I’m easy prey to any article mentioning a Beatle, but I found that quite interesting.
When watching that recent Beatles doco “Get Back” about the making of Let it be, it was fascinating to see how John and Paul had a way of putting musical ideas back and forth between them — but when a tune wasn’t yet “ready” to move out of that duo of composers then they did not want George to get involved. And I saw Paul getting the most frustrated by this - that George would add some embellishment or input - and Paul would feel like it was a set back and a distraction.
So strange to see it unfolding!
It was like this. Imagine two people (John and Paul) are working together to build a life size puppet/model of a character using wire and bolts. The two of them are constantly changing the shape of the character as they evolve the idea. But then a third person comes along, who happens to be the worlds best papier-mâché artist, and he starts putting papier-mâché “skin” over the half constructed character. They all get upset with each other. The world expert papier-mâché artist is hurt, the modellers are frustrated, it’s total chaos.
Anyway - it was a tough position for George to be in, that was pretty clear.
Great comment and we see the same tension in many other collaborative areas. When designing software interfaces we deliberately use wireframes to prevent people from trying to add detail prematurely.
But the place that bothers me the most is when writing papers. I can't find an approach that works well for all teams, or even for myself working alone - do I write the experiments and results first, or do I try to shape the overall message first, ...
When you think of the primary roles of each member, this conflict definitely makes sense. John: rhythm guitar. Paul: piano and bass. George: lead guitar. The Beatles catalog is very accessible so it follows that they put a lot of effort to avoid getting bogged down in, as the movie Amadeus put it, "too many notes".
I find myself just really annoyed with the author here. Yoko may not have been the catalyst for breaking up the Beatles, but let's not pretend like she was advancing feminism just by being present in the studio, much to the dismay of the other members of the Beatles [1]. She's just being rude in the same way it'd be rude for someone to be standing next to me while I'm on the toilet. She might not be doing anything but her presence is certainly disruptive.
Have you been in a band? You wouldn't be annoyed at Yoko, you'd be annoyed at John for bringing her into practice like that and insisting that she belongs...
Well John brought her in and insisted that she be there because she was part of him and he couldn't do it without her there, so I don't know why you'd be annoyed at her tbh. John was being incredibly obnoxious and obviously trying to get his bandmates riled up about it.
> Well John brought her in and insisted that she be there because she was part of him and he couldn't do it without her there, so I don't know why you'd be annoyed at her tbh.
This is basically saying that she has no agency over her own actions, when clearly that is not the case.
I'm not sure how you got to that, I don't think so at all. In fact, I'm positive, any reasonable reading of what I said leaves highways of space between a lack of agency and what she did.
You're absolving her of all blame because John wanted to be there. As if her own personal responsibility for whether or not she should be in the studio with The Beatles starts and ends with what John says, not with her own ability to read the room, to understand that she's not welcome. That is, by reasonable standards, implying that she lacks personal agency. That she cannot make the decision for herself and thus is not responsible or deserving of the ire she earned while at the studio. Except she is her own self, she was serving her own purpose by being there, even if it was at least in part in reverence of John's desires.
We know for a fact that at least one Beatle was annoyed because Paul has plainly said her presence was unwelcome. I'm certain he was also quite annoyed with John, but he was independently annoyed by her being there. In fact I think most people would get quickly annoyed with Yoko being around them. Her "performances" are obnoxious and narcissistic.
Seems like you are projecting a bit. I'm not sure she'd agree that she also doesn't belong. So, the fact that you do doesn't really mean she should take personal blame for it. That's pretty ridiculous if you think about it.
> As if her own personal responsibility for whether or not she should be in the studio with The Beatles starts and ends with what John says, not with her own ability to read the room, to understand that she's not welcome.
Her partner asked her to be there for him... No one else expressed anything otherwise, because they knew how John would react.
> Except she is her own self, she was serving her own purpose by being there, even if it was at least in part in reverence of John's desires.
Yeah, she was serving the purpose of helping out her partner and lover and mate.
>We know for a fact that at least one Beatle was annoyed because Paul has plainly said her presence was unwelcome. I'm certain he was also quite annoyed with John, but he was independently annoyed by her being there. In fact I think most people would get quickly annoyed with Yoko being around them. Her "performances" are obnoxious and narcissistic.
Big coming from you with this kind of posting. Yawn.
> Seems like you are projecting a bit. I'm not sure she'd agree that she also doesn't belong. So, the fact that you do doesn't really mean she should take personal blame for it. That's pretty ridiculous if you think about it.
On the contrary, I'm quite convinced she did think she belonged, which is the problem. She was incapable of understanding the situation, John didn't care, and the other Beatles refused to confront John or Yoko about it despite it being quite clearly obtrusive.
> Her partner asked her to be there for him... No one else expressed anything otherwise, because they knew how John would react.
I'm not denying that it's a failure on multiple people's parts, but you're just pretending like Yoko doesn't share any of that responsibility herself.
> Big coming from you with this kind of posting. Yawn.
As opposed to your kind of posting that's infantilizing grown women on top of your inability to empathize. Yawn indeed.
Not sure how you could say John didn't care when he clearly did.
>I'm not denying that it's a failure on multiple people's parts, but you're just pretending like Yoko doesn't share any of that responsibility herself.
Because I wouldn't blame my bandmate's gf for showing up when he asked her to... They have to sleep together every night, it's understandable she's trying to do the right thing by him, even if it's not what I want. Further to that point, if she did show up, I wouldn't be angry at her, because my issue would be with my bandmate. You seem incredibly emotionally undeveloped tbh.
>As opposed to your kind of posting that's infantilizing grown women on top of your inability to empathize. Yawn indeed.
There's something wrong with you that you immediately jump to the conclusion that I'm infantilizing her. A much more reasonable explanation is that I don't think she did anything wrong by doing what John asked her to do. You really got something going on and I don't want to be a part of it. Yoko haters are always like this.
> Not sure how you could say John didn't care when he clearly did.
John didn't care what other people thought about her being there because he was as self absorbed as she is.
> Because I wouldn't blame my bandmate's gf for showing up when he asked her to...
I wouldn't blame her for showing up, but I would blame her for continuing to sit in the room when it's quite clear that she wasn't welcome. Somehow the girlfriends of the other band members were able to figure this out. Either Yoko is dense or she just didn't care. the NY Times article paints it as if she knew exactly what she was doing and that it was somehow some sort of heroic effort.
It’s totally the opposite. John absolutely did care what the others thought, that’s exactly why he brought her there. He knew it would bother them, and that’s exactly what he intended and cared to do. He wasn’t unconcerned whether they would feel one way or another. He was entirely aware he was pushing boundaries, and he was doing it to see where he stood with the other band members, and how bad they wanted/needed him. Once again, I think your perspective reflects a lack of emotional development w/r/t how you imagine Yoko and John i.e. that they are simply just self-obsessed and oblivious to anything besides their own desires. It’s clearly the opposite, John knew exactly what he was doing, and why he was doing it and the risks it brought.
Your other point also reflects emotional immaturity. If my bandmate brought his gf to practice, I wouldn’t sit there and seethe at her (and it’s funny you describe it this way when the obvious takeaway from get back is how much her being there was a non-issue despite the visual and conceptual absurdity of her sitting there reading a book about the Beatles), I would bring it up with my bandmate. Like I pointed out before, and in Yoko’s case, she’s trying to do the right thing by her life partner, her lover, her husband, future father of her children, someone she was deeply into a heroin addiction with, which to her, supersedes anything she would owe to Paul or any other Beatle. It's pretty absurd for you to have suggested I was the one taking away her agency or infantilizing her, while you reject basic human emotions. You act like John passively asked her "Hey, wanna come to band practice?" wherein what he actually did was tell her that he needed her there in order to actually do it in the first place. This is all post-white album.
That’s why you seem especially emotionally immature, if not outright just selfish. You (a) project it onto Yoko and John in order to eschew any other reasonable explanation, and (b) think that your bandmate’s partner owes you more than she owes your bandmate and that to do otherwise would just reflect not caring or being “dense”. I’d like to think you’d be a better partner to a potential better half of yours, but hey, clearly you don’t care! I hope they don’t either!
> It’s totally the opposite. John absolutely did care what the others thought, that’s exactly why he brought her there. He knew it would bother them, and that’s exactly what he intended and cared to do. He wasn’t unconcerned whether they would feel one way or another. He was entirely aware he was pushing boundaries, and he was doing it to see where he stood with the other band members, and how bad they wanted/needed him. Once again, I think your perspective reflects a lack of emotional development w/r/t how you imagine Yoko and John i.e. that they are simply just self-obsessed and oblivious to anything besides their own desires. It’s clearly the opposite, John knew exactly what he was doing, and why he was doing it and the risks it brought.
I find it remarkable that you wrote all this out and didn't once think that this is remarkably selfish, self serving, and narcissistic. Most people would condemn this type of behavior, but you're trying to elevate it into something greater than what it is. Stop proselytizing.
> think that your bandmate’s partner owes you more than she owes your bandmate and that to do otherwise would just reflect not caring or being “dense”. I’d like to think you’d be a better partner to a potential better half of yours, but hey, clearly you don’t care! I hope they don’t either!
I think that there's a time and place for things. If you're in a space to write music with your band then you defer to what is good for the band. If I'm visiting their home, that's a completely different story and I defer to what they want, because that's their space.
Yoko has done this a lot throughout her career. She's injected herself in places that she clearly wasn't welcome and made it about her. Perhaps she is making an artistic statement but it hardly matters, because in doing so she's disrupting everyone else who in some cases often are trying to make their own art.
>I find it remarkable that you wrote all this out and didn't once think that this is remarkably selfish, self serving, and narcissistic. Most people would condemn this type of behavior, but you're trying to elevate it into something greater than what it is. Stop proselytizing.
I don't think so at all, because it's not in service of the self, it's service of their partner. Maybe you are projecting.
>I think that there's a time and place for things. If you're in a space to write music with your band then you defer to what is good for the band. If I'm visiting their home, that's a completely different story and I defer to what they want, because that's their space.
But a band member invited her in. You keep inserting your own version of a hypothetical that totally runs against what actually happened.
>Yoko has done this a lot throughout her career. She's injected herself in places that she clearly wasn't welcome and made it about her. Perhaps she is making an artistic statement but it hardly matters, because in doing so she's disrupting everyone else who in some cases often are trying to make their own art.
She didn't inject herself. John literally told her he needed her there, I'm not sure what is so difficult for you to understand about this. Seems like you don't even understand the concept of an invitation, which makes total sense to me given your behavior here.
> I don't think so at all, because it's not in service of the self, it's service of their partner. Maybe you are projecting.
It's almost as if people are capable of doing things under one pretense while their aim is another. The NY Times' article's author certainly seems to think that Yoko had ulterior motives, not that it matters, since the discussion stems from you being unable to understand why people would be annoyed with Yoko, despite the fact that they were.
> But a band member invited her in. You keep inserting your own version of a hypothetical that totally runs against what actually happened.
I'm not really inserting any hypothetical. She was in the studio. She annoyed the other Beatles, as confirmed by one of the other Beatles.
> She didn't inject herself. John literally told her he needed her there, I'm not sure what is so difficult for you to understand about this. Seems like you don't even understand the concept of an invitation, which makes total sense to me given your behavior here.
She injected herself in things outside of John and the Beatles. I'm sure you know this because you seem to be a fan of hers... but also because of this, you probably think she wasn't.
You seem to be incredulous that anyone could be annoyed with her, which is your own personal failing. The reality is people were, regardless of whether or not it was justified in your head.
You completely misrepresent things. I totally understand why someone would be annoyed by Yoko’s presence, that doesn’t justify them making it an issue with her. I'm annoyed that my boss had someone share an office with me, but I blame my boss not that individual. Are you 5 years old or something? I already explained this to you when I said if my bandmate’s gf showed up, I would not sit there seething at her, nor would I blame her. Are you saying there is something wrong with that response? It seems like a perfectly reasonable response. Yet you are insisting I should be seething and angry at her, while also insisting you are emotionally well balanced to make these kind of judgments? Clearly you aren’t. You are angry, resentful, and spiteful. Clearly.
The hypothetical you insert isn’t whether someone else was annoyed or not, but the pretext of why she was there in the first place. It’s one thing if you want to disagree. But if you are going to continuously have this discussion with me in such a dishonest fashion, I’m not going to engage. She wasn't there because she, on her own decided to be there. She was there because John asked her. You refuse to acknowledge this and repeatedly try and contextualize it as a decision she made against anyone else, while ignoring the most obvious primary motivation, and one that would take place over everything else you suggest. It's just baffling that you can be this emotionally stunted to be like "why didn't she just instead ignore her lover, husband, future father of her children, in order to appease people that did not otherwise express anything to her?" Do you really make decisions like that in real life?
So now you are talking about things besides get back? And an article from the times? I don’t know what article you are talking about, it’s not the subject of this thread. And who cares what the article stated about her motivation? There is so much media about this, plenty of it contradicts you. Also, so does common sense. What did she achieve by inserting herself in there? No one even really knew or cared (save for some extreme fans) until the get back release came out last year... get a grip.
And once again you completely misrepresent everything I said, I’m not at all surprised someone is annoyed by her. How could I be? The world is full of people that, quite willingly and openly, express their disdain and annoyance with Yoko. How could it be a surprise to me?? You’ve really got to be kidding me with these kinds of arguments.
At least have some self respect and bow out or just agree to disagree, rather than flat-out lying about what we’ve debated in order to get a slam-dunk last word.
>”The reality is people were, regardless of whether or not it was justified in your head.”
The reality is that I’ve only ever argued whether or not it was justified, not whether or not someone was annoyed. Whether or not they were annoyed isn’t really up for a debate, now is it? If you are going to respond again, at least do it in good faith.
> So now you are talking about things besides get back?
> And an article from the times? I don’t know what article you are talking about, it’s not the subject of this thread.
It's linked directly above my first comment on this thread and was in part what I was responding to. It's not unreasonable to expect you to have read the parent comment to a comment you're responding to, even if you didn't read the article. That's on you for responding without the proper context, though.
> The hypothetical you insert isn’t whether someone else was annoyed or not, but the pretext of why she was there in the first place. It’s one thing if you want to disagree. But if you are going to continuously have this discussion with me in such a dishonest fashion, I’m not going to engage. She wasn't there because she, on her own decided to be there. She was there because John asked her. You refuse to acknowledge this and repeatedly try and contextualize it as a decision she made against anyone else,
You might make a decision based on certain factors to participate in something. In this case, John Lennon asks Yoko Ono to come to the studio with him. She lacks context to make a decision off of anything else but what John says, so she agrees to go. I'm not saying that's wrong or that she is at fault for that. I am saying that it's a conscious decision on her part to remain there, of which she can be held responsible for her part in that.
> And once again you completely misrepresent everything I said, I’m not at all surprised someone is annoyed by her. How could I be? The world is full of people that, quite willingly and openly, express their disdain and annoyance with Yoko. How could it be a surprise to me?? You’ve really got to be kidding me with these kinds of arguments.
Yeah, this is what you said, in case you forgot:
> Have you been in a band? You wouldn't be annoyed at Yoko, you'd be annoyed at John for bringing her into practice like that and insisting that she belongs...
> I would not sit there seething at her, nor would I blame her. Are you saying there is something wrong with that response?
No, I don't think there's anything wrong with that response. That's your prerogative.
> Yet you are insisting I should be seething and angry at her
I never said anyone should be seething or angry at her. Those are your words. I specifically said I would be annoyed with both John and Yoko, for different reasons.
> while also insisting you are emotionally well balanced to make these kind of judgments?
I never insisted that I was emotionally well balanced; you're once again putting words into my mouth. I almost don't even have to be here for this conversation because you seem to have made up a person, that isn't me, in your head to have an argument with.
> Clearly you aren’t. You are angry, resentful, and spiteful. Clearly.
I'm impressed how much you can extrapolate from the words you put in other people's mouths... maybe work on your reading comprehension and emotional regulation before engaging with people online. It doesn't seem like you're mentally prepared for it.
I don't know about a /complete/ vindication. She was still a weirdo that occasionally got to wedge her shitty attempts at art into stuff created by people more talented than her, just because she was in a relationship with one of the Beatles. Can't forget Bill Burr's rant about Yoko Ono appearing alongside a performance by Lennon and Chuck Berry, screaming into the mic like an idiot.
Like it or not, there is a whole world of art and music outside of your pop world that doesn't rest on naive ideas of talent==good, of which Yoko is a highly regarded individual. She was an original member of Fluxus for god sakes! She studied under John Cage! Her art is displayed at MoMA and surely countless other place. You may think it's idiotic, but all that shows is your somewhat narrow idea of what art and music can be. I wonder what you'd think of some of George's solo ventures, something like "Wonderwall Music" is probably just as idiotic to you.
> She was an original member of Fluxus for god sakes!
> Although she didn't actually join the Fluxus group, she collaborated over many years with him [1]
So... she was not. Also, Fluxus, MoMA, these are visual arts. That doesn't mean she has training or talent to be playing music on live television with Lennon and Berry
John respected her as an artist, I'm not sure why you are being obtuse about this. Do you have any familiarity with their relationship outside of this youtube video of them playing with Chuck Berry? John and Yoko put out several albums together and Yoko is prolific in the avant garde/experimental music scene.
So? You ignore everything else I wrote which even more directly addresses your point so I'm not sure what you are trying to say besides just hating on Yoko for the hell of it. Yawn, oldest shtick out there.
George would have been happy to continue as part of the group if given a bit more leeway. He made it clear that he’d have been willing to solider on, at least for recording.
John was the leader of the group to the end, despite McCartney’s creative leadership in the latter days. If he’d said “yo, let’s get back together once a year and do an album” the others would have done it. If he’d said “let’s not break up,” they would not have broken up.
It wasn’t Yoko or George. It was John. And what John seems to have actually wanted was more creative and personal freedom. Paul’s perfectionism made both him and George unhappy.
There is an incredibly in-depth fan analysis of the audiotapes that provide the backstory for Get Back here: https://theymaybeparted.com/. The upshot is that it’s very clear Paul and John were aware of the issues with the group dynamic — Paul understood that the others perceived him as overbearing — but they just didn’t know how or didn’t want to resolve it in a way that kept them together.
I'm not a Beatles scholar, but trying to point the finger at a specific person seems really silly. They broke up for the same reason most bands break up: they grew up. They got together when they were young, and after 10 years, their artistic and personal lives were no longer compatible.
The Beatles can be discussed more specifically because there’s so much material and footage of them, and groups of fans and scholars are numerous have a lot of shared knowledge so on-depth conversations are more likely to be possible in an off-topic/general environment like this one.
Engaging at the level of broad similarities between typical pop bands is fine, too, but knowing more about one band than that is not silly.
I'm not saying it's silly to be knowledgeable about the Beatles. I think it's silly to point to something specific like "Yoko/John/George broke the Beatles up!". Group dynamics are always more complex than that. But the thing that seems clear with the Beatles, and many many other groups, is that their tastes, interests, and personal lives evolved and they didn't or couldn't work together anymore.
Sorry to misunderstand you. But, among knowledgeable people, I think you find the discussions of the individuals are more complex than you’re representing, especially if you have an opportunity to listen to a complete conversation in person. With exceptions, of course.
It's worth pointing out that near the root of this comment thread is a comment that reads, "Yoko wasn’t the wedge that drove the Beatles apart, it was George." Not to take away from either point; yours that there's plenty of room for nuance and theirs that the nuance isn't always given room. Just that they seem to be responding more to this sort of comment than Beatles commentary as a whole.
If you familiarize yourself with their group dynamics, it's pretty clear that John broke the band up. You can just keep repeating group dynamics all you want but it's a cop-out that doesn't address what actually happened. There are bands that stay together despite or because of "group dynamics"
I think so too. When asked point blank Paul said John broke up the band. The clip is on Youtube. I get it's just his word but from so many sources John was an exhausting personality to deal with in long doses. You can tell that from the audio tapes of their recordings.
I mean John broke it up for reasons beyond him just being difficult. It's been deeply analyzed by many, I think the One Sweet Dream podcast gets it best where John is hurt by his relationship to Paul and the notion that Paul might not need him anymore.
George was brilliant but was treated like he wasn't. John and Paul treated each other with respect, but George as lesser. Your argument amounts to he should have shut up and dealt with it. Someone not putting up with poor treatment doesn't make them the problem.
The Yoko thing was always just an unfounded, arguably misogynistic, meme in the world. At the very least, it always struck me as rather insulting to John! As if he was an easily swayed child struck by summertime limerence or something, it never made sense.
It was Paul, definitely.
George was the genius composer, Paul the pedestrian, who demanded everything for himself. In the end they kicked him out, well done.
Harrison had a completely different arc than John and Paul.
He was ascendant when the Beatles broke up and Paul and especially John had kind of already gone past their peak. You can watch "Get Back" and think George was being annoying butting into John and Paul's writing. Or you can notice John is an annoying addict/drunk in almost every scene where work is happening.
It was their failure not to realize how much of an asset George had developed into.
I find it odd sometimes how penning the lyrics for a song is considered so much more important (artistically & legally) than everything else. There are plenty of songs where the guitar part or piano/keys part is what made the song a success and which would not have been hits just based on the lyrics. Likewise for beats and drums in genres in which the beats/production makes or breaks the song.
Even if you could have replaced Harrison with someone as good as Clapton or Beck the Beatles would not have been the same.
Quite fascinating read. I always considered George my favorite beatle. He had a big heart for India and it influenced the Beatles during their later years before they broke up. But it’s because of his overall creative that I was such a fan of him. In addition to his music career, Harrison was also a film producer and a humanitarian. He produced the film "Monty Python's Life of Brian" (1979) and organized the Concert for Bangladesh (1971), a benefit concert that raised money for refugees from the Bangladesh Liberation War. For those who don’t know , George passed away in early 2000s from throat cancer I believe. Such a legend!
Harrison's first recorded song was not Taxman, but five years before that: Don't bother me. He also had a song on A Hard days night, two on Help and two on Rubber Soul, before Taxman (where Paul played the guitar solo btw). So it might have been bad, being nr 3, but not bad as suggested.
Nitpick - he didn't write the song on AHDN (i'm happy just to dance with you). John did. And George had 2 songs on PPM, but one was a cover (chains) and one was written by John (do you want to know a secret?).
When you have enough time and the same rock chord progressions, there are going to be similarities. I would be surprised if that song had anything other than a subconscious effect on Harrison’s song writing. Lawsuits over this type of thing are a huge impediment to the creative process imho.
Harrison was a pro at orchestrating complex melodies. I think he's a legend. But I don't think there's any question that he bite that 60's ronie mack single. personally I think it was Phil Spector that goaded him into My Sweet Lord. 60's pop was his specialty and he knew it was going to sell. Spector was a lunatic too so there could have also been some behind the scenes situation between him and Harrison when they produced that song.
But I in no way want to shit on George Harrison though. I think he's one of the best songwriters of his era. I just wanted to point out that My Sweet Lord was like a sample.
That's true and was the industry standard at the time, but I think Rubber Soul was the first successful album released where every track was penned by the performing artists.
"In spite" is a bit of a stretch on 'songwriting' credit, as he 'just' wrote the 'solo' bit. But, rethinking, if we're counting the intro guitar line... it's... a hook. It's not nothing. It's hard to think of the song without that little opening hook/riff.
We could dig further and look at the only (AFAICR) Lennon/Harrison "Cry For A Shadow" as evidence of early songwriting, but given it's an instrumental, it's another stretch.
I'd like to propose this as a reference article for the class of "not particularly well-written essays which nevertheless could not be written by a circa 2023 LLM".
A few of the sentences could have been written by an LLM, especially the last one. But the overall structure has motion, empathy, and interprets historical events in the context of human motivations and desires. Quotes are both appropriate and reflective. The author thought about this, rather than compiling it.
At some point, we need to realise that we’ve learned enough through consumption. Only by creating can we maximise the learning journey and prevent what we’ve learned from stagnating within us. The best way to do that is to develop a habit of creative experimentation and expression by allocating daily time for our creative pursuits.
George lived his best life. There's a part of "20 Feet From Stardom" where one of the profiled backup singers who was in The Concert for Bangladesh says it was an experience that anyone would remember for the rest of their life.
80 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 124 ms ] threadWhen watching that recent Beatles doco “Get Back” about the making of Let it be, it was fascinating to see how John and Paul had a way of putting musical ideas back and forth between them — but when a tune wasn’t yet “ready” to move out of that duo of composers then they did not want George to get involved. And I saw Paul getting the most frustrated by this - that George would add some embellishment or input - and Paul would feel like it was a set back and a distraction.
So strange to see it unfolding!
It was like this. Imagine two people (John and Paul) are working together to build a life size puppet/model of a character using wire and bolts. The two of them are constantly changing the shape of the character as they evolve the idea. But then a third person comes along, who happens to be the worlds best papier-mâché artist, and he starts putting papier-mâché “skin” over the half constructed character. They all get upset with each other. The world expert papier-mâché artist is hurt, the modellers are frustrated, it’s total chaos.
Anyway - it was a tough position for George to be in, that was pretty clear.
But the place that bothers me the most is when writing papers. I can't find an approach that works well for all teams, or even for myself working alone - do I write the experiments and results first, or do I try to shape the overall message first, ...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Na7ZY7W3pk
Yes, I have.
> You wouldn't be annoyed at Yoko, you'd be annoyed at John for bringing her into practice like that and insisting that she belongs...
I'd be annoyed with both for different reasons.
This is basically saying that she has no agency over her own actions, when clearly that is not the case.
We know for a fact that at least one Beatle was annoyed because Paul has plainly said her presence was unwelcome. I'm certain he was also quite annoyed with John, but he was independently annoyed by her being there. In fact I think most people would get quickly annoyed with Yoko being around them. Her "performances" are obnoxious and narcissistic.
> As if her own personal responsibility for whether or not she should be in the studio with The Beatles starts and ends with what John says, not with her own ability to read the room, to understand that she's not welcome.
Her partner asked her to be there for him... No one else expressed anything otherwise, because they knew how John would react.
> Except she is her own self, she was serving her own purpose by being there, even if it was at least in part in reverence of John's desires.
Yeah, she was serving the purpose of helping out her partner and lover and mate.
>We know for a fact that at least one Beatle was annoyed because Paul has plainly said her presence was unwelcome. I'm certain he was also quite annoyed with John, but he was independently annoyed by her being there. In fact I think most people would get quickly annoyed with Yoko being around them. Her "performances" are obnoxious and narcissistic.
Big coming from you with this kind of posting. Yawn.
On the contrary, I'm quite convinced she did think she belonged, which is the problem. She was incapable of understanding the situation, John didn't care, and the other Beatles refused to confront John or Yoko about it despite it being quite clearly obtrusive.
> Her partner asked her to be there for him... No one else expressed anything otherwise, because they knew how John would react.
I'm not denying that it's a failure on multiple people's parts, but you're just pretending like Yoko doesn't share any of that responsibility herself.
> Big coming from you with this kind of posting. Yawn.
As opposed to your kind of posting that's infantilizing grown women on top of your inability to empathize. Yawn indeed.
>I'm not denying that it's a failure on multiple people's parts, but you're just pretending like Yoko doesn't share any of that responsibility herself.
Because I wouldn't blame my bandmate's gf for showing up when he asked her to... They have to sleep together every night, it's understandable she's trying to do the right thing by him, even if it's not what I want. Further to that point, if she did show up, I wouldn't be angry at her, because my issue would be with my bandmate. You seem incredibly emotionally undeveloped tbh.
>As opposed to your kind of posting that's infantilizing grown women on top of your inability to empathize. Yawn indeed.
There's something wrong with you that you immediately jump to the conclusion that I'm infantilizing her. A much more reasonable explanation is that I don't think she did anything wrong by doing what John asked her to do. You really got something going on and I don't want to be a part of it. Yoko haters are always like this.
John didn't care what other people thought about her being there because he was as self absorbed as she is.
> Because I wouldn't blame my bandmate's gf for showing up when he asked her to...
I wouldn't blame her for showing up, but I would blame her for continuing to sit in the room when it's quite clear that she wasn't welcome. Somehow the girlfriends of the other band members were able to figure this out. Either Yoko is dense or she just didn't care. the NY Times article paints it as if she knew exactly what she was doing and that it was somehow some sort of heroic effort.
Your other point also reflects emotional immaturity. If my bandmate brought his gf to practice, I wouldn’t sit there and seethe at her (and it’s funny you describe it this way when the obvious takeaway from get back is how much her being there was a non-issue despite the visual and conceptual absurdity of her sitting there reading a book about the Beatles), I would bring it up with my bandmate. Like I pointed out before, and in Yoko’s case, she’s trying to do the right thing by her life partner, her lover, her husband, future father of her children, someone she was deeply into a heroin addiction with, which to her, supersedes anything she would owe to Paul or any other Beatle. It's pretty absurd for you to have suggested I was the one taking away her agency or infantilizing her, while you reject basic human emotions. You act like John passively asked her "Hey, wanna come to band practice?" wherein what he actually did was tell her that he needed her there in order to actually do it in the first place. This is all post-white album.
That’s why you seem especially emotionally immature, if not outright just selfish. You (a) project it onto Yoko and John in order to eschew any other reasonable explanation, and (b) think that your bandmate’s partner owes you more than she owes your bandmate and that to do otherwise would just reflect not caring or being “dense”. I’d like to think you’d be a better partner to a potential better half of yours, but hey, clearly you don’t care! I hope they don’t either!
I find it remarkable that you wrote all this out and didn't once think that this is remarkably selfish, self serving, and narcissistic. Most people would condemn this type of behavior, but you're trying to elevate it into something greater than what it is. Stop proselytizing.
> think that your bandmate’s partner owes you more than she owes your bandmate and that to do otherwise would just reflect not caring or being “dense”. I’d like to think you’d be a better partner to a potential better half of yours, but hey, clearly you don’t care! I hope they don’t either!
I think that there's a time and place for things. If you're in a space to write music with your band then you defer to what is good for the band. If I'm visiting their home, that's a completely different story and I defer to what they want, because that's their space.
Yoko has done this a lot throughout her career. She's injected herself in places that she clearly wasn't welcome and made it about her. Perhaps she is making an artistic statement but it hardly matters, because in doing so she's disrupting everyone else who in some cases often are trying to make their own art.
I don't think so at all, because it's not in service of the self, it's service of their partner. Maybe you are projecting.
>I think that there's a time and place for things. If you're in a space to write music with your band then you defer to what is good for the band. If I'm visiting their home, that's a completely different story and I defer to what they want, because that's their space.
But a band member invited her in. You keep inserting your own version of a hypothetical that totally runs against what actually happened.
>Yoko has done this a lot throughout her career. She's injected herself in places that she clearly wasn't welcome and made it about her. Perhaps she is making an artistic statement but it hardly matters, because in doing so she's disrupting everyone else who in some cases often are trying to make their own art.
She didn't inject herself. John literally told her he needed her there, I'm not sure what is so difficult for you to understand about this. Seems like you don't even understand the concept of an invitation, which makes total sense to me given your behavior here.
It's almost as if people are capable of doing things under one pretense while their aim is another. The NY Times' article's author certainly seems to think that Yoko had ulterior motives, not that it matters, since the discussion stems from you being unable to understand why people would be annoyed with Yoko, despite the fact that they were.
> But a band member invited her in. You keep inserting your own version of a hypothetical that totally runs against what actually happened.
I'm not really inserting any hypothetical. She was in the studio. She annoyed the other Beatles, as confirmed by one of the other Beatles.
> She didn't inject herself. John literally told her he needed her there, I'm not sure what is so difficult for you to understand about this. Seems like you don't even understand the concept of an invitation, which makes total sense to me given your behavior here.
She injected herself in things outside of John and the Beatles. I'm sure you know this because you seem to be a fan of hers... but also because of this, you probably think she wasn't.
You seem to be incredulous that anyone could be annoyed with her, which is your own personal failing. The reality is people were, regardless of whether or not it was justified in your head.
The hypothetical you insert isn’t whether someone else was annoyed or not, but the pretext of why she was there in the first place. It’s one thing if you want to disagree. But if you are going to continuously have this discussion with me in such a dishonest fashion, I’m not going to engage. She wasn't there because she, on her own decided to be there. She was there because John asked her. You refuse to acknowledge this and repeatedly try and contextualize it as a decision she made against anyone else, while ignoring the most obvious primary motivation, and one that would take place over everything else you suggest. It's just baffling that you can be this emotionally stunted to be like "why didn't she just instead ignore her lover, husband, future father of her children, in order to appease people that did not otherwise express anything to her?" Do you really make decisions like that in real life?
So now you are talking about things besides get back? And an article from the times? I don’t know what article you are talking about, it’s not the subject of this thread. And who cares what the article stated about her motivation? There is so much media about this, plenty of it contradicts you. Also, so does common sense. What did she achieve by inserting herself in there? No one even really knew or cared (save for some extreme fans) until the get back release came out last year... get a grip.
And once again you completely misrepresent everything I said, I’m not at all surprised someone is annoyed by her. How could I be? The world is full of people that, quite willingly and openly, express their disdain and annoyance with Yoko. How could it be a surprise to me?? You’ve really got to be kidding me with these kinds of arguments.
At least have some self respect and bow out or just agree to disagree, rather than flat-out lying about what we’ve debated in order to get a slam-dunk last word.
>”The reality is people were, regardless of whether or not it was justified in your head.”
The reality is that I’ve only ever argued whether or not it was justified, not whether or not someone was annoyed. Whether or not they were annoyed isn’t really up for a debate, now is it? If you are going to respond again, at least do it in good faith.
> And an article from the times? I don’t know what article you are talking about, it’s not the subject of this thread.
It's linked directly above my first comment on this thread and was in part what I was responding to. It's not unreasonable to expect you to have read the parent comment to a comment you're responding to, even if you didn't read the article. That's on you for responding without the proper context, though.
> The hypothetical you insert isn’t whether someone else was annoyed or not, but the pretext of why she was there in the first place. It’s one thing if you want to disagree. But if you are going to continuously have this discussion with me in such a dishonest fashion, I’m not going to engage. She wasn't there because she, on her own decided to be there. She was there because John asked her. You refuse to acknowledge this and repeatedly try and contextualize it as a decision she made against anyone else,
You might make a decision based on certain factors to participate in something. In this case, John Lennon asks Yoko Ono to come to the studio with him. She lacks context to make a decision off of anything else but what John says, so she agrees to go. I'm not saying that's wrong or that she is at fault for that. I am saying that it's a conscious decision on her part to remain there, of which she can be held responsible for her part in that.
> And once again you completely misrepresent everything I said, I’m not at all surprised someone is annoyed by her. How could I be? The world is full of people that, quite willingly and openly, express their disdain and annoyance with Yoko. How could it be a surprise to me?? You’ve really got to be kidding me with these kinds of arguments.
Yeah, this is what you said, in case you forgot:
> Have you been in a band? You wouldn't be annoyed at Yoko, you'd be annoyed at John for bringing her into practice like that and insisting that she belongs...
> I would not sit there seething at her, nor would I blame her. Are you saying there is something wrong with that response?
No, I don't think there's anything wrong with that response. That's your prerogative.
> Yet you are insisting I should be seething and angry at her
I never said anyone should be seething or angry at her. Those are your words. I specifically said I would be annoyed with both John and Yoko, for different reasons.
> while also insisting you are emotionally well balanced to make these kind of judgments?
I never insisted that I was emotionally well balanced; you're once again putting words into my mouth. I almost don't even have to be here for this conversation because you seem to have made up a person, that isn't me, in your head to have an argument with.
> Clearly you aren’t. You are angry, resentful, and spiteful. Clearly.
I'm impressed how much you can extrapolate from the words you put in other people's mouths... maybe work on your reading comprehension and emotional regulation before engaging with people online. It doesn't seem like you're mentally prepared for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4K07Kz7M8Q
> Although she didn't actually join the Fluxus group, she collaborated over many years with him [1]
So... she was not. Also, Fluxus, MoMA, these are visual arts. That doesn't mean she has training or talent to be playing music on live television with Lennon and Berry
[1]: https://fluxusmuseum.org/holding-page-for-yoko-ono/#:~:text=....
Gosh, what an imposition on society. How will we get over it, even decades later now? For what it's worth, John thought she belonged.
For romantic reasons, musicianship (?) reasons? A mix of both?
Or... if they were not together, would she be there screaming during a Berry solo?
Which was not what they were playing there on that live.
John was the leader of the group to the end, despite McCartney’s creative leadership in the latter days. If he’d said “yo, let’s get back together once a year and do an album” the others would have done it. If he’d said “let’s not break up,” they would not have broken up.
It wasn’t Yoko or George. It was John. And what John seems to have actually wanted was more creative and personal freedom. Paul’s perfectionism made both him and George unhappy.
There is an incredibly in-depth fan analysis of the audiotapes that provide the backstory for Get Back here: https://theymaybeparted.com/. The upshot is that it’s very clear Paul and John were aware of the issues with the group dynamic — Paul understood that the others perceived him as overbearing — but they just didn’t know how or didn’t want to resolve it in a way that kept them together.
Engaging at the level of broad similarities between typical pop bands is fine, too, but knowing more about one band than that is not silly.
He was ascendant when the Beatles broke up and Paul and especially John had kind of already gone past their peak. You can watch "Get Back" and think George was being annoying butting into John and Paul's writing. Or you can notice John is an annoying addict/drunk in almost every scene where work is happening.
It was their failure not to realize how much of an asset George had developed into.
I find it odd sometimes how penning the lyrics for a song is considered so much more important (artistically & legally) than everything else. There are plenty of songs where the guitar part or piano/keys part is what made the song a success and which would not have been hits just based on the lyrics. Likewise for beats and drums in genres in which the beats/production makes or breaks the song.
Even if you could have replaced Harrison with someone as good as Clapton or Beck the Beatles would not have been the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rinz9Avvq6A&feature=youtu.be
I want to say later on they trolled the shit out of Harrison by covering "my sweet lord".
But I in no way want to shit on George Harrison though. I think he's one of the best songwriters of his era. I just wanted to point out that My Sweet Lord was like a sample.
Regardless of how creative and respected you want to be as an individual, it might be better to just be in The Beatles.
Early Beatles albums are full of covers!
I liked the early Harrison songs like - "I need you" and "You like me to much" on Help. Even the anthology released "You Know What to Do" was good
We could dig further and look at the only (AFAICR) Lennon/Harrison "Cry For A Shadow" as evidence of early songwriting, but given it's an instrumental, it's another stretch.
A few of the sentences could have been written by an LLM, especially the last one. But the overall structure has motion, empathy, and interprets historical events in the context of human motivations and desires. Quotes are both appropriate and reflective. The author thought about this, rather than compiling it.