Log In
Register
12.17am
15 May 2015
Offline
bewareofchairs said “If I was going to sum George up I’d say he was the Misunderstood Beatle. I think he viewed The Beatles as being two bands.”
There had to be one Beatle who was the “black sheep” — it completes the irregular asymmetry of the whole. (Meanwhile, Ringo was the sideways, casually grinning, copacetically not-having-a cow Beatle; while John and Paul were the gods wrestling on Mt. Olympus…)
The following people thank Pineapple Records for this post:
bewareofchairsA ginger sling with a pineapple heart,
a coffee dessert, yes you know it's good news...
1.32am
18 December 2012
Offline Beatlebug said
@bewareofchairs I love it whenever you pop onto the forum… your posts are always of the highest quality.
Aw, that’s very sweet of you to say! Thank you. This is my favourite place to talk about The Beatles. 
@PineappleRecords – Yes, the black sheep is a great way of wording it. Another thing that just occurred to me is that George would’ve been particularly impacted by the trauma because of all The Beatles he had the most regular life up until that point.
11.27pm
15 May 2015
Offline @bewareofchairs — Yes, true; and also to repeat what many others have said, it must have been difficult being a “fifth wheel” of a 4-wheel band, in the shadow of John & Paul
The following people thank Pineapple Records for this post:
bewareofchairsA ginger sling with a pineapple heart,
a coffee dessert, yes you know it's good news...
8.23am
30 May 2018
Offline Namaste to all
First of all excuse my english it isn’t my mother tong.
Well..i think he did,but imo it was not easy for him to play once more ,and as a middle-age person, the role of an ex-beatle, cheerful for the reunion.He had accepted by then, that he always will be an ex-beatle for the public, and he loved his ex-bandmates and pals but still was not easy for him.With all the spiritual understanding he had accumulated.I am almost sure a part of him was finding the whole thing a bit ridiculous. But of course it was his past,his mates,and he also considered the beatles as being a really good band, to which beatlemania had an influence not auspicious.
George was the one who had changed the most during the years. He was by far the most mature,psychologically and spiritually of all.
It was not easy for him to play a role that played or had been at his 20s.
He had been really beyond all this .
“I played with the guitar,write a few tunes,make a few movies..but none of that’s really me..the real me is something else..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?…..038;t=342s
5.45.
That’s my two cents.
The following people thank all things must pass for this post:
SgtPeppersBulldog, Bongo9.50am
18 December 2012
Offline 
SunKing said
I am new to this forum and not much of a Beatles scholar. I do have to say reading this past thread has been fascinating and people have such probing, thoughtful response that it’s humbling.A few thoughts because this thread really seems to come down to George’s relationship to the other Beatles, particularly Paul. Actually, many George discussions always are about George’s role, which is a disservice to him but I believe we all innately understand why.
George’s relationship to John seems not great but people take it as a given. I’m not sure if it’s because John could be prickly so no one expects him to have gotten along well. No one seems to take John to task for not doing more. Or maybe it’s just because their relationship was truncated in 1980 and there’s less material to go on. I believe with the ubiquity of media, we’d have tons more John material had he lived – he’d be talking to every blog or probably blogging himself daily. There would be so much more to excavate and interpret.
I feel like one facet of George’s feelings is that while he knew how the Beatles were a one in a billion shot that he was fortunate to be in (all others were exactly as fortunate) there is a time element to this. George was only in his early 20s once. At that time there was no template for rock artists being productive into their 30s and beyond. Maybe he felt that during his most fertile period he was stifled but he also felt that was a time he will never get back. He had a backlog of songs for ATMP but perhaps he felt that had he been more nurtured he could have been even more productive. Working *within* the Lennon/McCartney school more fully would have been a great exercise. Age is just a number (and certainly spiritually George knew that it shouldn’t be considered a factor in one’s outlook) but maybe he felt his creative mind was most elastic at that time and can’t shake the fact it won’t be coming around again. John was gone by 1980 so it’s pretty hard to maintain that resentment (at least outwardly – he’d sound terrible deriding John) but Paul was still active, generally acknowledged to have some issues of being controlling, and Paul will sort of gladly put up with it.
I always feel I must put a disclaimer that none of this is a comment on the quality of George’s solo work, but just trying to unpack any feelings he may have had.
You know, I’ve thought about this a lot, and I think there’s a lot of truth in it. The way I see it, Lennon and McCartney were definitely extremely talented. However, they also benefited from being able to grow together, from all the Beatles putting 100% energy into their songs, and being mentored by George Martin. They told George what not to do, and Paul certainly put a lot into his songs (which George has noted he appreciated), but I’m sure he always wondered what could’ve been if he was treated like their equal. In order to get where he ended up he had to look outside The Beatles towards Ravi Shankar, Eric Clapton, Bob Dylan, The Band, etc. Imagine if he was able to gain more from John and Paul. That’s another thing people don’t get about why he was so bitter. It wasn’t just about not getting songs onto albums. As John put it, it was a “festering wound”. I wouldn’t be surprised if he one day expected them to be a trio when in fact the opposite happened. George got better, but Paul didn’t want his guitar on his songs anymore and Yoko came along, so he was somehow drifting further away from them by the day. An important aspect of George is that he loved being in a band where everyone collaborated. He was always looking for groups to fill that hole the rest of his life, and he probably wished deep down that The Beatles could’ve stayed together.
As for why John tends to be let off the hook – I assume when he was alive it was because whenever George stood up for himself John would come back with some pretty cruel comments in interviews about him, and he was the one who was quickly willing to drop him for Eric Clapton. It seemed like George felt his relationship with Paul was more secure. When John died maybe it was a desire to protect him and his image since The Beatles held onto the little privacy they had and didn’t want to reveal too much that the public didn’t already know. The Let It Be film made Paul an easy bad guy and Yoko was Yoko, so it was like they purposefully kept the attention on them. Paul could’ve easily trashed John for how he treated George. Ringo too, and to my knowledge they haven’t done that.
If George was able to release his songs when he wanted to, and The Beatles stayed together for longer, it’s certainly possible he could’ve written even better songs.
The following people thank bewareofchairs for this post:
Beatlebug, SunKing, Shamrock Womlbs6.21am
20 November 2017
Offline I lent my VHS copy of The Anthology to a co-worker. She and I are of an age. When she returned it to me, she mentioned how bitter George seemed to be. I noticed the same thing. I can even semi-quote some of the things he said. What remains with me is George was hardly the poster boy for meditation being an avenue to ameliorate the pressures and stresses of life. I mean, here he was, remarried to a fantastic lady, fathered a healthy son… and still seemed to be wallowing in recesses of resentment that time had hardly diminished.
The following people thank johannes bols for this post:
Shamrock Womlbs"I kvetch, therefore I am." 
10.51am
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline
He was probably not wallowing most of the time, but perhaps those specific circumstances would have brought it to the surface.
The following people thank Beatlebug for this post:
Nahiku([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
1.03pm
31 October 2017
Offline Prolly being around Paul I would venture was one of those specific circumstances.
George liked to be here now and having to rehash the past would not been a comfortable for him I would think.
I read somewhere that he only participated in Anthology for the money.
11.47pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline I don’t think George was bitter, I think you have to see the humour behind it and George was always self-depreciating about the Beatles in such a way, even in the 60’s. I still believe the ‘Anthology’ documentary needed George that way as otherwise, it would have been too self-pleasing and over-the-top. Paul annoyed me far more.
I will always remember Ringo on the BBC’s ‘One Show’ when promoting his UK concerts back in 2011(?). He took nothing too seriously, was very off-hand with some questions, and folk complained that he was grumpy throughout, which he wasn’t. Same as George in ‘Anthology’.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
all things must pass, Beatlebug, bewareofchairs, Bongo"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
1.17am
24 March 2014
Offline i think he looks pretty relaxed and funny during the interviews. Even though when they are at his home he is not the life and soul of the party he looks pretty relaxed and enjoying the moment (imo). Just they way he looked in the 60’s in all those Beatles interviews.
About the money, well… who wouldn’t need it living in a 120 room house? 
"I Need You by George Harrison"
9.05am
30 May 2018
Offline Shamrock Womlbs said
i think he looks pretty relaxed and funny during the interviews. Even though when they are at his home he is not the life and soul of the party he looks pretty relaxed and enjoying the moment (imo). Just they way he looked in the 60’s in all those Beatles interviews.
About the money, well… who wouldn’t need it living in a 120 room house?
Well i don’t think that Friar park was the problem. The real problem was Denis o’Brian
wiki:
“Harrison brought a lawsuit against O’Brien in Los Angeles in January 1995 claiming O’Brien had deprived him of £16 million over a 12-year period.[1] O’Brien was instructed to pay Harrison £6.7 million in damages.[3] O’Brien filed for bankruptcy; an ailing Harrison sued O’Brien in bankruptcy court without success.[4] The judge dismissed the case because Harrison failed to appear for a deposition, despite Harrison’s claim that he was too ill. The illness was the cancer that ultimately claimed Harrison’s life.[5]”
12.24pm
12 May 2015
Offline meanmistermustard said
I don’t think George was bitter, I think you have to see the humour behind it and George was always self-depreciating about the Beatles in such a way, even in the 60’s. I still believe the ‘Anthology’ documentary needed George that way as otherwise, it would have been too self-pleasing and over-the-top. Paul annoyed me far more.
I will always remember Ringo on the BBC’s ‘One Show’ when promoting his UK concerts back in 2011(?). He took nothing too seriously, was very off-hand with some questions, and folk complained that he was grumpy throughout, which he wasn’t. Same as George in ‘Anthology’.
Perhaps not bitter,i just don’t think that George was that big on nostalgia and re-visiting the past. His discomfort is clear to see in the extra features interview where he is verging on rudeness with paul,his body language defensive.
My feeling has always been that the times with the beatles were often a source of real pain for George, and he wasn’t particularly keen to revisit them.
Paul clearly has some personality quirks that irritated the fuck out of a guy like George. You can visibly see him in places telling himself “just get through this”.
I’m pretty sure he didn’t want to do anthology,and wouldn’t have had he not taken a major financial hit.
The following people thank castironshore for this post:
all things must pass2.48pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline There is little doubt for me that George would never have touched a Beatles reunion unless he had to financially, there was no other benefit for him to do it. and yes there are moments when you can see George is clearly pissed with Paul. I think he accepted that it was happening and entered into the project willingly to a degree but didn’t take it too seriously.
I do love the look George gives to the camera before the three cover ‘Blue Moon of Kentucky’ – he clearly wanted to leave.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
all things must pass"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
8.51am
12 May 2015
Offline meanmistermustard said
There is little doubt for me that George would never have touched a Beatles reunion unless he had to financially, there was no other benefit for him to do it. and yes there are moments when you can see George is clearly pissed with Paul. I think he accepted that it was happening and entered into the project willingly to a degree but didn’t take it too seriously.I do love the look George gives to the camera before the three cover ‘Blue Moon of Kentucky’ – he clearly wanted to leave.
Exactly. At around 2.30 on the jam session you can see George giving a “please let this end soon” type of look to the camera.
Actually I think the smiles and banter between paul and geoge on that whole segment feels very forced and that continues out on the lawn. Actually watching it again he barely looks at paul and ignores his thanks for inviting them round.
It was awkward frankly, only rivalled by paul’s narrations whilst driving a tug boat earlier in the series.
11.47am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline George’s attitude and approach is easier to pick up on and comment about, however, Paul’s over underplaying “we were just four lads who did a bit well and got a few number ones” annoys me far well as he comes across as an arse. There are a good number of times throughout the series where I could easily have slapped that side out of him. The boat interviews were dreadful; go and find a seat and do it properly.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
vonbontee"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
3.47am
18 December 2012
Offline While Paul’s personality did clash with George’s, I think it was more the cameras and Paul turning into “Beatle Paul” when they were on which irked him. There’s a moment when they’re playing where Paul and George smile at each other until George remembers the camera and goes back to a frown.
I think he was the most sensitive to the idea of The Beatles reuniting without John, and what it meant for the three of them to be playing on camera without him. It’s easy to forget that John had only been gone about 14 years which isn’t long when you consider it’s already been 17 years since George died. It also wasn’t sincere and spontaneous which would’ve been harder to deal with after having just been with the Traveling Wilburys. There could well have been times outside of the Anthology when Paul, George, and Ringo had a little jam together, and George was much happier.
The following people thank bewareofchairs for this post:
all things must pass, Timothy3.32pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline I think George would have been ok with meeting up with Paul occasionally as there was no need or pressure to recall the good old days for the umpteenth time and be Beatle George. I doubt they did it that often tho.
If the Beatles came up naturally in conversation with his friends I doubt George would get annoyed; he didn’t resent the times, he just didn’t need to speak about them or relive them to exist – which many wanted him to do.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
all things must pass, bewareofchairs"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
12.22am
18 December 2012
Offline Yeah exactly. That’s the downside to accomplishing so much at a young age. All anyone ever wants to talk about is a relatively short period of your life. Michael Palin said George wasn’t one for reminiscing, but then apparently he’d also answer any Beatles questions thrown at him if a friend was a big fan. Maybe it depended on what aspect of The Beatles he was talking about or the mood he was in. I watched the Director’s Cut of Anthology recently, and he seemed to talk about the pre-fame days very fondly. When he was sitting outside in his colourful jacket and sunglasses he couldn’t stop giggling.
The following people thank bewareofchairs for this post:
Richard, Beatlebug12.40pm
26 January 2017
Offline Everybody remembers it fondly, unanimously agreeing that the boys were truly a family. I’m sure however passionate George was about living in the present and pursuing new projects, he was never ashamed of his association with The Beatles. John might have been the only one to briefly get to that point.
The following people thank sir walter raleigh for this post:
Richard, Beatlebug"The pump don't work cause the vandals took the handles!"
-Bob Dylan, Subterranean Homesick Blues
"We could ride and surf together while our love would grow"
-Brian Wilson, Surfer Girl
3.29am
7 November 2018
Offline George Harrison was passive-aggressive in interviews cited in this thread. It comes down to ego – – he had his nose pushed out by two better talents, and his ego didn’t like admitting that he was, on that precise scale, third-rate, when he could have been first-rate in many other bands. To a degree his Krishna persona was hypocritical – – to the same degree that Lennon’s peace talk was. Both held genuine beliefs but their egos had other ideas. It’s not just The Beatles that split, but their individual psyches.
I don’t even think they ever reconciled Liverpool with London, though McCartney came closest by keeping tabs on his roots.
‘Payback’ is a word that crops up a bit on this thread. There was already something subtly mean-spirited and condescending in Harrison’s mid-60s Beatle compositions. He’d been simmering for 4 years by LET IT BE, and 28 years by ANTHOLOGY. He couldn’t quite forget George Martin slighted him all those years, and he wasn’t about to let Martin produce the reunion songs. So much for personal growth. I doubt he ever could admit he was outshone as a weaker talent, never did transcend his ego for all his meditation. But then who does?
That wasn’t ALL he was, of course, a lot of outsiders liked him: a most affable and generous ex-Beatle, belittled by his past but not his Liverpool past: belittled by fame. Whenever he could be not-famous, resentments receded.
No sign of the first drummer in ANTHOLOGY, just a pay-off, but I’d say Pete Best, even with an attempted suicide, was less begrudging at being hard done by – – less egoistic despite missing the India trip.
