|
Post by mikev on Aug 10, 2011 7:25:32 GMT -5
There is dialogue on the Nagra tapes during Get Back where George tells the others he has a back load of songs and that he just wants to knock them out.
The pity of it (isn't it) is that they were all in agreement to possibly all do solo stuff and then reconvene. Imagine if they stuck to the plan, where now they regroup in 1971 and George is now an obvious songwriting force to reckon with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2011 8:02:55 GMT -5
There is dialogue on the Nagra tapes during Get Back where George tells the others he has a back load of songs and that he just wants to knock them out. The pity of it (isn't it) is that they were all in agreement to possibly all do solo stuff and then reconvene. Imagine if they stuck to the plan, where now they regroup in 1971 and George is now an obvious songwriting force to reckon with. I dont think John and Paul had the capacity to deal with that prospect, especially John. Maybe that's why John wanted out, he could see that George was fast becoming an equal.It was a strange relationship they had with George, why would they not write with him, George and one of the others or all three, had to be egos or pecking order....
|
|
|
Post by beatleroadie on Aug 10, 2011 19:43:11 GMT -5
Hate to "hate" on George, I love the guy, but if the Beatles had reconvened after their Ram, ATMP and Plastic Ono Band in 1971 for another Beatles album, George had pretty much used up his big backlog of songs (remember his next studio album didn't drop until 1973), and I don't see him bringing enough strong material in 1971, post-ATMP to equal John and Paul in quantity and quality, IMO. George's writing peak was '68 - '70. If he was going to get a larger share of songs on Beatles albums it would have made more sense for him to get them on the White Album, Abbey Road and Let It Be, not on a fantasy '71 album. Too bad band (excuse me, "group") politics got in the way of him being able to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 10, 2011 23:25:02 GMT -5
Hate to "hate" on George, I love the guy, but if the Beatles had reconvened after their Ram, ATMP and Plastic Ono Band in 1971 for another Beatles album, George had pretty much used up his big backlog of songs (remember his next studio album didn't drop until 1973), and I don't see him bringing enough strong material in 1971, post-ATMP to equal John and Paul in quantity and quality, IMO. George's writing peak was '68 - '70. If he was going to get a larger share of songs on Beatles albums it would have made more sense for him to get them on the White Album, Abbey Road and Let It Be, not on a fantasy '71 album. Too bad band (excuse me, "group") politics got in the way of him being able to do that. This is kind of presumptuous though -- you're assuming that he would have written songs at the same rate and in the same way if The Beatles had still been functional. I just don't see it happening that way. Obviously, everything would have been different in their lives, so the songwriting would have been different too. Also, let's bear in mind that George's career didn't tank after ATMP. His next album, as a collection of live performances, won the Grammy for Album of the Year. The studio album after that spent six weeks at #1 in North America.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2011 3:07:38 GMT -5
This is kind of presumptuous though -- you're assuming that he would have written songs at the same rate and in the same way if The Beatles had still been functional. I just don't see it happening that way. Obviously, everything would have been different in their lives, so the songwriting would have been different too. Also, let's bear in mind that George's career didn't tank after ATMP. His next album, as a collection of live performances, won the Grammy for Album of the Year. The studio album after that spent six weeks at #1 in North America. That's why i have to smirk at the hate to hate on George line because once someone is pigeon holed people like to leave you there
|
|
|
Post by beatleroadie on Aug 12, 2011 0:10:17 GMT -5
Hey I put "hate" in quotes because I don't believe that's what I am doing, but predicted correctly that I'd get pegged as doing so.
All I'm saying is that if the Beatles had taken a year off starting in the summer 1970 (after the release of Let It Be) and reconvened in the summer of 1971 to record a new album (after the releases of ATMP, POB and RAM) I don't believe George would have had a load of songs to offer when he himself didn't enter the studio to record another full-length record for another year-and-a-half. He all but unloaded his bag with ATMP and it took him, rightly so, a while to stock up again. Sure he would have had a handful of songs at that time ("Don't Let Me Wait Too Long" was apparently written during the Abbey Road Sessions, and "Try Some, Buy Some" was left over from ATMP sessions), but I don't think he would have been in a position in 1971 to seriously challenge John and Paul for equal space on a record. LITMW is a really good album, but George didn't even begin recording it until October of 1972.
Maybe he'd have gotten 3 tracks instead of two in 1971, but I can't see him successfully arguing for an equal split that year, now late '69 or early '70 is a completely different story...
Conversely, The White Album and Let It Be especially could have been greatly improved with a few more George songs on each.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2011 4:56:03 GMT -5
Your basing your whole argument on the presumption that George didn't have a stockpile of partly written songs,song ideas or lyrical themes that would have been fleshed out had he gone back into the studio with the Beatles.
In Anthology Paul is talking to George about how many songs he had accumulated whilst he was in India and he says to George,"you didn't have many songs from India did you", and George replied that in fact he had quite a few.Some sort of proof that some egos were far bigger than others.There definitely was a pecking order in the Beatles.
Not every song idea gets fleshed out because as artists they continually create and don't always go to the well to get the material for the next project.That doesn't mean they never do either.
The truth is though that John Paul would never have treated him as an equal, their superiority complex would never have allowed it,hence, your point is based on supposition.
|
|
|
Post by beatleroadie on Aug 12, 2011 15:25:07 GMT -5
No it's not. It's based on the history of the dynamics within Beatles recording sessions. George did not have a great track record of success for bringing half-finished songs to the table in Beatles sessions and having them fleshed out by the entire band over an extended period. Even fully-formed demos that he wanted to transform with the full band like WMGGW needed Clapton in there to get the others attention.
Seems like George was in a lonely position where he basically had to have his songs full conceptualized and ready to go when the Beatles were in the studio, otherwise Paul or John were always popping in ready with another song for the band to record. I don't see how that would have suddenly changed in 1971.
Sure, George could have brought in some partly finished songs in 1971, but how much time do you realistically think John and Paul would have devoted to helping him develop unfinished songs? Probably enough time to finish 2, maybe 3 songs....Certainly not 4-5 songs worth, that's for sure.
George's best chance to get more material on a Beatles album was probably Abbey Road, but by that point, knowing the end of the band was near and his solo career was on the horizon, he was satisfied with being resigned to his "two per record." If he wasn't satisfied, he'd have recorded All Things Must Pass or Isn't It a Pity for Abbey Road while John was being distant. He didn't. After the Get Back sessions, George stopped "fighting" for space on Beatles records. In a fantasy scenario where the band alternates between solo and full-band releases in the '70s, I don't see George spending energy fighting for more songs on Beatles albums (when he didn't do so for AR), but more than likely, offering 2-3 and holding back his other songs for his solo releases.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2011 18:14:14 GMT -5
Whilst we are dissing George and his ability to compete with John Paul on a subsequent Beatles album it's worth looking at the shite John Paul were dishing up at this time.....I can't concede George wouldn't have had a case to include more than his customary 2 songs per album..
John
1. Mother 2. "Hold On 3. "I Found Out 4. "Working Class Hero 5. "Isolation 6. Remember 7. Love 8. Well Well Well 9. Look at Me 10. God 11. My Mummy's Dead 1. Imagine 2. Crippled Inside 3. Jealous Guy 4. It's So Hard 5. I Don't Want to Be a Soldier 6. Gimme Some Truth 7. Oh My Love 8. How Do You Sleep 9. How 10. Oh Yoko 1. Woman Is the Nigger of the World 2. Attica State 3. New York City 1. Sunday Bloody Sunday 2. The Luck of the Irish 3. John Sinclair
Paul
1. The Lovely Linda 2. That Would Be Something 3. Valentine Day 4. Every Night" 5. Hot as Sun/Glasses 6. Junk 7. Man We Was Lonely 8. Oo You 9. Momma Miss America 10. Teddy Boy 11. Singalong Junk 12. Maybe I'm Amazed 13. Kreen-Akrore 14. Too Many people 15. 3 Legs 16. Ram On 17. Dear Boy 18. Uncle albert 19. Smile Away 20. Heart of The Country 21. Monkberry Moon delight 22. Eat at home 23. Long Haired Lady 24. Ram On 25. Back Seat of my car 26. Another Day 27. Oh Woman Oh Why 28. Mumbo 29. Bip Bop 30. Love Is Strange 31. Wild Life 32. Some People Never Know 33. I Am Your Singer 34. Bip Bop Link 35. Tomorrow
36. Dear Friend" 37. Mumbo Link 38. Give Ireland Back to the Irish
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 12, 2011 23:56:51 GMT -5
I'm not sure the point you're making, Fabfour. I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- the material that the 3 'writing Beatles' produced in 1970-71 is easily on par with The Beatles' material of 1967, 1968, and 1969. In fact, to my tastes, much of it is better than The Beatles' material of those three years.
The difference, of course, is that starting in 1970, John, Paul, and George had to fill an entire LP of only their own songs, instead of having to come up with 5 or 6 tracks and maybe a A- or B-side. That's an enormous difference. George and John, in particular, partly crumbled under the weight of being a "solo" artist. (Paul, while not making better music than either of them, seemed to eventually thrive on being solo, once he had enough commercial success to justify to himself the work he was doing.)
Although the songs each founder-Beatle wrote in 1969-1971 were not mutually compatible, if you take the 4 or 5 best that each of John, Paul, and George produced in 1970, and compile them on an LP (throw in a Ringo song if you like), the quality -- not the coherence -- is easily as high or higher than the 1967 to 1969 Beatle albums. And the same goes for 1971.
They all declined after that.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Aug 13, 2011 18:21:17 GMT -5
Whilst we are dissing George and his ability to compete with John Paul on a subsequent Beatles album it's worth looking at the shite John Paul were dishing up at this time.....I can't concede George wouldn't have had a case to include more than his customary 2 songs per album.. John 1. Mother 2. "Hold On 3. "I Found Out 4. "Working Class Hero 5. "Isolation 6. Remember 7. Love 8. Well Well Well 9. Look at Me 10. God 11. My Mummy's Dead 1. Imagine 2. Crippled Inside 3. Jealous Guy 4. It's So Hard 5. I Don't Want to Be a Soldier 6. Gimme Some Truth 7. Oh My Love 8. How Do You Sleep 9. How 10. Oh Yoko 1. Woman Is the Nigger of the World 2. Attica State 3. New York City 1. Sunday Bloody Sunday 2. The Luck of the Irish 3. John Sinclair Paul 1. The Lovely Linda 2. That Would Be Something 3. Valentine Day 4. Every Night" 5. Hot as Sun/Glasses 6. Junk 7. Man We Was Lonely 8. Oo You 9. Momma Miss America 10. Teddy Boy 11. Singalong Junk 12. Maybe I'm Amazed 13. Kreen-Akrore 14. Too Many people 15. 3 Legs 16. Ram On 17. Dear Boy 18. Uncle albert 19. Smile Away 20. Heart of The Country 21. Monkberry Moon delight 22. Eat at home 23. Long Haired Lady 24. Ram On 25. Back Seat of my car 26. Another Day 27. Oh Woman Oh Why 28. Mumbo 29. Bip Bop 30. Love Is Strange 31. Wild Life 32. Some People Never Know 33. I Am Your Singer 34. Bip Bop Link 35. Tomorrow 36. Dear Friend" 37. Mumbo Link 38. Give Ireland Back to the Irish Shite? POB and Imagine, two albums regarded amongst the to 100 EVER??? And There were enough worthy songs on Paul's first 3 albums to give him space on the next two Beatles albums, right?
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Aug 13, 2011 18:25:49 GMT -5
George poured out the massive ATMP, amazing double + album, and still had a bunch of great stuff in the works, although some of that still hasn't seen the light of day. Very worthwhile stuff on the ATMP demos, great alternate versions and discarded songs. Plus he had a number of good ones that would appear on later albums. 1968-1970 was an amazingly rich time for George the songwriter, and I suspect he was working on some good stuff in 1971 and 1972.
Not that it would have mattered in a Beatles reunion. John and Paul would never give him more space. I never understood why George returned to the Beatles after he left during Let It Be, there must have been a big financial implication.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Aug 14, 2011 22:01:55 GMT -5
It would have been interesting if the Beatles had tried to continue as a group while also pursuing legitimate commercial careers as solo artists. How would they have decided on certain songs as being for the group while keeping others for themselves? Let's assume that ALL THINGS MUST PASS, PLASTIC ONO BAND, MCCARTNEY and SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY are all released as solo albums. Here's what we have next as the most Beatles type tracks: SIDE 1 1. Another Day (Paul) 2. Jealous Guy (John) 3. Don't Let Me Wait Too Long (George) 4. It Don't Come Easy (Ringo) 5. Dear Boy (Paul) 6. Crippled Inside (John) SIDE 2 1. Give Me Some Truth (John) 2. Be Here Now (George) 3. Eat At Home (Paul) 4. Oh My Love (John) 5. Miss O'Dell (George) 6. Back Seat Of My Car (Paul)
I'm figuring they leave Imagine, Give Me Love, Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey and Back Off Bugaloo as singles off their next solo albums.
Could have been an interesting career path!
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 14, 2011 23:06:21 GMT -5
The last album was done in, what, August '69? So, I'm thinking that they certainly need that fall and winter away from each to cool off and indulge some solo projects. If they'd gotten back together for several weeks in maybe spring 1970 (assuming Paul hadn't committed his McCartney songs to a definite solo project), and if John/Yoko thus hadn't gone to L.A. to do primal therapy, I could see the following songs being attempted:
- Maybe I'm Amazed - Every Night - That Would be Something (George liked this one) - Another Day (previewed in 1969) - Man We Was Lonely - Junk (2nd Beatles' try)
- Instant Karma! (John might have held this back if he thought the Beatles were gonna record again) - Make Love, Not War (Beatles would have worked it up) - Look At Me (revived) - Child of Nature / Jealous Guy (revived)
- Isn't It A Pity - What is Life - Behind That Locked Door - Apple Scruffs (John and Paul would have liked this one) - Awaiting On You All - All Things Must Pass (revived, if J & P had been willing)
So, there are about 16 songs that would have been more-or-less available by spring 1970. Whittle that down to the best dozen or so, and there's yer 1970 Beatles' album.
John hadn't written most of the Plastic Ono Band songs yet, and hadn't really gotten his 3rd wing as a songwriter; the major Beatle problem in 1969 (and potentially in 1970) would have been John's not having enough songs. But I can see where George and Paul would have pushed him through "Make Love, Not War" and "Child of Nature/Jealous Guy". I cannot see John holding back something like "Give Peace a Chance" -- that had to be a Plastic Ono Band single in 1969.
Likewise, George wouldn't even have brought "My Sweet Lord" to John and Paul. If he had, they would have rejected it (but also pointed out its similarity to "He's So Fine").
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2011 4:27:38 GMT -5
Likewise, George wouldn't even have brought "My Sweet Lord" to John and Paul. If he had, they would have rejected it (but also pointed out its similarity to "He's So Fine"). And if John had of presented Happy Xmas George and Paul would have told him not to so blatantly and obviously steal someone else's stuff.... much more obvious than George's faux pas...
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 16, 2011 6:37:49 GMT -5
Har! I feel a thread coming on!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 16, 2011 19:05:21 GMT -5
Paul was just as insecure as John about getting his share of songs in. George was coming on pretty strong with his Revolver songs. His and John's songs were in the same heavy psychedelic vein. Paul was almost the outsider with his pretty pop songs. So he comes back with almost all of Sgt Pepper written.
George's big problem with Paul was that Paul did not take the time to develop George's songs as he did with John's and his own. If he had, George's songs would have been as good as Paul's and John's. There's some truth to that.
In George's defense, you have to remember, he and Paul were friends for years before they even met John.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 17, 2011 1:59:35 GMT -5
Paul was just as insecure as John about getting his share of songs in. George was coming on pretty strong with his Revolver songs. His and John's songs were in the same heavy psychedelic vein. Paul was almost the outsider with his pretty pop songs. So he comes back with almost all of Sgt Pepper written. On this part, I totally disagree with you -- I don't think Paul was ever insecure about it. But he was always competitive and trying to do his best, which you can't say about lazy John. Also, I'm sure John and George were both well aware that Paul had stronger natural musicality than either of them, and during this period Paul came up with "For No One", "Paperback Writer", and "Got to Get you Into My Life" -- none of which I would call "pretty pop songs". George's big problem with Paul was that Paul did not take the time to develop George's songs as he did with John's and his own. If he had, George's songs would have been as good as Paul's and John's. There's some truth to that. In George's defense, you have to remember, he and Paul were friends for years before they even met John. On this part, I totally agree with you. George's ego took a huge blow in about 1962 when John and Paul decided to have an official songwriting team, and George thereafter sacrificed his own ego time and again for John's and Paul's. George was always personally hurt by Paul's somewhat abandoning him for the more 'powerful' older partner, John.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 17, 2011 9:39:05 GMT -5
....... George was always personally hurt by Paul's somewhat abandoning him for the more 'powerful' older partner, John. There I will disagree and say that it seems to have been George who met John through Paul and George had this initial hero worship of John(as John himself and Cynthia Lennon are both quoted on) and Paul was probably taken aback at this new rival for John's attention, his own school buddy George. Paul responded to that by playing his songwriting hand with John as he was clearly more advanced at that than George(and even John at that early point). I am afraid that John always saw George as an "ally" but not as an "equal" which was reserved for Paul. I wish Paul and George would have developed a songwriting partnership as could have developed by 1966 but I kind of understand Paul's hurt very early on after he, Macca, brings George to John for John's approval and then George instantly becomes a "John guy." Just think of our own lives and the group dynamics within our own sets of friends. These types of rivalries and jealousies play out with us just like they did between John, Paul and George. The Rolling Stones are a fascinating dynamic as Brian Jones was the early leader, the cool guy, the final authority whose favor was coveted by both Mick and Keith and Jones rather cruelly played the two against each other but ultimately "chose" fellow guitarist Keith as his favorite. Problem was Brian's power was when the band was a blues cover band. The moment Mick and Keith discovered they could emulate Lennon/McCartney to a considerable degree, Brian instantly became irrelevant, even a drag to the group. Look what happened to him. Fortunately, George survived intact and was a very good songwriter in his own right but not without lasting bitterness towards both John and Paul. George innocently fell for John early on in teenage hero worship and I suspect that set the course for his future working relationship with Paul. Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 17, 2011 19:59:22 GMT -5
"I don't think Paul was ever insecure about it. But he was always competitive and trying to do his best, which you can't say about lazy John."
Well, insecure is probably not a good word to discribe Paul. But I do think Sgt Pepper was a response to John and George's strong effort on Revolver. And John and George were tripping together too, leaving Paul out.
But what? You're saying Here, There and Everywhere is not pretty?
Generally speaking, I'm a Paul man. But John and George were on to something with Revolver that Paul never did quite get. Paul's response with Pepper pulled on Paul's strengths, song craftsmanship, his ability to produce a feeling of instant excitement, mastery of melody and his ..., what was I going to go for, something like cellos and stuff.
But George got a song on Pepper!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 18, 2011 7:24:57 GMT -5
There I will disagree and say that it seems to have been George who met John through Paul and George had this initial hero worship of John(as John himself and Cynthia Lennon are both quoted on) and Paul was probably taken aback at this new rival for John's attention, his own school buddy George. For what it's worth, I have a TV interview with George somewhere from around 1987 or 1988, and the interviewer mentions the bit about George always following Lennon around as a kid and so on, and George laughed and says "Well, that's what HE thought!" Then he quickly added: "oh, I liked him very much..." But in ALL THOSE YEARS AGO, George did say "I always looked up to you".
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 18, 2011 11:39:17 GMT -5
There I will disagree and say that it seems to have been George who met John through Paul and George had this initial hero worship of John(as John himself and Cynthia Lennon are both quoted on) and Paul was probably taken aback at this new rival for John's attention, his own school buddy George. I get what you're saying, but you're talking about a time when George was 15 years old! I'm talking about when he was in his 20s, and he had been shuttled down to the level of junior-partner. I think they all kind of worshipped John to an extent in their teen years, didn't they?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 18, 2011 17:16:15 GMT -5
There I will disagree and say that it seems to have been George who met John through Paul and George had this initial hero worship of John(as John himself and Cynthia Lennon are both quoted on) and Paul was probably taken aback at this new rival for John's attention, his own school buddy George. I get what you're saying, but you're talking about a time when George was 15 years old! I'm talking about when he was in his 20s, and he had been shuttled down to the level of junior-partner. I think they all kind of worshipped John to an extent in their teen years, didn't they? I do agree that George had frustration with the exclusive Lennon/McCartney songwriting team. George said as much in the late 1980's when he was very public for awhile. In a cooler world we'd have classic Beatle songs(obviously never written) credited to Harrison/Lennon/McCartney or some variation of that like Lennon/Harrison or McCartney/Harrison. It is a shame John and Paul didn't bring George into the songwriting fold with them somehow. John and Paul just couldn't be bothered it seems. I am surprised Paul and George didn't whip something up during AR when John's constant absence meant Paul and George worked a lot together. Linda's photos show that.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 18, 2011 18:56:40 GMT -5
Yes, it is a tragedy that Paul and George never wrote a song together. In fact, it's downright bizarre...
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 18, 2011 22:32:37 GMT -5
I think was in the eighties, George was saying Paul had said in an interview that he would like to write with George. George said, Paul never wanted to write with me before. He must be running out of ideas. He said Paul must be drying up or something like that, with a laugh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2011 4:17:48 GMT -5
I think was in the eighties, George was saying Paul had said in an interview that he would like to write with George. George said, Paul never wanted to write with me before. He must be running out of ideas. He said Paul must be drying up or something like that, with a laugh. Good on George for maintaining the status quo
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 19, 2011 12:41:31 GMT -5
I think was in the eighties, George was saying Paul had said in an interview that he would like to write with George. George said, Paul never wanted to write with me before. He must be running out of ideas. He said Paul must be drying up or something like that, with a laugh. Good on George for maintaining the status quo I loved the writers who said that George was the most successful ex-Beatle in the late 1980's thanks to C9 and Wilburys! George had the last solo #1 single and Paul was climbing out of his personal Grand Canyon called Broadstreet! George properly thought, "Why now, Paul?" It still would have been cool but I understand George's frustration.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 19, 2011 13:28:06 GMT -5
Good on George for maintaining the status quo I loved the writers who said that George was the most successful ex-Beatle in the late 1980's thanks to C9 and Wilburys! George had the last solo #1 single and Paul was climbing out of his personal Grand Canyon called Broadstreet! George properly thought, "Why now, Paul?" It still would have been cool but I understand George's frustration. I agree it was a great tragedy that Paul and George never wrote together (except for In Spite of All the Danger). I think the late 70s would have been a great time -around George's GH LP and Wings' London Town- both were writing good solid melodic and even Beatlesque pop music. Maybe George would have been less insulted if Paul approched him while John was still around.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 19, 2011 15:41:22 GMT -5
I loved the writers who said that George was the most successful ex-Beatle in the late 1980's thanks to C9 and Wilburys! George had the last solo #1 single and Paul was climbing out of his personal Grand Canyon called Broadstreet! George properly thought, "Why now, Paul?" It still would have been cool but I understand George's frustration. I agree it was a great tragedy that Paul and George never wrote together (except for In Spite of All the Danger). I think the late 70s would have been a great time -around George's GH LP and Wings' London Town- both were writing good solid melodic and even Beatlesque pop music. Maybe George would have been less insulted if Paul approched him while John was still around. That last point is excellent, Mike. Once John was gone George might have felt that solidified him as Paul's permanent second choice. If John was alive and Paul sought out George, different story and I agree about 1977 to 1980 being a possible window for Paul and George. Heck, that guitar solo on the song "London Town" sounds very George and Paul could have fit in on all songs from GH except possibly the remake of "Not Guilty" as that is kind of anti-John and Paul isn't it? ;D
|
|