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

George had recently been working with the Wilburys, who were a very collaborative and democratic group, so you can understand why George was reluctant to work with Paul again.

 

Yoko vetoed its inclusion because there wasn't enough footage of John. J/k ... I don't know.

 

Not grouchy, but holding a long-standing grudge. It was he and Paul who were the first to play and write together before John joined. John and Paul locked him out of Northern Songs. George's animosity was directed at Paul in the final year.

Through all of the band's professional issues, they still managed to be somewhat social in the 70s.

 

LOL...If it wasn't "rehearsed" I'm sure it sounded like crap, except for maybe Jeff

 

Or giving "I Me Mine" the waltz treatment. Yes, Paul badgered and pushed George, but he worked with him, too.

I understand George's resentment of Paul. I just don't see why John got a pass.

 

It may have been because Paul was always a few years older than George.

 

John's snap assessment of "I Me Mine" - "Run along son, this is a rock and roll band" was probably worthy of a walkout if not a punch in the face.

 

I think they could have done a cover album together and that would have released the songwriting tension - favorite old songs done their way. George had an affinity for George Formby and the like, and Paul, of course, embraced all that wonderful 1910s-1950s popular music.

I think it would have been the most upbeat record George would ever have done - if he had wanted to do it. Think of how upbeat and poppy his "True Love" is.. (even if Cole Porter told him he got the chords wrong)..

We certainly would have gotten "The Devil and the Deep Blue Sea" and "I'm Gonna Sit Write Down and Write Myself a Letter" sooner. And not too different from the versions we have now IMO. Just an entire album. Them jamming in Anthology gives you a good indication - if they went in WITH a set list, I think it would have worked wonderfully.

If their goal was to have fun making it. The fun would have showed.

Jeff

 

George had even more to resent John for in that case. He had the effrontery to be born even earlier than Paul.

 

But John would allow George more freedom---hence George's comment in the mid 1970s about being willing to be in a band with John but stating he could never be in a band with Paul again.
So perhaps based on that, the comment from 1963 was a rarity.

 

He likely took criticism from John much easier than from Paul. Paul got on his nerves, John not so much.

 

If we had 100 hours of raw documentary sound from every period of their career. we'd have a much better idea. Listening to the "Get Back" reels, one has to wonder (or conjecture) what represents business-as-usual over their entire career and what was unique to January, 1969. Did John always cede so much creative control of his songs (in terms of the musical parts the other three played), or did that occur only at that time from laziness and vague disinterest? Was John ALWAYS dismissive of George's songwriting efforts (George's 1969 description of John's earlier dismissal of "Isn't It a Pity" certainly suggests that). Did John always more or less "mail it in" when it came time to record a George song ("I think I'll pass away")?

George might have enjoyed the freedom that John provided, but John offered little to no support for his musical ideas. That hypothetical mid-70s band would have had a short shelf life, I'm afraid.

 

Generally true. But the one and only documented time he walked out on the band, it was because of John (no matter how poorly everyone remembers that fact).

 

John does make a reference to Revolver on those Get Back tapes (Paul being overbearing and letting George take over on She Said She Said)---he's making an effort to convince Paul to give George more freedom.
John pointed out that Something was the best song on Abbey Road-----and he could be cutting to Paul to----like with One and One is Two----or even Yesterday! That was John's fatherly role---which Paul outgrew by Revolver.

 

Remember the scene in Anthology with the 3 of them sitting around talking and Paul says something like "remember walking down to that village?" twice I think, and George just ignores him and Paul annoyedly says "I guess not". I think that says a lot. George felt he was so oppressed that he was entitled to not show normal courtesy to "the bully". It is hard to get along with people like that. Make no mistake ... I like George a lot and his Beatles songs are some of their best. But he had his demons.

 

From memory, George made a comment along the lines of "Paul was a year older than me when we met, and he still is".

 

Can this thread be retitled to include a reference to either Peyton Place or Oprah? Seems fitting considering the unsubstantiated gossip!

 

Because it doesn't all have to do with this band called the Beatles. You guys seem to think you can analyse their behaviour based on Lewisohn's Chronicles or Recording Sessions or some studio outtakes. Well, they existed outside of all that most of the time. Who knows what was being said in their homes, on planes, trains, van rides, or simply some comments made in seconds which no one knows about but the persons involved. This is how life works.

 

Suffice it to say, they didn't get along well enough or respect or trust each other enough to collaborate together. End of story.

 

Exactly, because people pretty much do what they would like to do.

 

Yes, he says that in one of the Anthology interviews. A lighter moment.

 

Apparently near the end of his life, Paul offered to write something with George and George was annoyed and responded (paraphrasing "You've known me for 60 years and now you want to write something with me.")


FWIW, one of the the Beatles first released songs, the instrumental "Cry for a Shadow", was written by George and John.

.

 

John was all over the map throughout the month of January, 1969 (and many other months I'm sure). After George's walkout on January 10th John takes a "We'll be fine without him" stance. On January 13th, the first day of George's "strike", John tries to see his side (or puts on that pretense) when discussing his departure over lunch (never apparently aware of the fact that HE is the cause of George's absence).

 

Great point. Amazing how many think they know all about these 4 people and their relationship from what is in the press and books. And then make definitive statements on their intentions and actions.

 

George made a lot of disparaging comments about Paul for decades afterwards (you can find the interviews on YouTube)... long after he had to put up with Paul's "bossyness."

.