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

why should you want people to get on together all their life! you all had closed friends that you don't want to see anymore don't you???

 

I think it was not that George hated his guts, but that Paul tended to annoy the crap out of him, after an hour or so.

 

They could certainly have, at the very least, 'embellished' some of each other's tracks. McCartney could surely have added to such songs as 'Love Comes to Everyone,' or 'Crackerbox Palace' or 'When We Was Fab' (not that they needed 'improving). If Jeff Lynne could get Beatley with George, then the real thing certainly could have done, if tensions allowed. And George could easily have contributed to numerous Paul songs.

In terms of 'authentic' co-compositions, it's harder to imagine what they would have sounded like, but I'm sure they could have produced some really interesting work. As McCartney showed with 'Friends to Go,' he had a sense of how to approximate to 'a George song,' and Harrison was drawn to certain McCartney songs, such as 'I'm Carrying'. There was enough mutual musical understanding to have sparked some interesting collaboration.

 

The sad thing about George, wonderful chap though he was, was that he seemed not to have the self-awareness to think of the ways that HE might be annoying the crap out of Paul (or anyone else), whether it was the times when he'd quote multiple Dylan lines as though they were sacred Biblical references, or preach about God, Life and What It All Meant as if addressing a church congregation. That could annoy the crap out of someone at least as much as suggesting that Hey Jude would sound good enough without a guitar coming in all the time. Neither man was perfect.

 

They weren't brothers

 

I think that's oversimplifying it. It seems like they had a very complicated relationship, like brothers.

 

I don't know why but I know why. I can sense it.

 

I think George gets a bad rap for being unwilling to work with Paul. Some members of Wings quit in part because they didn't like Paul telling them how to play. Elvis Costello, although he loved working with Paul, mentioned in an interview that when he made a suggestion Paul didn't agree with, Paul would just make a jokey remark and deflect it that way. Mind, I'm a huge fan of Paul, but apparently he can be a perfectionist in the studio, which can get on the nerves of people with different working methods.

 

Think about your experiences through the years with any close friend, parent, sibling, etc. And then try to describe how impactful the nuances of those experiences are to someone else who wasn't there. And how those people could get on your nerves despite your love for them. Between the insignificant and the substantial, it's virtually impossible to convey that relationship and how meaningful it is without seeming trite or petty, especially to an interviewer. I'm sure it was easier for Paul and George after all they went through together since childhood to remain ambivalent about seriously working together again because to do so would complicate things in ways they just really didn't feel like dealing with.

I'm sure they had their differences and could get on each other's nerves at time but I just don't buy that they didn't like or love one another.

 

From an interview with George Harrison in Musician, March 1990:


“So what kind of relationship do you and Paul have these days?

‘We don’t have a relationship.’ Long pause. 'I think of him as a good friend, really, but a friend I don’t have that much in common with anymore. You know, you meet people in your life, or you’re remarried and then you’re divorced. You wish the other person well, but life has taken you to other places. To friendlier climes.’

Does that mean you won’t be going to his show?

'You mean because I happen to be in L.A. while he’s playing here? No. I don’t want to go to his show because… I’ve heard all them tunes anyway. And secondly, I was not in town when Ringo did his show. I would have loved to have seen that, and I don’t want Ringo to think that I’m no t supporting him and I’m supporting Paul. I do wish him well,’ George sighs. 'There’s always a place in my heart for Paul… and Linda… and Hamish Stuart, I like Hamish. But you know, don’t look back.'”

 

That's the kind of thing that's sad. I bet if McCartney had made similar comments it would have enraged George, and he and his family would have moaned about it bitterly for ever more. But George always seemed to assume he had the right to be that condescending and Paul was supposed to take it. In fact, in terms of length of time, George was dismissive of Paul for a hell of a lot longer than Paul was dismissive of George.

 

Well stated. As much as I like George's music, he always seemed so bitter and cranky in interviews.

 

George was off on his own doing his thing. Good for him!

 

Paul always seemed more involved on George's Beatles tunes than John did.

 

I can imagine the tension of those two in the same room. On one hand, there's an old friendship that goes back to their youth growing up in Liverpool. But on the other, there's smash hits and success and professional competition... One should think people grow out of things like that as they grow older but they don't, it only gets worse and more pompous.

 

So what was George's relationship with Hamish like? Why didn't George write with Hamish? Ehh, explain me that!

 

For someone so at peace with the material world and all of that, George really seemed unable to forgive. There was always that sniping at McCartney - about his personality, his music, his tours, his lifestyle, even his bass playing! The way George acted during the Anthology sessions it was as if he'd been the leader of the group. Want to finish off that other Lennon track? Nope, it's crap. End of. If anyone in The Beatles had a right to work on that track, it was McCartney, and he should've done it as a solo project, but he seemed to feel like he was on some kind of lifelong journey of contrition as far as George was concerned.

 

George tired of Paul during the Anthology sessions. He said something to the effect of "Paul was a year older than me when we met and he's still a year older."

George saw them as friends, equals, band mates. Paul saw George as his little brother, junior partner, whatever.

When George got away from the Beatles and played with Dylan, Delaney and Bonnie, Eric, whoever, he was treated as (at least) an equal.

Look, Paul was a soaring talent, he was much bigger than George. But if (if) he wanted to work with George he would have had to put aside past roles and accepted him as an equal band member. Paul really only ever treated John that way. Everyone was there to accomplish Paul's vision. Which is fine, but why should George sign up for that?

 

I wish they could have worked something out, song wise. Who knows? Maybe they could've. Not everything gets heard. They could have done something just for themselves.

Wishful thinking, probably

 

Yes, but not writing.

 

Yup...That sums it up nicely.

 

I don't see anything in those comments that is condescending. Nor do I think he would be "enraged" if McCartney made similar innocuous comments. I'm hard pressed to think of any instance in which George had a disproportionate reaction to something an ex-bandmate said in the press. John was the one who obsessed about perceived slights, not George.

 

In the film "Imagine", John and George make fun of Paul and George makes a mocking face. It sure did not look like either one of them had any friendly feelings toward Paul.

In the "Anthology" film, George seems to me to be very uncomfortable just sitting there talking with Paul. If these film sections are any indication, George did not want to be around Paul.

 

No not blood brothers nor adoptive brothers, but I think you know what I meant.

 

Don't forget that after Material World, he never really worked with John or Ringo either (on his own records). He much preferred his session guys.