The Beatles: Why Was George Harrison MAD at Paul McCartney? 🤯

In this video we look at the relationship between George Harrison and Paul McCartney, and the impact it had on George as an individual and on the band itself. Was their strained relationship a major contributor for The Beatles splitting up? Let me know what you think!

[@hariowen3840]

Old Brown Shoe - another completely overlooked masterpiece.

[@manormouse1410]

Very difficult times at the end. Paul was such a prolific composer, song writer/musician/talent It would seem wrong to put a handbrake on him. George had his time to shine as an individual in his solo career after the split. We just have to be grateful that they gave us what 8 years of superb music. It could never be repeated

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Yes, true!

[@LBrilliante]

We can appreciate what is.. and it is a waste of time to speculate on what might have been... but I disagree that the potential that would have been realized if McCartney wasn't so overconfident in his facility with melody & musical directorship and micromanagement of the participation of other Beatles is a trivial "all works out in the end" concern for rock music or Beatle fans in general. It is sad to look back on this history. Harrison showed he could do it and had some real highlights in his career and McCartney made a lot of money and had a clutch of hits...Ringo had a number of them himself .. and Lennon co-wrote "Imagine" with the missus... then took 5 years off. But really... one has to say.. the BEST thing that could have happened was, IF they could have resolved their differences & issues and avoided the pitfalls that befell many in that generation.. would have been to continue to be involved with each other, not exclusively, in the common creation of music throughout their lives. Not everyone liked them.. but they were a powerful whimsical eccentric unifying force in pop culture that should not have self destructed as they did.

[@manormouse1410]

More of George would have meant less of Lennon and McCartney. Their early dominance and profuse talent set the stage for the greatest band ever., and they changed the world. What is it that you`d liked to have done differently?@@LBrilliante

[@ibmjas1]

Paul was always driven as a songwriter and the pressure of creating several songs for an upcoming live performance made him try to keep pushing everyone forward. John was rather disinterested because he really just wanted to be with Yoko. Paul as a composer had a vision of how his songs should be performed. He would often tell George and sometimes Ringo how they should play their instruments. George wasn't happy because Paul and John weren't really interested in the songs he was writing. He definitely wasn't interested in just being a session musician to do just what Paul told him to. They had all outgrown the Beatles. I don't think any of their squabbles made them truly dislike each other. They were like brothers. It would have been lovely to see them perform together again at a benefit or some other event if John had lived.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Great points!

[@Kieop]

If John and Paul had really been so unsupportive of George he would never have had ANY of his songs on their albums. He had his first track on their second album. There is no way that George Martin would have advocated for that. It must've come from J/P lobbying on his behalf. George Martin barely had faith in THEM as songwriters at this point, so there was no way he was going to champion yet another in-house writer. The only reason they were allowed to record their own material was due to pressure from their publisher A&B. It was their success that changed his mind, but he never acknowledged that his first impression was wrong, only that they got better. (I find it interesting that he lobbied for them to ditch their publisher in favour of setting up Northern Songs -- I think there's more to that story.) Anyway, if you listen to George's songs over the course of their career, it is clear that they put just as much effort into HIS songs. They are clearly having fun experimenting with new sounds, modes and tempos. Paul was especially supportive of George's more Indian influenced songs, which George later acknowledged, though somewhat begrudgingly. The frustration is that they treated his songs as after-thoughts at the arranging stage and he had difficulty getting them onto the albums -- more a production/label decision than anything to do with J/P trying to block him. Yes, it was very frustrating for George, but J/P supported him as best they could without sacrificing themselves.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

@@Kieop great points!

[@nikolic-sq5rx]

@@Kieop and george only had 3 great songs, and it was in a short period of time, at the end of beatles

[@AmericaFirst1963]

@@nikolic-sq5rxnot true at all. 1) If I needed Someone 2) Within You Without You 3) Old Brown Shoe 4) Think For Yourself 5) Taxman 6) Long Long Long 7) it’s All Too Much All very good to great songs. And “I Want to Tell You”, “Don’t Bother Me” are very solid, enjoyable tunes.

[@nathynorthy6916]

Three out of 14 tracks on Revolver (arguably the greatest Beatles album if not the greatest album of all time) isn't actually so bad, in a band with four members and when it also contains two others who were the most prolific hit writers of our age. And George hadn't really got going as a songwriter at that stage. Given all that, three songs seems more than fair.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Yep, fair points Nathy.

[@OroborusFMA]

The only reason he got three tracks on Revolver was that John's LSD use was eating into his productivity and he didn't have enough songs.

[@limitededition1053]

When George left, Michael Lyndsey Hogg told George Martin that George was clearly fed up of being ignored by John and Paul while they 'collaborated' on their songs together. George Martin said that's because John and Paul are a song writing team. ML Hogg said, but they haven't written songs together since 1966. Paul was also telling George (and John) what to do, especially what to play and George clearly wanted to continue doing what he always did and play the songs the way he felt he could. He said he's not Eric Clapton. He could see Paul was not interested in his songs and in fact generally ignored him. To be fair to Paul, he did say he was tired of being the boss. Then there was Yoko and then Alan Klien............. a perfect storm.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Really good points!

[@Kieop]

Yes, but MLH was not very observant (a flaw for a filmmaker) and he was just wrong about this. He is right that George felt left out when they worked on their songs together, because he wanted to collaborate on his songs too, but wrong when he insists that they no longer write together. What does he think collaborating on songs is?

[@nicktalkstherapy]

@@Kieop really good point!

[@limitededition1053]

@@Kieop Collaborating was a word I used. I can't remember what the exact words were in the film. The point he was making though was that John and Paul were not interested in Georges songs and just helped each other. Having said that when you listen to Georges songs John and Paul clearly did collaborate as his songs sound great when they were finished. In the film John helps George when he can't find the right words he is looking for. It just seemed to be when they were in Twickenham studios that the room was just cold and not an enjoyable place to be rehearsing so it all went sour. They were a lot happier in the Apple office / studio.

[@johnbernhardt2335]

Paul and John did work together on a few songs in 1967-1969. But it mostly either just showing their songs to each other or putting two already written partial songs together (Baby Your a Rich Man).

[@jamesmerrill9446]

During this time period, George had some serious personal issues going on. Patti left him because George had an affair with her best friend who had been invited to come stay at their home. George could be very negative and his personality was often described as "dour" by those who knew him best. There is a great deal of film during the Let It Be sessions where both John and Paul are trying to encourage George to perform some of his own songs as they had very little time to learn new material for the intended public concert that The Beatles were to give as the finale of the film. He repeatedly turned them down, even when they suggested that George could perform the songs in the manner of Yesterday... just George and an acoustic singing his songs. After viewing the unreleased film from the Let It Be sessions, my perspective changed a great deal regarding the dynamics of the group. Paul has always had a workman-like ethic and, given the time constraints the group was facing, he was acting as the band's cheerleader, though John's heavy drug use, Georges issues in his private life and Ringo's somewhat burned out state caused pushback. Given all of that, what an amazing feat they accomplished in getting it all done!

[@CobraAction1]

George was banging Ringo's wife

[@Henrik2020]

👍

[@victorarena23]

clearly your bias towards Paul is influencing your opions. those who knew George best said just the opposite about Georege, that he was so "up" that he never shut up. he was quick to point out a bullshitter but with his closest friends he was a bright light. Clearly he was dour aroung the beatles because he pissed off at J&p nearly all the time from 67 onward

[@oliverfield877]

Tbf to George the Get Back documentary only shows his personality after years of humiliation and being ignored. If they had a documentary for every album you would see why he’s so annoyed during the Let it be sessions. This anger has been pent up for some long that by the time of let it be he can’t be bothered with the Beatles anymore and is quite grumpy all the time.

[@junplanas1403]

Despite all the arguments, they Care and love each.

[@chopsieflores4844]

I find it interesting that George was the youngest of three sons in his family, and he was the youngest in the Beatles. It's like a role he was born to play and overcome. I also think they all did the best they could with the circumstances they faced. I remember being four and seeing them descend from the aircraft on their first landing in the US. All the girls screaming, and all I could do was feel frightend for these men.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Yes, good points!

[@mrsbluesky8415]

Maybe in a previous life he was the oldest brother and very powerful. His karma was to be reborn the youngest. Ironic.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Interesting 😆

[@ProfessorKenneth]

Not guilty is a great song sung by George 👍🏻💯🎸

[@fredmybutterman]

This is brilliant. I would argue also that the Harrison/McCartney feud combined with the introduction of Yoko was the point of no return for the Beatles

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Absolutely! The perfect storm was brewing…

[@SBilson]

Then there was Allen Klein and the Eastmans. A lot of things added up

[@fredmybutterman]

For sure

[@Kieop]

They weren't feuding. This is clear from contemporary interviews and sources (1969/70). Though there was a resentment. George was also quite mad at John and it was his argument with John (not on film) that was the catalyst for him leaving the band that day, though it was Klein/Eastmans feud and the battle lines drawn around the governance of Apple that later broke up the band. Yoko didn't help.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

good point!

[@dezzee100]

In the end it would be hard being in a band with Paul. He was driven and simply better than the rest and could play their instruments almost as well.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Well said, Dion

[@AntonioGomez-wf8ut]

I don't think so, John is way better than Paul...

[@nicktalkstherapy]

I’m split 50/50… why was John better

[@crazyantny9161]

In Paul's mind. Harrison actually turned out to be the deepest and most melodic writter be 2001. And I do mean that, hands down!

[@dezzee100]

@@crazyantny9161 not really. He did very little after All Thungs Must Pass

[@OroborusFMA]

Paul's ego, not John's indifference, ended the band. John wanted to end the dual L/M songwriting credit and allocate an equal number of tracks to George and Paul said "no" to both. John went off to Toronto to play live and when he returned he said he wanted a divorce from the band.

[@drubbus]

It was in the contact that lennon and macca where the writers. He even told thst him self You all seem to forget that

[@triplejazzmusicisall1883]

George spent most his late Beatles career being angry as did John. Paul could be over domineering but, in a way, he had to be, or nothing would have been done. Ringo has done throughout his life to remain so calm despite the walkout during a session. I loved the fact that upon his return the others had decorated out the room with roses everywhere. Stop and Smell the Roses eh.

[@petejones879]

As much as I love the beatles and I truly do I've been a Beatles fan since the early 60s... I don't think George could truly express himself until he was away from the band.. As, we see and hear.. He was always suppressed and held back mostly by Paul.. Even John seemed to lose control of the band in the latter years and it was HIS band.. Much in the same way Brian Jones was in the Rolling stones.. Paul took control towards the end... Good old Ringo just took a back seat and played what he was asked to play.. But poor old George had a great talent.. Good songwriting and a good singer....all proved by the All things must pass album which was a magnificent album.. And the first one I bought after the bands split.. So yeah.. I have a lot of time.. Love and respect for George and he being such a nice bloke he's never really had a bad word to say about any of T h e other three.. Apart from saying John's Now and then was Fucking rubbish.. I personally wouldn't be that harsh but I really don't like it to be honest.. Free as a bird was brilliant.. Real love was OK.. But Now and then.. Nah.. Anyways I digress I understand how George felt in the latter days of the beatles and he was much more relaxed and at peace with himself as a solo artist and he's greatly missed by many including myself

[@johnpaulson996]

Paul treated George like an appliance.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

True!

[@KitchenFoyle]

The catalyst of the eventual break up of The Beatles was undoubtedly John’s relationship with Yoko. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back so to speak. And it wasn’t helped by her staying silent when John insisted she sit in on Beatles recordings which the band had never previously allowed. If she’d said, “Look John, my presence in the studio is causing too much trouble and it’s best you record in the way you’ve always done.” But she stayed silent throughout that whole disastrous conflict. Indeed, it was clear she revelled in being at the centre of attention during that period. And it was to Paul’s great credit in the aftermath of the whole Yoko in the studio situation when he said, “Look man, John loved her and we had to respect that.” Would the often acerbic John have been so magnanimously understanding had, say, Jane Asher or Linda sat in on Beatle studio sessions? I don’t think so!

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Very good points!

[@cowdaddy4595]

Yoko really had nothing to do with the split. It is true that George and Paul did not like Yoko. But that had nothing to do with the split. Both Paul and George made no bones about it: They did not like Yoko. But neither ever said that had a thing to do with the breakup. They broke up much more because they became solo artists with the rest of the band as a backup They had achieved their purpose. They needed each other and then they quit needing each other. Paul had recorded at least one song that no other Beatle performed on. On the White Album they are more 4 solo artists than a group. John and Paul recorded at least one song with no contribution from George and Ringo--because George and Ringo were not around. When they broke up, the there was very little rancor among them, and you may as well say there was none compared with other bands that broke up, and compared to some bands that stayed together. Regarding Yoko, we know that both Paul and George had some things to say about Yoko. But as far as I know, Yoko never said a bad word about them. They broke up because they became solo artists and because John did not want to become "Elvis Beatle". If John had not died, I fully believe they would have played and recorded together again. I don't think they would have restarted the Beatles, except maybe a project here and there. If you look at the rooftop concert you can see that they all very much enjoyed playing together. You can also see, from the "Let It Be" movie that it was no longer like "Hard Day's Night" though. Listen to the interviews John gave after they released Abbey Road. By that time John had told them he was leaving. They broke up because John decided to leave and he told them so. But in that interview you can see that John bears absolutely no hard feelings. They were still best of friends until Paul decided to release his solo album on the very same day that Let It Be was released. That solo album had a one page written interview with Paul and Paul made it sound like he was the one who decided to leave. Paul has since corrected that interview and he admits that he didn't like it that John had decided to leave. But by 1974 Paul was doing everything he could do to make up for that. (I don't know when they quit packaging that one page interview with that album. Maybe our distinguished channel owner can look into that and find out when Paul had that interview removed.

[@CobraAction1]

Paul went around to Johns house one night and John told him not to come again without ringing first "because of the baby" but you can bet a gold pig that was Yoko assuming control. These two had been literally brothers since teenagers and it was something they did all the time. Its a common trick by controlling women

[@MeTube3]

George wrote some great songs when he wasn’t ripping off Ronnie Mack, but not as prolifically or as frequently as the other two blokes.

[@PierreBeaudoin]

When you have the genius of Paul McCartney, it happens that you want the best results and unfortunately, the situation can be offending for the others… I remember for the song Hey Jude, Georges was repeating with his guitar the same note that Paul was siging ….”Hey Jude” oing oing…(from the George’s guitar…) It was frankly annoying and when Paul asked Georges to stop to do that, Georges was angry… But,Paul had a good reason to do it… This being said, Georges was a excellent musician and he composed fantastic songs… He contributed so much to many Beatles songs …As exemple, for “And I love her” it is Georges that adds the little riff in the beginning of the song… The latter would not be as good without it…

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Yes definitely! I remember Paul saying without the riff the song was nothing

[@charlesivey100]

I think the pressure of being The Beatles was wearing on all 4 of them. Add in marriages, family, creative differences, management differences, and cameras to the mix; it all added up. George once said something to the tune of; "The world went mad and blamed us for it." He mentioned it like being in the eye of a hurricane. I agree with some other comments; looking back in hindsight, had they listened to Mick Jagger and got a better manager, and as George said, go off and do some solo work, then come back and do a Beatles record, things between them could have worked out well. Hindsight is usually 20/20.... The Get Back series was eye opening in many ways.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Great points Charles!

[@BigArnieNumeroUno]

George did say he would be in a band with John anytime. Not so Paul.

[@robiandolo]

I don’t think astrology is considered enough between Paul and George. My birthday is 2/24 and my father 6/13, Pisces and Gemini sane as George and Paul. It’s a weird tension and I can understand Paul getting on George’s nerves. I’m a pretty good drummer and my father critiqued the way I looked when I was playing. Gemini have that mentoring aspect and they’ll let you know it. Pisces on the other hand go back and forth and can be very sensitive. I’m glad they reconciled themselves in the end.

[@Steve-Richter]

What is so difficult about playing what the song writer wants you to play? George could always do his version afterwards, on his time. Paul simply wanted the sound he had in mind on his songs.

[@ncasim]

It's a testament to just how good the Beatles are when you have George struggling to be recognized. Any other band he would have been number 1.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Well said!

[@wendywendymatson5251]

I'm a singer/ songwriter/ guitarist/ bassist/ mandolinist utterly influenced by the Beatles. I can't imagine how intimidating it would be to work with Lennon/ McCartney, holy cow! I get spastic with stage fright performing for local, yokel songwriters! George had giant stones to come out of that camp an equally stupendous songwriter and he felt bad as a guitarist?!?!?! Holy 🐄🐮🐄🐮🐄🐮, this band was my biggest teacher on songwriting, harmony singing, guitar and bass playing. OK I admit it, Beatles are Gods to me

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Well said Wendy! Good luck with your singer/songwriting!

[@david_verti_calman]

George was with Bob Dylan and The Band previous to the Let It Be sessions who gave George more respect, resulting in a chalk and cheese situation….

[@nicktalkstherapy]

That’s a great point David!

[@waynej2608]

Yes, that's when George told the others that Dylan and The Band's favorite White Album track was Ringo's, Don't Pass Me By. Telling them that that's what their scene was into. I'm sure that pleased Ringo. I'm guessing John and Paul weren't too impressed. I think it's a wonderful song and wish that Ringo had written more while in The Beatles.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

@@waynej2608 well said, Wayne

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Thanks for the subs guys! My latest video: Who was the GREATEST Beatles songwriter - kzbin.info/www/bejne/fnSscoOJmdyMoNU

[@christinejames1638]

Well done Nick, more Beatles would be great

[@fredmybutterman]

Subbed mate and deffo do more music mayb oasis next

[@justiceforjamespaulmccartney]

Good video.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Thank you 🙌🏽

[@nicktalkstherapy]

@@christinejames1638 on its way!

[@christinejames1638]

we love you George 🌹 ❤️

[@LucyDixon-ec3fc]

and Pattie they were a power couple lol xx

[@christinejames1638]

true 😂😂x

[@jaxcrax9644]

“Let It Be” was not the final album recorded. It was the final album released.

[@bowtieguy377]

From what I understand, Paul knew George before he knew John and of course as we know, Paul brought George into the band. Paul and George were closer in age and were close childhood friends. Paul was also George's best man at his first wedding. Saying all this because while they later had real difficulties working together, there was still a strong bond, so just another complicated relationship I suppose.

[@JeffRebornNow]

After the Beatles broke up George said a lot of NICE things about Paul's music. I remember I had bought McCartney's "London Town" the week the album came out, and I remember shortly after that reading an interview with George wherein he said, "I'm Carrying," one of the tracks on "London Town," was a great song, one of his favorite songs ever. Please don't create conflict where there was none.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Not creating conflict Jeff, I have no motive. Hopefully you watched the whole video to see the balance and praise which I gave.

[@JesusVazquez-jz2qm]

London Town is a great but underrated album! I love it from start to finish. Even the two Denny Laine songs fits so well in the record. One of my Paul's favourites for sure.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

George literally only ever sites that as the single track he enjoyed of Paul’, and even then, it was more of a back handed compliment “The tune I thought was sensational on the London Town album was ‘I’m Carrying,’ but all the noisy, beaty things I’m not into at all,” George said. “But then that’s not only with Paul’s music, that goes right across the board. I’m not a fan of that sort of punky, heavy, tinny stuff. I like a nice melody.”

[@JeffRebornNow]

@@nicktalkstherapy Maybe you're right, Nick. "I'm Carrying" was the only example that came to mind, but Paul has done a lot of slow ballads where the melody predominates and rhythm takes a backseat. It would seem as if George would like a lot of it.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

@@JeffRebornNow I agree Jeff, I think there was a lot of love and mutual respect between them both professionally and privately

[@Peter7966]

All four Beatles were driven to be successful... in a major way. John and Paul were hyper-driven. There was a highly competitive nature to this dive, especially with John and Paul. It's not a surprise that George got shuffled off to the side, being the youngest and the slowest to develop his songwriting chops. George Martin didn't help. His main focus was on the winning songwriting combo of Lennon and McCartney. What was amazing is the amount of songwriting, musical talent and creativity that the Beatles had. That was remarkable.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Yes, well said Peter

[@johnwatts8346]

george was not in the same league of talent, not even close, he had NO right to expect to be a main song writer, 1 song per album was about right based on the quality of his songs.

[@Peter7966]

@@johnwatts8346 Not in the early days.

[@johnwatts8346]

@@Peter7966 he was always clearly a better gat player than john or paul (a key part of why they brought him in), and a very very good musician, and bloody good on bv's harmonies etc, thats a given. but macca is a different level, an insanely talented / gifted musician, a total genius.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Pretty fair points John! I’m a huge fan of them all… I think Paul’s eary songwriting is unmatchable, but then John and George created more memorable songs post Beatles.

[@carmelovillena6174]

paul acts like mr know it all

[@nicktalkstherapy]

He certainly does, sometimes atleast 😆

[@Zoro007]

Paul was in love in being in and being a Beatle. His genius as a writer and musician was driving him to higher and higher levels but John, George and Ringo loved playing but did not, at that time have the same focus and drive thus the falling out and arguments. In retrospect they should've agreed to take a one or two year break and come back together but sadly that never happened ax they had lives to live and being a ' Beatle ' was not as important to them as it was to us the rest of the world. Still at least we had them to ourselves for a short time and that and their music can never be taken away. God bless John, Paul, George & Ringo.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Yep, well said Les

[@tgchism]

George is a major talent of course but most of the interviews I've seen of him he appears to be a bit whiney about everything but most of all the Beatles! Paul and John were the driving force of the band and George seemed to resent that!

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Great points!

[@NiteMoves2010]

It took ten year in a factory for me to discover direction...group living, crazy times...John Paul & George had done that together before Ringo joined (on the way to the top)...at 28...those lads were embarking on a second career...taking a van to Germany..."On The Road"!

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Very well said!

[@M5guitar1]

I can understand George's frustration. I have same feelings about the band I'm in, lots of aggravation.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Helpful to have a view from a musician! For sure he was definitely frustrated!

[@jcruisioso5975]

Imagine that times a few million

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Yep!

[@CobraAction1]

The Beatles were this simple: The whole was greater than the sum of the individual parts

[@Leonrey-ic1wh]

True and not like true, after listening to all there unique personalities in mature form... everytime I listen to the Beatles it feels slightly candy coated like a boy band mass production formula style. kinda like conscious under ground hiphop it's way better than the hollow main stream stuff, I think the Beatles got better with time I still wish they stayed closer, but this is the nature of the unraveling of the universe and it is a beautiful bitter sweet masterpiece like life and death. Yoko with her strong chaotic feminine energy pulled that thread that caused the seams of the fabric to fall apart but then there true identitys blossomed out of it .George said it best, all things must pass.

[@user-fu2mi1nd5l]

He wasn't mad at Paul, but that ole rascal Billy, son of Crowely

[@TheNewSoda]

What people never seem to bring up on the White Album George had four songs piggies, long long long, while my guitar gently weeps and Savoy truffle which is the most George ever had on a Beatles album doesn't change much but still it's worth noting that The White Album was the last album released by The band When started the Let It be/ get back sessions

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Yes, true!

[@TheNewSoda]

@@nicktalkstherapy yeah I mean George was still getting less songs then John and Paul ultimately the plan trying to make I don't think George was completely ignored and people want to say at least by John

[@nicktalkstherapy]

That’s right 🙌🏽

[@_.trish._]

It was also a double album, meaning four songs on it isn't really any different than what he would have gotten if it had been broken up into two separate albums. So, really, same as it ever was.

[@victorarena23]

he still had on 1 song per side as always

[@stevecowder4774]

Well seemingly, George always did have to tag along behind Paul and John, even as far back as the late 50s when Harrison first joined the band. I can’t imagine how difficult that must have been throughout his entire duration with the Beatles, playing second fiddle to those 2 extremely talented musicians. And I can see where George was bent about not having a little more of his own material on Revolver and Abby Road. So it’s easy to figure why the level of animosity was so high during the “ Let it Be “ sessions.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Very well said Steve!

[@San_Vito]

Let it Be was not their final album. It was just released last since it was first deemed as a failed effort.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Correct, thanks San

[@hudsonslim3169]

Paul's drive kept the band going through the 'Get Back' sessions and 'Abbey Road' but also made it a place no one but him wanted to be in. As much as any other factor, his relentless perfectionism drove the final nail into the Beatles' coffin. Sadly, his penchant for self-promotion and historical revisionism hasn't waned as he's gotten older. I'm firmly convinced that by the time he dies he'll claim to have written every part of every Beatles song, played every instrument, and sung every vocal. At the end of the day, though, none of that matters. The circumstances of the Beatles' dissolution helped to cement their legacy as the greatest band in history. They left the stage at the top of their game, while the world still clamored for more. 53 years later we are still in awe of them. Personally, I'm grateful for that.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Very well said Hudson

[@richardwiesemeyer9120]

I can understand where George is coming from. For a long time it was thought that there were 2 geniuses in the Beatles but in fact there were 3.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Definitely Richard! No doubt the Beatles would have had even more hits if they had trusted him more

[@mathildemandellaub5816]

There were at least 4 geniuses in the Beatles❤

[@mathildemandellaub5816]

4

[@limitededition1053]

To be fair Lennon and McCartney were the driving force until George realised that they were making more money so thought oh, I'm sure I could do that if they can. He might never have bothered to do that but for them leading the way.

[@waynej2608]

Four.

[@gailg2327]

Love your opinion, it empathetic and gives group members the benefit of the doubt. Through the highs and lows they created great music, which aided their creativity. The results were great, thank you.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Thank you Gail 🙌🏽 that’s very true!

[@cowdaddy4595]

"Let It Be" was not the final album they recorded. It was the final album released. Abbey Road was the final album recorded. On American albums, George got the first song on the B side and sometimes another one sometimes. When Paul started writing songs mostly on his own, Paul laid out the lead guitar parts like he wanted them on demos he would make. Before that George did most all of the lead guitar playing and arrangements. Do you know what early song John played lead on? Both in the studio and live? It wasn't that Paul thought George was inferior, but that Paul wanted it played a certain way, like the way Paul had in his head. When they quit recording live and started recording multitrack and quit playing live, George was a lot less necessary. Paul played a lot of the leads. If George were not in the studio, I don't think Paul waited for George or for Ringo to show up. The Beatles were no longer a band. They were three solo artists. It was George's good luck to know Paul. Paul got George into the Beatles. But George started thinking it was his bad luck to know Paul. Wouldn't you hate to compete musically with Paul McCartney? Of all the people in the world, Paul McCartney would be the last person most everybody would care to compete with. We know John Lennon did not like competing with Paul, though I don't think Paul saw it as competition. To hear Paul tell it, he wanted to get the best product out, and George does say that Paul worked just as hard when they were recording George's songs as Paul did on his own, and that Paul made meaningful contributions to his songs. The thing is, not only was George competing with Paul, but he was competing with John too. And Paul was George Martin's pet. George spent too much time in his resentment. I am not saying everything George has said is without merit, but his resentments towards John and towards Paul were way out of line. Would we have ever even heard of George if it had not been for Paul? I doubt it, not because of any lack of talent on George's part, but it would have been very difficult for him to get started. Keep in mind that he learned to write songs by being with John and Paul when they wrote. With only so much room on an album--Paul could have filled whole albums. John was way less prolific, and he wouldn't have been as prolific as he was if, as John tells it, Paul shows up with 10 songs a few months after their last album came out. So John had to get to work or be left behind. He was not left behind. There was not room for a 3rd writer, but Paul and John made room. On the last album, John said George had written the best song, Something. But that is the only time anybody could say that, and in my saying that, it is not like I am not a big fan of George. The thing is, as well as George can sing, does anybody think he tops Paul? He tops Mick Jaggar and most everybody else, but does he top Paul? (As far as Mick goes, Ringo tops Mick.) As a person, I think George is way, way more interesting than Paul, and I am with George on their disagreement in 1988 or 1989. (My guess is that Paul is too by now.) If you pay close attention to George's lead guitar work until Sgt. Pepper, I think you will hear some really excellent playing and arrangement from George. Nick, I can see you were not around then. And if I couldn't see it, I could tell it. Have you yet to read every single book on the Beatles, from "Cellar Full of Noise" to the latest? Do you even know who wrote "Cellar Full of Noise"? You haven't listened to every album 100 times either, have you? Some people have listened to those albums 500 times each. I can't name all the songs on the Parlophone releases because Parlophone released 14 songs and Capitol released only 12. But there are two extra Capital albums, "Yesterday and Today" and "The Beatles Again", which is not known by that title, but it's known as the "Hey Jude" album. Do you know why none of the Beatles except for John played at the Peace show in Toronto in 1969? Do you know who joined John in the band for that album? There must be about 10,000 things you don't know. There are many subjects that a KZbinr can brush up on and made good videos, but the Beatles are not one of them. Or maybe they are. Do you know what song John and Paul gave to the Rolling Stones and who sang that song on the Beatles recording of it? There are those of us still alive and kicking who could think of you as a dilettante. I know young people who don't know the Beatles music. I have told them, "Damn, that means you get to hear it for the first time. I wish like hell I could listen to it for the first time again." And Nick, I don't mean to intimate that you should shut up. Not at all. What I am saying is, Get with it on the listening and on the reading. And they most definitely settled their differences before George died. And that was after George acted horribly towards Paul in videos they made in the early 1990s. George's behavior was awful. And not called for. But who owned the house that George stayed in the last year of his life? And, I believe, he died in that house, but I may not have that part right. He may have gone to the hospital.

[@victorarena23]

I say cow daddy just laid some enormous cow patties on us. what an absolute bunch of s--t you just put down. literally all you just wrote is bologna. john was less prolific?What a bunch of HS. they each had their on periods of being prolific. early on it was John, later it was Paul and finally George. 68-71 hardly anyone in all of rock was as prolific as george.white album, badge, abby rd, atmp, all of ringos hits bangladesh- then give me love afterward. neither john paul dylan jagger bowie could match. in fact dylan himself said George would have been as big as anyone if he were on his own. George just didn't sing as well as J&P, especially when he was young. george was angry at paul for many years for good reason. paul was against giving george more songs when even john appealed for it telling george to his face that until abby rd no one really liked his songs. really paul? no one liked taxman, wmggw, piggies, if i needed someone, george was pissed for a very long time after that. paul was fos. it was about writing royalties and paul didn't want more competition.george's behavior was justified

[@g.1260]

What a balanced and integrative perspective! Thank you!

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Thank you for the kind words! I hope you stick around for more videos!

[@DrTomoculus]

Well, if you had a member in your band that constantly told you your songs were no good, nor was your playing, you'd be mad too. Especially when you've known this person since you were kids, and he seems to believe you being 8 months younger than him is a very big deal. I just say to all those diehard McCatrtney fans who insist Harrison didn't know how to play guitar without McCartney's genius, and McCartney was as capable a guitarist (and drummer!!!!) as Harrison. He did the guitar solos that were just too hard for Harrison to do : Where are the guitar solos on Wings albums then. Especially those ones where McCartney is performing most of the instrumentation. If Henry McCullough is not playing the "My Love" guitar solo to McCartney's satisfaction, why is McCartney not putting the Bass down, taking that guitar from McCullough and saying, we're going to switch instruments on this track, cuz you're just not doing what I hear in my head. Paul McCartney does not HAVE TO BE the bass player of Wings. No one told him to stay on that instrument, in his own band. But he has a reputation of telling other musicians exactly what they're supposed to play, when they're supposed to play, and if they're not getting it right, he seems to just keep hammering at you. And Harrison called him out on this in the Get Back sessions saying "I'm not sure YOU even know what you want." Because he doesn't. He's making it up as he goes along. Because if any song on Band on the Run needed a guitar solo, it was "Let Me Roll It." And it's a perfect opportunity for McCartney to show off his skills, and shut up anyone that DOESN'T THINK he has the right to tell any other musician what to do, or why he has issues with how they perform what he asks of them. Perfect opportunity. Not taken. There's no blistering guitar solo anywhere in his songs where he has the option to be that guitarist. Nor does he take opportunity to do another drum solo like the one in Dear Prudence that he's supposed to have performed, when all during the verses, he shows how difficult it is for him to keep a shuffle going on the hi-hat, and coordinate his snare and bass drum hits. Because he can't! The Ballad of John & Yoko he can do. He can do Coming Up. But that slight hi-hat shuffle on Dear Prudence absolutely messes up his tempo, his sense of rhythm and by the time he sorts it all out, it's too late. The chorus is back. But then miraculously plays a drum solo that's completely in tempo, does fills more associated with Ringo Starr than any other drummer, and is most definitely a completely different recording to what was there in the song prior. He's a control freak. He can't keep a single auxiliary member of Wings around for more than 2 albums at best. He can't keep an engineer / producer around that's actually going to make his albums sound better! He told Glyn Johns just to treat him like the bass player on the sessions for Red Rose Speedway, and when Johns treated him like that, he got mad, and in the end Johns left the project. He didn't think what was being produced in those sessions was worthy material. He's right! Beyond My Love and Big Barn Bed, you have a bunch of songs on there that if a new band was trying to get a recording contract with the same material, they'd be shown the door. There is nothing resembling "a hit" beyond the two songs McCartney ALWAYS puts effort into on any of his albums. The ones he knows are hits. He pours everything into them, telling everyone what to play, telling them what not to play, making them do it over and over again until they absolutely despise the song. And then he has his hit. The REST OF HIS ALBUMS ARE COMPLETE FILLER MATERIAL. All you need to buy are Wings Greatest Hits. You have the songs that are worth listening to. The rest of the material he barely put any effort into writing them.

[@ceedoubleyou]

it's a shame Paul wasn't around when John and George discussed that maybe George could do a solo album on his own, then come back and record with the Beatles. But it did come through during Jackson's, Get Back, that it was Paul's project and he could see he was struggling to keep them together, when only he and Ringo had turned up for recording and he says, "and then there were two",

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Definitely!

[@limitededition1053]

Yes, they should have all done this, they didn't have to split just take a year or two off to do their own thing, clear up the finances, and have a break from each other. John seemed interested in that when George mentioned it as well. Why the hell did John not say what a good idea lets put it to Paul and Ringo.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

@@limitededition1053 good points!

[@dancahill9585]

Everyone was mad at Paul because the band was burnt out, and Paul kept wanting the Beatles to push ahead and keep cranking out albums at a ridiculous pace. The Beatles should have taken some time out from making albums. Revolver, Sgt Pepper, The White Album, Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road, Let it Be, were cranked out in less than a 4 year period. That's a ton of work, and you can see John had pretty much lost interest, and both Ringo and George even temporarily had quit the band. Ringo wanted to act, John wanted to spend more time with Yoko, George wanted to pursue more Indian philosophy, and their heads just weren't in the game and they wanted a break from the Beatles.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Great points!

[@paulhaynes8045]

I think the key to all this is not anything George or Ringo, or even John did, it's that the Beatles were finished as a band. They'd been together for the best part of a decade, often living in each other's pockets for weeks/months at a time and they'd achieved (and endured) so much. Now three of them had outgrown the 'boy band' and wanted to do their own thing. But, to McCartney, being in the Beatles was everything, he was the only one who wanted (needed) the band to continue. So he tried to persuade and cajole - even bully - the others to keep 'his' band, his reason for being, alive. If you read and listen to the various post-breakup interviews, John and George were relieved to be out of rhe band, but Paul was utterly lost - "what do I do now?". True, Ringo was also a little lost, but then, as a drummer (who typically wasn't involved much in recording sessions), he was probably feeling like that even before the breakup. And he pretty soon came to terms with it and got on with non-Beatle life. But Paul was so lost without a band that he couldn't move on at all - and eventually 'resolved' his problems by forming a poor man's version of the Beatles. I think he also knew, perhaps only subconsciously, that his songwriting would never be as good without the foil of Lennon - not just to write with (those days were long gone), but to have to show his songs to and face his reactions. Having John in his life forced Paul to be a much better songwriter - compare his post-Beatle output with what he wrote in the band, its almost as if they're written by different people. He could still write pop hits, but nothing of his former quality. Much the same could be said of John and George too (even Ringo never again achieved anything like the quality and originality of his Beatle drumming), as most of their immediate post-Beatle output (arguably their best solo periods) was stuff they'd started writing whilst still in the Beatles. But, whatever the quality or success of their post-Beatle output, compared to Paul's, they seemed much happier and at ease in their new lives. They all moved on, Paul never really did.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Well said Paul, I enjoyed that

[@limitededition1053]

I think if Brian Epstein had not died the Beatles would have continued. He would have made them take a break and go and do their own thing for a year and then come back which is what they should have done.

[@paulhaynes8045]

@@limitededition1053 I think you could be right - certainly today that's what would have happened. But the Beatles were the pathfinders in so many things, and there was no real experience of bands carrying on for years or breaking up and reforming then. The common conception was that bands were successful for a year or two and then we're finished - the Beatles far exceeded most people's idea of how long they would be famous for. And, of course, those few years were so intense and exhausting, that they were probably glad to get away from each other afterwards. John and George, particularly, were really fed up with being Beatles, and with Paul's constant attempts to take over the band and develop it in the direction he wanted to go in. They all needed a good, long break from each other, and for the Beatlemania to die down - so they could be musicians and not just Beatles. In the end, it took a lot longer than anyone probably expected for things to normalise, and calm down enough for them to be able to relax with each other again. But it was just starting in the last couple of years of John's life, so, had he not been killed, I think they might have worked with each other again. Not as a Beatles reunion, as such, there would have been too much pressure and expectation for that to work. But they'd already started to work with each other again, and we'd got pretty close to all of them working together on something. The key moment would have been Paul and John, and perhaps George, writing together, and I think they were close to that moment. I don't think John writing 'for Paul' on that cassette was an accident, I think he intended to send it to Paul to get his input, so they could develop the song together. If that had worked out and George could have been persuaded to join the project (as an equal this time), I think they would have probably started recording again (I'm sure Ringo would have jumped at the chance!) But I think they would have been very careful not to treat it as a Beatles reunion, with all the hype and pressure that would have produced (that would have killed the project before it really got going!). They probably would have just called themselves something like 'John, Paul, George and Ringo' and the music wouldn't have been particularly Beatles-style, but more like their individual styles, with their friends helping them out. After all, it would be nigh on impossible for them to have recaptured the energy and creativity of the 60s. But I'm sure whatever they came up with it would have still been pretty fantastic - and probably better than their individual efforts. Unfortunately, thanks to John's murderer, we'll never know. Sadly the world has lost something that might well have been pretty incredible.

[@user-ll2yj3hy4c]

I think by 1969 both George and John had checked out of the Beatles. Clearly Paul hadn't realized this.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Fair point John!

[@user-mf8rj7oy8z]

George always contradicted his spirituality with the constant bitter, sarcastic digs at Paul who truly was the motivating force behind the Beatles. All four of them were absolute stars but the Paul bashing was nasty.

[@leftyspade]

Excellent analysis, wonderful job!

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Thanks very much, Brian! Appreciated 🙌🏽

[@stewarttrickett3033]

Bit of a problem with the timeline. Let It Be was recorded *before* Abbey Road (but released afterwords).

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Yes, thanks Stewart 🙌🏽

[@fortunatomartino8549]

George wasn't angry with Faul

[@JohnDoe-tw8es]

I love George's music and of course a big Beatle fan. Must have been hard to get along together when you are always together under that kind of pressure. Always thought Paul had a pretty big ego , John somewhat less than Paul. Ringo just got along on the most part with everyone, like he once said when someone asked him who the Beatles were ," they were four guys who really loved each other ." That is the way I tend to remember them , as it makes me more comfortable with the four guys I admire so much.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Absolutely John. No doubt there was a whole lot of love between them all

[@nikolic-sq5rx]

paul was egomaniac , so unplesent to watch

[@JohnDoe-tw8es]

@@nikolic-sq5rx Would not go that far AM. He does have a ego though. I tend to think of the music they put out rather than a personality.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Fair point!

[@nicktalkstherapy]

True John!

[@sunboycold9164]

Like any band or group of friends you can grow tired of each other and want something else in your life. The Beatles were no different

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Yes, good point!

[@harringtonjanet3300]

I will say they were a good Band together, but even better apart

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Fair point!

[@oldvsyoungreactions]

let it be was not the final album. Abby Road was recorded after and all the beatles said it was great recording it.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Yep, that’s right Michael

[@daseguin]

They were all great as musicians and meshing together, but Paul was always the musical genius that actually made everything work together between them all, definitely influenced by George Martin and Brian Epstein during the process.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Yes!

[@SBilson]

Nick great video! Next time please pay more attention to your audio. Add some absorption to the recording space so the echo isn't obnoxious, bring up the level of your voice and what happened when that TV interview came on. Darn near blew my speakers. Even out the volume, get the LUFS leveled to KZbin standards. Kinda ruined an otherwise interesting take on the McCartney-Harrison issue.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Thank you 🙌🏽 this is really helpful feedback! I am a newbie at editing so I’ll make sure these points are addressed in my next one. Thanks again.

[@SBilson]

@@nicktalkstherapy Written with best intent. Glad to help and looking forward to more.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Absolutely, fantastic feedback. Glad to hear you will stick around for future videos 😁

[@mikeregan3265]

Let it be wasn't there final album dude., Abbey Road has that distinction.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

I didn’t say it was? 😁

[@FuturologyTheMusical]

I think George being called the quiet one was alway misguided. Never made sense. He was never quiet.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

That’s right!

[@Kieop]

I agree with your conclusion, though I was expecting a bit more psychoanalysis.😛 Most of the George clips were taken out of context, so I felt that you were misrepresenting your points a bit. After mentioning that Paul ruined George as a guitarist, you cut to a Much Music interview where he is reacting to Paul not showing up for the Hall of Fame induction ceremony. Sure there is a joke about Paul running out of ideas, perhaps prompted by the previous question about Broad Street covers. While there he also jokes about not noticing that they were new versions, he also mentions in that interview that he enjoyed Broad Street personally. But this clip adds nothing to your argument. Also his evaluation of Paul as a songwriter is out of place, since it says nothing about their relationship or "why he is mad", it is merely a matter of taste; he prefers the melodic songs over the ragers. That is all. Much better was George discussing the Let It Be sessions. Of course, he doesn't actually remember the arguments themselves and is using the movie as a reference. Everyone gloms onto this reference and tries to read a lot into it, but what George is actually saying is that he regrets them being caught on film. The presence of the cameras added to the tension and amplified the basic musical squabbles that he considered rather commonplace and not worth remembering -- a point you also made. To go back to the famous fight in Let It Be, it is not at all about what we have been led to believe and what George misremembers based on the film. That discussion -- you include a bit in your video from these sessions that is more aptly described a squabble, the one where John interjects "OK Girls..." -- was not about what George was/not playing at all. This discussion actually is quite useful though in understanding why George was frustrated and "mad". They are arguing over how to conduct the rehearsals for the TV special. They are running out of time and the pressure is on. George wants to work out each song one at a time to perfect it for the show. Paul wants to run through all the songs and work on the ones that are furthest along and easiest to do. Each time he hits a block or challenge or feels that something isn't quite gelling, he wants to switch songs and this is driving George nuts, because he wants to get in a groove and hammer out his part. Then Paul suddenly changes the subject and brings up an old argument that WAS about a specific guitar solo. Anyone who has been in an argument with someone who suddenly decides to dredge up the past knows how frustrating that is. Perhaps Paul's point is that it worked out doing it his way that time. Who knows? Paul's not the clearest communicator. But it is this pivot that cemented in everyone's mind that they were discussing how George was playing. They were NOT. I would be interested to learn more about what George meant when he said that Paul ruined him as a guitarist. That is quite a provocative statement and I would need more context.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Great insight, thanks for sharing!

[@evanstair1262]

This is a spot on analysis. Thank you for sharing. Sibling rivalry... they loved each other but Harrison seemed to fight resentment over his treatment, especially from Paul, for the rest of his life. I believe it is safe to say he is the only one of the four who really did not consider reuniting to create new music as a good idea. George loved Paul, but he really didn't like him. Harrison's attitude is very understandable in the context of his success both with and without the Beatles. The repeated questions from ignorant reporters who continued to ask him about McCartney and the Beatles after Lennon passed no doubt got on his nerves. If you are interviewing "Harrison" ask "Harrison" questions. Obviously, Harrison had deeper things to say and desired questions about his own creativity. Paul's last dig at Harrison was to call him, "my baby brother" after Harrison passed in 2001. Paul likely meant it as a loving statement, but there was only a year between their birthyears. You would think at the age of 59, McCartney would have let that appellation pass. With all of the success Harrison had over the remainder of his life, the comment should be viewed as a final belittling jab at a fantastic and underrated creative talent.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

What a great read, thanks to you Evan, for sharing this.

[@TheSunsetjames]

Paul is a very dedicated musician that thinks of finding many ways to entertain all the time. George was the youngest and still learning how to make good music observing Paul and John. He should have been the first Beatle to break out on his own for he had the talent but for some reason he didn't. The timing didn't work out for him. Maybe he felt loyalty to the Band and waited for the band to agree to end before starting on his own.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Good points, Wil!

[@ramilopez6921]

I really enjoyed the video. Could you do a video about The Beatles' relationship with their manager Brian Epstien. I would love to get your perspective on that topic. Thank you

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Thank you Rami, I’m happy you enjoyed the video! That’s a great idea also

[@carlosvelasquez2731]

I don't think George was truthful. The real truth why George and John were mad at Paul is because of the "sue" against them. Deep inside without ever saying it , John and George felt they with Paul should have talked things over instead of being dissolved as partners legally through Court..

[@nicktalkstherapy]

That’s a great point, Carlos!

[@cephalophorenameless422]

Paul didn't sue the Beatles to get at John, George and Ringo. He sued the Beatles to get at Allen Klein. Klein was scum. The other three actually ended up suing Klein themselves in 1973. John even admitted (sort of) that Paul was right about Klein.

[@carlosvelasquez3279]

@@cephalophorenameless422 you're jumping the gun , the 3 voted for Klein against Paul so that's the real reason Paul sued the 3 to end the partnership so Paul didn't have to deal with being sued by Klein for leaving the band . In other words by Paul suing the 3 they didn't have to record new material or being sued for not doing it, so instead everything was frozen till they signed the end of their partnership. After they signed the end of their partnership John and George realized Paul was right, late better than never

[@nicktalkstherapy]

@@cephalophorenameless422 good point!

[@nicktalkstherapy]

@@carlosvelasquez3279 fair point also!

[@zapdunga12]

George was a beautiful, caring, kind, loving person. And don't forget in 1994, he, Paul and Ringo got together to record "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love"

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Absolutely 🙌🏽

[@johnnyd63]

If you look at the footage of them talking together during the Anthology film, George still wasn't close with McCartney. He was briddled with sarcasm and you could tell he was thinking "Why am I doing this?"

[@JesusVazquez-jz2qm]

@@johnnyd63 And he was doing it for money. It's said that he was almost bankrupted at the time. George wasn't a saint either. He was fed up of everything related to The Beatles except for the money and the royalties. He was very spiritual but very mundane too. He was as contradictory as John or Paul could be. I love all The Beatles by the way as a group or soloists.

[@knockedoutloaded279]

The Beatles shud have done like Genesis..solo and group...which they considered

[@nicktalkstherapy]

@@johnnyd63 spot on Johnny

[@daytripper9222]

Always remember that let it be was not the Beatles final album. Abbey road was. Let It be was the last album to be released but was recorded before Abbey road.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Thanks - I think the montage I used may have misled as I didn’t say it was the last album 😁

[@daytripper9222]

@@nicktalkstherapy Well at O:30 you said their final album let It be.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Yes, yes I did 🤦🏻‍♂️ thanks for the heads up!

[@keneisner3445]

This is interesting stuff, Nick, but the volume jumps between your own clips and the louder inserts are quite jarring. There's also a whistling sound hitting your mic, ether from birds outside r squeaks in the room. Look forward to more, in any case, so thanks!

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Thanks very much Ken! Yes, sorry about that, I’m a newbie and I’ve learnt about the video volumes jumping 🤦🏻‍♂️ hopefully that’s fixed on my latest video. Really appreciate the feedback Ken!

[@ranlitt3201]

I only liked the sun and my sweet lord from George. My Sweet Lord seemed to come out of no where though. It didn't sound like his others.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Fair points, Ran!

[@smashstuff86]

Nice. Have you ever done a video exploring the effect of the deaths of their moms on John and Paul's relationship?

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Thanks and that is a really fantastic idea!

[@smashstuff86]

@@nicktalkstherapy Well, I guess I have to subscribe, so I don't miss it.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

You got it 😉 thank you

[@MarriedMindless]

They had a few weeks to tape a show and PM wanted to spend 5 days on each note!

[@notanotherjamesmurphy5574]

You cut off the best part of that quote, when he says, “Well it’s true…”

[@rolandjgutierrez7737]

imo pauks songs are more British for the British life they grew but gorge and john music touches a wider band of people dont get me wrong pails sons are great but when i listen its like oh thats how it is across the pond like jhon and George those are the songs i want to lesrn and play....RocknRollflat5

[@petejones879]

Depends on what you decide is there final LP (album) Abbey Road was recorded after the Let it be /Get Back sessions but released before Let it be because of technical / legalality reasons.. So the last album the Beatles did whilst still together before the break up as a band was Abbey Rd but the last album released was Let it be

[@cameroncook3863]

Being a little brother has its challenges. I blame it on Yoko

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Very true, Cameron!

[@williamoverly1617]

Paul and George were long-time close friends. And while Paul was somewhat more refined than John, both he and John were enormously talented. Paul, who had been singled out as the "star" by many publications, could get a bit "heady" on occasion. But George was equally talented. The WHITE ALBUM is clear evidence of this. WHILE MY GUITAR GENTLY WEEPS was THEE song on that album. His songs SOMETHING and HERE COMES THE SUN showed he was no fluke. After the group separated, MY SWEET LORD and WHAT IS LIFE were hugely popular. He had a perfect right to feel his contribution was often mitigated by both Paul and John.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Good points, William!

[@Peteripattaya]

When George wrote one excellent song, Paul wrote ten! Its jealusy, plain and simple. Noone bought Georges records in the seventies, while Pauls records made millions, he even beat Johns albums.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

No one bought George’s records in the seventies? That is nonsense

[@alexandrebenois7962]

If the Beatles hadn't been the world's most successful band, Paul probably wouldn't have been so hard on George.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Fair point, Alexandre

[@FABRlCE]

Given the fact he was everyone's little brother, started with no song writing skills, with the masterpieces he was making in the last recorded album, his top selling solo album, and the help he was giving other musicians like Ringo, I truly believe George was such a heavy talent! the numbers of "here comes the sun" are madness, it may not have been the iconic Beatle song back then, but these current numbers means that that song is going to be the most intergenerational song they ever made.

[@thelakeman5207]

John's son Julian sounds exactly like John. I'd love to see him and Paul McCartney do a duet.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

He does, I just listened to his version of imagine again… can definitely see the similarity!

[@hypermap]

Stating the obvious, Let It Be was not the last album that was recorded by all 4 Beatles, that was Abbey Road.. Let It Be was the last album released; the Let It Be film therefore predates the final recordings of all the songs for Abbey Road

[@noncounterproductive4596]

The disintegration of the Beatles looks to me like Adam Curtis's Century of the Self in miniature. Remember the convent that Carl Rogers wrecked by promoting "human potential"? Like others in the 1960s the Beatles were finding themselves -- a process hastened by LSD -- and necessarily grew apart as a consequence.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

That’s a great point!

[@noncounterproductive4596]

@@nicktalkstherapy Nobody ever seems to consider that "authenticity" and "self-actualization" might have a downside.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Very well said 👍🏽

[@Panglos]

While the criticisms of Paul are valid, the real problem was George’s lack of backbone. Instead of standing up to Paul and for his rights, George would cower and shrink into the background. Worse, he would complain and snipe at Paul behind his back instead of taking action and addressing Paul directly. That isn’t exactly the kind of high-integrity behaviour you might expect of a person who would get preachy, especially in his solo albums. Paul’s problem was that, being so driven, he failed to listen and observe what was going on with George. The result of their personality deficiencies is that the world has been deprived of many possible musical collaborations between George, Paul and John that might have resulted in even greater music than exists in the Beatles legacy.

[@victorarena23]

BS

[@stevefaure415]

It's because Paul was cuter and more talented. End O' story.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Fair enough, Steve 😆

[@williamoverly1617]

@Nick Talks Therapy Some facts: when the Beatles were in Germany. Astrid Kirchner said, George was called the "beautiful boy." When the Beatles first came to America, polls indicated George was the favorite among young girls. (Only later did it change.) In their second movie, there is a scene where George tells Paul there was a time when he (George) was the favorite with girls. In the first film (A HARD DAY'S NIGHT) the photographer's secretary tells her boss about George "He's the type." Many thought him better looking than Paul. (And none of this even mentions early favorite Pete Best.)

[@stevefaure415]

@@williamoverly1617 I stand corrected! Now--for the talent part...

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Nice!

[@nicktalkstherapy]

True 😆

[@AMOS2809]

George was a back stabber. Paul tolerated for so long. George almost had my favourite Hey Jude gone if he and Martin had their way. A jealous guy. Never like him

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Fair point Amos!

[@cejannuzi]

By the 70s, if L and Mc had ceded the songwriting spotlight to GH, the Beatles could have gone on being at the top for another decade. At the time, L was a heroin addict and Mc was an alcoholic. Their output was sputtering, and they weren't really collaborating much anyway.

[@LucyDixon-ec3fc]

More music videos pls 😊🤘🏾

[@nicktalkstherapy]

🫡 yes!

[@rethink62]

Paul ruined him as a guitarist Give me a break George ran out of good songs way before Paul

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Fair point!

[@chrisnolan5607]

George had a way better run of solo albums than Billy Paul. George was very close to "the original Paul McCartney 1942 - 1966." It was his obnoxious, egomaniac replacement, Billy (Shears) Shepherd (1967- the present ) who George couldn't stand. TRUTH

[@rethink62]

@@chrisnolan5607 I don’t know what run you be talking Think George had 2 # 1 albums Billy had 5 one solo 4 with some band called Wings Paul was a better Beatle Billy was better post

[@nicktalkstherapy]

@@chrisnolan5607 what is the best evidence for Billy taking over from Paul? I’m curious as so many people are mentioning it in the comments

[@rethink62]

@@nicktalkstherapy Q told him 🤡 He’s just trolling I hope 🤞

[@lisaknox7722]

Maybe george got frustrated. That could happen🤔

[@thenicklas615]

George is SO essential to that band which they couldn't exist without him or anyone of them.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

I agree, Nicholas!

[@thenicklas615]

@@nicktalkstherapy : Thanks Nick yiou know I LOVE all those classic British rock bands of the 60's and 70's and to me there really is no comparison to American bands because the blew everyone away; like Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, of course the Beatles,The Who, Deep Purple etc etc. I love those guys and what is ironic is if you were to ask any one of those bands they would probably say something like an American musician or namd influenced them when in reality it was them who revolutionized the world of rock music and gave us the best music possible; bless England I say ❤and thasnk you...

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Well said 🙌🏽

[@macharper8214]

The reason George only had two songs usually on an album was because John and Paul would usually have 5 each. They got paid more money based on how many songs each one of them had on an album. John and Paul wanted 5 each because that would mean they would get more money than having 4 each or 3 on an album. George developed as a songwriter later than John and Paul did so when he tried to push in and get more songs on an album John and Paul would resist because it would mean they would make less money if they had fewer songs on an album. They already had usually 12 songs on an album and sometimes 14 so there was no more room. They were always under pressure from the record company and had deadlines to finish albums so they could not take forever to produce them. More songs meant taking more time and missing deadlines to deliver albums to the record company. People forget they were under contract to produce a certain amount of music in a timely manner all the time. Some of their albums early on were recorded in just days. It was not just that John and Paul thought they were better songwriters than George was. Towards the end George became an equal to them both as a songwriter many people would say. It was about money.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Good points

[@KingdomCooperFan]

Very true, but another big factor was EMI itself and George Martin, who first and foremost wanted to produce a good and polished product. It took a while for him to actually take George seriously as a songwriter and he was just as much of a force for pushback as John and Paul were. It was really only in 1969 where George's songs truly began to receive critical acclaim and George himself was a very quiet, introspective individual who often didn't have faith in his own work. He would often refrain from opening up about his grievances and instead let it out in the form of passive-aggressive attitudes which understandably did little but confuse and annoy the others. Communication is always key in these situations and George simply didn't communicate. Simply put, I don't blame anyone in particular for George's situation. He was placed in an impossible predicament where he would desire to break free and spread his wings no matter what.

[@johnnyalegreworkplace8065]

Working on George's diminished chord progressions would have meant lots more work for Lennon & McCartney. Even Clapton made a remark like that about George's songs.

[@ConorMaguire-wl6vk]

The final album was Abbey road.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Correct, thanks Conor!

[@johnwatts8346]

george thinking hes equal to macca is like ronnie thinking hes equal to mick- total and utter bollocks. george wrote 3 great songs and a bunch of b list stuff- eg savoy truffle, what tripe, macca is one the very greatest song writers of all time, vastly more talented.

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Fair shout John!

[@c0unt_WAVnstein]

If modern copyright law had applied back then, Harrison would have had writing credits on a lot of the songs. He also wrote some of arguably the best songs they did, and brought instrumentation they'd never have had without him. He also had a very distinguished solo career. Ron Wood also created some fantastic music without Jagger and Richards changing his nappies for him.

[@alemarie....]

PAUL.....¡¡¡ EL BEATLE !!!!!! ¡¡¡ UN SEÑOR !!!!!!!! 💪💪💪👍👍👍😉😉😉

[@nicktalkstherapy]

😆

[@corychristopherson5883]

2:32 RIP ears

[@nicktalkstherapy]

🤣 yes sorry about that. Ive learned to equalise sound now 😆

[@bobbyhulll8737]

Just family squabbles .. nothing more nothing less

[@nicktalkstherapy]

Fair point Bobby!

[@oasisforthesoul8002]

You are focusing on the wrong side. Paul and George were great friends why say othertwise.?!

[@nicktalkstherapy]

For long periods they really weren’t…