George Harrison should have had a bigger role in The Beatles | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

JPM-Fangirl said
I’m not so sure John and Paul ‘ought’ to have done anything, to be honest. 

The roles within the Beatles were clear from day 1, and everyone seemed to be happy with that. And then, after doing the bulk of the work for years, John and Paul are expected to make room for a third captain, when having two was complicated enough? Just because George wanted to change the rules in his favour, doesn’t mean the others were required to go along with it. 

I can see George’s point of view, I certainly can. I can also see why John and Paul didn’t feel the need to take a step back. And let’s not forget that as lead guitarist, George already held a crucial position in the band. Just because he wasn’t one of the main songwriters, doesn’t mean his contribution was less important. He was, after all, one of the main vocalists, and his guitar playing was largely responsible for the Fabs’ sound. 

He may have felt he played an inferior role, and the title of this topic implies it as well, but that’s simply not true. Even without getting more songs, he was just as important as John and Paul, and so was Ringo.

That’s not entirely accurate. While it’s true George became a songwriter later on, he arguably was considered more of an equal before the Lennon/McCartney brand became a thing. John and Paul relied on him to teach them chords, he pushed the band into going electric, had much more control over the guitar parts and played a big role in live performances. By 1967 he had essentially become Paul’s session musician and at times wasn’t needed at all. I feel like Abbey Road is the only album in that later period where George really had an opportunity to show what he could bring to the band.

Also, let’s be honest, John and Paul weren’t exactly at the top of their game by that point. John was having a lot of trouble coming up with songs while George was in his most prolific period. The logical step would’ve been to use more of George’s songs, but they cared more about keeping the illusion of Lennon/McCartney going than making the best albums.

JPM-Fangirl said
You got a few things wrong there.

Paul did not rely on George to learn chords. George himself said (on record!) that Paul was always better with chords, especially the more difficult ones. They each went all over Liverpool to learn new chords, which they then would show to the others. But to say George taught Paul to play guitar, is not accurate. Don’t take my word for it, check George’s comments on this topic.

Paul and John weren’t at the top of their game from ’67 onwards? Sure, John’s output was waning, but Paul did much of his best work in the final years. Saying he wasn’t doing very well is just silly and untrue.

Something tells me you don’t like (John and) Paul very much. That’s fine, just try not to pose an opinion as fact. George was never just a session musician to anyone though he may have felt like one at times. Don’t underestimate him, though. He was very much capable of voicing his opinion. He didn’t just sit in a corner and sulk, he spoke his mind when he wasn’t happy. And it’s probably a good thing he did because he did influence the others more than once. John may have underestimated George until the day he died, but Paul never denied that George was massively important to the band. 

Perhaps we should all be a bit more like Ringo: he loved George very, very much, yet he doesn’t turn him into a saint. Just this morning, I saw an interview in which Ringo repeatedly expressed that George wasn’t the easiest person to work with, and he joked about George trying to work his religion into other people’s songs.

Let’s face it: they were all complicated, flawed people – George included. Isn’t that much of their charm anyway?

Excuse me, but you’ve made a lot of assumptions in this post that aren’t true. I never said George taught Paul how to play guitar, but he did know the most about guitars out of the 3 of them, and it has been documented – either in Mark Lewisohn’s new book or another reliable one – that they used new chords George showed them to write songs. 

Again, not what I said. I was referring to 1969 when George was at his most prolific, and yes, it was not Paul’s best year imo. 

Actually, Paul happens to be my second favourite Beatle. Your post comes across as pretty condescending here. Maybe you’re not familiar with my previous posts, but I have never tried to claim any of The Beatles were saints. That didn’t really have anything to do with my point. At the time Paul DID treat George as if he wasn’t important to the band. Sorry but he did – George wasn’t upset with him for no reason, and it wasn’t until he walked out of the Let It Be sessions that anyone took him seriously.

ewe2 said
Let’s not be hasty shall we? There is room enough for differences of opinion without accusations and ad hominems. It’s not the best way at all, says George

Don’t worry, I’m completely chill and don’t mean to attack anyone. It’s just kind of annoying when people automatically assume you don’t know what you’re talking about just because they disagree.