Log In
Register
9.25pm
Reviewers
1 November 2013
Offline
mja6758 said
IveJustSeenAFaceo said
@DrBeatle How’d you get that SoundCloud embedded? Could be useful for sharing music I’ve made.Sorry, but isn’t that a PM?
Right. Thanks.
(This signature brought to you by Net Boy and Net Girl. Putting messages in modems since 1996.)
12.34pm
10 August 2011
Offline Dr. Beatle, great clip. Someone even throws in “screwdriver”
(This is like playing ‘Mad libs’ where you throw in arbitrary words to fill in the blanks in a paragraph)
"Into the Sky with Diamonds" (the Beatles and the Race to the Moon – a history)
2.29pm
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline 
I know, it’s pretty funny (and fun!) to hear them all just tossing words out to help George 😆 Shows that when all the bullshit wasn’t right in front of them, they were still the same as always.
"I know you, you know me; one thing I can tell you is you got to be free!"
Please Visit My Website, The Rock and Roll Chemist
Twitter: @rocknrollchem
Facebook: rnrchemist
12.42am
24 April 2013
Offline Billy Rhythm said
Focusing on there being some sort of wedge between John & George is just another case of the press playing up something not all that spectacular into something that it’s not to sell a story, the same “wedge” came between John, Paul & Ringo as well, and it’s called maturing as a human being. Sure, George was a “junior member” when he first joined as a teenager and readily accepted while flourishing in that role. He then emerged into his own, within a fantastic lifestyle that no one could have dreamed of when he first joined the group. John showed George some support with coming into his own, it certainly wasn’t a project of his to take George “under his wing”, but he did whatever he could whenever he could to encourage him. During the years of George’s emergence as a composer in his own right, John was disinterested in The Beatles generally and I don’t see any reason to single out his “disinterest” in George’s work, unless of course it’s to sell a book or TV Special.
You make a great deal of sense, and what you wrote here bears repeating.
12.57pm
22 December 2013
Offline Seems that by the mid-late 1970’s, the John vs. Paul story had fizzled and become tiresome and so it became John vs. George. I always felt that John’s comments (and George’s) regarding George’s autobiography were highly sensationalized as well. The press zoned in on the word “hurt” with John’s comments about not being included, but John used that word a lot before, listen to his comments about Mick Jagger and the Stones during the 1970 ‘Rolling Stone’ interview and he uses the same word to describe how he felt at that particular moment, yet they still remained good friends afterwards. Not that George needed to explain himself, the book IS called ‘I Me Mine ‘ for a reason for it’s a George Harrison book, not a Beatles book. After Lennon’s death, the journalists then ran with the Paul vs. George dynamic throughout the 1980s which was about a whole lot of nothing as well.
John & George’s relationship may have been strained at times, but I feel as though it was because they were a lot more alike on some levels than people generally acknowledge, thus there are periods where they were closer to one another than any of the others were to each other, but like all “partnerships” where the parties are too much alike they find themselves distancing themselves from each other as far away as possible at times as well. The lengthy period where John & George stayed in India after Paul & Ringo left is a good example, and it’s on the spiritual plane that they shared the most in common. They were committed, not only to the Maharishi, but to each other back then and I believe that the ‘Dentist Incident’ which began their intimate spiritual journey together without the others a few years before came around full circle at this time. When they returned to London, John & George would then amicably go in completely different directions in life for the rest of their days.
The press are always going to run with the negative for happy print makes for a boring newspaper. They never talk about John, Yoko & George hanging out for the premiere of the 1971 ‘Raga’ film in New York City because they supposedly were feuding. While their lives may have no longer been compatible with each other’s to maintain daily contact like before, they met up when they could and I believe that they had the deepest respect for one another and much of it was unspoken. The press, however, can’t sell “unspoken”…:-)
The following people thank Billy Rhythm for this post:
Lennonista1.14pm
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline The thing is, just because you don’t like the thought of it, you can’t deny that there was a wedge between them. I mean, only random schmoes like Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr , among others, have all confirmed it. Maybe it wasn’t as bad as some people think, but it was definitely real.
"I know you, you know me; one thing I can tell you is you got to be free!"
Please Visit My Website, The Rock and Roll Chemist
Twitter: @rocknrollchem
Facebook: rnrchemist
3.00am
18 December 2012
Offline Billy Rhythm said
Seems that by the mid-late 1970’s, the John vs. Paul story had fizzled and become tiresome and so it became John vs. George. I always felt that John’s comments (and George’s) regarding George’s autobiography were highly sensationalized as well. The press zoned in on the word “hurt” with John’s comments about not being included, but John used that word a lot before, listen to his comments about Mick Jagger and the Stones during the 1970 ‘Rolling Stone’ interview and he uses the same word to describe how he felt at that particular moment, yet they still remained good friends afterwards. Not that George needed to explain himself, the book IS called ‘I Me Mine ‘ for a reason for it’s a George Harrison book, not a Beatles book. After Lennon’s death, the journalists then ran with the Paul vs. George dynamic throughout the 1980s which was about a whole lot of nothing as well.
John & George’s relationship may have been strained at times, but I feel as though it was because they were a lot more alike on some levels than people generally acknowledge, thus there are periods where they were closer to one another than any of the others were to each other, but like all “partnerships” where the parties are too much alike they find themselves distancing themselves from each other as far away as possible at times as well. The lengthy period where John & George stayed in India after Paul & Ringo left is a good example, and it’s on the spiritual plane that they shared the most in common. They were committed, not only to the Maharishi, but to each other back then and I believe that the ‘Dentist Incident’ which began their intimate spiritual journey together without the others a few years before came around full circle at this time. When they returned to London, John & George would then amicably go in completely different directions in life for the rest of their days.
The press are always going to run with the negative for happy print makes for a boring newspaper. They never talk about John, Yoko & George hanging out for the premiere of the 1971 ‘Raga’ film in New York City because they supposedly were feuding. While their lives may have no longer been compatible with each other’s to maintain daily contact like before, they met up when they could and I believe that they had the deepest respect for one another and much of it was unspoken. The press, however, can’t sell “unspoken”…:-)
I think a lot of what you say is true. George in fact mentioned John more than anyone else in I Me Mine . John was slightly miffed that George didn’t give him credit for coming up with the sitar idea for Norwegian Wood or something, which is a bit silly because George had actually given him credit for it in interviews, and like he says in that interview on Page 1, John never mentioned how much George helped him with a lot of his songs.
I always see people use that John line as proof that they had fallen out, but they never mention this bit:
“You see, I am slightly resentful of George’s book, but don’t get me wrong—-I still love those guys. The Beatles are over, but John, Paul, George and Ringo go on. I mean, just because I’m upset about George’s book doesn’t mean that’s all I feel. Do you understand? I like them and it’s over. Get it? [Laughing] I don’t want to start another whole thing between me and George just because of the way I feel today. Tomorrow I will feel absolutely differently. It’s not important, anyway. I don’t feel that or anything only about him or any of them. It’s very complicated and there are a lot of mixed emotions about all of them. That’s why it’s difficult to say anything. I don’t want to come off niggling. It’s stupid inasmuch as the repercussions are not worth some sort of offhand remarks about each other.” – John Lennon , Playboy (1980)
It’s fair to say George and John had their issues, and John could certainly be very cruel to George, but I think there was something very deep about their relationship.
The following people thank bewareofchairs for this post:
Starr Shine?, Lennonista3.23am
24 April 2013
Offline 
Billy Rhythm said
John & George’s relationship may have been strained at times, but I feel as though it was because they were a lot more alike on some levels than people generally acknowledge, thus there are periods where they were closer to one another than any of the others were to each other, but like all “partnerships” where the parties are too much alike they find themselves distancing themselves from each other as far away as possible at times as well. The lengthy period where John & George stayed in India after Paul & Ringo left is a good example, and it’s on the spiritual plane that they shared the most in common. They were committed, not only to the Maharishi, but to each other back then and I believe that the ‘Dentist Incident’ which began their intimate spiritual journey together without the others a few years before came around full circle at this time. When they returned to London, John & George would then amicably go in completely different directions in life for the rest of their days
Excellent points. John and George actually had a lot in common and it gave them a special connection, an understanding. They were both rebels by nature, much more so than the other two, and they both admitted to anger issues. George said that he admired John because he “never took any $*** from anyone” (or very close words to that effect), and even May has said that George and John didn’t stay mad at each other for long. They may not have been the besties of besties, but, like you said, “John & George would then amicably go in completely different directions in life for the rest of their days.”
But I don’t think it’s just the press that likes to capitalize on this notion that there was a major issue between John and George (or Paul and George or Ringo and Paul or… [fill in the Beatle blank].) For some reason, there are fans who are invested in promoting the thought. Yet, many inner circle people – Cynthia, Klaus, Astrid, Pete – have acknowledged the brotherly love they had for each other.
I’m not sure what the OP meant by “What did John ever do for George?” From the first post, it seems the question is about the musical contributions John provided for George. There are many that none of us will ever know, I’m sure. (Just like there are many ways George helped John’s music that we’ll never know about.) But I think it’s impossible to quantify the importance of John in George’s life. (And vice versa!) John was a tremendous influence on him. Tom Petty and many others who knew George well have said that he looked up to John, which I think was especially crucial in George’s development because of that shared rebellious nature of theirs. I’m sure there is so much more, but not having been a fly on the wall, none of us could know for sure.
The following people thank Lennonista for this post:
bewareofchairs3.33am
24 April 2013
Offline bewareofchairs said
I always see people use that John line as proof that they had fallen out, but they never mention this bit:“You see, I am slightly resentful of George’s book, but don’t get me wrong—-I still love those guys. The Beatles are over, but John, Paul, George and Ringo go on. I mean, just because I’m upset about George’s book doesn’t mean that’s all I feel. Do you understand? I like them and it’s over. Get it? [Laughing] I don’t want to start another whole thing between me and George just because of the way I feel today. Tomorrow I will feel absolutely differently. It’s not important, anyway. I don’t feel that or anything only about him or any of them. It’s very complicated and there are a lot of mixed emotions about all of them. That’s why it’s difficult to say anything. I don’t want to come off niggling. It’s stupid inasmuch as the repercussions are not worth some sort of offhand remarks about each other.” – John Lennon , Playboy (1980)
Thank you for posting that whole quote. By 1980, John had done a lot of reflection. Imagine if he had lived at least as long as George… his words would have mellowed even more. It’s such a shame that some people have focused only on the “scandalousness” of some of the stuff he said. John was a big mouth… which is one of the reasons so many of us love him, but which also caused many of his problems, as we well know.
5.39am
17 October 2013
Offline I did envisage more information regarding contributions John may have made to George’s songs…..But I can’t complain how the thread is working out. I’m still learning stuff.
4.09pm
22 December 2013
Offline While on the outside it may not look as obvious to us that John “encouraged” George in his playing/songwriting, John’s role was more of a “distant observer” who would allow for George to roam more freely, whereas Paul would be quick to step in and dictate what to, and what not to play. George probably appreciated that from John and it likely gave him confidence in developing his craft for he clearly grew annoyed with Paul’s direct approach at “helping” him. I like the ‘Imagine ‘ footage a lot where George arrives and it gives you a nice glimpse of just how well they worked together:
George’s playing, rubbing Paul’s nose in it aside, is what really elevates ‘How Do You Sleep?’ from a good one into a great one and it was simply a matter of John allowing for George to do what George does best. Perhaps this is why you don’t see much of a heavy Lennon “influence” in George’s songs because he would just step aside and allow for George to shine, and the results suggest that this was absolutely the right approach…:-)
12.50am
24 April 2013
Offline Great example. It brings to mind what Lewisohn wrote in Tune In about the way John handled letting George into the Quarrymen.
It says a great deal for John’s leadership style— a kind of benign maneuvering— that he’d allowed Paul to suggest the addition of George and Duff, and now he let the new and youngest boy (“a bloody kid”) wield the ax over a founder member, John’s old Quarry Bank schoolfriend.
And, of course, that quote also addresses probably the most important thing “John ever did for George”: he let him into his band! He “allowed” it to happen because, guided by his intuition as he mostly was, John knew it was the right creative move.
1 Guest(s)