Why did George Harrison walk out during Let it Be?

I've read enough of the books that I should know this, but I'm not sure. Still, I'm going to say, yes, they did have a contract to deliver X number of albums? Then Klein renegotiated the deal a few months later, giving them a better percentage per album and adding more albums on the back end?

 

Having managed a number of bands - some famous - and seen all sort of blow-outs and whatnot, I've always imagined that the truth is probably something along of the lines of George getting sick of years of John's fart jokes, or Paul's habit of clipping his toenails in the studio, or something like that.

You'd be surprised at the true inanity of these arguments, and how regularly they're spun into legendary distortions with no basis in reality - especially by the primary people involved. The Beatles had weird pressures, and we'll never honestly know.

 

Like a marriage.

But like a marriage, that's all just a manifestation of underlying problems. No one ever got a divorce just because they couldn't stand their partner's toenail clipping habits.

 

"Blessed are the cheesemakers? What's so special about them?"

Just couldn't help the Monty Python reference here, but there is a George connection, so what the heck...

 

^^

Nice one, mate.

 

It has always struck me as odd and how irked George always was at Paul at the end and for 30 yrs post-Beatles. It appears as if no single person in the world could irritate Harrison as much as the guy who basically got him in the band. In light of the fact that it was Paul who wanted the Beatles to continue and at least saw fit to work on George's songs, why did he come in for such harsh treatment while John got essentially a free pass from George? John never gave George the time of day, never showed up to record for George's songs, was badly drugged up by 1969, had a domineering wife adding to the bad vibe, bashed George repeatedly in the press (even the nerve to slam All Things Must Pass) right up to the end in the Playboy interview. John clearly regarded George as inferior, and for all his differences with McCartney, Lennon at least appreciated that Paul was a power broker and acknowledged that he was an accomplished songwriter and musician.

Obviously McCartney was bossy, demanding, etc, but at least he worked on While My Guitar, Something, Here Comes the Sun and other classics. I get that he viewed working on these as a necessary evil and would only bother after yet another take of another pop song he insisted upon, but again, vs. Lennon who treated George better? Thank goodness McCartney did take the reins the last few years, the albums that survive today justify any means. It is too bad he never got one ounce of gratitude from George for his efforts. Perhaps a lot of the later ill will was the myriad of lawsuits with Paul on one side v. the other three, but even there time has proved Paul prescient and the others clearly blind to Klein's wheeling and dealing. Perhaps McCartney's vast financial fortunes turned George bitter, hence the Anthology project. All in all a real shame. I love George, but don't understand why the lifelong resentment of Paul McCartney.

 

In all that I've read and heard about the decline of the group, your conclusion (though I think too harshly concerning Abbey Road) sums up succinctly what John was doing during this time. Through the annoying, passive-agressive crap he was pulling, he did a yeoman's job of pissing his bandmates off and straining their relationship to the breaking point. He knew what he was doing, hoping that the band would fall apart around him. Based on what could be seen and heard from the Get Back sessions, I'm surprised that Paul, George or Ringo didn't up and tell him to cut the $h!t and start acting like a human being... or just get out, and take the wailing shrew with you. He ultimately did summon the courage to say it out in the open, but it was an ugly time getting there. Very sad, and I suspect that, as he was quietly collecting Beatles memorabilia in the years after the breakup he didn't at least once feel regret for how he behaved.

 

I don't think any of us can ever know the real story; only the actual participants know the true details. I suspect the reality was that McCartney and Harrison had kind of an "older brother/younger brother" relationship, and I think there were many years of resentment that built up over a thousand slights (real or perceived).

Don't forget that Harrison also never wanted to work with George Martin again. And Martin had rejected young George's songs dozens and dozens of times on many albums. Martin admits in his autobiography that he deeply regretted minimizing Harrison's songwriting efforts on Beatles albums.

I always thought that Harrison's life was a mass of contradictions. On the one hand, he preached philosophy and peace; on the other hand, he did tons of drugs and had scores of women. He immersed himself in Eastern religions and spoke against getting seduced by the material world, but owned a half-dozen expensive race cars and had mansions in five countries. He preached about love and kindness, while ignoring his wife and allowing her to cheat with his best friend. He contemplated spiritual pursuits and meditation, but smoke so much over the years he eventually got throat cancer. He had a terrific sense of humor, loved Monty Python, but held a grudge against Paul McCartney for more than 20 years.

Brilliant man, but a mass of contradictions.

 

I think it had as much to do with jealousy that Paul had such a close working relationship and friendship with John and John for years couldn't be bothered with George.

 

Most of these things aren't contradictions.

 

They really aren't, I agree. But there are many people who view things that way, and who believe that if your life isn't a perfect example of behavior for everyone, that you have no right to speak of values or philosophize.

 

I agree with this assessment, and I think it helps explain why in so many of Lennon's post-Beatles interviews, he doth protest too much about how his (and the others') music is better after the split, how he's much happier working with Yoko, how he'd remake every single one of his Beatles tracks, etc etc. I imagine that some of his depression in 1976-79 had to do with his role in the destruction of the best creative outlet and surrogate family he ever found.

 

That, in itself, is a contradiction!

I'm just saying that Harrison had a lot of issues -- realistically, a much more troubled, complicated life than either Lennon or McCartney. And I left out how George's manager, Denis O'Brien, stole about $100 million from him in the late 1980s. One theory has it that this was the main reason why Harrison agreed to do the Anthology project in the early 1990s -- because he was quickly running out of money.

I'll be very curious to see how much Scorsese's forthcoming Harrison documentary deals with these issues.

 

The only people with the answers are the ones that were there. The rest of this is gossip and guessing.

 

In the tradition of all things Beatle, details must be corrected. Yoko didn't know who John Lennon was, or even like rock 'n roll when they met. Call her what you will, but groupie is not accurate.

 

George,

She must have. She approached Paul McCartney about getting an original lyric sheet for one of their songs IIRC. She met Paul first IIRC and she directed her to John for the lyric she was looking for. While she might might have been a "groupie" she certainly knew who they were.

 

Rrrright.....and Heather Mills didnt know who the Beatles were either

 

It took place during sessions for Abbey Road:

http://www.thebeatlesonline.com/pages/beatles_introducing12.html

"But there were also tense moments at times. One example of this is the infamous "biscuit incident." One day, Yoko Ono had gained some strength and jumped out of her "sick bed" to nick one of George Harrison's biscuits from a packet he had put on his guitar amplifier (it was considered a taboo to touch any of the food in the studio that belonged to the Beatles.) Harrison made it clear that Yoko had crossed the line, to put it mildly, and an argument broke out between him and Lennon. Fortunately it died out pretty quickly.

Nevertheless, the biscuit incident pretty much summed up how fragile the relationship between the four Beatles was at this point."

 

I think India was the last time they were a united front. In the 40 years of interviews there aren't many accounts of the individual Beatles not getting along in India. I think they were on good terms when the White Album sessions started that May, at least as good as they were in Feb. '68. Emerick quit in the middle of the Magical Mystery Tour sessions so I'm not sure how significant that is. Ken Scott and Chris Thomas have said that band relations during the White Album sessions weren't that bad.

IMO the big fissure in the band was during the short period where John and Yoko were living with Paul. Paul supposedly left a note out for John to see that said something like "you and your Jap tart" which (understandably) upset John. Paul said it was intended as a joke.

 

Nah, Doug hates them both equally. Paul comes of better in the book because he comes of better on the tapes. I think any fair assesment of the tapes will show that John was being a bit petulant during those 2 weeks compared to the other two.

Sure, John does talk all thru the tapes but there are several instances where John is asked a direct question and doesn't reply.

 

Especially when George reminded him he played it for him in 1966. That right there is the heart of the matter. George was on fire as a songwriter in early 1969 and John was totally disinterested. That had to of stung. Paul consistently came up with memorable parts to George's songs (ATMP being an exception) where John usually didn't even play on them. Over the course of their career George probably had a greater beef with Paul than John but any reading of the evidence (which is massive) will show that George walked because of John.

 

I'm reminded of another thread here that asked, "when did the Beatles end for you?" Some one answered, "When John put the headphones on the microphone at the end of Hey Bulldog". The music was still great but the spark was gone. They all looked bored, spent and aged beyond their years. The few Abbey Road session photos available are just sad looking.

 

They and Epstein had a new contract with EMI in early 1967 (pre-Pepper) that lasted until 1976. On the strength of that, Allan Klein was later to be able to make Capitol up it's royalty rates mainly on the understanding that the Beatles would continue until at least 1976. This contract was the real reason the others didn't want John to leave in 1969 and pretended to the World that he hadn't, and why Paul's announcement the foillowing spring was seen as a betrayal.

 

Not according to the photos in The Beatles Monthly Book of the 'Revolution' session; George appears in just one shot, looking very angry apparently he was calling for Mal to eject photographer and writer Bryce and Dean, and the others seem glum and agitated. Of course, this was the first real session Yoko appears at (not counting Fool on the Hill were the circumstances were very different) and were she recorded that distasteful spoken mesmeric tape.