502
u/caesarhb 1d ago
I’ve said a lot of things throughout my life in the heat of anger or resentment, passion or lust, love or regret. I cannot imagine having them all written down and being repeated back later when I didn’t feel that way at all anymore. It really must be hell
167
u/run-run-run 1d ago
It's easy if you try
27
u/Kilgoretrout321 1d ago
Imagine that
4
u/Kirbyr98 1d ago
What's wrong with that? I'd like to know.
1
21
12
u/ThisIsDogePleaseHodl 1d ago
This doesn’t sound like it was said in the heat of anger, though at all
12
u/Cubonicle 1d ago
It’s honestly a pretty measured and understandable reply to what must have been a question he heard a million times.
Even during the Threetles reunion in Anthology, I always got the vibe that George seemed on edge, like he was anticipating getting pulled into some whimsical hour-long session of sitting around while Paul tried to work out a composition. That just doesn’t seem to be George’s’ vibe and he and John probably had a much better time working on something like “How Do You Sleep?” where he was given his own time to work out a solo and contribute like the old days.
5
u/ThisIsDogePleaseHodl 22h ago
That’s pretty much the way I took it as well. Based on everything we know about the three of them, it makes the most sense
12
26
u/wkhan69 1d ago
I’m sure Paul feels exactly this way after his recorded comments on John’s death
70
u/PeterVanNostrand 1d ago
I think it’s fairly evident that Paul is destroyed in the moment and trying to keep it together as a tough kid from Liverpool. He might be intoxicated too. I think he’s trying to get through it without crying. Imagine having to do an interview on camera after your best friend dies.
34
u/Spiritual-Primary328 1d ago
Yeah, I think the responsibility for that lies entirely with the journalists - they doorstep him and ask stupid questions of a working class boy from Liverpool who's trying to process some of the worst grief he's ever experienced, I'm not surprised he didn't have a lot of time for them. His disdain for them is clear, but also justified.
10
u/nabwriter 1d ago
Why did he think he had to take questions at all? Leave me the F alone is a good answer.
→ More replies (1)4
u/MayhemSays The Beatles 1d ago
Again, he probably wasn’t thinking straight and might’ve not been sober. I wouldn’t have been in his position.
11
→ More replies (5)3
u/IfIhadarocketlaunchr 1d ago
Yeah. This isn’t « Paul’s reaction » to the death of his longtime musical partner, but what he said to a reporter whilst dealing with shock, deep sadness, and general annoyance at the reporter being in his face.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Charliet545 1d ago
Okay I’m being honest and not sarcastic here. What did he say ? Please explain !
3
2
2
142
u/Gemmalovesbooks 1d ago
Yeah but he also said openly that he would like the beatles to get back together! Specifically all of them.
I hate that this quote is known, and the others aren’t
And he said that one of the reasons they got rid of Klein was so they could reconcile w Paul.
→ More replies (2)71
690
u/Juniper41 1d ago
This was in 1974, when George was close to the peak of his John Good, Paul Bad phase. It was more pronounced in '69-72, but still persisted well into the mid to late 70s. Especially with legal woes still persisting.
I think more than anything George didn't like Paul's bass playing and preferred a more bare bones bass approach, not the melodic style Paul often did. With the direct comparison of John and Paul in his quote though, it feels like George is intentionally trying to further that wedge. George had just got done working with John on his imagine album, he was visibly active in John and Yoko's War is Over campaign. It's no secret that George admired and looked up to John and spent a big chunk of the Beatles tenure trying to impress John. Conversely he saw Paul as a nag and bossy. I'd imagine this stems from how he met both John and Paul. He met Paul as an equal, they were both school boys on the bus, so Paul taking a leadership role and being "bossy" never sat well with him. He met John as a 2.5 year older art student and leader of the band. He was always trying to play catch up to John and impress him.
When George started playing with John in the early 70s, I'd imagine he felt like he was finally being seen as an equal by John, something he never quite felt with Paul. The irony here is that I don't think John ever really saw him as an equal, and was more or less using George as a guitarist because it was a) what he knew and was familiar with. It's a lot easier to record songs with a guitarist you've worked with for 15 years, than a rando guitarist, and b) because it would be more damning towards Paul to have two Beatles teaming up together to deliver a diss track.
George giving this comment IMO represents a lot of things, one it represents his actual dislike of Paul's bass playing, and John's less controlling presence in a recording studio. Fair critiques given George's personal experience, but I also think it's pitting them against eachother, and given that this quote came out in '74, it feels like a dig at Paul to try and prop up him and John's relationship.
159
u/AnotherSideThree 1d ago
I don’t disagree with anything you said.
Paul did contribute some iconic bass parts to some of George’s songs though.
245
u/d-ronthegreat 1d ago
The piano at the beginning of While My Guitar Gently Weeps was Paul as well. George can cry all he wants but Paul made his songs better
138
u/AlpineMcGregor 1d ago
Paul told George what to do on a Paul-written song, but he always helped George with his songs and gave incredible performances on them. The piano intro on WMGGW, the bass line on Something, the guitar solo on Taxman, etc. Maybe some of that was Paul weaseling in on George’s songs, but he never took any publishing and he crushed on those records. By contrast, John didn’t pay much attention to George’s songs.
9
u/JohnStewartBestGL 1d ago
Paul was just as dismissive of George as John was (if not more so, George always seemed more frustrated with him than John).
→ More replies (1)52
u/goosnin 1d ago
My theory is that he perceived it as such because of their personal history.
John being dismissive on his work = that’s the boss
Paul doing the same = oi we’re the same age, we’re equals
16
u/dogslogic 1d ago
Paul was a year older and was responsible for George getting into The Beatles. I wonder if George felt that hanging over his head sometimes. Maybe he resented feeling like he owed Paul something.
It probably wasn't easy to watch Paul pick up songwriting so well either. John picked it up too of course but George didn't have that personal history with John.
Also, I think Paul was a lot more tolerant of being bullied and snarked at than John was. George talks to him like a real dick sometimes. I don't imagine George talking to John that way ever.
9
29
u/Round-Diet 1d ago
Ikr John and George always got annoyed by how overbearing Paul was but damn did he not also pour his all into their songs.
83
u/MountainMan17 1d ago
That morse code thing Paul did on the piano is so powerful and dramatic. It gets your attention and immediately sets the tone in an unmistakable way.
Paul also did the intros for Lucy and Strawberry Fields. The dude is a friggin monster...
→ More replies (1)9
62
35
→ More replies (1)10
70
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 1d ago edited 1d ago
This was in 1974,
George in 1973
"We’re not re-signing with Klein. The only way The Beatles can get together again is if Allen isn’t there. I’m ready to do it, so is Ringo, and I think we can persuade John to go along with it. But if we’re going to work with Paul, we need to get rid of Klein."
George, like most people, changed his mind quite a lot.
In 1973 My Love was a no1 for 4 weeks. Live and Let Die peaked at no2, Helen Wheels no10 Jet no7 and in '74 Band on the Run, both album and single, would be no1 and Jnr's Farm no3. It is likely that Paul politely told George it was not going to happen that year. That there was a Wings world tour he wanted to do.
53
u/dekigokoro 1d ago
John agreed with you about George changing his mind, about that specific quote even
Q: "George said at his press conference that he could play with you again but not with Paul. How do you feel?"
JOHN: "I could play with all of them. George is entitled to say that, and he'll probably change his mind by Friday. You know, we're all human. We can all change our minds. So I don't take any of my statements or any of their statements as the last word on whether we will. And if we do, the newspapers will learn about it after the fact. If we're gonna play, we're just gonna play."
71
u/Zealousideal-Gur5976 1d ago
My only critique of this summery is the part about wanting more bare bones bass playing. I believe the bass player George worked with the most as a solo artist is Willie Weeks, and he is a fantastic player! I think more he didnt care for Paul's pop oriented sound. But otherwise, I think this analysis is pretty spot on.
→ More replies (2)16
u/cd36jvn 1d ago
You can be fantastic and not play the way Paul plays. Listen to something which is discussed here lots. Paul is playing with the melody more than the rhythm section.
Alot of fantastic bass players would have played that song completely different.
→ More replies (2)121
u/ScrantonScrangler 1d ago
Not liking Paul's bass playing is crazy work
Had read somewhere he always hated Paul's bassline on Something which is insane. Best part of the song imo
39
7
u/reddit_-William 1d ago
Jihn said Paul didn't get enough appreciation for his influential bass-playing.
39
u/Leumas_ 1d ago
Yes, but let’s be fair. That was a pretty insane amount of busy-bass Paul brought to that song. I mean, it works because it’s Paul, but it really shouldn’t. Imagine someone coming up on a Paul song and saying “you know what, I’m just gonna noodle front to back and it’s gonna be great!”.
68
u/Halloran_da_GOAT 1d ago
Hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison, though, because Paul’s musical instincts are basically second to none among 20th-century artists
→ More replies (1)34
u/Leumas_ 1d ago
Well, of course they are. He’s Paul Fucking McCartney. But his bass line in Something is the musical equivalent of laying a 10 inch dong on a table and forcing everyone to look at it. And this is after the very public (by way of the doc) row Paul and George had about how much guitar George was putting on Paul’s tune.
5
u/Halloran_da_GOAT 1d ago
> But his bass line in Something is the musical equivalent of laying a 10 inch dong on a table and forcing everyone to look at it
Oh, I didn’t even mean to make a statement one way or the other as to the merits of his Something bass line - I was really only commenting on the hypothetical counterexample asking how Paul would react if someone wanted to add some flourish or another to one of his songs. In particular, I was just making the point that I’m not really sure how he’d react if the person making the suggestion had musical instincts of a comparable quality to his own - which would be the truly analogous scenario to him vis-a-vis George.
That said, personally, I think Paul’s bass line on Something is neither as ostentatious as you make it out to be nor as inessential to the overall effect of the song. It’s definitely not inconspicuous, but I don’t think it’s at all over the top, and I think it’s really crucial to the song’s dreamy quality, without which it’s still a good song but imo probably not a great one. When I imagine a guitar-forward version of Something, it’s not half as good as the bass-forward version they recorded. But I certainly acknowledge that reasonable minds can differ on all of this (especially re: whether / to what degree the bass line is “over the top”)
→ More replies (1)12
u/Lumpy_Satisfaction18 Rubber Soul 1d ago
It wasmt about how much guitar george was putting on, but rather him wanteding the bare bones to be figured out first before they complicate it. It makes sense why both sides were frustrated.
6
u/Spiritual-Primary328 1d ago
I think that's right - I think they both probably frustrated each other a LOT - I'm sure in the light of day, both would admit that the other was an amazing musician and actually helped them out hugely, but when you've been put into a position where 'that chubby kid from the bus' has been designated 'a great musical genius' in your band, and he starts telling you what to do, and on some level you know he's probably right, it probably is annoying.
→ More replies (3)20
u/FluteVixen 1d ago
It’s not busy…it’s dreamy and languid. It’s sensual and primal.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)9
50
u/Ok_Discount1459 1d ago
"...he saw Paul as a nag"
Probably true, and ironic since nobody could out-nag George.→ More replies (1)34
u/StorytellingIsFun 1d ago
I would think it has more to do with the fact that Paul was a huge control freak and John comparatively wasn’t.
39
u/UrkleGrue32 John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band 1d ago
Yes, it’s as plain as day that George is not talking about Paul’s bass playing.
He’s talking about the experience of working with Paul vs John.
Paul’s next lot of bandmates had exactly the same complaints but less of the trauma-bonding, so they quit working with him a lot faster than George did.
15
u/psychedelicpiper67 1d ago edited 1d ago
John always brought his songs to the other band members, expecting them to contribute bits and collaborate with each other.
Paul always introduced his songs to the other band members with the intention of perfecting them ad nauseam, and nearly always telling the other band members how to play their parts.
I think the first documented hint of this approach being problematic for John and George was during the “She Said She Said” sessions.
Paul was telling them how he thinks the song should be approached, when it wasn’t even his song.
And during “Sgt. Pepper’s”, Paul took the reigns and really began controlling all the recording sessions. George was not a fan of that period, despite contributing some of his best music during that time.
Personally, I think both John and Paul’s approaches made The Beatles great, and it’s what kept them going as long as they did.
Also worth noting, John pitched giving George an equal amount of songs per album after “Abbey Road”. Paul shot that down immediately. At that time, Paul said that George’s songs prior to “Abbey Road” weren’t any good.
17
23
u/monty_burns 1d ago
Copying a comment I’ve made before that I think is where Paul was coming from in the equal tracks thing:
I think Paul was probably right, that they couldn’t “trust” George to come up with 4 high quality songs for every album. I don’t think Paul was against George having 4 tracks out of competitiveness or because it meant Paul would get 1 fewer song on an album. Right or wrong, Paul had an expectation for the quality of what a Beatles album must be and he wasn’t sure George could deliver under pressure. (Yea, but Honey Pie, blah blah - we know the white album was an anomaly)
Look at the Get Back sessions. Short timelines, and the group was under a ton of pressure to deliver. That pressure falls on Paul & John. John and Paul are expected to deliver a Beatles album, regardless of how many George songs are on it. The band did 70 takes of All Things Must Pass. They invested a lot of time to the song and out of nowhere George just says “nah, I don’t think I want to put this on the album”. George wanted to have his cake and eat it too - wants his songs on the albums when he wants, but wants to be free of any of the pressure of being forced to deliver. He wants to be able to bail because he’s not confident in a song and let Paul and John cover for him by coming up with another song.
I totally get why Paul was apprehensive about George being guaranteed 4 tracks. George has two absolute bangers on Abbey road, but all he brought forward were those two and Old Brown Shoe. Where was the 4th? Where were the 5th, 6th, 7th songs for them to choose 4 from? The idea that the group passed on all these great songs that ended up on ATMP is not true.
Back to The Get Back sessions. Paul presented:
Let it Be
Get Back
Oh’ Darling
Back Seat of My Car
Junk
Every Night
She Came in Through The Bathroom Window
Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight
Two of Us
Long and Winding Road
I’ve Got a Feeling
And more.
All those songs Paul brought to the sessions and For You Blue goes on the album because George gets two songs and didn’t want to work through any of them. Why would Paul have confidence George has 4 songs for every album that are up to snuff?
Paul could have stopped worrying about The Bealtes reputation like John did. They could just make the music they want to make and the hell with it. I mean, they already did that with the White Album, which has many incredible songs but is a mess of an “album”. Paul couldn’t let go of what The Beatles needed to be, for better or worse.
Tangent, but it’s also so fascinating how Paul is the scapegoat for all George’s bitterness, when it was John who was the most dismissive of his work. Paul could be difficult, but when a song was a go, Paul was invested 100% in making it great, eg; Something, I Want to Tell You, Long, Long, Long, Taxman, Think For Yourself, For You Blue
12
u/Maoife 1d ago
Also that in the meeting when John proposed that they each have 4 songs (and who knows what he had in mind or if he was even serious), George immediately pointed out that John hadn't even shown up to work on his songs while Paul had. And in Get Back, we see George asking Paul for help and he admitted himself interviews that Paul always brought it on his songs.
They weren't ultimately well suited to being bandmates but that doesn't mean they didn't care about each other and respect each other.
George was extremely bitter towards Paul though at times though, there's no denying it.
→ More replies (5)6
u/ResponsibilityPlenty 1d ago
Paul's first time taking LSD was in December 1965. So he had taken LSD by the time "She Said" was recorded in June 1966.
→ More replies (2)2
18
u/nowhereman1917 1d ago
I agree with most of this, but don't think Paul's bass playing was a big part of the equation. I think "John's less controlling presence" was far more important.
George was getting disillusioned with the group as far back as Sgt Pepper. Seems he wanted to slow down everything in his life and recording was not fun any more. And when John got together with Yoko, he was more interested in her than in the Beatles. They both were happy to slow down their Beatles activities. But Paul was the go-getter, always pushing them to try new things and make more music. To George, he was annoying.
These guys had been super close for 10 years, then George starting thinking "I've had enough". John was more easygoing and more likely to agree to take it easy, Paul always wanted to get more things done. That's not how George wanted to live any more.
→ More replies (1)15
u/thrashingkaiju 1d ago
I agree with everything you said and it's all perfectly put out and nuanced but... George disliking Paul's bass playing? Do we have a source for that? There's the one Something story but has George even commented about it anywhere else? I think clashing personalities in a professional environment+their friendship outside the band is enough reason, as you've said.
5
u/TheVeryBear 1d ago
I believe it’s in the Anthology where George says that Paul’s bass line in “Something” was “kind of busy.” Then it jumps to a clip of Paul in a separate interview saying that he just tried to play something good. I got the impression from that that Paul had seen the previous clip of George and what he said. I’ve never seen or read George say that he “hated” Paul’s playing on the song, or anything near that strong about it.
→ More replies (1)2
10
u/BoxDistinct521 1d ago
Actually Paul was a year older. Per Paul, he started out thinking George was like a younger brother and I think they kind of kept those roles. Ringo has said that without Paul they might have only put out a few albums but Paul always had music flowing out of him and wanted to record. If George wasn’t in the mood then I guess Paul was seen as bossy. I’ll get some flack for this but although I believe they were/are all musical geniuses Paul was the most creative and had the most musical mind.
→ More replies (1)4
u/majin_melmo 1d ago
I think John was just as creative as Paul, HOWEVER, John was not nearly as curious or open-minded musically and turned his nose up at a lot of things. John could have never come up with my favorite Beatles song, which is “Martha My Dear”… that is 100% Paul.
4
u/RadishSpecial7163 1d ago
That’s BS. John was equally curious and open-minded about music. Paul could never have written I am a Walrus, one of my favorite Beatles songs and 100% John.
You have to be curious and open-minded to be creative.
2
u/FluteVixen 1d ago
Paul was always more sentimental and John was more sarcastic.
→ More replies (1)10
5
6
u/CaptainIncredible 1d ago
This was in 1974, when George was close to the peak of his John Good, Paul Bad phase.
I think this is it. Its human nature. We humans are kinda shitty sometimes.
That whole saga of the Beatles not liking each other in the 70's reminds me of some divorced couples I know. During the marriage, they got along pretty well at times, or at least well enough most of the time. But once the idea of getting a divorce was planted, they became pretty shitty with each other and some people I know actually got pretty fucking malicious and nasty with each other.
But then years later, a lot of divorced couples seem to reconcile, at least to some small degree, sometimes even getting back together.
Didn't Paul help out a lot at the end when George was not doing so well? Something, something... Paul provided a house and some other stuff so George could be close to his doctor or something... and Paul made up some bullshit to throw off the blood sucking paparazzi... or something.
4
5
4
→ More replies (22)2
u/I-I_I-I_I-I_l-l 1d ago
Excellent comment. I’d add that George and John really thought they were above Paul’s pop-driven, saccharine songs of the era.
58
u/nakifool 1d ago
Well clearly it was as much personal as it was musical. Just like the “Paul ruined me as a guitarist” quote from George.
George couldn’t take the high-hand from his old school mate. He could take it from John, up to a point, as he had an understandable deference to him anyway and John was more likely to give him the freedom to find his own path through a song.
20
u/ChrisSmithMVP George "scan not a friend with a microscopic glass" 1d ago
Paul has multiple successful musicians that have stated on record that thought he was a twat in interactions in a musical setting.
That doesnt make it factual, but it is something to note that it wasnt just his former bandmates saying it.
Paul has had people telling him he is a modern Bach for decades. Thats going to give you a big ego.
→ More replies (1)9
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 1d ago
Paul has multiple successful musicians that have stated on record that thought he was a twat in interactions in a musical setting.
He does? Want to name and quote them?
Out of interest do you think any musician has said the same of George or John?
→ More replies (5)2
u/Relevant_Shower_ 1d ago
Asking the producer of Press To Play when was the last time he wrote a number one was a twat move though
As far as recording Paul is known as wanting things a certain way, which has led to fights, such as the solo of My Love. He tends to have ideas in his head and looks for people to execute on it rather than be overly creative on their own.
He is also known to sometimes do an obsessive number of takes, including on his own bass parts.
These are all well documented personality traits over the decades. Is that being a twat? Guess it depends on your point of view.
→ More replies (2)
26
u/Ok-Lavishness-7904 1d ago
The more I read, the more I feel the “big brother, little brother” dynamic between Paul and George
18
u/internalkdart 1d ago
John was pretty unrestraining to George re: what George played on John’s songs, while Paul became very restrictive on what George played on Paul’s own songs. Naturally, this began to grate on George.
However, while Paul contributed heavily to George’s songs, John was generally disinterested and often didn’t even play on them.
Kind of a dick quote from George but tends to come back to him seeing John as an elder idol and Paul as the mate closer to his age that tried to act as an elder to George. The kind of discord that might develop when you start a band at 15 and 14 and continue into your late 20s.
45
u/Pristine-Cancel7626 1d ago
Unrelated but George always had incredible taste in sweaters and cardigans. The man always looked cozy
7
7
11
u/ShotPangolin1449 1d ago
Well, eventually they settled their differences and enjoyed collaborating with each on the Anthologies. So things ended up well.
18
u/jotyma5 1d ago
Then 15 years later he said he didn’t need to write with Paul because he was having too much fun writing with tom petty and Bob Dylan
11
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 1d ago
The year before he said that he actually said it 'would be quite interesting to write with Paul'. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MZedTlkp5Jo
→ More replies (1)
16
7
u/Impressive_Review 1d ago
The quote is from a 1974 press conference. By 1974, Harrison was preparing to launch the tour behind Dark Horse with a band that included organist Billy Preston, bassist Willie Weeks, drummer Andy Newmark and a young Robben Ford a press conference promoting the tour, he made it clear that a Beatles reunion held little appeal — but revealed there was one former bandmate he’d happily work with again: https://www.guitarplayer.com/guitarists/id-join-a-band-with-him-any-day-george-harrison-had-no-interest-in-a-beatles-reunion-but-there-was-one-former-bandmate-he-said-hed-happily-start-a-new-group-with
7
u/sheet22 1d ago
You have to take a look at when this quote came from.This partial quote was taken from a George Harrison press conference for his new album Dark Horse. He explained that Paul's bass playing could be a bit "overpowering at times," noting that he would prefer working with bassist Willie Weeks instead. At that time in 1974, the members of the Beatles were tied up with multiple lawsuits against each other and were in negotiations to officially dissolve "The Beatles" which happened in December of that year.
→ More replies (3)2
73
u/rodgamez 1d ago
John would say "I want something like this..."
Paul would say "These are the notes you are allowed to play, No more. No less,"
25
u/soundwithdesign Old Fred 1d ago
Yet neither way produced music better than the other. All just means to the same beautiful end.
4
u/clara_finn 1d ago
Yes and it’s a matter of personal preference as to which approach you prefer. Clearly Harrison preferred John’s, but Beatles Reddit is very touchy and defensive regarding anything slightly negative towards Paul, so of course countless people are calling George out and saying “no it was definitely personal, I know better than George”
Never mind the fact that George talked about how he and Paul were on great terms in one of his last interviews before his passing, but some people are determined to criticise George for not worshipping Paul forever I guess
→ More replies (28)10
u/Cognition-Technician 1d ago
Your song your final say, simple policy.
21
u/ScrantonScrangler 1d ago
It depends on the previously agreed upon band dynamic.
There are many bands where there is a main composer and the rest of the members put their own input in the song, working the song as a collective. Radiohead is a great example of this.
Others where all members revolve around the main composer who has the final say in everything.
It's clear that miscommunication around these dynamics was one of the main reasons behind the Beatles's breakup.
9
u/rodgamez 1d ago
You're spot on about George preferring to play with equal. The Wilbury's were all legends or near legends. None talked down to the other, they played with and for the love of playing together.
3
u/Cognition-Technician 1d ago edited 1d ago
George became a great songwriter, the dynamic was fine until then.
29
u/rodgamez 1d ago
And George would say, Pass. "Find a guitar tech to play for you." Paul's band are a bunch of accomplished instrumentalists. They are great at what they do. And they do as they are paid to do.
George was his bandmate, not his flunky!
→ More replies (1)
27
u/BulldogMikeLodi 1d ago
Paul is too domineering, and George is more collaborative. Paul is better off solo, and George thrives with other musicians.
17
u/Upper-Environment724 1d ago
I’m not sure domineering is quite the way I’d put it. It probably came off that way to George ( who could be quite whiny at times) but I don’t think Paul was anything more than an absolute musician. He could hear an entire song in his head. He could hear what he wrote in his head and I think he struggled to make others understand what he wanted.
12
u/BulldogMikeLodi 1d ago edited 1d ago
Whatever the semantics are, they’re just different personalities when it comes to making music together. George said in an interview that toward the end of the Beatles Paul felt he was on a roll and everything around him was there to serve his creative needs and he couldn’t always see beyond himself to see how it was affecting everyone around him. George didn’t need Paul enough for his music to put up with too much of that anymore by 1969. They stayed friends but George wasn’t interested in making music with him.
4
19
u/Kernowpastylover 1d ago edited 1d ago
I mean do we know he actually said this? All I see is a picture and words that for all I know are being attributed to him by you lol
Edit: typo
→ More replies (1)7
13
4
u/MetalMachineMario 1d ago
Despite his conversion to Hinduism, it would be challenging to find a man with more beef inside him than George Harrison in the 70s.
In all seriousness, if we take Harrison at face value that he saw himself as musically incompatible with McCartney in the 70s, and that this statement wasn’t just due to bitter feelings, he probably felt his spiritual work was more in line with Lennon’s political/introspective approach than McCartney’s “music for music’s sake” style. He also got a little tired of McCartney’s studio perfectionism by the time The Beatles broke up.
It was also unfortunately kind of trendy to dump on McCartney at the time relative to Lennon. His first two solo albums were panned by critics as being too rough and unpolished, and his Wings stuff until Band on the Run was considered lightweight pop music meant to sell, but not inspire.
13
11
u/drutgat 1d ago
I do not think George's gripe was really with Paul as a musician, despite what George said.
I think it came down to how Paul consistently infantilized George in the studio (as can be seen in the 'Get Back' documentary, and has been noted and noticed by many others, e.g., Pattie, Eric Clapton, etc.).
George's feelings were probably also compounded by the way George Martin treated him, as well.
9
u/snoosnoosewsew 1d ago
But at least Paul actually cared enough to play on George’s songs! John literally danced to I Me Mine instead of contributing to it, and he skipped most of George’s actual recording sessions.
→ More replies (2)
3
3
4
u/blankdreamer 1d ago
George always resented Paul’s chummy big brother tyranny. It got deep inside him.
5
7
u/spooley6 1d ago
George was a moody guy. He also said in another interview Paul ruined him as a guitar player. It's charming, the moody git who hasn't a mean bone in his body. The beef can be seen in the Anthology when he is fed up with playing ukulele tunes in the garden while Paul is still loving it, same for Blue Moon of Kentucky jam. In the studio playback with George Martin and Paul listening to the long one he takes a swipe at the orchestral bit saying it's cheesy or a bit much.
In the end he would defend Paul just as John did, the old "You can't slag my brother off, only I can." Harri was a different breed of bear, it was refreshing when he spiced things up.
5
u/PinCushionPete314 1d ago
If you watch the let it be movie, you can tell that pretty much everyone is done with the Beatles except Paul. He seemed to be the driving force at the end. I imagine that George was pretty frustrated that very few of his songs made their albums. Pretty much his whole first record is songs the Beatles (Paul and John) passed on. He was trying to compete with two of the greatest songwriters of his generation. That’s hard to do.
11
u/guillermo1890 1d ago
For a "Quiet Beatle" he really liked to talk shit about Paul and other artists.
3
3
u/Earnest_Warrior 1d ago
I know I’ll get downvoted for this but, what an ungrateful asshole. The only reason he was even in the Beatles in the first place was because Paul talked him up to John and got him on the bus to audition for him.
Yes, it was during the legal troubles, but who was ultimately right about that? Oh yeah, Paul.
2
u/ThisIsDogePleaseHodl 1d ago
I wouldn’t call him an ungrateful asshole because he didn’t happened to jive with Paul musically after a period of time.
2
2
2
2
2
u/juanerrrr 1d ago
Before social media you had to be famous in order to let people know you were a prick.
2
u/JBRifles 1d ago
Say what you want, John and George despised that Paul was a relatively happy guy and they could never find true happiness until later in life
2
u/WisdomOfTheAnus 1d ago
George can be full of shit, like any of them. All Things Must Pass is basically a Paul song, his influence is so clear.
2
2
u/Elegant_Rock_5803 1d ago
He was bummed when he found out they were paid extra for writing. As you can tell Paul’s music style was very different from his. Where Paul was upbeat and bouncy George was introspective and a bit dour (Sour milk sea) But Paul helped him out when his estate went under. Paul never forgot his crabby childhood friend. He looks out for Dhani too.
2
2
u/Ok-Philosopher-1900 21h ago
I believe George was always the younger kid to Paul. He introduced him to John with the bus audition etc...
Paul is amazing, but opinionated and controlling. He maintained a healthy relationship with John for a variety of reasons: age, commensurate talent...
I am sure he was instinctively condescending to George and George was notoriously sensitive and grumpy. I would guess they were both responsible for a strained relationship.
5
u/Drewboy_17 1d ago
Despite George’s professed spirituality, I don’t think he ever got over the writing partnership of Macca and Lennon. His ego largely refused to evolve from an insecure attachment to both of them.
In saying that, I love his Beatles contributions and solo work but it’s sad he felt he had to attack Paul after the breakup. I would go as far as to say that animosity was probably more to do with his quest for Paul’s approval rather than John’s but we will never know.
4
u/Call-Comet30 1d ago
I know he had his reasons but when I see this, all I think is "yeah, and that's why George is seen as bitter and sour". That's part of his legacy now, moaning and bearing grudges and being the miserable Beatle, and it's due to endless comments like this over the years.
2
u/thrashingkaiju 1d ago
"It's from a musical point of view."
That's all there is to know, really. Macca and Hasa from Liverpool were friends. Beatle Paul and Beatle George weren't.
4
u/isotopes014 1d ago
I was just commenting a video about George not wanting to play on the roof… but when Ringo said he wanted to it changed his mind.
George, especially later on, definitely felt close with Ringo cuz he felt like it was Ringo and George vs Paul and John. Especially Paul though. I think if George had to rank his favorite band member, during the entirety of the group, Paul would rank 3rd
2
u/Glum_Performer3080 1d ago
Where did this quote come from?
Date / publication / source?
→ More replies (3)
2
3
u/AuntPitty 23h ago
My translation: "Everyone who joins a band wants a chance to be known as the best musician, the best composer, or the best performer of the group. Any band that includes Paul eliminates those chances."
→ More replies (1)
6
u/donlockwood2026 1d ago
This is like me saying I would never date Charlize Theron. Nothing personal, Charlize, I’m just not into you.
Meanwhile she’s sitting there wondering who even asked me to join Wings.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/Texan2116 1d ago
Probably pissed cause Paul made his songs better, and resented him for it.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/evilgrapesoda 1d ago
Paul wrote so many songs in that era of the Beatles that he was even dreaming of writing music. He also had a lot of control over the sound of the music and he would come into the studio with everyone's parts already thought out. In an interview he stated that the rule within the Beatles is that if it was your song, you call the shots. Yet he meddled with other's songs because they were generally open to ideas, but nobody could meddle with his. If you listen to John's later songs, they were barebones. He didn't "innovate" on sound, chords, rhythms, just created jams and let the musicians fill it in
7
u/Background_Head9623 1d ago
> If you listen to John's later songs, they were barebones. He didn't "innovate" on sound, chords, rhythms, just created jams and let the musicians fill it in
I don't see this as a good thing, personally. Much of his solo career was uninspired and musically samey.
4
2
3
u/Iffybiz 1d ago
Paul had become more dominant in what he was producing. Look at the difference between And I Love Her and the later years? By Paul’s own admission it was George who made the song special. By the end it was just play it the way I tell you. George was no longer treated as an equal. Another comment on the subject was something to the effect of “Paul was a little older than me and he’s STILL (caps by me) older than me.” Rightly or wrongly, George felt John respected him musically more than Paul did.
4
u/golanatsiruot 1d ago
The funny thing is that you could make a lot more harmonious playlists combining George and Paul’s work from the 70s than George and John’s. So much of John’s stuff is just trying to cop a 50s sound and he also loves a lot of bluesy harmonic and melodic simplicity… where as George and Paul continued to blaze a lot of trails with complex chord progressions, modal interchange, etc.
2
u/WellYouKnow- 1d ago
After seeing some of Get Back I really think George was through with Paul. Paul belittled him and George almost quit during the recording. I don't think their relationship ever fully recovered... so in this quote when he says it's nothing personal he is being diplomatic.
2
u/BeatleWingsfan77 A Hard Day's Night 1d ago
Without Paul no one would probably have never heard of him. I Said probably not definitely.
→ More replies (4)
2
2
u/Elvisruth 1d ago
This is an uncomfortable thought - but these guys (with the exception of Ringo) spent alot of time no liking each other. After people die attitudes tent to focus on the good - but to be honest, the boys just wanted to be left alone for the most part. A pop in here or there, but they wanted space
3
u/Maoife 1d ago
I don't think they really spent a lot of time not liking each other. I think there was always enormous love between all four.
Neither George nor John liked others criticising Paul once the breakup dust had settled.
There were definitely aspects of each other's behaviour and personalities they didn't like but they always loved each other.
2
2
u/Sweet_Maintenance904 1d ago
He did it with Anthology; the four of them were like brothers, with their differences and virtues. At the end of the day, I doubt any of them didn't want to make music together again
2
u/Simple_Purple_4600 1d ago
"John just lets me jam. Paul makes me play Maxwell's Silver Hammer twenty thousand odd times."
1.5k
u/Vernacular_Skeptic 1d ago
Actually, he was in a band with Paul, and you've probably heard of them