A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9

Author Topic: The Beatles minus George  (Read 14709 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

raxo

  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10667
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #20 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?
Logged

Revolution

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 391
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #21 on: February 15, 2007, 06:18:25 AM »

Clapton would of changed the sound/ look too much, imo.
Logged

Joost

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5058
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #22 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.
Logged

Revolution

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 391
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #23 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
Logged

Revolution

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 391
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #24 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
Logged

raxo

  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10667
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #25 on: March 20, 2007, 01:02:39 AM »

Minus George?  :-/ But he liked The Guys  ::) ...

... tho sometimes you may read "The Fab Four" intead  8) ...
Logged

  • Guest
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #26 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.
Logged

Andy Smith

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4597
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #27 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.
Logged


          Turn off your mind, Relax and float downstream. It is not dying

GreenApple

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1548
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #28 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.  :)
Logged
[size=18]All You Need Is LOVE![/size]

  • Guest
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #29 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.
Logged

  • Guest
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #30 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.
Logged

GreenApple

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1548
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #31 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.  :)
Logged
[size=18]All You Need Is LOVE![/size]

The Swine

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #32 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.
Logged
THE INTERNET IS NOT A PLACE FOR 13 YEAR OLDS

Andy Smith

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4597
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #33 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.

Logged


          Turn off your mind, Relax and float downstream. It is not dying

Flaming Pie in the Sky

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2023
    • Gone Troppo
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #34 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.
Logged

DarkSweetLady

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 1326
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #35 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!
Logged

~the guiding light in all your love shines on~

komakino

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 390
  • fly me to the moon
    • last.fm
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #36 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.
Logged
george george whoops george whoops george george george

The Swine

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #37 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.
Logged
THE INTERNET IS NOT A PLACE FOR 13 YEAR OLDS

sewi

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 427
  • Life is short
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #38 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.
Logged
And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5432
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #39 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.
Logged
don't follow leaders
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
 

Page created in 0.594 seconds with 27 queries.