George & Paul's relationship in the 80s

[Crisstti]

but i have to ask...what could an agreement between capital and mr mccartney in the 80's have anything to do with george, john and ringo? i'd think anything new(ish) shouldn't affect the "band" in any way.

On the other hand, why should George "all of a sudden" be cross about a 1969 issue just then? As I said, there would have been plenty of time to get that sorted out before, when John was still alive.

The Paul shares thing happened in 1966.

George , Paul and Ringo almost had this sorted out in 1973 or 74 but at the last minute John declined because the stars were not right. He was with Yoko in a hotel across the road. I believe they were in either Los Angeles or New York. When George found out he got very upset and wanted to kick John's ass.

I don't care what anyone says, Yoko got in the way of those guys and John just couldn't see it.

I think he was with May in the hotel, and with Yoko on the phone. And she was with the tarot reader.

[maccamania102]

It's curious to me that people often say Ringo is so easy going, lovable and friendly. He frequently comes across in interviews and onstage as rather impatient and grouchy, don't you think? For instance, did you see the recent interview on Larry King's show with Ringo and Paul? Paul seemed as happy as ever to be the ham, but Ringo was much more down-to-business, we're-not-here-to-joke-around. Just an observation...

Also, it isn't quite true that Paul and George never worked together: Paul (and Linda) sang on George's "All Those Years Ago."

I do agree with the poster who said it's lamentable that George never played on any of Paul's records.

Yes Paul and Linda did, along with Denny Laine. They sang back up. The story that came out of that was...when Paul was in the studio, everything was tense. When he left, everyone loosened up. George out on his own, didn't have to take direction from Paul. Paul tends to direct people.

The biggest problem with The Beatles and why they were different from most bands...they were TOO close. When people are too close personally and work together, something is going to give. Other bands weren't cemented together in their personal lives. The Beatles were, so they never had down time from each other.

Paul and Ringo to this day, still seem to have their problems on and off. Anyone who has been watching Paul for all these years, can't deny that he can be overbearing.

Liken them all to family. You always love one another...that's no a choice...but you don't always like each other.

[jgkojak]

I think Paul was and still is a perfectionist which can lead to him taking over situations in the studio. Basically a control freak if you like.
These tendencies caused problems in Let It Be as we know and no doubt there were continued problems throughout Wings. Maybe one of the many reasons Denny left, who knows.

Disagree- I think John was drugged out and George involved in mysticism and the only one taking seriously the business of recording/being the Beatles was Paul - and good thing he did or we'd likely not have had much of anything after Sgt Pepper.

[maccamania102]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKxR3CIGBOs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CETR-zQT ... ed&search=

These clips (part one and part two of the same interview) of George giving an interview on Australian TV in 1988 sets out his views quite well - especially part two (they still had differences but he loved him and had made it up). Very honest too.

Great interview. I was always disappointed with Paul and what he had pulled with the Hall of Fame thing. To this day, I think he was dead wrong.

I always enjoyed George's interviews. Totally honest without being rude.

I think George's bits in Anthology was the most enjoyable for me. His honesty and sense of humor was always so down to earth.

[maccamania102]

i think its fairly clear that george and paul were not as close as his words would suggest. sometimes, when you have a microphone or a camera shoved in your face...and are asked a question regarding a bad experience...sometimes you gloss over it as if all fences have been mended. don't wash your dirty laundry in public, so to speak.

if all was fine...he would not have mentioned the money difference between them even if he was asked...sometimes you give the political answer, and keep ugly past occurances private. i'm not suggesting george was wrong by any accounts. what i am saying is if all was fine between the two...he would have (because he could have) avoided saying anything negative at all.

its bad practice to say bad stuff about the people you really care about to the press...i'm just sayin'

It's also bad practice to pull what Paul pulled with the Hall of Fame with the people that you supposedly care about, in front of the world.

Every Beatle was pretty honest about the others to the media. I rather hear the truth out of their mouths, then tabloid BS that is no were near the truth.

Macca has been no angel over all these years and there has been one constant from people that do know him and are around him. He can be overbearing. But people criticize the actual people who know him and have experienced him on a personal level and think they know better.

[maccamania102]

I think Paul was and still is a perfectionist which can lead to him taking over situations in the studio. Basically a control freak if you like.
These tendencies caused problems in Let It Be as we know and no doubt there were continued problems throughout Wings. Maybe one of the many reasons Denny left, who knows.

Disagree- I think John was drugged out and George involved in mysticism and the only one taking seriously the business of recording/being the Beatles was Paul - and good thing he did or we'd likely not have had much of anything after Sgt Pepper.

That WAS the problem. No one else wanted to continue BUT Paul. Hence...tension by being forced to do things that they didn't want to do or continue with.

[maccamania102]

i'm sure i'll be corrected if i am off base...but i think it goes something like this. they were all supposed to get equal share (could be john and paul got more...details are fuzzy). but then paul...with his own money...bought additional shares of the beatle's music without really notifying the others.

it doesn't seem like he was wrong. it may have been a little sneaky, but it seems to me that paul was well within his rights to do this. it wasn't till after the fact, when the others found out paul was getting more...that feathers started getting ruffled. exactly why things had to be settled...when paul purchased additional shares, i do not know.

Paul, behind the scenes, was buying up extra stock in Northern Songs behind the others backs. He later admitted he was wrong and it was all equalized later.

[maccamania102]

George might have also meant Paul negotiating a bigger Beatles royalty from Capitol in the early 80's. I heard Paul talk about that years ago. He made it sound like George and Ringo were angry, like he'd done something behind their backs.
But the fact was he was up for renegotiations with Capitol, they desperatley wanted to keep him, so he negotiated a larger royalty for himself for all the Beatles records.
He was totally within his rights to do so. And like he said it wasn't like they were actually a band anymore.

Yeah, I think that is what happened.

As for the shares buying thing, I don't think it's even clear it happened.

It happened and is well documented and even Paul talked about it as late as in Anthology.

[ahawk66]

Someone mentioned that Ringo can appear quite surly and that made me remember that I think it was Geoff Emerick's book (Here, There, and Everywhere) that paints Ringo as a little callous to others at times. Granted, Emerick is Paul's friend, but the book was a fascinating trip inside the group's recording life.

He did seem to maintain a good relationship with the other three after the breakup and - from what I've read - talked John down from harsher lyrics on "How Do You Sleep?"

While I'm remembering things (probably jumbling them up, too!), I think I recall an interview with George in the mid-'90s after Paul had said he'd like to try to write with him. George, I think, said something like, "He's had 35 years to write with me and he's getting around to it now?" It's a shame they couldn't have given something a whirl, but when you're that tight, sometimes it's too much to handle.

[EddieV]

I always enjoyed George's interviews. Totally honest without being rude.

Me too