Whew! This thread took off running while I was watching Larry King. Trying to catch up...
He had something he contributed that couldn't really be replaced.
And what was it? I'm not denying, I'm asking to get a proper description of it.
That's an excellent question, and I really can't put my finger on it. I have a group of college buddies who've stayed friends for (gulp) almost 30 years now. We still hang out fairly frequently, despite marriages, divorces--some within the group! One of our members died a few years ago, and the dynamics shifted. It's hard to explain. We still love each other, but there was a certain
bonding aspect when M was around. He was just comfortable with everyone, and we all loved him. He wasn't the most talkative or the leader in any way, but added a kind of space for everyone to exist together.
I sort of think George (and Ringo) helped provide that for the Beatles. George said numerous times he didn't want to be the front man. He was the guy standing at the back looking after the sound of the group, putting his ear to the amp, checking levels, making sure he got the solo in where it was supposed to be. (I think this might have been what Flaming Pie in the Sky meant by "passive nature"). Also, if you watch him singing harmony in these live clips, he's always at the mic in time for his part. John and Paul sometimes miss their bits because they're distracted, rocking out or playing with the audience. That's fantastic, you need that in live performance, but you also want to make sure that your backing vocal is there when you expect it. George made sure to get it there. He was dependable.
I think that the others appreciated the fact that he actually relished this role. It made for a harmony within a group that was full of high achievers. That's also I think why George didn't compose in earnest for many years. He was happy doing what he was doing (until Beatlemania soured it for him, but he still liked his role within the band). He always stated he wanted to be a musician just playing as part of the band. That made him happiest.
When he did start to write songs, it shifted the dynamics of the group, because now George has changed the rules. Now he's wanting song time, and the others weren't sure they wanted to hand it over. This isn't anyone's fault; people grow and change. John and Paul were going like gangbusters, but even they had to have a rest. When George was writing a few songs, no problem. When he started writing lots of songs, about the White Album period, then I think the main two writers started getting a little defensive. Again, I don't think it's anyone's fault; just four guys expanding their limits (which artists must do to grow), but it was much less the cozy Moptop scenario where everyone had a defined role.
There is no proof that George had the amount of songs in 63/64 that John and Paul
There's proof to the opposite, in fact. George himself said he didn't start writing a lot of songs until the late sixties, when he developed "quite a backlog".
If he had come up with a really splendid song, I'm pretty sure George Martin would have picked it up. And I pretty sure too about the idea that George Martin could detect a good song, even if it was only played on a guitar.
Alas, this is where I feel George Martin let me down. The fact is, he didn't detect that
any of George's songs were any good. George had to fight for every track at the end. I know that Yoko just said on Larry King Live that John suggested they make "Something" an A side. What I'd heard before was that it was part of Alan Klein's bait for getting George to sign him as manager. But either way, someone else had to intercede to give this song its A side status-- and it became the second-most covered Beatles song of all time behind "Yesterday".
GM didn't really change his opinion of George's songwriting ability until ATMP went to #1 against all expectations (triple album, dicey subject matter (religious), and George as the main composer being three strikes against it). He was very gracious about it after the fact, but I think that people get to listening for one thing (the hit formula, if you will, of John and/or Paul), and overlook something that could be just as good, only different. I think George as a solo composer is on par with John and Paul as solo composers. The Beatles as a band were stronger, in my opinion, than the members were apart-- but they were all extremely talented.
Thanks everyone for your kind remarks to my comments. This group really has me intrigued, and it's so great to be able to discuss my interest with a Beatles-loving audience.
