Relationship George/Paul after The Beatles

[taxman]

One of the things that I don´t know much about is how was the relationship between George and Paul in the 70's and 80's, but I´m counting on my FabForum mates to tell me all about it images/icons/smile.gif

All I know is that, at least until a certain time, it wasn´t very good (but, excluding Ringo, who had it?), but even so, Paul played on All Those Years Ago.

I also remember reading, but I´m not sure if it´s true, that George, in 1975 went into a Paul´s party, when he (Paul) was releasing the Venus and Mars album.

[ Sep 15, 2003, 01:55 PM: Message Edited By: taxman ]

[LittleDarlin909]

i've often wondered about this myself. . . any answers?

[lennonluvr9]

I thought they had issues in the early 70's but I'm really not sure either...

[Whistlerca]

George just never got over the way Paul treated him while a beatle (same with John, but not as bad) still it was hard for him.
All those years, at Georges bed side, Paul said "I'm sorry", toi which George said "It doesn't matter any more"...Its sad... but Paul has alot to feel sorry for...
I don't know about the other stuff, I know George wasnt comfortable...
Isnt it a Pity?

[Tangledupinbluee]

I'm afraid that even during the making of Free as a Bird/Real Love, the friction between George and Paul became evident again. They didn't agree on which songs of John's should be recorded, which should be the lead-off single, the inclusion of certain songs on the Anthologies and even the manner in which each approached recording in the the studio. The Anthology session stretched over many many months while they tried to "grin and bear" each other. I dont think they made peace until George was near death. Paul visited him at least twice and arranged a house where George could pass on peacefully.

[Hari's Chick]

George himself was asked about this to which he replied that after all these years, he thought they both were 'pretty adorable'. I don't think it was a big deal to him. George had a great grasp on life and Paul and Paul's impact was not so significant, except as fuel for an occasion joke at Paul, mate style. George did not even see himself as 'Beatle George'...even from the early 70's...so....

[beatlebangs1964]

George himself once said in the late 1980s that the "Beatle George" persona was like "a shirt" (grotty, perhaps? graemlins/joker.gif ) that he once wore, but no longer fit or applied.

I think George was always the individualist; all accounts support this. As a young boy, he was described as "fiercely independent," and "always wanting to do things for himself." Examples of this are countless: preschool George going into the store to pick up meat without a list because he "didn't need one;" little George insisting on going to school and sitting for dinners there by himself; adolescent George refusing to be taken to emergency via stretcher and walking out the door the way he entered; adolsecent George and his individual style of dress; 20-year-old George making his very first transatlantic trip to Benton, Illinois; musician George forging his own path and blending Eastern and Western styles to form something special and unique; George was always indeed a pioneer.

As for the Paul v. George issue, from their own accounts as well as the statements and documentation from others that these two nova stars had very distinct ideas of what they wanted to accomplish. It is sad that these fences were allegedly mended toward the end of George's life; I certainly hope both men found peace and were able to reach a state of amity.

It rather sounds as if they did.

[old_moon_shining]

Origionally they had a common interest. As they developed into adults their needs and expectations from life became very different. If George was alive today, and they were jointly trying to deal with the day to day details of being an ex-Beatle, they would still not agree about everything. There would still be difficult moments between them. However, both were reasonable and good men who put aside the little things that irritated, to remember the good times and the enormous bond that they had, and made peace at the end.
I have downloaded a little interview of Paul's. It appears that the reporters caught up with him at his gate, or some such country lane. Maybe others have seen it. I don't think he is that good of an actor. He looked sad and subdued. He convinced me.

[Siobhan]

I know the interview you mean Old Moon, and I agree he was genuinely saddened, as I am sure George would have been had it been the other way around. They had a lot of disagreements over the years, and they developed into very different people, but there was always a bond between them. We don't always agree with members of our family, or even get on, but that doesn't stop us from loving them. And this is how I feel their relationship was, particularly in the last years of George's life.

[beatlebangs1964]

Moon and Siobhan have made some excellent points.

Both men were indeed very different as were their needs, expectations and approaches to issues including their art.

Paul was genuinely saddened by the death of his former bandmate. Of that I am 100% certain. He shared a lovely, touching last moment of "holding George's hand" and he described the youngest Beatle as "his baby brother" and a "beautiful man." No, I don't for one minute think Paul was acting. He faced the world, tears in his eyes and shared these things because he knew he had to release some of that sorrow and to help set the world's collective minds at ease.

I don't think there was ever any enmity between the two former Beatles; there WAS friction and that is very different. And yeah, just because you disagree with somebody doesn't mean you dislike or bear them any malice.

I don't think either man was ever malicious.

Moon, I know the article you speak of, but I would love to read and/or hear it again. Do you have the link for it?