• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Biggest mistake a band ever made

#442
58kites said:
I enjoyed some of the solo material too, but John and Paul had tons of freedom to bring their songs intact to the Beatles records.
It was clear who's material was who's right from the beginning to the end of them as a band, John and Paul were not in a position to have material sit in a notebook unused.
The career of the Beatles could have been far longer as a group if everybody kept their egos in check, did not involve outside parties into group decisions, and shared more equally in the allowed input into their songs.
John and Paul were stupid to not allow more George input ..and Paul has admitted this.
While some of the solo material was good, my opinion is that John and Paul's solo work was not as good as the music they produced in the Beatles, and could easily have been recorded within the confines of the Beatles, seems that they both needed the other one to add that little extra to make an idea turn out great on record (and George Martin of course).
George Harrison was able to flourish after the Beatles, so good for him.
Click to expand...

Good points all, and I would add.that George's solo career was flailing within four years of his seminal All Things Must Pass. He was in fact ill suited to the role of frontman, and was much stronger as well as more comfortable as part of a group, as was proved again when he joined Traveling Wilburys.
 
#443
58kites said:
I enjoyed some of the solo material too, but John and Paul had tons of freedom to bring their songs intact to the Beatles records.
It was clear who's material was who's right from the beginning to the end of them as a band, John and Paul were not in a position to have material sit in a notebook unused.
The career of the Beatles could have been far longer as a group if everybody kept their egos in check, did not involve outside parties into group decisions, and shared more equally in the allowed input into their songs.
John and Paul were stupid to not allow more George input ..and Paul has admitted this.
Click to expand...
George wrote plenty of classic tunes, way more than most, but even he was overwhelmed by the Lennon-McCartney juggernaut. He just didn't have as many good songs ready to go as they did until they were just about done as a band. I've heard a couple songs of George's they rejected. They did the right thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Son of Wobble
#444
Son of Wobble said:
Good points all, and I would add.that George's solo career was flailing within four years of his seminal All Things Must Pass. He was in fact ill suited to the role of frontman, and was much stronger as well as more comfortable as part of a group, as was proved again when he joined Traveling Wilburys.
Click to expand...
Got to disagree. If he were in any other band but The Beatles, he would have been the leader. George also managed to bring his solo career back a few times after that down period, scoring some pretty big hits in the process. "This Song," "Blow Away," "All Those Years Ago," "When We Was Fab"...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sartori and Son of Wobble
#445
JimmyM said:
Got to disagree. If he were in any other band but The Beatles, he would have been the leader. George also managed to bring his solo career back a few times after that down period, scoring some pretty big hits in the process. "This Song," "Blow Away," "All Those Years Ago," "When We Was Fab"...
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I too liked the late 70s stuff, when George enjoyed a renaissance with 33 1/3 and the self-titled LP. But it is also notable that he did no tours or even shows for these records. George seemed to figure out by this point, late 70s, that he liked a lighter workload and hated gigging.
But the first half of his seventies career suffered from his tendency to plan hugely ambitious projects with both insufficient pre-production and inadequate support/delegation. George was hugely depleted both by the economic fallout of Concert For Bangladesh (he ended up paying a massive tax bill out of pocket) and by his poorly received 1974 U.S. tour.
In both cases, George surrounded himself with guest performers who took the mic for long stretches. This made for a superstar jam at " Bangladesh," of course, but angered and disappointed fans on the U.S. jaunt. George hadbsuch a lousy time, didn't tour again for fifteen years, until Clapton twisted his arm to do a short Japan tour. And Clapton said George didn't enjoy the pressure of fronting those shows at all.
 
#447
Son of Wobble said:
Good points all, and I would add.that George's solo career was flailing within four years of his seminal All Things Must Pass. He was in fact ill suited to the role of frontman, and was much stronger as well as more comfortable as part of a group, as was proved again when he joined Traveling Wilburys.
Click to expand...
I agree, he delivered good nuggets now and then, and was never going to be a Paul McCartney on his own, but he was frustrated by John and Paul.
So in his solo career he collaborated (on All Things and the Wilbury's and much of his solo stuff) which is what he wanted more of when he was in the Beatles.

JimmyM said:
George wrote plenty of classic tunes, way more than most, but even he was overwhelmed by the Lennon-McCartney juggernaut. He just didn't have as many good songs ready to go as they did until they were just about done as a band. I've heard a couple songs of George's they rejected. They did the right thing.
Click to expand...
I agree with that.
My point was that John and Paul somehow left him feeling ignored, maybe the reality was closer to overwhelmed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Son of Wobble
#450
catcauphonic said:
Agree! That's when i went to a tattoo parlor to get my Stones lips & tongue logo covered up :rollno:
Click to expand...

They did a whole lot more than kiss.

download.jpg

https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.c...-affair-with-david-bowie-and-mick-jagger/amp/
 
Last edited:
#453
catcauphonic said:
That's not the offensive part to me ... it was that horrific cover and video to go with it that grossed me out :vomit: :***: :rollno:
Click to expand...

In Angie Bowie's highly entertaining autobiography, she recounts coming home unexpectedly to find Bowie and Jagger in flagrante. Stunned, she retreated to the kitchen, and Jagger followed, ostensibly to calm her down. Within minutes, Angie said, Mick seduced her too. In fact she says Jagger - not Bowie/- is the most seductive man she ever met.
 
  • Like
Reactions: catcauphonic
#454
58kites said:
I enjoyed some of the solo material too, but John and Paul had tons of freedom to bring their songs intact to the Beatles records.
It was clear who's material was who's right from the beginning to the end of them as a band, John and Paul were not in a position to have material sit in a notebook unused.
The career of the Beatles could have been far longer as a group if everybody kept their egos in check, did not involve outside parties into group decisions, and shared more equally in the allowed input into their songs.
John and Paul were stupid to not allow more George input ..and Paul has admitted this.
While some of the solo material was good, my opinion is that John and Paul's solo work was not as good as the music they produced in the Beatles, and could easily have been recorded within the confines of the Beatles, seems that they both needed the other one to add that little extra to make an idea turn out great on record (and George Martin of course).
George Harrison was able to flourish after the Beatles, so good for him.
Click to expand...
Disagree so much. Breaking up was a great thing for the Beatles. Preserved their legacy and kept them from becoming a dinosaur band.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aberdumbie and PillO

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back