Why Paul McCartney Didn’t Keep the Beatles Going With George Harrison & Ringo Starr
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 окт 2024
- After John Lennon left the band, why didn’t Paul McCartney keep the Beatles going with George Harrison and Ringo Starr? He explained to Howard Stern.
SUBSCRIBE for more videos: bit.ly/2qswmZU
Want to know what's going on with Howard Stern in the future?
Follow us on Twitter: bit.ly/1RzxGPD
On Facebook: on. 1JELtz3
On Instagram: goo.gl/VsWTND
For more great content from the Howard Stern Show visit our official website: www.HowardStern...
Hear more Howard Stern by signing up for a free SiriusXM trial: goo.gl/uNL0Du
Lmao, I love when Stern interviews Paul, he really has no limits to his questions lol, no shame and no sugar coating, when he wants to know something, he asks straight up
That's what has made Stern so good over the years...with any guest
that's what I like so much about his interviews with Paul, really gives the fans some interesting stuff!
None of his questions are new, and they've been asnwered 100 times before he asked them. Reminds of the questioning of Dylan in the 1960s (see Scorcese's "No Direction Home"), when it turned out the reporter didn't know anything about Dylan, but had been assigned by the magazine to ask him questions.
That's why the Beatles goofed on reporters: they'd be asked the same questions over and over and over again -- because the interviewers never did their homework, else they'd have known the questions had already been asked, and answered. So an interviewer asks them for the thousandth time, "Why the name "The Bealtes?" and they went into a routine of, "We could have been named 'The Shoes'," and from there went into a discussion among themselves as if it was a serious possibility. It was a way to deal with the repetitive stupidity.
Paul must like it too because he keeps allowing himself to be interviewed by Stern.
Howard’s respect for Paul is so apparent. Paul seems to enjoy Howard’s style and total line of questions, most of which he has answered before but not in this way. These are the best Macca interviews. Thanks Howard!
He's right. Once the chemistry's gone it's gone.
There goes the sun
That hits hard.
Now you know how your wife feels
The chemistry in "Abbey Road" was so totally gone.
After that "Abbey Road" album came out, everyone knew that the chemistry was gone.
Ironically George’s “Here comes the sun” is the most played Beatles song on their recently released catalog on Spotify. 😌
I know Paul gets tired of Beatles/John Lennon questions, Dave Grohl gets tired of Kurt Cobain questions , and David Spade gets tired of Chris Farley questions, but dammit I never get tired of hearing their stories.
Paul's last comment about Here Comes the Sun and what we are currently living...simple but deep
Picked that up right away at the end , seems Paul is plugged in and 'awake'
‘In a world that is increasingly complex and superficial, be simple and deep.’
-Fred Rogers
George was such a talented songwriter. It’s a shame he didn’t get more songs on the albums
He simply didn't have them. Most or all of All Things Pass was not Beatles-suitable material. When George did have some great songs they got on the album, polished up, particularly with Paul's assistance.
but John & Paul were even better..no matter how good George was
They simply weren’t as good until 1968.
There were two that should have made the White Album...”Not Guilty,” and “Sour Milk Sea.” Great songs.
@@Picnicl Paul was the secret sauce behind George and John's songs. His bass lines literally turned some songs (that were just average nothings) into iconic hall of fame songs... the first two songs on the Abbey Road album are great examples. Come Together and Something by Lennon and Harrison. it's the bass line that makes both those songs iconic.
He was not a go getter. And he should not have signed the contract he did in 1963. George and Ringo were employees of Mac-Len Ltd and under contractual agreement as to how royalties were to be divided for all Lennon-McCartney songs.
*FUN FACT:* George Harrison is ranked as the 11th greatest guitarist of all time by Gibson and Rolling Stone. :)
Im so glad there is still a Beatle around answering questions like this. Its going to be a sad world when all 4 are gone and we loose that connection forever. At least we will always have their music.
George Harrison, an unrecognized genius and what a sad, sad ending.
George was a genius but I don't know how you can say he was unrecognised, being part of perhaps the biggest band in history
Matt Barbarich yeah but at least he lived until around 60. Lennon died when he was 40
Stern must remember that John, Paul and George had been together, living in each others' pockets, for thirteen years. They had all weathered the storm of insane notoriety, as well as being regarded as the instigators of change in teen culture, politics, music and fashion. Just the fact that they all made it through this media maelstrom relatively unscathed was remarkable. They needed to go their separate ways!
Exactly. Ringo had already quit before for a while in 1968. George walked out for a bit. They were all fed up with the tension, the circus, and the stress of being in the Beatles.
It was a group decision to breakup. Not sure why Howard is obsessed with pinning it on John, or any one person. I
Let's not forget about the fact Paul was the first to make the breakup PUBLiC and really drive the nail in the coffin with his first solo album's press release saying they were done. Which pissed off John, George, and Ringo. Up till then nothing was certain
Y did Lennon broke up the Beatles ?
Somebody knows ?
Was it because of Yoko ?
@@candycolas7550 Nope. The Beatles were *breaking* up anyway. Based on what they endured as a band for that eight years, and what else the Beatles discovered in their own lives, I think they wouldn't have lasted any longer than 1970. They've all grown up and wanted to have their own lives *away* from the Beatles. Lennon might've "hammered the final nail on the document" so to speak, as he had enough of the Beatles as well. He wanted a separate life with Yoko, and he decided exactly that. It's like your attention is diverted to something else, and suddenly, you want to get out of the Beatles. You'd have to think back to the reason they stopped touring in '66.
Always lovely to hear Paul talk about how amazing George was. I wish he talked about George more often.
Yeah it's kind of rare when Paul gets interview about george
I’d love to see the look on John and Paul’s faces when George came in with here comes the sun
John: 😧
Paul: 😮
Great to hear Paul McCartney today!
Stern, as a Beatle fan, should have known that the animosity between the Beatles at that time would never have allowed them to continue. And Paul announcesd the break up of the Beatles. John had been threatening it. George was the one who wanted out the most, so it's a silly question from Stern
Jim, Your right!
There’s no harm asking the question he’s just trying to get Paul to tell the story himself that’s his job, I’m sure he knows that it couldn’t have happened
Spot on and of course Howard knows that but the truth does not get the ratings.
I agree it's a silly question. The Beatles broke up because both John & George wanted out.
Of course I'm talking only from watching interviews, but from what I understand, George wanted out because of lack of his material on the albums, but after Abbey Road was finished, they had discussed for all 3 to have an equal amount of songs on a possible new album, so him wanting out might've changed.
Something that I think a lot of Beatles fans forget is that George wanted out as much as John did. He felt under-appreciated, he made it clear he didn’t want to tour, and he was the lyrical inspiration for part of “Band on the Run,” often muttering “If I ever get out of here...” in the studio.
The Beatles were *breaking* up anyway. Based on what they endured as a band for that eight years, and what else the Beatles discovered in their own lives, I think they wouldn't have lasted any longer than 1970. They've all grown up and wanted to have their own lives *away* from the Beatles. Lennon might've "hammered the final nail on the document" so to speak, as he had enough of the Beatles as well. He wanted a separate life with Yoko, and he decided exactly that. It's like your attention is diverted to something else, and suddenly, you want to get out of the Beatles. You'd have to think back to the reason they stopped touring in '66 and study until 1970 if you want a clear picture of the Beatles' break-up.
agree it was time to end. '70's were for Zep and Floyd to take over. Every band has its time and place.
It wasn't just a music issue. They were also producers, unexperieced businemen, actors, contributors and more.
i agree, i forget who said it in the Anthology as it's been a few years more than a few years since i last watched it but to quote them weather it's one beatle or all of them i can't remember, when we started out we were kids and by the end we each had gotten married and even divorced as in the case of John. and they all had kids or kids on the way at the end & frankly were exhausted by one another, i think they said furthermore in the Anthology that when Ringo and i think John? left the creepy old guy as i think he was one creepy dude that was
the beginning of the end because before than they did everything pretty much together. and they were slowly breaking up anyways it may have lasted a couple more years or even a few more years but i do think they would have broken up at some point anyways because let's face it they at the end all came out with a solo album in 1970 all 4 of them had work they were working on during the beatles and weather it didn't fit with the beatles stuff they saved a bunch of it for solo stuff anyways. i mean All Things Must Pass was songs George had saved up going back to like (1965) of songs he had written which is why it was a double album anyways. but Howard does make a good point anyways
it wouldn't have been the same but it would have worked i think
And then multiple times when he was asked whether the band would get back together or not....he said he doesn't mind but just doesn't want to be the guy to initiate it
K McShane Queen is a rock band and they still tour. But Beatles can’t? Pathetic
I think George playing on How Do You Sleep? is as good a reason as any for why that didn't happen.
For those who care, he said y’know 8 times
Stern here is pointing out something I always thought. Through the end of the Beatles, Harrison wrote some of their best stuff and most of the album All things must pass was composed during this period. It's a shame that McCartney and Lennon didn't give him more credit, just think if All things must pass was made by the Beatles. It would have been great and probably it would be one of their best albums ever (Harrison's album is almost universally regarded as the best album by a Beatles member after the breakup). I feel like the whole point of this dialogue is to get McCartney admitting that he underestimated Harrison, as if Stern started asking Paul about the band just in order to get to Harrison
Even more than being a great song writer George was tremendously underestimated as a great guitar player. Never one to be flashy but his solos on many of the Beatles hit songs were both well thought out and beautiful to listen to on their own. Examples are And Your Bird Can Sing, Nowhere Man and Let it Be.
If George had bloomed earlier...wow...the Beatles could have been even greater. Imagine that!
That's it, exactly. He wasn't a significant songwriter until nearly the end of the Beatles. If you subtract his songwriting contributions, the Beatles were still great. That's how good John and Paul were from 1963 on.
George hated Paul at that time , he wanted to break free the most and no way he was gonna work with Paul then.
We must remember that Lennon and McCartney from the beginning were the songwriting Duo of The Beatles. George Harrison wasn't writing songs in the early years, so it wasn't a matter of them not letting him in, he didn't have the songs to get in with. And frankly, I mean how do you interfere with the incredible success that they had with Lennon and McCartney songwriting? When you're going so fast on that train there's no stopping. Yes, it would have been nice if the remaining Beatles got together before George died, But it wouldn't have been the Beatles. George himself answered that question best when asked by a reporter about a Beatles reunion. "Not as long as John Lennon is still dead." They all could have jammed, and formed another band. But there is no Beatles without John Lennon.
Along with still being sharp as a tack, you gotta admire how diplomatic he stayed. Notice how, any time he's presented with a question or assumption about his thoughts or actions towards others, he extends an olive branch by acknowledging the validity of the "accusation" in question; "Ah, yes, I take your point", then he explains himself. It's fascinating seeing someone reach such success and fame without letting it go to their head.
Love Paul, love George, love John, love Ringo. All of them so important to my life. They did take one of John's songs many years later and make this stupendous video.
Hindsight is 20/20 and it was very gracious of Paul to entertain the question. He's always been a class act. Alas it wasn't to be. The Beatles did live as a family in the true sense of the word and that breakup would have been, at the time, so tough for everyone involved, that even if they had went on as 3, the sadness and the absence may have effected the mojo and the creative vibe immensely. I think they made the right decision. They left a wonderful legacy, which can never be taken away. RIP.
I love his talks with Paul. Howard asks most of the questions I'd like to ask Paul myself.
They actually did continue for a short time without John when in early 1970, Paul, George and Ringo reconvened to finish off the Let it Be album. It would have been interesting to hear Paul talk about how those final sessions went.
Always loved the Beatles best band of all times their music will be play long after we're all gone too.
Having played in bands for 35 years myself i understand completely what Paul is saying, when it doesnt feel right anymore it doesnt work, the idea is good except that people arent robots that can just do things because it seems like a good idea when their heart isnt in it anymore especially with creative stuff its hard.
Think what you want about Howard, but I always love his interviews with Paul. Howard does not hold back and asks questions that other interviewers wouldn't dare ask (for example, whether John was gay, and how deep Paul and John's relationship was). Paul must hear the same old questions, but Howard's are different and get interesting answers! As a fan it's great to hear!
I'm sure I'm not the only one finding great comfort in The Beatles and post-Beatles solo stuff right now. I've always loved them, but now they hit me on an even deeper level. Especially George's songs: "All Things Must Pass" and "Here Comes The Sun" are getting me through some really rough moments.
Howard hit a raw nerve with the point of George being so prolific a song writer. When you look at the catalog of songs from early on to the end, like Paul said “he wrote some of the greatest songs” How about Something. Frank Sinatra said it was one of the greatest songs ever written. I even like his early Beatle stuff too. It’s just to numerous to list. George became an important composer
And then there is While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Also one of the greatest songs ever written. That at all came later.
Αctually Sinatra said that SOMETHING was his favorite.. Lennon - McCartney song ! George himself said so in an interview.. laughing of course !
Bill Mitchell George a prolific songwriter? Maybe after 1968... before that he wasn’t
By 1968, George's songwriting was on par with John and Paul,..he just wasn't as prolific as those two, no other songwriter in the world was as prolific as John and Paul.
George became an important composer in the Beatles in the last 2 years of their career arc. He needed the freedom that the breakup gave him to go out and really flower as a songwriter. That would have been impossible under the continued shadow of John and Paul. But the idea that he was on par with them during the first 6 years of the band is just disingenuous. His songs simply didn't match the brilliance of John and Paul's work.
I so enjoy listening to Howard's interviews with Paul. I have heard so many interviews with Paul McCartney over the decades that I almost can predict what he's going to say to every question. Somehow Howard gets Paul to open up like I've only seen a few British interviewers do in the past. As a true Beatles fan Howard also knows the questions to ask.
Howard is absolutely crushing it lately. This guy is timeless.
All his questions were answered years ago. He's absolutely living in the past. That he asks questions of McCartney doesn't make Stern is timeless. That's like saying, "Paul gave me an autograph, so I'm every bit as great as Paul, and am now a permanent equal part of the "Beatles" legacy forever."
The BS of making an interviewer into something more than an informational intermediary is hogwash.
You must be joking
If "crushing it" means impertinent, then yes.
Fun Fact - During the years when The Beatles were touring and doing live shows, they never got individual hotel rooms. John and Paul shared a hotel room, while George and Ringo shared a room.
Without john lennon , there is no beatles. 😀 ❤
The way George enhanced himself after all that . I am glad Beatles broke up.
Big thank you to Howard for asking questions others are too afraid to ask this is one of the many reasons I appreciate his bluntness 👍😷
Here comes the sun is one of my all time favs
God I would’ve loved that. To see George take the spotlight on a Beatles album
It seems that although Lennon broke up The Beatles, it was Paul who moved away from the other guys and who was hostile towards them, since George Harrison, Ringo, and Lennon continued to work together sometimes.
It was time to call it quits after 12-13 years of being together. Regardless of who announced that he was leaving first (and it was Paul)...we all should be happy to have The Beatles for as long they were together...but knowing we will always have the genius of 4 men's musical brilliance to share forever.
John announced he was leaving in a private meeting with only the Beatles and a few Apple staff present. John broke up the band. They decided not to announce to the public as they had a few loose ends to tie up. McCartney didn't announce The Beatles were breaking up until later, when doing press for his first solo record and Let It Be. John broke up the band, John announced first, just not publicly.
Paul publicly announced it but it happened only after John told them in private. John was the one who ended the band
Even though, Paul was the last one to quit the Beatles.
Thank you for the truth it was Paul and his wife's dad who broke up the Beatles. sir Paul don't want that to be said now.
George wrote the two best songs (Something and Here Comes the Sun) on the Beatles best album (Abbey Road). Sinatra said Something was the greatest love song ever written.
James Horan while my guitar gently wheeps is my favourite Beatles song
i think he made 3 10/10 songs, just like ``yesterday, in my life, let it be, all u need is love...... u mention 2 of em + while my guitar gently weeps. the best song in the white album
James Horan - Great songs, but Come Together, I Want You/She’s So Heavy, Oh Darling, and some of McCartney’s stuff towards the end of the medley are the equal, if not better, than George’s contributions. Not a criticism of Harrison mind you...
Sinatra also said Something was the greatest Lennon/McCartney song also!
The most overrated song of all time.
It's the band instrumentation, which makes it a great tune. The lyrics sound like they were written, to impress someone like Sinatra.
When an old geezer tells a rocker, in their late 20's, that he likes their music....
turn out the lights.
They ended it, at just the right time.
Credit to Howard for asking questions so directly. He's not trying to make headlines but he's geniunely curious and wants to ask those questions. Plus ppl respect him for that and answer the questions. I could never take someone like Fallon seriously ever
Howard...if it was not JOHN PAUL GEORGE AND RINGO, then it was not the Beatles.
I think what Howard was getting at is that they could of continued without John like they did without ringo for a short while and when he felt like coming back he could but obviously that’s just theoretically thinking because like Paul said the three of them were in too much emotional pain to keep it going at the time even with such an idea like that
Yeah, they really were in a special class all by themselves. Other bands could replace members, like the Stones did when Mick Taylor left and Ron Wood came aboard, or when Keith Moon died and the Who replaced him with Kenny Jones (just to take a couple of examples). And even the Beatles, early on, could replace or lose members (e.g. Pete Best, Stuart Sutcliffe), but... The Beatles who became "the Fab Four" and spearheaded the British invasion, and right down to this day have a bigger footprint than ANY other act in Rock and Roll except, arguably, Elvis Presley, simply wouldn't have still been the Beatles without John, Paul, George, and Ringo ALL there and contributing. After John wask killed, the only way they could produce new BEATLES material was the way they ended up doing it: bringing in the remaining three to work on material that John had left unfinished. It was the only way to have all four of them in on it. Even at that, some people feel inclined to put an asterisk beside the songs they released then, since John wasn't around to revise or approve or veto or anything else he might have done had he still been alive.
I think in some sense Paul and the others probably got that as well. In addition to the emotional issues of the breakup Paul mentions here, I've never heard ANY suggestion that ANY of the members was even slightly interested in keeping the group going after they breakup started.
It was still the Beatles when Pete Best was drummer.
Sure he wasn't as good and he didn't quite fit in but it worked at the time.
I agree with you partially, if it wasn't John Lennon and Paul McCartney it wasn't The Beatles
Actually the Beatles predated Ringo's entrance into the band.
George literally said that the Beatles would never reunite as long as John was dead.
They should.of taken a break for a year or 2, did some solo stuff and then got back together. It's written that deep down they missed working with one another but pride and business got it in the way. They just needed to breath.
If only they had been able to agree on a new manager....if only John wasn't preoccupied with Yoko and activist politics....if only George wasn't fed up with being held back by the others and "musically constipated" as he described it...if only all of them weren't tired of seeing each other every day after 12 years and wanted to move on to new things....
Too many "if onlys" in play with that band to have lasted any longer than they did
You make an excellent point, but don't you just love that they had the most perfect career and body of work? I think anything after Abbey Road would have tarnished their legacy. They were a sixties band. They are timeless, but they belong to that moment in time, that perfect moment when they gave us everything they had.
Except George kept sniping at Paul publicly in interviews, creating even more tension between them. Meanwhile Paul was having hit records with his new band Wings where he had complete control and didn't have to listen to all the whining and bitching from George.
Joseph Kearney 100%
Early on John was still very angry at George and Paul from what I remember. Though they had softened their views toward each other by the mid to late 70s. There was that infamous almost reunion on Saturday night live that John and Paul almost pulled off. Imagine if that had happened :)
Why would GEORGE want to stay in a band with PAUL?. George had a full concert's-worth of material ready to go, under his exclusive artistic vision.
I think the easy answer is, hindsight is 20/20. Sure, they may have been able to continue, but probably their heart wasn’t in it anymore. Ringo and George both left briefly. I think by this point they all had had enough. They had just outgrown the band and needed to do solo work. No one person was to blame. They probably each contributed to the breakup in their own way. Maybe the fans wanted more but they gave us as much as they could.
Yes George was Underated
💟💟🌟🎸🎸
Paul in voice call sounds like young paul
I do understand what you're saying Howard, but "Let it be"....✌️❤️🤘😁
It's because the Beatles is supposed to be a 4 man band
Come on Howard we need some more conversation's with Living Legend
I waited my lifetime for someone to ask this question
Knowing the band, this is a dumb question
My favorite always was John Lennon. But breaking up the Beatles & not leaving Julian in his Will, makes me upset
I'm sure if he would've known he was going to get killed at the age of 40, he would've had Julian in the will.
Candy Cola im sorry youre wrong. julian was in his will but yoko was the one who ruined julian’s right in john’s will
Thank Yoko for that.
We don't know for sure, when Yoko dies we might know more.
Candy Cola I totally agree. It seems almost incomprehensible that he would do that. And then later for Yoko to continue playing hardball with Julian’s entitlement just makes no sense. Especially after the ‘values’ she likes to espouse ...
Paul McCartney is the GREATEST OF ALL TIME.
Thank you
I agree 100%.he is the king
@Epileptic Spudmonkey nah ringo was
@Epileptic Spudmonkey Lennon is one of the ONLY people who can compete...But I think Macca edges him out because he was more musically inclined, more innovative on his instrument, more multifaceted, more driven. I think Paul is what made the Beatles so dynamic. If it was just John and George, the Beatles would be more like the Stones, playing straight rockers. I'm a MASSIVE John Lennon fan, and I go back and forth, but I think Paul McCartney slightly edges him.
He is just a guy who wrote good songs, stop idolizing people.
George said that he was the guy that wanted out the most !!!
Finally somebody said it to him, 50 years late, but finally!! 0:08
Obviously we knew that the Beatles wouldn’t continue without John but the fact he asked that question and just the possibility that the Beatles could’ve continued without John was great, in my opinion. I’ve always wondered what Paul’s thoughts to that would’ve been and I’ve never heard anyone ever mention that to Paul in any interview.
George Harrison was an amazing songwriter. From 68 on he was easily as good as Paul and John.
Talented songwriter most certainly but one the greatest underrated guitarist in the last 55yrs.
Nice thought, but George was also fed up with being a Beatle at the time and wouldn’t have done it.
Ive listened to countless interviews with Macca. Thats a fantastic question. Its been put to macca a lot that question but not quite in the same way. Fair play to Howard on that one.
Gotta admit, this is the first time I've been genuinely impressed by HS. Finally someone had the guts to call out Paul for underestimating George. The first question is kinda interesting but kinda naive. Here's why: did he really think that after 6 years of John and Paul underestimating George, that as soon as John left, Paul was suddenly going to stop underestimating George?? Seems unlikely
Howard should do his homework. George wanted out just as much as John did
Paul had two choices while doing interviews
"You know" or "uuuhhhh"
I wished they had reunited in 1974 when I was 16. It would have been my utter happyness and bliss
Stern has to remember they were breaking up anyway, because like a lot of other bands, you just start to slowly drift away from wanting to do things as a group, and you want to go discover new thing yourself.
Nobody's ever, to my knowledge, put it so bluntly to Paul that he might have underestimated George. And, quite honestly, Stern's bluntness here is not only disrespectful to Paul but it's far from being true. Both John and Paul bust a GUT even before Abbey Road had been released to praise George's 2 songs, which were also sympathetically ordered in the track listing, as best on the album. In the process, Paul's beautiful career best type tracks Oh Darling and You Never Give Me Your Money got relatively overlooked. Furthermore, George was granted the OPENING track on Revolver. It might seem strange that both Paul and John didn't praise George's work before Abbey Road but they were ALL reluctant to praise each others work and Paul and John contributed a lot more suitable material than George did. John AND George were certainly more sniffy about Paul's work than vice versa. If Paul hadn't written Drive my car, would George have written the in some ways musically similar Taxman? If Paul hadn't written Yesterday, would George have written what was uncharacteristically for George, a ballad, Something? George was hugely inspired by John AND (surely, but George wouldn't admit) Paul. George brought in the Indian influence too of course.
Let’s be fair. Let’s not forget about that famous September meet just after Abbey Road was released with Paul, George and John (John has this meeting recorded for Ringo who was in the hospital). John wanted to continue the group and he suggested that each person should get 4 songs (4 for Paul, 4 for George and 4 for John, and if Ringo wanted to do a song or two that was ok). Paul veto this as he said that he did not think George’s songs were not that good. In which John replayed nobody in the group liked Maxwell Silver Hammer, but did it anyway, This is why George would say often over the years that he would join a group with John, but would never join a group again with Paul.
Have Paul and Ringo on Stage with many special guest coming up and sharing the spot light doing Beatle Songs! Etc. Good Idea, hopefully and maybe Someday! Yeah....Now that would be something!!
Got to be soon.
I like how Howard asks all the questions I have
George did say he never would play in a band with McCartney again, he did help John on Imagine never helped Paul with anything except Anthology. George didn't even want to come to America, every true fan knows that,Howard !
Like the way he said appropriate for right now.…
And HS said, ‘er, yeah’
🤣
As to George’s song writing ability, Meet the Beatles had his angry young man song, Don’t Bother Me. Great tune which one contemporary critic said contained Aeolian Cadences which was a good laugh for the Fabs. As to George’s performance mojo, just listened to the BBC tapes of I Forgot to Remember to Forget, Ain’t Nothing Shaking But the Leaves on the Tree and Glad All Over, great Rockabilly tunes. But dear Howard probably doesn’t know that so is he such a super fan?
👍👍👍Howy! that explains everything. I love the Beatles because they have always been a part of my life.
Some say before they broke up George was the one who started not showing up at the studio and focusing on other things .
In the recently discovered recording of a meeting that took place between John, Paul and George, after the Abbey Road album, John offered suggestions for the album which would have followed Abbey Road (John, Paul, George = 4 songs each + 2 Ringo songs), so it would seem that John wasn't the only one who broke up The Beatles. I think Paul's mind was already made up and if you listen to the lyrics of Carry That Weight, Golden Slumbers and The End, I think it was pointing towards the end of his membership in the group. I also find it strange that Howard would ask if Paul had ever considered continuing The Beatles with only George and Ringo. At the time, Paul wanted Apple to be represented by Lee and John Eastman (Linda's father and brother) and the 3 other Beatles wanted Allen Klein. This was a major point of contention and Paul took legal action to break up The Beatles, thus preventing them from continuing without him. The lyrics in Paul's song ''3 Legs'' ''My dog he got 3 legs, your dog he can't run.'' are self-explanatory. I'm not trying to put Paul down. I'm sure he had many reasons to do what he did, but I don't think that John should take 100% of the blame for The Beatles' breakup.
I often wished they could have continued, perhaps in a looser and more flexible arrangement, perhaps also 'collaborating' with additional musicians more, but perhaps it had run its natural course. It would be nice to think they could have started playing live again maybe if the mass hysteria had died down and fans had grown up a bit and may have been there more to listen to the music than merely screat. Also the live equipment would have progressed. The pressure to produce an album every year may have gone. It's easy to say all this from the outside of course. I've left musical ensembles when it was just clear that it was the right time and if you add on the vast public scrutiny these guys were subject to from all over the world then it maybe isn't too surprising they felt it was 'The End' and I think we can all agree that the love they made was indeed great!
Howard was always a good interviewer...not the best but keeps it real and interesting...from Strippers to Rock Legends or Showbiz Stars Howard has evolved a bit in his elder years! Also on the breakup...13 years is a long time for 4 lads to be together and create genius. So the time was right....everyone had time to spread their musical wings and look inward and outward for more creativity. As we listen to Sir Paul I hope you kids appreciate who he was then and the relevance he still is today. Ringo is still very much relevant to any drummer worthy of 4/4 ..1/4..1/2..times! Thank you Howard keep on Going!
Simple, without John, Paul, George, or RIngo it wouldn't have been The Beatles.
Dallas Brubaker
If Ringo was missing, I think most people wouldn’t be as bothered as opposed to one of the three original Beatles. If Pete Best replaced Ringo, I wonder if he’d be tolerated.
it wasn’t about the song writing, wish it was because paul could take care of that just fine even by himself. it was about their feeling at the time, you weren’t there and wouldn’t understand how they felt. and they weren’t thinking clearly after the manager just died too. it is easier said then done basically.
Keep the Beatles going with George? George wanted out more than anyone.
Once again...THANKS Howard. Keep it flowing please.
Europe is tunned.
My favorite Harrisong is Don’t Bother Me from the first album
George and Ringo wanted out of the band, too. The three wanted to move on, McCartney was the only one hanging on to nostalgia.
They wanted to be to be in control and recognized for their talent as individuals. As in any family, eventually most if not all of the members want to break free. Paul was the head of the family and wanted to hold on to what he had. And he deserved to be the leader, without him they would have never achieved what they did. With Paul holding down the fort John was allowed to be crazy and experiment and George was allowed to develop his talent. Without Paul's steady hand the Beatles would have flamed out in a couple of years. A true genius and a stabilizing force at the same time.
Say what you want about Howard Stern but he always asks those juicy questions that we all want to hear about
The short answer is that it's impossible to imagine the Beatles without John or Paul. John is on record as saying that the Beatles broke up because "they were tired of being Paul's sidemen." Ringo and George had both walked in 1968 and 1969 before John ended things. I can't see them in 1970 wanting to continue in a band with Paul.
This is a great question and I think the beatles could have made even more amazing music but in my opinion it wouldn't be the beatles without John
Its a shame that Beatles broke at the time they did, it was unheard of band members to have a few year vacation from the band.
Just the thought that "lets put this band on a dry deck for two years and we have fun with our projects and later we start this again" was not imagined to be possible.
I believe The Beatles were the greatest band in music history. I also believe when they decided to breakup, it was permanent. " And in the end, the love you save is equal to the love you gave."
YES THE SUN CLEANS BETTER THAN ANYTHING
All Beatles and the Public underestimated George Harrison until later when Here Comes the Sun, Something, and While My Guitar Gently Weeps.
It was not really long after that they broke up.
To this day Something is considered by many noted people, Sinatra for one, to be the Best Beatles song.
Could it be that somehow the stars aligned in the galaxy to put three extremly photogenic musical geniuses each with top notch singing voices in the same band?
I think somehow this happened.
Dont forget Taxman and Yer Blue
At that point they were all at one another's throats. Ringo quit and reluctantly came back. If it wasn't for Billy Preston, they probably would have broken up at least a year earlier. Paul was right, there was no going on without John. It wouldn't have been The Beatles.
George and to a lesser extent Ringo wouldn't have done it even if Paul had suggested it. Paul had become a control freak by that time, and they didn't want a bar of him. Then on top of that is the Eastman/Klein split. So they were totally divided on musical, personal and business side.
I'm not pointing the finger at Paul necesarily, but have a look at who was working together in the early 70s. John/George/Ringo all collaborated quite a bit:
- All Things must Pass (George and Ringo) Plastic Ono Band (John & Ringo), Imagine (John & George) + on Ringo's early albums for another example.
Paul didnt collaborate with the others at all - he was totally on the outer.
It was John's band, and he invited Paul in, and then George was added.
But it wasn't John who left. He did say he wanted out, but Paul told him not to talk about it publicly -- then PAUL publicly announced HE was leaving, releasing his first solo album at the same time. Dirty politics by Paul.
One thing Howard isn’t considering is the fact that George Harrison really wanted out as well. I don’t think he had any interest whatsoever in writing alongside McCartney at that point.
I love The Beatles. 🥺
Even Hatteras likes the Beatles.
lmao paul was a control freak george wouldnt have even wanted that