If I could pick any drummer to play on one of my recordings, even not being credited, it would be Ringo. Actually my producer Lon Van Eaton suggested it, likely in jest, as I don't think they are as close as when they worked together in the 70s.
Typical for Hoffman, hating on the Beatles just for the sake of. Those guys here hating on Harrison, especially in the early days, couldnt carry that guys jockstrap on guitar. Suck on this.
I'll take unique over technical any day.. Both George and Ringo were very unique players, IMHO. I'd pick Ringo in a heartbeat too!
I agree that his playing on the early stuff wasn’t great, but but was vastly improved by 1965. He wasn’t a technical player and never stole the spotlight, but he was a very melodic player who always managed to play exactly what the song needed. His playing on Abbey Road is consistently very good and IMO represents the peak of his unadorned guitar playing. When he picked up the slide guitar during his solo career, he developed a style all his own, and a very beautiful one at that. His slide playing is instantly recognizable and frequently gorgeous. For my money, he is one of the best slide players in rock, possibly second only to Duane Allman (I personally prefer George to Duane, but I’m probably in the minority) and maybe a few others. I’d rank him as a very good melodic player during the bulk of his time in The Beatles (but not exactly top tier), and a great, highly distinctive slide guitarist.
Correct me if I am wrong: didn't George play slide in (mostly) standard tuning? Most slide players play in open tuning, right? If he did, I find it even more impressive, for it's difficult to navigate the neck with a slide in standard.
After the Beatles Anthology series came out and I heard the early versions of all those familiar songs, it became clear that George was "searching" for that perfect part. a fill, a melody line, a solo...and I thought he always ended up finding it. What he played was perfect for the songs. And while I wasn't always a fan of his tones, it sure is hard to imagine another guitar part in any of those songs...who could possibly have filled his role better than he did ?
Tonally, the sound was not very good. But that had little to do with George's playing. The guitar strings in those days were like wires, plus the tone coming from the guitars's pickups, amp etc. Also, production wise, it wasn't easy to give individual tracks their own EQ. Some times a solo may been bounced down which further would degrade the tone. So the "rubber band" sound was not the fault of George alone. Of course, all of this is just my opinion.
Suggest to your friend he listen the chord changes (and solo) on Till There Was You, not simple chords.
It's disingenuous, to say the least, to criticize George's playing. As others have said, the whole of The Beatles was far, far greater than the sum of its parts. The world will still be listening to George's music long after it's forgotten all the "shredders" who play 8000 notes to the bar. Not to mention that he made a pretty good living with all his allegedly sub-par musicianship. I can't add a whole lot to the technical discussion, but I like the notion that George's playing served the songs, just as Ringo's did. And didn't John say something to the effect that he didn't especially like playing George's songs because the chords were too hard? I know John was a lazy sod, and a self-admitted not-great guitarist himself, but it speaks to George's skills as a player and composer that one of his mates found his stuff difficult to play.
suggest to your friend that he has a complete lack of understanding considering where and when Harrison came from, and then play Till There Was You, and ask your friend if he can play anything even close to that good, with a Gretsch jacked straight into a Vox, no pedals, NO TUNER, no nothin and strung with a set of probably 12s and a fricking wound G string..... Revisionist history is alive and well on here. Some of the very early Harrison work is not great BY TODAY'S STANDARDS. Thats taken completely out of context. For 1962, from a guy in the middle of nowhere England, not a studio guy, pretty good for the time. Again. All hindsight and the reality is, every single one of you tards slamming his work, couldnt have done any better in 1962, coming from the same place and time.
Post Beatles is a different story as I think it clear he developed an excellent slide guitar style over time. Not super fast or bluesy like Jimmy Page, but flawless and soulful. As for the Beatles, George was an ensemble guitarist, not a conventional lead guitarist in the model of Hubert Sumlin or Buddy Guy. To me his early influences were Chuck Berry, Chet Atkins and Carl Perkins, and I think he learned a lot from them. When Clapton and Hendrix came out, they were following a different model of the role the guitarist had in the band. Was it better? Silly question. Both models, and say the one Keith Richards followed for another, had their virtues. For the Beatles, I think George like Ringo was perfect for them. He was part of the group, and the group themselves were the biggest ever. That is its own answer even if he was not a ripping fast single note kind of guy (not that there's anything wrong with being so to be clear).
This ^ George was a country rock-a billy, Scotty Moore, Chuck Berry and Motown influenced player, along with the Skiffle stuff. His early days playing reflected this, and he did it very well. There is no argument that his "tone" was poor, but wouldnt have been if he had a Fender backline. Paul and John were heavily influenced by Everlys, Elvis, musical hall/show tune, Motown. While the band were influenced by the blues, they never played the blues. Instead, they came up with their own unique style, heavy on melody, harmony singing and a huge beat George's playing was minimalist, playing for the song. Remember, there weren't guitar heroes until the mid sixties earliest. In contrast, folks like Hendrix, Clapton, Page, Beck, Taylor and so on weren't just influenced by the blues, but stole from the blues liberally. The guitar hero wanking came into vogue well after the Beatles totally took control of the popular music business, allowing their younger peers the creative freedom and economic leverage they could never have achieved without the Beatles example. Make pretend the Beatles, and Beatlemania never existed: What record company would support a band that primarily played covers of black blues, or "originals" heavily derivative of black blues? The answer is NONE. People also forget that George developed his own new signature style and tone in the late 60's and into the 70's . White Album, Let It Be, Abbey Road and All Things showcase a guitarists with a signature slide sound and tasty,tasty,tasty conventional tuned playing that was as good as it gets for the time, while still serving the song
Glad to see George's guitar work on "Fixing A Hole" getting some love. A solo I have not seen mentioned yet which deserves recognition is the one on the album version of "Let It Be".
Like I’ve mentioned before. This was never a George Harrison hate post made to make him look bad. I was honestly expecting far more positive comments about his playing than negative right from the get go. ... are you actually being serious? Have you even read my comments? Jesus.
George was what 18-19 then? How many guitarists are really great at that age? And how many are playing on songs that would become smash hits?
And if you compare him to his Merseybeat contemporaries when he was 18-19, George was a colossus on guitar compared to the rest of the field.
One of the things I can really appreciate about George the guitarist, is he came up with parts that were integral to the song. He composed actual parts, instead of improvising licks based on the pentatonic scale. So improvising on the spot was not his strong suit, he came up with very memorable parts.
another thing people dont quite realize on here (there are many) in the early days, the Beatles tunes were often recorded LIVE in the studio. Harrison was young and nervous and sometimes didnt play his best. However if the track overall was good enough, and the vocal delivery good, that was primarily important, and so they'd print it. From what I've been led to believe, in the early days of the Beatles, there were fewer opportunities for guitar overdubs, certainly no benefit of punch ins. This is totally different than most other recordings that people listen to today. Even Stevie Ray Vaughan overdubbed and punched in his stuff all over the place.
George was a very fine guitarist. He fit the Beatles perfectly, and continued to soar as a solo artist. He developed his slide guitar talents wonderfully as well. Underated and under appreciated for the most part... a real legend.
If you look carefully into George, you see a constantly seeking musician willing to experiment but also someone who keeps ego in check. Tasteful and well appreciated in its time and place, what you see is the baring of soul. It's beyond technical, or well should be because this is art. He knew how to put it across and in its time was a revelation. It was about feel and personality.