, and comes across as very passive, and these things fundamentally alter the group dynamic in ways that do cause tension for the others. Harrison working with Lennon and not McCartney after the breakup is strongly influenced by the Allen Klein/Linda’s dad situation more than his feelings about McCartney, I’d say - ultimately Klein was a shark who the Beatles should never have let themselves get entangled with, but Linda’s dad would ultimately be looking after McCartney’s interests and was not a viable manager for the rest of them. But once the lawyers got involved, it was fine for Lennon and Harrison to do things together but if Harrison was communicating with McCartney about business matters - which music was - it was necessarily through the lawyers. (I do wonder how the presence of McCartney on ‘Six O’Clock’ on *Ringo* in 1972 was negotiated - but that album’s ’I’m The Greatest’ was the last time Lennon and Harrison appeared on the same track, so it’s not like Harrison and Lennon’s working together lasted that much longer than the Beatles)
Is there anyone who has stayed friends with everyone they’ve ever known? People go their separate ways.
the dynamics are that Paul can be rather annoying in his self-infatuation and George was not someone who would willingly pretend to like someone because he was kind of a curmudgeon too.
The first person to be thoroughly pissed off with Paul during rehearsals was a horn player on For No One. A year later, Ringo was so pissed off with Paul he walked out. A year later, George was so pissed off with Paul he walked out.
Yes, he saw himself as Paul’s equal, but talent was he never was. That made him kind of a bitter asshole
In the late 60s-early 70s he surpassed Paul. And his top moments in his solo career, when he actually made an effort instead of just doing non musical things, are better than Paul's imho.
Ahh but in that window of 1969-71 he was right up there.. and yet Paul poured cold water on the idea of splitting a post-Abbey Road album in 1/3rds between him, John & George (not counting the one standard Ringo song per album, that is) because he still didn't consider George's writing good enough to warrant a 1/3rd of a Beatles album for him? George had good reason to be bitter, and he had enough great songs written to make that 1/3rd of a Beatles album probably through to at least 1972.
Except Paul did not pour ”cold water” on the idea. If you did around on the sub you’ll find a full report of that meeting and he was agreeable to the idea.
The misinformation in this sub is ridiculous… I could talk for an hour about the bullshit behind the 4-4-4-2 meeting
It is incredibly annoying, isn’t it. I really wish I had saved the full report on the meeting somebody posted not long ago so I could just post it anytime the 4-4-4-2 meeting comes up. I do have Anthony Fawcett’s One Day At A Time book stored somewhere in the basement. I should dig it out and transcribe the section, huh?
If/when you have time… that’d be amazing. Be the hero we deserve, lol.
I think George & John both didn’t like Paul after the breakup and what happened with Klein. Plus the diss tracks they did on each other didn’t help. George wrote “I Me Mine”, “Wah-Wah”, about Paul’s dominance and John’s lack of interest. Paul wrote “Too Many People” about John John wrote “How Do You Sleep?” About Paul - with George on guitar.
And Paul never bothered to write a petty revenge song about George, unless Maxwell’s Silver Hammer counts.
Paul never dissed George. George was quite bitter about it to be honest. I think George and John went on a “spread as much BS as possible” crusade in the 70s and (just George) 80s.
Run of the Mill is also about Paul. “You got me wondering how I lost your friendship”
I never realised that - thanks for the detail! Thinking about it now, I wonder if the opening lyrics: “Everyone has a choice, when to and not to raise their voices. It’s you that decides” is about Paul being quite dominant towards George.
Yeah it’s pretty brutal. I think Olivia said it was George’s favorite song from ATMP which makes me a little sad
It’s my favourite song as well from ATMP… that and “I’m Awaiting On You All”.
Most of George's time spent with the Beatles , he was essentially told to be quiet and play some chords. He spent a lot of time observing John and Paul's egos clash, and he wanted to get involved. He had things to say. Things to write about. I think he was a bit ...dramatic. emotional. Bitter. But he's an artist. Of course he's gonna be that way. I totally get why he got fed up and reacted the way he did. It was a culmination of every time he put up with it.
For someone who preached about inner peace and spirituality he was a very bitter, angry multimillionaire
I think the solo career bitterness probably was more about the lawsuits and finances and how the Beatles dissolved, than just Paul's behavior during the Get Back sessions. Also the Maxwell's Silver Hammer sessions probably went a long way to wipe out any good will Paul may have gotten helping with George's songs. Even Ringo is outspoken about hating working on it.
Yes
Stunning
For having songs rejected and being ordered around? Not unfair. Tempest in a teapot anyway.
Everyone's talking about the Let it Be & Get Back footage, which certainly shows a critical time, but they are pretty aware that they are on camera. What is painful for me is watching Anthology - the body language makes it incredibly obvious that George barely tolerates being there with Paul, and is doing it for the paycheck. I am so glad they made up in the end.
At the end of the day, George was the guy who actually worked with him, not Paul fans who want to downplay or excuse Paul's working style.
At the end of the day, Paul always helped George record George’s Beatle songs, while John made fun of them or refused to even attend George’s sessions. People’s stories and relationships are rarely black and white.
The Beatles, pre epstein's death, were mostly lead by John but also didn't need a strong leader because Epstein did a lot of that heavy lifting Post Epstein's death, john checked out and Paul filled the void. but the result is that he was, for years, overbearing on his more pop oriented interests (versus John and George's interests), pushed his ideas, and also just had to be the bad guy for basic stuff around getting the band to put out albums at all. And then after the split Paul was the first one to get a solo album out and did so in a way that undermined the other 3 So was George unfair? kinda. Paul probably kept the band productive longer than it would have been otherwise, but I think that also makes it understandable that George would place the bulk of his resentment in Paul's heavy handed leadership
What? John and Paul were co-leaders since the early days. It was just easier for them all to say John was because he was the oldest of the OG three and Epstein favored him. Also, John and George both put out multiple solo albums and singles almost two years before Paul put out anything.
john and george exclusively put out non commercial, experimental work pre breakup. Paul was the first to release a pop album. There is a notable story, that John/george/ringo didn't like Paul doing it when he was, and sent ringo to go talk Paul into delaying the album until after Let it Be, which Paul angrily refused. My other point is obviously more subjective, but I've read from scholars that, despite the democratic nature of the group, the early Beatles had John as their main creative driving force, whereas Paul took that role by the end
John put out “Cold Turkey”, “Give Peace a Chance”, and “Instant Karma” all commercial money makers months before Paul even announced his album. Ringo also didn’t “ask” Paul to delay his album, which its release date was already agreed upon by the four of them mind you, John took it upon himself to force Paul to delay his album because “Let it Be” was going to be done earlier than expected and they wanted to release it first. John released several singles/albums around the same time as Beatles releases. So why should Paul have to wait? John had ZERO right to do that and John changed it just to fuck with Paul. They didn’t talk to him about it first, they didn’t negotiate anything, they just said “Look we made this decision ourselves because fuck you, lol.” There’s no excuse in the world for any of that except they wanted to piss him off. Well—it worked!
**related side note .**.. If Paul hadn't got them all back into the studio for Abbey Road we would have gotten *Here Comes the Son and Something* on *All Things Must Pass* making it perhaps the greatest album ever
Making it a 4 disc album and again proving George can’t edit his own material.
technically a three disc record. But your point is well taken. Record three was nothing but bad jams. OG fan here, the album was so expensive! because it was a triple album. I remember being a little resentful that it cost so much because it was three records and one record was basically unlistenable.
After Abbey Road, all four of them put out some unnecessary tracks. George just happened to do it all at once.
Was it not priced as if it were a double? https://preview.redd.it/es881ix17oxc1.jpeg?width=1574&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=64abe910571c2ff4c8dd859e99ab3018478319b4
Apple Jams are fun. Out of the Blue is a great piece of music.
Glad you enjoy them. I Remember Jeep and It‘s Johnny’s Birthday are awful IMHO.
It’s Johnny’s Birthday is the one I skip. I am a guitar player so I Remember Jeep is interesting to me to hear the improvisation
I think George was a saint to bear so much bossiness and outright rudeness from Paul. No wonder he left the bad during the Let It Be / Get Back sessions.
Are you aware that George was very mad at John during the Let It Be sessions? One of his big reasons for leaving is because John and George had a fight at a band meeting that happened the weekend before George left. This meeting wasn’t filmed. George got very angry at John because would not speak for himself at the meeting. Instead Yoko spoke for John. George was extremely frustrated with John for not giving his own opinions. p.s. No human being is a saint.
Yes, I am completely aware that George was very mad at John at one point during the Let It Be sessions, and completely aware of the whole 'fight' (which, by the way, did not get physical) thing. But you cannot go making single statements like that without giving some context. This was a relatively isolated incident (although George also apparently blew up when he - in the control room - observed Yoko, down in the studio, going over and taking one of his biscuits). But George's experience of being talked down to by Paul was not an isolated incident. That was a well-established problem by the time of the Let It Be sessions.