Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
2.43am
14 November 2010
Offline
Isn't it interesting that even though George has been gone for ten years, and none of us knew him personally, we are still able to deduce his personality and analyze his music/career in such a way? And talk about him to this length? I think it's amazing. There are so many good posts up there. I think everything has been said so I have nothing more to add.
Except…. unknown: what?? Seriously?
3.23am
5 November 2011
Offline
JET! said:
Except…. unknown: what?? Seriously?
No, not really.
6.09pm
14 November 2010
Offline
Whew, okay. You had me there.
4.40am
9 February 2012
Offline
Quite simple. Stacked up against the greatest songwriting duo of all time, even God himself would be overshadowed.
6.50am
13 November 2011
Offline
What about Stu man!? He dies 21 and no one cares to know who he is and what an artist! 
8.52pm
5 November 2011
Offline
Stu quit, and who says nobody cares about him?!
7.50pm
16 February 2011
Offline
OT( I suppose)
Well, I do care about Stu! I think about him so much it's almost unhealthy. But it's true that not many people know him, even amongst Beatles fans. He didn't really have a major contribution to their music, and he left the band quite soon. His influence had more to do with their style and of course, the band's name. His painting career was very short as well, and since I hardly know a thing about painting I can't tell if he's extraordinarily good or not. Some of his pencil drawings are great though. I think think it's unrealistic to think that he would be worshipped as the greatest modernist when he had just begun; the reason he is famous to the degree he is today is probably because of his collaboration with the Beatles, and sadly, his untimely death.
But, about George. I'm kind of surprised reading this thread, since all the people I have met never talk Ringo yet sometimes do about George. And Ringo was also the last name of the Beatles I memorized; perhaps because John and George had died and legendized adn Paul, well, it's impossible not to know him.
And as to why he is underappreciated… Well, most of his music is kind of hard to approach and some of it "ranty", too. Common people don't listen music for great guitar riffs ( I do, neither) but instead focus on beautiful melodies and vocals. That is probably the reason why Here Comes the Sun is his most popular song: it's easy to approach.
I have been puzzled for quite some time now why he was dubbed the quiet one: if I'm not mistaken, during the Beatles Ringo spoke less than him. It might be that I'm biased because of the interviews I have seen, but that's the impression I've got.
6.19pm
19 February 2012
Offline
mr. Sun king coming together said
(And I don't mean by you guys – just the general population)
I think most of you would admit that George is under-appreciated. When people think of the Beatles, they normally say, "John, Paul, Ringo, and whatever that last guys name is." Why?
The older I get, (61 this year) the more I think George was the most 'interesting' of the Beatles. Yes, John and Paul wrote more, and better songs (tho' Frank Sinatra is supposed to have described 'Something' as not only one of the greatest love songs ever written, but also one of John and Paul's best!). Yes, John had one of the greatest voices in rock n roll. And yes, Paul was a multi-talented instrumentalist. But it was George who introduced the exotic sounds of India into the band's music and turned them on to eastern philosophy and religeons. And he was experimenting with gadgets such as the swell pedal ('Yes It Is'
, and the fuzz box ('Think for Yourself' before 'serious' rock guitarists began using them in their acts. All in all, I reckon his influence on the band's music was just as important in its own way as that of John and Paul; just subtler, less immediately obvious. I was deeply saddened when I learned of his passing.
7.59pm
1 May 2011
Offline
Minime, i think George went quiet at the press conferences and during interviews during the later tour years ('65 – ' 66) as he couldnt be bothered answering the same stupid questions for the 5,845 time. The Press soon had him dubbed as 'the quiet one' and it kind of stuck.
Whats evident with George is that if he would happily chat away if he felt the occasion deserved it. There is a 70's interview where the first 10 minutes or something was George practically saying nothing as George had nothing to promote and had no idea why he was on the shos whilst the interviewer tried desperately to get a conversation going. But eventually he opened up and the interview went on for ages.
Paul was always the one who would normally be polite despite the conversation. Recently heard a German '66 press conference where one of the questions was 'what do you dream of?'. The reaction from John was priceless.
12.55am
20 December 2010
Offline
sandancer1951 said
mr. Sun king coming together said
(And I don't mean by you guys – just the general population)
I think most of you would admit that George is under-appreciated. When people think of the Beatles, they normally say, "John, Paul, Ringo, and whatever that last guys name is." Why?
The older I get, (61 this year) the more I think George was the most 'interesting' of the Beatles. Yes, John and Paul wrote more, and better songs (tho' Frank Sinatra is supposed to have described 'Something' as not only one of the greatest love songs ever written, but also one of John and Paul's best!). Yes, John had one of the greatest voices in rock n roll. And yes, Paul was a multi-talented instrumentalist. But it was George who introduced the exotic sounds of India into the band's music and turned them on to eastern philosophy and religeons. And he was experimenting with gadgets such as the swell pedal ('Yes It Is'
, and the fuzz box ('Think for Yourself'
I have to agree with you that George was the most interesting. I have always said that they are all very talented but George was the most innovative Beatle. Between his backwards guitar process, 12 string guitar and introducing the eastern flavor to the music, I feel this was very important to the sound they achieved especially from Revolver up. Yes John and Paul did write the most songs but George always had a major impact especially in Lennon's songs in which he would let George be creative within the song writing process which is probably why I like Lennon's songs the most in the Beatles. I have said this before, George will never be as popular as McCartney because he didn't play the game, he didn't care about being famous and he wanted his privacy. Spirituality and mysticism was very important to him. George once said that to be famous, you had to be a show off. He just wasn't in to that and always wanted to write songs that would hold up the test and that would have meaning years from now.
1.05pm
19 April 2010
Offline
So I have to wonder and ask, at the risk of losing some Beatle friends, if the question that's being asked is Why isn't George equally appreciated? Is the assumption that because he is not seen as a musical/creative equal to John or Paul mean George is under-appreciated?
IMHO, George is plenty well appreciated, however he is not equally appreciated because the hard truth is that he is not their equal. This does not diminish George's incredible talent, but being compared to "Lennon/McCartney" is something even Lennon and McCartney had a difficult time with.
2.11pm
20 September 2011
Offline
Why is everyone writing in bold?
EDIT: Well, I guess I am too…
5.05pm
20 December 2010
Offline
robert said
So I have to wonder and ask, at the risk of losing some Beatle friends, if the question that's being asked is Why isn't George equally appreciated? Is the assumption that because he is not seen as a musical/creative equal to John or Paul mean George is under-appreciated?
IMHO, George is plenty well appreciated, however he is not equally appreciated because the hard truth is that he is not their equal. This does not diminish George's incredible talent, but being compared to "Lennon/McCartney" is something even Lennon and McCartney had a difficult time with.
I think if George was in any other band, he would have been a major force both as musician and songwriter. But once the Lennon/McCartney train started taking off, nothing was going to change that. I feel the reason why George didn't get more of his songs on the albums is because the label executives felt that the fans wanted to hear the L & M songs and if it's not broken, don't fix it.
7.22pm
19 September 2010
Offline
But Harrison only started writing because of Lennon/McCartney, and he only got better because he was around L&M. So to say "if he was in another band…" is impossible because he wouldn't have started writing unless he got the push to be Lennon or McCartney, in that he could write as well as them.
10.05pm
20 December 2010
Offline
mr. Sun king coming together said
But Harrison only started writing because of Lennon/McCartney, and he only got better because he was around L&M. So to say "if he was in another band…" is impossible because he wouldn't have started writing unless he got the push to be Lennon or McCartney, in that he could write as well as them.
Lennon and McCartney started writing songs in 1958 when they connected so had a few years on George. Harrison wrote his first song with lyrics (not including 'Cry For A Shadow' in 1963 with 'Don't Bother Me' as an exercise to see if he could write a song. He has also been quoted as saying that John and Paul got all there bad songs out of the way before they started writing some great tunes so had a head start. He has said in interviews that he felt if John & Paul could write, so could he. I think in the early days, his focus was on the lead guitar parts of the songs and was okay with singing an occasional song and did sing back up in a lot of the early songs. It wasn't until the later years where he felt the pressure of not getting his songs on the albums. I love Lennon/McCartney songs but it would have been interesting if some of the songs he did on ATMP would have made it onto the Beatles albums. There are some L&M songs I could live without and feel some of those ATMP songs would have been a nice fit.
11.15pm
1 May 2011
Offline
One of the problems George had was that John and expecially Paul always saw him as being the younger brother, plus the ego's kicked in from all 3.
8.40pm
12 November 2012
Offline
Although they were a year apart, Paul and George became good friends because they had much in common. Once the Lennon/McCartney songs became vital for the band to become famous, Paul became closer to John, who had considered George a kid. In the early days, John and Paul knew how important George was because Paul was afraid to play lead guitar, and John did not even know they had 6 strings. I will always appreciate you, George! I wish you were alive today!
11.24pm
21 November 2012
Offline
mr. Sun king coming together said
(And I don't mean by you guys – just the general population)I think most of you would admit that George is under-appreciated. When people think of the Beatles, they normally say, "John, Paul, Ringo, and whatever that last guys name is." Why?
Lol, for me it was always ''John, Paul, George and the guy with the weird name''
I never really felt as if George was under-appreciated. Not really. Everyone I know who knows the Beatles pretty much know all their names.
3.07am
3 September 2012
Offline
He always limited himself with his voice, especially compared to Paul or even John. The apparent highest note he has is in an outtake, B4; I'm pretty sure he's hit higher notes, in studio in harmonies or live those few times he did scream.
As for George being under-appreciated the amount of material on All Things Must Pass in addition to the amount of songs they limited him to per record within itself proves he was. His own wife opened her fat mouth about how much she loved Wild Honey Pie, which ended up making the album over an array of songs, of which Not Guilty was a choice. If the song had been a bit more polished, it would have been an excellent addition to the White Album. I believe his long sitar kick which contributed to the lack of songwriting (the one song on Sgt Pepper as well as MMT) during the Paul-prominent period (1967). Once he got back to it he was writing greats like While My Guitar Gently Weeps, and songs not as well known but still good. The problem is, people probably didn't tell the difference between them and thought John or Paul sang all his songs if they weren't true fans.
3.41am
1 November 2012
Offline
Something, or someone, can be inferior while still being great. All it means is that his greatness doesn't quite measure up to someone else's.
Ergo, George, vis-à-vis Paul and John.
Was that so difficult?
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online:
40 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
meanmistermustard: 3545
MeanMrsMustard: 2794
Egroeg Evoli: 1630
vonbontee: 1427
Von Bontee: 1397
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 87
Members: 1726
Moderators: 5
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 33
Topics: 2433
Posts: 74692
Newest Members: ThomRoxeb1, Mary Gaspard Mcmillan, Im.meena, aengorn7, Upsiditus
Moderators: Joe (2707), skye (2295), Ellie (1), Zig (2769), mithveaen (4675)
Administrators: Joe (2707)
