Paul McCartney explains how George Harrison’s expletive-filled rants benefitted The Beatles

By Rhian Daly

 

The Beatles

 

The Beatles legend confirmed details of his new album release earlier today.

 

Paul McCartney has recalled how George Harrison would get The Beatles out of doing things they didn’t want to do.

 

The Beatles bassist announced earlier today (June 20) he is set to release his first solo album in five years in September.

 

Speaking to Gordon Smart on Radio X, McCartney said: “George would often be the one – when we’d be having to do something we didn’t fancy – who would just go, ‘Why we fucking doing this? What the fuck? What the fuck’s this? I don’t fucking want to do this!’ And then it was like, ‘Yes!’

 

Full Story: http://www.nme.com/news/music/paul-mccartney-explains-george-harrisons-expletive-filled-rants-benefitted-beatles-2341690

George was my kind of man....

I thought he was supposed to have been the laid back one.

44 minutes ago, Emster23 said:

George was my kind of man....

Him & John were The Talent.

Both of their material post Beatles was sublime, supremely talented individuals.

Paul, well just another smiley pop face.

He never did anything that was musically spectacular in his solo career. John & George's best stuff was post Beatles.

Ringo, the less said the better.

Edited June 22, 20188 yr by thaiguzzi

2 hours ago, thaiguzzi said:

Him & John were The Talent.

Both of their material post Beatles was sublime, supremely talented individuals.

Paul, well just another smiley pop face.

He never did anything that was musically spectacular in his solo career. John & George's best stuff was post Beatles.

Ringo, the less said the better.

I totally agree. John and George were not only the real talents in the band, they were also the far deeper souls, and Paul is right up there with Paul Simon, as a white man with little soul. 

Who are these Beatles?

18 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

Who are these Beatles?

A band of 4 who were sent to an inactive post many years ago.  But hey you knew this.

MaCartneys best years were 1970-85 IMO; Notably Band on the run, Wings over America and Mull of Kintyre.

11 minutes ago, evadgib said:

MaCartneys best years were 1970-85 IMO; Notably Band on the run, Wings over America and Mull of Kintyre.

I loved some of his Beatles compositions more than most of his later work.  Except band on the run.  (the song)

23 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

I loved some of his Beatles compositions more than most of his later work.  Except band on the run.  (the song)

His first solo album McCartney was excellent.

2 hours ago, evadgib said:

MaCartneys best years were 1970-85 IMO; Notably Band on the run, Wings over America and Mull of Kintyre.

Wings, the band the Beatles could have been.

54 minutes ago, jayboy said:

Wings, the band the Beatles could have been.

Lennon wouldn't have had a bar of that pop music.

Check out Lennon's How do you sleep from the Imagine album for what he though of McCartney's ability, quote 

The only thing you did is Yesterday

2 hours ago, giddyup said:

Lennon wouldn't have had a bar of that pop music.

Well that just demonstrates his lack of imagination (geddit?)

 

Time to bring on some real expertise on the subject.

 

 

Paul McCartney was and is a genious as a songwriter . He and John has inspired 1000's of artists since the 60's. So why all this negativity ? It will be a sad day in music history when it's all over.

The combination of Lennon-McCartney was magical in the Beatle years even though some of the songs were really composed only by one of the two. Some of Paul's compositions in those years still really stand out imo:
And I Love Her

Eleanor Rigby

I Will

Things We Said Today

Hey Jude

Back in the USSR

Carry That Weight

Got to Get You into my Life

and of course with John Lennon - A Day in The Life, etc. 

But after Band on the Run has he composed anything of note?

It seems to me he needed the abrasion, pessimism and rage of Lennon to balance his own tendency to slip into  sentimentality and cheesy pop songs.

Having said that, one can only admire his ability to keep touring and pumping out the numbers at the age of 76. An incredible achievement.

 

 

50 minutes ago, bannork said:

The combination of Lennon-McCartney was magical in the Beatle years even though some of the songs were really composed only by one of the two. Some of Paul's compositions in those years still really stand out imo:
And I Love Her

Eleanor Rigby

I Will

Things We Said Today

Hey Jude

Back in the USSR

Carry That Weight

Got to Get You into my Life

and of course with John Lennon - A Day in The Life, etc. 

But after Band on the Run has he composed anything of note?

It seems to me he needed the abrasion, pessimism and rage of Lennon to balance his own tendency to slip into  sentimentality and cheesy pop songs.

Having said that, one can only admire his ability to keep touring and pumping out the numbers at the age of 76. An incredible achievement.

 

 

This is pretty good, isn't it? George Martin the great producer thought that in Wanderlust Paul's voice as at its finest.

 

 

I have always liked the song "Blackbird".  I guess it's on the "White Album".  Somewhere around here, I have a copy of the White Album I got for about $2 USD at a flea market perhaps 20 years ago.  Perfect condition with the four (5" x 7"?) photographs. 

Jeez, I forgot Mother Nature's Son. 

On 6/22/2018 at 8:50 AM, thaiguzzi said:

Him & John were The Talent.

Both of their material post Beatles was sublime, supremely talented individuals.

Paul, well just another smiley pop face.

He never did anything that was musically spectacular in his solo career. John & George's best stuff was post Beatles.

Ringo, the less said the better.

Respectfully disagree about Paul and RIngo. "I'm looking through you" has some of their best lines, esp "love has a nasty habit of disappearing overnight". They all had a role and contribution to make in different areas that resulted in sum greater than the parts. Paul was star lust driven, and lots of his tunes were too cutesy for my taste, but to each their own. Ringo was the normal bloke that kept them anchored a tad considering the unprecedented acclaim and chaos that came. I loved Ringos comment at end of big ABC multi night Beatles history, when he said (more or less) "People need to know we were a pretty tight rock and roll band".

In spite of all the cultural baggage laid on them, first and foremost they were just a group of 4 guys trying to make it in the music business

I was just never a Beatles fan.  Never liked them, nor what they stood for. Too smarmy, too nice.
Back in those days you were either Beatles or Stones. Not both.

Me, i'm a big fan of the Rolling Stones...

 Sympathy For The Devil - yeeeeaaaahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

13 minutes ago, thaiguzzi said:

I was just never a Beatles fan.  Never liked them, nor what they stood for. Too smarmy, too nice.
Back in those days you were either Beatles or Stones. Not both.

Me, i'm a big fan of the Rolling Stones...

 Sympathy For The Devil - yeeeeaaaahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

The Stones were threatened by the Beatles after the release of Sergeant Pepper (what band wasn't), that's why they released "Their Satanic Majesties Request". Even the cover is a SP ripoff.

 

Upon its release, Satanic Majesties received mixed reactions from critics and members of the group itself.^[6] The album was criticised as being derivative of the contemporaneous work of the Beatles, particularly their June 1967 release Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, with the similarities extending to the LP's lenticular cover.^[7][8][9] In subsequent decades, however, it has gradually risen in critical reputation. Following the album's release, the Rolling Stones abandoned their psychedelic style for a stripped-down return to their roots in blues music.

Edited June 23, 20188 yr by giddyup

On 6/22/2018 at 8:50 AM, thaiguzzi said:

Ringo, the less said the better.

Why is it always the drummer?

 

Ah, A Beatles versus The Stones debate coming on.

Personally I always found Sgt Peppers overrated apart from A Day in The Life and Within You and Without You. To this day I still prefer Revolver.

Satanic Majesties had a couple of great songs.

 

 

9 minutes ago, bannork said:

Ah, A Beatles versus The Stones debate coming on.

Personally I always found Sgt Peppers overrated apart from A Day in The Life and Within You and Without You.

 

 

 

Sergeant Pepper overrated? It was totally innovative and set the music world on it's ear. It blew me away (and millions of others) first time I heard it. As good as they might be the Stones never had that kind of impact and they were influenced enough by it to try and emulate it's success with Satanic Majesties. The Stones were then and are now a good rock band, nothing more.

Edited June 23, 20188 yr by giddyup

Stones were good but not in the same league as The Beatles. I am talking about the pure pop scene here . What they did was an inspiration for so many musicians through the years.

6 hours ago, thaiguzzi said:

I was just never a Beatles fan.  Never liked them, nor what they stood for. Too smarmy, too nice.
Back in those days you were either Beatles or Stones. Not both.

Me, i'm a big fan of the Rolling Stones...

 Sympathy For The Devil - yeeeeaaaahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

Without the beatles they may have been no Rolling Stones, Lennon and McCartney wrote their first hit 'I wanna be your man'

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/inside-the-making-of-the-beatles-sgt-pepper-w484129

The above is an interesting article.

For those TV members who were young enough at the time to remember the sixties, the feeling of excitement and anticipation when a new Beatles album was coming out was something quite memorable.

What a time to be young!

And Sgt Peppers was 'far out' especially with tracks like Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, A Day in The Life Within You Without You. But who remembers the other tracks? Joe Cocker made With A Little Help from My Friends his own.

The Beatles had turned away from touring for very good reasons and Sgt Peppers was never meant to be played live.

Yet at the same time Pink Floyd produced the amazing  Piper at the Gates of Dawn they were touring,  playing the album live, experimenting with sounds.

And with the addition of Mick Taylor The Stones could rock with the best as well as make studio classics.

 

 

On 6/23/2018 at 12:12 PM, giddyup said:

Sergeant Pepper overrated? It was totally innovative and set the music world on it's ear. It blew me away (and millions of others) first time I heard it. As good as they might be the Stones never had that kind of impact and they were influenced enough by it to try and emulate it's success with Satanic Majesties. The Stones were then and are now a good rock band, nothing more.

A if here.If Geoge Martine had not produced Sargeant Pepper ,what would it have been like ,a good LP .for sure.

Lisened and watched to some documentaries on SP ,it was him that made it what it was . IMO.