DM's Beatles forums

Solo forums => George Harrison => Topic started by: Loco Mo on December 22, 2006, 09:12:42 PM

Title: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Loco Mo on December 22, 2006, 09:12:42 PM
Do you think it's possible?  Would we still have had BEATLES with John, Paul, Ringo and ?

Everyone attributes the BEATLES' enormous incomprehensible success to the songwriting partnership of Lennon/McCartney.  

Does this mean that Ringo and George were irrelevant?  That anyone could have replaced them provided they were reasonably qualified?  

It seems many posters love to speculate over BEATLES puzzles like this one.  I tend to believe that the BEATLES were a phenomenon in which every component needed to be just the way it was.  It's hard to understand this but I think it's true.

In a sense, this means that even the lowest BEATLE was equal to the highest.  The BEATLES were and are a rarity in terms of the fame, fortune and legacy they acquired.  I think the BEATLES equation was absolute.  Any alteration, no matter how slight, may have offset and possibly destroyed the balance.

I think that Paul would have continued on into the music world without the others.  I've read about first-hand friends and observers of the early BEATLE days who felt Paul was most likely to succeed.  If not, he'd probably have made a very good bus driver.  Many felt John was lazy, unmotivated and driftless and would have gone NO where without Paul.  George was afraid he'd have been an electrician and imagined that would have been the equivalent of an uninspired hardscrabble life.  Ringo thought he'd have been a hairdresser.  He'd probably have continued drumming until his late twenties or so - standard burnout stage for the PROfessional Music Dream for many.

Hey, how about if Eric Clapton had gotten in instead of George?  Would he have been a  lucky enough man to make the grade as a full fledged BEATLE?

Dream on, folks, and ye shall, for sure.  There's no end to this BEATLES Madness, is there?

If there is a God and I ever meet Him/Her/It, I will ask this:  Please, God, please please me and explain to me the mystery of the BEATLES.  What caused BEATLEmania?  Who was the most important of the 4-headed Monster?  Why'd You wait so long to create BEATLES?  What BEATLES wonders never occurred because of the "untimely deaths" of John and George?  Would the BEATLES ever have reunited?  Exactly, God, who was Billy Shears and who was really Paul - the Walrus or was John, in fact, proven to be the ultimate Walrus?  And the Egghead, God, was that you?  The Supreme Egghead who created the Supreme BEATLES?  And lastly, God, aren't You the least bit jealous of them?  Why, they were more popular than You were for a time.  I wonder - are they still?

But thank You, BEATLES creating God!!  I think the BEATLES were your greatest ACHEIVEMENT!!!  Glory Hallelujah!!!  BEATLES FOREVER!!!
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: on December 22, 2006, 09:17:29 PM
I think it would more likley be John, Paul, George and? than John, Paul, Ringo and ?
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on December 23, 2006, 03:48:27 PM
Quote from: 156
[...]
And the Egghead, God, was that you?  [...]
Wasn't God the fifth guy?
Quote from: 156
[...]
Hey, how about if Eric Clapton had gotten in instead of George?  Would he have been a  lucky enough man to make the grade as a full fledged BEATLE?
[...]
Eric could have been a good substitute ...

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: harihead on January 21, 2007, 06:54:04 PM
I'm not sure if Eric Clapton or anyone else would have made a good substitute. I think with the Beatles the chemistry was an essential ingredient, easily equal to the musicianship. As John said, none of the Beatles were technical musicians. They had drive and attitude, and their music was an extension of that. My personal theory on why Pete Best got the sack was because he wasn't one of the "gang"; he didn't socialize with them. John wanted to have a gang. They were happiest in that "all for one, one for all" push to the top that they did.

I had this debate with a friend of mine just recently. His question was, "Who was the most replaceable of the Beatles?" I said Ringo and he said George. "George!" I cried. "No way! Who would do all those leads? Who would pull those wiseackers Paul and John back in when they got too wild, and focus on the presentation of the music? Who would harmonize in that perfect blend of voices that they had?" It's not just a matter of (in George's words) how many notes you can fit into a certain amount of space.

Now, my friend really got at me. "Ringo!" he cried. "No, he's essential! He does..." this and that and the other thing-- you see, my friend in a drummer.  :) So he was aware of how valuable Ringo's contribution was. I play guitar, so I knew how valuable George's contribution was. It was a fun debate, and gave me much more of an appreciation for what Ringo did bring to the band --besides, again, the vital bit of being a compatible personality that had to be shut up in a room with the same people for 3 years. Just imagine it; even little things would start to drive you crazy after a while. These guys had to really get along well or they would have exploded from the enforced captivity.

I think if Pete had stayed in the band, the Beatles would have self-destructed in 1965. I just think that at that time, the external pressures would have combined with the internal pressures to split the group apart. Nothing to do with the music; I think the personality clash would have killed them.  

That's why I say "no" to Clapton or any other substitute. Since he wasn't part of the "gang" (or the dynamic duo in the case of John and Paul), the group dynamics would have been totally different. We wouldn't have had the pull towards Eastern philosophy or music. The Beatles still would have been good-- very good. But I don't think they would have been as great as they ultimately became. I don't think we'd be writing about them 36 years after they'd broken up if the line-up was altered. I think it was special, and all these guys were a gift. So, to quote Loco Mo, "Glory Hallelujah!!!  BEATLES FOREVER!!!"
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on January 21, 2007, 07:48:18 PM
Eric as a possible substitute by 1969, that was the suggestion ... not from the very start (tho thinking of that, he was not very far from how and what George was in many many ways, after all)
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: harihead on January 21, 2007, 09:35:49 PM
Oh, I see. I believe Loco Mo was talking about subbing at the beginning, as he's talking about George being an electrician and Ringo being a hairdresser, which I don't believe they would have been in 1969.  :)

However, if you're saying very late in their career, put Eric in instead of George-- I still don't see this happening. I suppose it's possible, but you'd have to consider:

1. George and Eric were best friends, so George would really have to encourage E to do it
2. Eric doesn't sound like George, so those close harmonies would sound different-- and I love their harmonies!
3. Eric is a brilliant soloist, whereas George is a melody-writer who composes solos to support the song. I think that the structure of the Beatles songs would undergo a drastic change if they brought Eric in. Otherwise, the Beatles would stifle what Eric excelled at. With the Beatles the way they were, the focus was on the song.
4. And what about Eric's own compositions? They don't sound very "Beatly" to me. He has a unique style.

Your turn!
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on January 21, 2007, 09:52:04 PM
My turn? Ready, steady ... GO!!!  ;D

You're probably right about Loco Mo talking about subbing at the beginning ... the only thing I can add is that I was only thinking about an hipothetical replacement by 1969.

My opinon about your 4 points:
1. Yep, I agree that George would have to encourage Eric to join them but I don't think that would be hard for him ... the question could be: would Eric have wanted to join them? I guess he would, knowing that he played with John in Toronto almost without any previous plan ... but a plane!  ;D

2. You're right, obviously: Eric didn't sound like George but the guys didn't sing too many three harmonies by that time ... tho John and Paul sung together in several songs during the Get Back project and album!

3. This is the strongest point, in my opinion: Eric as a soloist and George as a melody-writer. The structure of the songs could have changed because of Eric but I can only see this happening to John's songs because we all know that Paul was very strict about the arrangements of his songs (spice-alley with the solos ... that he used to compose himself).

4. Eric's songs? He was not as prolific as George so this could be an advantage if we're thinking about how long the group's life could have been ... and if the other three could make Ringo's contributions sound like the ones from the others they could try with Eric's too ... tho I agree that they would have to work harder!!!

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: adamzero on January 21, 2007, 10:45:38 PM
I doubt Clapton would have gone off to join the Beatles or if he had he would had lasted--he'd had too much "group" problems in every group he'd ever been in--Yardbirds, Bluesbreakers, Cream, Derek and the Dominoes.  

I think George was far more essential than Ringo.  And the lack of a fourth member might have helped group cohesion.  Paul could have played drums on the albums (or used session guys like Brian Wilson did) and they could have an innocuous guy on the tours.  Like the fellow who subbed for Ringo in Australia.  (I think Paul being bossy in the studio had a lot to do with his ability to feel the architecture of a song--particularly the drums/bass foundation--if he had total control of a paid musician it might have lessened the in-fighting).  

No Ringo might have meant more room for George's songs and his development earlier.  Less dissatisfaction from him.  Instead of the silly Lennon-McCartney split, maybe they would have wised up and done real song credits on every song.  Taxman as Harrison/Lennon, for example.  Yesterday as McCartney, etc.  George should have gotten co-writer for "And Your Bird Can Sing" for his amazing part that makes the song.

The Beatles then would have been a trinity instead of a quaternity.  I don't know what the social-religio-pop-culture consequences would have been.

Oh no, Ringo is the cause that the Beatles broke up!?!?

Just kidding.  Without Ringo, we would have no "Hard Day's Night" or "Tomorrow Never Knows" or the drums on Rain or Get Back or the quirky original sound of a hundred other songs.

If you want to give them percentages I'd say: John-33%, Paul-33%, George-20%, Ringo-14%

They all four mattered, if not equally, then


Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: harihead on January 22, 2007, 12:00:30 AM
Thanks for the info on Clapton and his band relationships, Adamzero! I didn't know that about him.

Interesting Ringo theory-- quite compelling, actually. Hmm, if they'd been the Threetles all along... We need a Ringo advocate to jump in here!  :D
But no HDN movie would be hard to take...  :'( ;D

Real credits for the songs... it would have stopped a lot of quibbling later! *sigh*

Quote from: Adamzero
If you want to give them percentages I'd say: John-33%, Paul-33%, George-20%, Ringo-14%
Only 20% for poor George? *drowns sorrows by playing Within You Without You* Actually, I think this is probably a pretty good call, based on the Beatles catalog. *steals a couple percentage points from Ringo and gives them to George*

Raxo's points:

1. Yeah, we can assume George would want to willingly leave to develop his own songs, and find his replacement. He'd naturally suggest Eric.
2. But I LOVE the three-part harmonies! *emotionally clings to #2*
3. *flexes muscles * ...which is what Paul would have to do, preparing for all those new arguments in the studio!  :D
4. You're right, who cares about Eric's songs? Shove them to the side along with Ringo's.  :o  ;)
Although I can't really speak to this point, as I'm not as familiar with Eric's catalog. I don't know how keen he was on publishing his own material.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on January 22, 2007, 01:13:36 AM
1. In case George had left the group it would have been because he felt he was limitated ... mainly because he had got tons of songs and the way they were recording was oppressive for him ... I think that, after telling this to Eric, he would encoraging him to join the other three ... if Eric was determinated, of course  ;D ...


2. We all, -almost all of us-, love the three-part harmonies but except This Boy, Yes It Is, Nowhere Man, Because and maybe two or three good vocal arrangements like Paperback Writer or I'm Down they were not thinking too much in that kind of harmonies! ... Had you noticed before that the three-part harmonies were for John's songs? ;)


3. Paul used to do it prominetly since they stopped touring, I think ... during Sgt. Pepper's sessions he used to record drums and bass, then keyboards, guitars ... but always the arrangement he had previously imagined (or he played it instead: Fixing A Hole, Good Morning, Good Morning ... ) ... during The White Album things were slightly different, I think, because, for example, he played a lot of guitars on his songs, begining with Back In The USSR (he played almost everything on that one except basses and backing vocals), Blackbird, Rocky Raccoon, Why Don't We Do It In The Road, I Will, Mother Nature's Son ... or the guitar part was not relevant at all, mainly because they're piano-based songs, for example: Lady Madonna, Hey Jude, Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da, Martha My Dear or Honey Pie  ::) ...

... so I think that that could be the reason why George felt so bad when Paul was saying how to play the guitar part in his Two Of Us that Friday, January 10th, 1969 ... it was so long since he used to do it ... daily!!! 8)

... after all, and after the Get Back project, Paul was awared of how he was behaving in the studio because the others told him! ... and he tried to control and relax himself during the recording sessions for Abbbey Road LP (just few summer weeks) ... so it's proved that they could get on well when they wanted to  :) ...


4. Eric's composed few songs through the years ... he usually co-wrote and covered others' songs ... I believe that working with John and Paul in the studio could have been very helpful for him to improve in his writing, I think ... as it had been for George!!! ;D
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: harihead on January 22, 2007, 03:16:45 AM
Okay, Raxo:

1. We will agree to agree.  ;)

2. BUT EVERY SONG YOU LISTED IS MAGNIFICENT!! YOU CANNOT JUST DISMISS ALL THIS MAGNIFICENCE!! *whimpers * feels self becoming even more clingy regarding item #2*

3. Hah, just you wait. The punch-ups between Paul and Eric would be all over the papers within a month. Eric Bops Beatle! Lennon is quoted as saying, "I heard a noise and thought he'd just busted a string. Turns out, it was Paul."

4. It's possible Eric would enjoy working with the Beatles, for these and other reasons. I'm still not sold on it, though.  :)
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on January 22, 2007, 01:40:42 PM
Let's go, harihead  ;):

1. We agree.  ;)
(http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/1262/0115jm.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

2. Those songs were (still are) "magnific"!!! But it was not the kind of stuff they seemed to be thinking of (apart from Because, that was from 1969) so the lack of that wonderful third vocalist would have been a pity but not a big problem: multitracks!!! ;D

3. Origanalley this was about "Eric soloist/George melody-writer" and "structure of songs changing" ... arguments between them? Sure, there were between George and the others ... and George was much more peaceful than Eric!! ... but Paul was treating George as a session guitarrist for his songs (tho Paul played a lot of guitar parts by his own at that time: during Abbey Road sessions George played bass in some songs because Paul was on guitar -Side Two, spice-alley-) ... anyway, nobody knows  for how long Eric would have been in the band ... Let's move to the last point to talk about this! ;)

4. Eric would have enjoyed working with the others, I'm sure: he played with them in 1968, and with John in December 1968 and September 1969, so it seems that the experience was not bad for him, I think! ... and not bad for John (the one who suggested -joking- during The Get Back project that Eric could be the substitute) because it seems that John was thinking about asking Eric to join The Plastic Ono Band! ... At least John would have been getting on well with Eric (Ringo too, surely) ... and Paul? Well, he would have done whatever to have the group together!!! ;D

[size=9]P.S. I enjoy debating with you, harihead![/size]
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Kevin on January 22, 2007, 02:22:50 PM
I believe that the Beatles could have withstood the absence of Ringo or George (not sure about both). Lennon and McCartney were The Beatles, especially at the critical Beatlemania stage. It was their songs and their voices that grabbed the world and made the band huge. While George's absence would have meant some difference to the details of  The Beatles story, The Beatles would have still happened.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: harihead on January 22, 2007, 04:56:42 PM
Perhaps not.  ;) I've got a theory, posted on another thread. What's the protocol here? I'll repost it here, but let me know if in future I should just redirect to the other post. Thanks!

Quote
One might even argue that there wouldn't have been a Beatles band at all. At the formative time, John was in art school, studying painting with Stu. He still occasionally wrote songs with Paul, but the Quarry Men had been dormant for some time. It was George who was always in a band, whether the Quarry Men or another one. It was only because the Les Stewart Quartet fell apart due to bickering on what was to be their opening night at the Casbah that George hopped on his bike and pulled the Quarry Men back together. If George's band had stayed together, John might have just continued with the arty stuff that he was so drawn to throughout his life, and Paul might have ended as a teacher (he was never in any band other than John's Quarry Men).
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on January 22, 2007, 05:04:37 PM
Quote from: 551
Perhaps not.  ;) I've got a theory, posted on another thread. What's the protocol here? I'll repost it here, but let me know if in future I should just redirect to the other post. Thanks!


Giving the link to the page of the topic that contains the post and the number of the reply is usually more than enough, harihead! :)

For example, in this case:
http://dmbeatles.com/forums/b-harrison/m-1121828832/   (reply 13)
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: adamzero on January 22, 2007, 10:31:15 PM
A Paul and Eric Clapton fight sounds interesting.  Don't know who to pick on that one.  Interesting that both have been subject to wife-beating rumors in the last year.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on January 22, 2007, 10:37:41 PM
Quote from: 9
A Paul and Eric Clapton fight sounds interesting.  Don't know who to pick on that one.  Interesting that both have been subject to wife-beating rumors in the last year.

You're not playing with the idea of them marrying each other, are you? ;D
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: harihead on January 22, 2007, 10:56:56 PM
Naw! See, what would actually happen is... Paul and Eric would beat up Yoko!  :o *runs and hides*
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on January 22, 2007, 11:17:55 PM
Quote from: 551
Naw! See, what would actually happen is... Paul and Eric would beat up Yoko!  :o *runs and hides*

And what are they waiting for? Ringo to join them?! ;D
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on January 25, 2007, 02:35:46 AM
Quote from: 185
I believe that the Beatles could have withstood the absence of Ringo or George (not sure about both). Lennon and McCartney were The Beatles, especially at the critical Beatlemania stage. [...]

Sure? Did Paul ever need anybody else? 8)
Quote from: 297
[...]
3. Paul used to do it prominetly since they stopped touring, I think ... during Sgt. Pepper's sessions he used to record drums and bass, then keyboards, guitars ... but always the arrangement he had previously imagined (or he played it instead: Fixing A Hole, Good Morning, Good Morning ... ) ... during The White Album things were slightly different, I think, because, for example, he played a lot of guitars on his songs, begining with Back In The USSR (he played almost everything on that one except basses and backing vocals), Blackbird, Rocky Raccoon, Why Don't We Do It In The Road, I Will, Mother Nature's Son ... or the guitar part was not relevant at all, mainly because they're piano-based songs, for example: Lady Madonna, Hey Jude, Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da, Martha My Dear or Honey Pie  ::) ...
[...]

Paul McCartney - Young Boy on TFI Friday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tKdyfJbLdw&mode=related&search=
Paul McCartney - Flaming Pie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QtJm8urQk4
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on January 31, 2007, 08:26:20 PM
Quote from: 551
[...]
3. Eric is a brilliant soloist, whereas George is a melody-writer who composes solos to support the song. I think that the structure of the Beatles songs would undergo a drastic change if they brought Eric in. Otherwise, the Beatles would stifle what Eric excelled at. With the Beatles the way they were, the focus was on the song.
[...]

I would have loved Eric, at least, playing in I Want You (She's So Heavy), in You Never Give Me Your Money and in The End ... George is superb in those but how would have Eric played them?
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Revolution on February 15, 2007, 06:18:25 AM
Clapton would of changed the sound/ look too much, imo.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Joost on February 15, 2007, 05:58:18 PM
I think you shouldn't underestimate the effect that George's guitar playing had on the Beatles' sound.

I can imagine the Beatles without Ringo, but not without any of the other three.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Revolution on February 16, 2007, 05:59:19 PM
Ever see the old Saturday Night Live skit  with Eddie Murphy ,saying he was the 5th Beatle???????? ;D
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Revolution on February 16, 2007, 06:00:18 PM
Quote from: 551
Naw! See, what would actually happen is... Paul and Eric would beat up Yoko!  :o *runs and hides*

Do they need any help????????????? ;D
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on March 20, 2007, 01:02:39 AM
Minus George?  :-/ But he liked The Guys  ::) ...
(http://img471.imageshack.us/img471/5505/721bvg4.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
... tho sometimes you may read "The Fab Four" intead  8) ...
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: on March 20, 2007, 01:15:00 AM
Quote from: 156
Do you think it's possible?  Would we still have had BEATLES with John, Paul, Ringo and ?

Everyone attributes the BEATLES' enormous incomprehensible success to the songwriting partnership of Lennon/McCartney.  

Does this mean that Ringo and George were irrelevant?  That anyone could have replaced them provided they were reasonably qualified?  

It seems many posters love to speculate over BEATLES puzzles like this one.  I tend to believe that the BEATLES were a phenomenon in which every component needed to be just the way it was.  It's hard to understand this but I think it's true.

In a sense, this means that even the lowest BEATLE was equal to the highest.  The BEATLES were and are a rarity in terms of the fame, fortune and legacy they acquired.  I think the BEATLES equation was absolute.  Any alteration, no matter how slight, may have offset and possibly destroyed the balance.

I think that Paul would have continued on into the music world without the others.  I've read about first-hand friends and observers of the early BEATLE days who felt Paul was most likely to succeed.  If not, he'd probably have made a very good bus driver.  Many felt John was lazy, unmotivated and driftless and would have gone NO where without Paul.  George was afraid he'd have been an electrician and imagined that would have been the equivalent of an uninspired hardscrabble life.  Ringo thought he'd have been a hairdresser.  He'd probably have continued drumming until his late twenties or so - standard burnout stage for the PROfessional Music Dream for many.

Hey, how about if Eric Clapton had gotten in instead of George?  Would he have been a  lucky enough man to make the grade as a full fledged BEATLE?

Dream on, folks, and ye shall, for sure.  There's no end to this BEATLES Madness, is there?

If there is a God and I ever meet Him/Her/It, I will ask this:  Please, God, please please me and explain to me the mystery of the BEATLES.  What caused BEATLEmania?  Who was the most important of the 4-headed Monster?  Why'd You wait so long to create BEATLES?  What BEATLES wonders never occurred because of the "untimely deaths" of John and George?  Would the BEATLES ever have reunited?  Exactly, God, who was Billy Shears and who was really Paul - the Walrus or was John, in fact, proven to be the ultimate Walrus?  And the Egghead, God, was that you?  The Supreme Egghead who created the Supreme BEATLES?  And lastly, God, aren't You the least bit jealous of them?  Why, they were more popular than You were for a time.  I wonder - are they still?

But thank You, BEATLES creating God!!  I think the BEATLES were your greatest ACHEIVEMENT!!!  Glory Hallelujah!!!  BEATLES FOREVER!!!

And the award for the biggest load of sh!t ever written on the forum goes to...

I hate what if's. It happened how it happened, it was all a long time ago and it don't matter anymore.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Andy Smith on March 20, 2007, 03:26:17 PM
The Beatles only worked as John, Paul , George & Ringo!
No one else sounded like George, he had a tone that no one could copy,
Eric's a great player but he was not George.
Who knows if the fabs would have got back together, the work is done & it cannot be
copied! There was too much arguments by 69 and it was getting crazy!
A John said, 'It got to the point were it was no longer creating magic!'
In my opinion, when they went solo, they could express themselves better
and get there own songs out.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: GreenApple on March 20, 2007, 04:36:40 PM
Quote from: 366

And the award for the biggest load of sh!t ever written on the forum goes to...

I hate what if's. It happened how it happened, it was all a long time ago and it don't matter anymore.

There's nothing wrong with speculating. A long time ago I started a thread entitled, I think, If Only...

It got a lot of interest here. No point in just condemning others for expressing themselves.  :)
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: on March 20, 2007, 05:13:58 PM
I wasn't condemning anyone for anything.

By all means speculate. I no longer see much point in it myself.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: on March 20, 2007, 05:17:34 PM
I wasn't condemning anyone for anything.

By all means speculate. I no longer see much point in it myself.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: GreenApple on March 20, 2007, 05:27:54 PM
Quote from: 366
I wasn't condemning anyone for anything.

By all means speculate. I no longer see much point in it myself.

OK. Fair enough.  :)
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: The Swine on June 22, 2007, 09:20:47 PM
yeah, very well possible. i don't think george had a very important role in the beatles. he had to work hard to get his solo's and guitarplay alright, he was not very natural gifted. that's alright, it's just a fact. besides, i has always struck me that it took him about ten years in the company of lennon and mccartney before he came up with really good songs. and as soon as they were out of sight, the good songs had vanished. let's face it, george has only written important material worth to remember from 1968 to 1970. the rest is fillers.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Andy Smith on June 22, 2007, 09:32:57 PM
Quote from: 748
t, he was not very natural gifted.

He was a gifted songwriter, but he had to find them while in the Beatles & solo.
He never got enough encouragement from George Martin (i think) :-/.
But of course, it must have been so hard for George getting his composition's in with
the Lennon / McCartney masterpieces.

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Flaming Pie in the Sky on June 22, 2007, 09:39:52 PM
Maybe he could have been replaced music wise, yes. But if you consider the blend of personalities, the band wouldn't have been the same if George had been a more exuberant person. I think there would have been more friction with Paul and John if he was.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: DarkSweetLady on June 22, 2007, 10:53:30 PM
NO NO NO NO NO POSSIBLE WAY!

  The Beatles were the Beatles... George Ringo Paul and John.

No George No Beatles! As simple as that...

I (heart2) George!
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: komakino on June 23, 2007, 04:45:40 AM
Quote from: 748
let's face it, george has only written important material worth to remember from 1968 to 1970. the rest is fillers.

i don't think so, he needed his time to learn songwriting of course but he did it very quick and in my opinion songs like taxman or love you to were as good as most of the lennon/mccartney songs at that time. i think he was a pretty good songwriter. he learned pretty quick.
he was a big influence to the beatle-sound... not only the sitar. i think it's terrible how people forget what a musician he was. i'm sure the beatles wouldn't have been the same without him, i don't know how the beatles would have been, depends on who would've replaced him... but they'd have been for sure pretty different.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: The Swine on June 23, 2007, 08:55:58 AM
Quote from: 418

he learned pretty quick.
he was a big influence to the beatle-sound... not only the sitar. i think it's terrible how people forget what a musician he was. i'm sure the beatles wouldn't have been the same without him, i don't know how the beatles would have been, depends on who would've replaced him... but they'd have been for sure pretty different.

you can't be serious. pretty quick? i took him ten years in the hothouse of the enormous talented lennon and mccartney before he came up with quality. taxman is a good song, but up till 68 that's about it. big influence? how? by playing the sitar? there's only a handful of sitar songs and there's mostly forgettable and they are certainly not picked up by the big audiences. i'm pretty sure the beatles would have come to success with another leadguitarist as well.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: sewi on June 26, 2007, 02:29:59 PM
The Beatles minus George? They were for three days in january 1969 and it was a disaster heheheh.It would be a very diferent group because George loved his guitar more than any of the others did and he impressed John the first time he played so George was good enough for what they were doing from the begining and improved a lot through the sixties.He was needed and more with the years.The contrary happened with Ringo that was not so needed at the end.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Kevin on June 26, 2007, 03:11:40 PM
Quote from: 564
The Beatles minus George? They were for three days in january 1969 and it was a disaster heheheh.It would be a very diferent group because George loved his guitar more than any of the others did and he impressed John the first time he played so George was good enough for what they were doing from the begining and improved a lot through the sixties.He was needed and more with the years.The contrary happened with Ringo that was not so needed at the end.

Far out. I see it as totally reversed. George was needed more in Beatlemania when their moptop image was all important. Once they became a studio band his replacement would have been much easier.
I like The Beatles as they are, and would never wish to see him leave. But on Rubber Soul his guitar work sounds thin, and importantly he seems to lack confidence. I have to wonder "what if" sometimes. But to cure that I just need to listen to Eric on WMGGWeeps I guess.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: sewi on June 26, 2007, 03:21:29 PM
Quote from: 185

Far out. I see it as totally reversed. George was needed more in Beatlemania when their moptop image was all important. Once they became a studio band his replacement would have been much easier.
I like The Beatles as they are, and would never wish to see him leave. But on Rubber Soul his guitar work sounds thin, and importantly he seems to lack confidence. I have to wonder "what if" sometimes. But to cure that I just need to listen to Eric on WMGGWeeps I guess.

to lack confidence in Rubber Soul? I cannot see what you mean kevin sorry.But when George began to compose his replacement would have been more dificult after mid sixties and with psicodelia and Indian music going so popular for a while and convincing the others to go to India and then writing masterpieces for their last albums. Ringo on the other hand was not needed after they stopped touring because Paul could have played the drums instead and Ringo did not contribute as much as George to their projects whatever they were:India,Apple,songs.When he left they continued recording but when Goerge left they knew he was serious and he was needed.John said that about Eric Clapton but I don not think it was considered as a choice.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Kevin on June 26, 2007, 03:32:05 PM
Re Rubber Soul - it's in the ears  guess. Listen to Paul's guitar on Ticket To Ride and Taxman - he plays with confidence and gusto. George generally sounds thin and hesitant to me.
No George: no India trip - was it really that important? They'd never had trouble knocking out songs wherever they were.
No Indian music - it is hard to imagine Sgt Pepper without it, but perhaps if they had a guitarist who concentrated more on his guitar work than fiddling with a sitar - who knows. Again, the world wouldn't have ended.
George's masterpieces - respect to the guy for Something, Here Comes The Sun and to a lesser degree Taxman and WMGGW. Great songs, but really drops in the bucket compared to what John and Paul were churning out year in and year out.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: sewi on June 26, 2007, 03:43:52 PM
Quote from: 185
Re Rubber Soul - it's in the ears  guess. Listen to Paul's guitar on Ticket To Ride and Taxman - he plays with confidence and gusto. George generally sounds thin and hesitant to me.
No George: no India trip - was it really that important? They'd never had trouble knocking out songs wherever they were.
No Indian music - it is hard to imagine Sgt Pepper without it, but perhaps if they had a guitarist who concentrated more on his guitar work than fiddling with a sitar - who knows. Again, the world wouldn't have ended.
George's masterpieces - respect to the guy for Something, Here Comes The Sun and to a lesser degree Taxman and WMGGW. Great songs, but really drops in the bucket compared to what John and Paul were churning out year in and year out.

So you are comparing two examples of good Paul guitars versus all George guitar works but I don not hear Geiorge playing badly on If I needed someone or And your bird can sing mentioning only another two.

The India expierence was important for them not only for the peace and the number and quality of songs but they had an oportunity to be really together since the tours.

Psicodelia nad Indian music was the new kind of music of mid sixties and George was a master.They needed him to be cool to those who liked those styles and they were a lot of people by that time.Fashion.

Those songs that you have mentioned are among the best of those albums and for some people and important critics and even for the Beatles themselves are the best tracks of those albums so he was needed during those late years too to improve the albums.And he composed some other great songs too not only those because All things must pass is another wonderful song for example.

My opinion is that George was very needed although surely there would be some points at which he was not a master.I am not saying he was better than John or Paul but he was great doing what he knew.

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Kevin on June 26, 2007, 03:51:48 PM
I'm not saying George played badly, just not that spectaculaly well.
Indian music was "the new kind of music of the sixties."????? Can you name some others by other groups? (other than Paint it Black). Hardly a trend. Indian music was George's thing, either a brave dash of inventiveness or a stumble up a blind alley. I don't think it's the "new music" anymore than  Paul's flapper songs.
ps I applaud George for his Indian music. Very brave to put that on a pop record. But it never really caught on.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Kevin on June 26, 2007, 04:04:48 PM
Quote from: 564

to lack confidence in Rubber Soul?

I was just going to qualify that by saying actually he sounds strong on Drive My Car. Just did a quck Wiki to check and oops - it's Paul.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: BlueMeanie on June 26, 2007, 04:05:51 PM
Quote from: 564
So you are comparing two examples of good Paul guitars versus all George guitar works but I don not hear Geiorge playing badly on If I needed someone or And your bird can sing mentioning only another two.

Except that they are not on Rubber Soul! And remember, George was the official lead guitarist. He's not meant to be outplayed by the bass player!

Quote from: 564
The India expierence was important for them not only for the peace and the number and quality of songs but they had an oportunity to be really together since the tours.

Really? I always thought it was the beginning of the end. The mood in the studio during recording the White Album wasn't exactly peace and love.

Quote from: 564
Psicodelia nad Indian music was the new kind of music of mid sixties and George was a master.They needed him to be cool to those who liked those styles and they were a lot of people by that time.Fashion.

George was not a master of Indian music. He could barely play a sitar to a child's level. And there were not a lot of people who liked Indian music. A few hippies hanging around Carnaby Street who want to be seen wearing Indian clothes and listening to Sitars. After all, you'll listen to anything when you're stoned. The average man in the street didn't even know the 'swinging sixties' was happening, let alone have any interest in Indian music outside of the local tandoori.



Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: harihead on June 26, 2007, 05:24:01 PM
I'm putting way too much time into this, but I'm a geek!

I just happened to see a poll in another forum, that released its results today. A bunch of people (not sure how many, but at least 2 dozen) listed their top 25 favorite Beatles songs. When I looked over the results, I was struck by how many George songs were in the list of people's favorites, so I geeked out and did this little check.

If you use this page as a source: http://www.stevesbeatles.com/songs/default.asp?sort=songwriter

you find that George wrote 22 Beatles songs. I'm leaving out joint instrumentals and post-1970 songs like FAAB. That leaves 169 Lennon/McCartney original compositions. That means George wrote 13% of these 191 original Beatles songs compared to L/M. Not very many.

But in this poll, 10% of the favorites ended up being George songs. Since he only wrote 13% of the songs to begin with, this is a pretty good percentage.

If you look only at the top 10 winners, 20% of the songs are George songs (carrying 26% of the vote), and 80% Lennon/McCartney. ("Here Comes the Sun" was #2, behind "Day In the Life".) So George's "masterpieces" (as Kevin called them earlier) seem to really stand out as highlights for many people in the Beatles catalog.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this. It's just one poll that collects a bunch of people's opinions. ("Taxman" doesn't even appear on this list, so..?) But anyway, I think George made a definite contribution to the Beatles sound, and perhaps more of an impact on their memories than many people realize.

Okay, must stop geeking and get to work. Cheers, all!
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: The Swine on June 26, 2007, 07:04:25 PM
interesting discussion. i think george did not feel as much pressure as john and paul to come up with a lot of songs. it probably didn't matter if he had not come up with anything and he did so for quite a long time actually. he delivered don't bother me in 63 and then his first composition was i need you and you like me too much for the help album. john and paul built the songs that made beatlemania.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 10:51:00 AM
Quote from: 748
[...]he delivered don't bother me in 63 and then his first composition was i need you and you like me too much for the help album. john and paul built the songs that made beatlemania.
George was ignored ... he wrote a very beautiful song in 1964: You Know What To Do ...  

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 11:04:58 AM
Quote from: 483
Except that they are not on Rubber Soul! And remember, George was the official lead guitarist. He's not meant to be outplayed by the bass player![...]
If I Needed Someone is on Rubber Sooul, sorry  :P ... but Kevin mentioned two (Ticket To Ride and Taxman) that are not! And notice that the bass player was a guitarist too!
Quote from: 185
Re Rubber Soul - it's in the ears  guess. Listen to Paul's guitar on Ticket To Ride and Taxman - he plays with confidence and gusto. George generally sounds thin and hesitant to me.[...]
Quote from: 483
[...]Really? I always thought it was the beginning of the end. The mood in the studio during recording the White Album wasn't exactly peace and love.[...]
The same could be said about Sgt. Pepper's sessions but they felt really well together again during some weeks in Rishikesh ... good enough to compose a lot of songs ...  
Quote from: 483
[...]George was not a master of Indian music. He could barely play a sitar to a child's level. And there were not a lot of people who liked Indian music. A few hippies hanging around Carnaby Street who want to be seen wearing Indian clothes and listening to Sitars. After all, you'll listen to anything when you're stoned. The average man in the street didn't even know the 'swinging sixties' was happening, let alone have any interest in Indian music outside of the local tandoori.[...]
To compose good music you needn't to play well an instrument and India music was a novelty to Western ears ... another new thing the guys were doing and sending to the whole world, don't pay at10tion only to Carnaby Street or to the week one song or album was released ... they influenced others goups with they new music, Indian music included ... I think that George was a force: meditation, new instruments and approachings, new projects and colaborations ... he was more alive and creative than ever since mid sixties ...

We should take a listen to what harihead has said because it's true that George songs are among the most beloved ones and that is significant  :)

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: The Swine on June 27, 2007, 11:07:08 AM
Quote from: 297
George was ignored ... he wrote a very beautiful song in 1964: You Know What To Do ...  

lets turn around. maybe george was ignored because of this song. you cant be serious. you know what to do is probably the worst thing he ever wrote. and if that was the best thing he could come up with, i know why the beatles didn't take off because of george. he wasn't the best singer of them all and certainly at that time not the best of songwriters. it is a fact that the beatles only took one take of this, or not even im not sure. just a george demo. and even that was one step beyond.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 11:17:07 AM
Quote from: 748
lets turn around. maybe george was ignored because of this song. you cant be serious. you know what to do is probably the worst thing he ever wrote. and if that was the best thing he could come up with, i know why the beatles didn't take off because of george. he wasn't the best singer of them all and certainly at that time not the best of songwriters. it is a fact that the beatles only took one take of this, or not even im not sure. just a george demo. and even that was one step beyond.
Are you saying that it's worse than the fillers the other two included on their second LP, for example?  :o Come on, I already knew you're not!  ;D

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: The Swine on June 27, 2007, 11:19:29 AM
Quote from: 297
The same could be said about Sgt. Pepper's sessions but they felt really well together again during some weeks in Rishikesh ... good enough to compose a lot of songs ...  

which were hardly group efforts.

Quote from: 297
To compose good music you needn't to play well an instrument.

you should have told Mozart.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Kevin on June 27, 2007, 11:21:16 AM
Quote from: 297
To compose good music you needn't to play well an instrument and India music was a novelty to Western ears ... another new thing the guys were doing and sending to the whole world, don't pay at10tion only to Carnaby Street or to the week one song or album was released ... they influenced others goups with they new music, Indian music included ... I think that George was a force: meditation, new instruments and approachings, new projects and colaborations ... he was more alive and creative than ever since mid sixties ...


I would need evidence to convince me that George's Indian stuff did anything more than start a brief fad for a bit of easterm mysticism in pop/rock music.
Hats off that it did show the world that you can put anything on a pop record BUT they may come with the qualification that you have to be The Beatles to have the luxury get away with it.
It was a cool thing to do - I just don't think that in the bigger picture of rock it's that important
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 11:24:30 AM
Quote from: 748
which were hardly group efforts.[...]
They had never been, so? ... and they were old enough to change that ... but they had a lot of fun  :D ... and they jammed a lot ... the recordings and, later, the Esher demos show us this ... definetelly a good step (Yoko was another thing, man!)!   ::)
Quote from: 748
[...]you should have told Mozart.
I thought he was clever enough to know that ... so I never thought I should to! 8)

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 11:28:10 AM
Quote from: 185
I would need evidence to convince me that George's Indian stuff did anything more than start a brief fad for a bit of easterm mysticism in pop/rock music.
Hats off that it did show the world that you can put anything on a pop record BUT they may come with the qualification that you have to be The Beatles to have the luxury get away with it.
It was a cool thing to do - I just don't think that in the bigger picture of rock it's that important
It was another novelty for the world ... and the trips to India another one ... if the group was always trying new things George showed them a new thing to try ... important or not, they thought it was important enough to try ... I think that it was needed ... and George too ...

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on June 27, 2007, 11:29:15 AM
I think the pig has got a point. If You Know What To Do was the only thing that George presented in 1964, it was certainly not a lot and that's an understatement. Sewi (or raxo, I can't remember and keep mixing you up, sorry) said that India gave them a chance to finally be together since the tours stopped. Mind you, the last tour was in August 1966, they went to India over a year and a half later! Certainly to Beatles' standards, that is a lot of time. Plus I'm not sure whether the atmosphere in India was all good. Not good enough to last any longer than a few months.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on June 27, 2007, 11:31:04 AM
Quote from: 297
It was another novelty for the world ... and the trips to India another one ... if the group was always trying new things George showed them a new thing to try ... important or not, they thought it was important enough to try ... I think that it was needed ... and George too ...


In fact, the meditation thing was presented to them by Patti Boyd. Trips to India had been made before. It became a public thing because the Beatles did it.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 11:32:55 AM
Quote from: 63
In fact, the meditation thing was presented to them by Patti Boyd. Trips to India had been made before. It became a public thing because the Beatles did it.
Exactly, and they did all that because of George ... By the way, I was tallking about Indian music too not only meditation ...

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on June 27, 2007, 11:33:58 AM
No, because of Patti.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on June 27, 2007, 11:38:44 AM
I had a discussion with an Israeli, some years ago. We were talking about the Palestinian question and he could not listen to other people's arguments. He was so convinced that he was right by stating that the land was theirs, because the thora and bible said so. He could not open his eyes and ears to see and listen what other people's opinions were.

Off topic, sure. But I didn't know where else to post it.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 11:42:29 AM
Quote from: 63
I think the pig has got a point. If You Know What To Do was the only thing that George presented in 1964, it was certainly not a lot and that's an understatement. Sewi (or raxo, I can't remember and keep mixing you up, sorry) said that India gave them a chance to finally be together since the tours stopped. Mind you, the last tour was in August 1966, they went to India over a year and a half later! Certainly to Beatles' standards, that is a lot of time. Plus I'm not sure whether the atmosphere in India was all good. Not good enough to last any longer than a few months.
The thing about that song is that George was writing during the early days but he was ignored and I know that more people than me agree that You Know What To Do is as good as the fillers they included on their albums or even better but if John and Paul had their own reasons to not record George material ... I ignore that!
You've only got to read the name of the poster to know what sewi said and what I'm saying ... I haven't said that but the only thing I have to add is that  "a year and a half" is just what it is, not matter the standards ... or that "a few months" is a lot of time too, if you want to use the same standards ... decide yourshelf! 8)

The sessions for the album were not as good as that atmosphere (or the demos they reocrded in May)mainly because Yoko was there and they were using more studios at the same time ... I think that that was the begining of the bad mood ...
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on June 27, 2007, 11:44:24 AM
Quote from: 297

You've only got to read the name of the poster to know what sewi said and what I'm saying ...

I was too lazy to search for it, sorry.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 11:45:05 AM
Quote from: 63
No, because of Patti.
Well, if you want to believe that she was the new Yoko Ono even before the original one, OK for me ...
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 11:46:17 AM
Quote from: 63
[...]Off topic, sure. But I didn't know where else to post it.
Oh, if it's off topic you've done well posting it here at DM's!

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 11:47:05 AM
Quote from: 63
I was too lazy to search for it, sorry.
OK, I don't mind ... ask sewi instead ...

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: BlueMeanie on June 27, 2007, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: 63
I had a discussion with an Israeli, some years ago. We were talking about the Palestinian question and he could not listen to other people's argument. He was so convinced that he was right by stating that the land was theirs, because the thora and bible said so. He could not open his eyes and ears to see and listen what other people's opinions were.

Off topic, sure. But I didn't know where else to post it.

Excellent point Cor. I've already given up on this topic. I value my head, and if I start banging it against the wall it'll break!

Rax, you're in danger of alienating people sometimes with the way you keep coming back, and coming back, and coming back. And never accepting anyone else's point of view. Of course your views are respected but you will never consider anyone else's.

And now I'll exit this thread.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 11:49:26 AM
Quote from: 483
Excellent point Cor. I've already given up on this topic. I value my head, and if I start banging it against the wall it'll break!

Rax, you're in danger of alienating people sometimes with the way you keep coming back, and coming back, and coming back. And never accepting anyone else's point of view. Of course your views are respected but you will never consider anyone else's.

And now I'll exit this thread.
Your point of view ... and my point of view too ... a forum, that's all ... don't take it so seriously ...

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on June 27, 2007, 11:49:34 AM
Amen.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 11:53:11 AM
Quote from: 63
Amen.
I agree ... anybody else? BlueMeanie?  :)
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: The Swine on June 27, 2007, 02:21:15 PM
Quote from: 297
Well, if you want to believe that she was the new Yoko Ono even before the original one, OK for me ...

in terms of?
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: sewi on June 27, 2007, 02:37:25 PM
Quote from: 63
I think the pig has got a point. If You Know What To Do was the only thing that George presented in 1964, it was certainly not a lot and that's an understatement. Sewi (or raxo, I can't remember and keep mixing you up, sorry) said that India gave them a chance to finally be together since the tours stopped. Mind you, the last tour was in August 1966, they went to India over a year and a half later! Certainly to Beatles' standards, that is a lot of time. Plus I'm not sure whether the atmosphere in India was all good. Not good enough to last any longer than a few months.
It was me who said that:'The India expierence was important for them not only for the peace and the number and quality of songs but they had an oportunity to be really together since the tours.' and  I was saying that to Kevin statement:'No George: no India trip - was it really that important? They'd never had trouble knocking out songs wherever they were.'It is on page 3. I see what you mean Bobber but I think they were very close those months and the footage I have seen it is very diferent to what they have said about filming Magical mystery tour the year before when George felt as an outsider or something like that.Anyway I think without George some of the things the Beatles did like Let it be and some of the best songs would not have been done.I like John and I think that John was curious about the meditation because of George and Ringo and Paul went to India because it was a thing to to with the others but it was a good expierence for them in my opinion but it was not the only thing George did of course heheheh.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 04:48:43 PM
Quote from: 748
in terms of?
Leadersheep
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on June 27, 2007, 05:16:59 PM
Quote from: 297
The thing about that song is that George was writing during the early days but he was ignored and I know that more people than me agree that You Know What To Do is as good as the fillers they included on their albums or even better but if John and Paul had their own reasons to not record George material ...

Even more people will disagree. Even George himself admitted he had forgotten all about the song, even when he heard it back after so many years. It obviously did not make a big impression.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 05:37:35 PM
Quote from: 63
Even more people will disagree. Even George himself admitted he had forgotten all about the song, even when he heard it back after so many years. It obviously did not make a big impression.
Surely you're right and I'm wrong once again, OK :) ... but remember that (and this doesn't change a thing of the discussion but you've mentioned, so) George himshelf seemed to have forgot10 lots of things about the group in the Anthologies: songs included on which albums exactly? or even having played a second time at the Shea Stadium  ::) ... that doesn't mean nothing special for me but ...
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: harihead on June 27, 2007, 05:41:07 PM
I agree that George's early songs weren't brilliant-- but neither were Lennon/McCartney's. You've got to consider their pre-recording era songs as their "beginner" library-- not particularly inspiring. "Love Me Do" was their first hit and, I'm with George Martin on this one. I just don't like that song very much. Of course, I'm looking at it from the perspective of time. At the time, I understand the harmonica (GM's suggestion per Geoff Emerick) made the sound unique, and that's why it went as high as it did in the charts. GM also rearranged PPM from (his word) a "dirge" into the peppy happy song that we now know (and I really like). Notice GM kept the harmonica in all the early Beatles' songs-- that was their selling point and signature sound, as far as he was concerned.

GM did not put similar effort into shaping George's songs, by his own statements. So George was slower developing, and he didn't have the luxury of a songwriting partner to help craft his ideas, because Paul and John were the songwriting team and George wasn't. In the rush of Beatlemania, who else could he collaborate with, when most nights were in a completely different town and the only consistent people he had around them were his bandmates, who (again documented by GM) really didn't help George except to throw out a piece of advice here or there. He certainly learned a lot by watching, but crafting your own stuff takes some concentrated effort, and there just wasn't time available this, or effort expended by the others. When the touring stopped and George found himself with more time, he started composing a lot of songs. And some of those songs are among the Beatles' best and many people's favorites.

Anyway, I can see why many people think George wasn't crucial to the Beatles. I'll just say, he was for me. I wasn't motivated to buy any Beatles music until after watching the Anthology. I felt myself strongly relating to George, and so started investigating more into these Beatle people. It turned out, his songs were more to my taste-- a little more contemplative. Yes, the John and Paul hits were catchy, infectious, and I really enjoyed them-- but I didn't particularly need them in my house. I wanted George songs in my house. I'm in the minority, I realize. But I wouldn't be here if not for George, so I'm very grateful to him.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 05:49:34 PM
Quote from: 551
I agree that George's early songs weren't brilliant-- but neither were Lennon/McCartney's. You've got to consider their pre-recording era songs as their "beginner" library-- not particularly inspiring. "Love Me Do" was their first hit and, I'm with George Martin on this one. I just don't like that song very much. Of course, I'm looking at it from the perspective of time. At the time, I understand the harmonica (GM's suggestion per Geoff Emerick) made the sound unique, and that's why it went as high as it did in the charts. GM also rearranged PPM from (his word) a "dirge" into the peppy happy song that we now know (and I really like). Notice GM kept the harmonica in all the early Beatles' songs-- that was their selling point and signature sound, as far as he was concerned.

GM did not put similar effort into shaping George's songs, by his own statements. So George was slower developing, and he didn't have the luxury of a songwriting partner to help craft his ideas, because Paul and John were the songwriting team and George wasn't. In the rush of Beatlemania, who else could he collaborate with, when most nights were in a completely different town and the only consistent people he had around them were his bandmates, who (again documented by GM) really didn't help George except to throw out a piece of advice here or there. He certainly learned a lot by watching, but crafting your own stuff takes some concentrated effort, and there just wasn't time available this, or effort expended by the others. When the touring stopped and George found himself with more time, he started composing a lot of songs. And some of those songs are among the Beatles' best and many people's favorites. [...]
:o Wow ... I agree 100% with you, harihead!!! You've explained it very clearly!!! (thumbsup)
Imagine You Know What To Do (we only know a simple demo of the song) with help and inputs from the others (harmonies, arragements and a solo, for example). George was just 21 when he wrote it but pretty soon he showed to the world that he was a great composer! 8)

Quote from: 551
[...]Anyway, I can see why many people think George wasn't crucial to the Beatles. I'll just say, he was for me. I wasn't motivated to buy any Beatles music until after watching the Anthology. I felt myself strongly relating to George, and so started investigating more into these Beatle people. It turned out, his songs were more to my taste-- a little more contemplative. Yes, the John and Paul hits were catchy, infectious, and I really enjoyed them-- but I didn't particularly need them in my house. I wanted George songs in my house. I'm in the minority, I realize. But I wouldn't be here if not for George, so I'm very grateful to him.[...]
The same here ... we're in the minority and what? I thank him  for having you here!!! Have I told you that I love how you express yourshelf? :K)

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on June 27, 2007, 05:55:51 PM
Quote from: 297
:o Wow ... I agree 100% with you, harihead!!! You've explained it very clearly!!! (thumbsup

So now you are agreeing to the idea that there was a songwriting team. In another thread (about the India thing, or is that this same thread?) we agreed that India brought a lot of songs, but when I stated that it wasn't any group efforts, you replied that composing was hardly ever a group effort. And a team is a group, right?
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Flaming Pie in the Sky on June 27, 2007, 05:59:06 PM
::)

The Beatles wouldn't be the same without George. He had something he contributed that couldn't really be replaced.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on June 27, 2007, 06:01:28 PM
Quote from: 687
::)

The Beatles wouldn't be the same without George. 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.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 06:03:32 PM
Quote from: 63
So now you are agreeing to the idea that there was a songwriting team. In another thread (about the India thing, or is that this same thread?) we agreed that India brought a lot of songs, but when I stated that it wasn't any group efforts, you replied that composing was hardly ever a group effort. And a team is a group, right?

Don't confuse things, please ... the complete sequence (from this thread) for you:
Quote from: 297
[...]The same could be said about Sgt. Pepper's sessions but they felt really well together again during some weeks in Rishikesh ... good enough to compose a lot of songs ...  [...]
Quote from: 748
which were hardly group efforts.[...]
Quote from: 297
They had never been, so? ... and they were old enough to change that ... but they had a lot of fun  :D ... and they jammed a lot ... the recordings and, later, the Esher demos show us this ... definetelly a good step (Yoko was another thing, man!)!   ::)[...]
"Group effort" and "songwriting team" (refering to John and Paul as parteners -you better read carefully what harihead said-) is not exactly the same ... obviously the four of them or even the three of them weren't composing together in India and? John and Paul DID composed together some of their early songs and that's what harihead was refering to ... to that era ... and I obviously agree that both of them had the other to develop songs but George had not! What's the problem? I still agree with this, and you?:
Quote from: 551
[...]GM did not put similar effort into shaping George's songs, by his own statements. So George was slower developing, and he didn't have the luxury of a songwriting partner to help craft his ideas, because Paul and John were the songwriting team and George wasn't. In the rush of Beatlemania, who else could he collaborate with, when most nights were in a completely different town and the only consistent people he had around them were his bandmates, who (again documented by GM) really didn't help George except to throw out a piece of advice here or there.
[...]
When the touring stopped and George found himself with more time, he started composing a lot of songs. And some of those songs are among the Beatles' best and many people's favorites.
[...]
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Flaming Pie in the Sky on June 27, 2007, 06:06:55 PM
Quote from: 63
And what was it? I'm not denying, I'm asking to get a proper description of it.

His passive nature? If he was more of an outspoken person (and tried harder to get his songs recorded), the band may have dissolved earlier than it did because of conflicts with John and Paul. It could have been his songs that were different than John and Paul's, and offered a change of pace. They weren't as catchy, but people could still relate to them.

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on June 27, 2007, 06:13:18 PM
I don't think George was a passive nature. In the early Beatles days (listen to interviews) he was quite talkative. But he soon grew tired of the interviews and Beatlemania and put on his morose face. There is no proof that George had the amount of songs in 63/64 that John and Paul (whether as a team or alone, I really don't give a f*** anymore) provided. And surely, if You Know What To Do was the best thing he could come up with, it wasn't really worth it. 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. George just did not have such a song in 63/64. I'm sorry for all you George lovers and yes, he provided great songs in the last few years, but he just had no good song in the early days.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 06:18:36 PM
I wonder why the others didn't fire him before!
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on June 27, 2007, 06:19:59 PM
Quote from: 297
I wonder why the others didn't fire him before!

He owned a guitar. That's why.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Flaming Pie in the Sky on June 27, 2007, 06:22:43 PM
Quote from: 63
I'm sorry for all you George lovers and yes, he provided great songs in the last few years, but he just had no good song in the early days.

I agree with that, I like his stuff from Rubber Soul and on. He may not have offered much then, but honestly, I don't think anyone would have let him go. Paul, John, and George wanted Ringo instead of Pete because they felt he fit better in the band. So yes, George had some unproductive years, but he did prove himself at the end, and if he had been replaced, we wouldn't have some of the better songs towards the end of The Beatles
(more songs like Maxwell's Silver Hammer? No thanks)
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 06:24:22 PM
Trying to debate something: he's the co-writer of In Spite Of All The Danger (along with Paul) and Cry For A Shadow (along with John) ... two of the first attempts of recording an original song ... the others were That'll Be The Day and Ain't She Sweet (both sung by John) ... curious and a bit strange! ... oh, and he owned a guitar too!!!
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 06:25:49 PM
Quote from: 687
[...] he did prove himself at the end, and if he had been replaced, we wouldn't have some of the better songs towards the end of The Beatles[...]
Be sure first of what you're saying ... some people could not agree with you and ...
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: mr kite on June 27, 2007, 06:27:52 PM
EARTH  WIND  FIRE  WATER , four elements that go together

RINGO GEORGE  JOHN PAUL , Same as above, to contemplate THE BEATLES  without GEORGE is unthinkable .  
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Flaming Pie in the Sky on June 27, 2007, 06:28:38 PM
Quote from: 297
Be sure first of what you're saying ... some people could not agree with you and ...

Oh well, that's what forum discussions are for, disagreeing and stating your opinions

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 06:30:27 PM
Quote from: 687
Oh well, that's what forum discussions are for, disagreeing and stating your opinions
It should be so but it seems to be so only if you're allowed to  ::) ...

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 06:31:47 PM
Quote from: 449
[...]THE BEATLES  without GEORGE is unthinkable .  
I'm begining to think that George was the big mistake of the group, sorry :-/

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on June 27, 2007, 06:31:48 PM
Geez raxo, don't behave like a victim.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 06:32:36 PM
Quote from: 63
Geez raxo, don't behave like a victim.
Hey, Bobber, you know me and you know that it's only joke  ;) ... I'm just trying to debate and to pick people here ... sensationalism? ... Yes, but I'm not a victim at all ... I'm the un-dead! ;D

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Flaming Pie in the Sky on June 27, 2007, 06:34:12 PM
Quote from: 297
I'm begining to think that George was the big mistake of the group, sorry :-/

What? Just a little while ago you were completely agreeing with harihead.
(confused)
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on June 27, 2007, 06:35:57 PM
Quote from: 297
Hey, Bobber, you know me and you know that it's only joke  ;) ... I'm just trying to debate and to pick people here ... sensationalism? ... Yes, but I'm not a victim at all ... I'm the un-dead! ;D


I know you and think that you're very probably touched by BlueMeanie's remark earlier in this thread.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 06:36:19 PM
Quote from: 687
What? Just a little while ago you were completely agreeing with harihead.
(confused)
I'm joking, Flaming Pie in the Sky  ;D ... now I'm expecting people to tell me why George was so important for the group ... that's all!  ;)

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Flaming Pie in the Sky on June 27, 2007, 06:37:16 PM
I see
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 06:40:11 PM
Quote from: 63
I know you and think that you're very probably touched by BlueMeanie's remark earlier in this thread.
Nah, that's not the case ... BlueMeanie is a good guy and I understand what and why he (and you too) said what he said ... but I'm still here giving my opinion and I wish he would be here too  :-/ ...

I'm in a good mood  :) ... I'm just trying debate with more people ... so I'm not going to be the only one here to answer and to re-think about my and others' opinions ... I'm just trying to learn something now and then, y'know ... that's still the main reason for me to be here ...
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 06:43:57 PM
Quote from: 687
I see
;) ... I love the sentence in your sig:
"Four lads who stole the world's heart and never gave it back"
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Flaming Pie in the Sky on June 27, 2007, 06:45:47 PM
You can thank DSL for that one too, it was a combined effort  :)
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on June 27, 2007, 06:46:23 PM
Quote from: 297
Nah, that's not the case ... BlueMeanie is a good guy and I understand what and why he (and you too) said what he said ... but I'm still here giving my opinion and I wish he would be here too  :-/ ...

I'm in a good mood  :) ... I'm just trying debate with more people ... so I'm not going to be the only one here to answer and to re-think about my and others' opinions ... I'm just trying to learn something now and then, y'know ... that's still the main reason for me to be here ...

Alright. In that case: thanks for the debate. I'm off.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 06:48:16 PM
Quote from: 63
Alright. In that case: thanks for the debate. I'm off.
Nah, thanks to you  ;) ... I'll be here (well, you already knew that LOL!) ... have a good night, Bobber! :)

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: mr kite on June 27, 2007, 07:02:35 PM
Quote from: 297
I'm begining to think that George was the big mistake of the group, sorry :-/


I think you`ve got sunstroke RAX with that statment  :-/
Imagine NORWEGIAN WOOD without a sitar
No HERE COMES THE SUN  opening up side 2 to on the best 20 odd minutes put on a piece of ... plastic  
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 07:46:12 PM
Quote from: 449
I think you`ve got sunstroke RAX with that statment  :-/
Imagine NORWEGIAN WOOD without a sitar
No HERE COMES THE SUN  opening up side 2 to on the best 20 odd minutes put on a piece of ... plastic
I had, mr kite, I had!  ;D
Good points you've got there!
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: harihead on June 27, 2007, 08:29:24 PM
Whew! This thread took off running while I was watching Larry King. Trying to catch up...

Quote from: Flaming Pie in the Sky
He had something he contributed that couldn't really be replaced.
Quote from: Bobber
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.

Quote from: Bobber
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".

Quote from: Bobber
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.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 27, 2007, 08:58:48 PM
Quote from: 551
[...]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.
Thanks to you for sharing your thoughts about them ... a-gain, you've explained yourshelf pretty well ... and a-gain, I agree with you  :) ...

Sir George was not paying as much at10tion to the group as he used to by the time George was writing more and more songs ... Sir George was on hollydays some weeks (September ... he came back in October to finish the album) during the The White Album sessions and Chris Thomas or even the group itself were the producers in many tracks ... then the Get Back project, when Sir George seemed to be just a special guest and Glyn Johns the real producer and finalley those two months (well, more or less) of sessions for the Abbey Road album  ::) ...

Sir George seemed to be focusing his mind in many other things in 1968-1969 ... but it was surely not his fault ... Geoff Emerick was there for the Abbey Road album too (and won a Grammy) so he could relax himshelf a bit, I think  :-/ ...
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: harihead on June 27, 2007, 10:08:43 PM
Thanks, Raxo, I didn't realize Sir George Martin was off and about so much at this time, but of course you're right. I think he did a lovely job on Abbey Road. I'm really glad the Beatles had him as their formative producer; I shudder to think what a heavy hand would have done to their rather untamed sound. :)
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Kevin on June 28, 2007, 08:39:03 AM
Quote from: 297
I wonder why the others didn't fire him before!

Because he couldn't write songs?
I think P & G didn't want him to write songs - that was their territory and they were busy enough competing with each other. I don't think they would have cared if George had never written a song in his life and just stuck his playing. And George's guitar playing was good enough during the Beatlemania years when all he really needed to do was rock and roll licks.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on June 28, 2007, 03:47:39 PM
Quote from: 185
Because he couldn't write songs?[...]
He seemed to begin to write quite early but stopped quite early too  :-/:
Quote from: 297
Trying to debate something: he's the co-writer of In Spite Of All The Danger (along with Paul) and Cry For A Shadow (along with John) ... two of the first attempts of recording an original song ... the others were That'll Be The Day and Ain't She Sweet (both sung by John) ... curious and a bit strange! ... oh, and he owned a guitar too!!!
Quote from: 185
[...]I think P & G didn't want him to write songs - that was their territory and they were busy enough competing with each other. I don't think they would have cared if George had never written a song in his life and just stuck his playing. And George's guitar playing was good enough during the Beatlemania years when all he really needed to do was rock and roll licks.
That could be probable ... he showed the others You Know What To Do when it seems that they were composing for the next album and it was ignored but they recorded Don't Bother Me some months earlier when they had to complete their second album (achording to John, with some rubbish and bad fillers ... *non exactly words*) ... the other two might have thought that George could be a problem in near future if he composed too ... but thankfully it was not so  :) ...
Quote from: 185
[...]And George's guitar playing was good enough during the Beatlemania years when all he really needed to do was rock and roll licks.
That's what I think too  :) ... his guitar playing and his own solos (I Want To Hold Your Hand guitar work is awesome!) were very good and he was an early reference too (The Byrds - Rickenbacker, for example) ...
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: The Swine on July 04, 2007, 08:01:10 AM
still i think that george is the beatle who's the easiest to replace
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Andy Smith on July 04, 2007, 02:07:57 PM
Quote from: 748
still i think that george is the beatle who's the easiest to replace

with who? :o

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: DarkSweetLady on July 04, 2007, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: 614

with who? :o

  

I second that! None of the beatles could be replaced...then they wouldn't be "the beatles"! >:(

George had more than just talent... like it or not he did!
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: pc31 on July 04, 2007, 03:14:39 PM
Quote from: 748
still i think that george is the beatle who's the easiest to replace

i tend to agree with this statement...
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Flaming Pie in the Sky on July 04, 2007, 07:41:09 PM
Quote from: 748
still i think that george is the beatle who's the easiest to replace

I can't imagine The Beatles without him. John, Paul, Ringo and George's replacement? Sorry, just can't do it.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: DarkSweetLady on July 04, 2007, 08:45:51 PM
I can't imagine it either.... The Beatles without any of them is just about the most ridiculous thing I have heard!
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: BlueMeanie on July 05, 2007, 08:29:02 AM
Some of you seem quite obsessed with George, along the same lines as the 'Lennon is God' brigade. If you can forget your obsession for a moment and listen, and think about it, you'll see that (apart from live performance) The Beatles could easily have survived as a 3 piece. The only thing George had over Paul and John in the guitar stakes was his melodic qualities. But this only came to the fore on Abbey Road. If you listen to other takes of some songs you can hear George's complete lack of imagination when it came to putting together even a small solo.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Kevin on July 05, 2007, 09:56:17 AM
If I may say one thing - the fact that George wasn't a virtuoso musician may have worked in the bands favour. Much of their appeal was the boy-next-door factor - that any group of mates could get some guitars, write a few songs and become rock and roll stars. we know AHDN (film) inspired a whole generation of american bands.
Had George been some distant musician type (say like Clapton) then that might have been diminished.
The Beatles always looked like they were having an enormously good time - not hunched over their instruments watching every note. That too was hugeluy important to their appeal. This was hands-on you-can-do-this-too rock and roll. Mastery of instruments wasn't what The Beatles were about. They weren't Cream.
I'm not retreating on my stance that he wasn't that good. Some songs are calling for great guitar which doesn't happen. But then the Beatles appeal and success wasn't just about the music.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: The Swine on July 05, 2007, 10:32:42 AM
Quote from: 483
Some of you seem quite obsessed with George, along the same lines as the 'Lennon is God' brigade. If you can forget your obsession for a moment and listen, and think about it, you'll see that (apart from live performance) The Beatles could easily have survived as a 3 piece. The only thing George had over Paul and John in the guitar stakes was his melodic qualities. But this only came to the fore on Abbey Road. If you listen to other takes of some songs you can hear George's complete lack of imagination when it came to putting together even a small solo.

well thank you mr meanie. i'm glad there's somebody here whose actually thinking.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on July 05, 2007, 01:01:10 PM
Quote from: 748
well thank you mr meanie. i'm glad there's somebody here whose actually thinking.
Yes, BlueMeanie could be the only thinker here ... I don't envy him: that's a quite stressed job to be done by only one!  ;D
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: harihead on July 05, 2007, 02:45:59 PM
Sort of continued from the "Sitar" thread, because this part is more relevant here:

When people complain you are rude, The Swine, consider your comment that Blue Meanie is "somebody here whose actually thinking" (by which you mean, "agrees with you"). I like Blue Meanie; I don't always agree with him, but he supports his views and doesn't launch into personal attacks (implying I don't think because I don't agree with you). I can offer my view about George's contribution (which I did earlier, and won't repeat) and then I'm pretty much done. Lots of people have different opinions.

I can see your view that you find George the most replaceable; that's fine. I see Ringo as most replaceable (and my drummer friend hates me for it). That's fine, too. I honestly believe that all of them, personalities plus abilities, is what made the Beatles great. But if we're debating "most" replaceable, some people are going to pick George. It would have ruined the Beatles experience for me personally, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Cheers.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Flaming Pie in the Sky on July 05, 2007, 02:54:52 PM
Quote from: 551
But if we're debating "most" replaceable, some people are going to pick George. It would have ruined the Beatles experience for me personally, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

My thoughts exactly.

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on July 05, 2007, 03:06:38 PM
Being a musician myshelf I think that a drummer (even a good one like Ringo was) is the most replaceable member in a band like The Guys were ... more than the lead guitarist (another good musician -because George was one- ... and composer and singer too!!!) ... but only my opinion!  Am I going to be crucified like John? :)
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on July 05, 2007, 04:24:26 PM
Quote from: 297
Being a musician myshelf I think that a drummer (even a good one like Ringo was) is the most replaceable member in a band like The Guys were ... more than the lead guitarist (another good musician -because George was one- ... and composer and singer too!!!) ... but only my opinion!  Am I going to be crucified like John? :)

I don't know that band, so I can't argue that.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on July 05, 2007, 04:24:56 PM
Quote from: 63
I don't know that band, so I can't argue that.
Sooorry for you  :-/ ...

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: DarkSweetLady on July 05, 2007, 05:00:37 PM
Yes, but when they went to record they chose to replace the drummer and not George...
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on July 05, 2007, 05:06:15 PM
Quote from: 668
Yes, but when they went to record they chose to replace the drummer and not George...
Some pages ago sewi said more or less the same:
Quote from: 564
The Beatles minus George? They were for three days in january 1969 and it was a disaster heheheh.It would be a very diferent group because George loved his guitar more than any of the others did and he impressed John the first time he played so George was good enough for what they were doing from the begining and improved a lot through the sixties.He was needed and more with the years.The contrary happened with Ringo that was not so needed at the end.

... and, as long as they're facts, I have to agree, how not?  8)
Since the begining the drummer was a problem for The Guys (before Hamburg, first day at EMI with Sir George, 1964 tour ...) but George was already there from the very begining of the group ... and the others never decided to replace him!  ??) ;D
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on July 05, 2007, 06:09:11 PM
Quote from: 297
Some pages ago sewi said more or less the same:


... and, as long as they're facts, I have to agree, how not?  8)
Since the begining the drummer was a problem for The Guys (before Hamburg, first day at EMI with Sir George, 1964 tour ...) but George was already there from the very begining of the group ... and the others never decided to replace him!  ??) ;D

The Guys never had any problems with drummers, as far as I know. Now, The Beatles however...
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on July 05, 2007, 06:14:19 PM
Quote from: 63
The Guys never had any problems with drummers, as far as I know. Now, The Beatles however...
Well, you've always known more than me ...

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on July 05, 2007, 06:18:46 PM
Quote from: 297
Well, you've always known more than me ...

Not sure. You obviously know more about a band called The Guys. I've never heard of them. I might do a Google on them.

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on July 05, 2007, 06:20:24 PM
Quote from: 63
Not sure. You obviously know more about a band called The Guys. I've never heard of them. I might do a Google on them.
They could be no interesting enough for you ... after all, not everything is in the internet, y'know!

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: DarkSweetLady on July 05, 2007, 09:53:52 PM
I think that no Beatle could be replaced because they each have such a different and unique personalities....
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: The Swine on July 12, 2007, 01:17:14 PM
Quote from: 297
Well, if you want to believe that she was the new Yoko Ono even before the original one, OK for me ...

from the beatles unseen archives by tim hill and marie clayton (from the archives of the daily mail):

But The Beatles themselves were still searching for the Meaning of Life and - having already decided that they were not the answer - had begun to give up drugs. It was at this point that they were introduced tot the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi during his visit to London, by George's wife, Patti.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Flaming Pie in the Sky on July 12, 2007, 01:21:15 PM
^ I've got that book  8)
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: raxo on July 12, 2007, 01:22:53 PM
Have you read all the previous posts to see the context? We were tallking about more things (music and trip to India, for example ... Patti?) than just meditation (which was not so important for the group, I think) And I already told Bobber ... see the sequence here:
Quote from: 297
Quote from: 185
I would need evidence to convince me that George's Indian stuff did anything more than start a brief fad for a bit of easterm mysticism in pop/rock music.
Hats off that it did show the world that you can put anything on a pop record BUT they may come with the qualification that you have to be The Beatles to have the luxury get away with it.
It was a cool thing to do - I just don't think that in the bigger picture of rock it's that important
It was another novelty for the world ... and the trips to India another one ... if the group was always trying new things George showed them a new thing to try ... important or not, they thought it was important enough to try ... I think that it was needed ... and George too ...
Quote from: 297
Quote from: 63
  In fact, the meditation thing was presented to them by Patti Boyd. Trips to India had been made before. It became a public thing because the Beatles did it.
Exactly, and they did all that because of George... By the way, I was tallking about Indian music too not only meditation ...
Quote from: 63
No, because of Patti.
Quote from: 297
Well, if you want to believe that she was the new Yoko Ono even before the original one, OK for me ...

Anyway, it's obvious to me that it was George who wanted to do those things and that the other three did them too because of George and not because of Patti ... was Patti who conviced the other three to do them?


And thanks for the info. So George was needed even for having married Patti, you see! The most important member of the group!!!  ;D
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: The Swine on July 12, 2007, 02:29:45 PM
(sleep2)
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Flaming Pie in the Sky on July 12, 2007, 02:41:38 PM
Quote from: 748
(sleep2)

(hammer2)
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Beatlemaniac64 on August 01, 2007, 03:29:18 AM
If not for George, there probably would be no Beatles. And if there still was, they would be very different. I don't think it was all a coincidence, I think that God made every little thing happen the way he planned it to. Just think, the four guys who were meant to be together were all born in Liverpool close by each other. If not for God planning that out, one would have been born in Liverpool and then the other three on the other side of the world for all we know.

Both George and Ringo contributed massively to the Beatles. George has that special sound that sounds like nobody else when he plays that guitar. And Ringo just has a wonderful feel for the drums that makes every song special. I don't believe in any of that stuff about the Beatles just needing Lennon/McCartney to be. Yeah, they were the biggest part of it all, but it wouldn't be the same without George and Ringo. No one else could fill the part musically and the personality of George and Ringo. All four were great musicians, all four had charming personalities, and all four were meant for each other. To sum it up, thank you God for giving us the Beatles!
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: harihead on August 01, 2007, 04:13:05 AM
Nice post, Beatlemaniac64! I agree. :)
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Kevin on August 01, 2007, 08:22:39 AM
Quote from: 793
If not for George, there probably would be no Beatles. And if there still was, they would be very different. I don't think it was all a coincidence, I think that God made every little thing happen the way he planned it to. Just think, the four guys who were meant to be together were all born in Liverpool close by each other. If not for God planning that out, one would have been born in Liverpool and then the other three on the other side of the world for all we know.

God planned The Beatles, and the proof is all four lived nearby????
Surely there are X number of very talented musicians spread around the world. Simple law of averages dictates that eventually two  end up living next to and meeting each other. Then all you need is George and Ringo. Inevitable rather than supernatural.
And when did God get involved in music management? Isn't Simon Cowell enough? I bet the starving africans are p*ssed that he's fiddling around organising beat combos for rich westerners instead of dealing with plagues and famines.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Beatlemaniac64 on August 01, 2007, 05:28:29 PM
Quote from: 185
God planned The Beatles, and the proof is all four lived nearby????
Surely there are X number of very talented musicians spread around the world. Simple law of averages dictates that eventually two  end up living next to and meeting each other. Then all you need is George and Ringo. Inevitable rather than supernatural.
And when did God get involved in music management? Isn't Simon Cowell enough? I bet the starving africans are p*ssed that he's fiddling around organising beat combos for rich westerners instead of dealing with plagues and famines.

I didn't want to start a debate over religion and didn't mean anything bad by it. God created everyone and gave everyone a gift, that's just a fact of life. But, it's a matter of whether or not that person uses that gift for good or evil. The Beatles, for example, and countless other musicians and talented people around the world used that gift given by God for good, to give people pleasure and, in the Beatles' case, change the world. But, some people use their gift given by God for evil. And some of those people are the ones who are the leaders of Africa and all of those other countries with problems. God gave them a gift to lead a country, but they chose to abuse that gift, and that is why Africa and other countries are starving and have problems. It's the leaders of those countries fault, not God's.

To sum it up, it's a person's decision whether they should use their gift for good or evil. The Beatles used theirs for good, the leaders of Africa and places like that used theirs for evil. And this really has nothing to do with Simon Cowell.

I'm not arguing or anything, I'm just defending my view. There are probably many young teenagers out there who have had a bad upbringing with no father or real mother, like John Lennon did, for example. They probably have a talent like John did, but some of them will grow up to be a criminal or something instead. Some of them might also use their talent for good, like John did. It's their decision.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: 834 on August 03, 2007, 09:23:15 PM
Whether it is a higher power, stars in alignment, whatever, everything happens for a reason.  They were all contemporaries from the same little dot on a big ol' planet that came together.  What if John was born 20 or 30 years earlier, and George was born in the 50s, etc., etc.?  It probably never would have come together.  As it happens, it did, and we're fortunate for whatever fate, luck, or coincidence was involved.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Dark Phoenyx on August 06, 2007, 09:48:30 PM
They were meant to be The Beatles.... They lived close and had interests in comnon...    I can't imagine any other person in George's place.  George contributed to the band in different ways such as the use of exotic musical instruments like the sitar, his songs and his guitar playing became a signature of the band.
Ringo bought that something extra Pete Best lacked.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: fendertele on August 09, 2007, 09:55:16 AM
i started a topic similiar to the whole the george was the most replaceable discussion, i actually agree he was the most replaceable true it wouldnt be the beatles as we know them but they could also have been better or maybe worse whos to know what i think george contributed to the band was away from the music he was the most lad like of the four very promenent accent and as someone said the boy next door, maybe at the beginning he was more vital as when playing live they needed a lead guitarist (but what he was playing they could have got most guitarists to play) the beatles although there were 4,imo without  john and paul  the beatles wouldnt be what they were, take george or ringo out of the picture and well the music wouldnt have changed much if anything, as john and paul more so paul had so much to do with how the songs sounded that most parts that were played by george or ringo were from his guidance, and george was less needed even more in the studio years, he could have not been in the studio for most recordings as paul was starting to play his own solos and was basically getting him to play parts that paul could play on his own or playing bass or tambourine,
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Kevin on August 09, 2007, 10:05:51 AM
Hey Fendertal - I want to take in your point of view but PLEASE use sentences and paragraphs. Your posts are very difficult to read as thery are, and the whole point is to share our views.  :)
Cheers. Love the Southpark thing.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: fendertele on August 09, 2007, 02:24:44 PM
 thanks kevin will put more effort into senstences next time m8 i get carried away when im typing lol
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: harihead on August 09, 2007, 02:58:41 PM
Ditto Kevin, Fendertele. After one long line my eyes start to cross and I just stop reading. Cheers!
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: BlueMeanie on August 10, 2007, 06:50:19 AM
Yep, same here, sorry mate. I tend not to read your posts if they're longer than a couple of lines. Also, abbreviations like m8 (presumably - mate) should be outlawed. Too many of them make a post difficult to read. There was someone here once who used a lot and their posts were impossible to read.

Apart from that, everything's great ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Andy Smith on August 10, 2007, 11:06:32 PM
Yeah M8.... erm, sorry MATE! ;D :P ;)
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: fendertele on August 10, 2007, 11:29:12 PM
okay made a few more posts now hopefully my punctuation is little better for you all and ill drop the abbreviations get so used to it with msn and text messaging sorry again if ive caused anyone problems with there eyes ;)
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: BlueMeanie on August 11, 2007, 05:12:08 AM
Quote from: 758
okay made a few more posts now hopefully my punctuation is little better for you all and ill drop the abbreviations get so used to it with msn and text messaging sorry again if ive caused anyone problems with there eyes ;)

I'm sorry, are you a native English speaker? If you're not, then I apologise, but that sentence above has absolutely no punctuation in it. And it's all in lower case. It's very difficult to read. These are not text messages.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: fendertele on August 11, 2007, 08:49:59 AM
lol yes im from scotland, im just not very good at typing, i tend to rush it and forget to put in full stops and capital letters, thank god i'm thick skinned or all this emphasis on my punctuation would give me a complex :P
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on August 15, 2007, 08:59:32 AM
Quote from: 793

I didn't want to start a debate over religion and didn't mean anything bad by it. God created everyone and gave everyone a gift, that's just a fact of life. But, it's a matter of whether or not that person uses that gift for good or evil. The Beatles, for example, and countless other musicians and talented people around the world used that gift given by God for good, to give people pleasure and, in the Beatles' case, change the world. But, some people use their gift given by God for evil. And some of those people are the ones who are the leaders of Africa and all of those other countries with problems. God gave them a gift to lead a country, but they chose to abuse that gift, and that is why Africa and other countries are starving and have problems. It's the leaders of those countries fault, not God's.


Have you ever been in Africa? Or read anything about the history of the continent?
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Beatlemaniac64 on September 10, 2007, 08:54:05 PM
No, I've never been to Africa, but everybody knows that most of its countries have major problems that were caused by various things that don't involve God. I just believe in the things I've mentioned on the previous page, and that God cares about everybody on this earth.

Again, I'm not arguing, I'm just stating my opinion. This is all I have to say about this, so I'm going to go back to talking about what this forum is all about: The Beatles.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on September 11, 2007, 09:24:29 AM
Quote from: 793
No, I've never been to Africa, but everybody knows that most of its countries have major problems that were caused by various things that don't involve God. I just believe in the things I've mentioned on the previous page, and that God cares about everybody on this earth.

Again, I'm not arguing, I'm just stating my opinion. This is all I have to say about this, so I'm going to go back to talking about what this forum is all about: The Beatles.

Well, my opinion is that it's about time that God is going to take care of the people in Africa. Please bear in mind that the continent was ruled and colonized (sp?) by European countries for centuries. They didn't give a f*** after they left. A lot of countries in Africa have exceptionally high debts towards the Western countries and there is a reason for that. Now, if you had ever been in Africa (and it's great visiting), you will mostly find extremely generous and hospitable people who are very open towards the world and other people. It's about time we are helping them instead of accusing them of spreading aids and bad governments.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Badfinger_Boogie on September 22, 2007, 11:22:54 AM
It's hard (well impossible) to say for sure how far The Beatles would've gone without George (or Ringo), or if they'd even have happened at all, but I don't think there'll be much debate that he added a very important and unique element to the group. I'm sure The Beatles would've sounded very different had he not been a part.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Buttmunker on September 26, 2007, 01:48:54 AM
It was a difficult situation, and it wasn't only George.  

Lennon was tired of McCartney, and he was the one who actually quit the band.

Harrison was sick of McCartney, and was willing to leave the band as well.

So the real question is this: the Beatles minus Paul McCartney?

Seems to me that Lennon, Harrison, and Starr got along.  McCartney was the black sheep, and the pest.

I know that Harrison worked with Lennon later on, but nothing they did as a collaboration touched what they did as "Beatles."

The four of them had magic.  Minus one, and you got nothing.  
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: harihead on September 26, 2007, 04:37:01 AM
Ooh, great idea for a thread:  the Beatles minus Paul McCartney. Since that's what we got, actually, for about 4 years.

Quote from: 828
The four of them had magic.  Minus one, and you got nothing.  
That's too harsh for me. The four of them made wonderful, fun, moving, interesting music on their own. All of them had a moment to shine, or many moments. I agree that individually they didn't have the impact of the Beatles, but no one has had the impact of the Beatles, so I can't hold that against them. I do think they made successful individual artists, albeit on a smaller scale. Like most creative people, they had peaks and valleys. But their peaks were good peaks, and I'm happy they did what they did.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on September 26, 2007, 12:54:01 PM
Quote from: 828
It was a difficult situation, and it wasn't only George.  

Lennon was tired of McCartney, and he was the one who actually quit the band.

Harrison was sick of McCartney, and was willing to leave the band as well.

So the real question is this: the Beatles minus Paul McCartney?

Seems to me that Lennon, Harrison, and Starr got along.  McCartney was the black sheep, and the pest.

I know that Harrison worked with Lennon later on, but nothing they did as a collaboration touched what they did as "Beatles."

The four of them had magic.  Minus one, and you got nothing.  


Listen to I Me Mine on Anthology 3 and you will get a different view. George: "Now that Dave Dee is no longer with us...." And George wasn't too mild on John in his autobiography neither.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: harihead on September 26, 2007, 02:41:00 PM
Cor, you lost me, buddy. How is George's quip about John leaving on holiday before the album was done supposed to be harsh? And how was he harsh in his autobiography?
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Buttmunker on September 26, 2007, 02:43:34 PM
Dave Dee = John Lennon?
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on September 26, 2007, 02:52:45 PM
Quote from: 551
Cor, you lost me, buddy. How is George's quip about John leaving on holiday before the album was done supposed to be harsh? And how was he harsh in his autobiography?

It's George tone of voice on that remark. John had announced his leaving in 1969 already and obviously didn't want to put too much effort in Beatles' recordings. To me, it shows the bond between George, Paul and Ringo: they carry on 'now that Dave Dee (Lennon indeed) is no longer with us'.
John wasn't too happy with George's autobiography. Correct me if I'm wrong and I'm pretty sure you will, but I think George almost neglected John and his influence altogether. It was mostly John who regarded George to be 'the little brother'.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: harihead on September 26, 2007, 03:30:03 PM
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:

Quote from: John Lennon
I was hurt by George's book, 'I, Me, Mine' ...so this message will go to him. He put a book out privately on his life that, by glaring omission, says that my influence on his life is absolutely zilch and nil. In his book, which is purportedly this clarity of vision of his influence on each song he wrote, he remembers every two-bit sax player or guitarist he met in subsequent years. I'm not in the book."

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.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: HeadInTheClouds on October 19, 2008, 08:05:40 PM
It's not possible. Period.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Oh Pineapple on November 16, 2008, 02:16:52 AM
That's like having glasses, but you're blind.
Doesn't fit, and it sure as hell doesn't work.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Swine on January 27, 2009, 12:38:03 PM
the beatles' myth isnt build on songs like dont bother me, i need you or you like me too much for a start. george was the most replaceable beatle until he wrote piggies.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: tkitna on April 24, 2009, 12:13:02 AM
Was I in a coma or something when this debate happened? How in the hell did I miss this?
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Bobber on April 24, 2009, 06:50:24 AM
Quote from: 373
Was I in a coma or something when this debate happened? How in the hell did I miss this?

You never visit the George forum?  ;D

Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: alexis on April 25, 2009, 01:41:44 AM
Here's my two cents - No George, no Beatles:

1) In the beginning, it was George's rockabilly guitar that really made the Beatles stand out. Think 1959, 1960, between the time of The Casbah/other Liverpool coffee houses, and maybe their first paying gigs. No Lennon-McCartney originals back then, and the harmonies were still being worked out.  But George could play guitar really well, that tune Raunchy isn't that easy, and he was doing Carl Perkins from the beginnign. Even as late as the Star Club tapes, George's guitar was front and center, and really was as much the Beatles sound as anything else. Without George's sound to lean on, would John and Paul have gotten gigs in the early days?

2) Though it was the John-Paul harmonies that seemed to stand out in the early and mid-Beatlemania days (From Me to You, I want to Hold Your Hand, etc.), I think the essence of their singing was THREE-part harmony, going way back to their learning "To Know Him is to Love Him" by the Teddy Bears. Three guys singing front and center into two mics - not just the visuals, but the sound must have made them stand out head and shoulders above the other Liverpool groups. No George ... would they have learned to sing as well? And if they didn't would they have turned into the Beatles?

Well, reading all this, maybe it's not even worth my two cents, but I'll throw at least one in!
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: Penny Lane on April 25, 2009, 10:02:39 AM
Quote from: 1789
george was the most replaceable beatle until he wrote piggies.

Give him some more (non-pig-related) credit.  I think George's first truly great Beatles song was "Taxman."  Biting, sarcastic, intelligent, and very catchy.

Quote from: 568
Though it was the John-Paul harmonies that seemed to stand out in the early and mid-Beatlemania days (From Me to You, I want to Hold Your Hand, etc.), I think the essence of their singing was THREE-part harmony, going way back to their learning "To Know Him is to Love Him" by the Teddy Bears. Three guys singing front and center into two mics - not just the visuals, but the sound must have made them stand out head and shoulders above the other Liverpool groups. No George ... would they have learned to sing as well?

The Beatle three-part harmonies are to die for.  They're divine.

BTW, I refuse to replace George with anyone else.  I can't imagine replacing any of the Beatles.
Title: Re: The Beatles minus George
Post by: harihead on April 25, 2009, 12:25:20 PM
Lovely answers! I think they were definitely a case of synergy. It's hard to say if they would have "happened" had the original three not been a unit. And we can't forget Stu's influence as well. The early Beatles were an interesting bunch. I'm convinced their fame came out of who they were-- all of them, stumbling along trying to find their way. They were personalities as much as musicians; that chemistry is what got them across.