?

Log in

Apr. 12th, 2007 @ 11:07 pm Rant #15
Grudge-Holding George

People have been complaining about George holding grudges. Yes, he could hold a killer grudge. But they seem to be making 4 assumptions that I think are inaccurate:

1) he was wrong to be so angry; 2) he shouldn't have stayed angry so long; 3) he had no provocations after the breakup and 4) he didn't try to get along with J&P after the breakup.

1) People get that George was jealous of J&P, but they seem to think he just wanted more power in the band or was being petty. I think there's a lot more to it than that. As musicians, the Beatles' identities were bound up in their ability to write and compose. If you devalue any Beatle's musical ability, he feels devalued as a person. Furthermore, J&P both looked at George as a "little brother." That might seem sweet, but it's actually demeaning. Imagine that in each interaction you had with 2 of the people you love most, their body language, their facial expressions, and the way they talk to you tell you in no uncertain terms that they don't think very much of you. That would hurt, wouldn't it? And if you valued their judgment, wouldn't you come to believe they were right (while at the same time getting defensive because your sense of self is attacked)?

Now imagine that nothing you do ever changes the demeaning way they treat you. Remember the breathtaking version of WMGGW on the Love Album? That's the demo George played for the other Beatles and George Martin. Imagine you just wrote that. Now imagine that people who make their career by knowing good music when they hear it have just passed over it because you're the one who wrote it, and they don't expect anything from you. George was perfectly aware that the others expected little from him, and by the end of the band, he realized that nothing he wrote would change that. Think about it: he's almost 30 and he's written Something and WMGGW, and J&P still think he's the little kid that followed them around when they were 17. I think that's plenty of reason for him to carry some deep-seated hurt, don't you?

2) The Beatles were practically family. When people carry scars and resentments from family members spending years attacking their sense of self, no one says to them, "Why are you holding a grudge? Stoppit." So how come when the family is the Beatles we look at George's situation differently?

3)"Holding a grudge" means stewing about something that happened a long time ago and isn't continuing in the present. But did J&P ever start treating George differently? After George died, Paul was still saying "he's just my little brother." After 40 years, he still hasn't gotten it. John was more respectful, inviting George to play on his albums. On the other hand he pulled out of Concert for Bangladesh at the last minute, leaving ever-un-self-confident George certain that the concert would fail as a result, because who cares about George, everyone was just coming to see John. (And Bob Dylan, another last-minute question mark, but that's another story.) I'm running out of space, so I'll let you think of more examples. Anyway, there were continuing provocations that brought up the same old hurt.

4) George remained in contact with John; they just fought. Remember, John was an unstable basket case. Maybe George was just tired of saying "Yes, John, it's only you," and finally started to set a few limits (in the sense discussed in the John&Yoko/Paul&Linda thread on johnheartpaul).

As for Paul, how do you deal with someone who treats you like a "little brother" no matter how often you tell him it bothers you? Who seems incapable of realizing that you've grown up, and 9 months isn't that big an age difference, anyway? If George wanted to avoid fighting with Paul, he had to keep his distance. I don't see anything wrong with that. Relatives keep their distance to keep the peace all the time, and no one calls that "holding a grudge."

Remember, George forgave Eric Clapton for running off with his wife, even though it upset him a lot. If he didn't fully forgive J&P, maybe, just maybe, he had a good reason.
About this Entry
macca
abromeds:
[User Picture Icon]
From:lildevilgirl06
Date:April 13th, 2007 05:22 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Some of this I can agree with and some I can't. One of my personal annoyances with George is the fact that, yeah, I can understand the 'little brother' thing and how annoying that can be but the fact that when the Beatles broke up and John recorded "HDYS" he didn't hesitate to play guitar on it. I know he was upset with Paul about him suing them but he could have been like Ringo and said "enough is enough" and walked out. But the fact that he so desperately wanted to be an equal even if that meant being totally cruel to Paul, it's just not right. I think he could have been the bigger man and stuck up to John like Ringo did.

And to defend Paul on his statement when George died, we all know he's not the best at those kind of things, when his mother died he asked how they were going to get money (erm w/e), when John died he said 'it's a drag', so I think we should give him a bit of a break on that one.
[User Picture Icon]
From:queenpeladon
Date:April 13th, 2007 08:31 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Agreed. :)
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:safelybeds
Date:April 13th, 2007 02:40 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I can understand this completely. I think neither is really "in the wrong" about how they took the whole little brother business. Paul probably just did it as an impulse. He made a few comments in the Anthology documentary about sometimes treating George or Ringo a bit condescendingly because they joined later (he also mentioned he regret it, for any eager Paul bashers waiting to jump on that). He had his insecurities and was pretty posessive of John's friendship. I think, if anything, the progression from viewing George as some sort of threat to viewing him with the affection of a big brother is a positive thing.

Then again, George probably didn't feel that way. But I don't think Paul's sometimes bossy and condescending behavior should be seen as malicious in any way.
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:padawansguide
Date:April 13th, 2007 03:12 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Well, I think I mostly agree with the ranter. The fact is George *wasn't* Paul's little brother. They were supposed to be equals in this band, the four of them, only it was probably only too apparant to Ringo and George that there was Lennon & McCartney, and then the two lesser Beatles. Ringo seems like the sort that was just happy to be there, but George seems like someone who, much like a little brother, was always trying to match what John & Paul were doing, but was always a step behind. It's just a shame that John & Paul couldn't let go of some of the condescension long enough to give George a chance, especially later, when he was better. I think finding Indian music helped give George his own thing, musically.

The Emerick book (which I suspect to not be 100% accurate in this regard) is way harsh on George's early musical skills. To the point where I was feeling really bad for him. There were stories of his not being able to get through solos and all sorts of stuff. If that was true, I suspect his skill at the guitar had increased by the end of the Beatles, but Paul was still treating him like a less musician. Paul would record over him, and insist on doing George's parts himself - I love Paul, but really, he needed to back the fuck off and let George be a part of the band even if things didn't end up being exactly perfect to his ears. That's part of being a band - letting everyone contribute. I can see where Paul's perfectionism would be better served as a solo act, or in a band where he has control, because it would then be his right to control every aspect of it. But the Beatles weren't just Paul's. Nor were they just John's. We've always said that Paul's the only one who could really stand up to John, and I think the reverse is true, that John could get away with standing up to Paul. I doubt that George had the clout in the band to stand up to Paul and tell him to bugger off and let George do his job.

Anyway - the dynamics of the band were kind of odd ones, and maybe that was fine in the early days, but for Paul to expect that he could just boss George around like he was still 17 is unreasonable.

I think George proved in his solo and Wilbury's stuff that he is a good musician. It's too bad that writing Something and WMGGW during the Beatles years weren't enough to prove anything. I think I've actually developed a soft spot for George somewhere along the line. Not sure when or how.

Pimping the Emerick book again - it's really interesting to see how George is presented in it. I'd still take it with a grain of salt, but it was a unique perspective on him. Actually, and Ringo as well.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:geminigirl58
Date:April 13th, 2007 03:49 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Interesting thread here. As Safelybeds mentioned, Paul acknowledged his bossiness/condescending attitude toward George (and Ringo), and expressed regret for it. It also appears that he bent over backwards to not be that way with George later on and to keep the peace. For example, although he wanted George Martin to produce FAAB and RL, George pushed for Jeff Lynne. Paul didn't push it and when Big George used his hearing loss as an excuse, it became a non-issue. I also agree with JKG Vader, in that the "little brother" comment said at the time of George's death was sincere, loving, and affectionate. I remember that film clip--the love was on his face and in his voice. Jeez, I'm heading toward 50 and I'm still called by older relatives the nicknames I've had since age 2 or 3. Sure, at times I get exasperated but it's clear it's said with love.

I don't believe it is right to say that someone has no right to feel something. You feel what you feel--it's a fact; no one has the right to tell you otherwise. To me, it's deeply disrespectful. The bigger question is whether it is in someone's best interests to feel what they are feeling, how intensely, and for how long. Many people, including me, can understand George's resentment. The $64,000 question is what it did for him to stay angry, if he did? You know, we all (hopefully) reach a level of age and maturity when we realize we are not perfect and neither are our loved ones. They are never going to be the perfect people we want them to be. We can either fume in that or learn to let it go. For some, that means forgiving the other person (but not forgetting). Also, even though we might not have liked or even hated someone's "bad" behavior (e.g., Paul's bossiness/controlling nature, especially in the latter Beatle years), part of maturity is understanding what drove the person to act that way. On JohnheartPaul, we have dissected John and Paul's less savory traits and put them in the proper context. Although we might not approve of how they behaved, we understand it. I hope that George reached that point regarding John and Paul.

The thing is, none of us knew George. Flashes of resentment during the Anthology film does not mean he was consumed with it. Especially by the time he got sick, and then Linda's illness, he likely made peace with a lot of that old baggage, if not before. When you're facing a potentially fatal illness, the fact that someone didn't take your songs seriously doesn't matter much anymore. Plus, keep in mind how close George's and Paul's families are. Well before the illnesses, George still went out to dinner with Paul or they went to each other's houses. Olivia is quite close to Paul's kids, Dhani is close to Stella and Mary, etc. These are families (including George and Paul) that hung out together. How severe could George's resentment have been if that were the case?
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:abromeds
Date:April 13th, 2007 04:55 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Imagine that in each interaction you had with 2 of the people you love most, their body language, their facial expressions, and the way they talk to you tell you in no uncertain terms that they don't think very much of you. That would hurt, wouldn't it?

Well yes, it would, but I see no reason to believe that was the case. Yes, John and Paul's dismissiveness of George was serious enough to be considered a "problem," but that doesn't mean it was as constant or pernicious as you imply. All relationships have problems, and I have no doubt George contributed as well. The major difference, of course, is that, while we know all about George's grievances against Paul because he saw fit to air them in public, Paul didn't.

did J&P ever start treating George differently? After George died, Paul was still saying "he's just my little brother." After 40 years, he still hasn't gotten it.

I think he has actually. Here are some Paul-quotes on George and the other Beatles:

"That might have been a failing of mine, to sort of talk down to him, because I'd known him as a younger kid." "Yeah, I know now I was a bossy git." "I would get very single-minded about recording, and not realize I was riding rough-shod" "A classic like 'Something'" (Beatles Anthology, book and DVDs).

"Of course I loved that [hearing that the other three were suing Allan Klein]. My God, I hope they win that one. That's great... Klein made his way into George's big songwriting company, which is George's big asset. The main one was the song "Something," that was on Abbey Road. That was kind of George's great big song, and everyone covered it and it was lovely and made him lots of money that he could give away, which is his thing, you know, charity. It was a great thing for him. Well, it turns out that Klein has got himself into that company. Not only paid twenty percent [the percentage Klein claimed to have gotten from Abbey Road] -- there's a thought now that he's claiming he owns the company! ... I hope they nail him to the wall for that" (RS, 1975).

"I suppose musically I'm competing with the other three, whether I like it or not. It's only human to compete. But I think it's good for us. I think George has shown recently that he was no dummy" (Life Magazine, 1971).
[User Picture Icon]
From:abromeds
Date:April 13th, 2007 04:57 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
more...

"PAUL: I mean, I saw a recent account that put George down for his contributions to the Beatles. But the real point is, there are only four people who knew what the Beatles were about anyway. Nobody else was in that car with us. The chauffeur's window was closed, and there were just four of us in the back of that car, laughing hysterically. We knew what we were laughing at; nobody else can ever know what it was about.

PLAYBOY: Even now, do you feel defensive if someone attacks one of the four of you?

PAUL: Sure. I mean, you don't just dismiss George like that! There's a hell of a lot more to him than that! And Ringo. The truth of this kind of question depends on where you're looking... on the surface or below the surface.

PLAYBOY: Then you agree that your whole was greater than the sum of its parts?

PAUL: Yeah. Yes. Definitely. Oh, yeah.
PLAYBOY: Most performers who have been part of a team continue to insist that their solo work is equal to their teamwork.
PAUL: When the four of us got together, we were definitely better than the four of us individually. One of the things we had going for us was that we'd been together a long time. It made us very tight, like family, almost, so we were able to read one another. That made us good.

...

PLAYBOY: That brings up an interesting question: Does too much emphasis on day-to-day life, on domesticity, dull the edge in a composer? It's commonly felt that your earlier stuff had more bite, and meat, than your more recent music.

PAUL: I can see that...

PLAYBOY: Is there anything left for you to want? Isn't something important gone?

PAUL: Yes. I think greed is gone. You know, the hunger. You're right, it probably is good for a greyhound to be lean and toughened up. It will probably run faster.

LINDA: But Picasso wasn't hungry.

PAUL: Exactly. That's what I was saying about formulas. It's not always that important to be hungry, actually, as Linda says. Picasso wasn't hungry, and there are a lot of artists who haven't lost anything to domesticity. In my case, it probably did happen. When I was not at all domestic, and clubbing it and knocking around and boozing a lot and whatever in the Sixties, it probably did expose me to more and leave me with more needs to be fulfilled which you use songwriting for. Songwriting's like the thumb in the mouth. The more crises you have, the more material you have to work on, I suppose...

PLAYBOY: You're obviously ambivalent about the subject.

PAUL: For me, the truth of this domesticity thing is confused. In my case, it wasn't just domesticity that changed me. It was domesticity, plus the end of the Beatles. So you can see why I would begin to believe that domesticity equals lack of bite. I think it's actually lack of Beatles that equals lack of bite... The lack of great sounding boards like John, Ringo, George to actually talk to about the music. Having three other major talents around... I think that's it, really" (Playboy, 1984).
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:minds_opaque
Date:April 13th, 2007 06:31 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Awwww, those are some sweet quotes.

(I love how much he appreciates and misses the other Beatles. I just wish he realized he was still okay without them!)

That's true, Paul realized his mistakes. I hope he managed to change his behavior towards George. He may have started to and that would have helped them get along better later on.
[User Picture Icon]
From:abromeds
Date:April 13th, 2007 05:01 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
If George wanted to avoid fighting with Paul, he had to keep his distance. I don't see anything wrong with that. Relatives keep their distance to keep the peace all the time, and no one calls that "holding a grudge."

*deep breath* No, if George wanted to avoid fighting with Paul, he ought to have refrained from taking part in the "How Do You Sleep Gang-Rape Steamroller" (TM HB :D). He ought to have refrained from saying things like "Paul ruined me as a guitarist" (audio interview 1974), and "Paul would always help along when you'd done his ten songs-- then when he got 'round to doing one of my songs, he would help. It was silly. It was very selfish, actually" (RS, 1977), and "sometimes Paul would make us do these really fruity songs. I mean, my God, 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer' was so fruity. After a while we did a good job on it, but when Paul got an idea or an arrangement in his head... But Paul's really writing for a 14-year-old audience now anyhow" (RS, 1977), and "Paul asked Yoko for the rights to perform Strawberry Fields because he's run out of tunes of his own by now," (paraphrased, early-mid 90s, I believe). He also ought to have refrained from denouncing John and Paul for their "egos" and "bitchiness" in the Anthology, sneering about "all their wondrous hits," ignoring Paul's questions point-blank, hassling Paul over who was playing bass or whateverthefuck on the "Golden Slumbers" demo, and randomly getting pissy about Paul's request to play "Kansas City" ("Fine, but just the short version").

Given all this, it's a little difficult for me to buy the image of 60s-George as the mild-mannered strummer in the corner letting himself get walked on because he lacked the confidence to stand up to Big Bad John and Paul. I mean, it's POSSIBLE that George's personality did a complete 180 around 1971, but I doubt it. In fact there's plenty of indications that George's less-pleasant character traits were well-established earlier on. He took plenty of jabs at John and Paul in his songs ("Savoy Truffle," "Only a Northern Song," "I Me Mine"), some of which were positively BLATANT ("Not Guilty") and apparently felt sufficiently plucky to bring 'em in to the damn studio and have John and Paul sing back-up on them, lol. I'm sure we've all seen the "fight" between Paul and George from the "Let It Be" film; is anyone else pretty underwhelmed by Paul's alleged "bossiness" here? George is the on being bitchy there, IMO (naturally this is only a single incident, but we work with what we have, right?).

George's pervasive negativity should also be taken into account, as should his astounding ability to freely criticize others while taking no responsibility for his own faults. I think it's safe to assume he was often unethusiastic and grouchy in the studio, and you know what? In Paul's shoes, I might have started ignoring the person who kept putting a damper on my sessions, too. It's fucking hard to be creative and productive when a member of the team doesn't want to be there, you know?

Now, this is NOT to say that I think George should be assigned more blame, or is a worse person, or anything like that. I like him least of The Beatles, it's true, but I don't pretend that's for any other reason other than personal preference. And of course, he has millions of redeeming qualities, and was a brilliant artist. I would definitely say Paul and John were the bigger arses during the Beatles, if only because they had more power and therefore more freedom to inflict their asshattery on the others. But ultimately, factoring in later years, I think there's plenty of blame to be had on all sides, and I'm irritated when that is not recognized.
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:zyzzybalubah
Date:April 13th, 2007 05:25 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Well you know, all those things that George was quoted as bitching about were actually true. I'd be pretty upset if I had to play "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" also. LOL
[User Picture Icon]
From:minds_opaque
Date:April 13th, 2007 05:33 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
60s-George as the mild-mannered strummer in the corner letting himself get walked on because he lacked the confidence to stand up to Big Bad John and Paul.
I would assume that's not what the ranter meant. Clearly, George could stand up for himself and often did (and at times was just plain cranky).

I think the George-Paul dynamic was terrible, and they both contributed to that. Yes, George could be unenthusiastic and grouchy in the studio, and that was no fun for Paul. I think that was probably a reaction to feeling sidelined. Paul, as you said, probably felt like he had to ignore George's wet-blanketing, which would have only fueled George's resentment, leading him to be more unpleasant to work with. Nice vicious circle, there.

IMO, Savoy Truffle has nothing to do with John and Paul, it's a shout-out to Eric Clapton and his dental problems (and free advertising for the Good News Chocolate company). It's Only a Northern Song makes fun of the Northern Songs Company, which George felt screwed them over.
[User Picture Icon]
From:minds_opaque
Date:April 13th, 2007 05:57 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Short version: George had every right to be angry, and the ranter's right that he's not just holding a grudge. But he needn't have vented his problems with Paul in public, esp. since Paul didn't do that with him.

Long version:
if George wanted to avoid fighting with Paul, he ought to have refrained from taking part in the "How Do You Sleep Gang-Rape Steamroller"
Very, very true. 1970-1971, George was not interested in getting along with Paul. (Of course, he was hardly holding a grudge either, since the lawsuit and business issues were still going on.) He would have wanted to avoid fighting with Paul later on.

"Paul would always help along when you'd done his ten songs-- then when he got 'round to doing one of my songs, he would help. It was silly. It was very selfish, actually" (RS, 1977)
Actually, though, George is right, that's really the way they worked.

and "sometimes Paul would make us do these really fruity songs. I mean, my God, 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer' was so fruity.
I like Maxwell's Silver Hammer, but it is kind of fruity. And if it's so horrible to dislike MSH, let me point out that John and Ringo didn't like it, either.

After a while we did a good job on it, but when Paul got an idea or an arrangement in his head... But Paul's really writing for a 14-year-old audience now anyhow" (RS, 1977)
My reaction to this: "then 14 year olds must be pretty sophisticated." Seriously, George, you should know how much that comment would hurt. I don't have enough context to know what he was PO'd about on that particular day, but he needn't make that particular dig public.

and "Paul asked Yoko for the rights to perform Strawberry Fields because he's run out of tunes of his own by now," (paraphrased, early-mid 90s, I believe).
Ouch. That sounds like a joke, but again, a nasty one that didn't need to be made public.

He also ought to have refrained from denouncing John and Paul for their "egos" and "bitchiness" in the Anthology,
But abromeds, he was perfectly right. They did have huge egos, and they were being incredibly bitchy during the breakup, which IIRC was what George was talking about. (Mind you, they all had huge egos, but of course George would make the biggest deal about it since he was the one who felt most stepped-on.)

sneering about "all their wondrous hits"
I'm not familiar with that quote so I won't comment. Where's it from?

ignoring Paul's questions point-blank,
Again, not sure what you're referring to. Is this the Let It Be movie?

hassling Paul over who was playing bass or whateverthefuck on the "Golden Slumbers" demo, and
Again, not familiar with this, so no comment.

randomly getting pissy about Paul's request to play "Kansas City" ("Fine, but just the short version").
Huh? Not familiar with this either, and it seems sort of random, but my guess is that this was Let It Be time, he had real issues with John and Paul, and it came out in the form of being randomly snarky about nonsense, because god forbid he might actually communicate with the others in some sort of helpful manner.
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:geminigirl58
Date:April 14th, 2007 03:27 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
George was incredibly negative and bitter in the 70s and it's understandable that with the exception of Ringo, his contact with the other two was limited. With John, he last saw him in '74 but I don't know if they ever had any communication thereafter. Thank goodness some of the bitterness declined over time. Yes, he could have moments of sarcasm or snarkiness later but given that it is known he had friendly social contact with Paul (probably except around the Hall of Fame induction in which there was another round of lawsuits), overall, relationships had improved.
[User Picture Icon]
From:zyzzybalubah
Date:April 13th, 2007 05:22 pm (UTC)

just some randon thoughts...

(Permanent Link)
I'd always heard that John wouldn't do the Concert for Bangladesh because they didn't want Yoko on stage. (Maybe that's just a Yoko-created myth...I dunno)

I think Paul just called George "his brother" after he died. Not his "little brother".

In my opinion, George didn't really start writing consisently good songs until around 1968. I mean, he had a few great ones before '68...like "Taxman" and "If I Needed Someone" but honestly, I think he was lucky that songs like "Love You To" and "I Want to Tell You" were allowed to be on a Beatles album. However, "While My Guitar..." was probably the best song from The White Album. Also, "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun" were certainly two of the best songs from Abbey Road.

I always got the impression that George just got so sick of "Beatlemania" that whenever he had to hear about it or talk about it, he would cringe.

[User Picture Icon]
From:minds_opaque
Date:April 13th, 2007 05:39 pm (UTC)

Re: just some randon thoughts...

(Permanent Link)
I'd always heard that John wouldn't do the Concert for Bangladesh because they didn't want Yoko on stage.
I've heard that too, although I don't remember the source. (I'm so terrible at that. Everything gets mixed up in my head.)

Hmmm, I remember it as "he's just my little brother," but you could be right. I need to look up the interview now.

In my opinion, George didn't really start writing consisently good songs until around 1968.
What about "I Need You?" *cheesy grin* (Okay, that's not a classic song. It's just fun.) I'm guessing you're not a big fan of his Indian stuff?

Well, Beatlemania was so crazy that I'm surprised the others weren't cringing. I think it was perfectly reasonable for him to feel that way. Although it would have been nicer if he had been a bit less cranky about it (it probably didn't make the situation any better).
[User Picture Icon]
From:merryb87
Date:April 13th, 2007 05:42 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I have to really disagree with you on the "little brother" comment. I don't think that Paul ever really meant it to be a demeaning thing. But as affectionate. Did he treat George a bit shitty, and look down at him because he was younger? Yes, he even admitted to that, a quote that someone earlier posted. But he still refered to George as little brother. Brother is family is it not? He was regarding him as family.

Your acting as though John and Paul set out their lives to make George's a living nightmare, that poor little George had a rough ass life dealing with John and Paul and being a Beatle.

Personally I think George should have been more open to John and Paul. I think he kept a lot of his ideas about songwriting to himself and just did his own thing, and I think John and Paul, espically in the begining would have been more open to lyric ideas and wouldn't have sent George away. I mean, they did seem open to Ringo's ideas didn't they? To say George was was a pawn in Paul and John's evil plan to rule the world(mwhhaha)is a bunch of cow crap.

This rant just seems to be another GEORGE THE ALMIGHTY GOD, HE CAN DO NO WRONG! rant.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:minds_opaque
Date:April 13th, 2007 06:10 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I don't think that Paul ever really meant it to be a demeaning thing. But as affectionate.
Certainly Paul meant it as affectionate. But when George made clear over and over again for years that he didn't like it, and felt that Paul was always treating him in a demeaning way, couldn't Paul have found find some other way to express his affection? Several people mentioned that he acknowledged that he treated George like a younger brother and maybe he shouldn't. And that's a great first step. Changing his behavior would have been even better.

Seriously, when you love someone and that person says something you do bothers them, you try to stop. It seems a bit insensitive of Paul not to do that.

Of course, it's more than a bit insensitive of George to participate in How Do You Sleep, or go with John to throw a brick through Paul's window. Not George's finest moments. That's another discussion.

I think the ranter was trying to put you into George's perspective, not to say that the others meant to have that effect on him. I doubt the ranter really thought John and Paul set out to make George's life a nightmare. That doesn't mean their behavior couldn't have had that effect. People who love each other can really hurt each other without meaning to.

Yes, I think George did often find it difficult to deal with John and Paul and be a Beatle, and that's why he was so snarky about it. Wouldn't you find it hard?

I think there's a difference between saying "George looks like he's holding a grudge, but he really isn't" and saying "George the almighty God can do no wrong." You might also notice the totally George-worshipping comments like "Yes, George could hold a killer grudge." And I'm still not sure where you got the idea that anyone was saying "George was a pawn in Paul and John's evil plan to rule the world (mwahaha)."
[User Picture Icon]
From:magegirl8
Date:April 23rd, 2008 03:44 pm (UTC)

ages too late, I'd like to share my twopence

(Permanent Link)
On Paul's 'Baby Brother' statement.

My sister is four years younger than me. As children, this was a big difference. I was her protector, her mentor, her friend. I always had to watch what I did, because I know she looked up to me. We are growing up, and the difference isn't so big anymore. She even takes care of me now sometimes. But she will always be my little sister for me, because that captures the tender, protective love that i first grew to know her by.
[User Picture Icon]
From:coocoo4oc_slash
Date:February 7th, 2009 03:26 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Kind of unrelated, but is there somewhere that I can pro-rant about Julian Lennon?

Because I feel that, like George, he has ALL the reason to be bitter and grudge hold-y and yet people keep going, "He needs to get over it already!"