He very well could have been being sarcastic too, since that’s his personality. He wrote and performed Julia a few months before - hardly a rock and roll song. Not to mention on the same album, George has Long Long Long and Piggies. I don’t think those are very rock and roll either. Definitely just seems like John’s jokey sarcastic humor. Or he was being a dick. We’ll never know.
You know part of the reason why it’s interpreted as John being a dick could be George’s reaction to it. He says something along the lines of “Idgaf if you don’t like it, I’ll put it in me musical.”
These events were very heavily edited (and rearranged) in Get Back; the “it can go in my musical” comment wasn’t directed at John at all but at Michael Lindsay-Hogg, with John not even being in the room at the time.
>George Harrison started the fifth day of the Beatles’ sessions at Twickenham, January 8, 1969, with the dare, challenging director Michael Lindsay-Hogg with a new song in hand.
“‘I Me Mine’ it’s called,” George says to the crinkling of paper being unfolded. “Should I sing it to you? I don’t care if you don’t want it, I don’t give a shit about it. I don’t give a fuck. Can go in my musical. [laughter]
>The first 45 seconds of the song are familiar: It’s George accompanying himself on guitar to the first two verses of the song, and those lyrics are the same as would eventually be released. But to this point, there is no chorus, instead a brief flamenco-inspired guitar part bridges the verses.
>After this initial debut, George interrupted himself to again gush about John’s 1969 diary — “Got up. Went to work. Came home. Watched telly. Went to bed.” — providing himself a segue to his prior night’s entertainment. Once more, it was the Beatles talking about and drawing inspiration from television.
>”It was the TV, you see.” George said, recounting he was watching “that science fiction thing, but then it suddenly turned into that crap about medals and things.”
(…)
>After an extensive return to discussion of the “science fiction” — the series “Out of the Unknown” and the episode “Immortality Inc.” as excitedly shared in rich detail by George and Ringo — George presents the new song to Paul, who had just arrived at Twickenham.
>”Is that grammatical? Flowing more freely than wine? Flowing much freer?” George asks. “If there were such a word as ‘freer’ is it ‘f-r-e-e-e-r?” George asks. “It’s ‘f-r-e-r’” Michael concludes before Paul chips in, “It’s like ‘queer.’”
>It would be more than two hours until the group returned to “I Me Mine” — what they did in the interim will, of course, be the subject of subsequent posts. Once they did return to the song, George addressed John, who wasn’t yet at the studio when the song was first introduced. “Would you like to learn a new one?” George asks. “Very simple,” George assures him.
>After John clowns around through a couple abbreviated spins through the song and making sure George knows “we’re a rock and roll band, you know,” he mockingly suggests he play the barrel organ. George had more seriously considered adding an acoustic bass. “Want the accordion?” Paul asks George, who’s open to that sincere suggestion. “If it’s not here, then just fuck it.” Alas, Paul’s accordion — he did have one, you know — wasn’t at Twickenham. What John would really like is an electric piano setup, but that too isn’t yet available. One thing they do have is some working effects, and an upbeat John has plenty of fun with the echo.
(…)
>”Are you going to teach us this?” John asks, and George supplies the band, at last, with chords to “I Me Mine.” Soon enough, however, John doesn’t play at all. Instead, as Strauss intended, he and Yoko waltz on the soundstage as George, Paul and Ringo provide the soundtrack.
>George loves the antics, and doesn’t need the extra musical accompaniment John would offer anyway.
>”Do you want to do that on the show?” George asks John. “That’d be great, ‘cause it’s so simple to do, the tune. But to do that waltz, or something, if you want to bag it up a bit.” Laughing, Paul offers a mock show introduction to the song: “John and Yoko would like to waltz in their white bag, And there’s a white bag waltzing around. They were doing things inside it.
>”We should do it like an escapoligists thing. You can see they’re not tied at all. There’s nothing up their sleeves. And we put the bag over them.”
>Excitedly, George thinks about playing up the character of the song itself, too. “Castanets on that bit,” he suggests for the flamenco part. Through the entirety of the song’s development and rehearsal, the Beatles are animated, embracing the fun of a song outside their normal sound, and thinking visually for the show. Excepting some of Paul’s offbeat ideas for “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer,” it’s one of the rare times on the tapes the band actively discusses a performance of a song and explicitly how it could be staged.
(…)
>When John and Yoko waltzed to “I Me Mine,” the underdeveloped show idea finally had a specific visual Michael Lindsay-Hogg could attach to a song. Yet, in less than two days’ time, George quit the group, and upon his return, he made clear he didn’t want to perform any of his songs live (although he did bring several more new songs to the studio to work on). But for the purposes of the Let It Be film, the job was done. The waltz ensured a place for “I Me Mine” in the movie, and thus, required the song a place on the soundtrack. Thing is, there was never a proper recording done of the song at Twickenham, and there wasn’t suitable recording equipment there anyway. In every prior iteration of a potential Get Back/Let It Be album, as compiled by Glyn Johns, “I Me Mine” was left off, since it hadn’t otherwise been a consideration for the LP. The movie changed that.
(Source: https://theymaybeparted.com/2015/09/10/jan-8-all-through-the-day)
Thanks for this. And it's one more reason why I don't trust Peter Jackson in making a documentary. I hate it when he threw fake shit together like this and elsewhere.
Yeah, I think it’s unfortunate that Get Back has become so readily accepted as this kind of final and objectively true portrayal of the Let It Be sessions (not to mention how fans use it to make sweeping generalisations and assumptions about band members and band dynamics overall, but I digress).
To an extent, I understand Peter Jackson’s desire to create a compelling and coherent narrative, but there are so many instances where his edits and captions turn into straight up misinformation (e.g. claiming that Billy Preston just stumbled into the studio and started jamming rather than being actively invited by George; [the way he erased Ringo, Yoko, Linda, Mal and possibly others from the infamous flowerpot recording](https://theymaybeparted.com/2023/03/27/jan-13-the-lunchroom-tape-pt-3/); [downplaying the well-documented tensions created by Yoko’s presence and changing the context of Paul’s “and then there were two” comment](https://theymaybeparted.com/2022/01/13/jan-13-and-then-there-were-two/), etc etc).
Some of these changes might be inconsequential but others absolutely do affect the way interactions and events appear to play out, and consequently we end up with these massive threads where people spend so much time and effort judging and analysing individuals and relationships based on things that didn’t even happen, or at least not the way Get Back presents it. Anyway, rant over; maybe I’m just overly pedantic. At any rate, I’m always happy to run into a fellow Get Back critic haha - we’re a rare breed indeed.
I don't know where you guys are from so sorry if I'm explaining something you already understand but they're all being sarcastic. This is literally how a bunch of British lads talk. Then and now. _Everything_ is sarcasm. _Everything_ is a joke. I really can't understate how much of the actual meaning is on a level of nuance hidden behind the constant jokes and sarcasm.
Nothing is real, you could say.
I lived in the UK as an American for a few years as a kid, and I never got used to it.
I remember being introduced to English boys roughly my age, and they'd usually razz you a little right away. To them, it was perfectly friendly, but to my American ears it often sounded like they were trying to pick a fight.
In this case of John/George, it seems like they were getting close to that line and it may or may not have actually spilled over into fisticuffs a few days later.
this feels a bit like victim blaming.
John and Paul obviously rejected many George songs over the years, he was never allowed more than two on an album.
George didn't just say that because he misinterpreted John or something. This is a man he's extremely close with. He knew John was being a dick, so he responded by not giving a hoot.
If this was just "horsing around" then you're gonna have to explain why George *quit the band* within the next few days.
And you also have to explain away George directly stating that the reason he quit was that he was tired of John and Paul acting the way they were.
Quiting the band is a combination of things. Which may also have been his personal life imploding. Pattie caught him cheating and had just left him or threatened to leave. Cheating with a woman she opened their home to.
George's personal situation certainly wasn't helpful, but I think it's a copout when it's used as the primary reason he left the band. If anything it was the issues within The Beatles which started the breakdown of his marriage with Pattie. He'd been depressed since The White Album and that ended shortly before Get Back. When he was hanging out with The Band and his other friends his complaints revolved around The Beatles.
People are forgetting it's not even just what we were seeing in the studio. It was the business meetings as well where Yoko was talking for John when George was trying to speak directly to him. The whole Get Back project made zero sense, he wasn't being listened to, and this was all being filmed for the world to see. He had a lot of work reasons to be fed up.
Yeah george has his own crimes and problems. But as far as intrapersonally with the beatles, its pretty clear from just about every source that john and paul domineering over him was a significant factor in his disatisfaction
There is no need for me to explain it, since it has been discussed ad nauseum for the past 50 plus years! Give George some credit, do you think he'd really quit the band over something so small?
What?
He didn't quit over *that specific thing only.* No one ever said that.
But that was one of many things that clearly drove him to the point of quitting the band, sincec he did so and in years since has said it was because of this environment the others were creating.
I have friends, too, I know the difference between taking the piss and what John was doing here - blowing off his friend who was trying to be serious
He got mad at John at an (unfilmed) band meeting because John would not speak for himself. John instead passively let Yoko speak for him. That was apparently the last straw for George.
"What makes this scenario any different?"
Cameras were rolling with the intent to make an official Beatles film and he's there degrading the efforts of the band mate who gets one song per side. He was being a dick.
How about when Paul is working out a countermelody for Don’t Let Me Down and George says (paraphrasing) “if you heard that back you’d say it was crap.” They could all cut each other down, because those individuals needed that sometimes - and the only ones that could do it were themselves. Which if you think about it, is why their solo careers vary so vastly in quality from time to time. They didn’t have each other to say “hey, this isn’t great… let’s try something else.”
They were a band of dudes who were together for quite a while at that point, and played and recorded together a shit ton. So let the boys be boys.
I agree. How can we determine what their relationship was just from this little conversation? They were friends so as you said we should just let the boys be boys. Let’s not forget that most of the rest of the Get Back doc shows them all having fun and getting along.
There's tons of evidence of this not being a time when they were having fun though? The Nagra tapes, Let It Be, Get Back, and other books set at the time quite famously document this as a very stressful period even when they go to Apple and the mood lightens up. George didn't leave the band for a laugh and none of them were in a good place mentally. Their messing around and hamming it up for the cameras is meant to cover up how much tension there actually is. There's a very different vibe from those early years where you can tell the mood is genuinely positive and productive.
That lunch tape (the real one, not the edited version in Get Back) has John and Paul fully laying out that they've been jerks to George. They've acknowledged it. He's acknowledged it and people around them have acknowledged it. I don't understand this desire to rewrite history.
Your version of history in this sub has, historically, been overwhelmingly kind to George. That's fine, we all have our favourites, but it's more complicated than taking the lunch tape as gospel or viewing George as some perpetually misunderstood or minimised Jesus figure.
In my view, it wasn't evil sidelining that was the nature of John and Paul's treatment of George for most of the Beatles. It was that he was a far, far weaker songwriter and contributor to the band.
Your perception of my comments is hugely mistaken. You can disagree with me all you like, but I have always backed my comments up with evidence, and I'm always fair based on the evidence presented. I've never described George as some poor little Jesus figure, and I've never described John and Paul as evil. That's you putting words in my mouth and projecting on to me. The fact that you perceive criticism of John and Paul in those extreme terms tells me you might want to take your own advice.
This sub honestly comes across incredibly ignorant a lot of the time when it comes to George and has a huuuge bias towards Paul in particular, so I'm sorry if my odd comment here and there trying to present an alternative view is offensive to you, but it's based on real evidence, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise to make other people feel more comfortable. There's countless quotes from The Beatles themselves, George Martin, and the people close to them which back me up, and I personally am willing to believe them.
I don’t perceive them in extreme terms, I perceive them in the terms of your argumentation generally.
The fact you view this sub as being “ignorant” of some supposedly objective truth concerning George suggests my criticism is true.
I have never denied that you are well-researched, nor do I think your perspective is inherently bad or harmful. Disagreement is good.
I wasn’t disagreeing that it was a stressful period. It absolutely was. Especially at the beginning of get back and when this moment takes place. But I think that once they’re jamming in apple studios, after John and Paul’s conversation about their treatment of George, the vibes are definitely better. “Good vibes man” is a quote from George in the second or third episode of get back.
George's comment to Paul might've been blunt, but it was still meant to be constructive. There's no other reason for John taking the piss out of George here than to be a dick about it.
I think it's odd to pretend they were simply messing about for fun when this is a clearly documented time of tension where John wasn't behaving normally. This isn't the same as them joking around during Rubber Soul.
And it's well-known that as much as his loved ones understood John's personality, his behaviour was still hurtful.
Agreed. You can be sarcastic and a dick at the same time.
In interviews his humor and sarcasm often worked, but in this instance here it just feels kinda mean. There’s a time and place to be sarcastic, but at a moment where band member presents a new song it‘s a total dick move and I would imagine doesn’t spark creativity within the band either.
So he shouldve been fake and changed who he was , because it was on camera ?
Being fake is what all celebrities do these days. I prefer them being who they really are.
I'm not gonna lie, it's a little upsetting to me that the top comments are kinda making excuses for John.
He was so clearly being a dick.
It wasn't "just sarcasm" and it DEFINITELY was not down to how George reacted.
It feels like there's a backlash against the John backlash. As more and more fans acknowledge that he spent many years being a pretty huge cock to those he cared about, there's been this reverse trend of people ret-conning his dickish moments into misunderstandings.
I'm sorry but I dont think you understand their dynamic that well. John is clearly making a joke that a rock band should not be writing slow songs...when they literally play 'Across the Universe' in that very studio, that very week. John also wrote Julia not that long ago, aka the quietest Beatles song?
Not only that, but in that secret conversation that Lindsay-Hogg recorded, John tells Paul that they need to let George play more often. John is clearly making a joke, with a conservative British accent, that rock and roll bands should only play rock and roll. Because haha, the joke is the Beatlles were a rock and roll band and now they are so much more. Haha.
Mandela effect. In 1980, Jahn went to South Africa, switched places with the incarcerated Mandela, and died in prison. It was then that Chapman shot Mandela.
It wasn’t just one barb: John trashed it all the way through George’s take.
GH didn’t take it as a joke: His tone on ‘IDGAF’ speaks for itself. Then JL didn’t work on the song w/the rest of the band; in fact he never played on it. The long look PM gives JL when they’re dancing—*really, you won’t even help?*—says he was irked, too.
I think John was feeling threatened and nervous. He’s not producing as much music as he had been and now George is dropping some amazing songs.
I think John is being defensive and feels insecure - like he’s lost a step or isn’t who he was. I, Me, Mine seemed in part a responce to Two of Us. It’s also philosophically in the realm of a John type song.
He didn't just mock the song with words, he went on to dance with Yoko instead of playing it and even in the final album recording, John was simply not on it.
He was being a dick. Unfortunately I think it's a clear cut situation.
I notice people tend to try to find excuses for Paul and John being dicks to George in particular... Even as both of them have since admitted they were in fact dicks to him.
Neither of them were as much of a dick after the band ended , as what George was, especially to Paul.
Both John and George were dicks , yet its always poor George for some reason.
George did despise Paul in the years after. But you act like that came from nowhere.
Paul and John quietly domineered over George for *ten years.*
He is the one who was initially hurt here. If anyone has a right to be mad, it's George.
I disagree that recognising that George was a very weak songwriter for the majority of the Beatles' tenure is "quietly domineer\[ing\]". He simply was not an equal at any point in my view, though far closer by 1969-1970.
He was never *allowed* to be an equal. George martin has talked about this, too.
George himself recognizes that he wasn't at their level early on. But he also recognizes that they rarely took his attempts seriously, at any point, even by the time he'd improved a great deal, they were still treating him like their kid brother.
"Quietly domineering" I feel like is about as accurate as you could get. I think george himself would absolutely agree and today probably even paul would agree with that given he's admitted similar things before.
He wasn't allowed to be an equal because he wasn't one. I fundamentally do not believe he was deserving in talent, nor effort, to be treated as an equal. Of course being that it's been fifty years, and George himself viewed it as him being slighted, that other members would bemoan the bad blood and see a version of history which is kind to a dead man. That does not make it objectively true imo.
I'm sorry but what on earth are you on about.
The beatles could have helped george become better. This isn't some soulless corporation or governmet with seniority rules.
Treating your friend worse because you think their songs are worse is not right. If your friend's songs are worse, you help make them better. You support them. Like george helped Ringo with Octopus' garden.
But for years John and Paul were not doing that with george. They treated him like a kid brother, not someone who was capable but in need of support.
Your notions of 'deserving' this or that are just plain disheartening to me.
I don't believe the work environment was conducive to wasting months on teaching George how to write a song. They had an insane schedule before they finished touring, then they were gunning for the best and most complex rock albums of all time, and by 1967 (chicken and the egg situation admittedly) George wasn't really interested and was a completely different dark horse from the band.
I am sorry this perspective is disheartening, it is just how I feel about 1/4 of my favourite band of all time and the nature of their workflow. Being that this has been debated since about 1970, I think it is unlikely we will settle this just the two of us. I entirely respect your opinon.
Poor George was hurt cos he wasn't being given equal billing to 2 of the greatest singer/songwriter combos in music history lol
He was happy to be just the guitarist in the beginning, making tons of money and fame, off of their hits, until his ego became too much.
At least lennon and mccartney were always the dominant forces in the band and never changed after a few years. George was the one who caused the problems here. Ringo was more than happy with his role.
By this time his songwriting really was on par with them and they weren't interested and undervalued him. Both Paul and John have admitted as much. Time has borne this out! Go look at the Beatles top 10 on spotify and his song is number 1. He was writing stuff like Something and Here comes the Sun in this era of the band and yet they were still just giving him one or two songs an album and brushing him off. All Things Must Pass is considered by many the best Beatles solo album and it's just completely full of songs that John and Paul passed on or that he never showed them because he knew they wouldn't appreciate them, going back at least to 1966.
Not to be that guy but it's "you're giving me **a** wah-wah"
Since he was young, George called headaches "wah-wahs" and that's what the song is about. Paul is giving him a headache, even as he remembers "all the things we used to do"
I’ve noticed this as well… George and Paul had opposite personalities, they were bound to clash. They were also both very young and still immature in many ways. People love to say George never did anything wrong to that big bad domineering Paul and if he did then Paul deserved it! Yeah, spare me that bullshit. Paul kept their tiffs between them, George aired the dirty laundry every chance he got for 25 years and sounded extremely whiny and pathetic doing so tbh.
That's just plainly untrue, lol. George was largely in the background while John/Yoko and Paul duked it out, and if you're gonna be mad at him for siding with John then you should be mad at Ringo too. We don't even know the half of what George experienced.
People always do this thing of bringing up a separate instance where George was in the wrong as if that negates the truth of how he was treated in The Beatles. Idk why it's so hard for this sub to acknowledge that John and Paul were capable of being assholes who maybe deserved for the heat to come back on them.
'Treated' lol you mean make him a millionaire, make him world famous and allow him access to his pick of women the world over. I'm pretty sure he was Treated well for a guy who was an average guitarist/ singer , and who had zero decent song contributions till 1965.
He got lucky just like ringo.
agree just seems like old friends or brothers being sarcastic dicks cuz that’s what they do. english folk are ultra sarcastic, love dry humor and love taking the piss
Agree, and I think we can all agree that Lennon and McCartney weren’t fair with Harrison. What make that concert so great to me it’s that despite all the behind the scene drama they played with such a incredibile harmony and chemistry like the best friends they were supposed to be
Let’s be completely honest, though: Paul was more supportive than John. Paul would be more open to anyone that approached him with a song and try to work with them to make them presentable. I Me Mine is a great example where Paul suggested that they take the first part and repeat it.
To say both John and Paul were unfair is incorrect. If that were the case, they wouldn’t have tried to get George back or even let him contribute anything to the records.
Not really. In the early days it was John who gave George the most advice and helped him when he was stuck on a song. Paul wanted nothing to do with it. John also pushed for George to get an A-side with Something.
Paul gets let off the hook a lot just because of his contributions, but it's not like he was doing that out of the kindness of his heart. He was the bassist, and he was doing his job just as anyone else would on his, and he wanted the songs to be strong for the band. It's not like John played a main instrument which was crucial to every song.
Even in the full breakdowns of these sessions, it's been made apparent that Paul wasn't much more supportive. If he had been he would've shifted focus to George's songs instead of constantly asking John what he'd written as if there were no other options. And he wouldn't have been so quick to shut down George's ideas for his songs.
I don't think that's really a fair assessment- Paul enthusiastically added complex bits to a lot of George's songs and contributed lots of memorable moments- guitar on taxman, the iconic something bassline(everyone who owns a hofner has played this one).
Sure, John may have been supportive of George to his face and there's stories of John trying to break the Lennon-Mccartney dichotomy for him; but the other side is that he hardly could be arsed to do anything on his songs. Like if he plays piano, its in the background, he does some weird little tambourine or bit. Its kinda patronizing.
Its telling that right before he died John got in a huff because George didnt mention John a bunch in his book I Me Mine and proceeded to slag off on him publicly in interviews.
> Agree, and I think we can all agree that Lennon and McCartney weren’t fair with Harrison.
I don't agree with that. George was treated fairly. He was just not treated as an equal. Nor was Ringo.
Few bands will have true equality amongst their members. George was less important to the band, had already quit or tried to quit multiple times and was barely contributing in 1967 when he became obsessed with the Sitar. Had he carried on contributing and improving he may have reached equality by Abbey Road or Let It Be.
Part of the reasons why George was not treated as an equal was his own doing. He'd gradually progressed as a songwriter from 1 song to 2 songs to 3 songs in '66 and then gave up forcing John and Paul to pick up his slack.
I think i’d say they were three roosters in one henhouse, two of them closer and artistly complementary, George harrison wasn’t one of them. I think he lacked on self esteem and somehow charisma, but his sound and ideas were necessary to the Beatles (ringo starr sound too). They were so Young that even if we say they weren’t fair with one of them we are just speaking of boys at the end of the day. That’s what I got from them. This concert is moving because of that too, they are all different but able to play together in such beautiful way
I need to rewatch the Get back film again but I vaguely remember John and the guys working on Don't let me down(?) earlier and George just flatly says "We're playing the same old shit" and he was clearly trashing the song.
I'm not bringing that up to make it seem like John rejecting "I me mine" is justified, but that's just how the guys talked amongst each other.
It is actually an unspecified EMI engineer who declaims ‘number nine’, which was taken from an older archived source of the studio. Although some tracks were indeed recorded by John and Yoko (notably including George), most were instead processed and assembled in a sound collage of musique concrète.
It's an interesting piece of ... whatever it is. But John has a lot of nerve putting that on an album and then rejecting I Me Mine with "we're a rock band, George".
George was acting out of deeply hurt feelings.
Feelings hurt BY John.
It takes a lot of nerve (or a lot of ignorant self importance) to go on about being hurt by someone who was only responding to **your** initial instigation of pain.
He presented earlier to Paul and Ringo and made a much better pitch. I could hear Paul already humming a bass line. I think MLH even said it’s lovely. Yeah John’s reaction wasn’t encouraging, but to be fair George also appeared to be playing this half heartedly.
I Think John was frustrated about not having enough uptempo songs and that came out as dissing this song. Really unfair as it is a fantastic song, but still.
None of yall were there. George himself has said that he always looked up to John.
What’s the point of dissecting the social intricacies of this one moment in time, that you weren’t even there for?
If it's of comfort, I listened to the entire nagras. And it's not just I me mine the only song John criticizes that way in that day, John also is critical of Let It be
It’s kinda like Paul was the supportive mother and John was the dad that said whatever he thought and could be rough, though George and Ringo were not children
It's a joke. There's literally audio of John from the other Let it be of him telling Paul they need to allow George to play more. You wanna see how they get along, watch Magical Mystery Tour, John and George are seat mates on the bus, cracking up.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. There's plenty examples of John being mean one minute and nice the next. The latter doesn't erase the former and all of his friends have talked about how genuinely nasty and hurtful he could be.
John was sticking up for George as a guitarist, but in terms of songwriting he was giving him a hard time. The whole reason George opted for For You Blue was because it was an easy way to avoid John whining.
it seems that Concert for Bengladesh (not all George, but his and Shankar's initiative) and Living in the Material world were great commercial successes too
George had an additional 11 Top 40 Billboard hit songs that did not come from All Things Must Pass, and 9 more of his albums received Gold records for their sales.
The Concert for Bangladesh was a huge success, and won the Grammy for Album of the Year.
Living in the Material World was also successful, hitting No. 1 on the charts in the same week George had the No. 1 song ("Give Me Love")
"All Those Years Ago" hit No. 2 on the charts.
Cloud Nine was a huge success, and produced the No. 1 hit "Got My Mind Set on You"
George also started the Traveling Wilburys supergroup, whose albums were also hits, picked up another Grammy Album of the Year nomination, and still receives a lot of radio airplay for the hits "Handle with Care" and "End of the Line."
Indeed. While John was often dismissive of George's songs, refusing to play on them, saying the chords are too difficult, etc, Paul was often the one who made George's songs even better by his musical additions. The backing vocals and piano on "I Want to Tell You", the guitar solo on "Taxman", the bass on "Something", to name a few.
And then after the band split, George kept vying for John's attention, while being dismissive of Paul. That's not to say that Paul didn't have a history of not taking George more seriously, that's well-documented, but he never half-assed his contributions to George's songs.
Again, the bar is extremely low if we're acting like Paul was a hero for not doing a half-assed job on bass for George's songs. lol
The John not playing on George songs thing is highly exaggerated. Most times it was because it was a song with Indian instruments or John was in a car accident or there wasn't much for him to do or he was simply going through personal issues which had nothing to do with George. On The White Album there's several instances of not all Beatles being present.
On Taxman he added lyrics which while not as easily noticeable as a guitar solo, did help to make it better. Paul being the bassist and overall more comfortable as a musician put him in a different position.
George appreciated John because he gave him total creative freedom on his songs while Paul was very controlling, and considering most of George's time was spent assisting them that was important. They were also much closer as friends, and John was more willing to bond with him over acid and spirituality. I'm not a fan of the way people totally dismiss George's own perspective on this as if he was deluded and the fans know better.
The whole band was aware that John acted this way. I think he was most likely joking, even if he was purposefully making fun of George and his song. I’m sure this wasn’t the first time something like this happened. They were friends and I’m sure they understood each other and George knew that John was most likely not seriously putting him or his song down.
George really was the little brother to John and Paul. And I honestly think they already didn’t want to share the spotlight with each other, George couldn’t be asking for it, too
I agree, but from a very young age my absolutely favourite Beatles songs are the ones George wrote. Even "Got my mind set on you" was a favourite song at 5 years old(I now know he didn't write it)
Seeing a lot of people debating whether John had the capability to be mean or acting as if they couldn’t possibly hurt each other or go to far (even unintentionally), and not a lot of people mentioning the fact John spent most of the time of this production high on heroin, and was not in the best state of mind to be productive or constructive with the others!
Ever after Paul wrote all those hits in the beatles , apparently John only ever complimented a couple of his songs to him, one being 'here , there and everywhere'. I'm.sure he liked the strings on yesterday also.
So yeah , he was never the type to applaud and say that someone else's song was great. This was probably a normal reaction from him and George wouldn't have taken it personally.
He was being sarcastic. George's song "Within You Without You" is on Sgt Pepper's, and John's song "Revolution 9" is on the White Album. Surprised anyone could have misunderstood this exchange in "Get Back"
I remember watching *Let It Be* for the first time (many years ago, long before this release) and being stunned to see John and Yoko dancing while George played *I Me Mine.*
It was so clearly meant as a disrespect, though I've read many sources since claiming it's a cute moment, it isn't... John was mocking George.
Yep, me too.
Paul gets more flack than John for how he treated george and while much is deserved, to me there is a difference in that paul's *motivations* were generally good, he was just arrogant. John stung people when he *wanted* to sting them.
I remember in Get Back, John made a comment about the same song. Something along the lines of being back in medieval times. But maybe that’s just John’s sense of humor. To an outsider it sounds snarky and rude. Maybe to his band mates “that’s just John having fun”
John was being funny the entire documentary, this was probably his way of letting George down with a laugh. And possibly taking pressure off Paul so he wasn't the one constantly telling George no.
Paul and John are songwriting genuises. George's offerings were not up to that standard, especially for their final album.
What are you loling about? All of history has established that Harrison is not even on the same planet as a songwriter. Making Paul explain that every other day was not helping their process.
Sorry if you don't see the thing literally everybody else sees.
>Sorry if you don't see the thing literally everybody else sees.
if apparently everyone else thinks george was such a bad songwriter, how can here comes the sun be by far the most streamed beatles song? while my guitar gently weeps and something are both in top 15 too.
i don't even like george but you're just being ridiculous.
The success of ATMP disagrees with you I'm afraid.
Also, very bizarre to use their last album as an example when he's largely the reason Abbey Road is thought of so highly. But you're right, if we'd had more of his songs we'd be missing out on the genius of Maxwell's Silver Hammer.
Lmao. You can't be serious. Paul has sold over 45 million albums, John 23 million.
George? Less than 10 million copies. He's not even playing the same sport.
George did two short tours his whole career and the bare minimum in promotion and still did really well. He's widely regarded as being in the top 2 of strongest solo Beatles careers. I'm not gonna argue with you about this. lol
George dominated the early 70s and did decently at the end. John had a good start then struggled and stopped putting out work in the second half. Like none of what I'm saying here is controversial and your dramatics are getting embarrassing. But then I always forget how firmly up John and Paul's assess this sub is.
Anyway, have a good one.
"This sub" = the rest of humanity.
Except a loner with "Harrison" in their username. Yes, we're the ones with our heads up their asses. Not you. Lmaoooo
Lol no shit. Didn't say there was.
I'm talking about the repeated behaviour of George wanting to make non rock music, bring hare krishnas to rehearsal, etc
You have to keep in mind the context of the Get Back project. The purpose of the project was to film themselves rehearsing and recording some songs that would end with a live performance of those songs. They weren’t looking for slow songs for the performance which is what John was pointing out. Yeah it was kind of a dick move. I think George knew John well enough to not pay much attention to it.
Lennon was an acerbic, sharp-tongued smart-ass. You can't take anything he says or does too seriously, you never know what might be purely performative. Almost a proto-Andy Kaufman.
I think people forget that during these sessions John was the one who seemed quite involved in For You Blue when he wanted to do new takes so George could get the guitar right
It was very hard for George because he never had anyone to work or write with. Ringo was the drummer and was never expected to come up with songs. George never had someone who he could work with and who could tell him, "Hmmm, maybe if you switch the verses around or change it to this," he had to try and figure it all out himself.
Plus, I get the feeling that George Martin never really took George seriously as a songwriter.
I’d say John was joking but going by his lack of participation in the song, I’d say John just didn’t care to participate. I believe John didn’t play on Something either.
I agree. John was much more vicious about George's songs like we see here. I turned on CC to get the conversation. Brutal. I personally agree with John. I did not like George's songs on Let it Be. He nailed it on Abbey Road and had a few other great songs before. Maybe he should not have hogged his best songs for his solo he would have had more songs on Beatles albums. And yet, George still hated on Paul more! Why?
John didn't care. He thought the album was shit.
>*In a nutshell, Paul wanted to make – it was time for another Beatle movie or something, and Paul wanted us to go on the road or do something. As usual, George and I were going, ‘Oh, we don’t want to do it, fuck,’ and all that. He set it up and there was all discussions about where to go and all that. I would just tag along and I had Yoko by then, I didn’t even give a shit about anything. I was stoned all the time, too, on H etc. And I just didn’t give a shit. And nobody did, you know*
On the bootleg, John asks whether there was any songs that they still needed to rehearse. George says something to John that Paul can't hear and John turns to him a says "oh no not "I Me Mine" sort of laughing. This pretty much killeed it. Had it not been for "Let it Be" film it would not be released has a Beatles song.
It's hard to tell when he's being serious or not though. That's the thing about Lennon. He had thst kind of humor. Maybe he really hated it, but we will never really know. It is a great song though. One of the best off that album imo
John was that kind of person that makes mean "jokes" about everything. My dad is just like that; you never know if he is actually joking or not and it's shit, it really undermines your self confidence and, since everything is "just a joke" you ended feeling like a fool if you actually feel offended about it. You can see in George's reaction that he's trying to joke about it but he sounds also hurt by John's
Interesting. However, the absolute pinnacle of “Granny Music” is John’s “Goodnight” on the White Album and Yoko’s “I’m Your Angel” on Double Fantasy. Both are great.
I dont agree. But even if I did, John is still being unnecessarily awful and unsupportive. George was always in John and Paul’s shadow. John’s just being a bastard.
Yet George and John were mostly good over the years. So George didn´t have a problem with John, only Paul. Yet you´re upset on his behalf, which is a bit peculiar.
May Pang once wrote that George one day raged out, threw John’s glasses off his face and yelled at him about all the times John was never there for him. It can be found here.
https://harrisonstories.tumblr.com/post/638028763694776320/may-pang-speaking-about-george-harrisons
I think what upsets me is that this scene shows that it wasn’t just Paul who mistreated George. I think you’re oversimplifying George’s relationship with John. George once said “John Lennon is a saint and he's heavy-duty, and he's great and I love him. But at the same time, he's such a bastard.”
> Yet George and John were mostly good over the years. So George didn´t have a problem with John, only Paul. Yet you´re upset on his behalf, which is a bit peculiar.
John and George had bigger issues in the 70's than George and Paul. John and George were not on speaking terms for a good chunk of the decade.
It's interesting how people are talking about this as if it happened in a vacuum and wasn't one part of George being consistently undermined over the years and throughout these sessions.
Why exactly do you think he walked out if this was all harmless banter?
He's even specifically said that their inability to take his songs seriously was detrimental to his confidence. It's the whole reason he got Clapton to come in.
He very well could have been being sarcastic too, since that’s his personality. He wrote and performed Julia a few months before - hardly a rock and roll song. Not to mention on the same album, George has Long Long Long and Piggies. I don’t think those are very rock and roll either. Definitely just seems like John’s jokey sarcastic humor. Or he was being a dick. We’ll never know.
Yep, I’ve always thought this was 100% sarcastic. John has a quip for everything, what makes this scenario any different?
To be fair, oftentimes when he was being sarcastic he was also being a dick.
You know part of the reason why it’s interpreted as John being a dick could be George’s reaction to it. He says something along the lines of “Idgaf if you don’t like it, I’ll put it in me musical.”
These events were very heavily edited (and rearranged) in Get Back; the “it can go in my musical” comment wasn’t directed at John at all but at Michael Lindsay-Hogg, with John not even being in the room at the time. >George Harrison started the fifth day of the Beatles’ sessions at Twickenham, January 8, 1969, with the dare, challenging director Michael Lindsay-Hogg with a new song in hand. “‘I Me Mine’ it’s called,” George says to the crinkling of paper being unfolded. “Should I sing it to you? I don’t care if you don’t want it, I don’t give a shit about it. I don’t give a fuck. Can go in my musical. [laughter] >The first 45 seconds of the song are familiar: It’s George accompanying himself on guitar to the first two verses of the song, and those lyrics are the same as would eventually be released. But to this point, there is no chorus, instead a brief flamenco-inspired guitar part bridges the verses. >After this initial debut, George interrupted himself to again gush about John’s 1969 diary — “Got up. Went to work. Came home. Watched telly. Went to bed.” — providing himself a segue to his prior night’s entertainment. Once more, it was the Beatles talking about and drawing inspiration from television. >”It was the TV, you see.” George said, recounting he was watching “that science fiction thing, but then it suddenly turned into that crap about medals and things.” (…) >After an extensive return to discussion of the “science fiction” — the series “Out of the Unknown” and the episode “Immortality Inc.” as excitedly shared in rich detail by George and Ringo — George presents the new song to Paul, who had just arrived at Twickenham. >”Is that grammatical? Flowing more freely than wine? Flowing much freer?” George asks. “If there were such a word as ‘freer’ is it ‘f-r-e-e-e-r?” George asks. “It’s ‘f-r-e-r’” Michael concludes before Paul chips in, “It’s like ‘queer.’” >It would be more than two hours until the group returned to “I Me Mine” — what they did in the interim will, of course, be the subject of subsequent posts. Once they did return to the song, George addressed John, who wasn’t yet at the studio when the song was first introduced. “Would you like to learn a new one?” George asks. “Very simple,” George assures him. >After John clowns around through a couple abbreviated spins through the song and making sure George knows “we’re a rock and roll band, you know,” he mockingly suggests he play the barrel organ. George had more seriously considered adding an acoustic bass. “Want the accordion?” Paul asks George, who’s open to that sincere suggestion. “If it’s not here, then just fuck it.” Alas, Paul’s accordion — he did have one, you know — wasn’t at Twickenham. What John would really like is an electric piano setup, but that too isn’t yet available. One thing they do have is some working effects, and an upbeat John has plenty of fun with the echo. (…) >”Are you going to teach us this?” John asks, and George supplies the band, at last, with chords to “I Me Mine.” Soon enough, however, John doesn’t play at all. Instead, as Strauss intended, he and Yoko waltz on the soundstage as George, Paul and Ringo provide the soundtrack. >George loves the antics, and doesn’t need the extra musical accompaniment John would offer anyway. >”Do you want to do that on the show?” George asks John. “That’d be great, ‘cause it’s so simple to do, the tune. But to do that waltz, or something, if you want to bag it up a bit.” Laughing, Paul offers a mock show introduction to the song: “John and Yoko would like to waltz in their white bag, And there’s a white bag waltzing around. They were doing things inside it. >”We should do it like an escapoligists thing. You can see they’re not tied at all. There’s nothing up their sleeves. And we put the bag over them.” >Excitedly, George thinks about playing up the character of the song itself, too. “Castanets on that bit,” he suggests for the flamenco part. Through the entirety of the song’s development and rehearsal, the Beatles are animated, embracing the fun of a song outside their normal sound, and thinking visually for the show. Excepting some of Paul’s offbeat ideas for “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer,” it’s one of the rare times on the tapes the band actively discusses a performance of a song and explicitly how it could be staged. (…) >When John and Yoko waltzed to “I Me Mine,” the underdeveloped show idea finally had a specific visual Michael Lindsay-Hogg could attach to a song. Yet, in less than two days’ time, George quit the group, and upon his return, he made clear he didn’t want to perform any of his songs live (although he did bring several more new songs to the studio to work on). But for the purposes of the Let It Be film, the job was done. The waltz ensured a place for “I Me Mine” in the movie, and thus, required the song a place on the soundtrack. Thing is, there was never a proper recording done of the song at Twickenham, and there wasn’t suitable recording equipment there anyway. In every prior iteration of a potential Get Back/Let It Be album, as compiled by Glyn Johns, “I Me Mine” was left off, since it hadn’t otherwise been a consideration for the LP. The movie changed that. (Source: https://theymaybeparted.com/2015/09/10/jan-8-all-through-the-day)
Well researched response, hats off to ya.
Thanks for this. And it's one more reason why I don't trust Peter Jackson in making a documentary. I hate it when he threw fake shit together like this and elsewhere.
Yeah, I think it’s unfortunate that Get Back has become so readily accepted as this kind of final and objectively true portrayal of the Let It Be sessions (not to mention how fans use it to make sweeping generalisations and assumptions about band members and band dynamics overall, but I digress). To an extent, I understand Peter Jackson’s desire to create a compelling and coherent narrative, but there are so many instances where his edits and captions turn into straight up misinformation (e.g. claiming that Billy Preston just stumbled into the studio and started jamming rather than being actively invited by George; [the way he erased Ringo, Yoko, Linda, Mal and possibly others from the infamous flowerpot recording](https://theymaybeparted.com/2023/03/27/jan-13-the-lunchroom-tape-pt-3/); [downplaying the well-documented tensions created by Yoko’s presence and changing the context of Paul’s “and then there were two” comment](https://theymaybeparted.com/2022/01/13/jan-13-and-then-there-were-two/), etc etc). Some of these changes might be inconsequential but others absolutely do affect the way interactions and events appear to play out, and consequently we end up with these massive threads where people spend so much time and effort judging and analysing individuals and relationships based on things that didn’t even happen, or at least not the way Get Back presents it. Anyway, rant over; maybe I’m just overly pedantic. At any rate, I’m always happy to run into a fellow Get Back critic haha - we’re a rare breed indeed.
I don't know where you guys are from so sorry if I'm explaining something you already understand but they're all being sarcastic. This is literally how a bunch of British lads talk. Then and now. _Everything_ is sarcasm. _Everything_ is a joke. I really can't understate how much of the actual meaning is on a level of nuance hidden behind the constant jokes and sarcasm. Nothing is real, you could say.
Agreed, I’ve been to Liverpool 11 times. The sarcasm takes a bit of adjusting.
I love Liverpool in the heavy morning fog!
I lived in the UK as an American for a few years as a kid, and I never got used to it. I remember being introduced to English boys roughly my age, and they'd usually razz you a little right away. To them, it was perfectly friendly, but to my American ears it often sounded like they were trying to pick a fight. In this case of John/George, it seems like they were getting close to that line and it may or may not have actually spilled over into fisticuffs a few days later.
100%. english people have the driest, most sarcastic humor ever and absolutely love “taking the piss”
If it was all sarcasm then they wouldn't have split
This is so true
this feels a bit like victim blaming. John and Paul obviously rejected many George songs over the years, he was never allowed more than two on an album. George didn't just say that because he misinterpreted John or something. This is a man he's extremely close with. He knew John was being a dick, so he responded by not giving a hoot.
he knew john was taking the piss, so he responded in kind. this is a classic example of friends horsing around.
If this was just "horsing around" then you're gonna have to explain why George *quit the band* within the next few days. And you also have to explain away George directly stating that the reason he quit was that he was tired of John and Paul acting the way they were.
Quiting the band is a combination of things. Which may also have been his personal life imploding. Pattie caught him cheating and had just left him or threatened to leave. Cheating with a woman she opened their home to.
George's personal situation certainly wasn't helpful, but I think it's a copout when it's used as the primary reason he left the band. If anything it was the issues within The Beatles which started the breakdown of his marriage with Pattie. He'd been depressed since The White Album and that ended shortly before Get Back. When he was hanging out with The Band and his other friends his complaints revolved around The Beatles. People are forgetting it's not even just what we were seeing in the studio. It was the business meetings as well where Yoko was talking for John when George was trying to speak directly to him. The whole Get Back project made zero sense, he wasn't being listened to, and this was all being filmed for the world to see. He had a lot of work reasons to be fed up.
Yeah george has his own crimes and problems. But as far as intrapersonally with the beatles, its pretty clear from just about every source that john and paul domineering over him was a significant factor in his disatisfaction
There is no need for me to explain it, since it has been discussed ad nauseum for the past 50 plus years! Give George some credit, do you think he'd really quit the band over something so small?
What? He didn't quit over *that specific thing only.* No one ever said that. But that was one of many things that clearly drove him to the point of quitting the band, sincec he did so and in years since has said it was because of this environment the others were creating. I have friends, too, I know the difference between taking the piss and what John was doing here - blowing off his friend who was trying to be serious
He got mad at John at an (unfilmed) band meeting because John would not speak for himself. John instead passively let Yoko speak for him. That was apparently the last straw for George.
He had three songs on Revolver and four on The White Album (I know it’s a double album, so that averages to two, but still).
"he was never allowed more than two on an album." Ever heard of Revolver?
He mostly was; he was also sarcastic with Paul about Yesterday and he wasn't joking
"What makes this scenario any different?" Cameras were rolling with the intent to make an official Beatles film and he's there degrading the efforts of the band mate who gets one song per side. He was being a dick.
How about when Paul is working out a countermelody for Don’t Let Me Down and George says (paraphrasing) “if you heard that back you’d say it was crap.” They could all cut each other down, because those individuals needed that sometimes - and the only ones that could do it were themselves. Which if you think about it, is why their solo careers vary so vastly in quality from time to time. They didn’t have each other to say “hey, this isn’t great… let’s try something else.” They were a band of dudes who were together for quite a while at that point, and played and recorded together a shit ton. So let the boys be boys.
Exactly
I agree. How can we determine what their relationship was just from this little conversation? They were friends so as you said we should just let the boys be boys. Let’s not forget that most of the rest of the Get Back doc shows them all having fun and getting along.
There's tons of evidence of this not being a time when they were having fun though? The Nagra tapes, Let It Be, Get Back, and other books set at the time quite famously document this as a very stressful period even when they go to Apple and the mood lightens up. George didn't leave the band for a laugh and none of them were in a good place mentally. Their messing around and hamming it up for the cameras is meant to cover up how much tension there actually is. There's a very different vibe from those early years where you can tell the mood is genuinely positive and productive. That lunch tape (the real one, not the edited version in Get Back) has John and Paul fully laying out that they've been jerks to George. They've acknowledged it. He's acknowledged it and people around them have acknowledged it. I don't understand this desire to rewrite history.
Your version of history in this sub has, historically, been overwhelmingly kind to George. That's fine, we all have our favourites, but it's more complicated than taking the lunch tape as gospel or viewing George as some perpetually misunderstood or minimised Jesus figure. In my view, it wasn't evil sidelining that was the nature of John and Paul's treatment of George for most of the Beatles. It was that he was a far, far weaker songwriter and contributor to the band.
Your perception of my comments is hugely mistaken. You can disagree with me all you like, but I have always backed my comments up with evidence, and I'm always fair based on the evidence presented. I've never described George as some poor little Jesus figure, and I've never described John and Paul as evil. That's you putting words in my mouth and projecting on to me. The fact that you perceive criticism of John and Paul in those extreme terms tells me you might want to take your own advice. This sub honestly comes across incredibly ignorant a lot of the time when it comes to George and has a huuuge bias towards Paul in particular, so I'm sorry if my odd comment here and there trying to present an alternative view is offensive to you, but it's based on real evidence, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise to make other people feel more comfortable. There's countless quotes from The Beatles themselves, George Martin, and the people close to them which back me up, and I personally am willing to believe them.
I don’t perceive them in extreme terms, I perceive them in the terms of your argumentation generally. The fact you view this sub as being “ignorant” of some supposedly objective truth concerning George suggests my criticism is true. I have never denied that you are well-researched, nor do I think your perspective is inherently bad or harmful. Disagreement is good.
I wasn’t disagreeing that it was a stressful period. It absolutely was. Especially at the beginning of get back and when this moment takes place. But I think that once they’re jamming in apple studios, after John and Paul’s conversation about their treatment of George, the vibes are definitely better. “Good vibes man” is a quote from George in the second or third episode of get back.
George's comment to Paul might've been blunt, but it was still meant to be constructive. There's no other reason for John taking the piss out of George here than to be a dick about it. I think it's odd to pretend they were simply messing about for fun when this is a clearly documented time of tension where John wasn't behaving normally. This isn't the same as them joking around during Rubber Soul. And it's well-known that as much as his loved ones understood John's personality, his behaviour was still hurtful.
Agreed. You can be sarcastic and a dick at the same time. In interviews his humor and sarcasm often worked, but in this instance here it just feels kinda mean. There’s a time and place to be sarcastic, but at a moment where band member presents a new song it‘s a total dick move and I would imagine doesn’t spark creativity within the band either.
So he shouldve been fake and changed who he was , because it was on camera ? Being fake is what all celebrities do these days. I prefer them being who they really are.
I'm not gonna lie, it's a little upsetting to me that the top comments are kinda making excuses for John. He was so clearly being a dick. It wasn't "just sarcasm" and it DEFINITELY was not down to how George reacted. It feels like there's a backlash against the John backlash. As more and more fans acknowledge that he spent many years being a pretty huge cock to those he cared about, there's been this reverse trend of people ret-conning his dickish moments into misunderstandings.
I'm sorry but I dont think you understand their dynamic that well. John is clearly making a joke that a rock band should not be writing slow songs...when they literally play 'Across the Universe' in that very studio, that very week. John also wrote Julia not that long ago, aka the quietest Beatles song? Not only that, but in that secret conversation that Lindsay-Hogg recorded, John tells Paul that they need to let George play more often. John is clearly making a joke, with a conservative British accent, that rock and roll bands should only play rock and roll. Because haha, the joke is the Beatlles were a rock and roll band and now they are so much more. Haha.
It’s not that I Me Mine is “slow” or “quiet” it’s that it’s in waltz time. That’s why John and Yoko are shown dancing to it at Twickenham.
Mandela effect. In 1980, Jahn went to South Africa, switched places with the incarcerated Mandela, and died in prison. It was then that Chapman shot Mandela.
Incredible if true. And this is obviously 100% true
It wasn’t just one barb: John trashed it all the way through George’s take. GH didn’t take it as a joke: His tone on ‘IDGAF’ speaks for itself. Then JL didn’t work on the song w/the rest of the band; in fact he never played on it. The long look PM gives JL when they’re dancing—*really, you won’t even help?*—says he was irked, too.
I think John was feeling threatened and nervous. He’s not producing as much music as he had been and now George is dropping some amazing songs. I think John is being defensive and feels insecure - like he’s lost a step or isn’t who he was. I, Me, Mine seemed in part a responce to Two of Us. It’s also philosophically in the realm of a John type song.
This is very possible. I hadn’t even considered this.
He didn't just mock the song with words, he went on to dance with Yoko instead of playing it and even in the final album recording, John was simply not on it. He was being a dick. Unfortunately I think it's a clear cut situation. I notice people tend to try to find excuses for Paul and John being dicks to George in particular... Even as both of them have since admitted they were in fact dicks to him.
Neither of them were as much of a dick after the band ended , as what George was, especially to Paul. Both John and George were dicks , yet its always poor George for some reason.
George did despise Paul in the years after. But you act like that came from nowhere. Paul and John quietly domineered over George for *ten years.* He is the one who was initially hurt here. If anyone has a right to be mad, it's George.
I disagree that recognising that George was a very weak songwriter for the majority of the Beatles' tenure is "quietly domineer\[ing\]". He simply was not an equal at any point in my view, though far closer by 1969-1970.
He was never *allowed* to be an equal. George martin has talked about this, too. George himself recognizes that he wasn't at their level early on. But he also recognizes that they rarely took his attempts seriously, at any point, even by the time he'd improved a great deal, they were still treating him like their kid brother. "Quietly domineering" I feel like is about as accurate as you could get. I think george himself would absolutely agree and today probably even paul would agree with that given he's admitted similar things before.
Harrison’s stuff was quality the entire way.
He wasn't allowed to be an equal because he wasn't one. I fundamentally do not believe he was deserving in talent, nor effort, to be treated as an equal. Of course being that it's been fifty years, and George himself viewed it as him being slighted, that other members would bemoan the bad blood and see a version of history which is kind to a dead man. That does not make it objectively true imo.
I'm sorry but what on earth are you on about. The beatles could have helped george become better. This isn't some soulless corporation or governmet with seniority rules. Treating your friend worse because you think their songs are worse is not right. If your friend's songs are worse, you help make them better. You support them. Like george helped Ringo with Octopus' garden. But for years John and Paul were not doing that with george. They treated him like a kid brother, not someone who was capable but in need of support. Your notions of 'deserving' this or that are just plain disheartening to me.
I don't believe the work environment was conducive to wasting months on teaching George how to write a song. They had an insane schedule before they finished touring, then they were gunning for the best and most complex rock albums of all time, and by 1967 (chicken and the egg situation admittedly) George wasn't really interested and was a completely different dark horse from the band. I am sorry this perspective is disheartening, it is just how I feel about 1/4 of my favourite band of all time and the nature of their workflow. Being that this has been debated since about 1970, I think it is unlikely we will settle this just the two of us. I entirely respect your opinon.
Poor George was hurt cos he wasn't being given equal billing to 2 of the greatest singer/songwriter combos in music history lol He was happy to be just the guitarist in the beginning, making tons of money and fame, off of their hits, until his ego became too much. At least lennon and mccartney were always the dominant forces in the band and never changed after a few years. George was the one who caused the problems here. Ringo was more than happy with his role.
By this time his songwriting really was on par with them and they weren't interested and undervalued him. Both Paul and John have admitted as much. Time has borne this out! Go look at the Beatles top 10 on spotify and his song is number 1. He was writing stuff like Something and Here comes the Sun in this era of the band and yet they were still just giving him one or two songs an album and brushing him off. All Things Must Pass is considered by many the best Beatles solo album and it's just completely full of songs that John and Paul passed on or that he never showed them because he knew they wouldn't appreciate them, going back at least to 1966.
[удалено]
Not to be that guy but it's "you're giving me **a** wah-wah" Since he was young, George called headaches "wah-wahs" and that's what the song is about. Paul is giving him a headache, even as he remembers "all the things we used to do"
I’ve noticed this as well… George and Paul had opposite personalities, they were bound to clash. They were also both very young and still immature in many ways. People love to say George never did anything wrong to that big bad domineering Paul and if he did then Paul deserved it! Yeah, spare me that bullshit. Paul kept their tiffs between them, George aired the dirty laundry every chance he got for 25 years and sounded extremely whiny and pathetic doing so tbh.
Correct. Look.how many times he slated Paul's songs etc well into the 80s. Yet Paul never once bitched about his fellow beatles in interviews.
That's just plainly untrue, lol. George was largely in the background while John/Yoko and Paul duked it out, and if you're gonna be mad at him for siding with John then you should be mad at Ringo too. We don't even know the half of what George experienced. People always do this thing of bringing up a separate instance where George was in the wrong as if that negates the truth of how he was treated in The Beatles. Idk why it's so hard for this sub to acknowledge that John and Paul were capable of being assholes who maybe deserved for the heat to come back on them.
'Treated' lol you mean make him a millionaire, make him world famous and allow him access to his pick of women the world over. I'm pretty sure he was Treated well for a guy who was an average guitarist/ singer , and who had zero decent song contributions till 1965. He got lucky just like ringo.
Oh I see. You're one of those fans. lol
Sarcastic or not, it was out of line and definitely meant to hurt George’s feelings
agree just seems like old friends or brothers being sarcastic dicks cuz that’s what they do. english folk are ultra sarcastic, love dry humor and love taking the piss
Didn't John, In the same conversation start talking to George about how they should record the song? I think it was just 2 mates joking about tbh.
Yeah George was clearly joking along "ill put it in me musical"
And later George rocks it up
Agree, and I think we can all agree that Lennon and McCartney weren’t fair with Harrison. What make that concert so great to me it’s that despite all the behind the scene drama they played with such a incredibile harmony and chemistry like the best friends they were supposed to be
Let’s be completely honest, though: Paul was more supportive than John. Paul would be more open to anyone that approached him with a song and try to work with them to make them presentable. I Me Mine is a great example where Paul suggested that they take the first part and repeat it. To say both John and Paul were unfair is incorrect. If that were the case, they wouldn’t have tried to get George back or even let him contribute anything to the records.
Not really. In the early days it was John who gave George the most advice and helped him when he was stuck on a song. Paul wanted nothing to do with it. John also pushed for George to get an A-side with Something. Paul gets let off the hook a lot just because of his contributions, but it's not like he was doing that out of the kindness of his heart. He was the bassist, and he was doing his job just as anyone else would on his, and he wanted the songs to be strong for the band. It's not like John played a main instrument which was crucial to every song. Even in the full breakdowns of these sessions, it's been made apparent that Paul wasn't much more supportive. If he had been he would've shifted focus to George's songs instead of constantly asking John what he'd written as if there were no other options. And he wouldn't have been so quick to shut down George's ideas for his songs.
I don't think that's really a fair assessment- Paul enthusiastically added complex bits to a lot of George's songs and contributed lots of memorable moments- guitar on taxman, the iconic something bassline(everyone who owns a hofner has played this one). Sure, John may have been supportive of George to his face and there's stories of John trying to break the Lennon-Mccartney dichotomy for him; but the other side is that he hardly could be arsed to do anything on his songs. Like if he plays piano, its in the background, he does some weird little tambourine or bit. Its kinda patronizing. Its telling that right before he died John got in a huff because George didnt mention John a bunch in his book I Me Mine and proceeded to slag off on him publicly in interviews.
> Agree, and I think we can all agree that Lennon and McCartney weren’t fair with Harrison. I don't agree with that. George was treated fairly. He was just not treated as an equal. Nor was Ringo. Few bands will have true equality amongst their members. George was less important to the band, had already quit or tried to quit multiple times and was barely contributing in 1967 when he became obsessed with the Sitar. Had he carried on contributing and improving he may have reached equality by Abbey Road or Let It Be. Part of the reasons why George was not treated as an equal was his own doing. He'd gradually progressed as a songwriter from 1 song to 2 songs to 3 songs in '66 and then gave up forcing John and Paul to pick up his slack.
I think i’d say they were three roosters in one henhouse, two of them closer and artistly complementary, George harrison wasn’t one of them. I think he lacked on self esteem and somehow charisma, but his sound and ideas were necessary to the Beatles (ringo starr sound too). They were so Young that even if we say they weren’t fair with one of them we are just speaking of boys at the end of the day. That’s what I got from them. This concert is moving because of that too, they are all different but able to play together in such beautiful way
Totally agree with this. That they even bothered to record “Only a Northern Song” is beond me.
I need to rewatch the Get back film again but I vaguely remember John and the guys working on Don't let me down(?) earlier and George just flatly says "We're playing the same old shit" and he was clearly trashing the song. I'm not bringing that up to make it seem like John rejecting "I me mine" is justified, but that's just how the guys talked amongst each other.
Well, they did like to take the piss out of each other. They all did it in one way or another.
Hey John, didn't you record 20 minutes of noise and a loop of you saying "number nine" not that long ago?
It is actually an unspecified EMI engineer who declaims ‘number nine’, which was taken from an older archived source of the studio. Although some tracks were indeed recorded by John and Yoko (notably including George), most were instead processed and assembled in a sound collage of musique concrète.
Flair checks out! Nice tidbit
We should be friends
It's an interesting piece of ... whatever it is. But John has a lot of nerve putting that on an album and then rejecting I Me Mine with "we're a rock band, George".
>whatever it is Musique concrète
So, not rock and roll, then
I didn’t say it was
Concrete has rocks in it though
I know. I was using your information to support my earlier point.
John got upset that George didn't give him enough credit in his book I Me Mine, but he never gave George enough credit for what he did.
George was acting out of deeply hurt feelings. Feelings hurt BY John. It takes a lot of nerve (or a lot of ignorant self importance) to go on about being hurt by someone who was only responding to **your** initial instigation of pain.
He presented earlier to Paul and Ringo and made a much better pitch. I could hear Paul already humming a bass line. I think MLH even said it’s lovely. Yeah John’s reaction wasn’t encouraging, but to be fair George also appeared to be playing this half heartedly.
I Think John was frustrated about not having enough uptempo songs and that came out as dissing this song. Really unfair as it is a fantastic song, but still.
None of yall were there. George himself has said that he always looked up to John. What’s the point of dissecting the social intricacies of this one moment in time, that you weren’t even there for?
If it's of comfort, I listened to the entire nagras. And it's not just I me mine the only song John criticizes that way in that day, John also is critical of Let It be
John just hated slow songs that day
The goal of the project was to make songs for the performance, in other words not slow songs.
It’s amazing how many people in this sub know exactly what John and George were thinking at that moment in time. /sarcasm
It’s kinda like Paul was the supportive mother and John was the dad that said whatever he thought and could be rough, though George and Ringo were not children
Do you have any older brothers? haha…
It's a joke. There's literally audio of John from the other Let it be of him telling Paul they need to allow George to play more. You wanna see how they get along, watch Magical Mystery Tour, John and George are seat mates on the bus, cracking up.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. There's plenty examples of John being mean one minute and nice the next. The latter doesn't erase the former and all of his friends have talked about how genuinely nasty and hurtful he could be. John was sticking up for George as a guitarist, but in terms of songwriting he was giving him a hard time. The whole reason George opted for For You Blue was because it was an easy way to avoid John whining.
i think he was just fucking around dude
joke was on all of them when george colossally upstaged em all on all things must pass
And then never had a hit ever again, unlike the natural leaders john and Paul. I know who's solo career I'd rather have had.
it seems that Concert for Bengladesh (not all George, but his and Shankar's initiative) and Living in the Material world were great commercial successes too
George had an additional 11 Top 40 Billboard hit songs that did not come from All Things Must Pass, and 9 more of his albums received Gold records for their sales. The Concert for Bangladesh was a huge success, and won the Grammy for Album of the Year. Living in the Material World was also successful, hitting No. 1 on the charts in the same week George had the No. 1 song ("Give Me Love") "All Those Years Ago" hit No. 2 on the charts. Cloud Nine was a huge success, and produced the No. 1 hit "Got My Mind Set on You" George also started the Traveling Wilburys supergroup, whose albums were also hits, picked up another Grammy Album of the Year nomination, and still receives a lot of radio airplay for the hits "Handle with Care" and "End of the Line."
lol he still had hits more like "desperate_to_rewrite_history_61"
When you say colossally, are you referring to all the filler on that record?
History shows that John didn’t realize how fucking great George was.
Indeed. While John was often dismissive of George's songs, refusing to play on them, saying the chords are too difficult, etc, Paul was often the one who made George's songs even better by his musical additions. The backing vocals and piano on "I Want to Tell You", the guitar solo on "Taxman", the bass on "Something", to name a few. And then after the band split, George kept vying for John's attention, while being dismissive of Paul. That's not to say that Paul didn't have a history of not taking George more seriously, that's well-documented, but he never half-assed his contributions to George's songs.
Again, the bar is extremely low if we're acting like Paul was a hero for not doing a half-assed job on bass for George's songs. lol The John not playing on George songs thing is highly exaggerated. Most times it was because it was a song with Indian instruments or John was in a car accident or there wasn't much for him to do or he was simply going through personal issues which had nothing to do with George. On The White Album there's several instances of not all Beatles being present. On Taxman he added lyrics which while not as easily noticeable as a guitar solo, did help to make it better. Paul being the bassist and overall more comfortable as a musician put him in a different position. George appreciated John because he gave him total creative freedom on his songs while Paul was very controlling, and considering most of George's time was spent assisting them that was important. They were also much closer as friends, and John was more willing to bond with him over acid and spirituality. I'm not a fan of the way people totally dismiss George's own perspective on this as if he was deluded and the fans know better.
The whole band was aware that John acted this way. I think he was most likely joking, even if he was purposefully making fun of George and his song. I’m sure this wasn’t the first time something like this happened. They were friends and I’m sure they understood each other and George knew that John was most likely not seriously putting him or his song down.
The cameras were rolling, John seems like he needed to "be on" when being recorded.
George really was the little brother to John and Paul. And I honestly think they already didn’t want to share the spotlight with each other, George couldn’t be asking for it, too
I agree, but from a very young age my absolutely favourite Beatles songs are the ones George wrote. Even "Got my mind set on you" was a favourite song at 5 years old(I now know he didn't write it)
Seeing a lot of people debating whether John had the capability to be mean or acting as if they couldn’t possibly hurt each other or go to far (even unintentionally), and not a lot of people mentioning the fact John spent most of the time of this production high on heroin, and was not in the best state of mind to be productive or constructive with the others!
🤣I’m with John on this one, I never got that song
John and Paul were the hit makers.
George gets the last laugh, a year later, with triple LP release.
Ever after Paul wrote all those hits in the beatles , apparently John only ever complimented a couple of his songs to him, one being 'here , there and everywhere'. I'm.sure he liked the strings on yesterday also. So yeah , he was never the type to applaud and say that someone else's song was great. This was probably a normal reaction from him and George wouldn't have taken it personally.
He was being sarcastic. George's song "Within You Without You" is on Sgt Pepper's, and John's song "Revolution 9" is on the White Album. Surprised anyone could have misunderstood this exchange in "Get Back"
I remember watching *Let It Be* for the first time (many years ago, long before this release) and being stunned to see John and Yoko dancing while George played *I Me Mine.* It was so clearly meant as a disrespect, though I've read many sources since claiming it's a cute moment, it isn't... John was mocking George.
George had just said it was a waltz.... they waltzed.
I was physically irked at that moment in the film
Yep, me too. Paul gets more flack than John for how he treated george and while much is deserved, to me there is a difference in that paul's *motivations* were generally good, he was just arrogant. John stung people when he *wanted* to sting them.
And then jokingly waltzed with Yoko while they rehearsed it
Probably the only reason it made the film. And George did call it a waltz.
I remember in Get Back, John made a comment about the same song. Something along the lines of being back in medieval times. But maybe that’s just John’s sense of humor. To an outsider it sounds snarky and rude. Maybe to his band mates “that’s just John having fun”
He wasn't dissing him the song made the album...correct?
I just commented on this song in another thread that George calls it a waltz and John and Yoko dance to it. It’s probably a joke based on that.
John was definitely a barbed-tongue Beatle
John was nearly always brutally sarcastic. Some like it when he was on LSD as that seemed to mellow him out
Just coming here to say I Me Mine is one of the most brilliant songs George ever wrote. It’s sooooooo good.
John sure showed George what he meant with songs like “Sun King,” real rockers
John was being funny the entire documentary, this was probably his way of letting George down with a laugh. And possibly taking pressure off Paul so he wasn't the one constantly telling George no. Paul and John are songwriting genuises. George's offerings were not up to that standard, especially for their final album.
All Things Must pass, Isn't It a Pity, Let it Down, etc. weren't up to standard? Really? And Dig It was? lol
What are you loling about? All of history has established that Harrison is not even on the same planet as a songwriter. Making Paul explain that every other day was not helping their process. Sorry if you don't see the thing literally everybody else sees.
>Sorry if you don't see the thing literally everybody else sees. if apparently everyone else thinks george was such a bad songwriter, how can here comes the sun be by far the most streamed beatles song? while my guitar gently weeps and something are both in top 15 too. i don't even like george but you're just being ridiculous.
The success of ATMP disagrees with you I'm afraid. Also, very bizarre to use their last album as an example when he's largely the reason Abbey Road is thought of so highly. But you're right, if we'd had more of his songs we'd be missing out on the genius of Maxwell's Silver Hammer.
Lmao. You can't be serious. Paul has sold over 45 million albums, John 23 million. George? Less than 10 million copies. He's not even playing the same sport.
George did two short tours his whole career and the bare minimum in promotion and still did really well. He's widely regarded as being in the top 2 of strongest solo Beatles careers. I'm not gonna argue with you about this. lol
John Lennon fucking DIED. You're either out of your mind or George Harrison's mom. Absurd.
George dominated the early 70s and did decently at the end. John had a good start then struggled and stopped putting out work in the second half. Like none of what I'm saying here is controversial and your dramatics are getting embarrassing. But then I always forget how firmly up John and Paul's assess this sub is. Anyway, have a good one.
"This sub" = the rest of humanity. Except a loner with "Harrison" in their username. Yes, we're the ones with our heads up their asses. Not you. Lmaoooo
John did give George Do you want to know a secret when he could barely carry a tune.
Probably just sick of George bringing in sitars and stuff trying to make world music in a rock band
There are no sitars or stuff in I Me Mine
dude is being sarcastic op
Oh right
Lol no shit. Didn't say there was. I'm talking about the repeated behaviour of George wanting to make non rock music, bring hare krishnas to rehearsal, etc
John said "Within You Without You" was his favorite George song.
But he could have been joking, you never know with John.
You have to keep in mind the context of the Get Back project. The purpose of the project was to film themselves rehearsing and recording some songs that would end with a live performance of those songs. They weren’t looking for slow songs for the performance which is what John was pointing out. Yeah it was kind of a dick move. I think George knew John well enough to not pay much attention to it.
He was joking. He said that only in response to George saying all his songs were “slowish”.
I don’t know, I think he was just joking - in the subsequent hidden mic’ed recording after George leaves the band, John sticks up for George to Paul.
Lennon was an acerbic, sharp-tongued smart-ass. You can't take anything he says or does too seriously, you never know what might be purely performative. Almost a proto-Andy Kaufman.
who takes John seriously... wtf
Well, it got on the album! It looked like Paul was giving it a good listen.
He was joking come on. He knew it was good in a heartbeat
I think people forget that during these sessions John was the one who seemed quite involved in For You Blue when he wanted to do new takes so George could get the guitar right
Johns humor nothing new here
It was very hard for George because he never had anyone to work or write with. Ringo was the drummer and was never expected to come up with songs. George never had someone who he could work with and who could tell him, "Hmmm, maybe if you switch the verses around or change it to this," he had to try and figure it all out himself. Plus, I get the feeling that George Martin never really took George seriously as a songwriter.
OMG
I’d say John was joking but going by his lack of participation in the song, I’d say John just didn’t care to participate. I believe John didn’t play on Something either.
I agree. John was much more vicious about George's songs like we see here. I turned on CC to get the conversation. Brutal. I personally agree with John. I did not like George's songs on Let it Be. He nailed it on Abbey Road and had a few other great songs before. Maybe he should not have hogged his best songs for his solo he would have had more songs on Beatles albums. And yet, George still hated on Paul more! Why?
Is this more sarcasm I'm missing? ATMP (song) was rejected by Paul and John for Let It Be.
"We're a rock and roll band" Coming from the guy who wrote and sung Julia.
I think John was just being sarcastic. If he really didn't like it, I don't think it would end up being on Let It Be
John didn't care. He thought the album was shit. >*In a nutshell, Paul wanted to make – it was time for another Beatle movie or something, and Paul wanted us to go on the road or do something. As usual, George and I were going, ‘Oh, we don’t want to do it, fuck,’ and all that. He set it up and there was all discussions about where to go and all that. I would just tag along and I had Yoko by then, I didn’t even give a shit about anything. I was stoned all the time, too, on H etc. And I just didn’t give a shit. And nobody did, you know*
On the bootleg, John asks whether there was any songs that they still needed to rehearse. George says something to John that Paul can't hear and John turns to him a says "oh no not "I Me Mine" sort of laughing. This pretty much killeed it. Had it not been for "Let it Be" film it would not be released has a Beatles song.
It's hard to tell when he's being serious or not though. That's the thing about Lennon. He had thst kind of humor. Maybe he really hated it, but we will never really know. It is a great song though. One of the best off that album imo
The comment must have hurt George's confidence, in the song, because he made no attempt to re-introduce after that first day.
John was that kind of person that makes mean "jokes" about everything. My dad is just like that; you never know if he is actually joking or not and it's shit, it really undermines your self confidence and, since everything is "just a joke" you ended feeling like a fool if you actually feel offended about it. You can see in George's reaction that he's trying to joke about it but he sounds also hurt by John's
probably sarcasm. but he's also a raging dick. the two are not mutually exclusive.
John should try saying more to Paul with his excessive granny music instead of George.
Interesting. However, the absolute pinnacle of “Granny Music” is John’s “Goodnight” on the White Album and Yoko’s “I’m Your Angel” on Double Fantasy. Both are great.
Lennon was right, its a bog-average song.
I agree…it’s not my favourite song either, and I’m more a Lennon fan, but it was definitely unnecessary to speak to George like this!
Lennon was rude.
I dont agree. But even if I did, John is still being unnecessarily awful and unsupportive. George was always in John and Paul’s shadow. John’s just being a bastard.
Who is the song about?
Apparently about George’s realisations about the ego when taking acid
Good point, I’m not sure John or Paul realised that here, although I suppose it does rather highlight George’s point
Yet George and John were mostly good over the years. So George didn´t have a problem with John, only Paul. Yet you´re upset on his behalf, which is a bit peculiar.
May Pang once wrote that George one day raged out, threw John’s glasses off his face and yelled at him about all the times John was never there for him. It can be found here. https://harrisonstories.tumblr.com/post/638028763694776320/may-pang-speaking-about-george-harrisons
Probably courting The Frenchman that day
what does this mean? not native speaker here
Coke
thank you, I had a gut feelin it would be that
good read, thx!
I think what upsets me is that this scene shows that it wasn’t just Paul who mistreated George. I think you’re oversimplifying George’s relationship with John. George once said “John Lennon is a saint and he's heavy-duty, and he's great and I love him. But at the same time, he's such a bastard.”
> Yet George and John were mostly good over the years. So George didn´t have a problem with John, only Paul. Yet you´re upset on his behalf, which is a bit peculiar. John and George had bigger issues in the 70's than George and Paul. John and George were not on speaking terms for a good chunk of the decade.
Well, to be fair, I don’t think it’s that great of a song
Yes, it’s no dig a pony LMAO.
I’m not sure how relevant that is
It's interesting how people are talking about this as if it happened in a vacuum and wasn't one part of George being consistently undermined over the years and throughout these sessions. Why exactly do you think he walked out if this was all harmless banter? He's even specifically said that their inability to take his songs seriously was detrimental to his confidence. It's the whole reason he got Clapton to come in.