Paul's behavior got John mad

by **Chris Speers** » Sun Oct 06, 2002 10:34 pm

A case can be made that both John and Paul tried to ruin George's songs. George wrote song of the best Beatle material in 1969 and 1970 and they treated him like a kid. When i hear the Let it be tapes and hear the Beatles do very lame versions of All things must pass and let it down, it makes me sad. If they only supported each other and learned to agree to respect each other's music (like recording Cold Turkey which Paul refused), who knows what could have happened.

If only they had somebody who could heal their differences - the magic would have continued.

by **Aujouret** » Tue Oct 08, 2002 5:27 am

Certainly the solo albums gave them so much more room, particularly George.
John was right about George. He never would have "flourished like that" (his solo career) while he was contained in the Beatles.
I believe that John just found someone he wanted to be with more than the others. He found Mommy. That was his magic.
I think the person hurt the most was Paul. Paul loved being a Beatle, which George didn't and John was on his love cloud then.
The fans have all the Beatles albums, bootlegs, solo albums and new solo albums. Like George's new one. How generous of George to leave his fans a gift after he has left us.
What a kind man he was/is.

by **The Man** » Wed Oct 30, 2002 9:05 pm

quote:Originally posted by Aujouret

Certainly the solo albums gave them so much more room, particularly George.
John was right about George. He never would have "flourished like that" (his solo career) while he was contained in the Beatles.
I believe that John just found someone he wanted to be with more than the others. He found Mommy. That was his magic.
I think the person hurt the most was Paul. Paul loved being a Beatle, which George didn't and John was on his love cloud then.
The fans have all the Beatles albums, bootlegs, solo albums and new solo albums. Like George's new one. How generous of George to leave his fans a gift after he has left us.
What a kind man he was/is.

Very well said Auj, I agree with everything you said on this topic. Remember when you are hurt by the ones you love you want them to know and feel your pain so you lash out at them because you think you should have been smarter than that so you say things that you don't really mean. That's what happened to John and Paul.

by **Steve-o** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:13 am

quote:Originally posted by scrodfish256
quote:"Paul would subconsciously ruin his songs"

Paul had it planned all along![;)]Whatever. Boy that wasn't john's insecurities talking or anything.
I miss Schrod!!!

by **unclekevin** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:15 pm

i think what got john mad at paul was the fact that he had to argue with paul about money all the time. john was the one who insisted on hte song writing partnership money to be split 40-40 jl/pm and 10-10 gh/rs. yes even george and ringo shared in the song writing of jl/pm. then paul buys more shares...john thought they were a team and equals and paul wanted more money.

by **Steve-o** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:48 pm

Pretty darn simplistic and generalized answer, uncle. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

by **Ram1** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:27 pm

quote:Originally posted by Steve-o
Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

LOL.

Most of this is just speculation anyway...(what got John mad or what got Paul mad). John and Paul were about as close to being brothers as two people can get, without having the same parents. So obviously they were bound to piss each other off on occassion. I'm sure they both had their share of mistakes. But like I've said before, John and Paul were at peace with each other towards the end of John's life. That's all that really matters.

by **Harry** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 7:57 pm

quote:Originally posted by Ram1
quote:Originally posted by Steve-o
Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

LOL.

Most of this is just speculation anyway...(what got John mad or what got Paul mad). John and Paul were about as close to being brothers as two people can get, without having the same parents. So obviously they were bound to piss each other off on occassion. I'm sure they both had their share of mistakes. But like I've said before, John and Paul were at peace with each other towards the end of John's life. That's all that really matters.

This makes you wonder. Do you have to be friends with your band members if you have a musical chemistry with them? They were as close as brothers and I think it's due to that closeness that there was some bitterness towards each other when they broke up.

by **Ram1** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:13 pm

quote:Originally posted by Harry
This makes you wonder. Do you have to be friends with your band members if you have a musical chemistry with them? They were as close as brothers and I think it's due to that closeness that there was some bitterness towards each other when they broke up.

Good point, Harry. I don't think you neccessarily have to be "friends" with your band mates if you have a musical chemistry with them. Just look at the Kinks! LOL. And Ray and Dave ARE brothers. HOWEVER, I think not liking your band mates on a personal level USUALLY leads to a band's early demise.

by **Maestri09** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:47 pm

The Police as well weren't much of friends, but all were great musicians in their own right and you could hear it in their music.

The impression I get though with John and Paul is kind of like what family members, brothers, go through over the death of a parent. A lot of issues arise out of how money, property, arrangments are handled and obviously people are going to disagree. This would likely have been the motivation of both of them "attacking" each other in the early 70's after "The Beatles/Apple" died. Inside, I'm sure they always considered themselves as close as any brother, and I believe (I'm not 100% sure about this) that they only started to speak to each other after 1976 when most of the legal problems were over.

Paul's behavior got John mad

Who is online