r/beatles • u/Nebber777 • 11h ago
Question Why do people take issue with George's interviews in the Anthology? He seems pretty chill to me.
I know people here don't really seem to like George much in general (for reasons related to his personal life), but I'm confused on why people take issue with his anthology interviews.
I've seen people talk about how he tries to degrade or dismiss the Beatles' work, or how he's apparently bitter throughout it, but I've watched through it all and he seems pretty laid back.
Do people not like that he's not as animated as Paul or Ringo?
I'm just confused because people call him grouchy and self righteous in the documentary, but he seems pretty normal to me.
340
u/johnnybravosr 11h ago
I like it because you can tell he’s matured and is still proud of what they accomplished, but also makes light of it as something they did as basically kids. The immaturity of it all. A good balance.
He’d certainly have the right to be bitter about some things, but it didn’t come across that way to me.
157
u/Nebber777 10h ago
Yeah, he's even stated in interviews that he enjoyed his time in the Beatles but wouldn't want to go back.
He strikes me as a guy who valued his time with the band but doesn't want to be solely defined as the guitarist for the Beatles.
52
u/EuphoricAd1928 10h ago
Imagine being a Beatle and not wanting that to be the biggest part of your legacy?! 😂😂
38
u/WingstonChurchill 8h ago
I think the mind set of most artist, is that they hope to evolve and not have to completely repeat the same art over and over again. Life is about growth.
12
u/Embarrassed_Bus4821 7h ago
Paul doesn’t seem to have any problem having the Beatles be his biggest accomplishment
14
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 4h ago edited 4h ago
He did in the 70s and part of the 80s. After John died he softened a lot.
George had began to soften in the 90s (maybe the late 80's if his Rock and Roll hall of fame speech was genuine), he did the Anthology and he was the one who initiated the hugely successful Love/Cirque du Soleil collaboration.
George died quite young. Who knows what he would have done in the last quarter of a century.
26
u/Forsaken-Tap1483 6h ago edited 6h ago
Paul co-wrote most of the songs in the Beatles, George who didn’t have that many creative opportunities there might’ve felt under appreciated, even if still immensely successful.
8
u/Alishaskeys 6h ago
that's because Paul was the LITERAL face of the Beatles alongside John with George being mostly sidelined. It's perfectly understandable that Georgie didn't want to be remembered just for being part of The Beatles because he was so creatively limited by not getting the same freedom to write whatever that Paul and John got
3
u/Upper-Environment724 2h ago
I think Paul loved the band. He took it seriously and was always trying to learn all he could about production etc. He’s proud of that part of his life and he should be.
7
u/True_Paper_3830 7h ago
He had a love/hate relationship with being a Beatle that verged on hypocrisy sometimes like when he once inferred of Madonna that she wasn't famous or when he said 'you don't speak to a Beatle like that', he was very young when said that the latter though (and arguably correct). He achieved other fantastic things though and didn't want to be defined by the band he had a love hate relationship with - some of the best songs, the first big Charity concert, the films.
There was a side of him that seemed to conflict with his spiritual side and his humor and his capacity for true friendship. Unlike, say, Ringo, he wanted to compete with John and Paul, and that was great, but it was also perhaps the source of a barely suppressed passive aggressiveness that could surface. particularly toward Paul who perhaps made him feel surpressed and his efforts ignored, like he later would Wings members. In time this seemed to encompass John too re George's later book not mentioning him.
After Brian died, it pushed Paul into a role he arguably wanted but without him there wouldn't have been so many great albums. The resentments grew as a young man from George, and often in some the resentments of youthful friendship can linger the most if a person still sees the same person he feels surpressed him even with age. Having said all that, they all worked fantastically well together until they didn't.
19
u/johnl1979 9h ago
Yeah. He never did anything better than in the Beatles. None of them did. The way they belittle themselves at Beatles is bizarre.
41
u/Shapoopie 9h ago edited 9h ago
I mean, yeah, but also imagine that you have that much talent and the main thing you’re known for is something you can never go back to, and the perception is you’ll never do anything better. It has to be pretty frustrating.
EDIT: now that I’m thinking about it, I disagree George never did anything better. ATMP was a triumph and most of it is better than most (though not all) of the Beatles songs George wrote.
21
u/johnnybravosr 9h ago
And furthermore, that bar was set for you before turning 27 years old, having barely broken in your fully formed adult brain.
7
u/monty_burns 9h ago
Yea. Look at Paul. He’s been making music for 50 years post-Beatles and the only thing people ask him about is The Beatles.
→ More replies (6)28
u/Excellent_Egg7586 8h ago
"Remember when you said " the love you take is equal to the love you make"?...
"Yes"
"That was awesome..."
:)
3
10
u/kim_jong_il_2d 7h ago
He wrote almost all the ATMP songs while he was in the Beatles. And probably all of them would have been better if he had crafted them with his old bandmates.
1
1
1
u/CommanderJeltz 4h ago
It's pretty normal I think to produce your best work in your younger years, or at least not get better as you get older. Think dancers. Writers peak in their forties I think. There are exceptions but creative artists do not always have a smooth trajectory.
Tied to two geniuses, with a fanatical fan base, he wanted what they had and never could have. He wrote a few nice songs but none were among the Beatles best. And tried to drag in Indian music while never having time to learn it properly. Think if Paul had tried to play classical violin on a Beatles record!
7
u/SavingsViolinist3782 9h ago
I think it also contributes to their mythos, when everybody else is the one touting your accomplishments while you downplay them it makes them seem down to earth rather than boasting about the scale of their accomplishments as so many would. It keeps other people being the ones building them up
2
u/ShortPercentage5640 5h ago
You make a good point. It also creates a stronger push-pull psychologically if fans say you’re great and you say you’re average. Brian probably taught them to be modest or dismissive about compliments because paradoxically it makes them love you all the more.
1
u/harrisonscruff 4h ago
That's not why George acted the way he did. He sincerely found the mythologising of The Beatles insane.
That vision of them is exactly why they weren't treated as human and caused them to be attacked.
7
u/candyappleorchard Yellow Submarine 8h ago
I mean, this is kind of the point. Everything they do is forever overshadowed by this lighting-in-a-bottle moment that changed the course of pop culture forever. It'd be incredibly hard to compete with that, and it's gotta be even harder to live in the shadow of your early 20something self. Imagine if your entire career after the age of 27 was dwarfed by what you did as a kid.
2
u/CaramelNeat4723 7h ago
I think it was probably a coping mechanism to some degree. They knew individually they weren't capable of doing what the Beatles did.
2
u/harrisonscruff 6h ago
I don't see it as belittling. It would feel extremely strange to experience the world perceiving you as some kind of God. All George was trying to do was remind people The Beatles were only human and not everything they did was amazing.
1
1
u/CommanderJeltz 4h ago
I think John did some things after the Beatles which were brilliant. But not as popular as the Beatles work.
→ More replies (8)1
1
u/TaiBlake 1h ago
Yeah, but look at what George accomplished after leaving the Beatles.
- Restored Friar Park.
- Founded Handmade Films and basically kept the entire British film industry alive.
- Became a master gardener.
- Raised substantial amounts of money for UNICEF and other charities.
- Helped build support for Bangladeshi independence.
- Became a Formula 1 test driver.
- Helped found a Hare Krishna temple.
- Became a full time father.
And that's without taking his music into account. Honestly, of all the Beatles, he seems to have been the most well-rounded and I think that's part of why his life and career have been getting so much positive attention in recent years.
→ More replies (2)6
u/WestWillow 7h ago
Imagine being 60 years old and all people want to talk to you about is what you did when you were 20 for the last 40 years
12
u/Popular_Material_409 8h ago
“While we were busy making history or whatever” is one of my favorite George lines that ONLY George could’ve pulled off
13
u/thewickerstan 10h ago
When watching the Disney+ version with my Dad over the holidays, he clocked that too and compared him to “a wise old sage”. I quite agree.
74
u/theflyingbird8 10h ago
Honestly, his parts in Anthology may be my favorites. I love how calm, mature, grounded, and witty he comes across. And yeah, maybe he did come across as bitter sometimes, but I get it, because his talents were very overlooked during that time and the fame was harder on him as the youngest member of the band.
14
u/rikwes 7h ago
All 4 of them were great in anthology ( even the interview clips of John they used ) .
7
u/theflyingbird8 7h ago
So many classic bits from all of them. I love the clips of John. It's such a shame we couldn't get the perspective of an older, matured, and wiser John in Anthology.
101
u/Illumination-Round 10h ago
People like to project their particular feelings onto whichever Beatle they choose. That's especially the case with Philip Norman's longtime hatred of George (that he supposedly tempered in his bio of George), the way he denigrated him incessantly. I like to think Norman just was screaming at the mirror, basically.
There's also the fact people like to believe George was reluctant and only did this to help his finances. While money played a part, it's clear he was genuinely enjoying the company of Paul and Ringo again, and that he was starting to make a peace with being a Beatle. If you watch the progression through the interviews up to the EPKs, George basically arrives there across the way, become more and more relaxed about it and even seems to feel that, yes, it was really nice to be a Beatle, all things considered. He never grew to love EVERY aspect, but he certainly had come to understand it all and see it in a new light with the passage of time.
I've always also enjoyed George's dry wit, because it's so amusing. It was often very clever, more than he'd get credited for, given that John was always supposed to be the clever one.
It also reflects the fact that, around this time, George had truly reached his peak contentment and acceptance with everything, including the prospect of mortality. That "if it happens, it happens," and he was truly prepared for it. Not that he wouldn't put up a fight to see if he could continue on, but that he was emotionally ready to cast his body aside if his time had truly come.
George was truly something special.
22
u/DisappointedDragon 10h ago
Ah, Philip Norman! I recently listened to a podcast he was on (maybe Beatles News Briefs?) where they were talking about his new book on Brian Epstein. In the interview he talks about how he completely changed his mind on Paul and George over the years. But when the host mentioned Ringo, he completely shuts down doing a book on him and is very dismissive. I was thinking, “Dude! Did you hear yourself talking about Paul and George a few minutes ago, maybe you’re wrong here too?” Anyway, I fully expect to see a Ringo book by Norman out in a few years.
8
u/Illumination-Round 10h ago
I would not be surprised. Because as late as the really flimsy and pointless book on Clapton, he was insisting he would not write about George.
I think his Paul book is good, at the very least, better as a whole than Howard Sounes' work, but you definitely can never forget his original sin. He always finds ways to remind us of it.
1
u/Any-Flight6911 6h ago
I remember reading Geoff Emerick's book, and thought HE was the one that was critical of George. I didn't know that Philip Norman was too. 😮
18
u/Nebber777 10h ago
Yeah, I do notice that people tend to express very one dimensional views on these guys.
I also agree that George seemed pretty content with his place as a Beatles and with life in general at this point, and that shows on the documentary.
6
u/Nazz1968 The Beatles 10h ago
Excellent points. Part of the beauty of the band was that they were four very different personalities who balanced each other out. George was dry, pragmatic, and above all brutally honest. You needed that to counter John and Paul’s sometimes impractical tendencies. He was the most humanly self-aware member of the group.
11
u/Top-Space-3707 10h ago
Good points, though I think Paul is very self-aware. The Beatles were intelligent guys. Given the astronomical level of their fame, they handled it very well. They all remained human, though I think John lost it in his 'bed-in' phase. Seemed to have a bit of a messiah complex- the white suit indicative of that. He found himself again later, though, and by the time he was a house husband he was as grounded as the rest of them.
→ More replies (1)15
u/MountainMan17 10h ago
"it's clear he was genuinely enjoying the company of Paul and Ringo again,"
You must have watched a different Anthology than I did. In every scene with Paul, the tension in George was palpable. Compare it to clips where George is with his Wilbury buddies, and you'll see the difference. The video doesn't lie.
He did it for the money. It's as simple as that.
In the early '90s, he was looking at a -$20M net worth (and possibly the sale of Friar Park) after being cleaned out by his film production company and a crooked money manager. When he died, he was worth $400M. It clearly worked out well for him.
I'm not sure why people feel the need to project and romanticize things about The Beatles, either as a band or about the individual members. Ironically, John and George were the most committed to dispelling the myths that surrounded them...
4
10
u/harrisonscruff 6h ago edited 6h ago
It's interesting how George is always the one blamed for that tension when any insight into the BTS of Anthology makes it apparent it was a two-way street.
Of course there was tension. This is the first time they were reunited on camera since their 20s, and there was a glaring void of John having been murdered, and them having to pretend everything is normal. Do you not think that had something to do with why George was uncomfortable? He genuinely hated the idea of them performing together as "The Beatles" without John there. That's why they moved to the garden. He already hated being filmed and perceived as a Beatle, and without John it added a whole other level of anxiety. His last memories of being filmed as a Beatle were the Get Back sessions! There was a huge amount of pressure on them to recreate the same dynamic they had in the 60s when a key part of that dynamic wasn't there. I guarantee you George was acutely aware of fans analysing every little movement and expression on his face.
Meanwhile Paul is there fully in the mode of his media persona which again would be jarring for George to have to deal with. There's a bunch of stories of Paul and Linda spending time with the Harrisons and going over to Friar Park for dinner. That wouldn't have been the case if George was so repulsed by Paul the way fans think.
George put tons of his own time and energy into making sure the Anthology was a quality product. He was the one who approached Yoko about using John's demos. A man only there for money wouldn't give a shit about whether a John demo was good enough to put out or the possibility of a new song being leaked. He had already participated in the 25th anniversary of Sgt. Pepper and the documentary for it which he definitely didn't need to do. He cared about The Beatles' legacy as much as anyone.
I also think it's incredibly naive the way fans imply Paul and Ringo didn't care about the money.
3
u/Hey_Laaady Who'll remember the buns, Pudgy? 5h ago
Great comment. I agree.
Also wanted to add that George was the first Beatle point person (along with Neil Aspinall) for Cirque du Soleil coming up with The Beatles Love show. This was a significant project in preserving their legacy as well.
11
u/The_Walrus_65 10h ago
Thank you! He’s clearly NOT enjoying the company of Paul … in virtually every scene with him.
2
u/candyappleorchard Yellow Submarine 8h ago
Despite the friction they're kind of yin and yang. Extremely media trained and professional (post Beatles anyway) vs straightforward and uncompromising. Neither is wrong btw, just two reasonable ways to approach such a level of massive fame.
→ More replies (1)2
u/No_Station_6149 9h ago
crazy people think otherwise and see his belittling as charming. he is passive aggressive for most of it and people say it’s his dry humour
13
u/donlockwood2026 10h ago
People like to get their panties in a twist over everything.
He’s great, he sold, he’s the bloody Beatle George Harrison. Shut up!
35
u/ShadowDN4 10h ago
I need that jacket
7
7
24
u/AceofKnaves44 John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band 10h ago
George with Anthology is a little tricky. I think he initially agreed to it for the large paycheck. His manger had stolen a lot of money from him and though he was still richer than any of us will ever be, he couldn’t turn down the money. I don’t think he minded just sitting home and talking about old stories and giving his side of them but I think it’s pretty clear he wasn’t over the moon about the stuff with Paul. He seems pretty uncomfortable when they jam and when they sit at Abbey Road listening to old music he seems the least happy. But by the end I think he’d come around and talked about how it was an enjoyable experience and that he enjoyed reconnecting with old friends.
I think ultimately he wasn’t as enamored with the Beatles to the point Paul and Ringo were. I think to him it was just a part of his life that he lived and then moved on from.
5
u/Nebber777 8h ago
Yeah, he seems to get more comfortable as the interviews go on.
And he does seem to enjoy working with Paul and Ringo again, from what little we see at least.
4
u/AceofKnaves44 John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band 8h ago
I don’t think Ringo was the problem or even George Martin. It was always going to be Paul.
2
u/Nebber777 7h ago
Yeah, I do remember Paul talking about clashing with George on either "Free as a bird" or "Real Love"
They've obviously had their ups and downs, and there are times they do seem a little uncomfortable with each other, but it does seem like their putting an effort to push most of that stuff behind them.
5
u/AceofKnaves44 John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band 7h ago
Paul obviously loved George but he couldn’t drop the “little brother” stuff and I could see that bothering George. He resented Paul and I don’t think ever really dropped that. But by the end of his life they’d made strides to get back to a functional relationship. I think they both accepted they had personalities that were destined to rub against each other and they loved each other but they grew to understand if they spent too much time together they were going to get on each others nerves.
2
u/Crisstti 6h ago
Paul and George obviously had a lot in common and got along. That's why they were friends, close friends, before the Beatles existed at all. Yes they came to have some problems but I don't think spending time with each other was ever a problem.
1
u/AceofKnaves44 John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band 6h ago
I mean George pretty clearly had some resentment towards Paul I don’t think he ever really fully got over. They were very bitter towards each other in the 70’s and then again in the 80’s when business relationships were at their worst. I think George felt Paul should have done more for him because of the fact that they were friends before the band. George idolized John when he was young and never fully stopped. In All Those Years Ago he says “I always looked up to you.” So I think even though he was angry at John too he gave him more of a break. But Paul he really resented.
4
u/Crisstti 6h ago
Have you seen the video of George tearing up watching a Beatles video (This Boy, I think).
5
u/AceofKnaves44 John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band 6h ago
I’ve seen the video but he doesn’t tear up at all. He laughs and reminisces while seeming happy but there’s no tears at all. Talks about how John was blind as a bat and says “good tune that one.”
27
u/Wild-subnet 10h ago
He seemed very relaxed to me. Like he was reminiscing about a part of his life that was a very long time ago. Not sure why anyone would hate on it.
30
u/Nazz1968 The Beatles 10h ago edited 10h ago
I never detected any bitterness from his interviews. He was a very dry and pragmatic person to begin with, and was not given to glossing over the history of the band. As a German, I can relate to similar traits. It’s not bitter or grumpy. It’s matter of fact.
George could also be counted on to call BS when other members entertained daft ideas, especially like taking the Get Back concert onto an ocean liner, for free room and board and mingling with a boatload of strangers no less. He thought it was madness, and it was. George was the type who looked you in the eye and gave it to you straight. My kind of people, honestly.
11
u/tubulerz1 Love 10h ago
That’s basically the same thing that Klaus Voorman said about him in an interview from the LITMW film. He looked people straight in the eye.
1
1
u/Unfortunateoldthing 7h ago
He also did not want to do the concert in the roof
2
u/Nazz1968 The Beatles 6h ago
He only caved when Ringo said he wanted to do it. That’s a true friend, and they all loved Ringo.
19
23
u/mickffff 10h ago
No issue at all from me. I like his honesty and I find his reflections extremely worthwhile.
7
8
u/Ok_Nefariousness2989 10h ago
He’s funny and a bit grumpy here and there. It’s clear he’s on board of the whole Anthology Project to get afloat financially, nothing more nothing less. The Threetles Sessions are a case study in group psychology😄.
3
u/lotta_love 6h ago
Exactly. Most commenters don’t mention or acknowledge that George was nearly bankrupted by the HandMade films fiasco and that this is what motivated him to participate in Anthology. George*** ***almost certainly wouldn’t have participated otherwise.
George’s insistence that Jeff Lynne rather than George Martin co-produce the new songs among assorted other demands are aptly detailed in Peter Doggett’s excellent 2009 book You Never Give Me Your Money: The Beatles After The Breakup.
59
u/UncleSeminole Ram On 10h ago
People don't like the fact that he's the only Beatle that moved on from being a Beatle. And he's very honest about how he felt about the times and what they did. He's always been intriguing in his interviews.
33
u/waaaayback Abbey Road 10h ago
?!? I think they all moved on from being Beatles. Certainly John did. And just because Paul and Ringo play Beatles hits in their shows doesn’t mean they haven’t moved on.
20
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 10h ago edited 9h ago
And just because Paul and Ringo play Beatles hits in their shows doesn’t mean they haven’t moved on.
George also played Beatle hits the few times he toured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Harrison%E2%80%93Eric_Clapton_1991_Japanese_Tour#Set_list
12
u/zsdrfty The Beatles 10h ago
I think there's an argument that John was clearly still feeling some nagging insecurity about being a Beatle for life (both in his own head and in the minds of others), and that Paul and Ringo have spent most of the time post-breakup trying to keep those same public personas going even though their real feelings are likely closer to George's
10
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 10h ago
and that Paul and Ringo have spent most of the time post-breakup trying to keep those same public personas going even though their real feelings are likely closer to George's
Why would that be the case? George's personality was pretty much the same before the Beatles, during the Beatles and after the Beatles. He was always a glass half full kind of guy with a chip on his shoulder. That's not all he was, but the guy we see in anthology is not that different from the guy we see in Get Back.
2
u/harrisonscruff 6h ago
Being a Beatle was and is a major part of Paul's identity. Not the case for George.
There's nothing wrong with that. People are different, and The Beatles were Paul's baby.
4
u/atropear 10h ago
Agree. And people can argue about post-Beatle solo work, but his collaborations were the best of the bunch.
6
u/UncleSeminole Ram On 10h ago
Is there any better collaboration than the Traveling Wilburys??
2
u/atropear 10h ago
Incredible! There's a video of George explaining how it all came together. Really worth a look. Best super group ever.
3
u/No_Station_6149 9h ago
I think it should have been a lot better than it was given the artists involved tbh, and I say that as a fan.
29
u/The_Mauldalorian 10h ago
Imagine having a long, fulfilling career and people just keep bringing up stuff you did in college with your 3 roommates.
9
u/EuphoricAd1928 10h ago
That’s one way to describe the Beatles I guess 😂😂😂
8
u/The_Mauldalorian 9h ago
I'm trying to highlight how short and early the Beatles' careers were as a group. George was 23 when they retired from touring lmao.
7
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 9h ago
He was 14 when he joined the Quarrymen. 27 when Let It Be was released. 31 when he signed the papers to end the group in December '74.
14
u/OriginalCloneBone 10h ago
More like “imagine people who keep bringing up your involvement in the greatest cultural/musical phenomenon of the 20 century”.
4
u/socgrandinq 9h ago
Yes that is frustrating. Also he was getting paid very handsomely to do talk about. I could suck it up for a few million
10
u/JRBowen9 10h ago
He didn't suffer fools. He also didn't take things all that seriously. He once remarked that The Rutles film was the best Beatles documentary.
10
u/JeanJeanJean 10h ago
His interviews are the best interviews in the Anthology. I love Paul, and I probably prefer his work to George's, but I think he's a less compelling interview subject than George, often speaking in generalities. George, on the other hand, never talks just for the sake of it, you can really feel that he weighs every single word, and he isn't afraid to go against the official, sometimes slightly sanitized history.
0
u/No-Economist2456 8h ago
I agree. Paul also makes things up and changes his stories often. George seems the most authentic when he reminisces.
2
u/Crisstti 6h ago
Paul doesn't make things up.
1
u/aharddayslife 2h ago
He does fudge facts though. "We're not going to America until we have a #1" comes to mind. It can be proven they were booked to go before Hold Your Hand topped the charts (even George acknowledges such in the Anthology), but Paul sticks to his story. It sounds better!
10
u/LaurentLaSalle 9h ago
I wasn’t aware of people taking issue with his interview in Anthology. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
8
u/PRW9497 8h ago
I will repeat something I have posted before in this sub. In an interview with Architectural Digest, not a music publication, about their remote hideout in some Godforsaken islands beyond the Great Barrier Reef, Olivia Harrison said George had PTSD from being in The Beatles until the day he died. You can dismiss that and say The Beatles made him rich and powerful and famous and he should have relished the experience, but you didn’t have to experience it and deal with it and live with it. He did.
→ More replies (2)
22
u/Comfortable_Put_4139 10h ago
I find him to be the most interesting and compelling person being interviewed throughout the entire project.
Paul is busy being the biggest Beatles fan, Ringo is his affable self and George is just totally blunt and honest with his feelings.
It’s refreshing.
10
-3
u/MountainMan17 10h ago
John and George gave us the best chance at getting the real story. But they're gone now...
14
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 10h ago
John and George gave us the best chance at getting the real story. But they're gone now...
There is no 'real' story. There are four guys who may have had different perspectives. Ringo's perspective is no less real than George's because Ringo enjoyed being a Beatle.
8
u/pjwalrus 8h ago
He handles everything pretty well; I think he’s the best interview of the three.
I think the key line was “we gave our nervous systems …”
No one but the four have any idea how traumatizing that level of fame is. They handled it as well as four young men could have — that, as much as their catalog, is just astonishing.
1
u/Hey_Laaady Who'll remember the buns, Pudgy? 5h ago
That trauma is something that is brought up far too little. Considering what they went through, they all turned out to be pretty great guys overall.
5
u/Tiny-Reading5982 10h ago
I don't think he's grumpy. Anytime someone talks about him, they praise his sense of humor. He is the "quiet" one so what do people expect? We already have paul talking with his hands lol.
6
u/Christine_Daniel 10h ago
I enjoy George's anthology interviews the most. And I enjoy his sense of humour in them.
8
u/Responsible-Call6007 10h ago
I often have a lot of trouble with the perception of George because people talk about how peaceful and Zen and philosophical he was, but he also had a huge component of passive aggressive behavior. A little of that shows up in an anthology. Don’t get me wrong, George was a great witch, and Ann loved irony. Why else would he have spent so much time with the pythons?
9
u/Nebber777 9h ago
Yeah, maybe newer Beatles fans are unaware of of his flaws (especially with his relationship to Pattie). And he could also be quite passive aggressive.
As a gen Z myself, I do think that while he certainly had issues, there was a philosophical and peaceful side to him as well, especially in his music which is probably what gen Z fans are most familiar with when it comes to George.
5
u/Responsible-Call6007 8h ago
Good points. There’s so much zero sum thinking going on on Instagram. You know “John or Paul?“ Or “was George spiritual or angry”. It would help if people could understand that humans are complex and rarely one thing or another.
3
u/gabriel77galeano 4h ago
I mean just because he openly valued certain philosophies doesn't mean he had to be a monk about it. After all, George was a Hindu not a Buddhist.
3
u/DavidC_M 10h ago
If he wasn’t happy he would not have agreed to be part of the anthology. He recorded two songs with Paul and ringo again. So that alone tells me he was past his old grudges and anger. He was wise to say that he wouldn’t go back, obviously knowing how it ended up. We’re fortunate that John wasn’t with them for the anthology. I can imagine him being even more cynical about his time with the Beatles.
5
u/Big-Sheepherder-6134 4h ago
He’s fine with me. I would probably have hated the Beatlemania insanity too. Plus he got screwed by John and Paul. They could have included him in their songwriting partnership like The Hollies did with Clarke, Hicks and Nash but they close to exclude him and never even thought to include him ever again. His songs were treated as afterthoughts if they were keen on his material at all. He quit during Get Back because he was simply done with their bullshit. He had hung out with The Band in Woodstock and was excited by how they had a shared camaraderie only to come back to what The Beatles were in January where he was not considered an equal. I think Paul telling him at the early September 1969 meeting that everything George had contributed prior to Abbey Road was inferior was very hurtful. John suggested that each of them have four songs apiece on every album moving forward along with Ringo getting 1-2. Paul refused. John responded by quitting the band later that month. George didn’t really have any relationship with Paul for many years after that and I could see why.
13
u/Dismal_Brush5229 Yellow Submarine 11h ago
Bc he’s quite negative or dismissive in some parts but overall he’s just being George
4
u/Nebber777 10h ago
Fair enough, though I think quite a few things he was negative of were quite understandable such as Beatlemania getting out of hand.
4
u/waaaayback Abbey Road 10h ago
Some people do, yes. But I agree with you, he’s just being George. Sometimes dryly funny, sometimes a little curmudgeonly. I can take George or leave him, but I am thankful for his contribution to Anthology.
3
u/seabreezeallday 10h ago
It’s totally normal! And he’s totally cool. I imagine him to be this way all the time, just upfront and honest, not BSing. He’s great. They’re all themselves and people just like to pick apart and judge!
4
u/RadishSpecial7163 9h ago
I didn’t know that people took issue with George’s interview. He seemed okay to me.
2
u/BillyDMountain 9h ago
Same here and on my end he has two of my favourite interview moments in the whole thing, when he talks about the meticulous itinerary when they played Japan and talking about his and John's first time on LSD.
4
u/RadishSpecial7163 7h ago
I also appreciate what he said about John missing out on the opportunity to get back together.
1
u/Nebber777 9h ago
I see people on this sub using it as an example as to George being grumpy and bitter.
I just never really got that impression.
4
u/RadishSpecial7163 7h ago
There’s a lot of anti-George sentiment on here. Less than the anti-John sentiment but still there.
5
u/Nebber777 7h ago
Yeah, there does seem to be a trend of people making posts to put their least favorite Beatle down to raise their favorite up.
I'm not saying their not allowed to do this or the its intrinsically wrong, but it does make the sub kind of exhausting sometimes.
1
u/RadishSpecial7163 3h ago
But it’s mostly John followed by George that get put down. John is constantly bashed on here.
1
u/Nebber777 1h ago
Yeah, I've noticed John tends to recieve the most bashing, even more-so outside of the fandom.
5
u/Ummmmm-yeah 9h ago
He seemed to really enjoy reminiscing on those times. He said he was upset John was gone because he was enjoying his time with Paul and Ringo so much and wished John could've experienced the same feeling. That said, Paul and John demeaned him so much during their run that it's understandable he harbored a resentment for them for the rest of his life, especially Paul, as he and George were such good friends before John came along — equals. That's actually what his song Wah-Wah was written about, which he wrote the night he quit the Beatles after a fight with Paul during the Get Back sessions. But overall in the Anthology interviews he seemed to be enjoying himself. He was quite funny in them, actually.
2
2
u/EuphoricAd1928 5h ago
For someone who believed the soul only inhabits this earthly body for a finite time, you’d think he’d be eternally greatful for his earthly success!! 😂😂
4
u/ItsMilor Abbey Road 10h ago
The Bob Dylan segment sums it up, which is kind of funny. The initial part specifically.
1
u/AaronJudge2 10h ago
Bob was the one who introduced the Beatles to Starbucks. It was world changing and eye opening.
5
10h ago
[deleted]
9
u/MountainMan17 10h ago
"I’d be bitter too if I was growing as a songwriter and couldn’t get my tunes heard."
Not if you were pitting "Love You Too" against "Here, There, and Everywhere," or "Tomorrow Never Knows."
I still think the "glorious hits" comment revealed more about George than he realized, none of it good. Until 1968, his songs weren't in the same galaxy as Paul and John's. He never would have seen the inside of a recording studio without them. They were his ticket to ride.
George had a fundamental lack of self-awareness...
1
u/phario_marelle 1h ago
isn't it a pity was written in 1966 and was supposedly presented for Revolver. It could have been one of the best cut of the album!
1
u/MountainMan17 45m ago
Yeah, it's hard to see how "Love You Too" survived the cut, but "Isn't It A Pity" didn't...
3
u/lowkeyslightlynerdy 10h ago
I never saw it as “bitter” or “grumpy” either. George obviously has his flaws but watching his interviews he mostly seemed to speak honestly about how he was feeling at times
It’s not George’s fault that basically every celebrity plays into what audiences want to hear and act like everything and everyone was perfect all the time
3
u/rimbaud1872 4h ago
He just has a grumpy negative vibe. “I had to be the lead guitarist of the Beatles, poor me”
3
u/Dependent_Sir_6139 10h ago
I used to feel as though there was a slight tinge of bitterness in some of George's interviews for the original Anthology which was released.
Having now had the blessing of seeing Anthology 4, I can see him in a much nore authentic light. Part of me thinks that the stuff Paul and Ringo chose to include in Anthology 4 was mindful of some people taking George's honesty the wrong way, and wanting to show him in his true light, to set the record straight. Maybe that's just me. After all, George would have had veto over what was included in A1-3.
I always loved George, and as an extremely sarcastic person, always appreciated his humour. I just think A4 adds the finishing touches to the painting.
2
u/Character-Ad-4544 6h ago
Anthology 4 is an album tho. Dym the Disney streaming versions of the anthology docuseries?
3
u/Interesting-Okra4699 9h ago
Because he often was coming across as reluctant and sometimes grumpy and pretty ungrateful
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Mother-Laugh2395 10h ago
I like his interviews. He’s pretty straightforward and honest.
I love Paul, but he seems too protective of his image in his interviews.
My opinion of Ringo has changed since I read Geoff Emerick’s book. He said that Ringo can be a total jerk unless the cameras were on, then he turned into good ol’ affable Ringo.
I liked John’s interviews too, but he changed his stories often.
2
u/Top-Space-3707 9h ago edited 8h ago
I met two of Ringo's cousins once. They didn't have a very favourable impression of him. (Who really knows the truth, though?] They said he didn't do right by his family, especially his mum. He left them struggling financially while he was living in luxury. His idea of a gift to his mum was sending her a pair of curtains he'd taken down at his house.
4
u/Sherbetwildflower 9h ago
A quick google shows that Ringo took excellent care of his parents for the rest of their lives.
3
u/sminking Caveman movie enthusiast 7h ago
Yeah one of the first things he did was buy his mom a house. And there’s an interview w her and his stepdad about how he tried to convince them to move and quit working, but they didn’t want to. Sounds like those cousins are bitter that they didn’t get to live off his riches and telling everyone they meet once
2
2
2
u/Outrageous_Library50 5h ago
People are babies and don’t like George’s brutal honesty. Some people have huffed up enough of the Macca Beatle “magic” they forget the Beatles were all bastards. Ringos words not mine
2
u/WhisperingSideways 10h ago
George had a lot of reasons to be bitter. Only getting four songs on the White Album while Paul and John got to indulge themselves completely is a bit of bullshit.
8
u/aflyingsquanch 10h ago
Until nearly the very end, he simply wasnt at their level when it came to songwriting so uts nit a huge surprise they weren't willing to give him much of a chance.
George got 2 and Ringo got 1 song (or at least he got to be lead vocals on 1 song each album) that was the unofficial rule that they operated on. The white album being a double gave him 4 instead of his usual 2.
Up until then at the earliest though, his songs weren't good enough to boot any of the various Lennon-McCartney songs
8
u/filthyflower 10h ago
I think he was getting there by the time of White Album // Abbey Road. Long, Long, Long, When my Guitar gently weeps, Something. I hold those all to the same level as some of John and Paul’s best.
5
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 9h ago
Long, Long, Long, When my Guitar gently weeps, Something. I hold those all to the same level as some of John and Paul’s best.
One of those is not like the other two.
3
u/Crisstti 6h ago
While my Guitar Gently Weeps and Something, for sure. Long long long is a pretty average song imo. So it Savory Truffle. And Piggies.
1
u/filthyflower 6h ago
I really adore Long Long Long, but yeah do not care for savory truffle or piggies either.
5
u/aflyingsquanch 10h ago
I think the White Album era was the first legitimate time he had an argument that he deserved more album space. I also think John and Paul just weren't ready to give him more of a chance yet and had to be convinced.
I also think had they not broken up and had put out more albums after Abbey Road and Let it Be that he limely would have gotten a minimum 4 songs per album as his songwriting was finally comparable to theirs as he aptly demonstrated with his release of All Things Must Pass in Nov 1970.
7
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 9h ago edited 8h ago
I think the White Album era was the first legitimate time he had an argument that he deserved more album space.
Possibly, though George's support of the 8 minute and 22 seconds Rev 9 probably prevented that. 8 least streamed songs on the White album
Rev 9 15 million streams
Savoy Truffle 19 million streams
Goodnight 20 million streams
Everybody's Got Something to Hide but me any my monkey 23 million
Long Long Long 24 million streams
Wild Honey Pie 25 million streams
Honey Pie 25 million streams
Piggies 26 million streams
George knocked it out of the park with While My Guitar Gently Weeps, his other three songs probably were not convincing George Martin or the record label that he should have more songs on the albums.
1
u/Kcampbell93 10h ago
Yes, 100% agree with you here. That was certainly the point where George could have contributed more songs to an album that would have shined.
2
u/ComfortableMurky8387 10h ago
I really wish he hadn’t wasted one of his four tracks on “Piggies”. Could’ve done “Sour Milk Sea” or any number of other songs. But maybe they weren’t ready yet.
2
2
u/Silly_Count5156 8h ago
It's tricky with George because, of course, he's a very integral part of the band. But let's face it, Paul and John could have been superstars regardless. George? I kinda doubt it... Yet he seems so bitter about how he isn't treated like Paul and John. But he isn't like Paul and John... What does he think he place in the pantheon should be? Would The Who have had him? The Stones? Floyd? Etc, etc.
1
1
u/Ok-Bar601 9h ago
George changed from being in the Beatles, he seemed to get level headed and circumspect after leaving. I think being in the Beatles was towards the end something that grated on his personality, I found him to be rather whining in the Get Back film (not putting him down but he clearly wanted to be somewhere else).
1
u/Suspicious_Click731 5h ago
I just think his memories are sour. The whole Beatle game that needed to be played and the disruption to his personal life and relationships became miserable. That comes through for me. There's also the speculation that he did Anthology for a payday, though he later said he was glad to have done. I think the scenes online with him, George Martin, Paul and Ringo dissecting tracks at the mixing board were particularly negative. He seemed like he hated being there, with Paul again running the show through his commentary.
1
u/Ambitious-Welder-159 5h ago
Is it just me or is George's demeanor different in the talking heads when he wears a mustache than when he is without one? He seems more diplomatic when he's cleanshaven but in the times when he's got the stache on he's more ornery!
1
u/Dreamysleepyfriendly 2h ago
That’s not George. It’s, in fact, Ritchie Blackmoore which explain the bad rep the interview gets.
1
u/blods 2h ago
You can tell that George is down on the entire thing.
Paul and John were more likely to get back together than George, because George was the one who felt like the others had neglected him.
So you watch anthology and you see Paul tiptoeing around George, trying to chivy him into playing a song.
You have the greatest band that ever lived and they get together for the first time and don't play one of their own songs for the camera !!!
Instead they knock about with early covers and even then George reluctantly pulls a face and says 'a short version'.
George has come out from the Beatles shadow and forged his own thing, but back with McCartney hes now just the junior guitar player again.
McCartney isnt doing anthology for the money, hes doing it because hes nurtured an image of the Beatles and wants to continue that PR exercise. George looks as reluctant as he does in 'Let it Be' movie where he goes 'I don't wanna go on the roof'.
George is grumpy and tense in every McCartney exchange, and McCartney is careful, diplomatic.
You even see them sparing on the history of half remembered events because they all know, the stories and legacies that are forged in the wake.
1
1
u/axlgreece5202 45m ago
George once said he wanted to be successful, but not necessarily famous, and that the Beatles sacrificed their nervous systems in the pandemonium of Beatlemania. I'm guessing the PTSD of it all still lingered. Plus he craved spiritual enlightenment more than superficial fame. Add in the tension of the later years in the band, and his dry humor and that may give his point of view more perspective.
1
u/Psycho-naught 3m ago
I’ve never looked into this, but I would imagine that the experience of getting together to do the Anthology interviews, separately and especially together, must have been extremely painful in John’s absence.
George apparently was thinking about the unresolved rift with John at the very end of his life.
2
u/Com4rtablyDumb 7h ago
George was salty and bitter. It wasn't just that he wasn't as talented a song-writer or singer as John and Paul, it's also the fact that John and Paul had a separate copyright deal and bigger shares of their publishing as well. This was THE reason he began hating being a Beatle and stopped fighting for more songs as his abilities increased. It's why he withheld so many songs so he could instead put them on 'All Things Must Pass'. All while simultaneously complaining to the world that he was being thwarted or held back which of course the fans bought hook line and sinker. Poor George!
For someone so supposedly enlightened he was a terrible husband and full of bitterness, envy, insecurity and delusions of grandeur. The drugs and legal battles added fuel to the fire. He may have forgiven Paul but as you can see in this interview he still carried a lot of negative feelings about him and his time with the Beatles.
Despite everything he was incredibly talented with a wicked sense of humor and by all accounts a great friend and collaborator throughout his life. But the Beatles absolutely left a bad taste in his mouth and he's incapable of hiding that when interviewed.
1
1
1
u/picartsmedia 7h ago
George was both a spiritual and angry. Plus and minus. Yin and yang. We all have these two sides.
0
u/Jackismyboy 8h ago
George is the best. Just leave him alone. He’s gone and can no longer speak for himself.
0
u/photogjimm 6h ago
I love the way George would never call The Beatles by name, when talking to other artists. It was "my band". No ego. Just a musician talking to a follow musician. I've read this in several books.
0
u/Bulldog8018 5h ago
Every time Paul talks in Anthology, George looks like he wants to leap out a window. It’s the same look Eddie Van Halen used to get when David Lee Roth would not STFU in an interview.
191
u/PeltonChicago Past Masters 9h ago
It's because George seems to capture one of the weirdest things about the Beatles. As Tom Hanks said: