Why did George Harrison walk out during Let it Be?

I know many people thought it was because of McCartney but I've read it was Lennon. Does anyone have any very specific examples of this, such as unreleased audio from the Let it Be sessions?

 

Check out Doug Sulpy and Ray Schweighardt's Get Back: The Unauthorized Chronicle of The Beatles' Let It Be Disaster (previously published as Drugs, Divorce and a Slipping Image. They paraphrase the events of the Get Back audio in great detail; ad far as unreleased audio, some of the events of January 10, 1969, the day George left circulate - I'd guess there may even be snippets on youtube.

 

Was he muttering "What we've got here is...failure to communicate." ?

 

If I recall correctly Lennon and Harrison had an argument over Yoko's presence (it's been awhile since I've read about the events) and they got into a fist fight at one point over this.

 

Imagine all 135 pounds of Lennon blazing fists at Harrison? Perhaps it was too slight to register on camera?

 

This thread has been repeated too many times to count.

 

There was no fistfight.

 

I might be the most ignorant forum member when it comes to Beatles details. But I would like to know, is there any footage of the fight?

 

Thanks.

 

Is this topic a normally touchy subject?

 

I found a review of that book below which discusses George walking out. Here is a portion of the review


"This book also assumes to show that George left the group because of John and not Paul and treat this as if it is indeed some sort of fact. But the truth is, the tapes that lead up to George leaving are missing, so it is impossible for them to simply assume this because of the actions of Lennon against Harrison, which are very evident, but which did not cause Harrison to immediately leave. They state that Paul is helpful, cheerful, etc., in the tapes, so he must not have really been the cause, ignoring the very real fact that Harrison himself said Paul was the reason he left. Just because Paul acted better than John in the tapes that people have does not mean he did not do something atrociously inappropriate in the missing tapes that preceeded George leaving. They say the myth is debunked, and I see no such thing. I've never heard McCartney ever say that it was John and not him that caused Harrison to leave, which is something he would seem to say since he is the always the culprit in the story.

Also, the authors seem to suggest Paul was much nicer than John in this respect, but that fails to explain if he was, why Harrison was brutal in referencing to Paul after the Beatles broke up, with quotes like he would join a band with Lennon anytime but would never join a band with McCartney. So since the tapes leading up to the quitting are missing, and Harrison himself said it was Paul, and his anger about Paul after the Beatles, I think it is safe to assume there was a big blow-up in the missing tapes between Paul and George. The authors try to excuse McCartney, making Lennon the villian. And it is true, Lennon is quite nasty in "Let It Be" to George, but that is no reason to say Paul is innocent. They both are not too nice. But Harrison's attitude is just as well to blame. Lennon could not have missed the dagger thrown at him in "I Me Mine," and we all know how Lennon reacts to such things, as we saw when Paul did the same thing to"

 

I try to do a search but came up empty

 

Aren't some of the tapes from that day missing?

 

The search system leaves a lot to wade through, I know.

 

Yeah, from what I remember, a large chunk of that day's tapes have not turned up. And, as others have noted, there's nothing to substantiate that John and George ever came to blows, at least not in January, 1969.

 

Is there any documentation of any Beatle ever striking another Beatle? Like I said, I'm ignorant in such matters. I've only been told that John beat someone up when accused of relations with Brian Epstein.

 

They shut the tape off shortly after George walked out. You can hear him (in the tape) say "that's it, I'm no longer a Beatle".
This was right after they had returned from a lunch break where, presumably, John downed a few drinks. The rest of the day's session, minus George, John is louder and more of a presence than he has been through all the days in the project so far. He plays a lot of distorted guitar while Yoko does her atonal wailing, and sings part of the Who song "A Quick One".
What happened at lunch is that John said that he was bringing Yoko into the group. It wasn't discussed, he declared it to be his decision. John did not mention this day in particular in his infamous Rolling Stone interview of 1970 (published 1971), but he did say of the LIB sessions that he tried to bring Yoko into the group, and the others weren't ready for it.
George did mention what happened in an "Earth Radio News" broadcast, where he is interviewed by (of all people) Elliot Mintz. George specifically said that there was no way he was going to be in the Beatles if it also included Yoko Ono.

 

I recall an interview with George talking about Let It Be. He had been hanging out with Dylan and The Band, and producing other people's music. The sessions start and in George's words " my winter of discontent". The good vibe was gone, the old wounds opened up again. Throw in the Yoko angle, the documented argument with Paul on film on playing...or not playing. I'm surprised he came back.

 

What year was the interview?

 

Based on the tapes, it seemed that Paul was doing something that annoyed him far more than what John did. Paul told George what to do, whereas John ignored him. Paul's behavior evolved over the years, as did George's skills as a musician. On the other hand, John seemed to have always been somewhat dismissive of George. Plus, in contrast with Paul, George viewed John as a mentor or even "superior" going all the way back to when they first met. He didn't view Paul that way. So Paul's instructions were far more likely to be a sore spot for George, while Lennon's disregard (and general detachment overall in Jan 69) was not entire out of character, and not out of bounds in their relationship. As someone else mentioned, the tape leading up to George leaving is missing, or never existed, so we don't know if it was primarily a Paul thing or a John thing.

 

Does anyone know what interview George said he would never be in a band with McCartney again but would play with Lennon?

I'm guessing this interview would be before the Bangladesh incident?

 

Really scratching my head, but possibly some Anthology footage. Shame George just couldn't have said....having a ball working with others, and ENJOYING it. Went back, walked into this crap(again). Working on a soundstage in the morning hours didn't exactly work well with them either!

 

George had some words with Paul about mixed messages in regard to his guitar playing on one of Paul's songs. It's part of the movie. George essentially says "just tell me what you want, I'll do it". Anyone who's ever been in a band has had this discussion on some level, this incident is hardly a big deal. Whatever problem George had with Paul, he could at least communicate with him. John was unreachable most of the time, devoting his attention to Yoko, playing head games with the others while he hid behind her. Frustrating for George, at least.
George changed the story a bit to "a problem with Paul" when the battle for Apple began with John, George and Ringo forming a bloc.

 

Plus the heroin use

 

I'm swiftly catching my bearings here in this topic (likely my first Beatles topic). I'm not going to be a willing burden on the flow, my introductory comments reveal my critical assumption that John always relied on George to shoulder John's personality. I assumed it was a given.

I always perceived George to be the rockingest guy of the bunch despite rock not being his nature. I always felt that spoke to the willingness of George to make the Beatles happen. I didn't see that in the rest of the gang.

The idea of George and John coming to blows without serious drink struck me as science fiction. I still can't get my head around George deferring to John as a mentor guitarist. I've never heard a lead guitar solo from John that didn't sound like rhythm guitar imitating lead (and I love John's music more than any other Beatle). George on the other hand laid out everything the Beatles needed and never seemed to return to any of that hard rock after the Beatles split. I grew to resent him for years just because he wouldn't rock.

Anyway, I'll relax and observe this conversation.