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 ... 7 8 [9]

Author Topic: The Beatles minus George  (Read 14842 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Buttmunker

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #160 on: September 26, 2007, 02:43:34 PM »

Dave Dee = John Lennon?
Logged
Sheet Music Plus Homepage

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13512
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #161 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'.
Logged

harihead

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2339
  • Keep spreading the love
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #162 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.
Logged
All you've got to do is choose love.  That's how I live it now.  I learned a long time ago, I can feed the birds in my garden.  I can't feed them all. -- Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone magazine, May 2007<br />

HeadInTheClouds

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 44
  • Goo goo g'joob g'goo goo g'joob
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #163 on: October 19, 2008, 08:05:40 PM »

It's not possible. Period.
Logged
<br />&quot; The Beatles saved the world from boredom. &quot; - George Harrison

Oh Pineapple

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 451
  • in the middle of the roundabout
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #164 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.
Logged
"..Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup, they slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe. Pools of sorrow waves of joy are drifting through my opened mind.."

Swine

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #165 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.
Logged
[size=18]LIFE IS GETTING WORSE[/size]

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6893
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #166 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?

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13512
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #167 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

Logged

alexis

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1860
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #168 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!
Logged
I love John,
I love Paul,
And George and Ringo,
I love them all!

Alexis

Penny Lane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 4106
  • Paulinate me
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #169 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.
Logged

harihead

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2339
  • Keep spreading the love
Re: The Beatles minus George
« Reply #170 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.
Logged
All you've got to do is choose love.  That's how I live it now.  I learned a long time ago, I can feed the birds in my garden.  I can't feed them all. -- Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone magazine, May 2007<br />
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]
 

Page created in 0.573 seconds with 27 queries.