|
Post by mikev on Apr 13, 2014 13:05:53 GMT -5
Was the song All Things Must Pass actually rejected by John and Paul for the Get Back/Let It Be and Abbey Road albums, or did George just pull it back from consideration to save for his solo album? Hi I'm new so I hope you won't mind me adding my five cents... I have a transcript of the get back sessions audio - and right after what turned out to be the last run through of ATMP there was the following exchange. Paul: Do you wan to run through it again George? George: No not really.So I guess George made the call to stop working on it. He never bought it up with the group again. As for George not being able to tell Paul he didn't like the harmony he was singing, unlikely tbh as George was very forthright with Paul and let him know he was annoyed or didn't like something with no problem. George was no pushover he stood up for himself just fine. Also George asked that they not play any of his songs on the roof and so his wishes were respected. George didn't want to do the concert on the roof at all. He went along with it because John, Paul and eventually Ringo wanted to but you can hear him state on Let it be that he didn't want too really. Here is the exchange from the Get Back sessions where Paul really tries to convince George to include his songs George: “Really, I don’t want to [do] any of my songs on the show, because they just turn out shitty, ” he says. “They come out like a compromise. Whereas in a studio, then you can work on them till you get them how you want them.”
(So for a live show, George just wants to be the band’s lead guitarist, nothing more. Paul, audibly unhappy at that remark, is having none of it, still believing in The Beatles.) Paul: Last year, you were telling me that ‘You can do anything that you want, Paul, anything you desire.’ … But you’re saying before the show is finished, and before we’ve done it … letting forth this word of, ‘They’re going to come out a compromise.’ …
I really think we’re very good, and … if we think that we want to do these songs great, we can just do it great. Thinking it’s not going to come out great, you know, that is like meditation. Where you just get into a bummer, and so that's how you come at it, you don’t go through it."
George wasn't persuaded though and his songs weren't part of the rooftop concert. welcome pisces! Can you check the dialogue if they in fact discussed tracking it before breaking for kunch? I did hear George mutter an inaudible- perhaps that is what I didn't hear. But Paul definitely said he had his bass part down. It would not have been a good roof-top song, but the indoor session- it's a shame. For You Blue would have been a cool roof-top song, but I can't see John doing the lap guitar up there. I Me Mine- definitely.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Apr 13, 2014 15:44:15 GMT -5
This is an interesting discussion.
It really does seem that George had copped a bit of an attitude toward the end. Maybe it was a justified attitude, but even when it seems that Paul tried to reach out it was met with a "who cares" type of response from George.....I don't think George pulled any punches when it came to Paul. They went back too far for that.
I didn't know that George actually chose not to do nay of his songs on the roof. That's too bad. He did look like he didn't want to be there, but he also looked like he got into it as the show went on. Is that a fantasy scenario dreamed up by a poster, or did Eric allude to it somewhere.
I'm curious as to where the idea came from that Clapton MADE/FORCED Paul do ATMP at the concert for George. Maybe Paul did indeed like the song and it reminds him of the latter days of the band (in a nice way). I have a hard time imagining EC doing something silly like that while paying tribute to George. He also knew that despite the fairly petty bullshit between the Beatles in the end, George and Paul had a special friendship.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 13, 2014 20:55:32 GMT -5
I'm curious as to where the idea came from that Clapton MADE/FORCED Paul do ATMP at the concert for George. In either a print interview or a video, Clapton says that he insisted as musical director for CFG that Paul perform ATMP as he specifically wanted Paul to do that song and Paul at first mildly demurred but then agreed. That is where I got that "idea." From Clapton directly I remember it specifically because it was fascinating, Clapton injecting himself as an advocate for George's legacy even if it ruffled Paul's peacock feathers. George had a damn good reason to be pissed at John and Paul for the second class treatment they bestowed upon him starting in 1965. Yeah, Paul got into George's songs as you pointed out as long as it was just George's two songs per album. You read Geoff Emerick's book, right? Paul did the lead guitar solo on "Taxman" not because George asked him to but because Paul thought that they were spending too much time on George's song and Paul just did it! George was humiliated on his own classic Beatles song. Later on, George went to America in 1968 and was treated with respect and some degree of awe by the Band and even Bob Dylan but he comes back for the Get Back sessions and captured on tape is Paul and John complaining about his guitar playing. Read Simon Leng's book for documentation on that.
|
|
|
Post by pisces on Apr 13, 2014 22:22:31 GMT -5
Thanks Mikev for the welcome. Sorry I don't have anything about tracking in the material I've got but as you said, it's not easy deciphering the audio.
On the Taxman solo and that recording period for Revolver.
From Geoff Emerick's book:
I am only a so-so fan of Geoff's book but he gives the impression up to and including Revolver George Martin was like the teacher and the Beatles were like Students. George M had a lot of influence over what was done whether the Beatles were keen on the idea or totally agreed to it or not, they usually had to reluctantly agree. I think Geoff makes it pretty clear here that George's bigger problem was Martins attitude and not John and Paul.
It is interesting in later years George M apologised for his attitude though it was too little too late really.
Geoff writes very much from his and George Martin's point of view and I'm not sure John would have had any time for a book that gives them so much credit for the Beatles sound but that's a separate issue.
-----------------------
Eric Clapton on ATMP from Rolling Stone.
Sorry, but that was the only quote that I ever saw from Eric on McCartney playing All Things Must Pass and I never took it as Eric forcing Paul or trying to humiliate him? In fact Eric was impressed by Paul and they have become friends and worked together since.
All I think he is referencing there is that Paul had to deal with the fact that he and George had had a very conflicted relationship and while he was as sad as anyone at his death and grieving he also had to confront that they had not been close in years and that in the context of the concert for George he was surrounded by people who had been much better friends with George than he had. McCartney still showed up to be fair, he still did his best I guess. That's all I got from it. There was no big deal in McCartney not knowing ATMP, he was 60 by then and didn't know a lot of his own songs without a refresher.
Pattie Boyd said that George and Paul never loved each other that they were just two people who didn't really get on. I don't know if she is right or not but I think Paul went and sincerely paid his respects. Maybe he couldn't have said he loved George and George loved him because he wasn't sure if it would be the truth. Maybe they didn't, but I think Paul would never have turned his back on George or let him down if he was in trouble maybe it wasn't love but there was loyalty. There was a bond of sorts and of course that was the case for George too imho.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 14, 2014 8:34:02 GMT -5
Re "Taxman," I was referring specifically to the: "After a couple of hours of watching him struggle, both Paul and George Martin started becoming quite frustrated—this was, after all, a Harrison song and therefore not something anyone was prepared to spend a whole lot of time on. So George Martin went into the studio and, as diplomatically as possible, announced that he wanted Paul to have a go at the solo instead. I could see from the look on Harrison’s face that he didn’t like the idea one bit, but he reluctantly agreed and then proceeded to disappear for a couple of hours." By Revolver, George Martin couldn't make Paul do something he didn't want to do and Emerick notes that both Paul and Martin were frustrated with George's efforts on the solo and I am sure GM didn't need to twist Paul's arm to jump in to play the lead guitar solo, just as Paul did for a couple songs on the Help! album like "Ticket To Ride" and "Another Girl." For the record, I am not an Emerick fan but I have no reason to doubt that George was unhappy not to be able to work out his own lead guitar solo. The fact that Paul nails a great guitar solo is besides the point to me. We are discussing why George had such a sour attitude towards the Beatles by 1969. I saw or read a different Clapton interview on ATMP and his request that Paul sing it at the CFG but it did share the same curious statement by EC that Paul claimed not to know the song despite the various YouTube videos posted here of Paul rehearsing it with The Beatles. Paul knew ATMP better than 99.99999% of all other Rock and Roll musicians: he was there when George first introduced it and he worked on it. I will look for that interview when I have time and I once found a McCartney interview I was looking for from over 10,000 hits! It could have been an interview on film too, a snippet shown on some entertainment show which broadens my search. And I have never said EC was trying to "humiliate" Paul by asking him to perform ATMP at CFG. It was more like educating Paul on what a great song ATMP was and hence what a strong writer George had become right under Paul and John's noses! Even the passage you cite from RS, pisces, strongly implies that it wasn't Paul's idea to perform ATMP, because he claimed not to know the song! In the interview I read or watched, Clapton stated that that was the basis of Paul's objection at first to doing it, that he didn't know the song and in fact stated to EC that he, Clapton, was closer to the song than Paul since Clapton had been involved with some of the ATMP album sessions.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 14, 2014 10:26:42 GMT -5
Too bad Paul wasn't the lead guitarist in The Beatles. He was easily the best guitar player.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 14, 2014 10:41:04 GMT -5
Clapton's autobiography at page 286 says that Clapton wanted Paul to do ATMP because it would be the emotional high point of the concert but Paul wanted to do "Something" on his uke as he had been on his 2002 Tour. Olivia Harrison wanted Eric to do "Something."
There was the great compromise: Paul started "Something" on his ukulele and then, of course, Eric, Jeff Lynne, Paul and full band kicked into an awesome version of the song. And as part of the compromise, Paul did ATMP. Eric in his book does not specify exactly why he wanted Paul to sing ATMP, other than Clapton viewed it as the emotional highpoint of the show. We now know Paul resisted performing it(telling EC he didn't know it) but compromised so he, Paul, could still be a huge part of "Something."
I'll keep looking but what we have pieced together thus far is not inconsistent with what I remember EC saying: he had a reason for Paul to sing ATMP and that is he wanted Paul to realize how good that song was/is! It cannot be disputed that ATMP was not Paul's idea to sing at the CFG and that he at first resisted the suggestion.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Apr 14, 2014 11:31:28 GMT -5
Thanks Mikev for the welcome. Sorry I don't have anything about tracking in the material I've got but as you said, it's not easy deciphering the audio. On the Taxman solo and that recording period for Revolver. From Geoff Emerick's book: I am only a so-so fan of Geoff's book but he gives the impression up to and including Revolver George Martin was like the teacher and the Beatles were like Students. George M had a lot of influence over what was done whether the Beatles were keen on the idea or totally agreed to it or not, they usually had to reluctantly agree. I think Geoff makes it pretty clear here that George's bigger problem was Martins attitude and not John and Paul. It is interesting in later years George M apologised for his attitude though it was too little too late really. Geoff writes very much from his and George Martin's point of view and I'm not sure John would have had any time for a book that gives them so much credit for the Beatles sound but that's a separate issue. ----------------------- Eric Clapton on ATMP from Rolling Stone. Sorry, but that was the only quote that I ever saw from Eric on McCartney playing All Things Must Pass and I never took it as Eric forcing Paul or trying to humiliate him? In fact Eric was impressed by Paul and they have become friends and worked together since. All I think he is referencing there is that Paul had to deal with the fact that he and George had had a very conflicted relationship and while he was as sad as anyone at his death and grieving he also had to confront that they had not been close in years and that in the context of the concert for George he was surrounded by people who had been much better friends with George than he had. McCartney still showed up to be fair, he still did his best I guess. That's all I got from it. There was no big deal in McCartney not knowing ATMP, he was 60 by then and didn't know a lot of his own songs without a refresher. Pattie Boyd said that George and Paul never loved each other that they were just two people who didn't really get on. I don't know if she is right or not but I think Paul went and sincerely paid his respects. Maybe he couldn't have said he loved George and George loved him because he wasn't sure if it would be the truth. Maybe they didn't, but I think Paul would never have turned his back on George or let him down if he was in trouble maybe it wasn't love but there was loyalty. There was a bond of sorts and of course that was the case for George too imho. Paul spent some personal time with George very near the end when George was in a hospital on Staten Island in NYC, just prior to George's final trip to L.A. where he subsequently died. Ringo came there too as well. Not sure how much Ringo witnessed of George & Paul's final time together there, but Paul said only that he spent some valuable time with George there with the two of them holding hands while they talked. There was clearly a sh%$load of bad moments (and good) going back over 40 years for the two of them to deal with, but you have to believe they both did their best to get that 500 lb. gorilla off both their backs. Paul especially, since he was the one that would have to go on in life knowing he would never see his bandmate again. And the realization that he never had that kind of time with John, before he passed so tragically, probably motivated Paul to get some healthy closure to his tempestuous relationship with George. Paul had carried around some heavy baggage with both his former bandmates after the breakup, and that is a tough thing to keep the rest of your entire life, (witness his breakdown in Montserrat during the Carl Perkins studio work on "My Old Friend" in 1981 that Linda spoke of to Carl, and Carl talked about publicly). It was Paul, who opened up his house in L.A. to George at the very end to use as much as he wanted. "For weeks, Harrison's friends rehearsed at London's Asylum Studios. Clapton was impressed with McCartney's demeanor: "Those guys' inability to express love for one another was classic," he says of the Beatles. "The exception is Ringo, who says [in the film], 'I love George, and George loved me.' That wouldn't have been so easy for Paul." That comment above by Clapton in Rolling Stone is really telling. I wonder if Lewisohn will spend some time on that subject in his current bio on the band, especially in the next two parts, during the period 1964-70, when they were at the peak of their popularity. Did their egos really get so big, they could not appreciateand express each other's talents in the studio verbally during those years? especially "68 & '69?
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Apr 14, 2014 11:34:12 GMT -5
Did Paul really start playing Something on tour before the CFG? I always thought CFG was the premiere of that arrangement.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 14, 2014 11:39:05 GMT -5
Sometimes as a bassist in my band, when working out the bass lines to a new song- if I am doing a note for note- I pay lttle attention to the chord structure. At the Concert FG, Paul had to play acoustic guitar. It could really be that simple of a reason he "didn't know it".
But we'll never know I guess...
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 14, 2014 12:52:35 GMT -5
Did Paul really start playing Something on tour before the CFG? I always thought CFG was the premiere of that arrangement. Yes. I saw Paul April 10 and 11, 2002, in Chicago and he did the ukulele version of "Something." That first night in Chicago, he announced before the song that he had met Louise Harrison, George's older sister, backstage before the concert. It was powerful though, Paul still had that voice we knew and loved. It is on that Back in the U.S. album/dvd. It was just the Uke and maybe just a little tea-room piano and a light, swing beat from Abe. The whole band did not kick in but now Paul has adopted the Concert for George arrangement of just uke then full Rock Band. The Concert for George was November 29, 2002.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Apr 14, 2014 13:50:17 GMT -5
One of the joys of Something at Concert For George is that as well as Paul getting his own way on the ukulele version, when the Abbey Road arrangement kicks in with EC singing, we get Paul's Abbey Road high harmony, something I never thought I would ever hear Paul singing live.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 14, 2014 14:49:49 GMT -5
One of the joys of Something at Concert For George is that as well as Paul getting his own way on the ukulele version, when the Abbey Road arrangement kicks in with EC singing, we get Paul's Abbey Road high harmony, something I never thought I would ever hear Paul singing live. Agreed! I watched this performance Friday night as indicated above and Paul really takes things up a notch on the excitement meter with his high harmony vocal. Spectacular and the tears welled up there just as they did when Paul performed ATMP. I will always consider the CFG among Paul's greatest live musical appearances. If there is a Concert For Paul someday, Dave Grohl must do "Mumbo," he absolutely must!
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Apr 14, 2014 15:05:51 GMT -5
It always comes back to Mumbo!
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 14, 2014 20:15:40 GMT -5
To the casual observer, it often seems that Paul and George are the two Beatle personalities most at odds. However, they actually had the longest relationship together of any of the 4 (or the 6, if you add in Stuart and Pete Best).
I've always thought George's occasional bitterness towards Paul first started from the time that Paul essentially deserted George as his equal in order to cozy-up to John and become his songwriting partner (a relationship really initiated by Paul more than by John). George was very much one of the 3 'founder' Beatles, and inside the core of the band (unlike Ringo, Brian Epstein, Pete Best, etc.), but he partly pushed aside by Paul (and John) and never brought into the songwriting/chief-Beatle fold. Yet he and Paul probably knew each other better than John and Paul did.
An interesting relationship.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 14, 2014 21:54:21 GMT -5
Too bad Paul wasn't the lead guitarist in The Beatles. He was easily the best guitar player. boy Joe, when you go to the dark side you really go dark. Anyway, nfw. Taxman is a great, really great solo, but I can't think of another classic McCartney lead guitar solo, even tho he plays lead on about a dozen beatles songs. There's a reason why Paul, not George, got lumbered with the bass but let's keep revising history in every facet of the beatles until Paul is anointed best at everything. Funny, it took us 50 years to realize it was Paul all along. who would have guessed?
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Apr 15, 2014 3:14:23 GMT -5
Come on, one thing you can't accuse Joe of is rewriting Beatles history in Paul's favour!
|
|
|
Post by pisces on Apr 15, 2014 8:28:38 GMT -5
Re "Taxman," I was referring specifically to the: "After a couple of hours of watching him struggle, both Paul and George Martin started becoming quite frustrated—this was, after all, a Harrison song and therefore not something anyone was prepared to spend a whole lot of time on. So George Martin went into the studio and, as diplomatically as possible, announced that he wanted Paul to have a go at the solo instead. I could see from the look on Harrison’s face that he didn’t like the idea one bit, but he reluctantly agreed and then proceeded to disappear for a couple of hours." By Revolver, George Martin couldn't make Paul do something he didn't want to do and Emerick notes that both Paul and Martin were frustrated with George's efforts on the solo and I am sure GM didn't need to twist Paul's arm to jump in to play the lead guitar solo, just as Paul did for a couple songs on the Help! album like "Ticket To Ride" and "Another Girl." For the record, I am not an Emerick fan but I have no reason to doubt that George was unhappy not to be able to work out his own lead guitar solo. The fact that Paul nails a great guitar solo is besides the point to me. We are discussing why George had such a sour attitude towards the Beatles by 1969. I saw or read a different Clapton interview on ATMP and his request that Paul sing it at the CFG but it did share the same curious statement by EC that Paul claimed not to know the song despite the various YouTube videos posted here of Paul rehearsing it with The Beatles. Paul knew ATMP better than 99.99999% of all other Rock and Roll musicians: he was there when George first introduced it and he worked on it. I will look for that interview when I have time and I once found a McCartney interview I was looking for from over 10,000 hits! It could have been an interview on film too, a snippet shown on some entertainment show which broadens my search. And I have never said EC was trying to "humiliate" Paul by asking him to perform ATMP at CFG. It was more like educating Paul on what a great song ATMP was and hence what a strong writer George had become right under Paul and John's noses! Even the passage you cite from RS, pisces, strongly implies that it wasn't Paul's idea to perform ATMP, because he claimed not to know the song! In the interview I read or watched, Clapton stated that that was the basis of Paul's objection at first to doing it, that he didn't know the song and in fact stated to EC that he, Clapton, was closer to the song than Paul since Clapton had been involved with some of the ATMP album sessions. I would have to politely disagree with you that "by Revolver George Martin couldn't make Paul do something he didn't want to do" or as I would put it "persuade him to do something he was reluctant to do". It is clear in the book that Paul did not suggest or particularly want strings on Eleanor Rigby but he gave in and reluctantly signed off on what George Martin wanted to do. I included that in my quote from the book, to show the ways Emerick suggests Martin had great influence over the session and what was done. I don't blame Paul for doing what George Martin asked, they had a pretty clear hierarchy in place while Mr Epstein was still alive that the boys pretty much accepted. George Martin wasn't really challenged in the studio until after Brian's death when The Beatles became misguidedly (imo) self-managing. It is Emerick's assertion that Paul and George Martin were frustrated because it was a Harrison song and therefore there was a limit to the time that should be spent, he provides no detail and no quotes. He may well be right or his thinking may be coloured by his own views... this is why I found the book a litle lacking. Taxman is what 2 and a 1/2 minutes long? and it was just the solo being worked on so George would have had time to have had more than 100 goes at it. Frustration can creep in after 100+ takes of anything. Especially if you are waiting for this to be done and are just sitting around bored waiting for the next piece of work to commence. Anyway, I think it's very unfortunate George was hurt and unhappy he is my favourite and I always feel for his struggles but I also accept he was given a chance to do the solo, many chances. He was probably becoming a bit frustrated himself after a couple of hours of doing it over and over - and if it had worked and he had been able to play it to his own satisfaction then Paul would never have been asked to play it. You know if he had nailed it after all those takes everyone would have been happy and moved on. As will I now... On the ATMP thing. Again I have to politely disagree. Paul McCartney did rehearse ATMP during the Get Back Sessions when he was what 26 years old? Perhaps it is because I'm almost 912 years old myself now, but believe me most of us on the cusp of old age would struggle to remember a song we rehearsed 34 years ago. So I don't think it at all surprising that at 60 Paul would have simply told Eric he didn't know ATMP. He did know Something and as a renowned perfectionist he would perhaps prefer to play a song he feels he knows, as McCartney is said to still get very nervous before shows. So, that may not have been resistance it may have merely been the truth. Also I'm not convinced that Eric had the ulterior motives you suggest either. After all the Concert for George was a 'Wake' of sorts. All things must pass as a song to be sung at a good friends wake is the emotional highpoint because of the lyrical content, simply because of what the song says. All things must pass All things must pass away All things must pass None of lifes strings can last So, I must be on my way And face another day It's a beautiful song to sing for a beautiful man. ATMP is one of my all time favourite George songs. However, if I try to be objective I am mindful that at the Get Back sessions, Every Night, Maybe I'm Amazed, Back Seat of My Car, Junk, Another Day, Gimme Some Truth... (and many more that I can't remember because I'm ancient!) ..anyway a lot of really good songs were played that never made it onto a Beatles record. I don't think Eric was necessarily trying to convince McCartney that ATMP was a good song. There is really nothing from the Get Back sessions to suggest Paul didn't like it or think it was good. As to why George was disenfranchised by '68. Well you know, they all were. They were all really miserable and suffering by '68. None of them was getting what they needed from the band dynamic anymore and all sorts of good material was floating in and out of sessions on a wave of disinterested depression. George called it the doldrums. It was a good word. It was a really bad time for George to be really coming into his own and flourishing creatively because it was such a negative environment for them all. Here is another exchange from the Get Back sessions, one of several where the topic is how bad everything is and splitting up. Anyway, I know you won't agree with me and I'm sorry to have begun my time on the forum with such a verbose debate so I won't say anymore on this.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 15, 2014 8:38:43 GMT -5
Too bad Paul wasn't the lead guitarist in The Beatles. He was easily the best guitar player. boy Joe, when you go to the dark side you really go dark. Anyway, nfw. Taxman is a great, really great solo, but I can't think of another classic McCartney lead guitar solo, even tho he plays lead on about a dozen beatles songs. There's a reason why Paul, not George, got lumbered with the bass but let's keep revising history in every facet of the beatles until Paul is anointed best at everything. I'd say TICKET TO RIDE is great guitar. But I don't know what you mean here regarding "revising history"; this is strictly my opinion I'm expressing here - Paul was easily the best guitar player in The Beatles. What is the reason you feel Paul got lumbered with bass? I think it was because was very adamant that he refused to play bass, from what I've heard.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 15, 2014 8:40:39 GMT -5
Come on, one thing you can't accuse Joe of is rewriting Beatles history in Paul's favour! Don't be so sure, Vectis. Have you read some of those posts I've made in Paul's favor? I don't want to take this too far off track (I know that Snookeroo doesn't like that) but I have come to appreciate Paul a lot more as the biggest talent in The Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 15, 2014 9:43:43 GMT -5
pisces, I am not sure what we are arguing about but no offense taken to us disagreeing.
I referred to the "Taxman" solo incident as just one huge example of where George felt humiliated by the Beatles powers-to-be of Lennon, McCartney & Martin. This was more to another poster's implied suggestion(not you) that George was all sour grapes by 1969 without cause. I stated above and I state here that George had a right to be rather jaded of the Beatles by 1969 when American musicians recognized his talents while not all of his own band did. I realize John and Paul are Rock Elite second to none and George did for a couple years abdicate his advancement on the electric guitar for Indian music but he had some legitimate grievances with his older bandmates.
My point on Paul was he willingly jumped in to finish that guitar solo and needed no extra prodding from Martin. Yes, I agree that Martin was still very influential to even Paul in 1966 although Emerick himself is very dismissive of Martin in many ways which is one of four problems I have with his book.
As to ATMP at CFG, your RS cite and my EC autobiography cite to page 286 establish that per EC, Paul did not want to perform ATMP at that concert. I brought that up again in response to someone other than you who asked how did we know Paul didn't want to do ATMP, or stated differently, how do we know Paul didn't volunteer to sing ATMP? Because EC has told us Paul did not originally want to do ATMP! He finally relented in a compromise on "Something!"
That was the first part of my point. The second part was that I read or saw an EC interview where he said his decision to have Paul sing ATMP had a point to it, not to "humiliate" Paul but maybe just force Paul to really dig into that song(in rehearsing for the concert) to truly realize its greatness and thus the progress George had made by 1969 as a songwriter.
In his book, EC just notes that ATMP was to be the emotional highlight of the whole concert and he wanted Paul to sing it. Period. That is not inconsistent with what I am summarizing from an interview I read or saw in 2003 somewhere else. It really struck me at the time, I thought rather than a slam on Macca, it was an incredible gesture of love by Clapton to George's legacy. Most here know that I am not a big Clapton fan because of his subsequent mistreatment of Pattie Boyd so for me to be moved by something EC said is something I'll always remember.
If you are saying I am lying about remembering this interview then we have a problem but I hope that you are not. There was a lot of press about this concert both right after it and then after the release of the movie/DVD a year later. I am now almost certain that it was a filmed interview of EC shown on ET or some entertainment show like that in a five minute segment or less.
Bottom line is I love Paul's performance of ATMP at the CFG and it is my favorite Macca live performance of all time and it has always been made more special to me because EC had to really nudge Paul into doing it. That seems indisputable regardless of what EC's motive was. EC was right to push Paul to sing it and Paul apparently realized how special it was as MikeV has noted above that Paul incorporated it in some live shows afterwards.
I'd like to think that EC was trying to help Paul gain a further appreciation for George's music rather than just simply filling a slot in the concert!
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 15, 2014 9:57:16 GMT -5
I also was not aware that Paul had now been anointed "best guitarist in The Beatles"!!
That's very much a matter of debate. Being a great musician, on one given instrument, is not merely a matter of being able to produce a desired 8 or 16 bars of music quickly, under studio conditions. Everyone who worked with John and Paul and George (incl. Eric Clapton and Jim Keltner) noted that John and Paul were fast and did things as efficiently as possible in the studio, whereas George preferred to take his sweet time and do it at his own speed. George himself is quoted in interviews saying things like, "I asked Eric to play the solos because he can do in 15 minutes what takes me days to do."
Of course, fast and efficient fluency on an instrument is all well and good, and a not inconsiderable ability. But it hardly settles that Paul was better on guitar than George because Paul could play the 'Taxman' solo faster!
Musicianship involves many other things, like natural feel for the instrument and the particular style one plays with and the distinctive sound one creates. Especially in the latter regard, I would say George's work reveals a better guitarist than Paul because he has a more distinct sound (though he's fluent on guitar, I personally find Paul's soloing a bit lacking in character; however, his flourishes on acoustic are often outstanding... but then so are George's).
Let's not forget that the main reason George got into the Quarrymen in the first place was because he could play guitar solos, and John and Paul couldn't (or couldn't be bothered to take the time to do it). Paul had one go at being the soloist in 1958 and he botched it, which turned him off doing it again. This in itself reveals a lot about George's sense of his value in the group and about his particular traits on the instrument -- his patience and attention to detail in making every note count.
(We haven't even mentioned the possibility of John being the Beatles' best guitarist...)
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 15, 2014 10:09:56 GMT -5
I also was not aware that Paul had now been anointed "best guitarist in The Beatles"!! That's very much a matter of debate. Being a great musician, on one given instrument, is not merely a matter of being able to produce a desired 8 or 16 bars of music quickly, under studio conditions. Everyone who worked with John and Paul and George (incl. Eric Clapton and Jim Keltner) noted that John and Paul were fast and did things as efficiently as possible in the studio, whereas George preferred to take his sweet time and do it at his own speed. George himself is quoted in interviews saying things like, "I asked Eric to play the solos because he can do in 15 minutes what takes me days to do." Of course, fast and efficient fluency on an instrument is all well and good, and a not inconsiderable ability. But it hardly settles that Paul was better on guitar than George because Paul could play the 'Taxman' solo faster! Musicianship involves many other things, like natural feel for the instrument and the particular style one plays with and the distinctive sound one creates. Especially in the latter regard, I would say George's work reveals a better guitarist than Paul because he has a more distinct sound (though he's fluent on guitar, I personally find Paul's soloing a bit lacking in character; however, his flourishes on acoustic are often outstanding... but then so are George's). Let's not forget that the main reason George got into the Quarrymen in the first place was because he could play guitar solos, and John and Paul couldn't (or couldn't be bothered to take the time to do it). Paul had one go at being the soloist in 1958 and he botched it, which turned him off doing it again. This in itself reveals a lot about George's sense of his value in the group and about his particular traits on the instrument -- his patience and attention to detail in making every note count. (We haven't even mentioned the possibility of John being the Beatles' best guitarist...) Hear, hear! I know Panther has read it, but no Beatles related book has inspired me and changed my whole way of thinking about Beatles music as Simon Leng's While My Guitar Gently Weeps : The Music of George Harrison. If Leng is full of hot air and has somehow over inflated George as a guitarist, then maybe he should go work in advertising or for governments where he could make millions of dollars but he is very convincing on why George truly was the "Dark Horse" of The Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Apr 15, 2014 11:50:01 GMT -5
Come on, one thing you can't accuse Joe of is rewriting Beatles history in Paul's favour! Don't be so sure, Vectis. Have you read some of those posts I've made in Paul's favor? I don't want to take this too far off track (I know that Snookeroo doesn't like that) but I have come to appreciate Paul a lot more as the biggest talent in The Beatles. I appreciate that you have done a bit of reassessment of late, but that still doesn't amount to rewriting history - you've always seemed to me to try to retain balance irrespective of your preferences.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 15, 2014 12:20:17 GMT -5
I also was not aware that Paul had now been anointed "best guitarist in The Beatles"!! That's very much a matter of debate. Being a great musician, on one given instrument, is not merely a matter of being able to produce a desired 8 or 16 bars of music quickly, under studio conditions. Everyone who worked with John and Paul and George (incl. Eric Clapton and Jim Keltner) noted that John and Paul were fast and did things as efficiently as possible in the studio, whereas George preferred to take his sweet time and do it at his own speed. George himself is quoted in interviews saying things like, "I asked Eric to play the solos because he can do in 15 minutes what takes me days to do." Of course, fast and efficient fluency on an instrument is all well and good, and a not inconsiderable ability. But it hardly settles that Paul was better on guitar than George because Paul could play the 'Taxman' solo faster! I'm only forming my opinion based on my ears. I've had no idea how long it took this guy or that guy until now; I only go by what sounds good or proficient to me. I have heard enough outtakes and BBC recordings and oddities by now to form my opinion that George was not a great guitar player. I wince at some of his attempts at a basic lead solo in some of the existing outtakes. Now, there have been many finished songs where the results are competent, and I may not know if it took George 3 minutes or 3 weeks to nail those. I have also seen and heard Paul and George playing guitar live onstage too -- I think Paul was better there as well. But wasn't Paul always one to take his time and painstakingly in the studio to get things perfect, too? True, but then again it reminds me of when I passed my driving test (on George's birthday in 1980, ironically!) and I was afraid of not being able to parallel park very well. I'll never forget that on that crucial meeting with the driving instructor, I nailed a PERFECT parallel park -- between two huge station wagons, no less! -- But before and after that, it was never as perfect. I don't think George was so great at guitar solos "live on the spot"... and I base this on actual existing audio and concert evidence. He's pretty good on the PLASTIC ONO BAND album, and also "Get Back" and "You Can't Do That". I don't know if he's better than Paul, though.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 15, 2014 12:24:06 GMT -5
I appreciate that you have done a bit of reassessment of late, but that still doesn't amount to rewriting history - you've always seemed to me to try to retain balance irrespective of your preferences. Thank You - and I appreciate that.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Apr 15, 2014 15:16:02 GMT -5
Going back to the original reason that ATMP got passed over for LIB and Abbey Road I recalled listening to that 30 days set and a snippet where George talks about his ever growing catalogue of songs. At 2 per Beatles album it will take 10 years to get them out in the usual way.
He's basically saying that he wants to record them, he'd like to do them with the Beatles if he could.
But this was definitely a moment where he's also thinking about doing something by himself. He's more than hinting at it. In fact he's diplomatically saying it would take a week to record. Perhaps even wondering if the other Beatles are actually taking him seriously.
His frustration was not without foundation as George was arguably surpassing John as a songwriter during this period. LIB contains 3 great McCartney cuts, Get Back, Let It Be and the Long and Winding Road. But Lennon's contributions are, the already recorded Across the Universe, Dig a Pony and the throwaway jam that was Dig It. The only top drawer song he had, Don't Let Me Down, was left off the album.
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Apr 15, 2014 17:19:33 GMT -5
That snippet is consistent with an interview George did when Abbey Road was newly released. He said they may do solo albums and then get back together to do a Beatles album. It wasn't completely over in his mind at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 16, 2014 4:30:04 GMT -5
That's a great recording of George speaking (above), but he obviously changed his mind a lot. Here, he says, "They're all very simple"..."I don't think they need much." Then, a year later he hired the world's most overblown record producer (Spector) to do a ultra-reverb, massive wall-of-sound, storm-the-gates-of-heaven type of production job.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 6:19:56 GMT -5
Too bad Paul wasn't the lead guitarist in The Beatles. He was easily the best guitar player. Tragic really
|
|