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

Brothers arent always friends. But they still love each other.

 

I think that even if Paul and George weren't great friends before (and it seems that they really were always great friends), there's only four people who knew what it was like to be The Beatles at their peak, and that's gotta create a strong bond in an of itself.

 

I dont think George hated Paul as much as he just saw through what he perceived as BS. He knew Paul like no one else. And that can be said about all the Beatles towards each other. So he had the right to basically say "Youre so full of it Paul" as did Paul have the right, if he wanted to, to reply "And youre such a hypocrit at times George" as could they have both said to John "Yeah, John, youre one to speak of peace love and all that other utopian BS you promote" as all three could have said to Ringo "Ringo, youre such a.." Wait, no one can say bad things about Ringo. He was the cuddly one right?

It was an army of four. No non club members allowed to pick on the four. Only the four.

 

But, I don't believe that their friendship revolved songwriting. Also, I don't believe that Paul used George as a sounding board on songs he was writing, like he did with John.

 

Hilarious. The Beatles argument in that lawsuit against Capitol/EMI was that because Some Time in New York City sucked, it shouldn't be considered a "Beatles" album when factoring sales performance under their royalties agreement.

 

More importantly: Could George have worked with Kanye? Kaney? umm Can he?

 

I think the McCartney-Harrison relationship was always complex and George may only have resolved his feelings toward Paul at the very end of his life (Paul certainly likes to think this, though we have only his testimony).

In a way, George seems to have blamed Paul for all his problems while being grateful to him for creating the circumstances that gave rise to those problems (your pal from school gets you into a band which brings you untold riches but also puts you in a life you're not temperamentally equipped to deal with). There was also the issue of 'seniority' - although born barely more than six months apart, they were a school year apart, and that can make a difference - and the fact that Paul tends to know what he wants, whereas George preferred to get his results through experimentation/lots of takes (witness the White Album 'Not Guilty'). And then there's George not appreciating Paul's 'busy' bass-playing....

So: too many issues both emotional and musical to make for an easy collaboration.

 

I dont think George blamed Paul for bringing him into a band. I dont think he *blamed* him for anything. He just didnt think like Paul and had a different philosophy about life and what its purpose is. And probably even what music's purpose is. Im sure there were material/political/emotional elements also; but I think it was more a philosophical difference. Which translated to a personality conflict.

 

Paul was George's school friend originally. John was the outsider until then. A lot of time had gassed since then. He couldn't penetrate the Lennon -Macca bond and was sent to the back of the bus. He was a third class citizen in Pauls eyes ever since. The fact that he played lead on many of his songs so early in the band's history exhibited Paul's lack of respect for George's place in the band.

 

All relationships are complicated. Paul and George had certainly been through the ringer together as teenagers and young men - they had intense, unforgettable experiences that most of us could never fathom. Even though they probably got on each other's nerves (as is common with old friends and family members) in the later years, they clearly had a bond and respect for each other. How close were they? Close enough that when George wanted to die in peace, out of all the friends and family in the world he could have gone to, Paul was the one he turned to. Paul gave him his house in Los Angeles to die in privacy surrounded by his immediate family. I think that says a lot about how George and Paul really felt about each other.

 

Great post!

 

They did some stuff together The difference in body language here speaks volumes.

 

Yes, but it was John that George was angry with that day for not showing up.

 

But John sent a balloon instead. Shouldn't that have been sufficient for George? ...

 

Ron DeCline citing at the very end there...

 

I'm pretty sure that one of the chief breakup reasons was that no one wanted to work with Paul anymore.

That probably ebbed and flowed afterward through the years, but certainly George and Paul were the farthest away from each other, wavelength-wise, than the other two (John/Ringo) were with the other three, as far as wanting to work together again.

George had had enough of working with Paul in the Beatles, Johnny & The Moondogs, etc..

And Paul would rather half-ass a song than ask George for help.

 

They WERE close to begin with, Paul brought George into the Beatles, they were both guitar players and went together to find other players that could show them new chords, when John neglected them for his new friend Stu they hung together, Paul ended up in the same school class as George after being left back, etc. When the Lennon McCartney songwriting partnership took off and George was excluded that began the rift which then was exacerbated big time when George and John were doing acid and Paul wouldn't join them. Then the extra bossy Paul blossomed after Epsteins death.

 

Goes without saying.

 

On the OP's question, it seems most here have focused on George's attitude about a possible collaboration. But I don't see and can't think of anything that would make me conclude that Paul might have had any interest in it. While did form Wings with other musicians, and did some collaborations along the post-Beatles way, the vast majority of his efforts were him working by himself. George on the other hand did most of his post-Beatles work with others, and in some cases his participation was just a fraction of the overall effort. Like The Travelling Willburys. Add in that Paul seemed more driven to say the least to continue making music, while George had the more laid back attitude. I would also agree that what kind of music they pursued was not that similar. My guess is it was some combination of these factors other than some personality conflict that resulted in no collaboration.

I will also add here that I thought Paul's performance at the Concert for George of All Things Must Pass was the best moment of that whole show. It is not an easy song to sing, relatively, and Paul's performance was heartfelt and technically perfect. I thought he was singing not only to the audience, but also to George.

 

I think they didn't work together because for the first 10-15 years after the breakup, they didn't really like each other. And after they had become friends again, they probably realized that they just weren't compatible musically, or didn't have a relationship that would translate well to a work relationship. The best, most candid interviews I ever saw of George were with Japanese press during his tour of Japan with Eric Clapton. It's unfortunate that very few of them seem to be available. I remember clearly that he addressed his relationship with Paul. He said that although they had been childhood friends, they didn't even see each other during the 70's and he didn't really know the person Paul had become until recently. He said that they now got together with the wives from time to time for dinner or drinks. I remember he said that "no matter what others say, I know that I love Paul very dearly" or something like that. It was touching. But, seeing how comfortable George was doing those interviews with Clapton, it was impossible to imagine George looking that comfortable with Paul. I think that they probably both realized it wouldn't work.

 

Paul said in an interview, "George was my original mate." Paul is the one who brought George into the group. Then Paul and John formed a songwriting partnership and the paradigm shifted.

 

According to Howard Sounes' Paul McCartney biography Fab business differences often got in the way of their friendship. The Allen Klein vs Lee Eastman thing, the break up of the Beatles, the Beatles royalty thing in the 80s, disagreements about what the Anthology CDs, book and documentaries should be like.

 

Didn't George veto some anthology tracks IIRC?

 

This is exactly right. They were beyond friendship.

 

Sweet picture. Isn't being bossy a full time vocation though?