Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Brynjar]

It's known that John and George remained good friends after the Beatles split. And it's known that John was hurt that George hardly mentioned him in his biography released 1980.

I was just wondering, why do think was the reason? Did they have a fall out sometime in between?

[harihead]

Brynjar, this is just my opinion-- but you hit a hot button with me.

In my opinion, there was no falling out. What we had was John's ego being bruised on a bad day. The remark only got so much airplay because it was John's last big interview before he was killed, and everyone read it. But John was wrong about what he said (as I explain at length below) and people are wrong to assume George was snubbing John, because he wasn't. I urge, again, for everyone to read George's entire book. It will take you one hour. In his autobiography, Paul covered his early childhood in more pages than George covered his entire life.

I am fully convinced John would have gotten over his snit quickly-- probably was already over it by the time the article quoting his remark appeared. He'd only just got his complimentary copy-- a personalized edition express mailed overseas by George, because George was so angry at him. *sigh* What can you do?

Anyway, that's my opinion. More along the same lines below. Cheers!

I ran on at more length here: http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/m-1166821962/s-150/

See, everyone has this misconception about George's book because John went on a tirade about it. I'll just copy what I wrote about it the other day. Conversation is from "Songwriting credits" http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/b-cc/m-1190337447/

I count 2 separate diatribes in his last Playboy interview against George for not acknowledging John in his book. You all know the quote:


What John complains about is not literally true. I can find no sax players in the book anywhere, and the two-bit guitar players are Clapton and Hendrix, among hosts of other singers and players who happen to factor into the song in any number of ways. (There's no "clarity of vision" in the book, either-- more a random "here's what George said into Derek's microphone that day while they happened to be drinking tea". It was a vanity publication of his scraps of lyrics put into a nice leather book; that's what George says in the intro and that's all it was intended to be. George doesn't even include all of his own songs, probably because he couldn't find the scrap of paper.)

George's 'I, Me, Mine' had come out only 2 months before John was interviewed, which was why the hurt was so fresh in John's mind. And he was hurt. He wanted George to say more about John's influence than he did. (George doesn't say much about anybody's influence; Bob Dylan, who George adored, got 2 mentions in the whole book, as opposed to a dozen for John.) In a later interview, George says that what John was actually annoyed about was not getting credit for the lines he contributed to "Taxman". Considering George mentions his mom and Ringo each contributing a line of lyric, I think this was a valid complaint on John's part (of course, we have no way of knowing if other contributors were passed over; many of these song notes (such as "Taxman"s) are 2 lines long).

Should George have acknowledged John? Absolutely! It would have been polite and fair. But... should John and Paul have also acknowledged George? I have to say, "Absolutely" again. Was George deliberately writing John out of his book in revenge for all those snubs over the years? First, John isn't written out more than anybody else (I still think George's wives get first dibs on feeling snubbed if they want to) and second, I doubt it. George's tone is amused, the Beatles business well behind him. He relates some happy as well as crabby anecdotes of the Beatles, and mentions Paul affectionately as "our Paul" (earlier that year George had written him an encouraging note while he was in the Japanese jail). At this time, George wasn't in the middle of any drama. He was busy working on his new album and funding The Life Of Brian. I think John wasn't in his mind much because they hadn't had any personal contact (save occasional phone calls) since 1974.

[Brynjar]

Good answer.

[Penny Lane]

What we had was John's ego being bruised on a bad day.

I think John could be very over-sensitive about some things if he wanted to be...  Is it true that John thought that Paul wrote "Dear Boy" about him?  (Which I really don't think is correct.)

I read George's book and was amazed that he barely mentioned Pattie.  I don't think he even mentioned their divorce at all.  I think the whole point of George's philosophy in I Me Mine--ironically named, yes--is not to be so self-centered, but I still wish he would've been more detailed about his life.  But that's George for ya.  

[harihead]

John was drastically over-sensitive and was the first to admit it. From that same interview:

Part of me suspects that I'm a loser and the other part of me thinks I'm God Almighty.

The "God Almighty" part wanted a central role in George's autobiography. The "loser" part worried that he was left out because George didn't need him anymore-- he'd moved on, and why shouldn't he? Was John still an important force in the music-writing business-- did he still have his touch? Had he lost it for good? Because he has this album coming out and he's really nervous about it and now George has this expensive limited-edition book out and John is hardly mentioned and aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

Or at least, that's how I feel the thought process might have gone.


Yes, Penny Lane, you hit on one of the key things to me about George's book. It's not even a memoir; it's just a stream of consciousness. I always felt the wives were the ones who had a right to feel slighted, if anyone gets to call dibs (sorry, John). Their names will pop up, but there's no coherent history. Like, "Pattie was there--- you know, my wife at the time?" Nope, not even that. Just, "I remember Pattie was in the room, and Doug, and maybe some other people. And there was a jelly donut on the speaker." Then he'd print the lyrics. It's a very "George" book.

[Mairi]

I think John could be very over-sensitive about some things if he wanted to be...  Is it true that John thought that Paul wrote "Dear Boy" about him?  (Which I really don't think is correct.)

I believe that song was written about Linda's first husband.

[Gary910]

I just watched an interview of George in 1987 where George is asked about this. George's comment was something to the effect of, John felt snubbed because he didn't get the mention of writing a line in Taxman. George went on to say that he could have been upset because he wrote two lines in Come Together or Eleanor Rigby.

Here is the quote:

http://vodpod.com/watch/70335-george-harrison-on-west-57th-street-part-2

[harihead]

Thanks for that link, Gary. I've posted that before here as well. George was clearly on board with what (at least in his eyes) was the real issue, and had an issue right back. But they were clearly friends. You're allowed to be ticked at your friends. It all sorts out in the end. It's just so hideous that in John's case the story was cut short.

[glass onion]

yeah,i also think  'i,me,mine'  is almost like george answering a question in an interview,like".....so,george,whats' your life been like so far?care to mention a few of your songs?"it strikes me as kind of like that,if you get what i mean.he doesn't go into any MAJOR detail really about anything.perhaps he wrote the book in that way because he thought that the people who were going to purchase the book KNOW about the influence john,paul and indeed ringo had upon his life.maybe it was taken forgranted that we know who the pattie and derek and mal and neil and whoever are in the conversations?like harihead says(who comes across as an extremely intelligent beatle person)we got john on a bad day there in the radio interview..wasn't there a bit of a falling out in the mid 70s' between john and george though?john wouldn't sign the paper to end the beatles contract because the stars weren't right or something?