+Nico Val Aah thanks for that, it's appreciated. I've even seen the interview before, but i don't remember that bit. I know their friendship has been strained over the years, and I read recently that he used to think of that phrase from Frankie Crisp, when things would be difficult: "scan not a friend with a microscopic glass - you know his faults, let the foibles pass". Which has been a great help to me too, on occasion.
+Nico Val Is I just my imagination, or did Ringo acting really strange for most of this clip?... constantly butting in whenever George said something - with bizarre, nonsensical comments,?
Harrison was never an alcoholic. Him and Paul fell out with each other for quite a few years which is why Paul never showed up to the Hall Of Fame induction.
@@ryanblob3105 Not really, the only album George put out that flopped completely was Gone Troppo. Even Somewhere in England has its monents. The rest of them are great, ATMP and LITMW are among the best albums ever made. As is John Lennon's Plastic Ono Band and Imagine. Paul never really put out a "solid" album, he did killer singles such as My Love and Band on the Run etc etc. But never a top tier album. Not that that matters much anyway, I'm glad Paul's still making music, he's at his best when he's making easily digestible pop
@@slothfromthegoonies8201 put a normal,a bit virtuous and soulless solo on it doesn't mean to write a song. Taxman is an absolutely Harrison song at all
I think what hurt George is never feeling he got validation from Paul. Which is something that DID mean a lot to him. Paul was the first great influence in his life outside of his parents, the one who brought him into the Beatles, and basically his big brother. George was never particularly close with John. So when it came down to George finally being ready for his breakthrough, he felt he really NEEDED Paul's support and blessing. The guy who championed him to John and the others the first time around. When it became clear that it wasn't going to happen in the way George imagined, thats really where the rift began. Its not that George needed Paul to convince him that he was good. He already knew the stuff he was making whats good. It just hurts when you feel like your closest confidante essentially doesn't give a shit. I think a "wow George, you are really coming into form. This is great." from Paul would have went a long way.
Not in the first interview, he wasn't. He totally omitted that he and Ringo had sued Paul (for some business matters) just two day before the introduction party, ripping wide open old wounds. The reason Paul didn't show up was hurt feelings, not some obscure motives George is hinting at. And if you watch Ringo's and Georges acceptance speeches, they appeared both rather shaken and not at all having a good time. Honestly, I think George and Paul, along with all their lovable character traits, shared a not so admirable one: not to be able to ever admitting to a mistake.
It always mystifies me when someone says; 'I'm not a huge Beatles fan.' Even if those people had never heard a single Beatles song - or heard a few and then didn't like them, you'd think they'd at least respect the Beatles for having inspired millions of other musicians who have followed. They changed the direction of music and who knows where the world of music would have progressed to (or regressed). I grew up with the Beatles - what precious memories. And what a bold statement they made, asking for peace and love in a world that was (and still is) consumed with greed, hatred and rage. I pray that peace wins.
Exactly. That's one of the great things about Paul, other than Ringo, you never really heard Paul bad mouthing the way you would hear Harrison 'and' Lennon.
Indeed that's true. Paul really had some moral depth. At least with John though, as immature as he could be at times, he had enough moral courage to later say he was wrong in what he'd said. He could say some really nice things about Paul's songs and about Paul. George often wasn't so generous.
I hate these people saying that George and Paul hated each other. They were pretty much the closest Beatles out of the four. Paul made sure a lot of George's songs were recorded while John didn't even show up for a lot of them. Just listen to the bass on "Something," simply amazing! The piano on "My Guitar Gently Weeps" was awesome as well, yet John isn't considered the one who had the least interest in the other Beatles songs? The reason that George seems to hate Paul is because of petty musical disagreements or George being a bit hard on Paul. They were brothers! They loved each other, and I will not let anyone tarnish their connection, many relatives, friends, and even George's widower said that they were close, Paul gave George a nice place to die in peace after all! Yes Paul and George had arguments here and there but does that mean they hated each other? That's complete and utter bullshit.
+Too Many Lives "They were pretty much the closest Beatles out of the four." It's probably fair to say that e.g. George-Ringo and John-Paul were closer friendships than Paul-George. For years George resented Paul's bossiness (and frankly probably also resented that generally speaking Paul was a better singer than he was, better songwriter than he was, and better musician than he was). "Paul made sure a lot of George's songs were recorded while John didn't even show up for a lot of them." Roughly speaking, that's true, but that's because Paul was a team player for the Beatles and John wasn't as much, not because Paul and George were terribly close. Paul gave his all to "The Ballad Of John And Yoko" not because he loved the song necessarily but because that's what Paul habitually did for the Beatles.
+Joseph Scott your right Paul McCartney was very bossy in the studio. When they had a new song or single to record he would go around and tell everyone to do this and do that, where as John or George would just show the others the song and then start playing and what ever sounded good they would keep
+John Paul Zuni That's a little simplistic, JPZ... but it's true that Paul DID know what he wanted his songs to sound like more than John or George did. Paul was the natural musical arranger in the group. Good thing, too. Ringo has said that without McCartney directing them, nothing would get done.
+Joseph Scott John made the decision to put out the song as a Beatles single. Paul had nothing to do with the decision nor could he have stopped it from happening.
Despite George's criticism or anyone else's for that matter, time and truth walk hand and hand and Paul has continually landed on his feet and proved himself one of the greatest composers of the 20th century. This was more than 20 years ago, and although "Broadstreet" may have looked like a failure at the time, most people would kill to have written ONE successful pop song such as "No More Lonely Nights", let alone the unequivocal catalogue of McCartney tunes.
Patagualian Mostly Usually people sit like that in the comfort of their own home or relaxed settings such as at a friends house but this was a interview. He even put on a button shirt and an 80's jacket for the interview suggesting he knows that it isn't a kickback hangout.
The Beatles were a force, a game changer. Together, they changed the music industry. In the end though, Paul, whether some feel he was the dominant writer/player or not, was the work horse. It got to the point where he'd be at the studio to work and the others may not get there til 3 hrs after the agreed time. Paul didn't waste that time. He'd record drum parts, bass parts, guitar parts, vox and key parts. I can only imagine they got their knickers in a wad over that, but screw 'em. Paul's time had value too. He showed up to work... and WORKED, then he went about his own personal time. If they didn't like it then they should've gotten their butts to the studio. John was deep with a sometimes whimsical/artistic sense. Paul was whimsical and romantic who had depth as well. If John said, "Yesterday is the only good song you wrote" then he's full crap (I bet he knew it when he said it too) and a statement like that could only come from a place of envy at the time. Paul has written MANY timeless masterpieces that will be remembered and studied for millenia to come. John also said, "I couldn't keep up with his song writing." There are two reasons Paul had such a prolific career post Beatles; he's a songwriter and composer that connects with people and he has a great work ethic. He has great ideas. He writes and records them. He gets them into the hands and ears of people.
And, as you suggested, he has an enormous amount of energy to match his enormous amount of ambition. You're absolutely correct about his role in the band. Paul has certainly always had an enormous ego (and why not? he's effing Paul McCartney), but certainly no bigger than Lennon's, for gosh sakes. Paul's ego only became a problem in the group when Lennon lost interest and George started to. Paul became "bossy" in their eyes because he was trying to keep things on track and moving forward. As it began to slip away, he became truly bossy, and it spiraled down from there. But Paul can at least say he showed up, and showed up straight enough to work.
Paul is amazing but let’s not act like he’s a Genius like John Lennon. I’ll give Paul the workhorse part and the technical musical ability part. Lennon was the true ingenious artist of the Beatles. He was the best writer and the best singer. Paul and George (and Ringo) were all amazing as well
Andres. John and Paul were genius. PAUL had more abilities in music and John in lyrics but there were complementary. Read George martin or Geoff Emerick who told that paul was the one who have the most abilities in music Read the books about the Beatles. In the 70 everybody told John was the genius but now with the different biographies of the people who were in the studios with the Beatles we can change our mind and accepted the great work paul accomplished in the band. ringo said : « we can thank paul if the Beatles had so many songs and producted all these albums , Paul was the workaholic « Without Paul maybe revolver would have been the last album.
Liliane Lucas saying Paul had more ability musically than John is not entirely true. I think John was a better songwriter; besides having something more to say lyrically he also composed more inventive, original chords/chord sequences than Paul in both guitar and piano. However, Paul composed great melodies more consistently. Paul was technically superior as a musician, but Paul didn’t come up with guitar riffs like John did. Paul is my favorite bass player of all time. I think Bass, melody and harmonizing were his three greatest gifts, even more so than songwriting. But I still think John is the genius artist of the Beatles. He’s the one who did the truly experimental songs that still sound ahead of their time today. You listen to “Yesterday”, “Hey Jude”, “Let it Be” and many others and they sound of their era. Not so with John’s “Tomorrow Never Knows”, “Strawberry Fields”, “I am the Walrus”, etc... John was so much more ahead of his time than ANYBODY. Still, that doesn’t take anything away from Macca. He was a musical genius as well
You know, you seldom heard Paul or Ringo say anything disparaging about George or John. They may have been thinking some unkind thoughts, but at least they were gracious enough not to say it, or at least not much. But George and John seemed to take every opportunity to rip into each other and Paul. Ringo always seemed to be left out of their squabbles, probably because he didn't write, so there was no jealousy toward him.
@@rabibengali5811 Yeah if you push and push, it will eventually break. I guess Paul was tired of being the nice guy and pushed back. Lennon was very capable of hawking venom in every direction (1970 Rolling Stone interview) and it hurt Paul.
Also I think the criticisms written in ‘Too many People’ compared with the venom in ‘How do you sleep’ is a good example of Paul’s restraint. Love all The Beatles of course! They were brothers, and brothers squabble.
Uhm not really, Paul started it by making a dig at John & Paul never went to rock and roll hall of fame. George and John are HONEST - they’re sincere, Paul not so much
That's because Paul was the instigator of the majority of the rows. He started quarrels with John, George and Ringo. In fact, he caused each to quit the band at least once. But John got fed up and quit permanently.
I have a very good friend that used to see the Beatles play in The Cavern during regular lunchtime gigs and I always remember him saying that George's guitar playing was quite poor to start with. But they improved and gelled together from playing so much. The Beatles knew they were different and were going to be huge and that is why they could get away with releasing 20 cover songs on their first 5 albums. John, Paul and George just ended up with musical differences so it made sense to go their own way - make sure you have listened to John's/Plastic Ono Band first album - I cannot stop playing Well, Well, Well and Working Class Hero on a loop
It always makes me sad when I listen to George bad mouthing paul. It is easy to understand why he felt this way. Paul probably did underestimate him and treat him like a junior Beatle. But man, life is so short. George is gone. It would have been wonderful to see more of him, ringo and paul just hanging out and enjoying each other's company. /Just fan talk. What do I really know about any of them irl? Not a thing. :/
Yes, it comes across as bitter. I mean he was still angry about events that were decades before. One of the things I liked about Paul is he never badmouthed any of the others. Even when John publicly attacked him in the early 70s. And he always tried to make it up. Anyway, at least George never blanked out Paul, and allowed him to visit him on his deathbed. There was still some friendship there.
after 30 years of being his friend, he finally asked to write with him... so sad how they never co-wrote with George on the Beatles stuff, but I guess it's just the way things were at the time, and if the result was the great songs George wrote on his own, I guess it was actually kind of cool.
+Kenji Kitahara They did write 'In Spite of All the Danger' together but that was before they ever got a recording contract. A rough demo of the song appears on Anthology 1.
This wasn't the point George was making, he was stating that since they had been in a band together Paul had never suggested writing a song with George. Paul only wrote with Lennon, and after he finished writing with Lennon he wrote by himself. But up until that point he had never suggested to George about writing a song.
I checked the information Eleanor Rigby was written primarily by Paul Mac Cartney and Ringo also said that 90/ of the lyrics were Paul's as well as the music and the haunting voice give him the credits he deserves for this beatiful song He was as able as John to write dark songs Listen to She's Leaving Home: it was Paul's inspiration !
I think you are right - but I can understand how this could have happened. Lennon/McCartney's shadow kept most, including their bandmates in dim light. George probably came into his own and improved because of their greatness as composers. You become what you hang around.
George played on 'How do you sleep?' by Lennon though. I realise it was a response to McCartney's 'Too many people' in which he was critical of John and Yoko, but the lyrics to 'TMP' weren't really ugly. They weren't eviscerating in tone. Lennon's response with 'Sleep' was nasty and utterly disproportionate. In the outakes you hear Lennon sing "ya c**t". Why would Paul want George to write with him after that public humiliation? Because Lennon had two more Beatles (George and Ringo) play on 'Sleep' it gave the song a kind of 'blessing' in terms of Beatles fans or the media - which made its sentiments more potent and damaging. I like George and he's written some fantastic songs, but it's a bit disingenuous of him to outwardly wonder why Paul passed on the idea of working with him.
+aerialkate Very insightful comment. Thank you. I have not accessed this level of information and did not realize all of this. What sources did you get this information from? I think George may have seen himself as getting on with everyone and didn't get that Paul was internally experiencing shunning by George and Ringo's collaboration with John. I am sure did not intend that and likely just wanted to create like the old days. Although I am sure John was well aware and there was likely a manipulative element to it all. There always seems to be a power struggle in a band and it usually gets nasty. Women always get in the way. Paul didn't mind Linda M being involved in everything but he could not handle Yoko. Very disrespectful.
+50hellkat2 I have seen this outake video, and John really slams Paul. Yes... he does call Paul a cunt. After Epstein died, Paul pulled the band back together and they continued recording great music. I think John especially hated this, as Paul was now the groups leader. I'm sure it drove a wedge between them. Also, their songwriting styles differed more and more by the late 60s. So Paul, in their eyes, became the bossy and temperamental overseer of the band. The truth is... that John really had a bad temper, and Paul was more easy going. But the others didn't like being told where to stand by Paul. And, he was shunned for it after the breakup. By the way, I've never seen a video of Linda in the studio while they recorded. However...I have seen several videos of Yoko in the studio again and again.
50hellkat2 I disagree with the "women get in the way" comment. Yoko was undoubtedly irritating and was probably on the make. She was ambitious as an artist. However I don't doubt that she genuinely loved John. They were very similar avant garde type artists. Clearly John was the major talent. But the point is they were so similar in terms of their world view. Like her or not, John always said they were soulmates. I've written this before, but everything we know about Lennon _screamed_ that he was his own man. Nobody dominated him. He was a man out of time and an independent thinker. Re Linda: all that "we never spent a night apart" bit we were always reading - I wonder if that wasn't because she knew Paul would stray on the road? Paul was into touring and John wasn't. And Paul did cheat on Jane Asher quite a bit and Linda learned from her experience. I don't think Linda was really ambitious musically. I think she knew what went on on the road and kept a close eye on her husband! Before Paul left, John had announced privately he was going to leave. But George had left before that (and had been persuaded to come back.) Even Ringo had walked out at one point. It was Epstein's death which created a power vacuum which Paul was happy to fill. To be fair to him - he had the work ethic and was probably qualified to do the job. He was dead right about Alan Klein for example. I think he was a bit too blunt in the studio for someone like George who was a sensitive soul. "He ruined me as a guitar player" (he once said of Paul.) So for me, the domineering nature of Paul was probably well intentioned, but pissed off the other band members no end. Lennon had spoken about the treadmill of being a 'Fab'. The tedious meet and greets with the daughters of Mayors, the tour / album / tour treadmill and what he saw as Paul's domination of recording sessions. Paul also wanted to tour and John didn't. In every interview recorded in the late 60s early 70s you can hear how "over" with it Lennon was by then. Even Paul (not Yoko's biggest fan) has said numerous times "Yoko didn't split up the Beatles". As much as I love the band, I'm glad they split up when they did. All things have to end and genius has a shelf life. For me it's better that they split when they did, rather than go on and make mediocre Beatles albums. Wouldn't that have been _awful?_
+aerialkate I did read a book on John Lennon written by an author with the last name of Seaman. Thought it was good. He hung out with John as an assistant if my memory was correct. I got the impression that Yoko and John had a complicated relationship. They both kind of had a blind eye to each other's transgressions. Both had addiction issues and the consequences of that. John depended on Yoko to manage everything and he took on a parenting role with their child. I think that John Lennon brought Yoko into recording studio with the Beatles to stick it to Paul McCartney because he knew Paul didn't like it. Paul felt that Yoko was too much of an obstacle for Paul to get around and that was an insult to John. Also John put up with Paul and Linda McCartney for years.
+aerialkate John Lennon was insulted that Paul McCartney as giving the impression that John was weak enough to be manipulated by Yoko. Which is an insult to John particularly coming from Paul McCartney.
He was not "right there" when stacked up against the other two. And it's obvious Harrison is bitter against McCartney in this video. Just by the way he downplays everything McCartney did, And of course, the, "he ran out of good ones of his own" is pretty clear about that because Paul never ran out of good ones. Lennon himself talked about how George used to 'whine' about not getting more songs included. But George just couldn't write a lot of good songs in the early days. Simple fact!
I've met Paul , he is very humble and he kept the Beatles together when Epstein died ; George wasn't a victim; otherwise he would have left. People badmouthing Paul should read serious books on the Beatles
romans52345 Robert Johnson was never a bloke he was a home boy. I went with him to the chicken shack and I had to pay (when I say pay I mean I had to steal chickens for both of us)
We always want our favorite people to get along but life's never that kind.Fighting over who was better or who was right or wrong is just a waste of time especially since two of them are now gone and there's nothing we can do about it! What we can do, however, is cherish the wonderful moments they had together and thank them for all they left us with....their music, their songs, their jokes and everything else. RIP George and John!
You do realize this was before the Anthology project, wounds were healed and George passed??? Some of you seem to think this is breaking news. Saw Paul i Seattle last night.. His tributes to both John and George were quite heartfelt and touching. Stop rehashing the negative shit.. Best music ever recorded by the Fab4, period.
Yeah, this was like the post "Cloud 9" late 80s/early 90s era. And anyhow, it's easy to misinterpreted what is likely just "sibling rivalry" type stuff and light ribbing for some dark feud. They certainly cared about each other throughout, but there's no doubt they had very different personalities, which clashed at times.
The Beatles are great - no doubt. It is sad though for all of the "Let It Be," "Give Peace a Chance," "Hey Jude," meetings with the Maharishi, even the Beatles could not "Give Peace A Chane," nor "Let It Be." They could not get along which is sad.
Some of my favorite Beatle songs were written by George. The versatile styles and sounds that came from the Beatles in every new album was one of the main reasons that I bought them. It was brilliant!
What pissed Harrison off was that on the later records he had proved he was a match for Lennon and McCartney but they still didn't really treat him as such. On the later records he was sometimes writing the standout tracks on the albums. George Martin also admitted he undervalued Harrison's contribution. You can understand his frustration years of being told his songs and guitar playing were not good enough would take their toll. We all reflect on our past as we get older.
Regardless how others might feel concerning the Beatles, and certain ones who feel they were used particularly by the enemy of souls, whenever I think about the Beatles, and what was called the "British Invasion" of their music into North America, there still remains within me, a joy that speaks of the freedom that loved music can have on the lives of people everywhere. The Beatles so far as music is concerned, are the very best, and I shall remember them with fondness, wishing them the best.
I miss George !! You are with Jesus now ! I know in my heart ! You and John are entertaining the Lord everyday!! So sad that you are gone on this Earth !!
Don’t think that’s fair to say. Although Paul is a genius, all four of the them plus Martin is what made the genius of the Beatles. They were all great in extremely different ways. You can’t tell me Paul could’ve written even 50% of Sgt. Peppers on his own.
My grandmother was born in 1926. She said even as a child, she remembered people calling them "cancer sticks." The knowledge that cigarettes are harmful is no new phenomenon.
George was my favorite. When he died in California in 2000 , I was surprised since I always thought that he died in England. However, his obituary says California.
Everyone on comment section saying "aww they were like brothherss" who are you trying to convince that? Clearly yourself! They had been through too much together and I am glad that they finally reconciled in the end... But from George's interviews (not particularly from these clips) it's pretty clear they had some deeper issues and didn't speak much for at least 2 decades after Beatles broke up. That's an awful lot of time for brothers to become estranged to be honest
To me, George was, and still is, a vastly underrated singer, guitarist and songwriter. All his songs with the Beatles were really great. However, he happened to be in a band with the two greatest pop songwriters ever , so it must have been very tough to get his songs on their albums, but as the the years passed his tracks became better and better until Abbey Road where his songs were the equal of Lennon n McCartney. I am sure he was learning the songwriting art just being in the company of these two.
I’ve always been a big fan of both of them, I feel as if Paul was the “black sheep” of the group when they broke up, I hear that he didn’t care for George’s songs but then I hear that it was John who didn’t care, I honestly think Paul McCartney is the greatest musician of all time, most of my favorite songs are written and played by him, and I love all of George’s songs too, it’s just a shame I wish there was less bickering between them after they broke up I would’ve loved to see some cooperation with music
I listened to the Beatles since I can remember.they were the ones that changed music forever! Let all the ones that have passed Rest In Peace already and let go of the past.shiit more than half of us in this mothafucka weren't even born yet and we talking about old shiit...fucking be grateful that they got together and did what they did....friendship and business doesn't always mix well
Mornyork Ltd was established in Sept '64. It was changed to Harrisongs Ltd. in Dec. The very same one he used in 1968 when his Northern Songs contract expired (1965 - 1968). And it's odd Mornyork surfaces right after the sale of Lennon & McCartney's catalogue. Including his "Don't Bother Me" along with it. He has a publishing company where he owns full copyright over its contents, and 80% of its earning potential. So why did he wait?
I'm sorry, but George comes off as being pissed and picky. It was Paul, lest he forgot, who introduced him to John to join the band. It was Paul who believed in his abilities. I see more than traces of anger and envy. I see George as not a very happy person, over all.
You are reading it wrong! George also had songwriting abilities but Lennon & Mccartney were on a roll and George never got a look in - but now that Lennon is gone suddenly Paul approaches George so I can understand why George felt that way but he ended by saying it could have been quite interesting. Paul is an opportunist - I will leave you to work that one out!
Babs Baroque There's a lot of Beatle behind the scenes business that didn't get brought out even by John. Paul brought on bad will by his sneaky business practices and buying up more shares of Beatle music then John was told about etc...This was a violation of their verbal agreement. Paul is also infamous for his cheapness in paying his band etc...original wings anyway.
I wouldn't worry about it, Paul and George were at great peace with each other just before George passed and I certainly wouldn't say he even seems that bitter here, just George being George! RIP George, one of the best.
He flew off the moped at 30MPH. No broken fingers? Clavicle? Collarbone? Legs? Just a chipped tooth, split lip, and an abrasion to the eye? Completely landing on his face to stop his 30MPH momentum, and slightly increase that speed as he comes off using the force of the momentum itself, and the extra speed coming off this object going into dead stop. It works like a catapult. Momentum 30MPH, plus energy throwing object through air. In all honesty, that he didn't die in this accident is amazing.
"I wasn't aware that the songs were newer versions"...I see that Lennon wasn't the only Beatle with a stinging wit. George is also the one who answered the American guys question of "when do you plan to get a haircut? " with "I just got one yesterday." 😆
George knew Paul longer and better than anyone. They had been friends years before meeting John in 1957. Anything he said about Paul in interviews was undoubtedly spot on.
guaranteed, if they could all play together again they would have a blast. After all, they are the best ever by a large margin. People forget how great they were together, look what they accomplished in their own careers to boot.
I am glad George later got over his bitterness. He was too good for that. John had said he would never forgive George for being so mean to Yoko. Paul brought George into the Beatles. George later was an often visitor to Paul's home. George was at Paul's LA place when he did. Paul talked about visiting him and rubbing his arm. I just wish George and John would have made up.
I miss George, his candor and his honesty. He and Ringo have the best perspective on who and what the Beatles were. Paul always appeared to have an agenda to elevate himself as the prime inspiration behind the Beatles when in fact creativity relies so much on your interactions with others and your environment. George unabashedly speaks the truth about Paul giving incite into Paul's ego. George, John and Ringo were equally instrumental in creating the Beatles as a group of four lads from the hardscrabble city of Liverpool who worked ahead years before fame to hone their craft. With Paul, there is no doubt about his musical genius. But, without the other three post-Beatles he just wasn't quite as good. It's just true. Again, I miss George.
I disagree. I don't think Paul McCartney has to work to elevate himself to anything. He is Sir Paul McCartney. He DID keep that band on task. And lets not forget that Wings was a very successful band as well, and he was most assuredly the spearhead of that band. But yes, it was the combination of all 4 of those men at that precise moment in history. It was magic. I will never see this again in my lifetime, that is for sure.
No, I disagree with you Patrick. George was the understated (although covertly critical and angry), moody guy. Paul isn't. It's the clash of personalities, really. Paul is a natural show man, from the time he was a little kid. And damn, man, Paul doesn't have to prove himself to anyone. Let the legacy of his music speak for him.
Hello Patrick, a man after my own heart. You are absolutely right in everything you say - Paul is and always was an opportunist and I think a very selfish individual. George and Ringo were far more humble and less egocentric!!
Babs Baroque Not much of a legacy after the beatles ended. Their success was based on the unit of four - Paul and John bounced off each other - when they split Paul's stuff comes across as very shallow - John was by far the deepest thinker of the two and wrote far more heartfelt music 'Imagine' being just one of them
People *SHOULD* google the truthcontest. Think about it. Truth of life. New perspective of Beatles songs. *George would LOVE it.* He´s the obviously deep one. But you´ll see ALL the other are too.
marco calarco well, marco, I disagree. it was george's opinion, and as I said, after the split up, Paul was construed as the "shallow" one, and George, the spiritually evolved one. George certainly proved himself to be a formidable writer and musician. but he still comes off as angry -- and I think he died like that. now, that's a "Pity", imo. Just saying.
Babs Baroque George was more truthful than Paul. Paul was always careful to preserve the Beatles happy go lucky mop top mythology so sensitive fans (like you?) wouldn't get upset or disillusioned. It was hilarious how John shocked Paul with the naked album cover. Priceless.
I get they made amends, but it's sad that from around the white album(68) on, they were never really close friends again. There's so much bitterness between the 4 of them. John and Paul. George and Paul. John and George, somewhat. Even Ringo would throw shades at Paul. I think after Epstein died, and Paul took more of a leadership role, 2 things happened. 1) John got jealous somewhat and was disinterested. Also I think Yoko was a problem. Not for his life, but for the Beatles. When you see John before and after Yoko, he goes from looking great to looking like a total weirdo also. Might be rude to say but it's the truth. 2) George was being underutilized as his song writing skills grew, and he was quietly frustrated It seems from everything I've heard and read, the band didn't really want to continue after Pepper/MMT. Despite the fighting and anger, maybe without Paul we wouldn't have got the white album or abbey road. We'll never know, but it seems Paul was the one who did everything in his power to make sure they kept making music and releasing material.. Even if he made the group play endless sessions for mediocre songs like maxwell's silver hammer. I'd rank the members 1. John- Gave him the slight edge over Paul for versatility and lyrics. 2. Paul- Best musician in the group. Maybe wrote the best melodies of all time. I think he gets underrated as seen as too sappy. He was at times, but he might have been the groups most talented member. Just lacked the edge Lennon had. 3. George- Very good at most things. Just doesn't have the material to challenge Lennon or Mccartney. As a person he might have been better but that's a diff topic. 4. Ringo- His drumming was underrated and fit in perfectly. Nothing else to really say. He was cool as hell.
Paul was/is a giant talent. And they made it as a band. He had the human ego urge to say this really would not have happened if I was not here. He felt he was the driving force and I believe that to be true.
If Paul wasn't in the band the Beatles would have ended many years earlier than they did. I remember hearing that John and Ringo wouldn't have been bothered if it wasn't for Paul's drive to keep the group motivated. Paul somehow still has that inner drive to get out there and perform. World would be a very different place if we all had the PM inner drive!
Marc, are you aware that on the first Beatles album the songs were credited McCartney/Lennon? Paul's restropsective order change were only for a few pure McCartney songs that John had absolutely no part in writing - such as "Yesterday". He wasn't being that much of an egomaniac but it went down badly because of the extent the Beatles are cherished (even worshipped), so he dropped it.
Paul not showing up at the BEATLES hall of fame induction was a shame... He should of showed up, for the BEATLES regardless oh any personal issues he had.
Paul and George wrote a song together in 1958 which they recorded with John. I think it was the first time ever they recorded in the studio. It's called "In Spite of all The Danger." It's on TH-cam. It's pretty good.
The article is about George and his perceptions but this site seems to have turned into a 'bash McCartney' fest. Has anyone noticed how he has supported Ringo? A few years ago, Paul gave Ringo a few songs for his new album. They did a video together. They appear to be very close now - not that Ringo needs any kind of support; he's one of the richest musicians in the world.
Whats funny about this is thst George states how "Paul was running out of good ones of his own" but in 1974 when he toured the States, he did like a 12 song set covering a coupke of tracks including "In My Life", thats very hypocritical
In case you didn't know, John & Paul were very protective of their writing credits (the money!!!) and let George have no more than 2-3 songs of his own once he became a excellent song writer in his own right. Not really very nice was it? George had 85% of "All Things Must Pass" already written by the time of the Beatles break-up.
Yes, but also remember that John and Paul had also written 85% of the songs for their first albums. Paul's first solo album charted in May 70, George in Dec 70, John Jan 71 and these were quickly followed up with another entry for Paul Jun 71 and John Oct 71 - the equivalent of six albums in (probably) under 2 years - productive or what? It will never be matched
They didn't want George's songs on the album because they had their OWN songs they wanted on it. You make it sound like they had nothing better to do than kill George's creativity cause they were jealous or something. There wasn't room for his songs so they got squeezed out. Nothing more to it than that.
02:33 "The idea of trying to write and do everything yourself. That's a mistake." Sorry George but did you listen to Paul's first two solo albums where he wrote, recorded and performed every instrument himself? I personally take affront to that statement because there are some that can and do write and do everything themselves where it is NOT a mistake. I for one, Paul certainly, Les Paul could, as well as Gene Pitney and many others. Love ya like a brother though Georgie!
@@Azoria4: I don't think so. I really liked John´s first two efforts until later it dawned on me that they were all just self-pity sessions and bitching about this or that. (too negative, too angry) Very negative with at least one song bordering on blasphemy. Paul´s first efforts were great as far as Im concerned. But we two arguing about music, (that is almost entirely subjective) would be fruitless, though. You have your opinion and I have mine. (peace).
@@jaelge I don’t think they’re negative, but rather an honest expression of pain which is healing (for me) to both the expressor and listener. It’s a true reflection of life. It’s dualistic, it has pain like Morher or God and then appraisals of beauty like Love and I found Out. Such honesty and diversity I don’t find in McCartney’s solo work - but yeah, you’re right it’s all subjective. Peace
you can tell that george really looked up to john and paul and they let him down cause of their egos they should have included george in some song writing together cause you can tell george is very sore about paul not writing songs with him , that is sad but i bet now paul looking back wishes he spent time helping more with george and working on some of georges stuff to help and show george he cared as a friend
The truth is that George lived his life with a substantial amount of bitterness and anger toward Paul. As the decades have unfolded it has become clear that Paul McCartney and John Lennon carried George along with them. George never accepted that this was the truth.
I'm not a huge Beatles fan, so correct me if I'm wrong. . .but it seems damn near every interview I see of a Beatle they are snipping or criticizing each other. Especially Lennon. . .Am I wrong?
you are kind of wrong. they were real ppl with real feelings... they just said whatever they thought. modern bullshit like PR and celebrity status wasn't part of those days. so people were more real to eachother. they had great times too. you can see them having ton of fun when they were young. and being british... they are a bit more sarcastic towards eachother.
donlga siko I understand that they were just 'real' people like you and me. I get that. It just seemed like they did an unusual amount of sniping at each other, especially Lennon. I watched an interview of him in maybe 73 bitching about the Stones and Jagger, how they always copied the Beatles, blah, blah, blah. . .Then again, maybe you're right. Obviously since they were so famous EVERYTHING they said got recorded, so it just seems this way to me. It's the negative stuff that generally gets the publicity.
They were friends. But they had a very intense time together in the 60s. A hard time with a lot of problems in the end. I mean.. imagine. Beeing together every day... nearly 10 years. two albums a year. Movies. Concerts. Studio work. There is a reason why they broke up. But they were like brothers. Watch the special features on the Beatles Anthology DVD. They were very close. I remember the footage of the Real Love sessions when Paul and George hug each other. Or the service for Linda McCartney. And... I mean... George Harrison died in Paul McCartneys L.A. home. What does that say about a relationship? And around 1980 a Beatles reunion was as close as never before.
It was all a game they played with fans and with media. They figured that it was all people wanted to hear - them criticizing and sniping at each other so that's what they did. But, when all was said and done, none of it really mattered to any of them.
And when you realise that a video shoot that incorporates the same lighting, same person, same filming conditions, cannot account for a person's earlobes to become attached or detached depending on which "person" you're looking at, that's when it gets "crazy". So you start going back. Has this happened before? YES. You can find this attached/detached "condition" throughout his entire career. At this point I want to say ITS entire career.
2:47 George says that Paul had suggested that they should write together, and George says something like, it has only been 30 years sarcastically, mnnnnn..wonder about that
@AJ Are you serious ?? Paul wrote Yesterday , Let It Be , Hey Jude, She's Leaving Home , Here There Everywhere , For No One .... and lot of other masterpiece's , Paul made one of the unique album of all time , he is the most successful member of The Beatles , his song ' Mull Of Kintyre ' became the UK's best-selling single of all-time. Come on !
Was he? Look at his solo career. You'll see that George was much more successful. "All things must pass" was way better than "McCartney" and that's just a fact. Plus Something, Here comes the sun, and While my guitar gently weeps. And those songs he did mostly himself because Paul didn't give a shit about George's contributions. If it wasn't for Eric Clapton then "While my guitar gently weeps" wouldn't exist the way it does today. So honestly George was just as talented as Paul. Paul just didn't see it and a lot of people don't even see it long after his death which is sad.
ATMP, most of which was written when George was still a Beatle, needed a great deal of assistance from many other musicians for its final format. George didn't do much after that, despite what his die hard fans think. Not all of Paul's solo stuff was great either, but much of it has since had more positive reapraissal than either John or George's work. Something is not the Beatles best song, although some will believe anything that Frank Sinatra says.
John was the voice of the Beatles and they were really his vehicle. Paul can hardly formulate anything to say in the interviews, whereas they all shut up when John was ready to speak (even when he got too honest and got in trouble.) Lennon had the vision and the dream wasn't over until he said so.
Nonsense, Paul was the spokesman; watch their press conferences and he also had a vision: The Magical Mystery Tour and Sgt.Pepper were his ideas. The Beatles would have split after Epstein"s death but Paul gave them a purpose with The Magical Mystery Tour. He kept them going.
While Epstein lived, John was the designated 'band leader'. That's never been disputed. Epstein took John on holiday, while the others stayed home. Paul did have great input throughout. Much of the best work was collegiate. Everyone played a part. (except Ringo!) But Pauls problem was that he believed his own hype. He thought these awful songs were worth keeping because..... he'd written them! He did good work and Awful stuff. He began to believe he was The Man. The others disagreed.
When Epstein died Paul was the leader; he gave them a purpose with the Magical Mystery Tour otherwise they would have split. No Magical Mystery Tour; no Sgt. Pepper; no Meddley and a lot of ( if not the majority ) of their biggest hits...
Yep. John was always the leader and that's why shortly after Paul took over the band split up! The Beatles split up when John decided he didn't want to be a Beatle anymore.
Bounoua Evelyne Paul's entire solo career, from a non-commercial standpoint, pales in comparison to John's Imagine, Working Class Hero, Instant karma, Nobody Told Me, Watching the Wheels, Beautiful Boy, Isolation, and on and on. Lyrics wise, Paul is not even in the same league as John. The Beatles will always be John Lennon's band. I'm also sick and tired of Paul taking credit for "co-writing" Help and In My Life, when in fact all he did was maybe contribute a word or two to these two songs.
A judge has ruled that the uninsured driver who knocked down a four-year-old boy in a residential street, causing serious brain damage to the victim, was driving too fast. A liability trial held at the High Court heard how the driver’s car hit the child with such force that he was thrown several feet through the air, resulting in a complex pelvic fracture and contusions of the lungs as well as severe brain injuries. -- this was about at 25 - 30MPH. In a car.
"Paul's my mate, and that's all there is to it."
-George Harrison
When did he say that? I usually know all the quotes.
+Nico Val Aah thanks for that, it's appreciated. I've even seen the interview before, but i don't remember that bit. I know their friendship has been strained over the years, and I read recently that he used to think of that phrase from Frankie Crisp, when things would be difficult: "scan not a friend with a microscopic glass - you know his faults, let the foibles pass". Which has been a great help to me too, on occasion.
+Nico Val Is I just my imagination, or did Ringo acting really strange for most of this clip?... constantly butting in whenever George said something - with bizarre, nonsensical comments,?
He may have been drunk, don't know if he was still an alcoholic then
Harrison was never an alcoholic. Him and Paul fell out with each other for quite a few years which is why Paul never showed up to the Hall Of Fame induction.
They were brothers who fought. How unusual. They loved, and argued with, each other. They just sometimes did both publicly.
How often did Paul criticise George's music? Seem's a bit of a low blow, very undignified.
@@ryanblob3105 he couldn't
@@louiseanders535, easily done, George put out plenty of tripe, all of them did at some point.
@@ryanblob3105 Not really, the only album George put out that flopped completely was Gone Troppo. Even Somewhere in England has its monents. The rest of them are great, ATMP and LITMW are among the best albums ever made. As is John Lennon's Plastic Ono Band and Imagine. Paul never really put out a "solid" album, he did killer singles such as My Love and Band on the Run etc etc. But never a top tier album. Not that that matters much anyway, I'm glad Paul's still making music, he's at his best when he's making easily digestible pop
I don't know much but these remarks from George were pretty shaddyyy
I think George was a gentleman, and he seems down to earth and honest.
+Noelle Jordan i agree, just a cool down to earth guy with no drama games , my favorite beatle, but i love them all
+lion king Same.
That's why I admire and respect George for. Both as a man and as a musician.
Other then 700+ affairs there is more to George then you think.
@@grenda5 This video is exactly that -- George's petty little passive-aggressive drama game
George is my favorite Beatle. Amazing how someone so famous could be so down to earth
Desmond John He's quite funny too.
Desmond John Personality wise, he's my favourite. He's smart, funny and interesting and ultimately he was nicer than John and Paul imo
Desmond John HE WAS INTO YOGA,MEDITATION AND EASTERN PHILOSOPHY
+dasadist22 Yes and buying giant castles that even the worlds billionaires wouldn't touch. A bit hypocritical ya think?
Same :)
"it's funny after 30 years of being in his life he FINALLY wants to write with me" life made
Paul basically wrote Taxman, but was kind enough to give George the credit.
@@slothfromthegoonies8201 put a normal,a bit virtuous and soulless solo on it doesn't mean to write a song. Taxman is an absolutely Harrison song at all
@Crynaotlod it is a kinda sitar-like solo, so that explains a lot!
@@slothfromthegoonies8201 based on what?ive never heard that from anyone is this your assumption or can you show how you came to that conclusion
@@slothfromthegoonies8201 nah Harrison definitely wrote Taxman it’s well documented by he wrote it aswell
I think what hurt George is never feeling he got validation from Paul. Which is something that DID mean a lot to him. Paul was the first great influence in his life outside of his parents, the one who brought him into the Beatles, and basically his big brother. George was never particularly close with John. So when it came down to George finally being ready for his breakthrough, he felt he really NEEDED Paul's support and blessing. The guy who championed him to John and the others the first time around. When it became clear that it wasn't going to happen in the way George imagined, thats really where the rift began. Its not that George needed Paul to convince him that he was good. He already knew the stuff he was making whats good. It just hurts when you feel like your closest confidante essentially doesn't give a shit. I think a "wow George, you are really coming into form. This is great." from Paul would have went a long way.
I think George Harrison was a talented musician in his own right. His songs are absolutely amazing.
i like George Harrison's sense of humour.
He gave a lot of money to the Monty Python crew so the could continue to make films.
George was straight up honest, no bull shit. Love him
Not in the first interview, he wasn't. He totally omitted that he and Ringo had sued Paul (for some business matters) just two day before the introduction party, ripping wide open old wounds. The reason Paul didn't show up was hurt feelings, not some obscure motives George is hinting at. And if you watch Ringo's and Georges acceptance speeches, they appeared both rather shaken and not at all having a good time. Honestly, I think George and Paul, along with all their lovable character traits, shared a not so admirable one: not to be able to ever admitting to a mistake.
It always mystifies me when someone says; 'I'm not a huge Beatles fan.' Even if those people had never heard a single Beatles song - or heard a few and then didn't like them, you'd think they'd at least respect the Beatles for having inspired millions of other musicians who have followed. They changed the direction of music and who knows where the world of music would have progressed to (or regressed). I grew up with the Beatles - what precious memories. And what a bold statement they made, asking for peace and love in a world that was (and still is) consumed with greed, hatred and rage. I pray that peace wins.
I miss you George
Ditto.
Exactly. That's one of the great things about Paul, other than Ringo, you never really heard Paul bad mouthing the way you would hear Harrison 'and' Lennon.
Indeed that's true. Paul really had some moral depth. At least with John though, as immature as he could be at times, he had enough moral courage to later say he was wrong in what he'd said. He could say some really nice things about Paul's songs and about Paul. George often wasn't so generous.
I hate these people saying that George and Paul hated each other. They were pretty much the closest Beatles out of the four. Paul made sure a lot of George's songs were recorded while John didn't even show up for a lot of them. Just listen to the bass on "Something," simply amazing! The piano on "My Guitar Gently Weeps" was awesome as well, yet John isn't considered the one who had the least interest in the other Beatles songs? The reason that George seems to hate Paul is because of petty musical disagreements or George being a bit hard on Paul. They were brothers! They loved each other, and I will not let anyone tarnish their connection, many relatives, friends, and even George's widower said that they were close, Paul gave George a nice place to die in peace after all! Yes Paul and George had arguments here and there but does that mean they hated each other? That's complete and utter bullshit.
+Too Many Lives "They were pretty much the closest Beatles out of the four." It's probably fair to say that e.g. George-Ringo and John-Paul were closer friendships than Paul-George. For years George resented Paul's bossiness (and frankly probably also resented that generally speaking Paul was a better singer than he was, better songwriter than he was, and better musician than he was). "Paul made sure a lot of George's songs were recorded while John didn't even show up for a lot of them." Roughly speaking, that's true, but that's because Paul was a team player for the Beatles and John wasn't as much, not because Paul and George were terribly close. Paul gave his all to "The Ballad Of John And Yoko" not because he loved the song necessarily but because that's what Paul habitually did for the Beatles.
+Joseph Scott your right Paul McCartney was very bossy in the studio. When they had a new song or single to record he would go around and tell everyone to do this and do that, where as John or George would just show the others the song and then start playing and what ever sounded good they would keep
+John Paul Zuni That's a little simplistic, JPZ... but it's true that Paul DID know what he wanted his songs to sound like more than John or George did. Paul was the natural musical arranger in the group. Good thing, too. Ringo has said that without McCartney directing them, nothing would get done.
Paul was willing to put out "The Ballad Of John And Yoko" as a Beatles single. How bossy.
+Joseph Scott John made the decision to put out the song as a Beatles single. Paul had nothing to do with the decision nor could he have stopped it from happening.
Despite George's criticism or anyone else's for that matter, time and truth walk hand and hand and Paul has continually landed on his feet and proved himself one of the greatest composers of the 20th century. This was more than 20 years ago, and although "Broadstreet" may have looked like a failure at the time, most people would kill to have written ONE successful pop song such as "No More Lonely Nights", let alone the unequivocal catalogue of McCartney tunes.
I love George but DAMN he is too comfortable here with his legs open 1:20
Patagualian Mostly Usually people sit like that in the comfort of their own home or relaxed settings such as at a friends house but this was a interview. He even put on a button shirt and an 80's jacket for the interview suggesting he knows that it isn't a kickback hangout.
Patagualian Mostly
George considers himself a true rebel -- a rule breaker. Manners be damned. They were all like that more than a little.
I think that's a common position for Hindu meditation. He probably opened up his legs like that without noticing.
***** I honestly believe you are confused for wasting time thinking about why I noticed his legs wide open and if it bothers me.
***** Makes you feel uncomfortable, perhaps you're having thoughts you find unusual? His posture didn't bother me in the least.
The Beatles were a force, a game changer. Together, they changed the music industry. In the end though, Paul, whether some feel he was the dominant writer/player or not, was the work horse.
It got to the point where he'd be at the studio to work and the others may not get there til 3 hrs after the agreed time. Paul didn't waste that time. He'd record drum parts, bass parts, guitar parts, vox and key parts. I can only imagine they got their knickers in a wad over that, but screw 'em. Paul's time had value too. He showed up to work... and WORKED, then he went about his own personal time. If they didn't like it then they should've gotten their butts to the studio.
John was deep with a sometimes whimsical/artistic sense. Paul was whimsical and romantic who had depth as well. If John said, "Yesterday is the only good song you wrote" then he's full crap (I bet he knew it when he said it too) and a statement like that could only come from a place of envy at the time. Paul has written MANY timeless masterpieces that will be remembered and studied for millenia to come. John also said, "I couldn't keep up with his song writing."
There are two reasons Paul had such a prolific career post Beatles; he's a songwriter and composer that connects with people and he has a great work ethic.
He has great ideas. He writes and records them. He gets them into the hands and ears of people.
And, as you suggested, he has an enormous amount of energy to match his enormous amount of ambition. You're absolutely correct about his role in the band. Paul has certainly always had an enormous ego (and why not? he's effing Paul McCartney), but certainly no bigger than Lennon's, for gosh sakes. Paul's ego only became a problem in the group when Lennon lost interest and George started to. Paul became "bossy" in their eyes because he was trying to keep things on track and moving forward. As it began to slip away, he became truly bossy, and it spiraled down from there. But Paul can at least say he showed up, and showed up straight enough to work.
Well said thank youu
Paul is amazing but let’s not act like he’s a Genius like John Lennon. I’ll give Paul the workhorse part and the technical musical ability part. Lennon was the true ingenious artist of the Beatles. He was the best writer and the best singer. Paul and George (and Ringo) were all amazing as well
Andres. John and Paul were genius. PAUL had more abilities in music and John in lyrics but there were complementary. Read George martin or Geoff Emerick who told that paul was the one who have the most abilities in music Read the books about the Beatles. In the 70 everybody told John was the genius but now with the different biographies of the people who were in the studios with the Beatles we can change our mind and accepted the great work paul accomplished in the band. ringo said : « we can thank paul if the Beatles had so many songs and producted all these albums , Paul was the workaholic « Without Paul maybe revolver would have been the last album.
Liliane Lucas saying Paul had more ability musically than John is not entirely true. I think John was a better songwriter; besides having something more to say lyrically he also composed more inventive, original chords/chord sequences than Paul in both guitar and piano. However, Paul composed great melodies more consistently. Paul was technically superior as a musician, but Paul didn’t come up with guitar riffs like John did. Paul is my favorite bass player of all time. I think Bass, melody and harmonizing were his three greatest gifts, even more so than songwriting. But I still think John is the genius artist of the Beatles. He’s the one who did the truly experimental songs that still sound ahead of their time today. You listen to “Yesterday”, “Hey Jude”, “Let it Be” and many others and they sound of their era. Not so with John’s “Tomorrow Never Knows”, “Strawberry Fields”, “I am the Walrus”, etc... John was so much more ahead of his time than ANYBODY. Still, that doesn’t take anything away from Macca. He was a musical genius as well
You know, you seldom heard Paul or Ringo say anything disparaging about George or John. They may have been thinking some unkind thoughts, but at least they were gracious enough not to say it, or at least not much. But George and John seemed to take every opportunity to rip into each other and Paul. Ringo always seemed to be left out of their squabbles, probably because he didn't write, so there was no jealousy toward him.
but Paul started the initial fight. He released a solo album..and it had a nasty song about John...too many people. Paul is more subtle
@@rabibengali5811 Yeah if you push and push, it will eventually break. I guess Paul was tired of being the nice guy and pushed back. Lennon was very capable of hawking venom in every direction (1970 Rolling Stone interview) and it hurt Paul.
Also I think the criticisms written in ‘Too many People’ compared with the venom in ‘How do you sleep’ is a good example of Paul’s restraint. Love all The Beatles of course! They were brothers, and brothers squabble.
Uhm not really, Paul started it by making a dig at John & Paul never went to rock and roll hall of fame. George and John are HONEST - they’re sincere, Paul not so much
That's because Paul was the instigator of the majority of the rows. He started quarrels with John, George and Ringo. In fact, he caused each to quit the band at least once. But John got fed up and quit permanently.
I have a very good friend that used to see the Beatles play in The Cavern during regular lunchtime gigs and I always remember him saying that George's guitar playing was quite poor to start with. But they improved and gelled together from playing so much. The Beatles knew they were different and were going to be huge and that is why they could get away with releasing 20 cover songs on their first 5 albums. John, Paul and George just ended up with musical differences so it made sense to go their own way - make sure you have listened to John's/Plastic Ono Band first album - I cannot stop playing Well, Well, Well and Working Class Hero on a loop
It always makes me sad when I listen to George bad mouthing paul. It is easy to understand why he felt this way. Paul probably did underestimate him and treat him like a junior Beatle. But man, life is so short. George is gone. It would have been wonderful to see more of him, ringo and paul just hanging out and enjoying each other's company.
/Just fan talk. What do I really know about any of them irl? Not a thing. :/
Yes, it comes across as bitter. I mean he was still angry about events that were decades before. One of the things I liked about Paul is he never badmouthed any of the others. Even when John publicly attacked him in the early 70s. And he always tried to make it up. Anyway, at least George never blanked out Paul, and allowed him to visit him on his deathbed. There was still some friendship there.
I think George himself said that he was too lazy for that much songwriting especially during the Beatles days.
Jason Sanders yes and george spent his last days in paul’ s house. Do you think if there were not friends he did this?
George was always good with the roasts
Well around that time, Paul had said he wanted to compose songs with George again and George had replied "he left it a bit late is all I can say"
I don't know why George was sitting like that at 1:21 without a care. I now believe he was an alien. Very scary stuff.
It's because he's Batm..., sorry, he's a Beatle. But yeah, really weird stuff
from mexico
that is some weird wild stuff
CooManTunes George-spredding!
Paul&George did "Free As A Bird"&"Real Love" written by John which was lovely&then it was over.R.I.P. George.:)
I love George harrison. I like his song, something♥♥
after 30 years of being his friend, he finally asked to write with him... so sad how they never co-wrote with George on the Beatles stuff, but I guess it's just the way things were at the time, and if the result was the great songs George wrote on his own, I guess it was actually kind of cool.
+Kenji Kitahara They did write 'In Spite of All the Danger' together but that was before they ever got a recording contract. A rough demo of the song appears on Anthology 1.
This wasn't the point George was making, he was stating that since they had been in a band together Paul had never suggested writing a song with George. Paul only wrote with Lennon, and after he finished writing with Lennon he wrote by himself. But up until that point he had never suggested to George about writing a song.
I checked the information Eleanor Rigby was written primarily by Paul Mac Cartney and Ringo also said that 90/ of the lyrics were Paul's as well as the music and the haunting voice give him the credits he deserves for this beatiful song He was as able as John to write dark songs Listen to She's Leaving Home: it was Paul's inspiration !
George spoke with such power and confidence in these interviews. He was a force to be reckoned with.
I think you are right - but I can understand how this could have happened. Lennon/McCartney's shadow kept most, including their bandmates in dim light. George probably came into his own and improved because of their greatness as composers. You become what you hang around.
George played on 'How do you sleep?' by Lennon though. I realise it was a response to McCartney's 'Too many people' in which he was critical of John and Yoko, but the lyrics to 'TMP' weren't really ugly. They weren't eviscerating in tone. Lennon's response with 'Sleep' was nasty and utterly disproportionate. In the outakes you hear Lennon sing "ya c**t". Why would Paul want George to write with him after that public humiliation? Because Lennon had two more Beatles (George and Ringo) play on 'Sleep' it gave the song a kind of 'blessing' in terms of Beatles fans or the media - which made its sentiments more potent and damaging. I like George and he's written some fantastic songs, but it's a bit disingenuous of him to outwardly wonder why Paul passed on the idea of working with him.
+aerialkate Very insightful comment. Thank you. I have not accessed this level of information and did not realize all of this. What sources did you get this information from? I think George may have seen himself as getting on with everyone and didn't get that Paul was internally experiencing shunning by George and Ringo's collaboration with John. I am sure did not intend that and likely just wanted to create like the old days. Although I am sure John was well aware and there was likely a manipulative element to it all. There always seems to be a power struggle in a band and it usually gets nasty. Women always get in the way. Paul didn't mind Linda M being involved in everything but he could not handle Yoko. Very disrespectful.
+50hellkat2 I have seen this outake video, and John really slams Paul. Yes... he does call Paul a cunt. After Epstein died, Paul pulled the band back together and they continued recording great music. I think John especially hated this, as Paul was now the groups leader. I'm sure it drove a wedge between them. Also, their songwriting styles differed more and more by the late 60s. So Paul, in their eyes, became the bossy and temperamental overseer of the band. The truth is... that John really had a bad temper, and Paul was more easy going. But the others didn't like being told where to stand by Paul. And, he was shunned for it after the breakup. By the way, I've never seen a video of Linda in the studio while they recorded. However...I have seen several videos of Yoko in the studio again and again.
50hellkat2
I disagree with the "women get in the way" comment. Yoko was undoubtedly irritating and was probably on the make. She was ambitious as an artist. However I don't doubt that she genuinely loved John. They were very similar avant garde type artists. Clearly John was the major talent. But the point is they were so similar in terms of their world view. Like her or not, John always said they were soulmates. I've written this before, but everything we know about Lennon _screamed_ that he was his own man. Nobody dominated him. He was a man out of time and an independent thinker.
Re Linda: all that "we never spent a night apart" bit we were always reading - I wonder if that wasn't because she knew Paul would stray on the road? Paul was into touring and John wasn't. And Paul did cheat on Jane Asher quite a bit and Linda learned from her experience. I don't think Linda was really ambitious musically. I think she knew what went on on the road and kept a close eye on her husband!
Before Paul left, John had announced privately he was going to leave. But George had left before that (and had been persuaded to come back.) Even Ringo had walked out at one point.
It was Epstein's death which created a power vacuum which Paul was happy to fill. To be fair to him - he had the work ethic and was probably qualified to do the job. He was dead right about Alan Klein for example. I think he was a bit too blunt in the studio for someone like George who was a sensitive soul. "He ruined me as a guitar player" (he once said of Paul.) So for me, the domineering nature of Paul was probably well intentioned, but pissed off the other band members no end.
Lennon had spoken about the treadmill of being a 'Fab'. The tedious meet and greets with the daughters of Mayors, the tour / album / tour treadmill and what he saw as Paul's domination of recording sessions. Paul also wanted to tour and John didn't. In every interview recorded in the late 60s early 70s you can hear how "over" with it Lennon was by then. Even Paul (not Yoko's biggest fan) has said numerous times "Yoko didn't split up the Beatles". As much as I love the band, I'm glad they split up when they did. All things have to end and genius has a shelf life. For me it's better that they split when they did, rather than go on and make mediocre Beatles albums. Wouldn't that have been _awful?_
+aerialkate I did read a book on John Lennon written by an author with the last name of Seaman. Thought it was good. He hung out with John as an assistant if my memory was correct. I got the impression that Yoko and John had a complicated relationship. They both kind of had a blind eye to each other's transgressions. Both had addiction issues and the consequences of that. John depended on Yoko to manage everything and he took on a parenting role with their child. I think that John Lennon brought Yoko into recording studio with the Beatles to stick it to Paul McCartney because he knew Paul didn't like it. Paul felt that Yoko was too much of an obstacle for Paul to get around and that was an insult to John. Also John put up with Paul and Linda McCartney for years.
+aerialkate John Lennon was insulted that Paul McCartney as giving the impression that John was weak enough to be manipulated by Yoko. Which is an insult to John particularly coming from Paul McCartney.
He was not "right there" when stacked up against the other two. And it's obvious Harrison is bitter against McCartney in this video. Just by the way he downplays everything McCartney did, And of course, the, "he ran out of good ones of his own" is pretty clear about that because Paul never ran out of good ones. Lennon himself talked about how George used to 'whine' about not getting more songs included. But George just couldn't write a lot of good songs in the early days. Simple fact!
To this day, Macca hasn’t ran out of “good ones.”
They all downplay each other's stuff cause they all write hit songs
@@HankFinkle11 I would say McCartney II showed he ran out of "good ones."
St.Evelyne of the Emptiness you are. Bless you. Your charity and empathy are exemplary and shows us all what The Real World is all about.
George could never just let it go.
he was a cool guy. and very underrated guitarist IMO.
In almost every case, post mid-1964, the lead singer of the song wrote the song
I've met Paul , he is very humble and he kept the Beatles together when Epstein died ; George wasn't a victim; otherwise he would have left. People badmouthing Paul should read serious books on the Beatles
Yeah i had lunch with George, John,& Robert Johnson today Good blokes all of them..
I went to the movies with Ringo. I paid for his ticket.
Yeah i went to lunch with Ringo & had to pay also.
Why are you so shocked when he said he met Paul? Paul has met millions of people in his lifetime, celebrities do meet regular people you know
romans52345 Robert Johnson was never a bloke he was a home boy. I went with him to the chicken shack and I had to pay (when I say pay I mean I had to steal chickens for both of us)
We always want our favorite people to get along but life's never that kind.Fighting over who was better or who was right or wrong is just a waste of time especially since two of them are now gone and there's nothing we can do about it! What we can do, however, is cherish the wonderful moments they had together and thank them for all they left us with....their music, their songs, their jokes and everything else. RIP George and John!
You do realize this was before the Anthology project, wounds were healed and George passed??? Some of you seem to think this is breaking news. Saw Paul i Seattle last night.. His tributes to both John and George were quite heartfelt and touching. Stop rehashing the negative shit.. Best music ever recorded by the Fab4, period.
Yeah, this was like the post "Cloud 9" late 80s/early 90s era. And anyhow, it's easy to misinterpreted what is likely just "sibling rivalry" type stuff and light ribbing for some dark feud. They certainly cared about each other throughout, but there's no doubt they had very different personalities, which clashed at times.
@@bernlin2000 "Sibling rivalry" can result in life-long feuds, no conciliation, and sometimes death. It's not as "innocent" as you think.
I know this is a very somber tone interview but I laughed when the camera panned to George’s open legs at 1:23 why are they so wide open? 😂
Asserting his dominance I guess? lol I've always marked this in my head as the "manspreading interview"
the honesty of the english,goes with their tuffness,adds to their talant that no nation can touch.
Much as I loved George, he was always getting digs in.
true
The Beatles are great - no doubt. It is sad though for all of the "Let It Be," "Give Peace a Chance," "Hey Jude," meetings with the Maharishi, even the Beatles could not "Give Peace A Chane," nor "Let It Be." They could not get along which is sad.
Some of my favorite Beatle songs were written by George. The versatile styles and sounds that came from the Beatles in every new album was one of the main reasons that I bought them. It was brilliant!
I loved George he was a really nice and talented guy..
Love George just being like “it didn’t work” lol
Love George being lightheartedly shady
What pissed Harrison off was that on the later records he had proved he was a match for Lennon and McCartney but they still didn't really treat him as such. On the later records he was sometimes writing the standout tracks on the albums. George Martin also admitted he undervalued Harrison's contribution.
You can understand his frustration years of being told his songs and guitar playing were not good enough would take their toll. We all reflect on our past as we get older.
MANSPREAD
Regardless how others might feel concerning the Beatles, and certain ones who feel they were used particularly by the enemy of souls, whenever I think about the Beatles, and what was called the "British Invasion" of their music into North America, there still remains within me, a joy that speaks of the freedom that loved music can have on the lives of people everywhere. The Beatles so far as music is concerned, are the very best, and I shall remember them with fondness, wishing them the best.
I miss George !! You are with Jesus now ! I know in my heart ! You and John are entertaining the Lord everyday!! So sad that you are gone on this Earth !!
George was really cool musician but Paul is GENIUS .
Ja ja ja si aja
Don’t think that’s fair to say. Although Paul is a genius, all four of the them plus Martin is what made the genius of the Beatles. They were all great in extremely different ways. You can’t tell me Paul could’ve written even 50% of Sgt. Peppers on his own.
Grayson Howard nah, Sgt Peppers best tunes come from Lennon not Paul. Paul actually ruins the mood of the album with tracks like “When I’m 64”
@@hw343434 The whole concept of the album was Paul's idea and most of the great songs written by Paul except that Indian boring song by George.
David Slaner the best song “A Day in the Life” is a Lennon song (with help from McCartney). Case closed
My grandmother was born in 1926. She said even as a child, she remembered people calling them "cancer sticks." The knowledge that cigarettes are harmful is no new phenomenon.
George was my favorite. When he died in California in 2000 , I was surprised since I always thought that he died in England. However, his obituary says California.
Everyone on comment section saying "aww they were like brothherss" who are you trying to convince that? Clearly yourself! They had been through too much together and I am glad that they finally reconciled in the end... But from George's interviews (not particularly from these clips) it's pretty clear they had some deeper issues and didn't speak much for at least 2 decades after Beatles broke up. That's an awful lot of time for brothers to become estranged to be honest
Very well said. George laid into paul quite a bit, especially in some 80's interviews. Even during the anthology you can see some tense moments.
To me, George was, and still is, a vastly underrated singer, guitarist and songwriter. All his songs with the Beatles were really great. However, he happened to be in a band with the two greatest pop songwriters ever , so it must have been very tough to get his songs on their albums, but as the the years passed his tracks became better and better until Abbey Road where his songs were the equal of Lennon n McCartney. I am sure he was learning the songwriting art just being in the company of these two.
Exaclty!!!!
I’ve always been a big fan of both of them, I feel as if Paul was the “black sheep” of the group when they broke up, I hear that he didn’t care for George’s songs but then I hear that it was John who didn’t care, I honestly think Paul McCartney is the greatest musician of all time, most of my favorite songs are written and played by him, and I love all of George’s songs too, it’s just a shame I wish there was less bickering between them after they broke up I would’ve loved to see some cooperation with music
I listened to the Beatles since I can remember.they were the ones that changed music forever! Let all the ones that have passed Rest In Peace already and let go of the past.shiit more than half of us in this mothafucka weren't even born yet and we talking about old shiit...fucking be grateful that they got together and did what they did....friendship and business doesn't always mix well
Georges Leed Guitar Playing Made The Music Explode - Dont Ever Talk Bad About George.. Total Fab
Mornyork Ltd was established in Sept '64. It was changed to Harrisongs Ltd. in Dec. The very same one he used in 1968 when his Northern Songs contract expired (1965 - 1968). And it's odd Mornyork surfaces right after the sale of Lennon & McCartney's catalogue. Including his "Don't Bother Me" along with it. He has a publishing company where he owns full copyright over its contents, and 80% of its earning potential. So why did he wait?
interview cuts just as george opens up about writing with paul.
+kurikokaleidoscope Yeah, that kind of disappointed me too.
I'm sorry, but George comes off as being pissed and picky. It was Paul, lest he forgot, who introduced him to John to join the band. It was Paul who believed in his abilities. I see more than traces of anger and envy. I see George as not a very happy person, over all.
You are reading it wrong! George also had songwriting abilities but Lennon & Mccartney were on a roll and George never got a look in - but now that Lennon is gone suddenly Paul approaches George so I can understand why George felt that way but he ended by saying it could have been quite interesting. Paul is an opportunist - I will leave you to work that one out!
A member of my family knew George personally and you could not be more wrong - he was not that type!
Babs Baroque There's a lot of Beatle behind the scenes business that didn't get brought out even by John. Paul brought on bad will by his sneaky business practices and buying up more shares of Beatle music then John was told about etc...This was a violation of their verbal agreement. Paul is also infamous for his cheapness in paying his band etc...original wings anyway.
marco calarco I would not be surprised - Paul is sneaky!
marco calarco See, Lorraine knows.
I wouldn't worry about it, Paul and George were at great peace with each other just before George passed and I certainly wouldn't say he even seems that bitter here, just George being George! RIP George, one of the best.
He flew off the moped at 30MPH. No broken fingers? Clavicle? Collarbone? Legs? Just a chipped tooth, split lip, and an abrasion to the eye? Completely landing on his face to stop his 30MPH momentum, and slightly increase that speed as he comes off using the force of the momentum itself, and the extra speed coming off this object going into dead stop. It works like a catapult. Momentum 30MPH, plus energy throwing object through air. In all honesty, that he didn't die in this accident is amazing.
And if Paul hadn't been there The Beatles would have split long before 1970 when John was no longer interested in the the group .
"Well, now we've got that on record...." George: "Well, that's true...." LOL.
John recognized Paul's true talent, Paul recognized George's true talent
"I wasn't aware that the songs were newer versions"...I see that Lennon wasn't the only Beatle with a stinging wit.
George is also the one who answered the American guys question of "when do you plan to get a haircut? " with "I just got one yesterday." 😆
George knew Paul longer and better than anyone. They had been friends years before meeting John in 1957. Anything he said about Paul in interviews was undoubtedly spot on.
Delightful guy, always was
Now I know why they started out as The Quarrelmen.
George was never given enough credit
guaranteed, if they could all play together again they would have a blast. After all, they are the best ever by a large margin. People forget how great they were together, look what they accomplished in their own careers to boot.
I am glad George later got over his bitterness. He was too good for that. John had said he would never forgive George for being so mean to Yoko. Paul brought George into the Beatles. George later was an often visitor to Paul's home. George was at Paul's LA place when he did. Paul talked about visiting him and rubbing his arm. I just wish George and John would have made up.
I Don't Know What Happin. But I Love All The Beatles. Even When They Seperated.
I miss George, his candor and his honesty. He and Ringo have the best perspective on who and what the Beatles were. Paul always appeared to have an agenda to elevate himself as the prime inspiration behind the Beatles when in fact creativity relies so much on your interactions with others and your environment. George unabashedly speaks the truth about Paul giving incite into Paul's ego. George, John and Ringo were equally instrumental in creating the Beatles as a group of four lads from the hardscrabble city of Liverpool who worked ahead years before fame to hone their craft. With Paul, there is no doubt about his musical genius. But, without the other three post-Beatles he just wasn't quite as good. It's just true. Again, I miss George.
Yeah, me too - he was a great guitarist and seemed like a really nice guy.
I disagree. I don't think Paul McCartney has to work to elevate himself to anything. He is Sir Paul McCartney. He DID keep that band on task. And lets not forget that Wings was a very successful band as well, and he was most assuredly the spearhead of that band. But yes, it was the combination of all 4 of those men at that precise moment in history. It was magic. I will never see this again in my lifetime, that is for sure.
No, I disagree with you Patrick. George was the understated (although covertly critical and angry), moody guy. Paul isn't. It's the clash of personalities, really. Paul is a natural show man, from the time he was a little kid. And damn, man, Paul doesn't have to prove himself to anyone. Let the legacy of his music speak for him.
Hello Patrick, a man after my own heart. You are absolutely right in everything you say - Paul is and always was an opportunist and I think a very selfish individual. George and Ringo were far more humble and less egocentric!!
Babs Baroque Not much of a legacy after the beatles ended. Their success was based on the unit of four - Paul and John bounced off each other - when they split Paul's stuff comes across as very shallow - John was by far the deepest thinker of the two and wrote far more heartfelt music 'Imagine' being just one of them
Coolest member of The Beatles .
This is FANTASTIC. ☮️💟
People *SHOULD* google the truthcontest.
Think about it. Truth of life. New perspective of Beatles songs.
*George would LOVE it.* He´s the obviously deep one. But you´ll see ALL the other are too.
+Flying Nimbus Isn't that "truthcontest" bullshit christian or something? Yeah, George was a devout Hindu.
People SHOULD google my dick.
I am a sinner, The Lord Jesus Christ is my saviour......the truth, simple as that.
The "Quiet" Beatle is also the Nastiest Beatle.
Dion1957 More like an honest breath of fresh air.
marco calarco
More like an angry one. Pissed off and moody. With a huge chip on his shoulder. Way to go with your inner peace, etc. George.
Babs Baroque Spiritual evolution means you tell the truth as you see it, not hide behind fake new age smiles and Beatle mythology.
marco calarco
well, marco, I disagree. it was george's opinion, and as I said, after the split up, Paul was construed as the "shallow" one, and George, the spiritually evolved one. George certainly proved himself to be a formidable writer and musician. but he still comes off as angry -- and I think he died like that. now, that's a "Pity", imo. Just saying.
Babs Baroque George was more truthful than Paul. Paul was always careful to preserve the Beatles happy go lucky mop top mythology so sensitive fans (like you?) wouldn't get upset or disillusioned. It was hilarious how John shocked Paul with the naked album cover. Priceless.
2:05 i luv that george laught 😂
I get they made amends, but it's sad that from around the white album(68) on, they were never really close friends again. There's so much bitterness between the 4 of them. John and Paul. George and Paul. John and George, somewhat. Even Ringo would throw shades at Paul.
I think after Epstein died, and Paul took more of a leadership role, 2 things happened.
1) John got jealous somewhat and was disinterested. Also I think Yoko was a problem. Not for his life, but for the Beatles. When you see John before and after Yoko, he goes from looking great to looking like a total weirdo also. Might be rude to say but it's the truth.
2) George was being underutilized as his song writing skills grew, and he was quietly frustrated
It seems from everything I've heard and read, the band didn't really want to continue after Pepper/MMT. Despite the fighting and anger, maybe without Paul we wouldn't have got the white album or abbey road. We'll never know, but it seems Paul was the one who did everything in his power to make sure they kept making music and releasing material.. Even if he made the group play endless sessions for mediocre songs like maxwell's silver hammer.
I'd rank the members
1. John- Gave him the slight edge over Paul for versatility and lyrics.
2. Paul- Best musician in the group. Maybe wrote the best melodies of all time. I think he gets underrated as seen as too sappy. He was at times, but he might have been the groups most talented member. Just lacked the edge Lennon had.
3. George- Very good at most things. Just doesn't have the material to challenge Lennon or Mccartney. As a person he might have been better but that's a diff topic.
4. Ringo- His drumming was underrated and fit in perfectly. Nothing else to really say. He was cool as hell.
Paul was/is a giant talent. And they made it as a band. He had the human ego urge to say this really would not have happened if I was not here. He felt he was the driving force and I believe that to be true.
If Paul wasn't in the band the Beatles would have ended many years earlier than they did. I remember hearing that John and Ringo wouldn't have been bothered if it wasn't for Paul's drive to keep the group motivated. Paul somehow still has that inner drive to get out there and perform. World would be a very different place if we all had the PM inner drive!
Marc, are you aware that on the first Beatles album the songs were credited McCartney/Lennon?
Paul's restropsective order change were only for a few pure McCartney songs that John had absolutely no part in writing - such as "Yesterday".
He wasn't being that much of an egomaniac but it went down badly because of the extent the Beatles are cherished (even worshipped), so he dropped it.
Paul not showing up at the BEATLES hall of fame induction was a shame... He should of showed up, for the BEATLES regardless oh any personal issues he had.
Got to admit that John and Georg just sh*t on Paul in many interviews but Paul and Ringo were gentleman most of the time!!!
ringo is dead
I wish Paul and George WOULD have written some songs together. They may well have produced a masterpiece.
at the end he calls Paul "Faul" as he has in other interviews of the time period.
Paul and George wrote a song together in 1958 which they recorded with John. I think it was the first time ever they recorded in the studio. It's called "In Spite of all The Danger." It's on TH-cam. It's pretty good.
The article is about George and his perceptions but this site seems to have turned into a 'bash McCartney' fest. Has anyone noticed how he has supported Ringo? A few years ago, Paul gave Ringo a few songs for his new album. They did a video together. They appear to be very close now - not that Ringo needs any kind of support; he's one of the richest musicians in the world.
....at about $300 million...
Whats funny about this is thst George states how "Paul was running out of good ones of his own" but in 1974 when he toured the States, he did like a 12 song set covering a coupke of tracks including "In My Life", thats very hypocritical
They were and became brothers again! Let’s never forget that
In case you didn't know, John & Paul were very protective of their writing credits (the money!!!) and let George have no more than 2-3 songs of his own once he became a excellent song writer in his own right. Not really very nice was it? George had 85% of "All Things Must Pass" already written by the time of the Beatles break-up.
Yes, but also remember that John and Paul had also written 85% of the songs for their first albums. Paul's first solo album charted in May 70, George in Dec 70, John Jan 71 and these were quickly followed up with another entry for Paul Jun 71 and John Oct 71 - the equivalent of six albums in (probably) under 2 years - productive or what? It will never be matched
They didn't want George's songs on the album because they had their OWN songs they wanted on it. You make it sound like they had nothing better to do than kill George's creativity cause they were jealous or something. There wasn't room for his songs so they got squeezed out. Nothing more to it than that.
Frank Jurga
good point
02:33 "The idea of trying to write and do everything yourself. That's a mistake."
Sorry George but did you listen to Paul's first two solo albums where he wrote, recorded and performed every instrument himself? I personally take affront to that statement because there are some that can and do write and do everything themselves where it is NOT a mistake. I for one, Paul certainly, Les Paul could, as well as Gene Pitney and many others. Love ya like a brother though Georgie!
Well George and john’s solo albums were better than Paul’s by a country mile - Paul made improvements when he joined wings...other people...
@@Azoria4:
I don't think so. I really liked John´s first two efforts until later it dawned on me that they were all just self-pity sessions and bitching about this or that. (too negative, too angry) Very negative with at least one song bordering on blasphemy. Paul´s first efforts were great as far as Im concerned. But we two arguing about music, (that is almost entirely subjective) would be fruitless, though. You have your opinion and I have mine. (peace).
@@jaelge I don’t think they’re negative, but rather an honest expression of pain which is healing (for me) to both the expressor and listener. It’s a true reflection of life. It’s dualistic, it has pain like Morher or God and then appraisals of beauty like Love and I found Out. Such honesty and diversity I don’t find in McCartney’s solo work - but yeah, you’re right it’s all subjective. Peace
@@Azoria4:
Later, Lucas. Merry Christmas & be safe.
@@Azoria4 lol, wdym he joined wings? he was the boss and i prefer ram to pob, i love some songs on pob but its really very bitchy and many sound alike
you can tell that george really looked up to john and paul and they let him down cause of their egos they should have included george in some song writing together cause you can tell george is very sore about paul not writing songs with him , that is sad but i bet now paul looking back wishes he spent time helping more with george and working on some of georges stuff to help and show george he cared as a friend
The truth is that George lived his life with a substantial amount of bitterness and anger toward Paul. As the decades have unfolded it has become clear that Paul McCartney and John Lennon carried George along with them. George never accepted that this was the truth.
Nothing ever got past George. Well in lad, well in lad.
I'm not a huge Beatles fan, so correct me if I'm wrong. . .but it seems damn near every interview I see of a Beatle they are snipping or criticizing each other. Especially Lennon. . .Am I wrong?
you are kind of wrong. they were real ppl with real feelings... they just said whatever they thought. modern bullshit like PR and celebrity status wasn't part of those days. so people were more real to eachother. they had great times too. you can see them having ton of fun when they were young. and being british... they are a bit more sarcastic towards eachother.
donlga siko
I understand that they were just 'real' people like you and me. I get that. It just seemed like they did an unusual amount of sniping at each other, especially Lennon. I watched an interview of him in maybe 73 bitching about the Stones and Jagger, how they always copied the Beatles, blah, blah, blah. . .Then again, maybe you're right. Obviously since they were so famous EVERYTHING they said got recorded, so it just seems this way to me. It's the negative stuff that generally gets the publicity.
Chris Kavanagh It's the negative stuff that generally gets the publicity. ;) You understand now.
They were friends. But they had a very intense time together in the 60s. A hard time with a lot of problems in the end. I mean.. imagine. Beeing together every day... nearly 10 years. two albums a year. Movies. Concerts. Studio work. There is a reason why they broke up. But they were like brothers. Watch the special features on the Beatles Anthology DVD. They were very close. I remember the footage of the Real Love sessions when Paul and George hug each other. Or the service for Linda McCartney. And... I mean... George Harrison died in Paul McCartneys L.A. home. What does that say about a relationship? And around 1980 a Beatles reunion was as close as never before.
It was all a game they played with fans and with media. They figured that it was all people wanted to hear - them criticizing and sniping at each other so that's what they did. But, when all was said and done, none of it really mattered to any of them.
And when you realise that a video shoot that incorporates the same lighting, same person, same filming conditions, cannot account for a person's earlobes to become attached or detached depending on which "person" you're looking at, that's when it gets "crazy". So you start going back. Has this happened before? YES. You can find this attached/detached "condition" throughout his entire career. At this point I want to say ITS entire career.
Damn George I can smell that from here
2:47
George says that Paul had suggested that they should write together, and George says something like, it has only been 30 years sarcastically, mnnnnn..wonder about that
Paul was of course, much more talented.
@AJ Are you serious ?? Paul wrote Yesterday , Let It Be , Hey Jude, She's Leaving Home , Here There Everywhere , For No One .... and lot of other masterpiece's , Paul made one of the unique album of all time , he is the most successful member of The Beatles , his song ' Mull Of Kintyre ' became the UK's best-selling single of all-time. Come on !
Was he? Look at his solo career. You'll see that George was much more successful. "All things must pass" was way better than "McCartney" and that's just a fact.
Plus Something, Here comes the sun, and While my guitar gently weeps. And those songs he did mostly himself because Paul didn't give a shit about George's contributions. If it wasn't for Eric Clapton then "While my guitar gently weeps" wouldn't exist the way it does today.
So honestly George was just as talented as Paul. Paul just didn't see it and a lot of people don't even see it long after his death which is sad.
ATMP, most of which was written when George was still a Beatle, needed a great deal of assistance from many other musicians for its final format. George didn't do much after that, despite what his die hard fans think. Not all of Paul's solo stuff was great either, but much of it has since had more positive reapraissal than either John or George's work. Something is not the Beatles best song, although some will believe anything that Frank Sinatra says.
@@aubreypressley1450 All Things Must Pass is better than McCartney but not bettee than Ram, which is a masterpiece.
John was the voice of the Beatles and they were really his vehicle. Paul can hardly formulate anything to say in the interviews, whereas they all shut up when John was ready to speak (even when he got too honest and got in trouble.) Lennon had the vision and the dream wasn't over until he said so.
Nonsense, Paul was the spokesman; watch their press conferences and he also had a vision: The Magical Mystery Tour and Sgt.Pepper were his ideas. The Beatles would have split after Epstein"s death but Paul gave them a purpose with The Magical Mystery Tour. He kept them going.
While Epstein lived, John was the designated 'band leader'. That's never been disputed.
Epstein took John on holiday, while the others stayed home. Paul did have great input throughout. Much of the best work was collegiate. Everyone played a part. (except Ringo!)
But Pauls problem was that he believed his own hype. He thought these awful songs were worth keeping because..... he'd written them! He did good work and Awful stuff. He began to believe he was The Man. The others disagreed.
When Epstein died Paul was the leader; he gave them a purpose with the Magical Mystery Tour otherwise they would have split. No Magical Mystery Tour; no Sgt. Pepper; no Meddley and a lot of ( if not the majority ) of their biggest hits...
Yep. John was always the leader and that's why shortly after Paul took over the band split up! The Beatles split up when John decided he didn't want to be a Beatle anymore.
Bounoua Evelyne Paul's entire solo career, from a non-commercial standpoint, pales in comparison to John's Imagine, Working Class Hero, Instant karma, Nobody Told Me, Watching the Wheels, Beautiful Boy, Isolation, and on and on. Lyrics wise, Paul is not even in the same league as John. The Beatles will always be John Lennon's band. I'm also sick and tired of Paul taking credit for "co-writing" Help and In My Life, when in fact all he did was maybe contribute a word or two to these two songs.
A judge has ruled that the uninsured driver who knocked down a four-year-old boy in a residential street, causing serious brain damage to the victim, was driving too fast. A liability trial held at the High Court heard how the driver’s car hit the child with such force that he was thrown several feet through the air, resulting in a complex pelvic fracture and contusions of the lungs as well as severe brain injuries. -- this was about at 25 - 30MPH. In a car.
Ah, George. You had great talent, and obviously part of the greatest band of all time, but also had a massive chip on your shoulder.
Yeah and all that religiousness , one would think that " forgive" would be strong on his list.