22 December 2013
The term 'brothers' ... gets a lot of usage in this thread. If you're a guy and you have brothers... well, I can certainly relate. I have a couple. And we're constantly in each other's nose about something or other. Always finding a fault or getting pissed off at what one said or what the other did. Behind it all, it would be crushing if something were to happen to one of them.
Paul and George, only 8 months (not 9, Sir Paul) difference in age, fast friends because of their interest in music, spending time at each others house and hitchhiking across the country together, long before McCartney met that Lennon boy... They would wind up living together under arduous and sometimes extreme circumstances, with insane pressures. Stressed, when their peers were allowed to blissfully bloom into their adult years. And all the while, searching for an identity that didn't constantly include references to them as a group. Isolated as they were, who could they blame for failing to gain an individual identity, outside of each other?
Yeah. Brothers. It's easy to understand why vast differences in their respective personalities resulted in things dragging on for years and the readily apparent animosity whenever they were in the same room. But when the one died, the other was indeed crushed. Believe it.
This video is nice
for it not only contains some great audio from 'The Threatles' sessions, but some great photos as well. For those who are pressed for time and still doubt that George and Paul truly loved each other, check out the image slotted in at the 3:17 mark, still wanna believe that there was animosity between them? Take your heads and "Shake It Up Baby Now!"...:-)
The following people thank Billy Rhythm for this post:...ontherun, meanmistermustard, C.R.A., ewe2, LittleBeatlemaniac, all things must pass
3 March 2012
Have to say I honestly believe he did and he enjoyed it. George could be difficult and lovable and witty and cutting and... Well, he was vast! The man contained multitudes as another poet once sort of said.
For every post on this thread hinting at annoyance on George's part, I see three where George is clearly pleased to be there; a genuine joy.
Yes. There was a Paul / George rift. They got over it. We should, too.
I find this thread, and the interview with George therein, particularly insightful with regard to how George viewed Paul later in his far too short life.
(hope I linked that right)
The following people thank ...ontherun for this post:Beatlebug, all things must pass
A square is not a square when the sides are less than four...
20 August 2013
There was some discussion of this topic in this thread
If John and George were alive today...
I locked that thread and made a post directing people to this thread and one of the John threads for further discussion on the ideas contained in that thread.
The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:meanmistermustard
Can buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. (2017) (2018)
1 May 2011
Note sure where to post this so will place it here (posted the other half of this entry here)
Reading thru part of Keith Badman's book 'The Beatles Diary Volume 2: After The Break-Up 1970 – 2001' came across this excerpt from an entry for October 1992.
In the States, an interview with George, carried out by Bill Flangan, is reprinted in this month's Rock CD magazine. During the feature, George... talks about the Beatles Anthology documentary series, currently in production. "This thing has been laying in cans for years," he reveals. "We did an interview for it and during the course of the questions, this thought came into my mind, which sums up the whole of The Beatles' years: How many Beatles does it take to change a light bulb? The answer is four: John, Paul, George and Ringo. Whatever history thinks, that's what it was." (The interview had previously been printed in the American publication Musician.)
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
9 January 2015
in one of his last interviews George was asked: does Paul still piss you off? and he answered: i'm sure many things of myself pisses off Paul too, but i think at this point of our life we have become to a very good balanced point. the thing between the two of our heroes is very complex and it should deserve a book! through the years they went through many ups and downs (i.e. Paul asked to George to play on wanderlust in change for playng on All those years ago and he said yes. sadly the thing didn't happened. another example: George visited Paul during the sessions of London Town and said he loved I'm carryng) but if in the final years they returned very close, so the Antohology project must have happened in a warm atmosphere after all. asked if he would have played on what would become Driving rain George said: why not? maybe...regarding George's attitude to the Beatles- don't forget he wrote When we was fab!- i think he finally accepted that he would never be free from his image of Beatle George. the regret for us is that the two played only on anthology and All those years ago after 1970 while they could have done great things again. it was destiny, probably
The following people thank Rising sun for this post:all things must pass
12 May 2015
An interesting question, and having rewatched anthology recently i think i would tend to say "no" is the answer.
I think it's obvious from the film that harrison finds aspects of pauls personality 'rub him up the wrong way' , none more obvious than the instances where mccartney slips into beatle paul mode. To be fair paul tries to keep that to a minimum but when it inevitably happens harrison visibly blanches. In those scenes you can see why the 2 men did not work together professionally outside of the beatles more.
George had to put up with a lot of shit from paul back in the band and the pain and humiliation of his experiences never really faded, when you add in the years of sniping and legal battles i tend to think that it would be folly to assume they could return to the closeness they shared as young men. But i think as much as george could tolerate paul privately he really wanted the experience of them working together again musically to be as brief as possible. He also exerted as much control as he could over the project too, clashing with paul when he rejected "Carnival Of Light " and refusing to do a 3rd lennon song for the albums...much to paul's annoyance.
Harrison admitted pretty much that he did 'anthology' for the money. I think it's unlikely the 2 men would have worked together again, Whilst he clearly enjoys being with paul and (especially ringo) in a social context i don't think george was the kind of dude who enjoyed many strolls down memory lane...especially when they were to please paul's considerable ego.
The following people thank castironshore for this post:all things must pass
27 March 2015
George seemed happy enough in some of the interviews, but he looked bored in some others. I remember feeling like he had a rather large chip on his shoulder at times. I know he wasn't exactly Paul's biggest fan by the time the band broke up, but I can't imagine him holding a grudge that long. Especially since forgiveness, letting go, etc seemed such an integral part of his spirituality. Still, he seemed so angry at times. Could've been just my interpretation of course.
Formerly Known As JPM-Fangirl -- 2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
1 May 2011
George never quite settled his differences with Paul until he got ill and it wasnt important any more; thats the thing with the four Beatles, they were like family in that they had their differences which led them apart but when anything serious happened to any of them all that crap didnt really matter and they were there for each other. As John once said - (and i paraphrase) - i can say disparaging remarks about the other 3 but no one else (outside the group) can.
At times during the Anthology filming George is obviously not wanting to be there yet at other times he is enjoying himself, even with Paul in the room.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:Beatlebug, ewe2, all things must pass
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
8 January 2015
I don't think he ever made up his mind about it, George did like to be yes-no about everything anyway. I don't think it was all about Paul either; George was going to assert his opinion because he cared about the Beatles as an entity as much as the others did, and also wanted the freedom to change his mind too.
The following people thank ewe2 for this post:Ahhh Girl, all things must pass
I'm like Necko only I'm a bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin and also everyone. Or is everyone me? Now I'm a confused bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin everyone who is definitely not @Joe. This has been true for 2016 & 2017 but I may have to get more specific in the future.
7 May 2015
At first when I read the title of this topic I thought "well that's a silly question, of course he would! if the other two are participating then surely he should join in too" but then I thought back to the last time I saw the Anthology documentaries and George does seem to give a lot of fairly straight answers looking not disinterested but just plain tired.
The following people thank The Faul On The Hill for this post:all things must pass
9 June 2015
I may just be oblivious to body language or something, but I feel like everyone is reading a lot into it? I just got through watching the Anthology for the first time and never got the impression that he was hating it or anything. Never really even crossed my mind till I saw this thread. Maybe sometimes he seemed a tad disinterested, but that could've just been tiredness or something? Just my gut reaction
The following people thank So Fine Sunshine for this post:all things must pass
27 April 2015
After John's death, didn't Paul say something like, "I'll not fight or be bitter towards anyone in my life again", or something to that effect? So, I think they would've reconciled. But settling differences and willingness to work together again on something are two different things, in my opinion.
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
9 August 2011
- George was in the 'excellent' category: excellent (and creative) guitarist, wrote some excellent songs, was an excellent fit for the Beatles, etc...
Paul and John, however, are in the 'genius' category. Depending on his mood, George must have respected/resented that. I suppose that comes through in the Anthology, though I didn't quite pick up the negative vibes most everyone else here has. (His long unkempt beard in some cuts does seem somewhat passive/aggressive.)
- When it comes to Paul to telling others how he wanted his songs to sound, I'm with him on that. Since he's got a flair for production and knows what he wants, who's to criticize? I do see George's point of view of course, so it was time for the band to break up.
- As noted, on the Klein issue Paul turned out to be right. Again, George must have respected/resented that.
- As everybody has pointed out, siblings can fight.
- If it had been Paul stricken with cancer, George would have been there for him, and he would have said for all to hear how much Paul had meant to his life and career.
There's one item where I'm 100% on George's side: it's patronizing for Paul to keep referring to George as his little brother. Though that's certainly a part of his relationship, he could just as easily say 'my treasured bandmate.'
The following people thank Into the Sky with Diamonds for this post:Wigwam, star1262
"Into the Sky with Diamonds" (the Beatles and the Race to the Moon – a history)
17 October 2013
George was a well balanced guy in the sense that he had a chip on both shoulders……John on one and Paul on 'tother.
They must have been hard to work with. George could have felt that he gave both of them more creatively than he ever got in return………It must have seemed that all he got back was direction, particularly from Paul who could do everybodies' job and let them know it.
But when you look at Paul's contribution to George's songs that's not true. Taxman ……the most beautiful bass lines on Something ……Piano intro to WMGGW…..The tinkly piano part in, For You Blue . And watch how hard both Paul and John support …The can't sing..'Gorra cold... but couldn't care less... I'll just shake me bonce an gerra scream George... at the Budokan.
George was a major, major talent who was given his head in the non-threatening directions he took…... but perhaps he felt he was kept in his place by John, Paul and George Martin when artistic differences occurred.
There are numerous examples of both viewpoints……1.That he was nurtured and supported or, 2. that he was held back.
As for us we will pick a side but we'll never know the workings of their minds…….The clashes of egos……The rivalry…..The challenges to the established hierarchy, and subsequent swallowing of pride
We'll never know.
…..Even that's just my view.
As it is, George became a big cheese in the Wilberries……That would have vindicated and pleased him but perhaps too it would also have fed the resentment he seems to show for 'The Beatles' in his, 'Let's not all get too carried away with the success of John and Paul's group' nonchalance.
The following people thank Wigwam for this post:Into the Sky with Diamonds
1 November 2013
Maybe he was nurtured and supported at the start but as he grew as a person, he was being held back.
The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:Beatlebug
If you can't log in and can't use the forum go here and someone will help you out.
29 August 2013
On the original question in the thread topic - I'm starting to think it doesn't matter (to me - stress - to me).
There are SO many things I have had to do to earn a crust that I wouldn't have chosen to if I had much choice in the matter (I suspect the same goes for many of us) - so it's hard to feel sorry for any of these multi-millionaires if they had to do a few days of filming to earn more millions.
Interesting discussion nevertheless.
The following people thank trcanberra for this post:O Boogie
==> trcanberra and hongkonglady - Together even when not (married for those not in the know!) <==
17 October 2013
15 February 2015
AppleScruffJunior used to have that in her forum bio.
We have a way of saving our own lives
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
18 December 2012
I think Peter Doggett summed up George and Paul's relationship really well:
"As an observer/outsider, my take on McCartney’s relationship with Harrison was that Paul couldn’t understand what it was that kept upsetting George so much; and the more he tried to do things differently, the more George resented it. It’s very difficult in life to escape unconscious patterns of behaviour, even if you know (rationally, consciously) that they don’t work for you or those around you. I don’t think George could stop feeling hurt by Paul; I don’t think Paul could stop treating George like a junior partner. They almost needed to rethink their neural connections, which is the work of therapy or something equally profound. Saying to yourself, “I must take George more seriously” isn’t going to do it. […] Underneath it all, I believe that Paul sincerely loved George; and at some level George loved Paul as well. But they had a hard time expressing it."
Of all the Beatle pairings, their relationship was unique because they met when they were very young, and Paul wasn't old enough for George to look up to him like he did John. I think when that dynamic of person A having more power/control over person B is developed at such a young age, it's very difficult for it to change, especially when person A goes on to become part of a legendary partnership. Based on various quotes I've read, I get the impression George always had a great amount of love and respect for Paul, but his perspective on who Paul was as a person would be totally different from everyone elses.
I kind of hate this book, but there's a passage about the Anthology period in George Harrison : Behind the Locked Door which is pretty telling:
"George was mixing something down in his studio and McCartney came in," says Geoff Wonfor. "He said, 'Ah that sounds nice, George. When the f*** did you learn to do all this?' George looked up and said, 'Remember me? I was second on the right'." It was not a one way street. With Lennon no longer around, Harrison felt obliged to take on the role of agent provocateur; he was heard to utter heretical views about the quality of the raw material they were working with, and hoped that "someone does this with all my crap demos when I'm dead." McCartney, pulling rank on baby Beatle, "personally thought that a little presumptuous."
Another thing to keep in mind is that George was going through a pretty rough time in his personal life in the 90's, which wouldn't have helped his mood.
The following people thank bewareofchairs for this post:Wigwam, trcanberra, georgiewood, Into the Sky with Diamonds, Beatlebug, C.R.A., all things must pass
22 September 2014
I'll bet everybody has their pet forumpudlians; you know what I mean: when you see an unread post pop up from certain people, you look forward to enjoying it. @bewareofchairs is one of those for me. Always thoughtful, informative and well-documented. Wish there were more to enjoy.
The following people thank georgiewood for this post:Beatlebug, bewareofchairs
I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did'.
Kurt Vonnegut, Timequake, 1997