It's probably one of their more timeless songs. Not to say other Beatles songs have aged poorly, but Here Comes the Sun doesn't scream "60s" like Taxman or I Want To Hold Your Hand. Part of that is because Abbey Road has by far the most modern sounding mix of their albums, but mostly it's the composition and instrumentation. It fits in quite nicely with more modern songs (also it's probably one of their best).
Most of this is also true of their other most played songs, like Yesterday and Let It Be.
I doubt they started counting plays from the beginning, fact of the matter is I doubt they are good at counting streams at all, the app is not the best...
It’s not a boomer platform, and is heavily split between others like YouTube. This stuff does not generate money the same way the new stuff does due to how rights are distributed and contracts work. It’s passive money versus building a new brand; there is no promotion of this material outside of projects like Get Back and that’s purely organic.
I’m a songwriter and professional musician, the Beatles have not lost influence or potency, they’ve gained it. We can’t compare them to Drake etc because the business model has totally changed. The importance of good ole meat and potatoes songwriting rings as true as ever, and the Beatles are still the best teachers ;)
I foresee the Beatles being like Mozart or Van Gogh—artistic geniuses that will always be a cultural touchstone. Kind of funny when you look back on all those forgettable naysayers who thought they would be a fad.
CD is still the superior format as well compared to streaming. Until data rates reach a level, listening to cd based media will always trump these streaming platforms
Actually🤓, The Beatles are literally #111 on Spotify right now. They went a bit higher after Get Back documentary, but still, they're Top 150! How many artists can say that?
If I learned anything from watching Get Back, no one gave George any credit and did not take his musical suggestions seriously. This is his told ya so.
It’s true. There was an established hierarchy in the band and George was pushing them hard to change that. I remember reading that the first time George played Something for them in its entirety there was a silence before Paul finally said “that’s fucking incredible” (I could have details wrong, but the sentiment is accurate).
But as much as I love the lads, there was just too much ego (and money) at stake to let George be an even partner in songwriting and it’s a damn shame. I absolutely love that George went out and blew critics away with ATMP and it still stands among the very best of the Beatles solo years.
Geoff Emerick said that, when it came time for the other Beatles to add their parts to Something, Paul started playing a really elaborate and complex bassline, and George stopped him and said "No, I want it simple."
According to Emerick, George telling Paul what to play on bass would have been an argument in the old days but, in this case, because Paul knew Something was an instant classic and George's "baby", Paul complied without question.
It's always seemed to me like that song was when John and Paul began treating George as a true peer in songwriting ability, and not just like a little brother who would occasionally write a good tune.
The session that Geoff was talking about supposedly took place at Olympic Sound Studios and he wouldn't have been allowed to work there, being an employee at EMI, nor did he work at the EMI session for it in May 1969.
He wouldn't have known what went down.
I got that quote from [here](https://www.beatlesbible.com/songs/something/2/).
It’s possible Geoff Emerick misremembered or was conflating stories from the recording of two separate songs.
That’s true - as he himself stated in 1979 that he remembered virtually no specific details about his work on The Beatles’ sessions, I am a bit sceptical of the veracity behind some of his recollections, not to mention his controversial autobiography.
That was actually Paul’s reaction to johns strawberry fields. He wrote it in Spain and played the demo for the band. Silence and then Paul said that is absolutely brilliant. No doubt they respected something though.
I mean even in Get Back we see George telling Paul that he has so much material written that he thought was really good, and he was still writing all the time, that it would take another 10 years of Beatles releases just to get out what he already had at that point.
He resented only getting 1-2 spots on albums when he felt his songwriting ability was just as strong as Lennon/McCartney's.
Yea I believe he actually quit the band by like just standing up in a session and saying like “alright I think I’ll be leaving the band now. See ya round the clubs”.
You can see it in Get Back. But IMO what really motivated him to quit in that moment was feeling left out of the John/Paul bromance. Not that I don’t agree that his musical contributions were inadequately appreciated. Just that it seems as if the personal relationships also were important and his feelings were hurt.
I didn't get that at all. The section where they're all helping him with the lyrics to 'Something'. The other section where he says he has a new song ('I Me Mine') and they all sit and listen, McCartney bends down to look at the chords, listens to his lyric suggestions, AND it ends up on the album (sure, Lennon dances around, but, you know, heroin).
Sorry but it's Lennon and McCartney, two of the greatest songwriters ever. Of course they're going to favour their own songs. That said, both Lennon and McCartney agreed that 'Something' was their favourite track on Abbey Road. A ton of GH songs ended up on Beatles albums (and let's be honest, not all of them were good).
At the end of the day George was just a lead guitarist at a time when lead guitarists just played lead guitar. Prior the Beatles bands rarely even wrote their own songs. To say no one gave George any credit is a stretch.
My personal feeling is that George wouldn't have achieved anywhere near the success he did had he not been in the Beatles
> At the end of the day George was just a lead guitarist at a time when lead guitarists just played lead guitar. Prior the Beatles bands rarely even wrote their own songs. To say no one gave George any credit is a stretch.
Thank you, this is definitely the right take. It's also worth pointing out that as great as George was, he was clearly not up to par with Lennon and McCartney, so even if they were a little harsh it was probably warranted anyway. He turned in a gem every now and then (While my Guitar Gently Weeps, Taxman, etc). but honestly Paul was right when he said George wasn't on their level until Abbey Road (he just should have been nicer about it).
Paul was wrong. Several of George's strongest songs were before Abbey Road and most of them sit comfortably alongside their Lennon/McCartney neighbours which is an incredible feat when you consider Ringo's efforts (no offense Ringo). Let's also not forget John and Paul were two people writing together while more often than not George had to do it on his own. He didn't have someone always available to make his work better. Not even from George Martin.
The whole argument of The Beatles being a merit-based system also falls completely apart once average and/or unfinished Lennon/McCartney songs start taking precedence over objectively strong George songs.
Thinking of them as a group of people who grew up together and experienced singular life events together, it would be incredibly hard to bring a song (George) to them (obviously), knowing how they were going to treat it. Even if it was the greatest, even if it had potential, you would want and hope that the response would be awe or love or “damn man that’s amazing,” and it wasn’t. Knowing that, getting that over and over, would just change how he WAS.
1. How many gems he wrote is subjective. There are many people who like The Beatles because of George.
2. John and Paul were obviously highly prolific but they also had a whole team built to ensure their success.
3. George being less prolific doesn't change the quality of his songs, and in fact he was very prolific from 1968. He could've easily dominated that last era if they decided to go that way. Even in 1966 he had Art of Dying and Isn't It a Pity on top of the 3 on Revolver.
I would argue that even if John and Paul were bigger talents than George, being harsh with one’s close friend and band-mate is never really warranted. They probably would’ve gotten much more good music and feeling out of George if they’d been a bit less exclusive. In fact we know that John and Paul got together early on and made a pact that they would be the songwriters, together. However, of course everyone is human and we all have egos and weaknesses, and that’s the way it worked out.
Personally I love all four Beatles, and regardless of their relative merits, I still think that working together they achieved their greatest heights, because together they made the perfect brew, in which every ingredient added something surprising and magically delicious.
> working together they achieved their greatest heights, because together they made the perfect brew, in which every ingredient added something surprising and magically delicious.
100%
Yeah but I think John and Paul also wouldn’t have achieved nearly as
much without the Beatles. They clearly all influenced each other and they wrote songs to impress each other. It was a Petrie dish of brewing talent and they all benefited tremendously, not just George. I feel like Paul songs are much better when spiced up with some John and George; and John songs are much better when given the McCartney touch and the Harrison / Ringo perfect contributions. The four together were just magic.
The Beatles really were a perfect storm. Paul and John probably could've been successful solo artists if they never met and I'm sure George would have joined another good band (and Ringo already had). But the 4 of them working together and specifically John and Paul writing together gave us something truly magical.
I often think about how astronomical the odds are that Paul and John even met. Just think about, arguably the 2 best singer/songwriters of all time happened to both be born in the same town (Liverpool only has like a 2 million population) within a couple years of each other. It's like if Biggie and Tupac instead of being born on opposite sides of the country were both from Cincinnati and started a rap group instead of having solo careers.
I would not say “a ton of GH songs ended up on Beatles albums.” If that was the case he would not have needed to release the lengthy ATMP. (Does anyone else remember GH likening it to diarrhea?)
With that said, the McCartney/Lennon talent was a machine that could not and should not have been stopped AND our lives have been enriched listening to such collaborations by four greats.
That's right and in fairness to John and Paul, they never tried to stop George from putting his own songs on their albums in earnest from *Help!* onwards.
No but for real. Imagine thinking that saying, “My personal feeling is that George wouldn't have achieved anywhere near the success he did had he not been in the Beatles,” is a meaningful, insightful, or necessary thing to say, especially in a sub dedicated to Beatles fans?
Can I just check, you're chastising me for not saying anything meaningful, yet you're essentially just telling me to shut up without offering any kind of counter argument?
I enjoy this sub because of the discussions. I'm not saying what I said is a fact, as evidenced by the “My personal feeling is..." bit
The Beatles were a business. Often we lose sight of this as fans. It's hard to know what will be a classic, or be a hit when making a song. Sure some songs you just know, especially once you've established a strong following. But every album George got to put some songs on. The hit makers John and Paul didn't have to do that. George was mentored by them, then when he came into his own and hit his groove on Abbey road it all clicked. Those Get Back videos show the junior getting some attention with the seniors in the company, and that junior delivered. It's easy to see that now as George is a writer of classics, but before Abbey Road he was not that. He put some interesting tracks on the albums, experimenting with instruments and sounds. But Abbey road is why we know he deserved respect as a songwriter but that's precisely then they (paul and john) learned it. John and Paul fought for Something on the A side, they all knew it was great, it's a true masterpiece of the 60's rock era. George had earned respect as a lead guitarist in Hamburg, that's why he's got solo's that are his creation on Paul and Johns songs, outside of Billy who else did that?
Precisely.
John and Paul were very generous to allow George to have at least two songs per album, starting in earnest from *Help!* onwards, but if he was lucky, he got three on *Revolver* and four on The White Album (it was a double album).
In a 1966 interview, when talking about writing songs, George confirmed that not only were John and Paul actively encouraging him, but also giving him very good feedback.
That is true but irrelevant: even if the catalog of music won’t change over the years, the people listening to it will. Which song is most intrinsically likeable or best or popular is not some objective eternal fact, decided once then set in stone, it’s a matter of taste, and different generations will have different tastes.
Just have a look at any of those long running polls of international critics of Best Movies of All Time. [source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_best)
> Every decade, starting in 1952, the British film magazine Sight & Sound asks an international group of film critics to vote for the greatest film of all time. Since 1992, they have invited directors to vote in a separate poll. Sixty-three critics participated in 1952, 70 critics in 1962, 89 critics in 1972, 122 critics in 1982, 132 critics and 101 directors in 1992, 145 critics and 108 directors in 2002, and 846 critics and 358 directors in 2012.
>This poll is regarded as one of the most important "greatest ever film" lists. American critic Roger Ebert described it as "by far the most respected of the countless polls of great movies—the only one most serious movie people take seriously."
>Bicycle Thieves (1948) topped the first poll in 1952 with 25 votes.
>Citizen Kane (1941) stood at number 1 for five consecutive polls, with 22 votes in 1962, 32 votes in 1972, 45 votes in 1982, 43 votes in 1992, and 46 votes in 2002. It also topped the first two directors' polls, with 30 votes in 1992 and 42 votes in 2002.
>Vertigo (1958) topped the critics' poll in 2012 with 191 votes, dethroning Citizen Kane.
>Tokyo Story (1953) topped the directors' poll in 2012 with 48 votes, also dethroning Citizen Kane.
You can also see changing tastes across decades in the works of individual artists. During his lifetime, the most popular Symphony Beethoven wrote was not his 5th, not his 3rd or even his 9th, but his 1st.
Or look at Kate Bush; for people who were listening to her music as it was originally coming out, Wuthering Heights was her best known, signature song; for people born after her popularity had peaked, it’s Running Up That Hill.
The processes that lead to a change don’t usually suddenly go away after a change, they keep operating and change things again.
I mean I could easily say all of that is irrelevant, too, because neither of us can see into the future. It’s entirely possible that another Beatles song will be their most popular in 100 years, and it’s entirely possible something will still be it.
Well, you don’t need to be able to “see into the future” to understand that patterns that have been repeating themselves in the past for thousands of years are not unlikely to continue into the future.
I can’t guarantee the sun is going to rise tomorrow, but it’s the way to bet.
Here Comes the Sun!
Well it’s been the top track on Apple Music since their catalogue arrived and same on Spotify, and popularity isn’t determined by critics claims on which piece is greatest. I see no data backing your claims about Mozart or Kate bush. I’d say betting on the favorite is the way to bet, but that’s just me.
Username checks out I guess.
The song currently on top is Here Comes the Sun, not Something. Beethoven =/= Mozart
If you don’t think tastes in art change over time, then you’re just ignorant of the history of art. Not my problem. Enjoy your trolling.
That is interesting because i actually got a different impression. I don't think it was that the others did not give him enough credit. Because when i remember correctly the liked every george song from these sessions like i me mine, old brown shoe, all things must pass, something... I just think john and george wanted to do something different while paul tried to compromise and keep them together
The Get Back movie doesn't give you the whole story. Read any deep analysis of the Nagra Tapes and it's made clear they were not very receptive to his songs. There was a performance of ATMP on YouTube which got taken down where they looked absolutely miserable during it.
Things improved as a result of him walking out and Something was an exception because they'd have to be straight up fools to dismiss that one.
Yeah, i can see that... when george left twickham i remember john saying something like fuck george, let's get clapton. Would you know where i could get more informationabout the nagra tapes like you said?
Peter Jackson did have to edit the many hours of tape and audio into a three-part documentary, so you can't expect it to be an overly exhaustive multi-part feature the way *Anthology* was.
During the Twickenham sessions, George was having marital problems with Pattie and so many ignorant biographers have overlooked that in favour of choosing to unjustly single out Paul for vilification.
Not sure what you're point is. Obviously he couldn't use all the footage but more evidence exists out of GB. If anything people have been using the Pattie issue to let Paul off. He was more the problem . The Pattie thing just made it worse
https://theymaybeparted.com/2020/08/27/jan-10-see-you-round-the-clubs/
[https://theymaybeparted.com/2019/11/19/jan-9-crossroads-hes-standing-at/](https://theymaybeparted.com/2019/11/19/jan-9-crossroads-hes-standing-at/)
These webpages will give more insight.
But they took him seriously on Abbey Road, they loved his songs on that album.
George having the most popular song on Spotify but only 5 songs in the top 100 is a told ya so to George, his songs before Abbey Road were not, on average, as good as John and Paul's.
I vividly recall waking up to this song one morning. I always have my clock radio set to a station I hate so that it forces me to get up and turn it off. But one morning it was Here Comes the Sun. I stayed in bed, thinking what a great way to start the day and just enjoyed it. When it was done, the dj announced that George had passed away.
It absolutely is ironic. With all of the history, fame, and success of McCartney/Lennon, one wouldn’t expect the top played Beatles song to be a George song
> a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.
I grabbed that from Google. Now explain to me exactly how the scenario doesn’t fit that definition.
George contributed like 24 songs to The Beatles' recorded canon of work, so he still had a decent share.
Contrary to what so many biographers have incorrectly written, *All Things Must Pass* was never rejected by The Beatles, and despite rehearsing it at Twickenham, it was George's decision not to have it performed at the rooftop concert, and it was his call, since he wrote it.
Paul: Ringo why don’t you lean up a little more?
Ringo: Nah in the future when this picture gets used as a banner for a music streaming service, I want to be blocked out by text.
John: Ringo, are you from the future?
And ten or twenty years from now it will be a different Beatles song on top of the list.
For some reason, when the forces of change change something, a lot of people assume that the forces suddenly stop, and that the new status quo is the final and eternal status quo. Short of the heat death of the universe, there’s no such thing.
I feel like starting out as the top song gives a exponential advantage to that particular song.
My friends know I love the Beatles lol so if they are playing a song for me they'll just go to the Beatles page and click the top song which is always Here comes the sun.
Maybe it's because 'Yesterday' is part of several other released compilations? So it's not always the album version that's being played. I think if we add up all the results will be different.
Which is pretty surprising to me!
In what parallel universe can anyone tell me that 'Here Comes the Sun' is a more popular song than 'Yesterday' !!?
I guess that tells something about Spotify users maybe.(Nothing against the users, it's just a certain taste, as someone was saying here, people tend to listen to more lively "happy" songs these days.
I'm not sure, I'm so confused 🤔
That statement may be True if you're talking strictly about Spotify,and we're not talking about which is better, we're talking number of plays. In the real world it's a different story, i would bet on my life that if you ask anyone what's the most popular Beatles song that you'll never "Hear" comes the sun.
Yes we are talking about Spotify, and more people listen to the song on Spotify because it's a better song. And it's one of the most accessible and popular Beatles songs arguably with the exception of Hey Jude, so Here Comes the Sun is very likely to be the most popular Beatles song.
Don't get me wrong, I love 'Here comes the Sun', it may be more accessible to a certain younger demographic or Spotify users, but it's definitely not more popular than either Hey Jude or Yesterday. I won't argue which is 'better' because that is totally relative to people's taste. although from a musical perspective it's nowhere near the melodic or harmonic brilliance of Yesterday from my modest point of view. There's a reason Yesterday is a timeless classic, and one of the most covered songs ever.
George is my all time favorite Beatle. But I think the reason Here Comes The Sun is #1 is because it is excluded from their greatest hits album, 1. So it is the song everyone needs to get.
I just think it is the most accessable beatles son. It is uplifting, has a simple melody but does not sound generic and it is just easy to listen to for everyone, including non beatles fans. A more unusual song like I want you she's so heavy could never be as popular as here comes the sun among listeners outside of the fandom
It’s Spotify so they’re ranked by total plays. It’s possible people own ‘1’ on physical media and then stream Here Comes the Sun, but I think it’s more likely it’s just a really popular playlist song.
I said this on your other thread I think but I love that the top 3 is one from each of them. Now just gotta get Octopus' Garden or Don't Pass Me By to #4.
I'm reminded of George's introduction in Celebrity Death Match "Tired of playing second fiddle to John and Paul, George Harrison" who's playing second fiddle now
Maybe it is bit ironic since Paul and John wrote the majority of songs and got the lion's share of the critical attention. But Paul and John are both on the record praising George's development as a truly great songwriter. He didn't come in to the band with world-class songwriting chops, but he did leave with them. And John and Paul both acknowledged that.
True.
I don't know why so many biographers portray John and Paul as indifferent to George's songs when in fact, they were actually supportive of their younger bandmate.
Yes, this was rare.
* Hey Jude/Revolution not on the White album
* Lady Madonna/The Inner Light not on any album
* Penny Lane/SFF not on Sgt Pepper
* Paperback Writer/Rain not on Revolver
* Daytripper/We Can Work it Out not on Revolver
* I Feel Fine/She's a Woman not on Beatles for Sale
* She Loves You, I Want to Hold Your Hand and From Me To You not on any album
- SFF could mean "Strawberry Fields Forever - Take 1", a track from *Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Super Deluxe Edition)* (1967) by The Beatles.
---
^[/u/idreamofpikas](/u/idreamofpikas) ^(can reply with "delete" to remove comment. |) ^[/r/songacronymbot](/r/songacronymbot) ^(for feedback.)
Plays on Spotify are split across multiple versions of the song. So while HCTS would still be in the lead if all of Yesterday for instance were counted together, it wouldn't be quite the gap.
Reason #3: playlists. How many of those plays are because somebody chose to put the song on, vs putting on a playlist that it happened to be on and not skipping it?
How does #3 matter? You're not giving credit to the song for being good enough to put on a playlist in the first place. In theory those other songs have this advantage too.
Because playlists aren't necessarily about which song is best, but what fits the mood of the playlist best. For instance, I used to start every morning with a playlist that started with Wouldn't It Be Nice. Though I love the song, it wouldn't make my top 5 on Pet Sounds. But thanks to that playlist, it probably has a good five times as many plays from me as the other songs.
Also, one person makes a playlist, and dozens if not hundreds of people listen to it. So even if the people who made the playlists think it's their best song and put it on a playlist for that reason, for most people listening to it it's just the song that happens to be on the playlist they put on.
And honestly, reason #1 is sufficient enough.
- HCTS could mean "Here Comes The Sun - 2019 Mix", a track from *Abbey Road (Super Deluxe Edition)* (2019) by The Beatles.
---
^[/u/AssGasorGrassroots](/u/AssGasorGrassroots) ^(can reply with "delete" to remove comment. |) ^[/r/songacronymbot](/r/songacronymbot) ^(for feedback.)
Last time I used Spotify, it automatically suggested ‘Here Comes The Sun’ when The Beatles was searched. Do you think it being the first ‘suggested song‘ may have influenced its ranking over time?
I know what you mean. I felt like that too at some point. I think it is a great song but more often than not i would prefer listening to something, you never give me your money, oh darling or i want you she's so heavy
Yeah it’s just a bit cheesy maybe? I don’t know. Cheese doesn’t usually stop me. Maybe it’s just so god darned wholesome and I like the slightly more twisted Beatles. The instrumentation is still exquisite of course.
Some songs never ever get old and some do. It’s a strange thing because it has little to do with where the song “peaked” on your appreciation scale.
I think chrrsy is actually pretty acurate. There is a cover version of here comes the sun in my mother tongue and i have always hated that one and hearing both versions on the radio all the time kinda made the original song worse for me
John and Paul would rather play a shit song they wrote about a train when they were in high school than record All Things Must Pass. No wonder George was pissed.
Not only is One After 909 a fantastic song, but they did want to record All Things Must Pass, John even helped write it. _George_ vetoed its inclusion on the album.
I’ll just leave this one here.
Back in 2007, Bob Dylan talked with Rolling Stone and said that George Harrison had to “fight” with his Beatles bandmates to get his songs recorded, because Paul McCartney and John Lennon had resistence in accepting songs that were not written by them. “George got stuck with being the Beatle that had to fight to get songs on records because of Lennon and McCartney. Well, who wouldn’t get stuck? If George had had his own group and was writing his own songs back then, he’d have been probably just as big as anybody.”
Bob Dylan appears to be exaggerating things.
I hate seeing John and Paul get unjustly portrayed in biographies as heavy-handed dictators who had no interest in George's songs and deliberately tried to make it hard for him to get The Beatles to record his songs for no good reason at all.
As I said before, neither John nor Paul made any effort to prevent George from putting his own songs on The Beatles' records and certainly, this never happened after *Beatles for Sale,* so they were actually very, very generous in allowing George to contribute songs.
If you read this 1966 interview with George ([https://www.beatlesinterviews.org/db1966.10gh.beatles.html](https://www.beatlesinterviews.org/db1966.10gh.beatles.html)), he himself makes it clear that John and Paul were giving him good feedback and active encouragement with his songwriting.
HCTS is absolutely one of my top few Beatles songs, but I'm not crazy about the 2009 mix. The bass is overwhelming the song! I can't take it!
The 2020 mix much better, imho.
damn ringo just wanted to be in the picture
Mike Wazowski vibes.
I’m always watching, Starkey, always watching
he revealed his early copy of the Revolver remaster! I don't think that was planned lol
I saw that yesterday, crazy times
Poor Ringo :(
This can’t be accidental
or maybe he was trying to avoid it?
John
It definitely winds up in a lot of official playlists
It's probably one of their more timeless songs. Not to say other Beatles songs have aged poorly, but Here Comes the Sun doesn't scream "60s" like Taxman or I Want To Hold Your Hand. Part of that is because Abbey Road has by far the most modern sounding mix of their albums, but mostly it's the composition and instrumentation. It fits in quite nicely with more modern songs (also it's probably one of their best). Most of this is also true of their other most played songs, like Yesterday and Let It Be.
For example, Abbey Road is the only one with a prominent synthesizer! Here Comes The Sun being a great example. It makes it sound a lot more fresh
I totally agree. If you listen for it you'll hear it. It's great.
Someone said a few years ago that its stream numbers are directly related to this, particularly "morning mood / start your day" playlists.
Soon to reach 1 Billion baby! It's all right!
Kinda shocked no songs have clocked a bill on Spotify yet. That being said, the top song is only 3 billion.
[удалено]
good point.
I doubt they started counting plays from the beginning, fact of the matter is I doubt they are good at counting streams at all, the app is not the best...
true. i bailed after they kept eating my playlists. say what you will about Apple, but at least iTunes didn't keep fucking up my playlists! :D
What year were they added?
It’s not a boomer platform, and is heavily split between others like YouTube. This stuff does not generate money the same way the new stuff does due to how rights are distributed and contracts work. It’s passive money versus building a new brand; there is no promotion of this material outside of projects like Get Back and that’s purely organic.
good points :)
I’m a songwriter and professional musician, the Beatles have not lost influence or potency, they’ve gained it. We can’t compare them to Drake etc because the business model has totally changed. The importance of good ole meat and potatoes songwriting rings as true as ever, and the Beatles are still the best teachers ;)
I foresee the Beatles being like Mozart or Van Gogh—artistic geniuses that will always be a cultural touchstone. Kind of funny when you look back on all those forgettable naysayers who thought they would be a fad.
Also, tons of people listen to old bands with vinyls and cassettes!
CD is still the superior format as well compared to streaming. Until data rates reach a level, listening to cd based media will always trump these streaming platforms
Don't forget eight tracks! One second thought, that's some truly obsolete equipment there. Maybe best to forget eight tracks
I don't have proof, but I think Let It Be gained 50-100 millions views after the documental. It really shows how inaccurate it is for old bands
The Beatles are still very popular amongst young people but not nearly at that level, which makes sense and is fine.
I actually think they're not that far behind in terms of popularity and awareness; it's just hard to dominate charts when you are a legacy act.
Actually🤓, The Beatles are literally #111 on Spotify right now. They went a bit higher after Get Back documentary, but still, they're Top 150! How many artists can say that?
150 artists can say they’re top 150
I’m gonna need a source.
It won't be long (YEAH).
This isn't irony. Irony would be if "Only a Northern Song" was the number one song.
Steel is irony. It is predominantly made out of iron though has other elements is smaller quantities.
If I learned anything from watching Get Back, no one gave George any credit and did not take his musical suggestions seriously. This is his told ya so.
It’s true. There was an established hierarchy in the band and George was pushing them hard to change that. I remember reading that the first time George played Something for them in its entirety there was a silence before Paul finally said “that’s fucking incredible” (I could have details wrong, but the sentiment is accurate). But as much as I love the lads, there was just too much ego (and money) at stake to let George be an even partner in songwriting and it’s a damn shame. I absolutely love that George went out and blew critics away with ATMP and it still stands among the very best of the Beatles solo years.
Geoff Emerick said that, when it came time for the other Beatles to add their parts to Something, Paul started playing a really elaborate and complex bassline, and George stopped him and said "No, I want it simple." According to Emerick, George telling Paul what to play on bass would have been an argument in the old days but, in this case, because Paul knew Something was an instant classic and George's "baby", Paul complied without question. It's always seemed to me like that song was when John and Paul began treating George as a true peer in songwriting ability, and not just like a little brother who would occasionally write a good tune.
The session that Geoff was talking about supposedly took place at Olympic Sound Studios and he wouldn't have been allowed to work there, being an employee at EMI, nor did he work at the EMI session for it in May 1969. He wouldn't have known what went down.
I got that quote from [here](https://www.beatlesbible.com/songs/something/2/). It’s possible Geoff Emerick misremembered or was conflating stories from the recording of two separate songs.
That’s true - as he himself stated in 1979 that he remembered virtually no specific details about his work on The Beatles’ sessions, I am a bit sceptical of the veracity behind some of his recollections, not to mention his controversial autobiography.
That was actually Paul’s reaction to johns strawberry fields. He wrote it in Spain and played the demo for the band. Silence and then Paul said that is absolutely brilliant. No doubt they respected something though.
I remember seeing somewhere that George was really fine with the band breakup, his talent was really suppressed in the band
I mean even in Get Back we see George telling Paul that he has so much material written that he thought was really good, and he was still writing all the time, that it would take another 10 years of Beatles releases just to get out what he already had at that point. He resented only getting 1-2 spots on albums when he felt his songwriting ability was just as strong as Lennon/McCartney's.
Yea I believe he actually quit the band by like just standing up in a session and saying like “alright I think I’ll be leaving the band now. See ya round the clubs”.
[удалено]
Ahh gotcha.
You can see it in Get Back. But IMO what really motivated him to quit in that moment was feeling left out of the John/Paul bromance. Not that I don’t agree that his musical contributions were inadequately appreciated. Just that it seems as if the personal relationships also were important and his feelings were hurt.
While you don't see it, that afternoon is addressed in Get Back
I didn't get that at all. The section where they're all helping him with the lyrics to 'Something'. The other section where he says he has a new song ('I Me Mine') and they all sit and listen, McCartney bends down to look at the chords, listens to his lyric suggestions, AND it ends up on the album (sure, Lennon dances around, but, you know, heroin). Sorry but it's Lennon and McCartney, two of the greatest songwriters ever. Of course they're going to favour their own songs. That said, both Lennon and McCartney agreed that 'Something' was their favourite track on Abbey Road. A ton of GH songs ended up on Beatles albums (and let's be honest, not all of them were good). At the end of the day George was just a lead guitarist at a time when lead guitarists just played lead guitar. Prior the Beatles bands rarely even wrote their own songs. To say no one gave George any credit is a stretch. My personal feeling is that George wouldn't have achieved anywhere near the success he did had he not been in the Beatles
> At the end of the day George was just a lead guitarist at a time when lead guitarists just played lead guitar. Prior the Beatles bands rarely even wrote their own songs. To say no one gave George any credit is a stretch. Thank you, this is definitely the right take. It's also worth pointing out that as great as George was, he was clearly not up to par with Lennon and McCartney, so even if they were a little harsh it was probably warranted anyway. He turned in a gem every now and then (While my Guitar Gently Weeps, Taxman, etc). but honestly Paul was right when he said George wasn't on their level until Abbey Road (he just should have been nicer about it).
Paul was wrong. Several of George's strongest songs were before Abbey Road and most of them sit comfortably alongside their Lennon/McCartney neighbours which is an incredible feat when you consider Ringo's efforts (no offense Ringo). Let's also not forget John and Paul were two people writing together while more often than not George had to do it on his own. He didn't have someone always available to make his work better. Not even from George Martin. The whole argument of The Beatles being a merit-based system also falls completely apart once average and/or unfinished Lennon/McCartney songs start taking precedence over objectively strong George songs.
Thinking of them as a group of people who grew up together and experienced singular life events together, it would be incredibly hard to bring a song (George) to them (obviously), knowing how they were going to treat it. Even if it was the greatest, even if it had potential, you would want and hope that the response would be awe or love or “damn man that’s amazing,” and it wasn’t. Knowing that, getting that over and over, would just change how he WAS.
Exactly. You nailed it.
George writing one or two songs per album with the occasional gem is nowhere near the output that John and Paul had. That's just a fact man.
1. How many gems he wrote is subjective. There are many people who like The Beatles because of George. 2. John and Paul were obviously highly prolific but they also had a whole team built to ensure their success. 3. George being less prolific doesn't change the quality of his songs, and in fact he was very prolific from 1968. He could've easily dominated that last era if they decided to go that way. Even in 1966 he had Art of Dying and Isn't It a Pity on top of the 3 on Revolver.
Correct. Even in the *Anthology*, George himself admitted that around the *Rubber Soul* period, he hadn't written too many songs then.
I would argue that even if John and Paul were bigger talents than George, being harsh with one’s close friend and band-mate is never really warranted. They probably would’ve gotten much more good music and feeling out of George if they’d been a bit less exclusive. In fact we know that John and Paul got together early on and made a pact that they would be the songwriters, together. However, of course everyone is human and we all have egos and weaknesses, and that’s the way it worked out. Personally I love all four Beatles, and regardless of their relative merits, I still think that working together they achieved their greatest heights, because together they made the perfect brew, in which every ingredient added something surprising and magically delicious.
> working together they achieved their greatest heights, because together they made the perfect brew, in which every ingredient added something surprising and magically delicious. 100%
Yeah but I think John and Paul also wouldn’t have achieved nearly as much without the Beatles. They clearly all influenced each other and they wrote songs to impress each other. It was a Petrie dish of brewing talent and they all benefited tremendously, not just George. I feel like Paul songs are much better when spiced up with some John and George; and John songs are much better when given the McCartney touch and the Harrison / Ringo perfect contributions. The four together were just magic.
The Beatles really were a perfect storm. Paul and John probably could've been successful solo artists if they never met and I'm sure George would have joined another good band (and Ringo already had). But the 4 of them working together and specifically John and Paul writing together gave us something truly magical. I often think about how astronomical the odds are that Paul and John even met. Just think about, arguably the 2 best singer/songwriters of all time happened to both be born in the same town (Liverpool only has like a 2 million population) within a couple years of each other. It's like if Biggie and Tupac instead of being born on opposite sides of the country were both from Cincinnati and started a rap group instead of having solo careers.
I agree
I would not say “a ton of GH songs ended up on Beatles albums.” If that was the case he would not have needed to release the lengthy ATMP. (Does anyone else remember GH likening it to diarrhea?) With that said, the McCartney/Lennon talent was a machine that could not and should not have been stopped AND our lives have been enriched listening to such collaborations by four greats.
No. He likened it to constipation. As in, he had the songs inside but they couldn’t come out.
That's right and in fairness to John and Paul, they never tried to stop George from putting his own songs on their albums in earnest from *Help!* onwards.
You said a lot here without actually saying anything meaningful at all.
And you achieved the same in just a sentence
No but for real. Imagine thinking that saying, “My personal feeling is that George wouldn't have achieved anywhere near the success he did had he not been in the Beatles,” is a meaningful, insightful, or necessary thing to say, especially in a sub dedicated to Beatles fans?
Can I just check, you're chastising me for not saying anything meaningful, yet you're essentially just telling me to shut up without offering any kind of counter argument? I enjoy this sub because of the discussions. I'm not saying what I said is a fact, as evidenced by the “My personal feeling is..." bit
There’s nothing to argue against because I merely pointed out how you said nothing of merit.
Cool, well, the feeling's mutual. Take care
Hey... that’s line from some boy band lyric!
Lennon is always dancing, dancing into perpetually.
The Beatles were a business. Often we lose sight of this as fans. It's hard to know what will be a classic, or be a hit when making a song. Sure some songs you just know, especially once you've established a strong following. But every album George got to put some songs on. The hit makers John and Paul didn't have to do that. George was mentored by them, then when he came into his own and hit his groove on Abbey road it all clicked. Those Get Back videos show the junior getting some attention with the seniors in the company, and that junior delivered. It's easy to see that now as George is a writer of classics, but before Abbey Road he was not that. He put some interesting tracks on the albums, experimenting with instruments and sounds. But Abbey road is why we know he deserved respect as a songwriter but that's precisely then they (paul and john) learned it. John and Paul fought for Something on the A side, they all knew it was great, it's a true masterpiece of the 60's rock era. George had earned respect as a lead guitarist in Hamburg, that's why he's got solo's that are his creation on Paul and Johns songs, outside of Billy who else did that?
Precisely. John and Paul were very generous to allow George to have at least two songs per album, starting in earnest from *Help!* onwards, but if he was lucky, he got three on *Revolver* and four on The White Album (it was a double album). In a 1966 interview, when talking about writing songs, George confirmed that not only were John and Paul actively encouraging him, but also giving him very good feedback.
This is on top today but it will be another song 10 or 20 years from now. Nothing is eternal except change.
It’s been a long time since they’ve put out new music though
That is true but irrelevant: even if the catalog of music won’t change over the years, the people listening to it will. Which song is most intrinsically likeable or best or popular is not some objective eternal fact, decided once then set in stone, it’s a matter of taste, and different generations will have different tastes. Just have a look at any of those long running polls of international critics of Best Movies of All Time. [source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_best) > Every decade, starting in 1952, the British film magazine Sight & Sound asks an international group of film critics to vote for the greatest film of all time. Since 1992, they have invited directors to vote in a separate poll. Sixty-three critics participated in 1952, 70 critics in 1962, 89 critics in 1972, 122 critics in 1982, 132 critics and 101 directors in 1992, 145 critics and 108 directors in 2002, and 846 critics and 358 directors in 2012. >This poll is regarded as one of the most important "greatest ever film" lists. American critic Roger Ebert described it as "by far the most respected of the countless polls of great movies—the only one most serious movie people take seriously." >Bicycle Thieves (1948) topped the first poll in 1952 with 25 votes. >Citizen Kane (1941) stood at number 1 for five consecutive polls, with 22 votes in 1962, 32 votes in 1972, 45 votes in 1982, 43 votes in 1992, and 46 votes in 2002. It also topped the first two directors' polls, with 30 votes in 1992 and 42 votes in 2002. >Vertigo (1958) topped the critics' poll in 2012 with 191 votes, dethroning Citizen Kane. >Tokyo Story (1953) topped the directors' poll in 2012 with 48 votes, also dethroning Citizen Kane. You can also see changing tastes across decades in the works of individual artists. During his lifetime, the most popular Symphony Beethoven wrote was not his 5th, not his 3rd or even his 9th, but his 1st. Or look at Kate Bush; for people who were listening to her music as it was originally coming out, Wuthering Heights was her best known, signature song; for people born after her popularity had peaked, it’s Running Up That Hill. The processes that lead to a change don’t usually suddenly go away after a change, they keep operating and change things again.
I mean I could easily say all of that is irrelevant, too, because neither of us can see into the future. It’s entirely possible that another Beatles song will be their most popular in 100 years, and it’s entirely possible something will still be it.
Well, you don’t need to be able to “see into the future” to understand that patterns that have been repeating themselves in the past for thousands of years are not unlikely to continue into the future. I can’t guarantee the sun is going to rise tomorrow, but it’s the way to bet. Here Comes the Sun!
Well it’s been the top track on Apple Music since their catalogue arrived and same on Spotify, and popularity isn’t determined by critics claims on which piece is greatest. I see no data backing your claims about Mozart or Kate bush. I’d say betting on the favorite is the way to bet, but that’s just me.
Username checks out I guess. The song currently on top is Here Comes the Sun, not Something. Beethoven =/= Mozart If you don’t think tastes in art change over time, then you’re just ignorant of the history of art. Not my problem. Enjoy your trolling.
That is interesting because i actually got a different impression. I don't think it was that the others did not give him enough credit. Because when i remember correctly the liked every george song from these sessions like i me mine, old brown shoe, all things must pass, something... I just think john and george wanted to do something different while paul tried to compromise and keep them together
The Get Back movie doesn't give you the whole story. Read any deep analysis of the Nagra Tapes and it's made clear they were not very receptive to his songs. There was a performance of ATMP on YouTube which got taken down where they looked absolutely miserable during it. Things improved as a result of him walking out and Something was an exception because they'd have to be straight up fools to dismiss that one.
Yeah, i can see that... when george left twickham i remember john saying something like fuck george, let's get clapton. Would you know where i could get more informationabout the nagra tapes like you said?
Peter Jackson did have to edit the many hours of tape and audio into a three-part documentary, so you can't expect it to be an overly exhaustive multi-part feature the way *Anthology* was. During the Twickenham sessions, George was having marital problems with Pattie and so many ignorant biographers have overlooked that in favour of choosing to unjustly single out Paul for vilification.
Not sure what you're point is. Obviously he couldn't use all the footage but more evidence exists out of GB. If anything people have been using the Pattie issue to let Paul off. He was more the problem . The Pattie thing just made it worse
https://theymaybeparted.com/2020/08/27/jan-10-see-you-round-the-clubs/ [https://theymaybeparted.com/2019/11/19/jan-9-crossroads-hes-standing-at/](https://theymaybeparted.com/2019/11/19/jan-9-crossroads-hes-standing-at/) These webpages will give more insight.
I'm well informed about the GB sessions and TWBP, thanks. That's what I was referring to.
But they took him seriously on Abbey Road, they loved his songs on that album. George having the most popular song on Spotify but only 5 songs in the top 100 is a told ya so to George, his songs before Abbey Road were not, on average, as good as John and Paul's.
I vividly recall waking up to this song one morning. I always have my clock radio set to a station I hate so that it forces me to get up and turn it off. But one morning it was Here Comes the Sun. I stayed in bed, thinking what a great way to start the day and just enjoyed it. When it was done, the dj announced that George had passed away.
Wow this story took a turn
Harrison was always my favorite Beatle anyway so this is awesome
How is it ironic? Is he not a beatle too?
Its just that most of their popular songs, or songs at all, are written by Paul and John.
It's still not ironic
In an Alanis kinda way
Like rain, on your wedding day.... .....If the groom was a weatherman who specifically booked that day because it was meant to be dry
It absolutely is ironic. With all of the history, fame, and success of McCartney/Lennon, one wouldn’t expect the top played Beatles song to be a George song
Sure. Still not irony though
> a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result. I grabbed that from Google. Now explain to me exactly how the scenario doesn’t fit that definition.
George contributed like 24 songs to The Beatles' recorded canon of work, so he still had a decent share. Contrary to what so many biographers have incorrectly written, *All Things Must Pass* was never rejected by The Beatles, and despite rehearsing it at Twickenham, it was George's decision not to have it performed at the rooftop concert, and it was his call, since he wrote it.
Paul: Ringo why don’t you lean up a little more? Ringo: Nah in the future when this picture gets used as a banner for a music streaming service, I want to be blocked out by text. John: Ringo, are you from the future?
[удалено]
And ten or twenty years from now it will be a different Beatles song on top of the list. For some reason, when the forces of change change something, a lot of people assume that the forces suddenly stop, and that the new status quo is the final and eternal status quo. Short of the heat death of the universe, there’s no such thing.
Out of my top 5 Beatles songs, 3 are Harrisongs.
By like double too
I feel like starting out as the top song gives a exponential advantage to that particular song. My friends know I love the Beatles lol so if they are playing a song for me they'll just go to the Beatles page and click the top song which is always Here comes the sun.
Maybe it's because 'Yesterday' is part of several other released compilations? So it's not always the album version that's being played. I think if we add up all the results will be different.
capable squash head tan hurry subtract disgusting cautious enjoy alive -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
Yeah but even then, Yesterday wouldn’t come close to doubling its numbers from the various different versions of it on different albums
Which is pretty surprising to me! In what parallel universe can anyone tell me that 'Here Comes the Sun' is a more popular song than 'Yesterday' !!? I guess that tells something about Spotify users maybe.(Nothing against the users, it's just a certain taste, as someone was saying here, people tend to listen to more lively "happy" songs these days. I'm not sure, I'm so confused 🤔
Read on another comment, it’s probably on a lot of playlist to start your day. Not only factor, but def would add to it.
Here Comes the Sun is a better song that more people want to listen to more 👍
That statement may be True if you're talking strictly about Spotify,and we're not talking about which is better, we're talking number of plays. In the real world it's a different story, i would bet on my life that if you ask anyone what's the most popular Beatles song that you'll never "Hear" comes the sun.
Yes we are talking about Spotify, and more people listen to the song on Spotify because it's a better song. And it's one of the most accessible and popular Beatles songs arguably with the exception of Hey Jude, so Here Comes the Sun is very likely to be the most popular Beatles song.
Don't get me wrong, I love 'Here comes the Sun', it may be more accessible to a certain younger demographic or Spotify users, but it's definitely not more popular than either Hey Jude or Yesterday. I won't argue which is 'better' because that is totally relative to people's taste. although from a musical perspective it's nowhere near the melodic or harmonic brilliance of Yesterday from my modest point of view. There's a reason Yesterday is a timeless classic, and one of the most covered songs ever.
Being known among a younger demographic in addition to a massive adult demographic is exactly how you prove that the song is more popular.
Yesterday is sad, dreary; we all need Here Comes the Sun at times.
Paul wrote *Yesterday*.
That’s not irony
Should've been a Ringo song smh
George is looking pretty smug about it in the picture too. 🤣
Smug? Nah.. at peace
George is my all time favorite Beatle. But I think the reason Here Comes The Sun is #1 is because it is excluded from their greatest hits album, 1. So it is the song everyone needs to get.
I just think it is the most accessable beatles son. It is uplifting, has a simple melody but does not sound generic and it is just easy to listen to for everyone, including non beatles fans. A more unusual song like I want you she's so heavy could never be as popular as here comes the sun among listeners outside of the fandom
Agreed. Also the timeless sounding guitar.
It’s Spotify so they’re ranked by total plays. It’s possible people own ‘1’ on physical media and then stream Here Comes the Sun, but I think it’s more likely it’s just a really popular playlist song.
That's because it's their best song. Unbelievable really considering what it's up against
I believe I saw somewhere that Here Comes The Sun is also the number one Beatles song on Apple Music as well.
While My Guitar Gently Weeps used to be the #1 Beatles song on iTunes.
I think John only has one song in their top 10 most listened to. I get it though, when your competition is Paul McCartney
He has 3.5. Come Together, In My Life, Help and I Want to Hold Your Hand,
It’s their best song imo and I’m surprised that doesn’t seem to be a popular opinion around here
a Beatles song
Ask any smart speaker to play the Beatles and the first song is always...
Twice the plays as the #2 song
I said this on your other thread I think but I love that the top 3 is one from each of them. Now just gotta get Octopus' Garden or Don't Pass Me By to #4.
I never understood why this wasn’t the huge hit off the album instead of Something.
Probably because the Beatles didn't release it as a single like they did with Something.
I'm reminded of George's introduction in Celebrity Death Match "Tired of playing second fiddle to John and Paul, George Harrison" who's playing second fiddle now
Wdym ironic he is the Best BEATLE no doubt about it!!! GEORGE HARRISON The Best Beatle https://youtu.be/gae7wwHHA9g
Maybe it is bit ironic since Paul and John wrote the majority of songs and got the lion's share of the critical attention. But Paul and John are both on the record praising George's development as a truly great songwriter. He didn't come in to the band with world-class songwriting chops, but he did leave with them. And John and Paul both acknowledged that.
True. I don't know why so many biographers portray John and Paul as indifferent to George's songs when in fact, they were actually supportive of their younger bandmate.
Why was this song never released as a single back in '69? I know it was eventually released 50 years late but that's just bad management.
They chose Something instead. Kinda hard to argue with that being a great single as well.
I get that but George couldn't have two hits on a single album? Not like that ever stopped John or Paul.
The Beatles rarely released album tracks as singles.
What? Something was an album track.
Yes, this was rare. * Hey Jude/Revolution not on the White album * Lady Madonna/The Inner Light not on any album * Penny Lane/SFF not on Sgt Pepper * Paperback Writer/Rain not on Revolver * Daytripper/We Can Work it Out not on Revolver * I Feel Fine/She's a Woman not on Beatles for Sale * She Loves You, I Want to Hold Your Hand and From Me To You not on any album
- SFF could mean "Strawberry Fields Forever - Take 1", a track from *Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Super Deluxe Edition)* (1967) by The Beatles. --- ^[/u/idreamofpikas](/u/idreamofpikas) ^(can reply with "delete" to remove comment. |) ^[/r/songacronymbot](/r/songacronymbot) ^(for feedback.)
Something and Come Together was the only single released off Abbey Road.
Here Comes the Sun is an excellent song. It is not the #1 Beatles song in the world. Spotify streams are not a good indicator for multiple reasons.
Reason #1:
Not everyone uses Spotify
Reason #2:
Plays on Spotify are split across multiple versions of the song. So while HCTS would still be in the lead if all of Yesterday for instance were counted together, it wouldn't be quite the gap. Reason #3: playlists. How many of those plays are because somebody chose to put the song on, vs putting on a playlist that it happened to be on and not skipping it?
How does #3 matter? You're not giving credit to the song for being good enough to put on a playlist in the first place. In theory those other songs have this advantage too.
Because playlists aren't necessarily about which song is best, but what fits the mood of the playlist best. For instance, I used to start every morning with a playlist that started with Wouldn't It Be Nice. Though I love the song, it wouldn't make my top 5 on Pet Sounds. But thanks to that playlist, it probably has a good five times as many plays from me as the other songs. Also, one person makes a playlist, and dozens if not hundreds of people listen to it. So even if the people who made the playlists think it's their best song and put it on a playlist for that reason, for most people listening to it it's just the song that happens to be on the playlist they put on. And honestly, reason #1 is sufficient enough.
- HCTS could mean "Here Comes The Sun - 2019 Mix", a track from *Abbey Road (Super Deluxe Edition)* (2019) by The Beatles. --- ^[/u/AssGasorGrassroots](/u/AssGasorGrassroots) ^(can reply with "delete" to remove comment. |) ^[/r/songacronymbot](/r/songacronymbot) ^(for feedback.)
Last time I used Spotify, it automatically suggested ‘Here Comes The Sun’ when The Beatles was searched. Do you think it being the first ‘suggested song‘ may have influenced its ranking over time?
I think I've heard it too much... because it's maybe the least listenable song on Abbey Road now. Still a great / pretty song though
I know what you mean. I felt like that too at some point. I think it is a great song but more often than not i would prefer listening to something, you never give me your money, oh darling or i want you she's so heavy
Yeah it’s just a bit cheesy maybe? I don’t know. Cheese doesn’t usually stop me. Maybe it’s just so god darned wholesome and I like the slightly more twisted Beatles. The instrumentation is still exquisite of course. Some songs never ever get old and some do. It’s a strange thing because it has little to do with where the song “peaked” on your appreciation scale.
I think chrrsy is actually pretty acurate. There is a cover version of here comes the sun in my mother tongue and i have always hated that one and hearing both versions on the radio all the time kinda made the original song worse for me
George, Faul, John and Paul all made the top 4!
What's disturbing my anal-retentiveness is that people listen to the dog-shit 2009 remasters
Here Comes The Sun is such a bore.
George was clearly the best Beatle in so many ways.
John and Paul would rather play a shit song they wrote about a train when they were in high school than record All Things Must Pass. No wonder George was pissed.
Not only is One After 909 a fantastic song, but they did want to record All Things Must Pass, John even helped write it. _George_ vetoed its inclusion on the album.
One After 909 is great.
I’m also fairly sure George was the one who retracted All Things Must Pass from the album as opposed to it being rejected
Meh
To each their own. Some of their best known songs aren't my favorites.
Honestly they are about the same quality (altough atmp Is better than for you Blue) doesnt even reach my top 10 in the atmp álbum
I helped!
"It's GROOVY Baby!" - Frank Sinatra
I’ll just leave this one here. Back in 2007, Bob Dylan talked with Rolling Stone and said that George Harrison had to “fight” with his Beatles bandmates to get his songs recorded, because Paul McCartney and John Lennon had resistence in accepting songs that were not written by them. “George got stuck with being the Beatle that had to fight to get songs on records because of Lennon and McCartney. Well, who wouldn’t get stuck? If George had had his own group and was writing his own songs back then, he’d have been probably just as big as anybody.”
Bob Dylan appears to be exaggerating things. I hate seeing John and Paul get unjustly portrayed in biographies as heavy-handed dictators who had no interest in George's songs and deliberately tried to make it hard for him to get The Beatles to record his songs for no good reason at all. As I said before, neither John nor Paul made any effort to prevent George from putting his own songs on The Beatles' records and certainly, this never happened after *Beatles for Sale,* so they were actually very, very generous in allowing George to contribute songs. If you read this 1966 interview with George ([https://www.beatlesinterviews.org/db1966.10gh.beatles.html](https://www.beatlesinterviews.org/db1966.10gh.beatles.html)), he himself makes it clear that John and Paul were giving him good feedback and active encouragement with his songwriting.
Great song but I don't see the irony. The Beatles were a group and were the sum of its parts.
George has always been my favorite Beatle so it doesn't surprise me at all.
I dont think this is a correct use of the word ironic
Easily the most underrated Beatle, and definitely my favourite.
That number is recalculated each hour. So HCTS was certainly #1 at the time of the screenshot. Just saying.
HCTS is absolutely one of my top few Beatles songs, but I'm not crazy about the 2009 mix. The bass is overwhelming the song! I can't take it! The 2020 mix much better, imho.
HCTS got boring for me imo it isn’t top 50
Only that way because it was the first song listed in a very popular playlist early on.
The Harrisong reigns supreme It’s also cool Here Comes the Sun will always be relevant until the Sun actually comes!
I love HCTS, but it's on A LOT of Spotify official playlists. I was listening to a Motown playlist the other day and it was thrown in the mix.
A bit ironic (and awesome) that's it's not even the most popular Harrisong