Log In
Register
5.30am
8 November 2012
Offline
[Reposting due to the migration. I have all the posts from this topic saved and can repost them tomorrow over a few posts. If anyone’s *not* okay with that, let me know. I just didn’t want a great discussion to get lost.]
I was talking with a friend about how so much of the credit for the innovation and quality in The Beatles’ music goes to John and Paul, you would think that George did nothing but play sitar, take orders, and write the occasional weird song. I’ll say what I always say – the whole of The Beatles was greater than the sum of it’s parts. And the band wouldn’t be the band we love without George. I think most of you will agree, but I wanted to put that to a discussion. What specifically did George contribute – musically or otherwise – to make the band as great as it was? And what do you think they would have been without him? This is one area I wish the Scorcese doc had covered more in depth, btw.
I’ll start with one thing – we may not have had Ringo. The others were interested, but George was the one to champion his becoming a member.
parlance
5.54am
Reviewers
29 August 2013
Offline Answering the actual question – a trio 
==> trcanberra and hongkonglady - Together even when not (married for those not in the know!) <==
5.55am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline
If you have lost posts that we were too stupid to keep, parlance, repost each and every one as quickly as you can!
We’re a*holes! Sorry!
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
5.56am
Reviewers
29 August 2013
Offline parlance said
[Reposting due to the migration. I have all the posts from this topic saved and can repost them tomorrow over a few posts. If anyone’s *not* okay with that, let me know. I just didn’t want a great discussion to get lost.]I was talking with a friend about how so much of the credit for the innovation and quality in The Beatles’ music goes to John and Paul, you would think that George did nothing but play sitar, take orders, and write the occasional weird song. I’ll say what I always say – the whole of The Beatles was greater than the sum of it’s parts. And the band wouldn’t be the band we love without George. I think most of you will agree, but I wanted to put that to a discussion. What specifically did George contribute – musically or otherwise – to make the band as great as it was? And what do you think they would have been without him? This is one area I wish the Scorcese doc had covered more in depth, btw.
I’ll start with one thing – we may not have had Ringo. The others were interested, but George was the one to champion his becoming a member.
parlance
I recall noting the significant role George played in many songs; the example I gave being suggesting the ‘all the lonely people’ line in Eleanor Rigby , it’s not as good a song without that bit.
As an aside, while there are a lot of good solo songs by all of the fabs, in my mind there are not as many great solo songs because none of them had their mates about to make that crucial extra suggestion.
==> trcanberra and hongkonglady - Together even when not (married for those not in the know!) <==
6.34am
8 November 2012
Offline 
trcanberra said
Answering the actual question – a trio
Still cracks me up.
Okay, reposting over the next few…
parlance
6.37am
8 November 2012
Offline Ben Ramon
12 December 2013 12.39pm
From a musical standpoint, it’s crucial to consider that two of the Beatles’ most enduring albums – Revolver and Abbey Road – owe a huge amount to George’s playing. Think about how much Revolver owes to George’s hard, shimmering tone and Eastern playing style. The only reason George doesn’t seem to figure as heavily guitar-wise in the Beatles’ later output is because the orchestral approach that defined Sgt Peppers’ didn’t call for any lead guitar – having struggled during their early years, he rose to prominence in ’66 and then was pushed down again. By the time he truly came into his own in ’68 and ’69, band relations had broken down too much for him to truly be appreciated as a great lead player.
6.38am
8 November 2012
Offline Inner Light
12 December 2013 12.40pm
Great Topic! Harrison was very important to the group as a whole. His guitar playing has had mixed reactions from many on this site but as McCartney say’s in the LITMW special, they needed a really good guitar player that could solo. He always wrote his solos to fit the song. Not being too flashy but just the right touch which added to their sound. I still feel that George was the most innovative of the four. He was a major factor in merging eastern and western music and bringing Ravi Shankar to the forefront. His unique style and the ability to try out new ways of expressing himself, including the sitar which was a major breakthrough in western music for me is unparalleled. I look at John, Paul and George as the trio. All could sing lead and all were great songwriters. As McCartney has put it, The Beatles were a rectangle and if any of the four corners collapsed, it would not have been the same including Ringo. As his songwriting blossomed, he became in my opinion as good of a songwriter as J&P. His talent as a songwriter was always there but he was not interested in the early days as much and was happy playing lead guitar. Could the group of replaced George with let’s say Clapton, of course but the sound that we know and love would have been majorly altered. George had a very special talent of being able to add frosting and just the right touch to the cake to make a song better and that is what made him in my opinion a necessity and why he was important and had a major impact to the group as a whole.
6.42am
8 November 2012
Offline parlance
12 December 2013 12.54pm
Ben Ramon said
From a musical standpoint, it’s crucial to consider that two of the Beatles’ most enduring albums – Revolver and Abbey Road – owe a huge amount to George’s playing. Think about how much Revolver owes to George’s hard, shimmering tone and Eastern playing style.
Thanks, Ben. You certainly don’t get the sense from most critics/musical scholars that George was instrumental (pardon the pun) in the sound of Revolver .
The only reason George doesn’t seem to figure as heavily guitar-wise in the Beatles’ later output is because the orchestral approach that defined Sgt Peppers’ didn’t call for any lead guitar – having struggled during their early years, he rose to prominence in ’66 and then was pushed down again. By the time he truly came into his own in ’68 and ’69, band relations had broken down too much for him to truly be appreciated as a great lead player.
Great points regarding timing.
Inner Light said
Great Topic! Harrison was very important to the group as a whole. His guitar playing has had mixed reactions from many on this site but as McCartney say’s in the LITMW special, they needed a really good guitar player that could solo. He always wrote his solos to fit the song. Not being too flashy but just the right touch which added to their sound.
I think you hit on a reason why George is often underrated as a guitar player – because he wasn’t flashy. The one guitar solo people often point out as the “greatest” – Taxman – was of course, Paul’s. But there’s much to be said for a soloist who was solid and creative but didn’t overwhelm.
George had a very special talent of being able to add frosting and just the right touch to the cake to make a song better and that is what made him in my opinion a necessity and why he was important and had a major impact to the group as a whole.
Agreed, well said.
parlance
6.43am
8 November 2012
Offline trcanberra
12 December 2013 3.40pm
I totally agree with “George had a very special talent of being able to add frosting and just the right touch to the cake to make a song better and that is what made him in my opinion a necessity and why he was important and had a major impact to the group as a whole.”
Just look at Eleanor Rigby for one – totally different song without him.
6.46am
8 November 2012
Offline Into the Sky with Diamonds
12 December 2013 3.51pm
I agree with everything and everyone.
But “Eleanor Rigby “?
6.48am
8 November 2012
Offline meanmistermustard
12 December 2013 3.52pm
We really could change a few details here and there and it would be Ringo who was being discussed.
Instead of “George had a very special talent of being able to add frosting and just the right touch to the cake to make a song better and that is what made him in my opinion a necessity and why he was important and had a major impact to the group as a whole.”
you get
“Ringo had a very special talent of being able to add frosting and just the right touch to the cake to make a song better and that is what made him in my opinion a necessity and why he was important and had a major impact to the group as a whole.” and it still stands.
I agree with everything said above by the way.
6.50am
8 November 2012
Offline acmac
12 December 2013 3.58pm
I don’t think the Beatles would have become the global phenomenon that they were, or scaled such artistic heights, if you removed any one of them from the equation.
Specifics:
Besides being a solid lead and soloist from the start (without which they couldn’t have got Off The Ground in the first place), I think in later years George’s playing lent tremendous beauty to the Beatles’ sound. I enjoy Paul’s mad, gritty solos as much as anyone, but they’re not the bread and butter of the Beatles’ sound. George’s playing ranged from the subtle to the sublime, always in service to the song, and had a lovely fluidity to it. The triptych of Ringo’s organic drumming, Paul’s melodic bass, and George’s lovely guitar is just killer.
IIRC George also sang most of those thankless and tricky middle harmony parts, and his voice could have a sort of neutral quality that blended really well into the Lennon/McCartney mix. And he grew enormously as a vocalist over the years; he became quite versatile and developed wonderful phrasing and expressiveness.
And of course his songwriting was integral. I tend to prefer John’s and Paul’s songs, personally, but there’s no denying that George’s contributions made everything a lot more interesting. Another facet to the diamond, so to speak, which added depth and variety and and texture to the Beatles’ oeuvre. This is a massive generalization but I think both John and Paul tended to express themselves indirectly; Paul through storytelling and melody and metaphor, John through wordplay, navel-gazing, and sonic weirdness. When a George song comes on, his frankness and honesty is like a breath of fresh air, a palette cleanser that gets your brain moving in a welcome new direction.
And then there’s his importance to their interpersonal dynamic, which is a whole other kettle of wax!
6.51am
8 November 2012
Offline meanmistermustard
12 December 2013 4.11pm
Can i just add that along with Paul’s bass, George’s lead and Ringo’s bass, John’s rhythm guitar was brilliant and just as important. It seems to get overlooked so often but John really was a fabulous rhythm guitarist.
6.53am
8 November 2012
Offline trcanberra
12 December 2013 4.25pm
Into the Sky with Diamonds said
I agree with everything and everyone.
But “Eleanor Rigby “?
From wiki and other sources:
“Harrison came up with the “Ah, look at all the lonely people” hook.”
It makes the song. Just one example of George’s crucial input – there are many more.
6.58am
8 November 2012
Offline Monkey Finger
12 December 2013 5.14pm
acmac said
I don’t think the Beatles would have become the global phenomenon that they were, or scaled such artistic heights, if you removed any one of them from the equation.
I absolutely agree with this.
As for George’s part of the equation, I think he had self-discipline as a musician that the others didn’t have. Not to say the others didn’t work hard, but George didn’t have Paul’s natural ability of being a (seemingly) effortless musician adept at several instruments, nor did he have John’s “quirky artist” wordsmithing skills, although he was capable of writing some clever lyrics as time went on.
In other words, I think since it didn’t come as naturally to him as the others, he worked harder at it and that dedication paid off. To his credit, he wasn’t too intimidated by the Lennon-McCartney juggernaut to the point that he sank into the background and became just a session guitarist for their songs. Instead, he became an even better guitarist and songwriter because of it. “Something ” stands up there as one of the best songs the band ever did, imo.
7.04am
8 November 2012
Offline Atlas
12 December 2013 5.26pm
My two favorite guitar breaks from George are on Taxman ….. And ‘Good Morning’ from Sgt. Pepper .
7.06am
8 November 2012
Offline Ben Ramon
13 December 2013 3.41am
acmac said
IIRC George also sang most of those thankless and tricky middle harmony parts, and his voice could have a sort of neutral quality that blended really well into the Lennon/McCartney mix. And he grew enormously as a vocalist over the years; he became quite versatile and developed wonderful phrasing and expressiveness.
I meant to say this earlier actually. George usually sang the most difficult harmony lines (and wrote some difficult ones as well – witness John’s difficulty with grasping the tonality of the Think For Yourself harmonies). While he wasn’t as strong a lead singer as John or Paul in the early days, they were very lucky to have a lead guitarist with a good ear for fitting his voice into a chord.
I believe it was Elvis Costello that said “George’s guitar breaks weren’t technically mind-blowing or flashy, but you could sing every one of them.” And it’s true. Take, for one of many instances, the opening of Help ! What would it be without those descending low lead guitar lines – not to mention that isolated country jangle just before the verse kicks in?
7.13am
8 November 2012
Offline meanmistermustard
13 December 2013 4.24am
Ben Ramon said
acmac said
IIRC George also sang most of those thankless and tricky middle harmony parts, and his voice could have a sort of neutral quality that blended really well into the Lennon/McCartney mix. And he grew enormously as a vocalist over the years; he became quite versatile and developed wonderful phrasing and expressiveness.
I meant to say this earlier actually. George usually sang the most difficult harmony lines (and wrote some difficult ones as well – witness John’s difficulty with grasping the tonality of the Think For Yourself harmonies). While he wasn’t as strong a lead singer as John or Paul in the early days, they were very lucky to have a lead guitarist with a good ear for fitting his voice into a chord.
I believe it was Elvis Costello that said “George’s guitar breaks weren’t technically mind-blowing or flashy, but you could sing every one of them.” And it’s true. Take, for one of many instances, the opening of Help ! What would it be without those descending low lead guitar lines – not to mention that isolated country jangle just before the verse kicks in?
Here you go. Help ! Take 9 with George’s lead guitar absent, it was overdubbed later.
7.19am
8 November 2012
Offline parlance
13 December 2013 8.16am
meanmistermustard said
We really could change a few details here and there and it would be Ringo who was being discussed.
I agree, but for some reason I’ve found it easier to make the case for Ringo than for George, so I wanted to see how other people would do it.
Here you go. Help ! Take 9 with George’s lead guitar absent, it was overdubbed later.
Aw, listen, it becomes a sweet folk song. Yeah, much better with George’s contribution.
parlance
9.54am
18 December 2012
Offline Great topic, parlance! Thanks for posting the replies.
I haven’t read all of Tune In, but one thing which stands out to me is that it really shows how integral George was to the band’s success. He was as keen as Paul to make sure they were the best band (getting Ringo in, for instance) and even was the one to keep them going at certain points. He was also the trend-setter (first to get the leather gear, first to get an electric guitar, first to grow a moustache, etc.).
I think several of John’s best songs, in particular, would sound very different without George’s contributions and the musical influences and instruments he brought in. We also wouldn’t have the addition of Billy Preston without George.
1 Guest(s)