Take a Sad Song and Extract Every Last Ounce of Spontaneity from It: the Beatles Uber-Ballad Poll

(being facetious but I do kinda wonder sometimes about how Paul's "last Beatle standing" schtick has distorted narratives about the band)

All of this stuff was known about long before Lennon died, not sure what McCartney has said since to distort any 'official' narrative.

Depression permeated many of the songs that Harrison wrote during this period, an issue that was not helped by his continued heavy drinking and cocaine use

The main criticism I remember from the Roy Carr hatchet jobs on the Harrison solo albums, apart from the weak singing and songwriting, was the humourless preachy self-righteousness and all round sourness - I've never heard so much of a second of any of them btw!

not sure what McCartney has said since to distort any 'official' narrative.

eh he's p relentlessly self-promotional and sometimes I suspect some of it is revisionist. I mean we all know he wrote "Yesterday" by himself, trying to retroactively get his name first in the songwriting credit is just the kind of dick move you might expect of an egomaniac - also the Let it Be "Naked" thing etc.

xpost:

Well yeah, there's a lot of Harrison's solo stuff which just isn't all that fun to listen to, especially when he gets stuck in mid-tempo mode.

George is occasionally funny, tho not so much in the 70s

trying to retroactively get his name first in the songwriting credit is just the kind of dick move you might expect of an egomaniac

... not to mention buying out Denny Laine's share of "Mull of Kintyre"!

If you're going to accuse him of revisionism, you might cite a particular instance of it. What was wrong with Let It Be Naked?

I said I suspect I didn't say I could prove

it's not like I was hanging out at Beatles sessions

No, Yoko was bad enough <----- jk

glad yr here to defend Sir Paul's honor though heh

I'm reminded of something one of the Beatles said (can't remember if it was George or Ringo) about how there were various things only the four of them know the real truth about, and that they had long ago decided to keep to a consensus account rather than differ in public, and I kinda wonder how much that consensus holds (or will hold up) when only one of them is left

a not particularly revisionist example would be how much Paul has come to champion George (particularly since he passed) when for all intents and purposes it seems like George absolutely hated Paul (and for fairly understandable reasons) from like '68 through the 80s.

like to here Paul tell it now him and Lennon were in awe of George circa Abbey Road and that seems to be a rather sentimental gloss

All he's said is that "we" knew George "was peaking on those later albums" and has praised "Something" consistently over the last thirty years.

Oh, I don't know what conflict may or may not have existed or may or may not have been all that significant. I'll say this, that song on Chaos and Creation in the Backyard DOES SOUND LIKE A GEORGE HARRISON SONG. Like something from Cloud Nine or the Traveling Wilburys.

yeah and he played "Something" on the ukelele on that concert DVD that came out after George died too. I thought there were additional quotes to that effect beyond the Scorsese thing you mention.

xxp

The best indicator that the Beatles were a family is the degree to which George and Paul loved each other but neither could stand being around the other for very long. During the Anthology footage it's clear that being in the same room as Paul and coerced into a nostalgia he doesn't feel bothers the hell out of George. There's this bit when the three are sitting awkwardly on the grass reminiscing about India and it's clear George doesn't want to deal with Paul's forced good cheer.

His version of "All Things Must Pass" from that concert is awesome!

like, Paul's going "Do you remember, George, going down to the village? Remember? George?" and George is impassive behind a ukelele and Ringo looks like he'd rather be eating beans in his room.

well, Paul's a politician, and while I'm sure he was surprised at the extent to which George was mourned by musicians he wasn't going to fight it either. Plus, I suspect he genuinely wanted the challenge of playing the piano and singing the harmony on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and participating on "All Things Must Pass."

His version of "All Things Must Pass" from that concert is awesome!

I haven't seen this in years and years, am I misremembering which song he did or did he do both?

Let It Be... Naked is arguably as "produced" as Spector's Let It Be in places. Yeah, sure, they've removed the choirs and orchestras and stuff, but the tapes were cleaned up in a way that just wouldn't have been possible in 1969/1970. There was even pitch correction and digital editing in places, so it's about as true to the "warts and all" style that the record was supposed to be as Spector's version.

Basically the project confirmed that Lennon was actually right: Spector took the tapes, which were badly recorded and had a shit feeling to them, and made something releasable out of it.

I'm sure he was surprised at the extent to which George was mourned by musicians

Ooh, I doubt that. Shakey, he did both of those songs.

However, in the Scorsese doc Paul places emphasis on the phrase "and financially" when he speculates on the reasons why George got into songwriting after "not being much interested" at the beginning. It reminds me of another pompous moment when The Police got together to drink and tell stories in '99 and Sting, the author of "We'll Be Together" and "Desert Rose," made a dig at Copeland and Summers writing songs because they saw the financial sense in it.

The best indicator that the Beatles were a family is the degree to which George and Paul loved each other but neither could stand being around the other for very long. During the Anthology footage it's clear that being in the same room as Paul and coerced into a nostalgia he doesn't feel bothers the hell out of George. There's this bit when the three are sitting awkwardly on the grass reminiscing about India and it's clear George doesn't want to deal with Paul's forced good cheer.

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, June 18, 2015 9:28 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

There's that bit where they're in a room playing: Ringo on drums and George and Paul are on acoustic guitars, and Paul is like "let's do 'Blue Moon of Kentucky'" and it's so clear that George doesn't want to. But does it anyway.

lol yes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpV7EdctMtI

George wanted to play "Wah Wah"

flashbacks of endless takes for "Maxwell's Silver Hammer."

I think it's a bit unfair to say that George got into songwriting for financial reasons. 'Don't Bother Me' was on the second Beatles album, which came out the same year as their first. Also, he'd written stuff prior to them getting a record deal.

that's what I'm saying -- Paul said it as if he wanted to impugn George's integrity.

he and John wrote for the art.

I don't doubt that George was jealous of John and Paul's incomes from publishing *but* he was also probably p resentful of their dismissal of his efforts to get some of his own

this is better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LdGGgOTXUA

I don't doubt that George was jealous of John and Paul's incomes from publishing *but* he was also probably p resentful of their dismissal of his efforts to get some of his own

― Οὖτις, Thursday, June 18, 2015 9:48 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I suspect that's one of the reasons why he set up his own publishing company (Harrisongs) in 1968, rather than have his tracks published through Northern Songs.

plus, I think George and Ringo still got a cut out of MacLen, right? Lennon mentioned it in one of his last interviews; Paul didn't want to but couldn't say no, according to John.

wait what how would that have worked

their publishing is so convoluted

To be honest, I don't think there could have been any decision that they could have possibly made that could have kept The Beatles together. They could have kept recording/issuing double albums to please all three songwriters, but would George really have got more space on a double album than he did on The Beatles? They could have did what Queen did eventually and credit all songs to all four members of the band, but would Lennon or McCartney have gone for that? They could have said "look, we all have X amount of space on an album and it's up to the individual songwriter what they want to fill that space with", but strangely I don't think McCartney would have gone for that. I think he enjoyed filtering Lennon and Harrison's contributions as much as he enjoyed getting his own contributions right. A situation like that would have allowed 'Cold Turkey' to go on a Beatles record, and it's well known that McCartney didn't want it to be a Beatles track.

I think the situation with The Beatles pretty much was: "John wants to do John music, George wants to do George music, Paul wants to do Paul music but would rather do Paul music with The Beatles and put the John and George music through a Paul filter. Ringo is Ringo."

Yeah, think that nails it.

I think when Lennon complained of the rest of the band being "sidemen for Paul", he basically meant that the rest of the band were getting fed up of submitting songs for The Beatles and either being told they couldn't do them, or finding that their compositions were being put through some kind of McCartney processor in order to fit around McCartney's tracks, or, they were getting to do their songs but on McCartney's terms.

However, judging by the way their solo albums sound, it was that same McCartney filter that was enabling their songs to become hits by that point.

So in one way, you could say that McCartney was being a bastard and a control freak, but on the other hand you could say that he was helping them out in a way.

Of course. That's how we got Abbey Road.

Yup, and that's what's so great about Abbey Road and people don't realise it. It has all the mainstream appeal of a Wings album like Band On The Run, but a consistency to it that comes from all the songwriters being involved. But it's easy to see why John and George couldn't go on working like that, as tempting as it is to think about how 'Maybe I'm Amazed' would have sounded nestling alongside 'Instant Karma' and 'What Is Life', with the same production values as Abbey Road has.

John had a habit of getting excited about some idea, then when he's gone off it deciding it was Paul's idea in the first place.

But it's easy to see why John and George couldn't go on working like that, as tempting as it is to think about how 'Maybe I'm Amazed' would have sounded nestling alongside 'Instant Karma' and 'What Is Life', with the same production values as Abbey Road has.

Richard Linklater had the same thought.

There's been quite a few attempts at putting the solo tracks into a 'Beatles' subsequent album.

Not seen one that actually works though.

Paul wants to do Paul music but would rather do Paul music with The Beatles and put the John and George music through a Paul filter.

What is this filter apart from great bass parts and backing vocals.

Like he shouldn't have to apologize for wanting to play the others' songs.

I doubt Paul would be cool with putting his songs through the John or George filter (altho tbh they probably couldn't maintain the required interest in his shittier material)