lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 2, 2016 0:25:42 GMT -5
I am re-reading the Lewisohn book The Beatles-Tune In for the third time (while we wait an eternity for the next installment that may not come until the 22nd Century...) and a story in it stuck in my mind as a theory as to why Paul always gave George such a hard time. Stems back to an incident that happened in October, 1962. Vi Caldwell (mother of Rory Storm) was always popular with the young people in Liverpool, particularly Paul & George. And her house at this time was a popular hangout for everyone for late night open-house chats. Plus both Paul & George dated her daughter Iris for a time. I'll just quote the Lewisohn book now;
"One late night gathering turned into a seance, with participants Rory, Iris, Paul, George, Ringo, his old girlfriend Pat Davies, and her best friend Swinging Cilla White (Not Cilla Black...). Everyone had their fingers on the glass, and Cilla remembers how it spelled M-A-R-Y around the Ouija Board." Quote from Cilla; "It was a message from Paul's mother. He was amazed, and asked her, 'Will our next record be number one in the hit parade?' Our fingers went mental: 'Yes it's going to be number one in the NME.' Paul then said, 'Hang on a minute, how does my mum know about the Musical Express? When me mum died there was no Musical Express.' "It was George, manoeuvring the glass, and the episode ended in laughter, but Iris saw that Paul was shaken. 'It was just a young lad's prank,' she says, 'but it didn't half upset Paul - he really thought he'd gotten through to his mum.'"
So maybe Paul was really pissed at George for fooling him into thinking he had contacted his dead mother. I can see Paul holding a grudge for the remainder of the years The Beatles stayed together as a band, and making George miserable every chance he would get, especially in the recording studio......Stranger things have happened.
So a stupid Ouija Board could have been responsible for keeping George down to barely a song or two on Beatle albums through the 60's!!!!! And the constant bickering between the two Beatles that even lasted right on up until George's death!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Feb 2, 2016 4:13:34 GMT -5
I suppose it's possible. Barely.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Feb 2, 2016 5:18:38 GMT -5
No-one in Liverpool in the late 50s/early 60s would have used the word "gotten." In fact, even today very few people in England would use that word - it's pretty much exclusively American.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 2, 2016 12:27:13 GMT -5
No-one in Liverpool in the late 50s/early 60s would have used the word "gotten." In fact, even today very few people in England would use that word - it's pretty much exclusively American. Lewisohn footnotes that quote using the word "gotten" as follows; "Cilla from ALL TOGETHER NOW, ITV, 20 November 1995. Paul briefly mentions the seance in The Beatles Anthology, pg. 63. George fondly reminisced about the Caldwells on pg.29 of The Beatles Anthology.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 2, 2016 12:30:02 GMT -5
I suppose it's possible. Barely. I post this with a bit of tongue-in-cheek, but you never know. Both George and Paul remembered it well into the 1990's when putting the Anthology together. And we all know how Paul can get when he feels himself made the fool by anyone..... I've always thought there was only one person who could call it like it was about Paul to his face; John Lennon. Even his current bandmates probably know never to question anything in public he says or does.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Feb 3, 2016 17:03:09 GMT -5
"One late night gathering turned into a seance, with participants Rory, Iris, Paul, George, Ringo, his old girlfriend Pat Davies, and her best friend Swinging Cilla White (Not Cilla Black...). Does that quote mean Swinging Cilla White was not Cilla Black (or that her name was not Cilla Black at the time?). Cilla was born Priscilla White so I'm assuming it's the latter. And no I don't think this story accounts for George only getting 2 songs on an album. I think George was happy to be assumed 3rd Beatle until he started to discover Eastern music. In fact right up to the point when the Beatles stopped touring. After that he began to realize he was seen as a peer by many other musicians but John, Paul and even George Martin didn't really consider him a real songwriting force until the band was about to break up. It had nothing to do with a Ouija board prank.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Feb 3, 2016 20:38:27 GMT -5
I read some quote years ago from bass-player Adam Clayton of U2, which I thought summarized the 'George-situation' of being in a mega-famous band quite well. Clayton said something along the lines of he often "fantasizes" about leaving U2 and being the creator/director of another band, where he gets final say, but then he always checks himself and realizes that (a) it's much better to play with people you trust and who will fight and argue with you, no matter how famous you are, and (b) there's no point in the U2-bass player leaving U2, because the public will never forget you were in U2. (As an example, he went on to say: "It's like those guys from The Beatles -- they're still IN The Beatles!")
Now, I don't necessarily agree with what Adam said, and I do think George in particular was "liberated" to an extent and did discover his true musical voice outside The Beatles (certainly more than the other 3 did). But I'd imagine that, for George, it was awfully hard to remain the ego-less Beatle with Paul and John running rampant over the group and divvy-ing up the songwriting. It was probably acceptable for George that John viewed him as an underling, to an extent, because that's how their relationship had started (with John an older college-dude and George a kid at 'Inny'). But with Paul, it was different.
Paul, has, in my view, gone to great efforts over the years to "infantalize" George. It started by Paul maneuvering for position in the songwriting partnership with John, which basically set George down as '3rd-Beatle' even though he was there from before the group began. Even after George died, Paul couldn't swallow his ego enough to call George his equal, instead saying rather tactlessly, "He was really just my baby-brother". It sometimes seems that Paul is obsessed with "keeping George in his place", even long after his death. Paul and George are, for all intents and purposes, the same age, and they were chums before either was in John's group. Paul made a conscious decision to belittle George and maneuver for position with John. One could, of course, argue that Paul was justified in doing so since he was the most productive and naturally-talented songwriter, but then why did he insist on linking his name with John? The reason was to keep George in third place.
So, I think George never forgot this, and who could blame him? It's a bit hard when, the moment you step out of Abbey Road studios, you have Clapton and Dylan lining up to talk/work with you, but once you go back to The Beatles, you're "baby George" over in the corner.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 3, 2016 23:24:06 GMT -5
"One late night gathering turned into a seance, with participants Rory, Iris, Paul, George, Ringo, his old girlfriend Pat Davies, and her best friend Swinging Cilla White (Not Cilla Black...). Does that quote mean Swinging Cilla White was not Cilla Black (or that her name was not Cilla Black at the time?). Cilla was born Priscilla White so I'm assuming it's the latter. And no I don't think this story accounts for George only getting 2 songs on an album. I think George was happy to be assumed 3rd Beatle until he started to discover Eastern music. In fact right up to the point when the Beatles stopped touring. After that he began to realize he was seen as a peer by many other musicians but John, Paul and even George Martin didn't really consider him a real songwriting force until the band was about to break up. It had nothing to do with a Ouija board prank. I understood it to mean Cilla White and Cilla Black are two different people. Could be wrong however. During the Hamburg and Cavern years, George was often the lead singer in the band for many of the cover songs they did in the clubs. So I find it hard to believe he "accepted" his role as a "3rd Beatle". When Stu quit the band, the "lowly" position of bass player went to Paul. George was not going to take it on. He was the lead guitarist. And he had a good share of vocal leads on songs as well. At least as much as Paul did. It was also George who convinced John and Paul to dump Pete Best and get Ringo into the band. And it was George who first talked back to George Martin in the studio when he said "For starters, I don't like your tie." He had to have a lot of balls to say that at the time. Once the Lennon/McCartney songwriting team was formerly created around the time of their first recordings (Late 1962) was when George began to take a much stronger back seat to John & Paul both in singing duties, since fewer and fewer cover songs wound up on their albums or public performances as the years progressed, as well as getting any original compositions on Beatle albums. The ouija board incident probably is not responsible for this, but it is interesting that it is about that time which it happened that George's stature in the band took a turn towards less of the front man singing. And we know how sensitive Paul is to being made to look silly in any way in public. Paul really thought he had contacted his dead mother....George still had both his parents alive at that point, and Louise Harrison was a big fan of the band....Mary McCartney never lived long enough to see her son famous...So, just sayin.....
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Feb 4, 2016 8:39:19 GMT -5
I completely agree with Lowbasso.
It's become clear from Lewisohn's book, and other contemporary accounts, that in autumn 1960 when they first went to Hamburg, Paul was the unpopular horse's ass of the group. Remember, at this point, he wasn't Paul-McCartney-living-legend; he was just 18-year-old Paul, brother of the (more popular) gregarious Mike, and third guitarist in the beat-group of John's.
John was senior and leader, and George was the proper-guitarist who actually took time to learn the solos painstakingly (which increased when he was 'mentored' somewhat by Tony Sheridan). Paul was a disposable third guitarist with great musical versatility, but neither his singing nor his guitar-ability was deemed significant enough to prevent his being demoted to piano and kept out of the front-line for a time. Stuart's letters home make the situation clear, as he wrote (of Paul): "Everyone hates him."
I had previously also thought that George (in 1960 and most of 1961) sang as many songs as John or Paul, but it seems this was not the case. I was wrong about this. George sang fewer than them, generally, but this changed after Brian Epstein came along. Brian was keen to promote the "three singers" angle (four, with the drummer), and encouraged the group to have George sing more leads, which he did. At the Decca audition, George sang as many leads as John (though Paul sang more -- yet performed the worst). And let's not forget that the very first Beatles' original released on record was written by... George, with an assist from John.
So, yes, I agree that George was not ever thinking of himself as the "third Beatle" (other than in order of admittance to the group) because there was no evident reason to.
And I agree that the songwriting, in particular the Lennon/Mac partnership agreement (fairly or unfairly), that after some deliberation excluded George, was the key moment that sent George down to third place.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 4, 2016 18:45:00 GMT -5
Paul, has, in my view, gone to great efforts over the years to "infantalize" George. It started by Paul maneuvering for position in the songwriting partnership with John, which basically set George down as '3rd-Beatle' even though he was there from before the group began. Even after George died, Paul couldn't swallow his ego enough to call George his equal, instead saying rather tactlessly, "He was really just my baby-brother". It sometimes seems that Paul is obsessed with "keeping George in his place", even long after his death. Paul and George are, for all intents and purposes, the same age, and they were chums before either was in John's group. Paul made a conscious decision to belittle George and maneuver for position with John. One could, of course, argue that Paul was justified in doing so since he was the most productive and naturally-talented songwriter, but then why did he insist on linking his name with John? The reason was to keep George in third place. I have enjoyed your analysis of this situation, Panther. And believe me, I always find it refreshing to give Paul a good dose of criticism and knocking down to size when it is warranted. However, in this case I still don't see George as Paul's "equal", no way. It's true that Paul was "only 18 year old Paul, not the great songwriting legend" in 1960 ... but all the same, it was "John and Paul" from the very beginning. It was really their group, and George was brought in later on through Paul, of course. I don't think that McCartney really had to do much maneuvering to "keep George in third place"... it was evident that it was John/Paul at the helm from the start... and as you said too, John Lennon never thought of George as much more than "that kid", while John truly seemed Paul as his partner and equal. I don't think George overall was ever the equal of Lennon & McCartney except for a brief period around 1968 - 1970, perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 4, 2016 20:42:54 GMT -5
So is "At twelve o'clock a meeting round the table for a séance in the dark, With voices out of nowhere put on specially by the children for a lark" about this?
If so, I guess it portrays George as a child.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Feb 4, 2016 21:40:18 GMT -5
I have enjoyed your analysis of this situation, Panther. And believe me, I always find it refreshing to give Paul a good dose of criticism and knocking down to size when it is warranted. However, in this case I still don't see George as Paul's "equal", no way. Okay, but we're not talking about what you (or I) see, or how we appreciate each member's talents. We're talking about how the group members themselves 'saw it' and created the hierarchy. ...it was "John and Paul" from the very beginning. It was really their group, and George was brought in later on through Paul, of course. I disagree with the "John and Paul" thing, actually. Some writers have tried to sell this (including Lewisohn, to some extent), but I'm not really buying. It's true that Paul entered the group before George, but only barely. (No one actually seems to know when George first played with the Quarrymen -- either late 1957 or early 1958 -- but, in any case, it wasn't more than a few weeks, or, at most, a couple of months, after Paul's first appearance with them. It's barely even significant.) I agree that George's age was significant to John in social terms, but I don't think John cared about that musically, in the group. If he did, why would he have let George in when he was only 14? it was evident that it was John/Paul at the helm from the start... Again, I don't really think so. I do think (and by this, I don't mean you) a lot of baby-boomer writers (Philip Norman, for one, who hates George anyway) have a kind of fantasy from their youth that Lennon/McCartney were joined at the hip and were a united front, because these boomers/writers grew up idolizing their songwriting brand. But this just isn't so. I've never seen any evidence that Paul and John were particularly closer than Paul and George, or John and George after about 1959 (we have to account for George's age in the late 50s). Or John and Ringo, for that matter. Yes, John took Paul with him to Paris in 1961... but Paul and George took two or three hitchhiking trips to Wales together in the late-50s, without John. John and George (and spouses) vacationed together in 1964. John and George were the first to take LSD together. George played on 'Imagine'. Etc. The one area where John and Paul did have a closer relationship was the songwriting. This is obviously significant, but, as we all know, each didn't really need the other for this anyway; I think it was more the rivalry that pushed them each on to greater work. Anyway, before the spring 1962 songwriting agreement, I don't really see George as being the "third Beatle", except chronologically.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 4, 2016 23:12:40 GMT -5
So is "At twelve o'clock a meeting round the table for a séance in the dark, With voices out of nowhere put on specially by the children for a lark" about this? If so, I guess it portrays George as a child. I always thought of Cry Baby Cry and Your Mother Should Know as being about the same thing. Kids listening to the long dead Beatles, hundreds of years from now. "Though she was born a long long time ago, your mother should know..." Even though she was born before the NME, your mother should know? "She's old enough to know better, so Cry Baby Cry". Maybe basso's on to something here.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 5, 2016 6:27:50 GMT -5
I agree that George's age was significant to John in social terms, but I don't think John cared about that musically, in the group. If he did, why would he have let George in when he was only 14? Because John needed a decent guitarist. And George came with Paul's recommendation. John even let Pete Best in (who in his words was "a lousy drummer, he never improved") just because it was a means to an end (that being so they could get to Hamburg). By listening to interviews with the actual Beatles themselves, they often talked about how the dynamic would change constantly. Ringo in particular always said "one day it would be John and Paul, next day Paul and me, next day George and John, etc...". So sure, they all had their bonding moments... they were friends, after all. But there was more than just the songwriting (or musicianship in general). They were like brothers (John still referred to Paul as his brother in the 1980 studio video interview). John also said in his last hours that the only one he chose as his partner was Paul. ("George came through Paul, and Ringo came through George -- but the only one who I recognized had talent and who I chose as my partner, was Paul"). Sure, John still loved George as well. And when his "brother" Paul had a tiff with John in 1971, John leaned for support to George to help him on the IMAGINE album (and even the song "How Do You Sleep"). But it's evident throughout John's life in various interviews that he really considered George #3. If Philip Norman had an anti-George bias, then I'm sure there are fans and/or critics/authors who have a bias in building up George, too. But I think that it's pretty obvious that George was always third in talent behind Lennon and McCartney. In the end I can make a concession that George was at least more "equal" pre-1962 than he became once The Beatles had recorded "Love Me Do".
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Feb 5, 2016 18:10:02 GMT -5
As I have still not read the Lewisohn book I find there are some very interesting opinions posted here. The real question to me is did George really feel he was given such a hard time by Paul at an early stage in the Beatles? I know in the 35 year old radio show Beatles - Days in the Their Lives and even in Anthology, George seemed to be happy being a Beatle right up until Revolver. Hey he'd even 'gotten' three songs on that album. ( No that doesn't sound right to a man from Merseyside) In fact if anything John was perhaps more dismissive of George and his work during the dog end days of the Beatles career together. By the mid 70s, George seemed to be more estranged from John than Paul. By the 1980s George had become brutally honest about his professional relationship with Paul. However he could often became very defensive when other people were critical of Paul and above everything, he would always point out that they were still good mates. Has Paul really tried to "infantalize" ( is that the opposite of adultation?) George down the years? Or is it just because he really was older than George and he was trying to think of an affectionate term? Paul can be an arse at times but sometimes I wonder if we over analyse the minutiae of what he says.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Feb 6, 2016 9:51:19 GMT -5
Paul can be an arse at times Stavros, you made a nice post and, above, I've quoted your key point.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Feb 7, 2016 16:09:49 GMT -5
I remember George in the Anthology video stating that he was 8 months younger than Paul in a tone that suggested he still felt resentful towards Paul's attitude towards him. I don't know about the significance of the séance, but I just wanted to mention it as no one else has yet. But good discussion - and civil, too!
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Feb 9, 2016 15:39:16 GMT -5
I remember George in the Anthology video stating that he was 8 months younger than Paul in a tone that suggested he still felt resentful towards Paul's attitude towards him. I don't know about the significance of the séance, but I just wanted to mention it as no one else has yet. But good discussion - and civil, too! Yep I think it mildly irritated George like a number of other things Paul would do and say. But George would come back with a wry comment when Paul was being an arse.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 10, 2016 0:20:55 GMT -5
In one of the books out there, maybe Philip Norman's Lennon book or Howard Sounes on Macca, it was written that Paul never forgave George for becoming a "John guy" shortly after Paul introduced George to John and lobbied for George to join them musically. This theory goes that George was Paul's friend originally and Paul's efforts to get George into the budding band was more than just a favor to George, it was to give Paul an ally and actually increase Paul's standing in this young band! Paul thought he was padding it with one of "his" guys.
We know from Cynthia Lennon's book and from interviews that John himself gave, George quickly had teenage hero worship towards John, for instance following him every where and John and Cynthia would have to literally hide from George.
Paul is said to have witnessed this with dismay and anger. In his mind, it was claimed, George should have been eternally grateful(and thus loyal) to Paul and not be a John disciple. Paul was said to be bitter at George for this teenage lack of loyalty and sought to get even closer to John at the expense of George.
All of us have probably had similar experiences as kids among a group of friends. The pecking orders, alliances and maneuverings. I could see that as it has also ben written that Paul demands unwavering loyalty from all in his life. What bigger sin then than George going from a Paul friend to a John guy!
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Feb 10, 2016 9:04:17 GMT -5
Makes the line "I always looked up to you" in All Those Years Ago one o the most poignant in the song.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 10, 2016 12:56:04 GMT -5
Makes the line "I always looked up to you" in All Those Years Ago one o the most poignant in the song. That line is/was directed at John, correct? The title of his song "Isn't It A Pity" appears to be directed at Paul primarily, and at John secondly. Is there ever a moment or lyric in George's work (Or Ringo's)that is a negative directed at the other one? Those two guys seemed to remain very warm towards each other throughout the solo years from 1970 up through George's death. Even given George's attraction to Maureen. That is clearly shown in Scorcese's film about George when Ringo loses it emotionally when recalling the final time he and George had together before George passed away.
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Feb 10, 2016 13:35:01 GMT -5
Caption: "Had one too many, Johnny?"
The only George/Ringo lyric references to each other before George's death, that I can recall, were positive or at least neutral; Early 1970 and LITMW (which they both played on respectively).
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Feb 11, 2016 11:25:58 GMT -5
Makes the line "I always looked up to you" in All Those Years Ago one o the most poignant in the song. That line is/was directed at John, correct? View AttachmentThe title of his song "Isn't It A Pity" appears to be directed at Paul primarily, and at John secondly. Is there ever a moment or lyric in George's work (Or Ringo's)that is a negative directed at the other one? Those two guys seemed to remain very warm towards each other throughout the solo years from 1970 up through George's death. Even given George's attraction to Maureen. That is clearly shown in Scorcese's film about George when Ringo loses it emotionally when recalling the final time he and George had together before George passed away. No,but George sued Ringo for putting out "I'll Still Love You", which was my favorite song on Rotogravure, but I guess George didn't think so. I think this fact solidifies the Rutles parody of them suing each other after the break-up then...Stig...sued himself...accidentally...
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Feb 11, 2016 21:04:26 GMT -5
If you want to know how many lawsuits there were flying around each ex-Beatle during the 1970s and 1980s (until about 1987), read Peter Doggett's 'You Never Give Me Your Money', which is a really good book. It is absolutely unbelievable how much litigation was constantly surrounding each of them. From reading that book, I suddenly understand why John retired from music in 1975 and didn't want a contract.
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Feb 17, 2016 0:43:59 GMT -5
It was also George who convinced John and Paul to dump Pete Best and get Ringo into the band. And it was George who first talked back to George Martin in the studio when he said "For starters, I don't like your tie." He had to have a lot of balls to say that at the time. George was mainly responsible for the Beatles going to India, Eric Clapton playing guitar on Weeps and Billy joining the Let It Be sessions. He was also responsible for nipping Now and Then in the bud.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 17, 2016 13:19:44 GMT -5
Who says Now & Then was nipped in the bud? Do we know for sure there is not a version out there "sleeping" and waiting for an opportune moment to be released???
|
|