George Harrison and the Struggle for Creative Freedom(soaringtwenties.substack.com)
soaringtwenties.substack.com
George Harrison and the Struggle for Creative Freedom
https://soaringtwenties.substack.com/p/george-harrison-and-the-struggle
72 comments
Great comment and we see the same tension in many other collaborative areas. When designing software interfaces we deliberately use wireframes to prevent people from trying to add detail prematurely.
But the place that bothers me the most is when writing papers. I can't find an approach that works well for all teams, or even for myself working alone - do I write the experiments and results first, or do I try to shape the overall message first, ...
But the place that bothers me the most is when writing papers. I can't find an approach that works well for all teams, or even for myself working alone - do I write the experiments and results first, or do I try to shape the overall message first, ...
When you think of the primary roles of each member, this conflict definitely makes sense. John: rhythm guitar. Paul: piano and bass. George: lead guitar. The Beatles catalog is very accessible so it follows that they put a lot of effort to avoid getting bogged down in, as the movie Amadeus put it, "too many notes".
It is really a special thing. Very similar to Theodore trying to get involved in The Big Lebowski and Walter shooting him down, everytime
I am the Walrus.
I saw Get Back as a complete vindication of Yoko Ono. Yoko wasn’t the wedge that drove the Beatles apart, it was George.
George would have been happy to continue as part of the group if given a bit more leeway. He made it clear that he’d have been willing to solider on, at least for recording.
John was the leader of the group to the end, despite McCartney’s creative leadership in the latter days. If he’d said “yo, let’s get back together once a year and do an album” the others would have done it. If he’d said “let’s not break up,” they would not have broken up.
It wasn’t Yoko or George. It was John. And what John seems to have actually wanted was more creative and personal freedom. Paul’s perfectionism made both him and George unhappy.
There is an incredibly in-depth fan analysis of the audiotapes that provide the backstory for Get Back here: https://theymaybeparted.com/. The upshot is that it’s very clear Paul and John were aware of the issues with the group dynamic — Paul understood that the others perceived him as overbearing — but they just didn’t know how or didn’t want to resolve it in a way that kept them together.
John was the leader of the group to the end, despite McCartney’s creative leadership in the latter days. If he’d said “yo, let’s get back together once a year and do an album” the others would have done it. If he’d said “let’s not break up,” they would not have broken up.
It wasn’t Yoko or George. It was John. And what John seems to have actually wanted was more creative and personal freedom. Paul’s perfectionism made both him and George unhappy.
There is an incredibly in-depth fan analysis of the audiotapes that provide the backstory for Get Back here: https://theymaybeparted.com/. The upshot is that it’s very clear Paul and John were aware of the issues with the group dynamic — Paul understood that the others perceived him as overbearing — but they just didn’t know how or didn’t want to resolve it in a way that kept them together.
I'm not a Beatles scholar, but trying to point the finger at a specific person seems really silly. They broke up for the same reason most bands break up: they grew up. They got together when they were young, and after 10 years, their artistic and personal lives were no longer compatible.
The Beatles can be discussed more specifically because there’s so much material and footage of them, and groups of fans and scholars are numerous have a lot of shared knowledge so on-depth conversations are more likely to be possible in an off-topic/general environment like this one.
Engaging at the level of broad similarities between typical pop bands is fine, too, but knowing more about one band than that is not silly.
Engaging at the level of broad similarities between typical pop bands is fine, too, but knowing more about one band than that is not silly.
I'm not saying it's silly to be knowledgeable about the Beatles. I think it's silly to point to something specific like "Yoko/John/George broke the Beatles up!". Group dynamics are always more complex than that. But the thing that seems clear with the Beatles, and many many other groups, is that their tastes, interests, and personal lives evolved and they didn't or couldn't work together anymore.
Sorry to misunderstand you. But, among knowledgeable people, I think you find the discussions of the individuals are more complex than you’re representing, especially if you have an opportunity to listen to a complete conversation in person. With exceptions, of course.
It's worth pointing out that near the root of this comment thread is a comment that reads, "Yoko wasn’t the wedge that drove the Beatles apart, it was George." Not to take away from either point; yours that there's plenty of room for nuance and theirs that the nuance isn't always given room. Just that they seem to be responding more to this sort of comment than Beatles commentary as a whole.
That is good to point out. I’d gotten lost. :) Thank you.
If you familiarize yourself with their group dynamics, it's pretty clear that John broke the band up. You can just keep repeating group dynamics all you want but it's a cop-out that doesn't address what actually happened. There are bands that stay together despite or because of "group dynamics"
I think so too. When asked point blank Paul said John broke up the band. The clip is on Youtube. I get it's just his word but from so many sources John was an exhausting personality to deal with in long doses. You can tell that from the audio tapes of their recordings.
I mean John broke it up for reasons beyond him just being difficult. It's been deeply analyzed by many, I think the One Sweet Dream podcast gets it best where John is hurt by his relationship to Paul and the notion that Paul might not need him anymore.
True no doubt. They did take a lot of sharp jabs at each other in their song lyrics in the years after the split.
I don't know about a /complete/ vindication. She was still a weirdo that occasionally got to wedge her shitty attempts at art into stuff created by people more talented than her, just because she was in a relationship with one of the Beatles. Can't forget Bill Burr's rant about Yoko Ono appearing alongside a performance by Lennon and Chuck Berry, screaming into the mic like an idiot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4K07Kz7M8Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4K07Kz7M8Q
Like it or not, there is a whole world of art and music outside of your pop world that doesn't rest on naive ideas of talent==good, of which Yoko is a highly regarded individual. She was an original member of Fluxus for god sakes! She studied under John Cage! Her art is displayed at MoMA and surely countless other place. You may think it's idiotic, but all that shows is your somewhat narrow idea of what art and music can be. I wonder what you'd think of some of George's solo ventures, something like "Wonderwall Music" is probably just as idiotic to you.
> She was an original member of Fluxus for god sakes!
> Although she didn't actually join the Fluxus group, she collaborated over many years with him [1]
So... she was not. Also, Fluxus, MoMA, these are visual arts. That doesn't mean she has training or talent to be playing music on live television with Lennon and Berry
[1]: https://fluxusmuseum.org/holding-page-for-yoko-ono/#:~:text=....
> Although she didn't actually join the Fluxus group, she collaborated over many years with him [1]
So... she was not. Also, Fluxus, MoMA, these are visual arts. That doesn't mean she has training or talent to be playing music on live television with Lennon and Berry
[1]: https://fluxusmuseum.org/holding-page-for-yoko-ono/#:~:text=....
> That doesn't mean she has training or talent to be playing music on live television with Lennon and Berry
Gosh, what an imposition on society. How will we get over it, even decades later now? For what it's worth, John thought she belonged.
Gosh, what an imposition on society. How will we get over it, even decades later now? For what it's worth, John thought she belonged.
> For what it's worth, John thought she belonged
For romantic reasons, musicianship (?) reasons? A mix of both?
Or... if they were not together, would she be there screaming during a Berry solo?
For romantic reasons, musicianship (?) reasons? A mix of both?
Or... if they were not together, would she be there screaming during a Berry solo?
John respected her as an artist, I'm not sure why you are being obtuse about this. Do you have any familiarity with their relationship outside of this youtube video of them playing with Chuck Berry? John and Yoko put out several albums together and Yoko is prolific in the avant garde/experimental music scene.
> Yoko is prolific in the avant garde/experimental music scene
Which was not what they were playing there on that live.
Which was not what they were playing there on that live.
So? You ignore everything else I wrote which even more directly addresses your point so I'm not sure what you are trying to say besides just hating on Yoko for the hell of it. Yawn, oldest shtick out there.
I don't hate Yoko. But she had no place on that specific performance, and Berry's face - and the fact that her mic was cut - proves it.
The point is that “Yoko Ono is freakishly weird” — true or not — is not why the Beatles broke up.
Harrison had a completely different arc than John and Paul.
He was ascendant when the Beatles broke up and Paul and especially John had kind of already gone past their peak. You can watch "Get Back" and think George was being annoying butting into John and Paul's writing. Or you can notice John is an annoying addict/drunk in almost every scene where work is happening.
It was their failure not to realize how much of an asset George had developed into.
I find it odd sometimes how penning the lyrics for a song is considered so much more important (artistically & legally) than everything else. There are plenty of songs where the guitar part or piano/keys part is what made the song a success and which would not have been hits just based on the lyrics. Likewise for beats and drums in genres in which the beats/production makes or breaks the song.
Even if you could have replaced Harrison with someone as good as Clapton or Beck the Beatles would not have been the same.
He was ascendant when the Beatles broke up and Paul and especially John had kind of already gone past their peak. You can watch "Get Back" and think George was being annoying butting into John and Paul's writing. Or you can notice John is an annoying addict/drunk in almost every scene where work is happening.
It was their failure not to realize how much of an asset George had developed into.
I find it odd sometimes how penning the lyrics for a song is considered so much more important (artistically & legally) than everything else. There are plenty of songs where the guitar part or piano/keys part is what made the song a success and which would not have been hits just based on the lyrics. Likewise for beats and drums in genres in which the beats/production makes or breaks the song.
Even if you could have replaced Harrison with someone as good as Clapton or Beck the Beatles would not have been the same.
From what I've heard, they couldn't include negative Yoko scenes because she's still alive and has legal power.
On that subject I enjoyed https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/arts/music/yoko-ono-beatl... .
I find myself just really annoyed with the author here. Yoko may not have been the catalyst for breaking up the Beatles, but let's not pretend like she was advancing feminism just by being present in the studio, much to the dismay of the other members of the Beatles [1]. She's just being rude in the same way it'd be rude for someone to be standing next to me while I'm on the toilet. She might not be doing anything but her presence is certainly disruptive.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Na7ZY7W3pk
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Na7ZY7W3pk
Have you been in a band? You wouldn't be annoyed at Yoko, you'd be annoyed at John for bringing her into practice like that and insisting that she belongs...
> Have you been in a band?
Yes, I have.
> You wouldn't be annoyed at Yoko, you'd be annoyed at John for bringing her into practice like that and insisting that she belongs...
I'd be annoyed with both for different reasons.
Yes, I have.
> You wouldn't be annoyed at Yoko, you'd be annoyed at John for bringing her into practice like that and insisting that she belongs...
I'd be annoyed with both for different reasons.
Well John brought her in and insisted that she be there because she was part of him and he couldn't do it without her there, so I don't know why you'd be annoyed at her tbh. John was being incredibly obnoxious and obviously trying to get his bandmates riled up about it.
> Well John brought her in and insisted that she be there because she was part of him and he couldn't do it without her there, so I don't know why you'd be annoyed at her tbh.
This is basically saying that she has no agency over her own actions, when clearly that is not the case.
This is basically saying that she has no agency over her own actions, when clearly that is not the case.
I'm not sure how you got to that, I don't think so at all. In fact, I'm positive, any reasonable reading of what I said leaves highways of space between a lack of agency and what she did.
You're absolving her of all blame because John wanted to be there. As if her own personal responsibility for whether or not she should be in the studio with The Beatles starts and ends with what John says, not with her own ability to read the room, to understand that she's not welcome. That is, by reasonable standards, implying that she lacks personal agency. That she cannot make the decision for herself and thus is not responsible or deserving of the ire she earned while at the studio. Except she is her own self, she was serving her own purpose by being there, even if it was at least in part in reverence of John's desires.
We know for a fact that at least one Beatle was annoyed because Paul has plainly said her presence was unwelcome. I'm certain he was also quite annoyed with John, but he was independently annoyed by her being there. In fact I think most people would get quickly annoyed with Yoko being around them. Her "performances" are obnoxious and narcissistic.
We know for a fact that at least one Beatle was annoyed because Paul has plainly said her presence was unwelcome. I'm certain he was also quite annoyed with John, but he was independently annoyed by her being there. In fact I think most people would get quickly annoyed with Yoko being around them. Her "performances" are obnoxious and narcissistic.
Seems like you are projecting a bit. I'm not sure she'd agree that she also doesn't belong. So, the fact that you do doesn't really mean she should take personal blame for it. That's pretty ridiculous if you think about it.
> As if her own personal responsibility for whether or not she should be in the studio with The Beatles starts and ends with what John says, not with her own ability to read the room, to understand that she's not welcome.
Her partner asked her to be there for him... No one else expressed anything otherwise, because they knew how John would react.
> Except she is her own self, she was serving her own purpose by being there, even if it was at least in part in reverence of John's desires.
Yeah, she was serving the purpose of helping out her partner and lover and mate.
>We know for a fact that at least one Beatle was annoyed because Paul has plainly said her presence was unwelcome. I'm certain he was also quite annoyed with John, but he was independently annoyed by her being there. In fact I think most people would get quickly annoyed with Yoko being around them. Her "performances" are obnoxious and narcissistic.
Big coming from you with this kind of posting. Yawn.
> As if her own personal responsibility for whether or not she should be in the studio with The Beatles starts and ends with what John says, not with her own ability to read the room, to understand that she's not welcome.
Her partner asked her to be there for him... No one else expressed anything otherwise, because they knew how John would react.
> Except she is her own self, she was serving her own purpose by being there, even if it was at least in part in reverence of John's desires.
Yeah, she was serving the purpose of helping out her partner and lover and mate.
>We know for a fact that at least one Beatle was annoyed because Paul has plainly said her presence was unwelcome. I'm certain he was also quite annoyed with John, but he was independently annoyed by her being there. In fact I think most people would get quickly annoyed with Yoko being around them. Her "performances" are obnoxious and narcissistic.
Big coming from you with this kind of posting. Yawn.
> Seems like you are projecting a bit. I'm not sure she'd agree that she also doesn't belong. So, the fact that you do doesn't really mean she should take personal blame for it. That's pretty ridiculous if you think about it.
On the contrary, I'm quite convinced she did think she belonged, which is the problem. She was incapable of understanding the situation, John didn't care, and the other Beatles refused to confront John or Yoko about it despite it being quite clearly obtrusive.
> Her partner asked her to be there for him... No one else expressed anything otherwise, because they knew how John would react.
I'm not denying that it's a failure on multiple people's parts, but you're just pretending like Yoko doesn't share any of that responsibility herself.
> Big coming from you with this kind of posting. Yawn.
As opposed to your kind of posting that's infantilizing grown women on top of your inability to empathize. Yawn indeed.
On the contrary, I'm quite convinced she did think she belonged, which is the problem. She was incapable of understanding the situation, John didn't care, and the other Beatles refused to confront John or Yoko about it despite it being quite clearly obtrusive.
> Her partner asked her to be there for him... No one else expressed anything otherwise, because they knew how John would react.
I'm not denying that it's a failure on multiple people's parts, but you're just pretending like Yoko doesn't share any of that responsibility herself.
> Big coming from you with this kind of posting. Yawn.
As opposed to your kind of posting that's infantilizing grown women on top of your inability to empathize. Yawn indeed.
The Yoko thing was always just an unfounded, arguably misogynistic, meme in the world. At the very least, it always struck me as rather insulting to John! As if he was an easily swayed child struck by summertime limerence or something, it never made sense.
To me, it felt like Paul tried/had to became “the boss” after Brian Epstein‘s death and that shook the whole dynamic.
It did, but John and Ringo were big boys and didn’t get hung up on it. George was whiny and pouty.
George was brilliant but was treated like he wasn't. John and Paul treated each other with respect, but George as lesser. Your argument amounts to he should have shut up and dealt with it. Someone not putting up with poor treatment doesn't make them the problem.
It was Paul, definitely.
George was the genius composer, Paul the pedestrian, who demanded everything for himself. In the end they kicked him out, well done.
Quite fascinating read. I always considered George my favorite beatle. He had a big heart for India and it influenced the Beatles during their later years before they broke up. But it’s because of his overall creative that I was such a fan of him. In addition to his music career, Harrison was also a film producer and a humanitarian. He produced the film "Monty Python's Life of Brian" (1979) and organized the Concert for Bangladesh (1971), a benefit concert that raised money for refugees from the Bangladesh Liberation War. For those who don’t know , George passed away in early 2000s from throat cancer I believe. Such a legend!
Harrison's first recorded song was not Taxman, but five years before that: Don't bother me. He also had a song on A Hard days night, two on Help and two on Rubber Soul, before Taxman (where Paul played the guitar solo btw). So it might have been bad, being nr 3, but not bad as suggested.
Nitpick - he didn't write the song on AHDN (i'm happy just to dance with you). John did. And George had 2 songs on PPM, but one was a cover (chains) and one was written by John (do you want to know a secret?).
There’s something else missing from this article.
Regardless of how creative and respected you want to be as an individual, it might be better to just be in The Beatles.
Regardless of how creative and respected you want to be as an individual, it might be better to just be in The Beatles.
Didn't work out that well for Stu Sutcliffe or Pete Best.
I don't know -- would anyone even know those names if they hadn't been?
At some point, we need to realise that we’ve learned enough through consumption. Only by creating can we maximise the learning journey and prevent what we’ve learned from stagnating within us. The best way to do that is to develop a habit of creative experimentation and expression by allocating daily time for our creative pursuits.
> Lennon and McCartney had a habit of including only their own songs on their albums
Early Beatles albums are full of covers!
Early Beatles albums are full of covers!
That's true and was the industry standard at the time, but I think Rubber Soul was the first successful album released where every track was penned by the performing artists.
I'd like to propose this as a reference article for the class of "not particularly well-written essays which nevertheless could not be written by a circa 2023 LLM".
A few of the sentences could have been written by an LLM, especially the last one. But the overall structure has motion, empathy, and interprets historical events in the context of human motivations and desires. Quotes are both appropriate and reflective. The author thought about this, rather than compiling it.
A few of the sentences could have been written by an LLM, especially the last one. But the overall structure has motion, empathy, and interprets historical events in the context of human motivations and desires. Quotes are both appropriate and reflective. The author thought about this, rather than compiling it.
No mention of "In spite of all the danger" by the quarrymen which was a Mccartney/Harrison collaboration
I liked the early Harrison songs like - "I need you" and "You like me to much" on Help. Even the anthology released "You Know What to Do" was good
I liked the early Harrison songs like - "I need you" and "You like me to much" on Help. Even the anthology released "You Know What to Do" was good
"In spite" is a bit of a stretch on 'songwriting' credit, as he 'just' wrote the 'solo' bit. But, rethinking, if we're counting the intro guitar line... it's... a hook. It's not nothing. It's hard to think of the song without that little opening hook/riff.
We could dig further and look at the only (AFAICR) Lennon/Harrison "Cry For A Shadow" as evidence of early songwriting, but given it's an instrumental, it's another stretch.
We could dig further and look at the only (AFAICR) Lennon/Harrison "Cry For A Shadow" as evidence of early songwriting, but given it's an instrumental, it's another stretch.
Hooks are copyrightable as part of the composition - it's songwriting.
George lived his best life. There's a part of "20 Feet From Stardom" where one of the profiled backup singers who was in The Concert for Bangladesh says it was an experience that anyone would remember for the rest of their life.
[deleted]
Unrelated but, does anyone noticed that Substack hangs on Firefox on iOS?
It worked for me. iOS 16.3.1, Firefox 111.
My two favourite songs by George are Give me Love, and my sweet lord.
I like old George but My Sweet Lord was pretty much lifted from The Chiffons "He's so fine"...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rinz9Avvq6A&feature=youtu.be
I want to say later on they trolled the shit out of Harrison by covering "my sweet lord".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rinz9Avvq6A&feature=youtu.be
I want to say later on they trolled the shit out of Harrison by covering "my sweet lord".
When you have enough time and the same rock chord progressions, there are going to be similarities. I would be surprised if that song had anything other than a subconscious effect on Harrison’s song writing. Lawsuits over this type of thing are a huge impediment to the creative process imho.
Harrison was a pro at orchestrating complex melodies. I think he's a legend. But I don't think there's any question that he bite that 60's ronie mack single. personally I think it was Phil Spector that goaded him into My Sweet Lord. 60's pop was his specialty and he knew it was going to sell. Spector was a lunatic too so there could have also been some behind the scenes situation between him and Harrison when they produced that song.
But I in no way want to shit on George Harrison though. I think he's one of the best songwriters of his era. I just wanted to point out that My Sweet Lord was like a sample.
But I in no way want to shit on George Harrison though. I think he's one of the best songwriters of his era. I just wanted to point out that My Sweet Lord was like a sample.
You should listen to the full All Things Must Pass album. There are so many songs of that caliber.
When watching that recent Beatles doco “Get Back” about the making of Let it be, it was fascinating to see how John and Paul had a way of putting musical ideas back and forth between them — but when a tune wasn’t yet “ready” to move out of that duo of composers then they did not want George to get involved. And I saw Paul getting the most frustrated by this - that George would add some embellishment or input - and Paul would feel like it was a set back and a distraction.
So strange to see it unfolding!
It was like this. Imagine two people (John and Paul) are working together to build a life size puppet/model of a character using wire and bolts. The two of them are constantly changing the shape of the character as they evolve the idea. But then a third person comes along, who happens to be the worlds best papier-mâché artist, and he starts putting papier-mâché “skin” over the half constructed character. They all get upset with each other. The world expert papier-mâché artist is hurt, the modellers are frustrated, it’s total chaos.
Anyway - it was a tough position for George to be in, that was pretty clear.