"And probably when we're all very old we'll agree with each other and we'll all sing together " such a somehow sad line that Paul said, especially when you know what happens to John and George.
@@simeonjrmendoza374 Very true. I think, Paul was always a mixture of a guy who acted his own age, plus a wise old soul. Maybe that's why he liked, "Granny music" as John once called his tastes. Paul, was capable of these moments of deep clarity and wisdom that looking back, are kind of mind blowing. Example: In the movie, Get Back, Paul is talking about the false perception that Yoko's presence was somehow the cause of the problems that the Beatles were experiencing: Paul: "It's going to be the most comical thing in 50 years time, "They broke up because Yoko sat on an amp". Paul knew that outsiders would not understand the multiple issues that lead to the break up of the Beatles and that the public would ultimately look for someone to blame. Paul was absolutely right. Today, many people still blame Yoko and others blame Paul. I'm surprised to read comments from people who have seen the film, Get Back and they still don't understand that there were many ongoing issues that took years to develop within the band, which caused them to break up. Most of the problems are clearly spelled out in the film, but they're not all in one place for easy digestion. They're sprinkled throughout this very long film and if you're not paying very close attention, it would be easy to latch on to one or two of those issues and ignore all the others. Paul is a very wise man. He knew that fans would love the easy, most dramatic answers to the question, "Why did The Beatles break up?"
@@crankfastle8138 I don't know about that. You'll be surprised what age can accomplish on people's ego. It comes a point in which the only thing that matter are the memories and the people around it. Screw everything else. I'd like to think that if John wasn't murdered, they've might come together once or twice for a side project or two. George's cancer however was a real stopper even if John had survived though. The ideal period for their reunion would be between 2000 and 2014. And George didn't live that far. So it simply wasn't meant to be, sadly.
@@crankfastle8138 'Dynamic' is a very vague and general word. Nothing they could have done would have made all three--or four--happy, songwriting-wise.
The honesty in their conversation shows that John and Paul had a real understanding of each other and that’s why they complimented each other so well. These men were cosmically linked as brothers even if not biologically. People say that magic isn’t real, but these two were absolutely magical. There will never be a duo that matches John Lennon and Paul McCartney.
Did you even listen to the tape? There was hardly ANY straight talk in this conversation. John trying to tell Paul to get off George's back in as diplomatic a way as possible. Paul resisting his request in as slippery a way as possible.
@@joanne1114 Once again, John gets punished for being self critical. It is JOHN who argues that they BOTH need to allow George to contribute more if they are to keep him engaged. A compromise he is willing to make in order to keep the band together. It was PAUL who rejected the idea. What could be more obvious?
Paul was the selfish dick here. And he has the gall to blame John to this day for breaking up the Beatles because he wouldn’t tolerate Paul’s megalomania. I suppose John becoming a heroin addict after getting hooked by witch cunt Yoko (same as Courtney did with Kurt) really was the true underlying problem because it seemed to degrade John’s ability to lead, which he did far more gracefully than the mildly narcissistic egomaniac Paul became after getting power by default due to John’s state (you can see when opioid addiction sets in if you’ve had experience with it, it’s quite subtle initially and hard to distinguish from natural change but it was very clear here and it’d really set by summer 1968 for John, you could see it in Kurt similarly by summer ‘93). I do find it funny how Paul’s shit in the ‘70s and ‘80s was largely cringe as fuck with a couple half exceptions whereas John and George did great stuff. You can tell Paul was relishing finally being the alpha here after having always been relegated to as he put it “second boss” behind the purest genius in John, and now Paul had even further ambitions of his own rising above the Beatles (imagine the gall). I say all this saying I love Paul’s music (well his Beatles stuff at least, and a little of his post-Beatles stuff, that Dance Around Tonight song was really good from 2009 or so), and I think he’s a very cool dude all things considered. But he’s no John. George at his best even topped Paul arguably, but Paul was way more reliably and consistently good and more talented overall. Ringo was great for his part, a sort of good third party guy to remind everyone of how petty they were being at times, despite his voice not quite carrying as much weight. It’s funny I seen a good bit of myself in each of them, less Ringo maybe. When I was younger I was more like Paul, for a while I became more like George (and some would argue still am lol) but I’d like to be more like John (minus the crushing opioid addiction and conniving cunt wife lol). But hopefully I live as long in good health as Paul lol, and am as lovable as Ringo.
Behind the scenes, yes. But I can't imagine a less honest conversation. John being diplomatic. Paul being dismissive. Neither addressing the problem. Namely, Paul's overgrown ego and his need to control the creative process.
@@Kermit_T_Frogit’s more complicated than that..like Ringo once said ‘without Paul calling them up and his energy and enthusiasm and controlling nature they wouldn’t have recorded half of what they did..he was the most driven Beatle and the most musically talented..on the early stuff Lennon was every bit as driven but the last two albums Paul was in the driving seat and it must have grated on the others..
@@shawnbingley5433 Not only the most work driven, but from the beginning, the ingeneers and stuff saw that he was the defacto musical director, even if they always went with the best idea. At some point, clash of individual interests is inevitable.
Control freak or perfectionist? Paul would have a vision and wanted the guys to see and follow it. His weakness was allowing others to add or reject pieces of his vision. Control freak sounds very harsh imo.
The best thing about this is the dialect. They aren't speaking for anyone in the world but themselves, and this is how they really spoke with each other.
"And probably when we're all very old we'll all agree with each other and we'll all sing together." This makes me so sad. I think everyone would've wanted that but unfortunately it never happened.
George and Paul, you'll be happy to hear, rekindled their friendship to an incredible degree. "We're always going to the other's place for dinner," George quipped in the 90's. Good to hear.
This is the most honest real assessment of what the Beatles felt about working together, that has ever been made public. They never said this exact stuff in public in any other context, not this succinctly. This is John and Paul having a REAL honest, calm confrontation about the band and who is boss and that stuff. THIS is the best Beatles release of any kind, since 1970. THIS really is new. We might have all "sort of " known this is how it was, but here they are saying it to each other, candidly. Amazing.
its not that candid. linda yoko mal evans and neil are all there sitting with them, they have just been edited out. peter jackson did several slight of hand turns like this in the film to present things as if they happened in a way they didnt.
@@bedfordsimon8What bullshit are you talking about? It was Peter Jackson who hid the lavalier microphone in the flower pot in the cafeteria where the Beatles had asked that no cameras or microphones enter.
John is pretty perceptive and articulate in the realm of human feelings. I don’t know why this kind of surprised me. I think later decades were more versed in this because of talk shows and psychology magazines. He could also be pretty acerbic and all the rest. But in this film, he’s actually very laid back with fits of comedy to break the monotony ...attributes that I love.
It's hard to put this together with the raving in Rolling Stone the next year...but I think this is much more the real him. The real Paul, too. But John in particular was several different people, especially around this time, and I'll bet he'd agree with that statement.
I always saw John as the narcissist but here I can hear an honest, warm, and empathetic John, I can't believe how nice and understanding he was to George and how he gave feedback to Paul without hurting anybody... I really changed with Yoko.
Wow, this was an eye opener for me too.. So happy to have heard John speak so candidly and honestly Greatest thing I got out of this was they NEVER minimized George’s cintributions
I'm just impressed that as men they were able to have such a calm and reasonable conversation, and talk about their problems clearly. Puts my family and community to shame, especially considering this conversation happened 50 years ago!
what makes you think we have better comunication and understanding than 50 years ago?? I think not only The Beatles, but lots of familys had a way better comunication and understanding 50 years ago... just because we have tik-tok don't make us "special" besides it's obvious how society is way worse than 50 years ago... in every way
It's very British. But, you're right. Puts my family and community to shame. I live by chance (for now) in an area in the states viewed as among the last friendly and most insincere in the world, LOL. Really.
This is a really surprising conversation between two guys who were young, rich, famous, and had no immediate reason to be kind or mature about their personal relationships. I'm actually really stunned by the maturity, humility, and honesty they had with one another.
This conversation is quite the most honest and probably the saddest one of the whole Get Back documentary. Cause they both admit they're mistreating George and they are truly sorry for it, but afterwards, they won't give him no bandage for his wounds. At this time, the Beatles are near 30, they have their wives and families, their own interests, their private bussines. They are no more and won't be no more further, four parts of a one, as they were at 20. Which is simply in the natural order of things, but at the same time awfully sad, for those of us who loved them togheter..
@@ocromiun paul was 26 george was 25 again so not 30 at all. this was filmed in early jan 1969 so you are adding a few months to paul whos birthday is in june and almost a year to john whos birthday isnt til october. but other than getting everything wrong great post!
Very touching revelation of identity and power issues that all teams face. Their love for each other is so obvious. The lesson here is that nothing in life is forever, and I would hate to be the last surviving Beatle, thank you and God Bless to Ringo and Paul, you are a special gift from God to the world.
@@Wheresthelove7 Yes I do talk about him ..They could do the one standard rock n roll record wth all the covers wth Macca playing guitar and Klaus Vorman on the bass,Ringo Starr on the piano and Pete Best on the drums and get all the charitable proceedings to go for Ukrainian orphans ...That would be very beneficial to their Karna..
John is so perceptive, thoughtful, and honest. He knew exactly what the problems were and was willing to bend and Paul is a good guy at heart but is such a perfectionist when it comes any song HE writes and he wants it the way he wants... And George had to take a backseat to both of them all those years... It's a fascinating conversation although I do not agree with the decision to basically " wiretap" these guys without their knowledge. They should be able to have a private conversation between 2 people who love each other. And they both obviously loved George as well. All of them knew each other better than anyone and the respect between them is obvious.
@@thedogwoods5716 it was recorded secretly in the canteen where there were no camera equipment or microphones on show and they naturally assumed that they could have a break and talk candidly.
I'm with you on the "wiretap". However, I'm still thankful it was done because it gives us insight into the inner workings of the band that we could only speculate about otherwise. We get to hear their real and unsanitized thoughts.
It's the pain siblings feel when they actually love each other and are treated differently in their environments. This conversation really proves that they all tried to compromise, and that the eventual breakup wasn't just "i hate you" or "i hate the way we do this". It was out of respect for not beating a dead horse.
PRECISELY. The most perceptive comment on here. I truly think a lot of John's "going nuts" with Yoko (though I believe Yoko was a poor choice, LOL) was John sabotaging the image of the Beatles so create a framework where they could end the band before it descended into parody.
John is profoundly concerned about the emotional impact the whole thing has taken on all of them and even if he is being direct about what makes him uncomfortable, he is not mean or disrespectful to Paul at all, and even agrees he himself has been a part of the problem. Paul is also concerned about that but his main focus as a band member is to make real good music and just feels like George wasn't doing it to his full potential, basically like "ok, do it your way, I know you have it in you but please put some effort in!", which made him want to push harder and that resulted in George walking away, because George was just basically burnt out at that stage. This is a beautiful conversation. The amount of respect, honestly and admiration between these two is remarkable.
Wow! What a forced narrative! Paul wouldn't accept George's contributions out of "concern" that George wasn't reaching his full potential!? And you miss John's entire message. That they both weren't giving George his due. That Paul was letting his ego GET IN THE WAY of making good music. Something that John admits he was sometimes guilty of himself. This episode was nothing other than John, as diplomatically as possible, trying to get Paul to let up on George with him nodding along but paying no heed.
No, Paul's issue wasn't that he didn't think George was working hard enough. In fact, Paul was complaining that he didn't want George to come up with ideas for Paul's song. Paul wanted George to sit there and do nothing and then play exactly what Paul wanted him to. Every musician that has worked with Paul has had the exact same issues so it is clear where the problem lies. Paul feels he knows best and he doesn't like it when other musicians have their own ideas. Contrary to what Paul believes, he is not always right which is clear when you compare is solo work to his Beatles' work. Paul's music is better when others help him. Paul seems to refuse to believe this and feels he is better than everyone else. He only seems to want to listen to his sycophants which unfortunately isn't unusual among successful artists. Paul should have been happy with Harrison saying how he wanted to feel like he was part of the song even though he didn't write it. That is why George contributed so many great guitar parts, suggestions and even lyrics to many Lennon/McCartney songs even though he was never going to get any credit. He added more to their songs than John and Paul would ever contribute to his.
@@stickman1742 That is pretty much right on. I take it that you mean that George was more willing to help out on Lennon/McCartney songs than they were in returning the favor. Obviously true.
@@stickman1742I find it amazing how many huge Paul fans will do the most amazing mental gymnastics when trying to alleviate Paul of any blame when it comes to the breakup of the Beatles. They always blame George, neglecting to mention that the reason George wanted out was Paul's stifling control issues. He even said later in the 70s that he would joing a band with John Lennon again any day, but couldn't see ever being in a band with Paul again. In 94 for the anthology sessions George commented dryly "It feels like recording with the Beatles again." All those years later and Paul was still difficult to work with.
George had a great idea which he discussed with John and Yoko: so many songs stockpiled that he was thinking about doing solo albums. And both John and Yoko told him it was a GREAT idea and encouraged him. Had he done that, maybe The Beatles would have taken a break and, get back to where they once belonged.
I heard a couple of guys from 10cc talk about that. They said there is this "nothern" thing where its "all for one and one for all" and solo albums to them meant the group was over.
@@ChannelRandy interesting. I'm just reminded that George and Paul did quite a bit of producing other bands with Apple. And, George was really absorbed in Indian classical music well into 1967 and beyond. AND, he did the soundtrack for the Wonderwall film in '67(?) It seems they all felt they didn't want to be Beatles anymore, permanently. They were in each other's lives too much for their liking I guess.
@@desoxido yoko ono was performing with John Cage at Carnegie Hall when John was still in Hamburg. She was one of the funders of the Fluxus movement. She didn't need John for art cred.
@@ChannelRandy you sure? Ok. Name one piece of art by Yoko Ono different than the ladder with the magnifying glass attached and the word “yes” written on the ceiling. That’s right, you can’t. We all know Yoko just because she was Lennon’s wife.
I always saw John as the narcissist but here I can hear an honest, warm, and empathetic John, I can't believe how nice and understanding he was to George and how he gave feedback to Paul without anybody... I really changed with Yoko.
@@SAK1855 he did what he did, yes. I defy anyone to be a perfect human being when your mum is killed by a drunk off duty policeman - and you're thrust into not only the biggest band in the world, but the first biggest band in the world. Dealing with the egos of 2 others (Ringo doesn't count) in long proximity for years of touring and being screamed at. The drugs take their toll, etc etc etc But you look at Lennon in 1980, he was getting clean, yeah he fucked up with Julian but he was trying for Sean, and it's clear he hadn't ruled out a Beatles reunion.
What most people don't understand, unless they've spent most of their lives in bands (like I have), is the incredible difficulties in navigating relationships between multiple artists and creative types, who tend to be a bit on the sensitive and maybe even selfish side; and trying to keep everyone together, focussed on the same goals, all the while allowing everyone to have their say, and have their input equally valued and utilized. It's a truly Herculean and almost impossible task, and usually needs a very smart and sensitive outsider like George Martin, as the 'obstetric' deliverer and organizer of all these disparate personas, integrating them into a whole that is greater than the sum of the individual parts. Now chew on that lot for a minute or two... ;)
The other thing is whether it's writing music or directing a movie or writing a script there is the creator or person in charge. They have a vision. They can see it, hear it, experience it all in their head and want to share it. But as you share it others see different possibilities, directions and interpretations. In a collective process people can be a bit more open, but not always. People can be possessive and rigid when it comes to "their baby". Imagine Mozart playing a song to another composer and asking what would you do differently? How would you make my creation better? Writers often grieve when their books are made into movies because their words get changed. Some directors keep all the actors anchored to the scripts dialog, others let actors Ad-lib and contribute. Music is tougher, in my opinion, because you can hear it perfectly in your head but you can't just plug a speaker cable into your ear so others can "hear it" the way you think it should be. Ego does play a part as well. You create something and somebody says "I think that's ok, but it would be much better like this......" They may not say it that way, but that's what you might hear. Geniuses are often strung pretty tight. They all don't necessarily play well with others. Lol
These were young men (in the grand scheme) with enormous pressure to be 'The Beatles'. But you can tell that the truly loved each other. All of them. It wasn't like "well let's just get another session player". No it wasn't like that at all. John and Paul put their egos on hold for a bit and said "What about George?". I have always been impressed with how cohesive they were for so long. Sure the Rolling Stones were a continuum, but this was John and Paul worrying about their dear friend feelings.
You didn't see much of this in the new "Get Back" movie. What you saw was a very HARD working band. I'll bet they rehearsed some of those songs a hundred times because THAT is what the Beatles were. A hard working studio band. THAT was their life. They dedicated everything into those songs and that's why their music was so good. They were SO TIGHT that they could read each other's thoughts. George Martin said once that when all four Beatles were in the room together there was this incredible "Aura", a "presence" that you couldn't quite explain ..."you could feel it and that never went away all the years I was with them."
I'm surprised that John said he was sometimes intimidated by Paul. And then, later, Paul cuts John off, saying, "No, listen. Listen." All they had to do was announce they were taking an indefinite break, so they could get some time away from each other and pursue some solo projects. After a couple solo albums each. they might have said, "Hey, let's Beatle again!"
I was surprised he said he was afraid of Paul, but I guess he meant that around Pepper, Lennon had been away with a new wife and kid while Paul was working on his ideas for an album. Then he finds Paul controlling things and Lennon felt kind of out of it so for the first time he probably felt he had to take a backseat. He clearly didn't like it and spent that last couple of years battling with Paul over seemingly everything. He said at the time he had no interest in being in Paul's backing band. It would have to be more equal or it would be over.
This conversation was probably recorded in January 1969 when Paul McCartney was 26, John Lennon 28, Ringo Starr 28 and George Harrison 25. 25!!!. They'd been working like dogs all the way through their twenties and produced 11 albums. Let It Be was the 12th and the last. They were extraordinary.
Actually, Abbey Road followed Let It Be. Let It Be was released after Abbey Road, but the creation of the album came after the Let It Be/Get Back sessions which were concluded in Feb 1969. Abbey Road was finished about 4 months later after they all returned to the studio. The begged George Martin to produce the album but Martin told them only if we make the album like we did in the "old days".
That may be true but Paul's responses are brief and mumbled because Paul cannot change. That's the truth of the matter and he knows it. And that doesn't make Paul a bad guy....he was a musical powerhouse at the time and frankly, George's skills did not really progress with the times. I love the Beatles beyond words but I have accepted that George was their weakest link.
@@mangomonkey6938this may be true but also George is not only uninterested as a beatle, but as a beatle lead guitarist. His songs didn’t require him playing lead guitar chords timely for someone else and it brought him down to a role where Paul or John could play his parts. He was just distanced from where they were at musically most of the time.
Paul should have agreed with John to make an entire album of George's best songs with John and Paul acting purely as backing musicians and vocalists. In my view, the best songs on All Things Must Pass should have been a Beatles album.
But that's not the point at all. J&P were insanely commercially successful. Thousands of people' jobs directly depended on J&P's hit songs. The Beatles literally turned around the British economy because of the success o f J&P's songs. The entire film, the entire Beatles circus, happened because of the commercial success of J&P's songs. It's very naive to say George's songs weren't taken seriously because of creative unfairness.
Paul didn't know that George want to release an album with just his songs, that convo was just between John and George, read it somewhere that Peter Jackson showed Paul that clip and he had no idea, seems like John and George were always the one communicating the most.
On one hand, it's just two British dudes working out what the problem is with their band. On the other, it's a critical moment in history where the future of popular music hung in the balance. Fascinating. I've done some reading to see what all the fuss was about the Beatles, and to try and pin down why their story went separate ways. Actually hearing their voices as they try to make sense of it speaks volumes.
I actually found this very sad and moving. There's a tendency to side with one or the other in terms of talent / blame etc but this makes you realise they were both just young men dealing with a LOT who were trying desperately in their own quiet, respectful way to be fair. There's a sort of quiet, tacit acknowledgement from both that its coming to an end too, which is so sad.
I like how these two speak to each other they are good friends. Paul always acknowledged the John has been the boss I see when they compose together they look at each others eyes and know exactly what the other feels and wants. I think the problem is that Paul was growing faster than the other two as a composer and musically but John understood what Paul wanted musically and vocally I think George could not play what Paul wanted as the lead guitar and that's why George said "you need Clapton". It interesting that they do not put down George and are faulting themselves for George getting upset and leaving the group. I see much love among these 4 people and they really were brothers
You didn't hear a word of what John said, did you? Let me translate. By "you've suddenly got it all," Lennon meant that Paul suddenly got to where he wouldn't accept ideas that weren't his own. By "I've let you do what you want and George too," he was hinting that in order to keep George engaged that they needed to compromise. But you just accept Paul's insufferably insulting contention that George didn't play what he wanted him to play because he WASN'T CAPABLE. Not only insulting, but plain WRONG. George was the SUPERIOR guitarist.
'Paul was growing faster than the other two as a composer'??? In what way was Paul growing faster as a composer? Paul is a master at the easy-listening tunes. The only trouble is, he lacked any sense of experimentation. Most of his solo/Wings works are formulaic and predictable. At least John and George were more experimental when creating the music that accompanied their solo tunes. Paul was lost when the group split up and suffered a great degree of depression for about a year. He didn't just want to be in a band, he wanted to be in the greatest band in the world. His solo output was possibly the weakest of all four Beatles. I owned a few of his solo and Wings albums, and I also bought his 'All The Best' in 1987 and only then did I realise how turgid his none-Beatle output was. I could never listen to any of his albums all the way through.
George is an overrated guitarist he had technical limitabilities and struggled with repeat without mistakes he was obviously creative as a writer and guitar player, but if Paul is writing guitar parts and wanting something specific he could probably do that easier himself or with a session player therefore you can understand why he'd get frustrated with George@@Kermit_T_Frog
@@flemit35 None of the Beatles were great instrumentalists. They never put in the work to reach the level of some of the more dedicated performers. But that doesn't mean they weren't great musicians. Meaning, there was music in their instrumentals. Technically accomplished instrumentalists usually are automatrons.
Yeah! They sound really different! Being American, I'm used to hearing them in interviews or their early movies etc. It's like they have a totally different sound and accent in the Get Back doc.
What they’re saying to each other is reminiscent of how Ringo described the situation in the band during the White Album: he went to each of his bandmates to tell them he felt he was the odd man out, only for each to respond “I thought it was you three!” As brothers grow and change and forge their own paths, they become less comfortable about speaking openly with each other, filling the void in information with their own assumptions about the others’ mindsets and motives. Both men instinctively see the other as the de facto leader of the band for altogether different reasons. It’s interesting how Lennon, despite having taken an obvious backseat to McCartney in terms of direct leadership of the band, still commands McCartney’s total respect and deference with almost no effort. He may not be in the driver’s seat anymore, but McCartney still looks up to him, despite the fact that his ambition and work ethic far outweigh Lennon’s.
John seems to look up to Paul, actually. In Get Back, he was constantly looking to Paul for approval of his ideas. At that point in time, Paul is on fire creatively, and John is falling deeper into depression and addiction. I got the impression that John was resentful, but also begrudgingly admiring.
Even discussing their egoic differences you can hear the tight bond. Trying their best to work through their rivalries and touchy feelings. John was very perceptive about human feelings and able to articulate them. Incredible command of the English language.
My take: Paul defers to John's leadership in matters of the band while wanting to maintain control over the production of his own compositions. John also wants the same but has sacrificed this on many occasions for the good of the interpersonal relationships in the band. Paul is a perfectionist with the skill to see his vision through but by dragging George along musically like a studio musician. The three songwriting Beatles also seemed to mature in their songwriting craft at different points. Paul was still flowering musically as John was perhaps reenergizing... just as George's writing skills were just beginning to flower..
I don’t know man. I don’t really think I’m in a position to psychoanalyze Paul McCartney, who I have never met and can’t read his mind. But I think what my post was, was having some empathy for him, being a perfectionist, and an artist, but yet having to share the responsibility with other artists he cared deeply about…must’ve been really difficult for him. I can give him a break for wanting to control his art. Both Lennon & McCartney were notorious for having giant egos. I also picked up from the Get Back documentary that George seems really very young, and very insecure. I mean, he has it in his head that he should be like Clapton‘s, which in my mind, represents a very big misunderstanding about what his perception of himself was for the Beatles. It must’ve been a real burden for him.
@@JuannyBoy2023 You don't have to read McCartney's mind. All you should need for a read is 5 minutes of him in an interview. And Lennon was NOT a narcissist. If anything, he had an overactive conscience. Was overly critical of himself. That is not the way a narcissist operates. Lennon blamed himself for everything. Usually he deserved it, but there were times he didn't.
its not secret, linda yoko mal and neil were all there. the conversation is 30 minutes long and goes very differently than these edits suggest. you can find transcripts of most of it online.
@@Sentientmatter8 john states outright he doesnt think he wants george back, the two of them go on at length about other topics. its been edited as if its paul and john having a private conversation but it itsnt. ringo is there. mal is there. neil is there. llinda and yoko are there its just been edited so only paul and johns exchanges are there and those have been hand picked to follow a narrative thats not real.... its like the "then there were two " joke scene all over again
I think towards the end Paul especially heard every arrangement of his songs in his head and he had a hard time both explaining and sharing this, this is a cross you have to bear when your a musical genius. He was forever composing with new songs flooding through constantly. Sad how they ended but they never truly stopped loving and supporting each other. I wish, maybe, they could've agreed to take a sabbatical and then returned 5, 10 years later they were in their mid to late twenties when they split. Oh well we can all wish.Still miss John and George to this day.
He may have heard arrangements in his head, like every composer, but that doesn't mean his ideas were the best, especially in the end (in 1969), when George was in his peak. "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and "Oh! Darling" are probably the worst songs on Abbey Road. The album would have been stronger with George's or John's songs instead.
Paul: "The main thing is, you've always been boss." Paul is right. John was the Boss of Rock. Not Jagger. Not Richard's. Not Springsteen. Not Townshend. Or Gilmour. Or anybody. It was Lennon. Always will be Lennon.
Typical for McCartney to make this about control. The "main thing" is NOT that John was boss. but that with John as boss, the Beatles were a UNIT. They ALL contributed. And that is what made them great.
Nope! He was just the loudest and most insistent. From the very beginning, the other three waited for Paul's approval of things. That's just the way it is.
You obviously do not know Beatles history if you think Paul was in control from the very beginning. It was Lennon-McCartney. Not McCartney-Lennon. John had his own mike on stage. Paul and George shared. It was always Lennon's band. After Brian died, he lost interest.
Paul played so many iconic guitar parts on previous songs (Taxman,etc). You can imagine how irked George must have been. He was just back from playing with Dylan and The Band, learning new guitar licks, positive feedback - only to be relegated back to his role of Paul's sideman.
I think he was just sick of Paul always wanting things his way which every musician that's ever worked with him has felt. There's always a point where Paul gives them the "I'm fucking Paul McCartney, I can't believe you are arguing with me" bullshit that John is referring to. And Lennon correctly adds that sometimes Paul is right and sometimes Paul is wrong just like everybody else.
If Paul McCartney was twice the guitarist Harrison was, he'd have a leg to stand on. But he's not. And that's the problem. And he surrounds himself with better musicians on their chosen instruments than he is, and proceeds to insult them and tell them they suck, just so he feels better about his inabilities. That's why you can't keep a member of Wings around. Because you have a man who has the biggest Ego, who can't keep time on drums efficiently enough, repeats his ideas on guitar enough, and really should stick to bass and keyboards, what he's good at, instead of making members of the band quit because he's being such an asshole to them. About Ob La Di Ob La Da. One asks if that song is truly worth hurting your friends for.
@@stickman1742 Baloney! Paul just knows what he wants, and the others have to work towards that. George is no saint, neither is John. Stop blaming everything on Paul, he was right about Klein, and everything else. The other three treated him like dirt at the end. But he was right.
That was a "Lilliputian" knock down drag out Band Fight lol! Gentlemanly, pragmatically and compassionately discussing serious, potentially life changing issues rationally. I love this back story stuff. Why did we have to wait so long!??
I always wonder what would have happened if the Beatles took a break after sgt peppers. And went and did a bunch of solo albums and solo projects then reconvened in 1970 fresh from feeling things out and experiencing life without the Beatles. I think the exposure of George to life without John and Paul would have really pumped up his confidence, and I think him doing his own thing would have brought him higher in John and Paul’s estimations as a song writer, and after seeing what the guys make without each other, kinda shows what they’re all thinking and you can play in that more and then you have George and ringo and John just getting Paul’s vision, and suddenly a song like maybe I’m amazed becomes a Beatles track with a whole mess of things, imagine becomes something like let it be or hey Jude.
You have to remember John broke the band up and for all George saying (and maybe really meaning it) he was unhappy at his songs be held back in lieu of John and Paul's...that in Sep. 1969 when John quit, George was still very much a Beatle and had no (stated) intentions of quitting.
All of you Lennon fanboys all gleefully enjoying the fact that Paul said John was always boss while conveniently ignoring the fact that John replied ‘not always’ which is true. Selective hearing though I’m not surprised. I love Lennon but his fans are one of the most toxic fanbases around and he would have been ashamed of all of you. He loved Paul and what you guys are doing to him in the comments as well as the blatant disrespect he’s been getting from you and from music journalists since 1980 is disgusting and John would have punched you in the face for it.
Wow… they really spoke strangely to each other. I couldn’t even understand what they were trying to communicate most of the time. But one thing I was glad to hear and that was that they never said anything bad about George. That was a very good sign, I think.
that's the thing about this band, "The Beatles"...their 'roles' were so interchangeable, they were all gifted with so much talent. compared to say Led Zeppelin (just as gifted and fabulous) but, I mean, Jimmy Page wasn't vying to take over Robert Plant as lead vocals (although Jimmy could sing and sometimes did backup...but not at Robert's level). Robert wasn't vying to be lead guitarist. JPJ wasn't vying to do anything other than his role in band and what he excelled in...Bonham was their drummer. They all melded together SO well because they worked together without competition. Jimmy wrote the music, Plant wrote the lyrics they all played as bandmates, great friends. Jimmy formed the band, was the boss, but Robert also did most talking in the interviews, etc...and they all thought the other was 'the best'. One can, however, really feel and tell these Beatle bandmates loved each other, brotherly love. It truly seemed to break Paul's heart when they broke up. I've never seen two bandmates so thrilled with each other while singing, playing, etc...Paul - John smiling at each other, laughing....Paul seemed to always just get a kick out of John and seemed to really just want John to take over as Boss - Leader again
I wonder if George ever heard this and what he made/would've made of it. If you want to multiply the dimensions and intensity of emotions between you and a friend, start a band together.
He couldn’t have heard it because the recording was so bad. It was only the new computer technology Peter Jackson used on it recently that made the words intelligible.
its edited to hell, an excerpt of a 30 minute conversation most of which is john and paul arguing about sessions. george probably wouldnt have been happy with the part where john tells paul quite flatly that he isnt even sure he wants george back. that probably wouldnt have healed much
I heard this is a secret recording and they did not know they were being recorded. This is why this is so honest unlike the get back movie where they knew they were being filmed.
ringo knew the mic was there as he had discussed it with lindsay hogg earlier. seems unlikely that he wouldnt have told the others. and this is a heavily edited conversation, john and paul are sitting at a table with a bunch of folks.
After they went solo I recall an interview with Paul where he was talking about putting together a new band and the very same issue came up. Paul was critical of a guitar player not playing what he wanted.
John was a silly joker on camera but then when they are not public facing suddenly John is a leader and a peace maker. Very interesting, and totally against 50 year old narratives about this session.
Any small group (no pun) of workers, employees, colleagues all working together on a difficult project have differences and this will lead to serious disagreements. These disagreements are often the most difficult to resolve, even more than the project in hand. It is another testimony to John and Paul that they not only resolved the fall out by recognising their egos but completed the project. There were two leaders and this was impossible for George and Ringo but it was the only way when they were working on John's or Paul's compositions and only the composer knew how it should be put together. Very difficult! The very reason so many musical groups fell out. Ringo was often the glue that kept them together - quite literally when playing - and in their ego-battles. The fact that sometimes finished tracks did not meet John or Paul's standards was invisible to us record buyers means the presented result was good enough for us. Nothing gets finished without compromise. I wonder if John was still around would he have re-recorded his compositions (and even those joint compositions with Paul) exactly as he wanted them - and what would they have developed into?
During a conversation over dinner with George Martin in his later years, John surprised Martin by stating that he would rerecord everything. On the other hand, John was prone to hyperbole.
@@hungfao That's very interesting and I'm not surprised. I'm sure he might have done given the time. The charm of The Beatles would not be there - but the art of Lennon would be fascinating to hear- especially if he rewrote any lines. Thanks
Not sure if anybody else mentioned this but they took some liberties with that recording…also present at that table were Ringo…Linda…and Yoko. Fascinating nonetheless
I think it's very important to note that. In the Get Back book that accompanies the film, there's a transcript of the dialogue from this conversation that includes a bit of what Yoko said, which is not in the clip from the movie, which makes the clip rather misleading. What's also not in the movie but is in the book is that John at one point said he wasn't sure if he even wanted George to come back.
Just as a caution to people feeling that this is some great revelation or honest truth, it isn't , this wasn't even a conversation between just John and Paul and longer versions of it are out there just typically in a worse audio file. It's edited as if the issue was Paul being too domineering and not listening enough to John and George. This is because when the Beatles fell out and it was 3 vs1 with Paul was the enemy they accused Paul of this, there is definitely some truth to it, it is mentioned in the conversation and George complains about working with Paul for decades after. Presumably Peter Jackson felt that this edit would clarify that as an issue without all the other aspects. But in the full conversation John tells Paul that he isn't even sure he wants George back and talks about how in the hierarchy of the Beatles he only considers himself and Paul the real deal (Ringo is right next to them and contributing to the conversation). The majority of the conversation is John telling Paul about his insecurities and how he is afraid to correct Paul because he thinks Paul is so creatively high at that time, that he is jealous and has to put aside his ego just to come into work. He is also afraid to put forward ideas because he doesn't want to look like a fool and references meeting Paul and how important it was for Paul to like him. Paul spends the entire conversation just listening or encouraging John, without really addressing the difficult issues, he barely offers an opinion on any of, maybe he just agrees with John. Yoko interrupts Johns long intense speech about how he feels about Paul to remind them that they were supposed to be talking about George. They barely mention him. The irony of the real conversation is that it supports the other repeated complaint George had about the Beatles "John and Paul were too busy being John and Paul to notice anyone else [himself]" It's a bit suspicious that the conversation edits out John's dismissiveness of George and hyper focus on his relationship with Paul, but it is a long conversation which isn't particularly easy to follow and may have been too confusing for audiences. But they should have cut it down more in that case because some of it is unnecessary, like "I don't think the Beatles revolve around four people" This out of context where it sounds like John is telling Paul off makes it seem like John is being very big picture and broad minded. But Ringo is part of the conversation and has been saying they should get back to being a four people. this may be due to interlopers such as the film crew, the ideas being pitched to them that George thinks are ridiculous or how George had walked out of the meeting the evening before specifically because he had a disagreement with John about Yoko. It could very well be that Yoko or her party insisted her and John be not portrayed negatively, but there are other factors like the other Beatles not wanting to promote the idea that John was mean (because it damages their image and he probably didn't mean it anyway) or Jackson feeling that if he gave a crumb or an idea that Yoko was at fault that her many haters would attack her and she doesn't deserve that. It is also just way too long with too many tangents. It's just a shame they added so many lines of dialogue that give are completely out of their proper context In summery this is a heavily edited piece of audio that takes about 2 minutes of genuine conversation about Paul needing to be more considerate in the studio and a collage of clips where they are basically talking about other things, usually how insecure John feels. While this is a problem for George it's unlikely that this was the main issue (or at least the only) as he agrees to come back after a conversation with John and Paul. John doing his own talking this time and they agree to leave Twickenham. George seemed to want a certain level of respect and to be listened to.
From what I’ve read John had this issue right from the beginning, realizing when he first met Paul that Paul was incredibly talented and asking himself whether or not to invite him to be in the band, knowing it would make the band stronger but also would make John feel insecure. Throughout the Beatles Paul wrote more number one hits, even when John was getting more songs recorded. So this was a long-standing issue for John, and could only have gotten worse as Paul continued to improve and strive for innovation and perfection with his strong work ethic, and basically ascend to be the band’s leader, and then turn out to be the most successful songwriter in history. And then Yoko came along to tell him what he wanted to hear, that he was the true genius and Paul lesser than, and then Klein did the same…
Then why didn't they carry on without George after Abbey Road? Nobody would have complained I guess. Not at least George coz he wanted badly to leave the band. So, John and Paul could have continued with or without Ringo as well...what was the problem?
@@marjanp4784 John suggested replacing George with Eric Clapton (he also considered starting a new band and replacing Paul with Klaus Voorman). But George and Paul were much more than lead guitarist and bassist. They were both amazing songwriters, which for some reason John didn't appreciate? Or maybe he thought he'd have less competition if they were replaced? Anyway, the Beatles were John, Paul, George and Ringo, and I can't see replacing any one of them with someone else. Paul's always said they were four corners of a square, and without one of them there was no Beatles.
@@michelepaccione8806 I know that The Beatles was a band with four people and all of them were important members, but I'm tired with people saying John and Paul were more important and they wanted to do this or that and wanted to replace George etc...blah blah blah. I mean if they really wanted to carry on without George, why didn't they do it? I'm sure George wouldn't give a fu*k...he was already out of the band in his mind and he had already planned out his solo career. ATMP was a massive hit commercially and critically. So, my point is why the hell that so called important members of the band didn't go onto hiring a new lead guitarist and carry on with their music? The answer is simple just as you said "The Beatles were John, Paul, George and Ringo"... I can guarantee that they wouldn't last a day replacing one of them and J and P knew it very well.
I watched this more or less ''live'' when it dropped, but listening to this conversation again now I sense a lot more of a rebuking tone - gently delivered - from Lennon to McCartney.
It's a bit hard to get a clear picture of what they're saying and it seems that is because they had a way of understanding each other that outsiders could never get...and we don't have any video to see the facial cues.
It's interesting to see John being empathetic towards George here, given that he was being quite mean to George about I Me Mine, saying it was too much of a Waltz and not rocking enough.
WOW this a deep dive ! Its interesting because the dynamic between brothers never changes, even when they all become world superstars. Obviously Paul is the main driver at this point, and George either doesnt feel strong enough to fight his ' big brother " for the lead and/or Paul and John are not willing to stand aside and let him lead the charge. If you look at the material George was producing in terms of Abbey Road and All Things Must Pass, he could have led a bit here, but the Old brothers just would not allow it. Its a shame . but its a harsh reality. Personally I feel that The Beatles could have continued if they split into three main songwriters for another 10 years, but the family dynamic wouldn't support it, thus The End.
Well they did have a meeting in September 69 where John proposed that John, Paul and George would have four songs each on their next album plus two for Ringo if he wanted them. Unfortunately John then scuttled this idea later that month by quitting the group. It's a real case of "What might have been".
@@dgsmith9969 It was said by George Harrison in an interview back in the early 70s so it really happened. The biggest issue they had at the time was just that they could not agree on a business manager and then Paul started lawsuits. That was the end of that. If they could have been together on business, I could see them doing some Beatle albums together and releasing solo work in between. I don't really see any reason why that wouldn't have worked.
Even though they were talking to each other, it didn't sound to me that they were actually "communicating". They seem to resigned to the fact that their breakup would be coming soon and was inevitable.
True but in some cases you gotta see Paul's point. Like if it's Paul's song (such as Hey Jude) and he doesn't want much guitar on it (which was a conflict), I see his point. However, this film tends to show they weren't focusing on George's songs enough, but at least that led to All Things Must Pass, probably the greatest solo album by any Beatle, so there's that.
@@professormacdeezy When you say "probably the greatest solo album by any Beatle", you are just stating your opinion... that's it one opinion. If you look at a sample of over 300 artists and music critics to get a poll of "greatest albums ever", which is better because you get a larger sample, you'd almost certainly find that both Plastic Ono Band and Imagine were placed ahead of All Things Must Pass. E.g., in a poll with that large of a sample size conducted by Rolling Stone, both Plastic Ono Band and Imagine were over 100 spots ahead of All Things Must Pass.
not to mention those albums dont even contain some of his best songs like instant karma (one of my fav songs of all time), give peace a chance, and war is over
@@professormacdeezy Yeah and the other albums are great too. I think All Things Must Pass, Imagine and Plastic Ono Band are probably the three best solo albums.
This is truly epic conversation. Here is what I interpret. John and Paul are sensitive artists and George too. If Brian Epstein was there to assist, I think that would have been positive. These men were growing and changing as we all do. To me it seems George needed to flow in his music and did not feel the environment was allowing that because Paul and John, well nuff said there. That's Paul and John man. And George also needed to grow. I do get thou that Paul and John goal was to keep it all together. Nothing against Paul but John just seemed to be sensitive to the other band members. And John just seemed to be a powerhouse of a friend no matter what happened in the band. I must say this lightly thou. This is like a conversation with Moses and Jesus. Wow
John did look out for the interests of George and Ringo much more than Paul - it was John who fought Paul to get George's Something & Here Comes the Sun released as a A/A+ single wasnt it?
@@julianciahaconsulting8663I wonder if it makes Paul pause in anyway that Here comes the sun is the first Beatle song to hit 1 billion listens on Spotify or whatever the record of listens is. ah, what could have been!
@@Anwelei Well i think it shown where the rift in the Beatles was - that being between John George and Ringo versus Paul...by the fact that those 3 continued to play together in various incarnations on each others' solo albums in the immediate wake of the split up but none of those 3 played on Paul's solo albums after the split or he on their solo albums.....that shows where the seismic fault line was at.....But hey we have to remember that these 4 guys were still in their 20s ..i know personally i didnt always act with the upmost sensitivity and maturity to every situation when i was in my 20s ....so overall i think all of them did pretty good in handing that pressure and the tensions of being in a group of 4 guys that much
@@julianciahaconsulting8663 john skipped the here comes the sun sessions and his part on something was wiped off the master so there is none of him on either of those songs. he didnt look out for george at all. this conversation edits out john flatly telling paul he isnt sure he wants george back
To my ear, Paul's and John's Liverpool accents are stronger in this conversation than in public. Perhaps The Beatles retained their native accents in private conversations between themselves and consciously or unconsciously turned it down when speaking to southerners and foreigners. Just a thought.
That’s very likely. My parents are Nigerian but my siblings and I were raised in the US. They sound totally American talking to us, but with other Nigerian family members, even when speaking English, their accents are very apparent (this also happens when they get mad)
Probably true, my parents have strong Northern Mexican accents in private, but when they speak to people they don't know they use more standard Spanish
When we are all very Old and we agree with each other, I think we will all sing together. I hope one day it is so, and George is right, that this is not the end...
My view on that was that as soon as George stood up for himself, John and Paul had a problem with it. It’s especially clear when Lennon said “Oh well, get me Claptons phone number. I’m sure he’s be glad to come in and replace him.” Lennon was as much of the problem but sat there and blamed it on Paul.
And John handles it expertly for such a young man in the days before emotional intelligence. Manages to be candid and gentle with Paul at the same time.
@@tricornclub9594 in that moment, perhaps… yet in those same sessions, when George brought in the excellent I Me Mine Lennon made fun of him and did not really participate in the recording. Life sure ain’t easy.
Thank you for this transcription. The Beatles always made songs with the tools at hand. When they had a new one, like a tape machine, a sitar, or a chord they'd just learned, they'd explore how to use it. In a clinical sense, the musicians themselves are tools with some attributes and not others. Paul is a great person and a genius, but I think he forgot this aspect. He needed to let George be himself and work with his talents. The Beatles, and all bands in my humble opinion, need to have an understanding within the group that if a song or idea doesn't fit with the band then it can be stored as a personal project and each member should be free to do solo or side-band work to explore those ideas. If this leads to storing the "good" ideas for themselves or a weakening of the bonds within the band then it was destined to happen anyway. The music business is a business and a job, but if you don't have job satisfaction then you have to look for another. Prioritizing people is the best way to keep a group happy and productive rather than unhappy and somewhat productive. I deeply respect Paul, but I think he forgot that bit for awhile. When he had a band with Linda he was prioritizing people and they had fun and created great songs. Critics savaged her, but who cares about them when you've already got all the money you need for the rest of your life? Just do your job as happily as you can and let the rest work itself out.
What I heard was a very reasonable and empathetic John who recognized the problem and even admitted he was just as guilty, while Paul was not quite ready to admit his part in the whole thing and did not want to believe the situation was as bad as it was.
Yes a fascinating relationship..they seemed closer than brothers, I remember an interview sometime after John’s death where yoko said she was struck by how john was affected by the breakdown of his and Paul’s friendship/partnership..akin to a marriage breakup as she put it.
Revisionist nonsense. Paul ended it when he left the group and sued the other members. And only because he was unable to wrestle control away from John. Before McCartney's acrimonious departure, they planned to continue working together.
They were born & grew up on the cusp of verbal repression and the new wave of psychological " letting in out & sharing your feelings. Tough going, especially for men. To this day I don't see the need to invent more communication devices - what we need is to learn how to communicate more honestly , effectively and clearly. I'm sorry that they couldn't include George in this conversation. Love the Fab 4 always ❤❤❤❤
John was always the boss, he formed the band, he was older, the others always looked up to him and always tried to please him since the days of Stuart. Paul would feel jealous of John's friendship with Stuart. Besides, John had a more dominant temperament. Paul, George and Ringo always kind of followed John. What happened around 1966 is not that Paul took John's role as leader but actually John decided to give that role to Paul himself. I've always read that around 1966 when John spoke too much and made the "Beatles bigger than Jesus" blunder (a big PC error back then with over conservative Christian American market) all the Beatles plus Brian Epstein, George Martin had a big meeting and a big argument erupted. John felt very accosted by everyone and got mad and said something to the effect of "I won't open my mouth anymore, from now on Paul is in charge I don't care anymore about The Beatles ". Also he and George were fed up with touring. However, there were contracts to fulfill. During the next couple of years John took a back seat, Paul became the de-facto leader "in absentia". John was happy to contribute his 4/5 songs per album and return to his empty suburban life and boring marriage where he stayed high on Marijuana and LSD the whole day for the next 2 years. When Brian Epstein died and John didn't give a crap in studio, Paul became even more dominant while John was lost in acid land. But after the flop of Magical Mystery Tour (Paul's project), plus John's disappointment in India and the start of his relationship with Yoko, John arrived in 1968 like wanting to take over again, apparently Yoko cajoled him a little, as a good pushing woman. John started to dismiss everything Paul did. The White Album and all of John's new artistic and political involvements was like the return of John as a dominant force, clashing with Paul who was used to boss everyone for more than 2 years. Unfortunately, John's new heroin addiction made him an unreliable co-boss. Sometimes involved and dominant, aggressive, violent at times and sometimes just as lost and indifferent as his days when he was hooked on acid.
Technically Ringo was about 3 months older than John, but in general, certainly John was the "boss." The rule they had was all four had vote yes on decisions or they would not do it. But that couldn't apply to how to play the guitar solo or drums or whatever.
Another thing that happened in 1966 was Paul wrote "Yesterday" and it became obvious that Paul didnt need them. That shifted the dynamic. John had no number ones after '66.
@@ChannelRandy From 67 to 69, John had 3 more #1s . But that ok for me. From 1962 to 1966, John dominated the first half of their carrier, having lots of #1s. The second half, he got into a more experimental, innovative side: Tomorrow Never Know, Strawberry Fields, I Am The Walrus, Lucy in The Sky, Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite, I Want You (She’s so heavy), Because, Across The Universe. Not a single one of those masterpieces was #1 but they were incredible songs. Not dissing Paul, of course. He was a genius too.
I'm all for privacy, but bugging that conversation was genius in hindsight. What gentleman even when upset they were. But imagine how disastrous this could of been !?
john and paul were at the table with mal yoko linda and neil. and ringo knew that michael llindsay hogg had mics in the lunch room cause he told him,. so how private this was? not so much. its possible that ringo had told the others that there were mics set up in twickenham or it could be they just didnt care at this point
I think I was aiming more for the fact that John never got to be old, as opposed to the sentiment that you've stated (which is a fair one). But yeah, that was my original point.
@@matthewhoward-white463 yeah, I got it, and exactly meant what I said. Paul 's still young soul, unfortunately not Jogn and George were that anymore: loving and caring
Not sure if this is mentioned anywhere in the comments, but Ringo, Yoko and Linda were all present for this conversation- it wasn't just Paul and John. Still, a very interesting exchange.
I wonder if Paul was a lonely man. But you know, John gave him the reins. Paul had huge shoes to fill. It's a shame Paul pretty much seemed alone. When you watched him working on Get Back and Let It Be, Ringo was commenting, "Paul is so good." I honestly think they were all brothers, but to be honest, Paul was trying to save the Beatles while John was wanting out anyway and George did, too. I felt sorry for Paul. If Allan Klein had never been brought in, the Beatles might've stayed together.
John gave Paul a choice: John, Paul and George 4 songs each on future albums. Paul rejected the proposal. End of the Beatles. John tried but knew Paul was impossible at that moment
In 1967 John went to New York, where a reporter asked him about his future plans with the Beatles. He responded : "I don't know, but I can not see myself in the group at 30." After working on the last song "The End", John said to the group : "I'm leaving." He left the studio with Yoko Ono, & never came back. He was one month away from his 29th birthday.
@@shinyoneincarnate5565 Thanks for that info. I remember John wanting a divorce. Maybe just for a few years and who knows, get together just to make an album.
@@jamesh.5765 Paul was extremely big-headed and NEVER respected George as a songwriter. Paul didn’t Trust George would write 4 good songs, he thought Maxwell’s Silver Hammer was better. Paul and George had the real feud in the Beatles, that was Never Going to work anymore and John was caught in that mess, sometimes putting out the fire and sometimes stoking it
From the title and the "the producers placed a hidden microphone in a flower pot" message I thought for sure this was gonna be a parody, so I was pleasently surprised to find out it was not.
If there manager Brian epstine do not die in 1967 they would of stayed together alot longer. Their manager always told them that the were THE BEATLES and they were all for one and one for all. John even said that they collapsed after their manager died.
I've always been surprised that Ringo went with George and John with Allen Klein etc. I would have thought he would have sided with Paul. I guess it had to do with trying to keep the band together instead of who's right and who's wrong.
No, Ringo liked Klein from the beginning because John described him as a hustler who would work for them. You can hear this in Get Back along with Glyn basically telling them to steer clear. With the logic being that everyone in the music industry is a hustler so Klein's terrible reputation was a plus. It's also possible that Ringo didn't realize how compromised John's judgment had become (he'd been right about Brian Epstein) and Klein is genuinely very charming, the thing that attracted John to him was the promise of being looked after and Klein's childhood abandonment. Ringo like John might have been very sympathetic to this as he had been abandoned by his father, Klein had the benefit to them as acting as a protective father figure during a stressful time for them. The Beatles were genuinely blindsided by Paul dissolving the group rather than accepting Klein, they thought he would reluctantly accept in time. It was also commonly felt around Apple that he and Linda weren't going to last long, Klein's narrative was that she and her family were controlling Paul, John at least was very receptive of this and its reasonable to believe that if they split up the Eastman's would no longer be his lawyers. Ringo and Klein had a very good relationship and arguably Klein was very supportive and helpful to Ringo's post Beatle career, but he genuinely loved Paul and felt sad about what had happened. Paul was incredibly difficult for them to contact through most of the time Klein was their manager, this may have contributed to feelings that the Eastman's were actually behind Paul's actions. Ringo, despite being friends with Klein went out of his way to repair things with Paul and spoke to an interviewer very emotionally about how much it meant to him. It is possible that he is the only Beatle who managed this. A year or two later they realized that Klein was lying to them and he stole money. According to Paul, he only got an apology over ten years later, if it was John's fault George and Ringo wouldn't have had issues apologizing.
Huh? Ringo found Paul as insufferable as anyone. He couldn't stand the way Paul would act with how Ringo played drums. Every musician who ever worked with Paul couldn't stand working with Paul. Ringo wrote Back Off Boogaloo telling Paul to get lost.
i would have loved to have heard the conversation after abbey Road came out and John and Paul realized, George Writes songs as good as ours now and he is doing it by himself. Something and Here comes the Sun, were argueably the top 2 songs on that Album, If memory serves me well, Here Comes the Sun was all over the Radio, almost immediately used in tv commerical ads. I won't touch Something, it is as big as Yesterday. I was waiting for Yoko with that dead look on her face to just say Another Lover, she would have gotten co writing with george. LOL. One thing this NEW film shows Yoko DID NOT break up the BEATLES.
If they had included George as a co writer, they would have produced far better songs... they never realized or maybe didn't want to realize George's ability as a songwriter. George wanted to contribute, he never wanted to be a front man. Paul and John were afraid of losing control and power. That was a huge problem that led to their breakup...
Sinatra said Something was the greatest song the Beatles ever wrote. And Something and Here Comes the Sun are still huge today which can't be said of many Lennon/McCartney compositions.
"And probably when we're all very old we'll agree with each other and we'll all sing together " such a somehow sad line that Paul said, especially when you know what happens to John and George.
wtf spoilers😡
@@McDoinky to be fair. I never read comments till I"ve watched the video.
Paul seems prophetic in his words. Love them so much.
@@simeonjrmendoza374 Very true. I think, Paul was always a mixture of a guy who acted his own age, plus a wise old soul. Maybe that's why he liked, "Granny music" as John once called his tastes.
Paul, was capable of these moments of deep clarity and wisdom that looking back, are kind of mind blowing. Example: In the movie, Get Back, Paul is talking about the false perception that Yoko's presence was somehow the cause of the problems that the Beatles were experiencing:
Paul: "It's going to be the most comical thing in 50 years time, "They broke up because Yoko sat on an amp". Paul knew that outsiders would not understand the multiple issues that lead to the break up of the Beatles and that the public would ultimately look for someone to blame.
Paul was absolutely right. Today, many people still blame Yoko and others blame Paul. I'm surprised to read comments from people who have seen the film, Get Back and they still don't understand that there were many ongoing issues that took years to develop within the band, which caused them to break up. Most of the problems are clearly spelled out in the film, but they're not all in one place for easy digestion. They're sprinkled throughout this very long film and if you're not paying very close attention, it would be easy to latch on to one or two of those issues and ignore all the others.
Paul is a very wise man. He knew that fans would love the easy, most dramatic answers to the question, "Why did The Beatles break up?"
what happens to John and George?
Their self-awareness, maturity and emotional intelligence was incredible
And their reluctance to actually do anything to improve the dynamic with George is why they were never going to reunite.
@@crankfastle8138 I don't know about that. You'll be surprised what age can accomplish on people's ego. It comes a point in which the only thing that matter are the memories and the people around it. Screw everything else. I'd like to think that if John wasn't murdered, they've might come together once or twice for a side project or two.
George's cancer however was a real stopper even if John had survived though. The ideal period for their reunion would be between 2000 and 2014. And George didn't live that far. So it simply wasn't meant to be, sadly.
Nobody ever gives them any credit for it.
@@crankfastle8138 The problem couldn't be solved. They say so in this dialogue. They're right, and they should know.
@@crankfastle8138 'Dynamic' is a very vague and general word. Nothing they could have done would have made all three--or four--happy, songwriting-wise.
The great thing about this conversation is their not speaking mean or putting George down you could tell they respected him as a musician and brother
I liked that too-- the tone was very positive about George, and they even said he was right.
That was the least John and Paul could do after George and Ringo had to put up with all their tremendous egos all those years.
@@deerobinson557 They earned those egos and George and Ringo never offered to return any of the cash those guys got them.
@@ChannelRandy Was it about "the cash"? I didn't hear anything about money in that short clip: is there more that I haven't found on RUclips?
@@ChannelRandy you sound dumb. George was with them from 1958, working hard *alongside* John and Paul
The honesty in their conversation shows that John and Paul had a real understanding of each other and that’s why they complimented each other so well. These men were cosmically linked as brothers even if not biologically. People say that magic isn’t real, but these two were absolutely magical. There will never be a duo that matches John Lennon and Paul McCartney.
Absolutely agree!
Just a crazy human can't agree on that. Clap-clap-clap!!
Did you even listen to the tape? There was hardly ANY straight talk in this conversation. John trying to tell Paul to get off George's back in as diplomatic a way as possible. Paul resisting his request in as slippery a way as possible.
@@Kermit_T_FrogNo, Lennon isn’t putting it all on McCartney at all, he’s acknowledging they’re both responsible for what happens.
@@joanne1114 Once again, John gets punished for being self critical. It is JOHN who argues that they BOTH need to allow George to contribute more if they are to keep him engaged. A compromise he is willing to make in order to keep the band together. It was PAUL who rejected the idea. What could be more obvious?
It's nice that with a hidden microphone they are saying such nice things about George. Sad George didn't hear this.
I was just thinking, it is strange that all of us have heard it, yet George never will
@@liamiliffe7153 Perhaps in heaven he can.
@@DrTomoculusI think they meant that it’s better to assert themselves initially, but accept pushback for a change
@@DrTomoculusyeah, the irony of their self awareness and yet reluctance to really change the dynamic.
@@crankfastle8138 I'll give Lennon credit for wanting to make concessions, but it's very clear that McCartney wants to make NONE.
This is an absolute classic. A honest conversation between arguably the two most talented and important men in the history of Rock N Roll songwriting.
Yes. Don’t you love it!
Paul was the selfish dick here. And he has the gall to blame John to this day for breaking up the Beatles because he wouldn’t tolerate Paul’s megalomania. I suppose John becoming a heroin addict after getting hooked by witch cunt Yoko (same as Courtney did with Kurt) really was the true underlying problem because it seemed to degrade John’s ability to lead, which he did far more gracefully than the mildly narcissistic egomaniac Paul became after getting power by default due to John’s state (you can see when opioid addiction sets in if you’ve had experience with it, it’s quite subtle initially and hard to distinguish from natural change but it was very clear here and it’d really set by summer 1968 for John, you could see it in Kurt similarly by summer ‘93). I do find it funny how Paul’s shit in the ‘70s and ‘80s was largely cringe as fuck with a couple half exceptions whereas John and George did great stuff. You can tell Paul was relishing finally being the alpha here after having always been relegated to as he put it “second boss” behind the purest genius in John, and now Paul had even further ambitions of his own rising above the Beatles (imagine the gall). I say all this saying I love Paul’s music (well his Beatles stuff at least, and a little of his post-Beatles stuff, that Dance Around Tonight song was really good from 2009 or so), and I think he’s a very cool dude all things considered. But he’s no John. George at his best even topped Paul arguably, but Paul was way more reliably and consistently good and more talented overall. Ringo was great for his part, a sort of good third party guy to remind everyone of how petty they were being at times, despite his voice not quite carrying as much weight. It’s funny I seen a good bit of myself in each of them, less Ringo maybe. When I was younger I was more like Paul, for a while I became more like George (and some would argue still am lol) but I’d like to be more like John (minus the crushing opioid addiction and conniving cunt wife lol). But hopefully I live as long in good health as Paul lol, and am as lovable as Ringo.
Behind the scenes, yes. But I can't imagine a less honest conversation. John being diplomatic. Paul being dismissive. Neither addressing the problem. Namely, Paul's overgrown ego and his need to control the creative process.
@@Kermit_T_Frogit’s more complicated than that..like Ringo once said ‘without Paul calling them up and his energy and enthusiasm and controlling nature they wouldn’t have recorded half of what they did..he was the most driven Beatle and the most musically talented..on the early stuff Lennon was every bit as driven but the last two albums Paul was in the driving seat and it must have grated on the others..
@@shawnbingley5433 Not only the most work driven, but from the beginning, the ingeneers and stuff saw that he was the defacto musical director, even if they always went with the best idea. At some point, clash of individual interests is inevitable.
It’s crazy how polite they are. Even when John is essentially calling Paul a control freak.
It's the British way
Control freak or perfectionist? Paul would have a vision and wanted the guys to see and follow it. His weakness was allowing others to add or reject pieces of his vision. Control freak sounds very harsh imo.
@@bedford4383
Both overlap to a degree.
@@bedford4383 I don’t think you know much about the Beatles at this point in their career.
@@patton303 Yes i do mate. Thank for being condescending though.
The best thing about this is the dialect. They aren't speaking for anyone in the world but themselves, and this is how they really spoke with each other.
‘Y’know’ … both John and Paul said that non-stop.
@@bigman25plus25 so what
however, let us assume that we are only hearing this because it wasn't censored by the fab and the fab team.
"And probably when we're all very old we'll all agree with each other and we'll all sing together." This makes me so sad. I think everyone would've wanted that but unfortunately it never happened.
George and Paul, you'll be happy to hear, rekindled their friendship to an incredible degree. "We're always going to the other's place for dinner," George quipped in the 90's. Good to hear.
Well, Now and Then; it happens. Sad it wasn't face to face.
This is the most honest real assessment of what the Beatles felt about working together, that has ever been made public. They never said this exact stuff in public in any other context, not this succinctly. This is John and Paul having a REAL honest, calm confrontation about the band and who is boss and that stuff. THIS is the best Beatles release of any kind, since 1970. THIS really is new. We might have all "sort of " known this is how it was, but here they are saying it to each other, candidly. Amazing.
And the only way we got to hear it was because someone taped them when they didn’t know it.🙃
@@gretchennelson7056kinda like anything worth knowing in life, you gotta record someone without their knowledge
its not that candid. linda yoko mal evans and neil are all there sitting with them, they have just been edited out. peter jackson did several slight of hand turns like this in the film to present things as if they happened in a way they didnt.
@@bedfordsimon8What bullshit are you talking about? It was Peter Jackson who hid the lavalier microphone in the flower pot in the cafeteria where the Beatles had asked that no cameras or microphones enter.
John is pretty perceptive and articulate in the realm of human feelings. I don’t know why this kind of surprised me. I think later decades were more versed in this because of talk shows and psychology magazines. He could also be pretty acerbic and all the rest. But in this film, he’s actually very laid back with fits of comedy to break the monotony ...attributes that I love.
It's hard to put this together with the raving in Rolling Stone the next year...but I think this is much more the real him. The real Paul, too. But John in particular was several different people, especially around this time, and I'll bet he'd agree with that statement.
@@SurferJoe1 he was a complex boy. You can hear that in his music.
I always saw John as the narcissist but here I can hear an honest, warm, and empathetic John, I can't believe how nice and understanding he was to George and how he gave feedback to Paul without hurting anybody... I really changed with Yoko.
was, RIP Lennon
Wow, this was an eye opener for me too..
So happy to have heard John speak so candidly and honestly
Greatest thing I got out of this was they NEVER minimized George’s cintributions
I'm just impressed that as men they were able to have such a calm and reasonable conversation, and talk about their problems clearly. Puts my family and community to shame, especially considering this conversation happened 50 years ago!
what makes you think we have better comunication and understanding than 50 years ago??
I think not only The Beatles, but lots of familys had a way better comunication and understanding 50 years ago...
just because we have tik-tok don't make us "special"
besides it's obvious how society is way worse than 50 years ago... in every way
@@carlostejada1479 Did you not read my comment? Or do you need help with context?
The irony being that they seemed to be so self aware of their behaviour but also seemed to be ok with the continued dynamic if George came back.
It's very British.
But, you're right. Puts my family and community to shame. I live by chance (for now) in an area in the states viewed as among the last friendly and most insincere in the world, LOL. Really.
@@crankfastle8138 Hey, what you gonna do? The only alternative is dissolving The Beatles, or replacing George. That was the point of it all!
"When we're all very old we'll all agree with each other and we'll all sing together..."
:(
Ouch
Very sad. I'm sure it would have happened.
If John had lived, that would've happened.
;_;
Don't worry, they indirectly sing together, four of them, in free as a bird and real love
This is a really surprising conversation between two guys who were young, rich, famous, and had no immediate reason to be kind or mature about their personal relationships. I'm actually really stunned by the maturity, humility, and honesty they had with one another.
Particularly in the context of how high they were much of the time. To be this clear-headed.
Not that young - almost 30.
This conversation is quite the most honest and probably the saddest one of the whole Get Back documentary. Cause they both admit they're mistreating George and they are truly sorry for it, but afterwards, they won't give him no bandage for his wounds. At this time, the Beatles are near 30, they have their wives and families, their own interests, their private bussines. They are no more and won't be no more further, four parts of a one, as they were at 20. Which is simply in the natural order of things, but at the same time awfully sad, for those of us who loved them togheter..
paul was 26 at the time , george 25 , so not all that near 30
But George is a grown man. Suck it up, and stop whining!
@@bedfordsimon8 Paul was 27 and I think that John was 29
@@ocromiun paul was 26 george was 25 again so not 30 at all. this was filmed in early jan 1969 so you are adding a few months to paul whos birthday is in june and almost a year to john whos birthday isnt til october. but other than getting everything wrong great post!
Very touching revelation of identity and power issues that all teams face. Their love for each other is so obvious. The lesson here is that nothing in life is forever, and I would hate to be the last surviving Beatle, thank you and God Bless to Ringo and Paul, you are a special gift from God to the world.
There is one more ex Beatle still alive and kicking...I'd bet he is gonna do some standards material with the Beatle that originally wanted him out
Sad STUART SUTCLIFFE wasn't around very long He played an important role at the start His sisters book is a real eye opener THE BEATLES SHADOW
@@paulj6138 And, he knew how to have a good time.
@@radomirratkovic9014 Oh please you're not talking about Pete Best
@@Wheresthelove7 Yes I do talk about him ..They could do the one standard rock n roll record wth all the covers wth Macca playing guitar and Klaus Vorman on the bass,Ringo Starr on the piano and Pete Best on the drums and get all the charitable proceedings to go for Ukrainian orphans ...That would be very beneficial to their Karna..
John is so perceptive, thoughtful, and honest. He knew exactly what the problems were and was willing to bend and Paul is a good guy at heart but is such a perfectionist when it comes any song HE writes and he wants it the way he wants... And George had to take a backseat to both of them all those years... It's a fascinating conversation although I do not agree with the decision to basically " wiretap" these guys without their knowledge. They should be able to have a private conversation between 2 people who love each other. And they both obviously loved George as well. All of them knew each other better than anyone and the respect between them is obvious.
I don't agree with the decision to "wiretap" either, but I'm glad they did!
Ehh, it was a film they agreed to and they had cameras and recording devises everywhere for the film
@@thedogwoods5716 it was recorded secretly in the canteen where there were no camera equipment or microphones on show and they naturally assumed that they could have a break and talk candidly.
A control freak is not the same thing as a perfectionist.
I'm with you on the "wiretap". However, I'm still thankful it was done because it gives us insight into the inner workings of the band that we could only speculate about otherwise. We get to hear their real and unsanitized thoughts.
It's the pain siblings feel when they actually love each other and are treated differently in their environments. This conversation really proves that they all tried to compromise, and that the eventual breakup wasn't just "i hate you" or "i hate the way we do this". It was out of respect for not beating a dead horse.
PRECISELY. The most perceptive comment on here. I truly think a lot of John's "going nuts" with Yoko (though I believe Yoko was a poor choice, LOL) was John sabotaging the image of the Beatles so create a framework where they could end the band before it descended into parody.
What is obvious is that they loved and respected each other even though they fought for their own expression.
John is profoundly concerned about the emotional impact the whole thing has taken on all of them and even if he is being direct about what makes him uncomfortable, he is not mean or disrespectful to Paul at all, and even agrees he himself has been a part of the problem. Paul is also concerned about that but his main focus as a band member is to make real good music and just feels like George wasn't doing it to his full potential, basically like "ok, do it your way, I know you have it in you but please put some effort in!", which made him want to push harder and that resulted in George walking away, because George was just basically burnt out at that stage.
This is a beautiful conversation. The amount of respect, honestly and admiration between these two is remarkable.
Wow! What a forced narrative! Paul wouldn't accept George's contributions out of "concern" that George wasn't reaching his full potential!? And you miss John's entire message. That they both weren't giving George his due. That Paul was letting his ego GET IN THE WAY of making good music. Something that John admits he was sometimes guilty of himself. This episode was nothing other than John, as diplomatically as possible, trying to get Paul to let up on George with him nodding along but paying no heed.
No, Paul's issue wasn't that he didn't think George was working hard enough. In fact, Paul was complaining that he didn't want George to come up with ideas for Paul's song. Paul wanted George to sit there and do nothing and then play exactly what Paul wanted him to. Every musician that has worked with Paul has had the exact same issues so it is clear where the problem lies. Paul feels he knows best and he doesn't like it when other musicians have their own ideas. Contrary to what Paul believes, he is not always right which is clear when you compare is solo work to his Beatles' work. Paul's music is better when others help him. Paul seems to refuse to believe this and feels he is better than everyone else. He only seems to want to listen to his sycophants which unfortunately isn't unusual among successful artists. Paul should have been happy with Harrison saying how he wanted to feel like he was part of the song even though he didn't write it. That is why George contributed so many great guitar parts, suggestions and even lyrics to many Lennon/McCartney songs even though he was never going to get any credit. He added more to their songs than John and Paul would ever contribute to his.
@@stickman1742 That is pretty much right on. I take it that you mean that George was more willing to help out on Lennon/McCartney songs than they were in returning the favor. Obviously true.
@@Kermit_T_Frog EXACTLY
@@stickman1742I find it amazing how many huge Paul fans will do the most amazing mental gymnastics when trying to alleviate Paul of any blame when it comes to the breakup of the Beatles. They always blame George, neglecting to mention that the reason George wanted out was Paul's stifling control issues. He even said later in the 70s that he would joing a band with John Lennon again any day, but couldn't see ever being in a band with Paul again. In 94 for the anthology sessions George commented dryly "It feels like recording with the Beatles again." All those years later and Paul was still difficult to work with.
The last thing Paul said absolutely destroyed my heart.
I break down in tears every time I listen to it.😥💔
George had a great idea which he discussed with John and Yoko: so many songs stockpiled that he was thinking about doing solo albums. And both John and Yoko told him it was a GREAT idea and encouraged him.
Had he done that, maybe The Beatles would have taken a break and, get back to where they once belonged.
I heard a couple of guys from 10cc talk about that. They said there is this "nothern" thing where its "all for one and one for all" and solo albums to them meant the group was over.
@@ChannelRandy interesting. I'm just reminded that George and Paul did quite a bit of producing other bands with Apple. And, George was really absorbed in Indian classical music well into 1967 and beyond. AND, he did the soundtrack for the Wonderwall film in '67(?) It seems they all felt they didn't want to be Beatles anymore, permanently. They were in each other's lives too much for their liking I guess.
Yoko was up to support any way to weaken the Beatles as a group. She secretly wanted to be John’s partner and use his influence to up-level her art.
@@desoxido yoko ono was performing with John Cage at Carnegie Hall when John was still in Hamburg. She was one of the funders of the Fluxus movement. She didn't need John for art cred.
@@ChannelRandy you sure? Ok. Name one piece of art by Yoko Ono different than the ladder with the magnifying glass attached and the word “yes” written on the ceiling. That’s right, you can’t. We all know Yoko just because she was Lennon’s wife.
I always saw John as the narcissist but here I can hear an honest, warm, and empathetic John, I can't believe how nice and understanding he was to George and how he gave feedback to Paul without anybody... I really changed with Yoko.
John was a good dude, he had problems but he was trying his best.
@@hotfroganimations I don't think he was trying his best when he spent the 70s trying to destroy Paul's reputation over ... well pretty much nothing.
@@SAK1855 he did what he did, yes. I defy anyone to be a perfect human being when your mum is killed by a drunk off duty policeman - and you're thrust into not only the biggest band in the world, but the first biggest band in the world. Dealing with the egos of 2 others (Ringo doesn't count) in long proximity for years of touring and being screamed at. The drugs take their toll, etc etc etc
But you look at Lennon in 1980, he was getting clean, yeah he fucked up with Julian but he was trying for Sean, and it's clear he hadn't ruled out a Beatles reunion.
@@hotfroganimations I don't think a somewhat tough childhood absolves someone of responsibility to have some semblance of decency. Why defend him?
@@SAK1855 because so many worse people are being paraded around as heroes these days....
What most people don't understand, unless they've spent most of their lives in bands (like I have), is the incredible difficulties in navigating relationships between multiple artists and creative types, who tend to be a bit on the sensitive and maybe even selfish side; and trying to keep everyone together, focussed on the same goals, all the while allowing everyone to have their say, and have their input equally valued and utilized.
It's a truly Herculean and almost impossible task, and usually needs a very smart and sensitive outsider like George Martin, as the 'obstetric' deliverer and organizer of all these disparate personas, integrating them into a whole that is greater than the sum of the individual parts.
Now chew on that lot for a minute or two... ;)
Well said!
It was Epstein who kept them together and organized them, not Martin,
The other thing is whether it's writing music or directing a movie or writing a script there is the creator or person in charge. They have a vision. They can see it, hear it, experience it all in their head and want to share it. But as you share it others see different possibilities, directions and interpretations. In a collective process people can be a bit more open, but not always. People can be possessive and rigid when it comes to "their baby". Imagine Mozart playing a song to another composer and asking what would you do differently? How would you make my creation better? Writers often grieve when their books are made into movies because their words get changed. Some directors keep all the actors anchored to the scripts dialog, others let actors Ad-lib and contribute. Music is tougher, in my opinion, because you can hear it perfectly in your head but you can't just plug a speaker cable into your ear so others can "hear it" the way you think it should be.
Ego does play a part as well. You create something and somebody says "I think that's ok, but it would be much better like this......" They may not say it that way, but that's what you might hear.
Geniuses are often strung pretty tight. They all don't necessarily play well with others. Lol
These were young men (in the grand scheme) with enormous pressure to be 'The Beatles'. But you can tell that the truly loved each other. All of them. It wasn't like "well let's just get another session player". No it wasn't like that at all. John and Paul put their egos on hold for a bit and said "What about George?". I have always been impressed with how cohesive they were for so long. Sure the Rolling Stones were a continuum, but this was John and Paul worrying about their dear friend feelings.
You didn't see much of this in the new "Get Back" movie. What you saw was a very HARD working band. I'll bet they rehearsed some of those songs a hundred times because THAT is what the Beatles were. A hard working studio band. THAT was their life. They dedicated everything into those songs and that's why their music was so good. They were SO TIGHT that they could read each other's thoughts. George Martin said once that when all four Beatles were in the room together there was this incredible "Aura", a "presence" that you couldn't quite explain ..."you could feel it and that never went away all the years I was with them."
Greater than the sum of their parts, ,a case of 1+1+1+1 = infinity
@@andrewashdown3541 Like a bunch of parts in a junk yard being blown together by the wind into a Rolls Royce - pure spirit and magic.
On the second watch-through of “Get Back,” this whole conversation got me so choked up.
I'm surprised that John said he was sometimes intimidated by Paul. And then, later, Paul cuts John off, saying, "No, listen. Listen."
All they had to do was announce they were taking an indefinite break, so they could get some time away from each other and pursue some solo projects. After a couple solo albums each. they might have said, "Hey, let's Beatle again!"
I was surprised he said he was afraid of Paul, but I guess he meant that around Pepper, Lennon had been away with a new wife and kid while Paul was working on his ideas for an album. Then he finds Paul controlling things and Lennon felt kind of out of it so for the first time he probably felt he had to take a backseat. He clearly didn't like it and spent that last couple of years battling with Paul over seemingly everything. He said at the time he had no interest in being in Paul's backing band. It would have to be more equal or it would be over.
This conversation was probably recorded in January 1969 when Paul McCartney was 26, John Lennon 28, Ringo Starr 28 and George Harrison 25. 25!!!. They'd been working like dogs all the way through their twenties and produced 11 albums. Let It Be was the 12th and the last. They were extraordinary.
Actually, Abbey Road followed Let It Be. Let It Be was released after Abbey Road, but the creation of the album came after the Let It Be/Get Back sessions which were concluded in Feb 1969. Abbey Road was finished about 4 months later after they all returned to the studio. The begged George Martin to produce the album but Martin told them only if we make the album like we did in the "old days".
..and in 2023 they did indeed all get to sing together for one last time
ish ♡
Yes!!!
Although John and Paul were the main two players they knew without George they couldn’t continue as a band.
That's why they didn't continue after George had left... George clearly told them to hire someone else but they knew they couldn't...
Paul is sincerely listening to John who is being very honest about the issues.
That may be true but Paul's responses are brief and mumbled because Paul cannot change. That's the truth of the matter and he knows it. And that doesn't make Paul a bad guy....he was a musical powerhouse at the time and frankly, George's skills did not really progress with the times. I love the Beatles beyond words but I have accepted that George was their weakest link.
@@mangomonkey6938this may be true but also George is not only uninterested as a beatle, but as a beatle lead guitarist. His songs didn’t require him playing lead guitar chords timely for someone else and it brought him down to a role where Paul or John could play his parts. He was just distanced from where they were at musically most of the time.
@@mangomonkey6938 Billy (Paul #2) stifled George's guitar playing and input. George showed them when he released: All Things must Pass.
@@devinjerry2780
No arguments there
@@chrisnolan5607Yawn
I've always felt that this was the real John Lennon. You know, the one that George, Paul, and Ringo loved.
"And probably when we're all very old we'll all agree with each other and we'll all sing together." Fucking hurt man
Paul should have agreed with John to make an entire album of George's best songs with John and Paul acting purely as backing musicians and vocalists. In my view, the best songs on All Things Must Pass should have been a Beatles album.
Do you think they would have had more longevity if they had done that?
But that's not the point at all. J&P were insanely commercially successful. Thousands of people' jobs directly depended on J&P's hit songs. The Beatles literally turned around the British economy because of the success o f J&P's songs. The entire film, the entire Beatles circus, happened because of the commercial success of J&P's songs. It's very naive to say George's songs weren't taken seriously because of creative unfairness.
@@loosilu I disagree.
Paul didn't know that George want to release an album with just his songs, that convo was just between John and George, read it somewhere that Peter Jackson showed Paul that clip and he had no idea, seems like John and George were always the one communicating the most.
@@loosilu Just . . . disagree so much.
On one hand, it's just two British dudes working out what the problem is with their band. On the other, it's a critical moment in history where the future of popular music hung in the balance. Fascinating. I've done some reading to see what all the fuss was about the Beatles, and to try and pin down why their story went separate ways. Actually hearing their voices as they try to make sense of it speaks volumes.
its mindblowing too if one can remember just how young they were having this conversation and what they had went thru to get to this point
I actually found this very sad and moving. There's a tendency to side with one or the other in terms of talent / blame etc but this makes you realise they were both just young men dealing with a LOT who were trying desperately in their own quiet, respectful way to be fair. There's a sort of quiet, tacit acknowledgement from both that its coming to an end too, which is so sad.
This is the only one of it's kind! A private, in depth conversation between L&M not staged for the media, not all jolly and entertainment oriented.
I like how these two speak to each other they are good friends. Paul always acknowledged the John has been the boss I see when they compose together they look at each others eyes and know exactly what the other feels and wants. I think the problem is that Paul was growing faster than the other two as a composer and musically but John understood what Paul wanted musically and vocally I think George could not play what Paul wanted as the lead guitar and that's why George said "you need Clapton". It interesting that they do not put down George and are faulting themselves for George getting upset and leaving the group. I see much love among these 4 people and they really were brothers
You didn't hear a word of what John said, did you? Let me translate. By "you've suddenly got it all," Lennon meant that Paul suddenly got to where he wouldn't accept ideas that weren't his own. By "I've let you do what you want and George too," he was hinting that in order to keep George engaged that they needed to compromise. But you just accept Paul's insufferably insulting contention that George didn't play what he wanted him to play because he WASN'T CAPABLE. Not only insulting, but plain WRONG. George was the SUPERIOR guitarist.
'Paul was growing faster than the other two as a composer'??? In what way was Paul growing faster as a composer? Paul is a master at the easy-listening tunes. The only trouble is, he lacked any sense of experimentation. Most of his solo/Wings works are formulaic and predictable. At least John and George were more experimental when creating the music that accompanied their solo tunes.
Paul was lost when the group split up and suffered a great degree of depression for about a year. He didn't just want to be in a band, he wanted to be in the greatest band in the world. His solo output was possibly the weakest of all four Beatles. I owned a few of his solo and Wings albums, and I also bought his 'All The Best' in 1987 and only then did I realise how turgid his none-Beatle output was. I could never listen to any of his albums all the way through.
George is an overrated guitarist he had technical limitabilities and struggled with repeat without mistakes he was obviously creative as a writer and guitar player, but if Paul is writing guitar parts and wanting something specific he could probably do that easier himself or with a session player therefore you can understand why he'd get frustrated with George@@Kermit_T_Frog
"Paul lacks experimentation, his solo/wings music is formulaic and predictable" I've never heard such nonsense in my life@@KebabMusicLtd
@@flemit35 None of the Beatles were great instrumentalists. They never put in the work to reach the level of some of the more dedicated performers. But that doesn't mean they weren't great musicians. Meaning, there was music in their instrumentals. Technically accomplished instrumentalists usually are automatrons.
John’s really good at talking it through and getting his point across
Fascinating content! But I'm also fascinated by how "scousy" their accent gets when they think its just them in the room.
Yeah! They sound really different! Being American, I'm used to hearing them in interviews or their early movies etc.
It's like they have a totally different sound and accent in the Get Back doc.
What they’re saying to each other is reminiscent of how Ringo described the situation in the band during the White Album: he went to each of his bandmates to tell them he felt he was the odd man out, only for each to respond “I thought it was you three!”
As brothers grow and change and forge their own paths, they become less comfortable about speaking openly with each other, filling the void in information with their own assumptions about the others’ mindsets and motives.
Both men instinctively see the other as the de facto leader of the band for altogether different reasons. It’s interesting how Lennon, despite having taken an obvious backseat to McCartney in terms of direct leadership of the band, still commands McCartney’s total respect and deference with almost no effort. He may not be in the driver’s seat anymore, but McCartney still looks up to him, despite the fact that his ambition and work ethic far outweigh Lennon’s.
John seems to look up to Paul, actually. In Get Back, he was constantly looking to Paul for approval of his ideas. At that point in time, Paul is on fire creatively, and John is falling deeper into depression and addiction. I got the impression that John was resentful, but also begrudgingly admiring.
Oh man, I could listen to them forfuckingever! I just adore listening to them simply talking to each other.❤️🥰
Even discussing their egoic differences you can hear the tight bond. Trying their best to work through their rivalries and touchy feelings. John was very perceptive about human feelings and able to articulate them. Incredible command of the English language.
My take: Paul defers to John's leadership in matters of the band while wanting to maintain control over the production of his own compositions. John also wants the same but has sacrificed this on many occasions for the good of the interpersonal relationships in the band. Paul is a perfectionist with the skill to see his vision through but by dragging George along musically like a studio musician. The three songwriting Beatles also seemed to mature in their songwriting craft at different points. Paul was still flowering musically as John was perhaps reenergizing... just as George's writing skills were just beginning to flower..
A control freak is not the same thing as a perfectionist.
Are you saying McCartney was a control freak?
@@JuannyBoy2023 Isn't it obvious? Both of his wives said as much. HIs first one in private. His 2nd one at their divorce hearing. Want a quote?
I don’t know man. I don’t really think I’m in a position to psychoanalyze Paul McCartney, who I have never met and can’t read his mind. But I think what my post was, was having some empathy for him, being a perfectionist, and an artist, but yet having to share the responsibility with other artists he cared deeply about…must’ve been really difficult for him. I can give him a break for wanting to control his art. Both Lennon & McCartney were notorious for having giant egos. I also picked up from the Get Back documentary that George seems really very young, and very insecure. I mean, he has it in his head that he should be like Clapton‘s, which in my mind, represents a very big misunderstanding about what his perception of himself was for the Beatles. It must’ve been a real burden for him.
@@JuannyBoy2023 You don't have to read McCartney's mind. All you should need for a read is 5 minutes of him in an interview. And Lennon was NOT a narcissist. If anything, he had an overactive conscience. Was overly critical of himself. That is not the way a narcissist operates. Lennon blamed himself for everything. Usually he deserved it, but there were times he didn't.
That's sad. "And when we're all very old..." John and George didn't get to be very old. And John has now been dead longer than he's been alive.
There's absolutely no way in hell this was the only thing ever recorded secretly in that room. I want to hear and see it all!
its not secret, linda yoko mal and neil were all there. the conversation is 30 minutes long and goes very differently than these edits suggest. you can find transcripts of most of it online.
"Hey Paul, let's get rid of Clarence and steal all of his good ideas."
Yes please more
@@bedfordsimon8differently how
@@Sentientmatter8 john states outright he doesnt think he wants george back, the two of them go on at length about other topics. its been edited as if its paul and john having a private conversation but it itsnt. ringo is there. mal is there. neil is there. llinda and yoko are there its just been edited so only paul and johns exchanges are there and those have been hand picked to follow a narrative thats not real.... its like the "then there were two " joke scene all over again
I think towards the end Paul especially heard every arrangement of his songs in his head and he had a hard time both explaining and sharing this, this is a cross you have to bear when your a musical genius. He was forever composing with new songs flooding through constantly. Sad how they ended but they never truly stopped loving and supporting each other. I wish, maybe, they could've agreed to take a sabbatical and then returned 5, 10 years later they were in their mid to late twenties when they split. Oh well we can all wish.Still miss John and George to this day.
He may have heard arrangements in his head, like every composer, but that doesn't mean his ideas were the best, especially in the end (in 1969), when George was in his peak. "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and "Oh! Darling" are probably the worst songs on Abbey Road. The album would have been stronger with George's or John's songs instead.
Paul: "The main thing is, you've always been boss."
Paul is right. John was the Boss of Rock. Not Jagger. Not Richard's. Not Springsteen. Not Townshend. Or Gilmour. Or anybody. It was Lennon. Always will be Lennon.
Typical for McCartney to make this about control. The "main thing" is NOT that John was boss. but that with John as boss, the Beatles were a UNIT. They ALL contributed. And that is what made them great.
Воистину! 💯💥
Nope! He was just the loudest and most insistent. From the very beginning, the other three waited for Paul's approval of things. That's just the way it is.
You obviously do not know Beatles history if you think Paul was in control from the very beginning. It was Lennon-McCartney. Not McCartney-Lennon. John had his own mike on stage. Paul and George shared. It was always Lennon's band. After Brian died, he lost interest.
Paul played so many iconic guitar parts on previous songs (Taxman,etc). You can imagine how irked George must have been. He was just back from playing with Dylan and The Band, learning new guitar licks, positive feedback - only to be relegated back to his role of Paul's sideman.
I think he was just sick of Paul always wanting things his way which every musician that's ever worked with him has felt. There's always a point where Paul gives them the "I'm fucking Paul McCartney, I can't believe you are arguing with me" bullshit that John is referring to. And Lennon correctly adds that sometimes Paul is right and sometimes Paul is wrong just like everybody else.
If Paul McCartney was twice the guitarist Harrison was, he'd have a leg to stand on.
But he's not. And that's the problem. And he surrounds himself with better musicians on their chosen instruments than he is, and proceeds to insult them and tell them they suck, just so he feels better about his inabilities. That's why you can't keep a member of Wings around. Because you have a man who has the biggest Ego, who can't keep time on drums efficiently enough, repeats his ideas on guitar enough, and really should stick to bass and keyboards, what he's good at, instead of making members of the band quit because he's being such an asshole to them.
About Ob La Di Ob La Da.
One asks if that song is truly worth hurting your friends for.
@@stickman1742 Baloney! Paul just knows what he wants, and the others have to work towards that. George is no saint, neither is John. Stop blaming everything on Paul, he was right about Klein, and everything else. The other three treated him like dirt at the end. But he was right.
@@DrTomoculus In love with George, are you? Grow up. You weren't there. And Paul is a fine guitarist, as good as George easily. And Paul will listen.
@@FlipDahlenburg He's a fine acoustic guitarist. As a lead guitarist he repeats his ideas.
George is great! Of course I love him.
That was a "Lilliputian" knock down drag out Band Fight lol! Gentlemanly, pragmatically and compassionately discussing serious, potentially life changing issues rationally. I love this back story stuff. Why did we have to wait so long!??
Because not a lot of their or anyone's (until cell phones) where surreptitiously recorded?
I always wonder what would have happened if the Beatles took a break after sgt peppers. And went and did a bunch of solo albums and solo projects then reconvened in 1970 fresh from feeling things out and experiencing life without the Beatles. I think the exposure of George to life without John and Paul would have really pumped up his confidence, and I think him doing his own thing would have brought him higher in John and Paul’s estimations as a song writer, and after seeing what the guys make without each other, kinda shows what they’re all thinking and you can play in that more and then you have George and ringo and John just getting Paul’s vision, and suddenly a song like maybe I’m amazed becomes a Beatles track with a whole mess of things, imagine becomes something like let it be or hey Jude.
You have to remember John broke the band up and for all George saying (and maybe really meaning it) he was unhappy at his songs be held back in lieu of John and Paul's...that in Sep. 1969 when John quit, George was still very much a Beatle and had no (stated) intentions of quitting.
A no BS insight into a truly, legendary,world changing partnership-fascinating!
All of you Lennon fanboys all gleefully enjoying the fact that Paul said John was always boss while conveniently ignoring the fact that John replied ‘not always’ which is true. Selective hearing though I’m not surprised. I love Lennon but his fans are one of the most toxic fanbases around and he would have been ashamed of all of you. He loved Paul and what you guys are doing to him in the comments as well as the blatant disrespect he’s been getting from you and from music journalists since 1980 is disgusting and John would have punched you in the face for it.
Wow… they really spoke strangely to each other. I couldn’t even understand what they were trying to communicate most of the time. But one thing I was glad to hear and that was that they never said anything bad about George. That was a very good sign, I think.
that's the thing about this band, "The Beatles"...their 'roles' were so interchangeable, they were all gifted with so much talent. compared to say Led Zeppelin (just as gifted and fabulous) but, I mean, Jimmy Page wasn't vying to take over Robert Plant as lead vocals (although Jimmy could sing and sometimes did backup...but not at Robert's level). Robert wasn't vying to be lead guitarist. JPJ wasn't vying to do anything other than his role in band and what he excelled in...Bonham was their drummer. They all melded together SO well because they worked together without competition. Jimmy wrote the music, Plant wrote the lyrics they all played as bandmates, great friends. Jimmy formed the band, was the boss, but Robert also did most talking in the interviews, etc...and they all thought the other was 'the best'. One can, however, really feel and tell these Beatle bandmates loved each other, brotherly love. It truly seemed to break Paul's heart when they broke up. I've never seen two bandmates so thrilled with each other while singing, playing, etc...Paul - John smiling at each other, laughing....Paul seemed to always just get a kick out of John and seemed to really just want John to take over as Boss - Leader again
Page sang backing vocals????
Makes you appreciate "Now And Then" even more.
I wonder if George ever heard this and what he made/would've made of it. If you want to multiply the dimensions and intensity of emotions between you and a friend, start a band together.
He couldn’t have heard it because the recording was so bad. It was only the new computer technology Peter Jackson used on it recently that made the words intelligible.
even living together as friends is hard enough without bringing on that creative work level
its edited to hell, an excerpt of a 30 minute conversation most of which is john and paul arguing about sessions. george probably wouldnt have been happy with the part where john tells paul quite flatly that he isnt even sure he wants george back. that probably wouldnt have healed much
There still was alot of love there. And who would think they wouldn't grow old together. That part is sad.
Very real with each other this is how disagrements/conversations are suposed to happen.
I heard this is a secret recording and they did not know they were being recorded. This is why this is so honest unlike the get back movie where they knew they were being filmed.
ringo knew the mic was there as he had discussed it with lindsay hogg earlier. seems unlikely that he wouldnt have told the others. and this is a heavily edited conversation, john and paul are sitting at a table with a bunch of folks.
very beautiful happy, optimistic ending, Pauly!
After they went solo I recall an interview with Paul where he was talking about putting together a new band and the very same issue came up. Paul was critical of a guitar player not playing what he wanted.
If they don't get their act together they'll split up. I can feel it in my bones.
John was a silly joker on camera but then when they are not public facing suddenly John is a leader and a peace maker. Very interesting, and totally against 50 year old narratives about this session.
Any small group (no pun) of workers, employees, colleagues all working together on a difficult project have differences and this will lead to serious disagreements. These disagreements are often the most difficult to resolve, even more than the project in hand.
It is another testimony to John and Paul that they not only resolved the fall out by recognising their egos but completed the project. There were two leaders and this was impossible for George and Ringo but it was the only way when they were working on John's or Paul's compositions and only the composer knew how it should be put together.
Very difficult! The very reason so many musical groups fell out.
Ringo was often the glue that kept them together - quite literally when playing - and in their ego-battles.
The fact that sometimes finished tracks did not meet John or Paul's standards was invisible to us record buyers means the presented result was good enough for us. Nothing gets finished without compromise.
I wonder if John was still around would he have re-recorded his compositions (and even those joint compositions with Paul) exactly as he wanted them - and what would they have developed into?
During a conversation over dinner with George Martin in his later years, John surprised Martin by stating that he would rerecord everything. On the other hand, John was prone to hyperbole.
@@hungfao That's very interesting and I'm not surprised. I'm sure he might have done given the time.
The charm of The Beatles would not be there - but the art of Lennon would be fascinating to hear- especially if he rewrote any lines.
Thanks
pun?
Very telling…Paul to John, you have always been Boss.
Not sure if anybody else mentioned this but they took some liberties with that recording…also present at that table were Ringo…Linda…and Yoko. Fascinating nonetheless
I think it's very important to note that. In the Get Back book that accompanies the film, there's a transcript of the dialogue from this conversation that includes a bit of what Yoko said, which is not in the clip from the movie, which makes the clip rather misleading. What's also not in the movie but is in the book is that John at one point said he wasn't sure if he even wanted George to come back.
George shut them both up with Here Comes The Sun and Something and his whole first solo record.
Just as a caution to people feeling that this is some great revelation or honest truth, it isn't , this wasn't even a conversation between just John and Paul and longer versions of it are out there just typically in a worse audio file.
It's edited as if the issue was Paul being too domineering and not listening enough to John and George. This is because when the Beatles fell out and it was 3 vs1 with Paul was the enemy they accused Paul of this, there is definitely some truth to it, it is mentioned in the conversation and George complains about working with Paul for decades after. Presumably Peter Jackson felt that this edit would clarify that as an issue without all the other aspects.
But in the full conversation John tells Paul that he isn't even sure he wants George back and talks about how in the hierarchy of the Beatles he only considers himself and Paul the real deal (Ringo is right next to them and contributing to the conversation). The majority of the conversation is John telling Paul about his insecurities and how he is afraid to correct Paul because he thinks Paul is so creatively high at that time, that he is jealous and has to put aside his ego just to come into work.
He is also afraid to put forward ideas because he doesn't want to look like a fool and references meeting Paul and how important it was for Paul to like him. Paul spends the entire conversation just listening or encouraging John, without really addressing the difficult issues, he barely offers an opinion on any of, maybe he just agrees with John. Yoko interrupts Johns long intense speech about how he feels about Paul to remind them that they were supposed to be talking about George. They barely mention him.
The irony of the real conversation is that it supports the other repeated complaint George had about the Beatles "John and Paul were too busy being John and Paul to notice anyone else [himself]"
It's a bit suspicious that the conversation edits out John's dismissiveness of George and hyper focus on his relationship with Paul, but it is a long conversation which isn't particularly easy to follow and may have been too confusing for audiences. But they should have cut it down more in that case because some of it is unnecessary, like "I don't think the Beatles revolve around four people"
This out of context where it sounds like John is telling Paul off makes it seem like John is being very big picture and broad minded. But Ringo is part of the conversation and has been saying they should get back to being a four people. this may be due to interlopers such as the film crew, the ideas being pitched to them that George thinks are ridiculous or how George had walked out of the meeting the evening before specifically because he had a disagreement with John about Yoko.
It could very well be that Yoko or her party insisted her and John be not portrayed negatively, but there are other factors like the other Beatles not wanting to promote the idea that John was mean (because it damages their image and he probably didn't mean it anyway) or Jackson feeling that if he gave a crumb or an idea that Yoko was at fault that her many haters would attack her and she doesn't deserve that. It is also just way too long with too many tangents. It's just a shame they added so many lines of dialogue that give are completely out of their proper context
In summery this is a heavily edited piece of audio that takes about 2 minutes of genuine conversation about Paul needing to be more considerate in the studio and a collage of clips where they are basically talking about other things, usually how insecure John feels. While this is a problem for George it's unlikely that this was the main issue (or at least the only) as he agrees to come back after a conversation with John and Paul. John doing his own talking this time and they agree to leave Twickenham. George seemed to want a certain level of respect and to be listened to.
From what I’ve read John had this issue right from the beginning, realizing when he first met Paul that Paul was incredibly talented and asking himself whether or not to invite him to be in the band, knowing it would make the band stronger but also would make John feel insecure. Throughout the Beatles Paul wrote more number one hits, even when John was getting more songs recorded. So this was a long-standing issue for John, and could only have gotten worse as Paul continued to improve and strive for innovation and perfection with his strong work ethic, and basically ascend to be the band’s leader, and then turn out to be the most successful songwriter in history. And then Yoko came along to tell him what he wanted to hear, that he was the true genius and Paul lesser than, and then Klein did the same…
Where can we find the full convo?
Then why didn't they carry on without George after Abbey Road? Nobody would have complained I guess. Not at least George coz he wanted badly to leave the band. So, John and Paul could have continued with or without Ringo as well...what was the problem?
@@marjanp4784 John suggested replacing George with Eric Clapton (he also considered starting a new band and replacing Paul with Klaus Voorman). But George and Paul were much more than lead guitarist and bassist. They were both amazing songwriters, which for some reason John didn't appreciate? Or maybe he thought he'd have less competition if they were replaced? Anyway, the Beatles were John, Paul, George and Ringo, and I can't see replacing any one of them with someone else. Paul's always said they were four corners of a square, and without one of them there was no Beatles.
@@michelepaccione8806 I know that The Beatles was a band with four people and all of them were important members, but I'm tired with people saying John and Paul were more important and they wanted to do this or that and wanted to replace George etc...blah blah blah. I mean if they really wanted to carry on without George, why didn't they do it? I'm sure George wouldn't give a fu*k...he was already out of the band in his mind and he had already planned out his solo career. ATMP was a massive hit commercially and critically. So, my point is why the hell that so called important members of the band didn't go onto hiring a new lead guitarist and carry on with their music? The answer is simple just as you said "The Beatles were John, Paul, George and Ringo"... I can guarantee that they wouldn't last a day replacing one of them and J and P knew it very well.
I watched this more or less ''live'' when it dropped, but listening to this conversation again now I sense a lot more of a rebuking tone - gently delivered - from Lennon to McCartney.
It's a bit hard to get a clear picture of what they're saying and it seems that is because they had a way of understanding each other that outsiders could never get...and we don't have any video to see the facial cues.
It's interesting to see John being empathetic towards George here, given that he was being quite mean to George about I Me Mine, saying it was too much of a Waltz and not rocking enough.
WOW this a deep dive ! Its interesting because the dynamic between brothers never changes, even when they all become world superstars. Obviously Paul is the main driver at this point, and George either doesnt feel strong enough to fight his ' big brother " for the lead and/or Paul and John are not willing to stand aside and let him lead the charge. If you look at the material George was producing in terms of Abbey Road and All Things Must Pass, he could have led a bit here, but the Old brothers just would not allow it. Its a shame . but its a harsh reality. Personally I feel that The Beatles could have continued if they split into three main songwriters for another 10 years, but the family dynamic wouldn't support it, thus The End.
Well they did have a meeting in September 69 where John proposed that John, Paul and George would have four songs each on their next album plus two for Ringo if he wanted them. Unfortunately John then scuttled this idea later that month by quitting the group. It's a real case of "What might have been".
@@colinmcdonough4034 I've heard this also.
@@dgsmith9969 It was said by George Harrison in an interview back in the early 70s so it really happened. The biggest issue they had at the time was just that they could not agree on a business manager and then Paul started lawsuits. That was the end of that. If they could have been together on business, I could see them doing some Beatle albums together and releasing solo work in between. I don't really see any reason why that wouldn't have worked.
Even though they were talking to each other, it didn't sound to me that they were actually "communicating". They seem to resigned to the fact that their breakup would be coming soon and was inevitable.
So much of the Beatles is Georges lead playing. His playing is as integral as the singing. Wonderful guitarist.
True but in some cases you gotta see Paul's point. Like if it's Paul's song (such as Hey Jude) and he doesn't want much guitar on it (which was a conflict), I see his point. However, this film tends to show they weren't focusing on George's songs enough, but at least that led to All Things Must Pass, probably the greatest solo album by any Beatle, so there's that.
@@professormacdeezy When you say "probably the greatest solo album by any Beatle", you are just stating your opinion... that's it one opinion. If you look at a sample of over 300 artists and music critics to get a poll of "greatest albums ever", which is better because you get a larger sample, you'd almost certainly find that both Plastic Ono Band and Imagine were placed ahead of All Things Must Pass. E.g., in a poll with that large of a sample size conducted by Rolling Stone, both Plastic Ono Band and Imagine were over 100 spots ahead of All Things Must Pass.
@@CJA-jf8db you make a good point. those are great albums. maybe a bit intense to listen on the reg but amazing works of art with great cutural impact
not to mention those albums dont even contain some of his best songs like instant karma (one of my fav songs of all time), give peace a chance, and war is over
@@professormacdeezy Yeah and the other albums are great too. I think All Things Must Pass, Imagine and Plastic Ono Band are probably the three best solo albums.
This is truly epic conversation. Here is what I interpret. John and Paul are sensitive artists and George too. If Brian Epstein was there to assist, I think that would have been positive. These men were growing and changing as we all do. To me it seems George needed to flow in his music and did not feel the environment was allowing that because Paul and John, well nuff said there. That's Paul and John man. And George also needed to grow. I do get thou that Paul and John goal was to keep it all together. Nothing against Paul but John just seemed to be sensitive to the other band members. And John just seemed to be a powerhouse of a friend no matter what happened in the band. I must say this lightly thou. This is like a conversation with Moses and Jesus. Wow
John did look out for the interests of George and Ringo much more than Paul - it was John who fought Paul to get George's Something & Here Comes the Sun released as a A/A+ single wasnt it?
They would have outgrown Brian Epstein by then for sure. He wouldn't be TELLING them anything.
@@julianciahaconsulting8663I wonder if it makes Paul pause in anyway that Here comes the sun is the first Beatle song to hit 1 billion listens on Spotify or whatever the record of listens is.
ah, what could have been!
@@Anwelei Well i think it shown where the rift in the Beatles was - that being between John George and Ringo versus Paul...by the fact that those 3 continued to play together in various incarnations on each others' solo albums in the immediate wake of the split up but none of those 3 played on Paul's solo albums after the split or he on their solo albums.....that shows where the seismic fault line was at.....But hey we have to remember that these 4 guys were still in their 20s ..i know personally i didnt always act with the upmost sensitivity and maturity to every situation when i was in my 20s ....so overall i think all of them did pretty good in handing that pressure and the tensions of being in a group of 4 guys that much
@@julianciahaconsulting8663 john skipped the here comes the sun sessions and his part on something was wiped off the master so there is none of him on either of those songs. he didnt look out for george at all. this conversation edits out john flatly telling paul he isnt sure he wants george back
To my ear, Paul's and John's Liverpool accents are stronger in this conversation than in public. Perhaps The Beatles retained their native accents in private conversations between themselves and consciously or unconsciously turned it down when speaking to southerners and foreigners. Just a thought.
That’s very likely. My parents are Nigerian but my siblings and I were raised in the US. They sound totally American talking to us, but with other Nigerian family members, even when speaking English, their accents are very apparent (this also happens when they get mad)
Probably true, my parents have strong Northern Mexican accents in private, but when they speak to people they don't know they use more standard Spanish
@@amateur_football9751where in Mexico are your family from?
When we are all very Old and we agree with each other, I think we will all sing together. I hope one day it is so, and George is right, that this is not the end...
My view on that was that as soon as George stood up for himself, John and Paul had a problem with it. It’s especially clear when Lennon said “Oh well, get me Claptons phone number. I’m sure he’s be glad to come in and replace him.” Lennon was as much of the problem but sat there and blamed it on Paul.
In a nutshell, a sensitive and delicate exposition of all the real reasons why the Beatles broke up.
Wow. What a dance. What an incredibly difficult conversation to have to have.
And John handles it expertly for such a young man in the days before emotional intelligence. Manages to be candid and gentle with Paul at the same time.
@@tricornclub9594 in that moment, perhaps… yet in those same sessions, when George brought in the excellent I Me Mine Lennon made fun of him and did not really participate in the recording. Life sure ain’t easy.
@@Gk2003m true enough, and the power relationship between John and George is another story!
And as Paul told Johnny Marr quite sometime later…that’s bands for yer’ 😎
@@jamesthompson316 actually the group dynamics is one of the most fascinating aspects of the film
Thank you for this transcription. The Beatles always made songs with the tools at hand. When they had a new one, like a tape machine, a sitar, or a chord they'd just learned, they'd explore how to use it. In a clinical sense, the musicians themselves are tools with some attributes and not others. Paul is a great person and a genius, but I think he forgot this aspect. He needed to let George be himself and work with his talents. The Beatles, and all bands in my humble opinion, need to have an understanding within the group that if a song or idea doesn't fit with the band then it can be stored as a personal project and each member should be free to do solo or side-band work to explore those ideas. If this leads to storing the "good" ideas for themselves or a weakening of the bonds within the band then it was destined to happen anyway. The music business is a business and a job, but if you don't have job satisfaction then you have to look for another. Prioritizing people is the best way to keep a group happy and productive rather than unhappy and somewhat productive. I deeply respect Paul, but I think he forgot that bit for awhile. When he had a band with Linda he was prioritizing people and they had fun and created great songs. Critics savaged her, but who cares about them when you've already got all the money you need for the rest of your life? Just do your job as happily as you can and let the rest work itself out.
John surprised me in this
What I heard was a very reasonable and empathetic John who recognized the problem and even admitted he was just as guilty, while Paul was not quite ready to admit his part in the whole thing and did not want to believe the situation was as bad as it was.
Sounds like John was much more in tune - no pun intended - with the way George was feeling than Paul was.
which probably explains why george played with john shortly after the band broke up and never played with paul
This is how to argue, no need for drama, just some serious feedback even though they are upset!
John started the journey and ended it at the same time broke Paul’s heart
Yes a fascinating relationship..they seemed closer than brothers, I remember an interview sometime after John’s death where yoko said she was struck by how john was affected by the breakdown of his and Paul’s friendship/partnership..akin to a marriage breakup as she put it.
Revisionist nonsense. Paul ended it when he left the group and sued the other members. And only because he was unable to wrestle control away from John. Before McCartney's acrimonious departure, they planned to continue working together.
@@jamesthompson316 That does not sound at all like Yoko Ono.
@@Kermit_T_Frogbut he said it, and it was obvious. You Lennon fanboys need to stop this.
They were born & grew up on the cusp of verbal repression and the new wave of psychological " letting in out & sharing your feelings. Tough going, especially for men. To this day I don't see the need to invent more communication devices - what we need is to learn how to communicate more honestly , effectively and clearly. I'm sorry that they couldn't include George in this conversation. Love the Fab 4 always ❤❤❤❤
John was always the boss, he formed the band, he was older, the others always looked up to him and always tried to please him since the days of Stuart. Paul would feel jealous of John's friendship with Stuart.
Besides, John had a more dominant temperament. Paul, George and Ringo always kind of followed John.
What happened around 1966 is not that Paul took John's role as leader but actually John decided to give that role to Paul himself.
I've always read that around 1966 when John spoke too much and made the "Beatles bigger than Jesus" blunder (a big PC error back then with over conservative Christian American market) all the Beatles plus Brian Epstein, George Martin had a big meeting and a big argument erupted. John felt very accosted by everyone and got mad and said something to the effect of "I won't open my mouth anymore, from now on Paul is in charge I don't care anymore about The Beatles ". Also he and George were fed up with touring.
However, there were contracts to fulfill. During the next couple of years John took a back seat, Paul became the de-facto leader "in absentia". John was happy to contribute his 4/5 songs per album and return to his empty suburban life and boring marriage where he stayed high on Marijuana and LSD the whole day for the next 2 years.
When Brian Epstein died and John didn't give a crap in studio, Paul became even more dominant while John was lost in acid land.
But after the flop of Magical Mystery Tour (Paul's project), plus John's disappointment in India and the start of his relationship with Yoko, John arrived in 1968 like wanting to take over again, apparently Yoko cajoled him a little, as a good pushing woman. John started to dismiss everything Paul did. The White Album and all of John's new artistic and political involvements was like the return of John as a dominant force, clashing with Paul who was used to boss everyone for more than 2 years. Unfortunately, John's new heroin addiction made him an unreliable co-boss. Sometimes involved and dominant, aggressive, violent at times and sometimes just as lost and indifferent as his days when he was hooked on acid.
Technically Ringo was about 3 months older than John, but in general, certainly John was the "boss." The rule they had was all four had vote yes on decisions or they would not do it. But that couldn't apply to how to play the guitar solo or drums or whatever.
Another thing that happened in 1966 was Paul wrote "Yesterday" and it became obvious that Paul didnt need them. That shifted the dynamic. John had no number ones after '66.
@@ChannelRandy Yesterday was written in 1965.
@@ChannelRandy From 67 to 69, John had 3 more #1s . But that ok for me. From 1962 to 1966, John dominated the first half of their carrier, having lots of #1s. The second half, he got into a more experimental, innovative side: Tomorrow Never Know, Strawberry Fields, I Am The Walrus, Lucy in The Sky, Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite, I Want You (She’s so heavy), Because, Across The Universe. Not a single one of those masterpieces was #1 but they were incredible songs. Not dissing Paul, of course. He was a genius too.
@@ChannelRandy Ballad of John and Yoko, Come Together....All number ones, just off the top of my head.
I'm all for privacy, but bugging that conversation was genius in hindsight. What gentleman even when upset they were. But imagine how disastrous this could of been !?
john and paul were at the table with mal yoko linda and neil. and ringo knew that michael llindsay hogg had mics in the lunch room cause he told him,. so how private this was? not so much. its possible that ringo had told the others that there were mics set up in twickenham or it could be they just didnt care at this point
That last line, "When we're all very old...", that hurts 😔
one can be old in his 20's or forties. And one can be young in his eighties
I think I was aiming more for the fact that John never got to be old, as opposed to the sentiment that you've stated (which is a fair one). But yeah, that was my original point.
@@matthewhoward-white463 yeah, I got it, and exactly meant what I said. Paul 's still young soul, unfortunately not Jogn and George were that anymore: loving and caring
@@Bella-nt7ec I see, fair enough.
@@matthewhoward-white463 ✌
Not sure if this is mentioned anywhere in the comments, but Ringo, Yoko and Linda were all present for this conversation- it wasn't just Paul and John. Still, a very interesting exchange.
I wonder if Paul was a lonely man. But you know, John gave him the reins. Paul had huge shoes to fill. It's a shame Paul pretty much seemed alone. When you watched him working on Get Back and Let It Be, Ringo was commenting, "Paul is so good." I honestly think they were all brothers, but to be honest, Paul was trying to save the Beatles while John was wanting out anyway and George did, too. I felt sorry for Paul. If Allan Klein had never been brought in, the Beatles might've stayed together.
John gave Paul a choice: John, Paul and George 4 songs each on future albums. Paul rejected the proposal. End of the Beatles. John tried but knew Paul was impossible at that moment
In 1967 John went to New York, where a reporter asked him about his future plans with the Beatles. He responded : "I don't know, but I can not see myself in the group at 30." After working on the last song "The End", John said to the group : "I'm leaving." He left the studio with Yoko Ono, & never came back. He was one month away from his 29th birthday.
@@shinyoneincarnate5565 Thanks for that info. I remember John wanting a divorce. Maybe just for a few years and who knows, get together just to make an album.
@@hw343434 Oh yeah, I think you're correct. I think I remember John suggesting that. I'm surprised Paul didn't agree!
@@jamesh.5765 Paul was extremely big-headed and NEVER respected George as a songwriter. Paul didn’t Trust George would write 4 good songs, he thought Maxwell’s Silver Hammer was better. Paul and George had the real feud in the Beatles, that was Never Going to work anymore and John was caught in that mess, sometimes putting out the fire and sometimes stoking it
Paul is right in saying that John was boss and Paul secondary boss. The question where George fitted in was a real one.
From the title and the "the producers placed a hidden microphone in a flower pot" message I thought for sure this was gonna be a parody, so I was pleasently surprised to find out it was not.
True but a good parody of this is probably in the works somewhere lol
@@dcool2u2 I hope so.
If there manager Brian epstine do not die in 1967 they would of stayed together alot longer. Their manager always told them that the were THE BEATLES and they were all for one and one for all. John even said that they collapsed after their manager died.
I've always been surprised that Ringo went with George and John with Allen Klein etc. I would have thought he would have sided with Paul. I guess it had to do with trying to keep the band together instead of who's right and who's wrong.
John was the leader. The Beatles (George bd Ringo) always went with John, never with Paul
@@hw343434 indeed, and before the end Paul went with John too
No, Ringo liked Klein from the beginning because John described him as a hustler who would work for them. You can hear this in Get Back along with Glyn basically telling them to steer clear. With the logic being that everyone in the music industry is a hustler so Klein's terrible reputation was a plus. It's also possible that Ringo didn't realize how compromised John's judgment had become (he'd been right about Brian Epstein) and Klein is genuinely very charming, the thing that attracted John to him was the promise of being looked after and Klein's childhood abandonment. Ringo like John might have been very sympathetic to this as he had been abandoned by his father, Klein had the benefit to them as acting as a protective father figure during a stressful time for them.
The Beatles were genuinely blindsided by Paul dissolving the group rather than accepting Klein, they thought he would reluctantly accept in time. It was also commonly felt around Apple that he and Linda weren't going to last long, Klein's narrative was that she and her family were controlling Paul, John at least was very receptive of this and its reasonable to believe that if they split up the Eastman's would no longer be his lawyers. Ringo and Klein had a very good relationship and arguably Klein was very supportive and helpful to Ringo's post Beatle career, but he genuinely loved Paul and felt sad about what had happened. Paul was incredibly difficult for them to contact through most of the time Klein was their manager, this may have contributed to feelings that the Eastman's were actually behind Paul's actions. Ringo, despite being friends with Klein went out of his way to repair things with Paul and spoke to an interviewer very emotionally about how much it meant to him. It is possible that he is the only Beatle who managed this. A year or two later they realized that Klein was lying to them and he stole money. According to Paul, he only got an apology over ten years later, if it was John's fault George and Ringo wouldn't have had issues apologizing.
Ringo would always follow George, no matter what...
Huh? Ringo found Paul as insufferable as anyone. He couldn't stand the way Paul would act with how Ringo played drums. Every musician who ever worked with Paul couldn't stand working with Paul. Ringo wrote Back Off Boogaloo telling Paul to get lost.
The music in the background should have been cut. It was rather distracting. But, aside from that, I'm glad we have this.
i would have loved to have heard the conversation after abbey Road came out and John and Paul realized, George Writes songs as good as ours now and he is doing it by himself. Something and Here comes the Sun, were argueably the top 2 songs on that Album, If memory serves me well, Here Comes the Sun was all over the Radio, almost immediately used in tv commerical ads. I won't touch Something, it is as big as Yesterday. I was waiting for Yoko with that dead look on her face to just say Another Lover, she would have gotten co writing with george. LOL. One thing this NEW film shows Yoko DID NOT break up the BEATLES.
If they had included George as a co writer, they would have produced far better songs... they never realized or maybe didn't want to realize George's ability as a songwriter. George wanted to contribute, he never wanted to be a front man. Paul and John were afraid of losing control and power. That was a huge problem that led to their breakup...
Sinatra said Something was the greatest song the Beatles ever wrote. And Something and Here Comes the Sun are still huge today which can't be said of many Lennon/McCartney compositions.