>spends a week writing with Dylan and hanging out with better musicians who had more respect for him than his own band mates >had All Things Must Pass but that was too 'difficult' for Lennon and Paul couldn't stand having to work on a song that wasn't by him or lennon >was also right about the guitar part which is used in the final take in the end >even with Paul acting like a colossal b***h Georg is the only one who is trying to help him, actively encourages them to release Get Back as a single >knows staying in the film studio is a waste of time so he silently leaves, visits his sick mother and writes Wah-Wah >saves the project by bringing in Preston and moving them to Apple Studios and bringing in his own equipment
Hm...seems like the other guys being to dimwitted was his problem
nothing. his songwriting skills were on par with lennon and mccartney towards the end but their egos wouldn't allow him to contribute anything. All things must past is mostly songs he wrote during the final years with the beatles. its a masterful album
not even the final years, some of the songs were written in '66 (Art of Dying for example was iirc shown to Lennon but he wasn't interested) and Simon Leng talks about how there are even more songs/material from that period that weren't released in the same album or the 50th anniversary edition
[...]
Something was being worked on for months because he didn't want it to end up being wasted on a album where they would only use songs that could be played live. He was showing it to some other musician during the same let it be sessions with Glyn so it was ready but other than that song he was working at an average pace. Here Comes The Sun was written in a day in Clapton's garden, What Is Life in 10 minutes so no, you're wrong.
>having this much knowledge about the 60s version of nsync/backstreet boys
are you guys diagnosed with autism? what encourages you to know about this?
correct
still, he comes across as passive-aggressive and a bit whiny. but considering they're all in their late twenties this is perfectly understandable.
paul was the only one who's head was in the right place though tbh.
>paul was the only one who's head was in the right place though tbh.
No, he was wrong from the very start. It was his idea to stay in the film studios and work on songs while being filmed knowing fully well that Ringo and John were both out of it and he himself wasn't ready to act like the leader which is why he is constantly b***hing about it. Man also wanted them to go back to touring and perform for a live audience even when he knows that the band is just about to split up. >still, he comes across as passive-aggressive and a bit whiny.
George does nothing but sit there, you should watch Hogg's Let It Be because Jackson makes a lot of cuts and stylistic choices here and there that aren't there in the original film/tapes.
I mean, yes Paul was factually incorrect but he was doing his best. John was spent, his wishy-washy attitude was unprofessional. George's little brother syndrome contributed to a hostile atmosphere (though I will check out the original let it be–I could be wrong on this point). Ringo was professional but sadly in no place to contribute creatively. Paul was wrong in the end but he wanted to the group to move forward, and they could have but the soul of the group had died. I don't mean to literally refer their manager when I say this but I might as well.
>it wasn't particularly bach like btw.
listen to it again and no Paul could've never done that, he wasn't that skilled at guitar
dunno man, have you heard his basslines? very musical, very melodic and quite all over the fretboards. He's no george but he's quite skilled mate.
>George's little brother syndrome contributed to a hostile atmosphere
Again thats only talked about by beatle 'historians' and magazines because they don't know George's musical history that well. Plus he didn't have any problem with working on Paul's or Lennon's songs (She Said She Said sounds exactly like a George song). Even in Let It Be he is the only one there who is trying to help Paul, throws For You Blue and Old Brown Shoe in after ATMP is shelved so that Lennon could do something without any effort. People assume that he was trying to be or compete with Lennon and McCartney but that ended for him during Rubber Soul. He just wanted to write his own songs that didn't align with either of the two's method of songwriting and because he wasn't the moneymaker he was sidelined.
I mean.. his musical merits notwithstanding that was the vibe I got from the docu. I'm well aware of his talents and songwriting skill. The choice to keep Lennon-McCartney as primary songwriters just makes business sense though. George's songs are wonderful yes; Paul and John's songs are hits for a reason. The Beatles were a wild sensation because women fricking loved them--half of those earlier compositions are about love, or loving women, or women loving them, or holding hands or gay shit like that. All good compositions, Paul's lyrics were the catchiest imo. George is a wonderful songwriter but his songs are moody. Great pieces of art but keeping paul and john at the forefront makes obvious business sense. I'm glad the group broke up so we could appreciate their individual talents but I don't think it was unfair that george was sidelined while they were still together.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Fair, that was how the band was formed after all. John and Paul had mutually decided to keep George out of the songwriting department because at first George wasn't interested in it. But actively discouraging him when he had just started writing, both John/Paul and Martin admit to doing that, and doing that for years on end was a shit move.
so... he was wrong because he was desperately trying to keep the band together in the wake of Brian Epstein's death? I would say John is the most at fault considering he was fricking drugged out of his mind and in a creepy codependent relationship with screeching asiatic Yoko that made everyone feel uncomfortable.
>it wasn't particularly bach like btw.
listen to it again and no Paul could've never done that, he wasn't that skilled at guitar
All George did was play guitar solos, so he damn well should be better at that than Paul the multi-instrumentalist who regularly performed bass, guitar, keyboard, drums, and vocals.
>because he was desperately trying to keep the band together in the wake of Brian Epstein's death?
I just told you that he wasn't trying to do that, he was being an egoistical gay like he always was. >Paul the multi-instrumentalist who regularly performed bass, guitar, keyboard, drums, and vocals. >George wasn't a multi-instrumentalist
maybe Paul should've used those talents instead of writing his 'silly little love songs'
nothing. his songwriting skills were on par with lennon and mccartney towards the end but their egos wouldn't allow him to contribute anything. All things must past is mostly songs he wrote during the final years with the beatles. its a masterful album
not even the final years, some of the songs were written in '66 (Art of Dying for example was iirc shown to Lennon but he wasn't interested) and Simon Leng talks about how there are even more songs/material from that period that weren't released in the same album or the 50th anniversary edition
he was seething because it took him months to refine one song to the point of being comparable to something McCartney could pull out of his ass after a quick nap
Something was being worked on for months because he didn't want it to end up being wasted on a album where they would only use songs that could be played live. He was showing it to some other musician during the same let it be sessions with Glyn so it was ready but other than that song he was working at an average pace. Here Comes The Sun was written in a day in Clapton's garden, What Is Life in 10 minutes so no, you're wrong.
he was seething because it took him months to refine one song to the point of being comparable to something McCartney could pull out of his ass after a quick nap
mccartneys music went to shit when lennon fried his brain with drugs. there was nothing there to keep his creative styles in check. it was always about the balance between those two
I don't disagree with you; The Beatles were more than the sum of their parts. I'm actually a fan of all of them, but this board is so pro-George for some reason that I usually find myself defending Lennon or McCartney.
not even the final years, some of the songs were written in '66 (Art of Dying for example was iirc shown to Lennon but he wasn't interested) and Simon Leng talks about how there are even more songs/material from that period that weren't released in the same album or the 50th anniversary edition
[...]
Something was being worked on for months because he didn't want it to end up being wasted on a album where they would only use songs that could be played live. He was showing it to some other musician during the same let it be sessions with Glyn so it was ready but other than that song he was working at an average pace. Here Comes The Sun was written in a day in Clapton's garden, What Is Life in 10 minutes so no, you're wrong.
I like George, but he only wrote a few great songs throughout his entire career. Paul was writing a few songs of similar quality on every Beatles album. They are not really comparable.
John was my favorite but I sympathize with George. I think the band could have really expanded if they stuck around a bit longer and let George contribute more
>a few
cringe >They are not really comparable.
Yeah, because George is miles ahead of Paul in terms of practically everything. Paul could easily do the solo in Taxman but could he ever do the bach like solo in And Your Bird Can Sing?
uh, yes paul could absolutely do that solo. it wasn't particularly bach like btw.
you need not disparage paul to praise george; a close look at nearly any of paul's basslines will prove his worth as a musician purely.
Ringo : fun guy to be around helping create a nice mood.
Paul : workaholic that was obsessed at making music because he knew the band didnt have much more time.
John : useless simp drug addict who got dominated by an ugly chink and just wanted to be wasted with zero motivation to make music.
George: religious lunatic that had the typical little brother complex towards Paul, even tho the one always making fun of him was John.
>even tho the one always making fun of him was John.
Wrong and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Paul scoffs at the idea that George was becoming a good songwriter in the While Album when an interviewer says so while John, even if he was also a b***h to George, was the one pushing for Something to be released as a single and had no problem working with George on his songs in Revolver or after.
Thats the one thing I never got, when George presented "I, me, mine" John might as well given him a wedgie with how hard he dissmised him and kept poking at him all thru the recordings but somehow George is always seething at Paul despite him always being sweet and considerate with him?
>George is always seething at Paul despite him always being sweet and considerate with him?
Nice revisionism. Paul wasn't sweet or considerate with him and that is apparent even in the McCartney produced "documentary." And he wasn't seething, scroll up if you want proof. George didn't have that big of an ego and he knew that his friend was just spewing shit because he is constantly taking heroin so he didn't bother arguing with him but to pretend like he and John didn't also fight regularly is just moronic. >Makes zero sense
Because you're just making shit up.
Thats the one thing I never got, when George presented "I, me, mine" John might as well given him a wedgie with how hard he dissmised him and kept poking at him all thru the recordings but somehow George is always seething at Paul despite him always being sweet and considerate with him?
Makes zero sense
has a point.
I think George deferred to the original pecking order; he was okay with John (the original leader) acting dickish but felt threatened when Paul (the new, emerging, admittedly prickish) bassist took the reins and talked high and mighty. Hard to retain the original brotherhood when someone transcends their original placement.
>he was okay with John (the original leader) acting dickish
he literally wasn't which is why when John asked him to allow Yoko on stage during Concert For Bangladesh he immediately shoots the idea down and they never reconciled after that. John himself says many times that they fought a lot after the white album because George didn't like that John was bringing in his wife during recordings. There are countless other examples of George fighting with John but of course you're too moronic to look them up because you want to stick to your own made up story. >but felt threatened when Paul (the new, emerging, admittedly prickish) bassist took the reins and talked high and mighty.
are you moronic? both paul and john used to team up to act like dicks whenever George's songs were being recorded from the very start.
>are you moronic? both paul and john used to team up to act like dicks whenever George's songs were being recorded from the very start.
Still... you'd imagine it was paul following John's lead with that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, did you forget Hey Jude? Let It Be has Paul constantly ignore George when he suggests something, that wasn't new. Paul was always the worst to him, thats just an objective fact and never stopped being so even when they were recording Free As A Bird. When Jeff suggests that George should do a slide solo for that song Paul immediately starts seething
>No more Harrisongs, John >What? >I said, no more Harrisongs. Maybe you didn't hear about it, you've been away doing heroin a long time. Paul and Ringo didn't tell you. I'm leaving the band now. >Relax, will you? You flip right out, what's got into you? I'm breaking your balls a little bit, that's all. I'm only kidding with you. >Sometimes you don't sound like you're kidding, you know, there's a lotta roadies around. >I'm only kidding with you, we're making an album, we just started reharsing and I haven't played with you in a long time and I'm breaking your balls, and you're getting fricking fresh. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. >I'm sorry, too. It's OK. No problem. >OK, cheers *takes a drink* Now go home and write another fricking Harrisong! We're a rock and roll band you know!
George is an butthole anyway. He kept getting shat on my daddy John and mommy Paul and what does he do? Instead of defending himself he takes it out on Ringo when he dares to share a song knowing that everyone sees him as the shittiest one on the group
Hot take: McCartney's only solo song that's as good as his Beatles songs is Maybe I'm Amazed. The rest is mediocre or absolute garbage. While Lennon and Harrison released albums full of Beatle-tier songs.
>mother >on the white album
Yeah. You're a fricking liar. >McCartney wouldn't dare being that sincere
You're right in a sense; McCartney's songs aren't particularly introspective. They're like dreams, but there's nothing bad or wrong about that.
>They're like dreams, but there's nothing bad or wrong about that.
John's #9 Dream actually sounds like a dream. Such a lush sound, did Spector produce that one?
Paul and John's gargantuan egos were hurt by George not worshipping them anymore and not limiting himself to just playing guitar parts for their songs. He started hanging out with Dylan and Clapton, etc and realized there was a world beyond the Lennon & McCartney dictatorship. Who did McCartney hang out with? He was up in the stratosphere all alone. While Lennon was constantly stoned and barely wrote songs anymore
I don't blame paul at all for being how he was. He's a songwriting genius and talented multi-instrumentalist; he still tours to this day, mostly resting on his past laurels but his accomplishments are superlative. He's an egomaniac and control-freak but when the product is so good you're allowed to be that, like brain wilson of the beach boys.
I think John was probably the most genius of them all but he was not on the same level of creative productivity as Paul.
George is fantastic but much in the same way pink floyd is fantastic; you listen to the music and feel things, you're not going to concerts and dancing the night away.
>all but he was not on the same level of creative productivity as Paul.
Not every musician or artist should strive to be as productive as Paul and neither do they want to, John especially so. Most of his songs were almost always improvised and thats why they have emotion that Paul could never get in his own songs.
George comes off as a better artist to me because because he could improvise songs with his band easily and also be a perfectionist while writing god tier lyrics.
I agree. I think John is the better artist for his freewheeling, improvisational style. I'm simply saying that Paul was, and is an absolute powerhouse. John was like Beethoven; Paul was like Bach.
It probably took George like 400 tries and 5 or 6 years to write a song as good as Something. While McCartney literally wrote like 20 songs a day, 2 or 3 of them being masterpieces.
Also wrong, he was only working on Something for so long because he wanted to use overdubs, Let It Be was not the right time for it but he was ready to give it to another musician. Plenty of his 'classics' were written in a day or two to three hours, Here Comes The Sun being the prime example. Not the gotcha moment you think it is kid
NTA but let's not pretend like I Me Mine is some masterpiece. Spector made the track what it is by doubling the "rock" section. It's more of an idea than a fully formed song.
I Me Mine was absolutely fine before John introduced that 'hard-rock' part. It could've been saved in ATMP but it is still better than Across The Universe.
You completely misunderstood what I meant. Harrison became such a good songwriter by trial and error, he literally said as much. Just like you become good at math or whatever, by practicing and practicing. He wasn't a "natural". Obviously by 1969 he could knock off those masterpieces in a few hours but it took him years to get there. Lennon and McCartney were naturals and didn't have to struggle to write anything, yet they were also perfectionists which is why they were so above everyone else.
>He wasn't a "natural".
Well of course, he didn't even play guitar like that because he was a perfectionist. Plus he had started late, so he had to work on songs alone while Paul/John had already had enough practice but its not as if that duo hadn't written their own mediocre songs despite being commercially successful.
Dunno, normalgays think insisting George was best will get them redditgold or something. In all seriousness it's a base level contrarian take that normies think makes them sound unique. Happens plenty IRL too. The correct opinion of course is that John was the true beatle.
>spends a week writing with Dylan and hanging out with better musicians who had more respect for him than his own band mates
>had All Things Must Pass but that was too 'difficult' for Lennon and Paul couldn't stand having to work on a song that wasn't by him or lennon
>was also right about the guitar part which is used in the final take in the end
>even with Paul acting like a colossal b***h Georg is the only one who is trying to help him, actively encourages them to release Get Back as a single
>knows staying in the film studio is a waste of time so he silently leaves, visits his sick mother and writes Wah-Wah
>saves the project by bringing in Preston and moving them to Apple Studios and bringing in his own equipment
Hm...seems like the other guys being to dimwitted was his problem
>having this much knowledge about the 60s version of nsync/backstreet boys
are you guys diagnosed with autism? what encourages you to know about this?
OPPAN GANGNAM STYLE
>are you guys diagnosed with autism
you're posting on Cinemaphile
correct
still, he comes across as passive-aggressive and a bit whiny. but considering they're all in their late twenties this is perfectly understandable.
paul was the only one who's head was in the right place though tbh.
>paul was the only one who's head was in the right place though tbh.
No, he was wrong from the very start. It was his idea to stay in the film studios and work on songs while being filmed knowing fully well that Ringo and John were both out of it and he himself wasn't ready to act like the leader which is why he is constantly b***hing about it. Man also wanted them to go back to touring and perform for a live audience even when he knows that the band is just about to split up.
>still, he comes across as passive-aggressive and a bit whiny.
George does nothing but sit there, you should watch Hogg's Let It Be because Jackson makes a lot of cuts and stylistic choices here and there that aren't there in the original film/tapes.
I mean, yes Paul was factually incorrect but he was doing his best. John was spent, his wishy-washy attitude was unprofessional. George's little brother syndrome contributed to a hostile atmosphere (though I will check out the original let it be–I could be wrong on this point). Ringo was professional but sadly in no place to contribute creatively. Paul was wrong in the end but he wanted to the group to move forward, and they could have but the soul of the group had died. I don't mean to literally refer their manager when I say this but I might as well.
dunno man, have you heard his basslines? very musical, very melodic and quite all over the fretboards. He's no george but he's quite skilled mate.
>George's little brother syndrome contributed to a hostile atmosphere
Again thats only talked about by beatle 'historians' and magazines because they don't know George's musical history that well. Plus he didn't have any problem with working on Paul's or Lennon's songs (She Said She Said sounds exactly like a George song). Even in Let It Be he is the only one there who is trying to help Paul, throws For You Blue and Old Brown Shoe in after ATMP is shelved so that Lennon could do something without any effort. People assume that he was trying to be or compete with Lennon and McCartney but that ended for him during Rubber Soul. He just wanted to write his own songs that didn't align with either of the two's method of songwriting and because he wasn't the moneymaker he was sidelined.
I mean.. his musical merits notwithstanding that was the vibe I got from the docu. I'm well aware of his talents and songwriting skill. The choice to keep Lennon-McCartney as primary songwriters just makes business sense though. George's songs are wonderful yes; Paul and John's songs are hits for a reason. The Beatles were a wild sensation because women fricking loved them--half of those earlier compositions are about love, or loving women, or women loving them, or holding hands or gay shit like that. All good compositions, Paul's lyrics were the catchiest imo. George is a wonderful songwriter but his songs are moody. Great pieces of art but keeping paul and john at the forefront makes obvious business sense. I'm glad the group broke up so we could appreciate their individual talents but I don't think it was unfair that george was sidelined while they were still together.
Fair, that was how the band was formed after all. John and Paul had mutually decided to keep George out of the songwriting department because at first George wasn't interested in it. But actively discouraging him when he had just started writing, both John/Paul and Martin admit to doing that, and doing that for years on end was a shit move.
so... he was wrong because he was desperately trying to keep the band together in the wake of Brian Epstein's death? I would say John is the most at fault considering he was fricking drugged out of his mind and in a creepy codependent relationship with screeching asiatic Yoko that made everyone feel uncomfortable.
All George did was play guitar solos, so he damn well should be better at that than Paul the multi-instrumentalist who regularly performed bass, guitar, keyboard, drums, and vocals.
>because he was desperately trying to keep the band together in the wake of Brian Epstein's death?
I just told you that he wasn't trying to do that, he was being an egoistical gay like he always was.
>Paul the multi-instrumentalist who regularly performed bass, guitar, keyboard, drums, and vocals.
>George wasn't a multi-instrumentalist
maybe Paul should've used those talents instead of writing his 'silly little love songs'
Hey, just want to tell you you're absolutely based.
nothing. his songwriting skills were on par with lennon and mccartney towards the end but their egos wouldn't allow him to contribute anything. All things must past is mostly songs he wrote during the final years with the beatles. its a masterful album
not even the final years, some of the songs were written in '66 (Art of Dying for example was iirc shown to Lennon but he wasn't interested) and Simon Leng talks about how there are even more songs/material from that period that weren't released in the same album or the 50th anniversary edition
Something was being worked on for months because he didn't want it to end up being wasted on a album where they would only use songs that could be played live. He was showing it to some other musician during the same let it be sessions with Glyn so it was ready but other than that song he was working at an average pace. Here Comes The Sun was written in a day in Clapton's garden, What Is Life in 10 minutes so no, you're wrong.
he was seething because it took him months to refine one song to the point of being comparable to something McCartney could pull out of his ass after a quick nap
mccartneys music went to shit when lennon fried his brain with drugs. there was nothing there to keep his creative styles in check. it was always about the balance between those two
I don't disagree with you; The Beatles were more than the sum of their parts. I'm actually a fan of all of them, but this board is so pro-George for some reason that I usually find myself defending Lennon or McCartney.
I like George, but he only wrote a few great songs throughout his entire career. Paul was writing a few songs of similar quality on every Beatles album. They are not really comparable.
John was my favorite but I sympathize with George. I think the band could have really expanded if they stuck around a bit longer and let George contribute more
>a few
cringe
>They are not really comparable.
Yeah, because George is miles ahead of Paul in terms of practically everything. Paul could easily do the solo in Taxman but could he ever do the bach like solo in And Your Bird Can Sing?
uh, yes paul could absolutely do that solo. it wasn't particularly bach like btw.
you need not disparage paul to praise george; a close look at nearly any of paul's basslines will prove his worth as a musician purely.
>it wasn't particularly bach like btw.
listen to it again and no Paul could've never done that, he wasn't that skilled at guitar
part of the world's most reddit band, thank god he's gone.
queen were better
(you)
>this reddit band is better than that reddit band
Hahahaha reddit reddit reddit! This is fun. Respond. Reddit. Haha. So fun. reddit reddit. Ha reddit.
Reddit wants you back.
>more troonys and soiboys with spotify accounts listen to queen so they're objectively better
>singles the band
imagine
the smell
it's easy if you try
>*mogs The Beatles in every possible way*
They have 3 good albums. I like the Kinks but nah.
After this came out the Beatless tiers are
Ringo : fun guy to be around helping create a nice mood.
Paul : workaholic that was obsessed at making music because he knew the band didnt have much more time.
John : useless simp drug addict who got dominated by an ugly chink and just wanted to be wasted with zero motivation to make music.
George: religious lunatic that had the typical little brother complex towards Paul, even tho the one always making fun of him was John.
>even tho the one always making fun of him was John.
Wrong and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Paul scoffs at the idea that George was becoming a good songwriter in the While Album when an interviewer says so while John, even if he was also a b***h to George, was the one pushing for Something to be released as a single and had no problem working with George on his songs in Revolver or after.
Thats the one thing I never got, when George presented "I, me, mine" John might as well given him a wedgie with how hard he dissmised him and kept poking at him all thru the recordings but somehow George is always seething at Paul despite him always being sweet and considerate with him?
Makes zero sense
>George is always seething at Paul despite him always being sweet and considerate with him?
Nice revisionism. Paul wasn't sweet or considerate with him and that is apparent even in the McCartney produced "documentary." And he wasn't seething, scroll up if you want proof. George didn't have that big of an ego and he knew that his friend was just spewing shit because he is constantly taking heroin so he didn't bother arguing with him but to pretend like he and John didn't also fight regularly is just moronic.
>Makes zero sense
Because you're just making shit up.
No,
has a point.
I think George deferred to the original pecking order; he was okay with John (the original leader) acting dickish but felt threatened when Paul (the new, emerging, admittedly prickish) bassist took the reins and talked high and mighty. Hard to retain the original brotherhood when someone transcends their original placement.
>he was okay with John (the original leader) acting dickish
he literally wasn't which is why when John asked him to allow Yoko on stage during Concert For Bangladesh he immediately shoots the idea down and they never reconciled after that. John himself says many times that they fought a lot after the white album because George didn't like that John was bringing in his wife during recordings. There are countless other examples of George fighting with John but of course you're too moronic to look them up because you want to stick to your own made up story.
>but felt threatened when Paul (the new, emerging, admittedly prickish) bassist took the reins and talked high and mighty.
are you moronic? both paul and john used to team up to act like dicks whenever George's songs were being recorded from the very start.
George's songs weren't that good in the beginning so it's probable they had to humor him for a long time before he became competent.
ok moron
Are you really going to pretend that "Dont Bother Me" was on the same level as was Paul and John's stuff at the time?
Was I talking about their first two pop albums? Even then Paul and John were writing hits, not objectively 'good' songs.
>are you moronic? both paul and john used to team up to act like dicks whenever George's songs were being recorded from the very start.
Still... you'd imagine it was paul following John's lead with that.
No, did you forget Hey Jude? Let It Be has Paul constantly ignore George when he suggests something, that wasn't new. Paul was always the worst to him, thats just an objective fact and never stopped being so even when they were recording Free As A Bird. When Jeff suggests that George should do a slide solo for that song Paul immediately starts seething
>No more Harrisongs, John
>What?
>I said, no more Harrisongs. Maybe you didn't hear about it, you've been away doing heroin a long time. Paul and Ringo didn't tell you. I'm leaving the band now.
>Relax, will you? You flip right out, what's got into you? I'm breaking your balls a little bit, that's all. I'm only kidding with you.
>Sometimes you don't sound like you're kidding, you know, there's a lotta roadies around.
>I'm only kidding with you, we're making an album, we just started reharsing and I haven't played with you in a long time and I'm breaking your balls, and you're getting fricking fresh. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you.
>I'm sorry, too. It's OK. No problem.
>OK, cheers *takes a drink* Now go home and write another fricking Harrisong! We're a rock and roll band you know!
>Way down below the ocean
>Where I wanna be, she may be
George is an butthole anyway. He kept getting shat on my daddy John and mommy Paul and what does he do? Instead of defending himself he takes it out on Ringo when he dares to share a song knowing that everyone sees him as the shittiest one on the group
>You learned A minor... Eh?
>*snap*
>Yeah thats going in my cringe compilation
That was just banter. George was nice and helped Ringo with the song. It was a sweet moment
Hot take: McCartney's only solo song that's as good as his Beatles songs is Maybe I'm Amazed. The rest is mediocre or absolute garbage. While Lennon and Harrison released albums full of Beatle-tier songs.
>Band on the Run
>Jet
>Silly Love Songs
>Live and Let Die
>Ebony and Ivory
Try again
All mediocre. Jet is fricking awful
>Say Say Say
>Arrow Through Me
Don't you dare fricking say plastic ono band is full of beatles esque material. you fricking liar
Hold On, Mother, Working Class Hero, Isolation could all be on The White Album. McCartney wouldn't dare being that sincere
>mother
>on the white album
Yeah. You're a fricking liar.
>McCartney wouldn't dare being that sincere
You're right in a sense; McCartney's songs aren't particularly introspective. They're like dreams, but there's nothing bad or wrong about that.
>They're like dreams, but there's nothing bad or wrong about that.
John's #9 Dream actually sounds like a dream. Such a lush sound, did Spector produce that one?
>hot take
More like absolutely moronic take holy shit.
Paul and John's gargantuan egos were hurt by George not worshipping them anymore and not limiting himself to just playing guitar parts for their songs. He started hanging out with Dylan and Clapton, etc and realized there was a world beyond the Lennon & McCartney dictatorship. Who did McCartney hang out with? He was up in the stratosphere all alone. While Lennon was constantly stoned and barely wrote songs anymore
I don't blame paul at all for being how he was. He's a songwriting genius and talented multi-instrumentalist; he still tours to this day, mostly resting on his past laurels but his accomplishments are superlative. He's an egomaniac and control-freak but when the product is so good you're allowed to be that, like brain wilson of the beach boys.
I think John was probably the most genius of them all but he was not on the same level of creative productivity as Paul.
George is fantastic but much in the same way pink floyd is fantastic; you listen to the music and feel things, you're not going to concerts and dancing the night away.
>you listen to the music and feel things, you're not going to concerts and dancing the night away.
So?
So that limits his (mass) appeal a bit.
>all but he was not on the same level of creative productivity as Paul.
Not every musician or artist should strive to be as productive as Paul and neither do they want to, John especially so. Most of his songs were almost always improvised and thats why they have emotion that Paul could never get in his own songs.
George comes off as a better artist to me because because he could improvise songs with his band easily and also be a perfectionist while writing god tier lyrics.
I agree. I think John is the better artist for his freewheeling, improvisational style. I'm simply saying that Paul was, and is an absolute powerhouse. John was like Beethoven; Paul was like Bach.
It probably took George like 400 tries and 5 or 6 years to write a song as good as Something. While McCartney literally wrote like 20 songs a day, 2 or 3 of them being masterpieces.
Also wrong, he was only working on Something for so long because he wanted to use overdubs, Let It Be was not the right time for it but he was ready to give it to another musician. Plenty of his 'classics' were written in a day or two to three hours, Here Comes The Sun being the prime example. Not the gotcha moment you think it is kid
NTA but let's not pretend like I Me Mine is some masterpiece. Spector made the track what it is by doubling the "rock" section. It's more of an idea than a fully formed song.
I Me Mine was absolutely fine before John introduced that 'hard-rock' part. It could've been saved in ATMP but it is still better than Across The Universe.
You completely misunderstood what I meant. Harrison became such a good songwriter by trial and error, he literally said as much. Just like you become good at math or whatever, by practicing and practicing. He wasn't a "natural". Obviously by 1969 he could knock off those masterpieces in a few hours but it took him years to get there. Lennon and McCartney were naturals and didn't have to struggle to write anything, yet they were also perfectionists which is why they were so above everyone else.
>He wasn't a "natural".
Well of course, he didn't even play guitar like that because he was a perfectionist. Plus he had started late, so he had to work on songs alone while Paul/John had already had enough practice but its not as if that duo hadn't written their own mediocre songs despite being commercially successful.
Yoko stole his cookie
Why are Beatles threads here always about George
Dunno, normalgays think insisting George was best will get them redditgold or something. In all seriousness it's a base level contrarian take that normies think makes them sound unique. Happens plenty IRL too. The correct opinion of course is that John was the true beatle.
>nooo you are being le contrarian by liking George
Paul has always been reddit's favorite beatle, dunno what you're talking about
I don't actually know what reddit likes or dislikes but I do know people who want to seem "le unique" insist George was the dark horse.
>George was the dark horse.
he was so...cope
No, Paul is the winner. Partially due to outliving the others, but hey them's the breaks.
john lennon loved his wife
The handsome one, everyone else had it out for him because of this
I'D LIKE TO BE