Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I agree. It seems to me that Paul's lead guitar work tended to be a bit more structured than George's, although perhaps with a bit less feeling. I think George may have been influenced by this, as his work seemed to become much better thought-out around the time Paul started playing more lead guitar.

I like Lennon more than either of them. I played guitar before bass also and it was also a very long time ago. When I play lead I sound like Mac, weak, haha! I thought Harrison's lead work was very structured, sometimes too much so. Mac's guitar playing sounds like he is just playing off the top of his head to me most of the time. But who am I to say? I don't even know all the songs he played lead on, just my general impressions.

Hafta say the same, Bob. Lennon was it for me. I see McCartney as creative but Lennon was always very basic, very real, lyrically and musically. As a team they became polar opposites but they certainly worked well together in the early stretch of the group. And as for Harrison's structured playing, I wonder how much of it was borne of necessity. He normally had to fit his work into their material, not the other way around, and what leeway he had may have been very limited. To add, the Beatles songs were pretty structured so it makes sense George's leads would follow suit.

Stan, I might not be remembering this exactly right, but here goes. I once read that George resented his role in many of the Beatles' studio sessions. He felt like he was expected to sit quietly in the corner with his Gretsch while Paul and John and George (the other one) worked out the arrangements. Then George (the other one) would look at George and expect him to play an appropriate lead to be overdubbed. Sometimes they liked it, sometimes they didn't. He would improvise until they were happy with it. He felt that George (the other one) had little regard for him beyond the role of a session musician.

Have heard something similar, Randy. It was John and Paul's show and George was given the 'insert here' tab. How creative can you be in X amount of seconds, and secondly, how creative did they want him to be? They were the Beatles, not the Yardbirds. The lead wasn't the essential part of their songs, just a bridge, which had to fit in with the general texture of the song. So, what you wrote, is pretty right on, IMO.

I think that I read a long time ago, after the breakup that John said that him and Paul could have had any two other musicians in the group and had the same results.

Ed, that sounds uncharacteristically harsh for John. He sometimes made outrageous statements, but he was generally very modest about himself. I think that can be partly attributed to his drug use and diminished ego. In years immediately following the break-up, all of John's negative comments were directed towards Paul. I always got the impression that John grew much closer to George and Ringo towards the end. That bond was strengthened when the three of them found themselves fighting a legal battle against Paul. I'm not saying that John couldn't have made an off-hand comment to that effect, but it seems out of character.

I found it in the book, The PlayBoy Interviews.They are talking about getting credit on who wrote what songs. But on the very next page he kind of softens the comment. It's a good book.

Ed, I think the 'Lennon Remembers' interviews by Rolling Stone (circa 1970) were very revealing and John was still very bitter about the break-up (and very anti-Paul). I haven't read the Playboy Interviews, but I think they were among the last he did before his murder. His attitudes probably changed somewhat during the intervening years. It's very much like Lennon to make an overstatement, and then immediately soften it when he thinks about 'his mates'. I don't doubt that he said it, but he may not have meant it.

I agree , I havn't read all of the book for many years, but just from skimming through it tonight he did say things in the interviews and then say the opposite. It is a interesting book, I think I am going to try to find the time to read the book again.

As far as George being treated as a session musician I can see where you a guys are coming from and what you are trying ti say as far as George having to plug something into a little piece of the song, that is not easy.

George was happy being the guitar player at first. He said it himself "I am very glad that the others write songs that gives me more time with my Guitar".
You might say he matured with the Beatles into the song writing equal as well as guitar equal or better than anyone in the group.
As far as Paul's guitar playing he did have flashes of brilliance but he was a much better bassist.
On a further note of The End solos I have heard that all three used Casino's. If this is true then things would have been equal except for who's fingers were on the fretboard.
That gutural sound as it has been called by John's contribution would then be a dramatic study in the Casino's neck pickups attributes as opposed to its fine bridge ones.
Others though say the George solo was played on the SG.
Whatever the results of that are its apparent that they all were more than just studio musicians.

Oh yeah every lead complimented the other, was like three brothers but all very different. In fact I'm going to play it right now I haven't heard it for a long time.

One of the best lines I've heard about the early Beatles goes something like this... "While John drempt about being the next Elvis, all George wanted to do was be the next Scotty Moore" (guitarist for the Jordanaires)

http://elvisblog.myblogsite.com/blog/_archives/2005/3/2/392418.html

And Paul owns Bill Black's bass!