Why didn't Paul write and record with George after 1970?

I heard Aunt Jessie had to eat a whole case of digestive biscuits after eating all that spaghetti.

 

Also, the overall Beatle dynamic broke down because of the absence of John - the flow, if you will, between the four.

There was a magic that was there (and has been spoken of by observers) that was only there when all four of them were together in one place.

 

I think it's also important not to let our own biases or existing theories influence our interpretation of the available evidence. And to not try too hard to fill in the blanks when we don't have enough evidence. George never said that he felt lingering deep-seated bitterness, anger, and resentment towards McCartney. To my knowledge, none of his friends or family have ever said that he expressed those feelings to them. I don't think the few moments we see of them interacting in the Anthology are sufficient to draw much of any conclusions about their offscreen relationship, considering we don't see what happened immediately before or after the scenes presented, or know what they said to each other privately during the same time period. I don't think it's "walking away from the question" to caution against making broad inferences based on insufficient data.

I get the sense there was something of a "nothing's sacred" attitude between the Beatles in their interactions with each other. I don't know about McCartney, but I doubt Lennon would have hesitated to mock George's religious beliefs to his face in a joking manner. McCartney has never said that he was hurt or offended by any of George's statements or actions during the reunion, has he?

 

I'm sure someone already asked this...

Why didn't Paul write with George before 1970?

 

John wouldn't let him ...

 

Your point about drawing conclusions based on limited information is well taken when I consider the fact that I sure wouldn't want someone doing it to me. Thankfully I'll never be even vaguely important enough for that.

I would tend to disagree on the "nothing's sacred" front. Yoko certainly seems to have been a sacred topic. Is there any indication that any of the other 3 ever had a conversation with John about her omnipresence? Could one of the other Beatles make a joke at her expense? "Hear Me Lord"'s brief (single day) appearance at a Beatles session seems to be met mostly with uncomfortable silence and changing of the subject. I don't get the impression that the lads had discussions about religion - I think the other 3 just tolerated George's beliefs and ignored them when they could.

 

Again, that's a joke, and George was difficult for the whole interview.

 

Was you talkin bout, Willis??

 

It's Ravi's fault.

According to You Never Give Me Your Money book, George had said @ one point that Paul was "20 years too late" when Paul wanted to write
with him in the 90's. They got as far as one song for the Beatles Anthology. "All For Love" or something of the like, unfinished and/or unreleased.

 

I think that was just George being George, though. I recall a radio interview when he was pushing Cloud 9. He strummed and answered. Sometimes playing over the question being asked. Generally seeming uninterested in being there. I was shocked at his lack of enthusiasm.

 

Yeah, you're probably right about that. I wonder if wives/relationships in general were off limits? I don't know of any reported instance of any one of them saying something negative (joking or serious) about another's significant other.

 

FWIW, in his anecdote about helping George with "Taxman", John says "He came to me because he couldn’t go to Paul. Paul wouldn’t have helped him in that period." So it was likely due at least in part to lack of interest by Paul.

The existence of "All For Love" is derived from much rumor/speculation and very little evidence. If a unique song by that name even exists (which seems unlikely) there is zero evidence that it was cowritten by Paul and George.

 

I didn't feel this way at all, in fact quite the opposite. For me, he tied it all together (and where - and for long - in the set he appeared suggests they all thought so too). And I didn't see any static between he and Ringo, Clapton, Lynne, Preston or anybody else. And I thought it was great that he played ATMP - 1969 was many years before and, after all, Harrison was probably better off for the Beatles not putting what would probably have been a much weaker version on what ended up being Let it Be.

 

Without any question marks, it's not entirely clear what you mean by this, but if, as I assume you do, you mean McCartney might not have tried hard enough, it's surely an odd way of looking at the issue. McCartney's the most successful songwriter in the world, as well as one of the two great songwriters and creative forces within The Beatles. If anyone should've been 'putting effort' into them working together, and making 'follow up efforts,' it should have been George. The idea of McCartney pleading with George, well, take away the personal history and think: what other musician with a similar solo track record as George would have made McCartney invest lots of effort into trying to start a collaboration? Peter Frampton?

 

And they were George's biscuits, too. Everyone helped themselves to George's biscuits. That's why he was always so thin.

 

I was thinking about this when listening to 'What's The New Mary Jane' the other day. Obviously I used to think it was some recreational smoking reference, but the lines about getting an apple contract and 'pain at the party' actually made me wonder if it's some kind of Jane Asher/Mary Hopkin snipe at Paul?

Truth is that we'll never know how many little lyrical jibes were included at each other's expense - it certainly happened after the break up, so why not before? These are all the kind of things that go towards building up the complex personal relationships that'll we will simply never really understand.

I've got old friends that I used to be in a band with through a similar period of life and it is kind of like 'army buddies' or whatever - shared expereinces that mean there will always be a connection. doesn't mean I want to go out of my way to meet them or work with them, but if I was in the same town or visiting where they lived I'd probably make the effort to say hi.

 

The thing is, most of us have old friends and acquaintances with whom we're not entirely comfortable these days, and some of them maybe we'd niggle each other a bit when encountering them again, but I suspect most of us, in such circumstances, don't have camera crews recording the event.

When, for example, George stays sitting down and waits for Paul to bend down and embrace him in that Anthology footage (and I think it's significant that it happens several times in footage from that period - George makes McCartney go over to him, still seated, to embrace him, while George accepts it, or tolerates it, with an air of cold superiority), and then, in another sequence, when he makes the joke/sneer about the jacket, there's a camera on them. He's not in private, teasing a mate, he's letting another scene in their public life be played out to McCartney's discomfort.

 

RE: 'Two Of Us', John never even answered/acknowledged the question.

He was still responding to 'Don't Let Me Down' when Sheff asked about 'Two Of Us', and by the time John had finished his reply, Sheff had moved on to 'You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)'.

Chip Madinger
www.lennonology.com

 

Great Chip, thank you for clearing that up for us!

Ray

 

Didn't one of the Beatles also say that she smelled?

 

The British type of humor of "taking the piss out of each other" doesn't translate well over the Atlantic. It can came across as "mean", and often actually is, but it's still treated as "humor".

 

You are absolutely right. We don't have camera crews recording our meetings with old friends, etc.

However, I always had the impression that, after the breakup, Harrison slightly overplayed his dimissive attitude towards McCartney being possibly aware of how conscious Paul is about his public image/reputation, etc.

I suspect he may have not been so distant when the camera crews were away. If he chose McCartney's house somewhere in the US for his final days, that says a lot about how close he really felt to Paul.

 

When you're in a band you're naturally forced to be in proximity with people that you normally might not even be in contact with again after graduation from school. These guys were together as a band since the late 1950s - squeezed closer during the Beatlemania years in a pressure cooker. Add to that creative rivalries and dispute within the creative process of the group. And then they were chained together through business contracts and a corporate partnership afterwards until the day George died.

The things they used to appreciate about each other get lost or fade as each year of interaction goes on, and the annoying things become more and more annoying to the point of being intolerable, though it's possible to cycle back to square one.

 

As I recall he did.
The tension during Anthology was commented upon (i think it was a MOJO interview)-----with McCartney saying that even agreeing to work with "George's boyfriend" (Jeff Lynne) wasn't enough to ease relations.

 

I wonder if Paul had invited George to play on "Get It" and jam with Carl Perkins during Tug of War, would George have done it? Maybe Carl could have lured George into a session with Paul because in that scenario they are both the schoolboys at the feet of their hero rather than George going out of his way to be a "sideman" to Paul again. And then if that went well maybe George would have played on "Wanderlust" as well just for fun.