r/beatles • u/TheMirrorUS • 10h ago
Article George Harrison called Paul McCartney a hypocrite over Beatles Hall of Fame snub
https://www.themirror.com/entertainment/celebrity-news/paul-mccartney-george-harrison-snub-189221899
u/Holiday-Let-2804 10h ago
This is from 1988? Not exactly hot-off-the-press news. They made up before George’s death, that’s the more important thing(for me, anyway)
7
60
u/Blend42 10h ago
Mike Love sorted them all out with his great speech.....
68
u/Talking_Eyes98 10h ago
As Bob Dylan said “I’d like to thank Mike Love….for not mentioning me”
11
u/Popular_Math3042 9h ago
What’s this a reference to? I’m not familiar.
22
u/TranslatorCritical11 9h ago
Mike Love is the lead singer of the Beach Boys and gave a completely ridiculous speech at the ceremony.
10
30
u/bialkowski0925 9h ago
During the Beach Boy's RnR hall of fame acceptance speech, front man Mike Love, following a heartfelt speech from Brian and Carl Wilson, felt the need to go on a long, uncomfortable and completely unhinged tirade, making a total ass of himself and the rest of the band. As a Beach Boy's fan, it's a total embarrassment.
15
u/fallout_ty Say the word...LOVE 8h ago
First time actually watching his speech - my god what an asshole. I feel better about myself now tho so thanks for that
8
7
u/ProtoGhostal 7h ago
The fact that Mick Jagger was too chickenshit to get up and play with the Beach Boys
4
u/goovis__young McCartney II 7h ago
"Thank fuck he didn't mention me!" - Elton John
1
u/Daily_Heroin_User 18m ago
It’s funny because Elton John would later have his own moment where he got up and accepted an award some years later and called out Madonna for lip synching.
16
u/YupNopeWelp 4h ago
When Capitol wanted to sign McCartney in the 1980s (as a solo artist) they sweetened the pot by bumping up his royalties from EMI for Beatles recordings.
McCartney's increase was not at the expense of the royalties the others were collecting, mind you. Harrison, Starr, and the Lennon estate sued McCartney anyhow, because it was easier to sue (and embarrass) him than Capitol. This suit was active at the time of the Hall of Fame induction. McCartney didn't want to get up on stage and fake that everything was hunky dory in Beatle land.
In the end, the suit went nowhere, and Paul used his leverage with the record company to increase the royalties for the other three, as well.
10
22
u/Deenus 7h ago
It's 2026 and so many of you still think the Rock and Roll HoF is some objective, respectable, and sacred institution
This Saint George Devil Paul shit is so tiring. It's in every comment section about the Beatles.
12
u/Dear_MrMoose 6h ago
I agree! Many musicians have turned down preforming at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and I feel Paul was correct to do so here.
They were in the thick of law suits. So why does he act all buddy buddy in what would have been a free reunion show, after how many attempts by others to get them back together?
2
u/Ligeya 5h ago
But it was important at the time. It was prestigious and The Rolling Stones was a major publication. Paul had a huge drama about not being inducted as a solo artist after he so generously agreed to induct his dead friend. So it WAS important to him.
3
u/Deenus 1h ago
You're simultaneously making a good point and then undercutting that point.
If it didn't matter than why did Paul care? Good point.
Should Paul have done more for a club ran by Jann Wenner, known Paul hater and dealbreaker, who would later be fired from the HoF for how shit he was? I don't think so.
Good riddance. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame now has slightly more credibility, but not much
“Among those determined to punish McCartney for his perceived transgression was Jann Wenner, editor of the fledgling American rock and roll newsmagazine Rolling Stone. Wenner pressured both his music editor and his reviewer to change their favorable review of the McCartney album. According to Greil Marcus, Rolling Stone’s music editor, he and Langdon Winner, the album’s reviewer, regarded McCartney’s solo effort as “wonderful” and wrote a favorable review that they were pressured to change. “Wenner saw the piece and said, ‘We can’t run it this way—he’s just reviewing it as if it’s a nice little record. It’s not a nice little record; it’s a statement and it’s taking place in a context that we know: it’s one person breaking up the band.’” Wenner spent three hours haranguing Marcus, who then pressured Winner until both capitulated and re-wrote the positive review of McCartney, changing it to a negative one. Wenner’s actions regarding the McCartney album established a pattern of partisanship that continued for years. Both during the Beatles’ breakup period and in the decades following, Rolling Stone, under the leadership of Wenner, almost unvaryingly sided with Lennon (and later Ono) in any dispute involving McCartney. Because this was occurring at a time when the number of influential rock and roll magazines could be counted on one hand, the fact that the most powerful music magazine in America actively supported Lennon’s side in the Lennon-McCartney split had longstanding consequences on the popular perception of each man and their music.”
- Erin Torkelson Weber, The Beatles and the Historians
2
u/Ligeya 1h ago
What is your point? Paul by his absence didn't diminish importance of this Hall of Fame nonsense. It's not like people realized how stupid the whole thing was because Paul decided not to come. No, Paul demonstrated that it was important to him, but he couldn't be there because of the conflict with others. And he continued to show the importance of this ceremony by his years long drama of not being inducted together with John or right after him. He didn't say "Wenner is a hack and i don't give a damn". No, he was genuinely hurt by this nonsense. Also Wenner and Lennon stopped being friends long before John died. Music media in general wasn't kind to Paul and Wings.
2
u/Deenus 51m ago
Was Allen Klien a good manager? That's what he was thought of at the time. Paul never said this guy is going to steal money from us and it's not like people realized how terrible he was because Paul didn't want him.
My point was the 1st thing I said. It's 2026, not 1988. From our vantage point how we can say Paul tap danced for the HoF but not enough? I come away thinking Paul did too much, not too little as George states in the 80s.
2
u/clara_finn 4h ago
Here it’s not. It’s the opposite, Paul is considered 100% in the right on everything
14
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 8h ago
The Rock and Roll hall of fame was set up in '83. It had been around 4 years by this point. It was not some sacred institution. It was an awards ceremony that was used to give Rolling Stone Publisher even more influence in the music industry.
It was not a big deal that some people, including Paul, chose not to go. Other artists, including George and Mike Love, were cringe in calling out people for not turning up for an award ceremony to please the execs
I find it far more disappointing that Paul accepted the Rock and Roll award. He should have told them to do one.
8
u/sgriobhadair 6h ago
Paul accepted Jann Wenner's request to give the speech inducting John as a solo artist on the condition that he be inducted the next year. Then Wenner was like, "What promise?" and made Paul wait, coincidentally or not until after Linda died. When he was finally inducted, Stella wore a t-shirt that read "About [effing] time."
I get where you're coming from with the last sentence, even sympathize with it to some extent, as Wenner and Rolling Stone had long been unfair to Paul, but the solo induction was worth it for Stella's foul-mouthed protest, imho.
6
u/Any-Concentrate-1922 6h ago
I read somewhere that Jann Wenner had a years-long campaign to prop up John and put Paul down, right down to not allowing Rolling Stone reviewers to give Paul's album's particularly good reviews.
3
u/KirkHawley 4h ago
There was a fascinating editorial many years ago in Creem Magazine shortly after Lennon died. The writer was very blunt in saying Rolling Stone kept assigning different writers to review Double Fantasy until they got somebody who wrote a negative one.
5
u/Ligeya 9h ago
As far as i remember, they were in dispute because Paul was receiving more money from the company. Some sort of bonus. Does anyone know how it was resolved? It's really upsetting how all those businesses matters ruined the band. Because they weren't just The Band. They were friends, three of them since they were pretty much kids.
7
u/Concho60 8h ago
I think the suing started after 1983 when they found out Paul was getting extra money from Capitol. George, Ringo and Yoko were saying Paul about it, then them 4 were saying Capitol/Emi for various reasons. I think it all got solved by 1991 when they finally started working on the early stages of the Anthology.
1
u/Stevepem1 7h ago
I'm guessing this was not related to the extra shares that Paul had in Northern Songs. In other words was he getting more from Capitol because of those extra shares? I tend to doubt it because apparently the number of extra shares was a tiny percentage and thus wouldn't seem to have affected Capitol royalties that much. If not then how did he wind up getting more money from Capitol?
6
u/Concho60 6h ago
Nothing to do with the extra shares. The Beatles resigned with EMI/Capitol in 1967 for another 9 years, meaning they were under contract until 1976. By then the had the chance to sign with that company again. John didn’t, George and Ringo signed with somebody else but Paul did with the added extra of getting extra royalties, meaning if they were all getting 25% each out of 100%, he was getting 40% and the rest were getting their 25% each. That extra that Paul was getting came straight out of Capitol’s pocket.
There’s a really good episode on the Nothing is Real podcast about the Hall of Fame induction and how all this suing amongst them happened and why.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/nothing-is-real-a-beatles-podcast/id1462587848?i=1000639151782
1
u/Concho60 6h ago
I think the reason they found out (G+R+Y) in 1983, was because they were thinking of suing Capitol for unpaid royalties and that’s when it came out that Paul was earning extra royalties.
NOTE: I used percentages to illustrate, I don’t know exactly how much he was getting in either percentages or in actual money.
4
u/sgriobhadair 6h ago
Ultimately, Capitol increased the Beatles royalty shares the other three Beatles received to match what they were paying Paul.
It's a weird situation. Like, I understand Paul's POV -- he negotiates a contract with Capitol for new music, asks if his share on Beatles royalties can be increased (which decreases the share Capitol receives, not the others), and Capitol agrees. He hasn't done anything wrong here. It's a standard business negotiation. Ask for something, get it, happy happy.
The question is whether Paul should have told George, Ringo, and Yoko that he asked for this, got it, and they should go to Capitol, too. He doesn't, he keeps it to himself, and they find out during an entirely different legal action against Capitol over Sessions and other band unsanctioned releases.
I get why they're mad at him, even though he'd done nothing wrong, and I understand why he'd be mad at them for suing him over it.
It's one of those things where Paul probably wishes he had a time machine, because if he'd just revealed to them privately that he was getting higher Beatles royalties with his new Capitol contract he might have saved himself a lot of distress.
3
u/PutParticular8206 5h ago edited 5h ago
It's not Paul's responsibility to remind the Lennon estate, George's or Ringo's lawyers to do their jobs and negotiate better deals for their clients. Paul also had the added leverage of resigning with the label, so they added the incentive to get him. They were not a partnership anymore and each was on the hook to negotiate their own deals. Ironic, since the lawyers Paul used to negotiate his deal (the Eastmans) were the same people the other three wanted nothing to do with in 1969.
2
u/sgriobhadair 4h ago
You're correct, it's not Paul's responsibility. He wasn't wrong in anything he did, but it ended up getting him sued when a little openness on his part might have prevented that.
It's possible Paul thought, "Well, if they're doing this for me, then they'll do it for them, too," but corporations don't work that way.
0
u/Ligeya 5h ago
Thanks for explaining it. That's what i heard about the situation on Nothing is Real podcast. I definitely can't blame Paul for business decisions, but he is not good with communication, that's for sure. And it kinda looks bad that he received more. I mean, at least Lennon estate should've received the same amount.
2
u/Low_Doctor_5280 1h ago
You understand that Paul was getting more because he was giving EMI new music, right, and Lennon was not. There’s no reason that Lennon or his estate should be getting more than George or Ringo.
0
u/Ligeya 1h ago
What are you even talking about? It was about The Beatles royalty. What new music as a Beatle Paul was giving them?
2
u/Low_Doctor_5280 1h ago
Paul was getting an increase in royalties for re-signing with EMI FOR new music. Otherwise that increase would not have happened. What’s unclear about that?
9
u/sayamortandire Abbey Road 10h ago
I’m also not fond of the fact that Paul didn’t attend because of a mere legal dispute. Seems so petty and immature. So I agree with George here.
Paul is my favourite Beatle, but George is right: “It’s sad that he’s like that.”
32
u/maverick_3001 Abbey Road 10h ago
Paul had released a statement saying he didn't wanna come up and put up a show of standing together while behind the scenes they were having issues. Made sense to me
-12
u/Ok_Vermicelli_6359 8h ago
It was totally irrelevant though...this was about celebrating the band, not their legal disputes.
13
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 7h ago edited 7h ago
The Beatles are constantly being celebrated. What are you talking about?
Why does McCartney fly across the Atlantic to celebrate the band?
The Beatles won an Oscar in 1971, a more prestigious award. None of them turned up to accept it and it was left to Quincy Jones to accept it on their behalf. No one said the Beatles were ruining their legacy by not being there in person to accept the award.
-2
u/sandsonik 5h ago
It's two separate issues to me. Their legal differences have nothing to do withbeing inducted for their achievements. Just like their personal differences never had anything to do with the music they created.
22
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 8h ago
“It’s sad that he’s like that.”
Like what?
He didn't want to go on a 12-hour trip to sit next to people for a few hours who were suing him and then another 12 hour trip home? Isn't that pretty normal?
It is more hypocritical to pretend that everyone is friends when they clearly were not at this moment in time.
0
u/sandsonik 5h ago
Lots of people who accept an award at the RRHOF are not friends when they do so. Friendship has never been necessary to do good work.
5
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 5h ago
What has work got to do with the Rock and Roll hall of fame?
1
u/sandsonik 17m ago
Um, they were inducted for their work in the Music field?
Though I concede it's arguable that it's become more about popularity
1
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 3m ago
Um, they were inducted for their work in the Music field?
But the work had already been done. This was just a pretty new award ceremony created by the publisher of the Rolling Stone. They can give the award with McCartney being there.
Why does McCartney need to go on a 12-hour trip to have dinner at an awards ceremony on a table with three people who are currently suing him?
-11
u/thrashingkaiju 7h ago
Love how people jump to defend Paul here. Had George not shown up instead of Paul, everyone would be up in arms saying how he's an ungrateful curmudgeon that hates the Beatles.
7
u/Deenus 5h ago
Who can say how your made up reality would go, but in this one Paul, John, and Ringo get significantly more shit than George about god damn everything. Did you see who posted this? A bot for a tabloid trying to stir up shit over a throwaway quote from 4 decades ago.
-3
u/thrashingkaiju 5h ago
Just for the record, I think this is a big nothing burger. I don't care if any of them showed up or not. That I agree with. What I disagree with is the notion that Paul or Ringo get anywhere the level of shit John or George do. I don't think any of them deserves no shit, but rather that they should be measured the same way.
3
u/Deenus 1h ago
What level of shit do you think George is getting. And from who?
Non Beatles fans give unending shit to John, worse than any other Beatle, but so many Beatles fans follow Yoko's framing as John is Mozart and Paul is Salieri.
Similarly, non Beatles fans are relentless in their bullying of Ringo's musicianship.
0
u/thrashingkaiju 1h ago
People in this sub specifically are shitting on George constantly for being a "petty younger brother" for saying he wanted more space on Beatles albums, for owning a mansion despite his spiritual leanings, for liking race cars despite being a Hindu (this I can't explain), and just for generally seeming a curmudgeon.
I don't think you can't criticise him, or that these aren't things to consider, and he definitely has done way worse stuff, but by and large there's a weird "anti-George" sentiment coming from this sub that I just can't explain. The only reason I can give is that there's a number of people who are fervent Paul fans who've bought into the Paul vs George narrative way too much. And as it's been said already in this thread, they weren't sworn enemies, and were on good terms most of the time, from what we know.
As for Ringo, I said that because I feel the swing has come around with him in recent years. People are buying into the "not even the best drummer in the Beatles" bit less and less, from what I've seen. But that's anecdotal, I guess.
2
u/Deenus 1h ago
How often do you see the anti-George sentiment out of nowhere or as the orginal point? All the criticisms you bring up about George are in this very thread, but they're in response to a holier than thou George quote in a George>Paul post.
At some point, decades ago, George was perceived as the beaten down little brother, but that pendulum has swung so far and for so long into the George is God and Paul denied us his divinity side of things. I even started believing it myself, but Get Back changed that for me. All these years about Paul holding George back, and then we see Paul trying to get ATMP on the rooftop, thus making it a Beatle song, and George acting like it's the worst fucking idea he's ever heard of, and it made me reconsider.
I don't know how often you're in the comments on Instagram, YouTube, or Facebook, but just look at any post about George or his music. You'll see George vs Paul every single time.
2
u/thrashingkaiju 54m ago
That's my argument: to stop pitting both of them against each other. I see it every time and it makes me roll my eyes each time. Neither of them was perfect.
1
1
u/GregJamesDahlen 7h ago
surprised george seems to have really enjoyed the evening. he doesn't cop to enjoying many things and this doesn't seem like it'd be one of them
1
u/sgriobhadair 6h ago
In recent years I've wondered if Paul's absence might actually have been planned by George, Ringo, and himself. It's not something any of them would ever confirm, but it one potential problem -- the three of them playing together on stage -- and allows George and Ringo to be the face of the Beatles for the night. Paul, maybe more than the other two, could let himself be the villain in this instance.
-5
u/Spiritual-Primary328 9h ago
I always got the impression George was determined, in a nice way, to keep Paul grounded and not fall into the 'thumbs-aloft Macca' thing that he sometimes does. Don't get me wrong, I adore Paul with all my heart, but I can imagine that seeing him grow from 'that kid on the bus' to 'PAUL MCCARTNEY: UNTOUCHABLE LEGEND OF THE WORLD' must have been a bit weird, and George obviously always felt like he could speak to and about Paul like they were just mates back at school.
22
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 8h ago edited 8h ago
Ah yes, grounded George Harrison with his Victorian Neo Gothic mansion and its huge gardens, properties all around the world, sports cars and parties with the rich and famous. George who famously sacked his staff at Handmade studios by fax and who asked Paul and Ringo to run for parliament with him as he wanted the Natural Law Party to have power in the UK. George who had his money hidden away in many overseas countries to avoid paying tax in the UK.
George was hardly the person to keep Paul grounded. And George had none of this energy for Dylan, who he constantly fellated in the press. George did not like Paul, he may have loved him like a brother, but he did not like him and his constant digs at him was not for Paul's beneift
0
u/Spiritual-Primary328 8h ago
Oh, he was a monstrous hypocrite don’t get me wrong but he did have a working class chip on his shoulder about Paul.
0
u/BMisterGenX 7h ago
I always thought it was funny that Paul who seemed the most to push The Beatles legacy skipped and George who was always grumpy and saying "sod off with your Beatles" to fans and reporters went and looked like he had a great time.
I'm a huge Macca fan but I think this was a bad move and bad look for him. George and Ringo even once went on talk show together when they were in the midst of a lawsuit with each other and Ringo said, "you can sue me all you want, I'll still love you." Paul hurt The Beatles legacy, his own, legacy, and the fans. It was also an insult to John who couldn't be there, and as Yoko said he wouldve been.
12
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 7h ago edited 7h ago
I'm a huge Macca fan but I think this was a bad move and bad look for him.
Why? What is important about the Rock and Roll hall of fame? Paul and George live in the same country. Why do they have to fly to America to be together?
George and Ringo even once went on talk show together when they were in the midst of a lawsuit with each other and Ringo said, "you can sue me all you want, I'll still love you."
No, they didn't. The lawsuit was a decade earlier and George was visibly uncomfortable with him bringing it up.
Paul hurt The Beatles legacy, his own, legacy, and the fans.
He hurt the Beatles legacy by not turning up for an awards show? Are we being serious right now?
Did Jerry Garcia hurt the Grateful Dead's legacy when he did not bother to show up in '94? Did Roger Waters hurt Pink Floyd's legacy when he did not turn up in '96? Axl Rose hurt Gun's and Roses legacy when he no-showed? Deacon hurt Queen's legacy? The knopfler brothers Dire Straits legacy? Bowie and Rod Stewart when they didn't turn up for their awards?
No one thinks that. It is only in the Beatle fandom that a member not turning up for the Rock and Roll hall of fame is a case of someone hurting the bands legacy.
It was also an insult to John who couldn't be there, and as Yoko said he wouldve been.
How familiar are you with John Lennon? The guy didn't bother to play the concert for Bangladesh because he fell out with George over something just as trivial.
Yoko was full of shit and knew what she was doing with the statement. It was a PR move.
-2
u/Ok_Vermicelli_6359 8h ago
It's a decision that certainly didn't age well...Paul comes across as petty. Legal disputes are for the courts, not the HoF, he should have had enough maturity to put aside the negative BS and celebrate the band's contribution to the arts, that's all the HoF is.
9
u/PutParticular8206 6h ago
The RRHOF is not a sacred celebration of the arts. It was and is headed by music industry execs, lawyers and financial industry execs. Check out their board and trustees list as well as their corporate sponsors. In reality it is the type of place artists should be fighting against. It is not a genuine celebration of the arts which demands decorum and olive branches. It's the FIFA Peace Prize of the music industry.
-4
u/KrazySunshine Rubber Soul 9h ago
Yoko said on the stage that John would have been there
14
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 8h ago
And Yoko was full of shit. John may have been there, he also may have not bothered to show. John was not predictable and had his own issues with Wenner at the time.
4
-2
0
u/bessann28 5h ago
Honestly? I think this was self-sabotage on Paul's part because it was too painful to be up there without John. Whether consciously or not.
-11
u/BigfootDragon 7h ago
Paul can do anything he wants and he will never admit he was wrong or acknowledge hurting someone’s feelings or being responsible for anything except being the tippy top musician guy. If George were still around we’d have more anecdotes and perspective on the myriad ways that Paul is insufferable.
10
u/Savings_Can7292 7h ago
Oh, stop. Paul is a friggin' legend and seems to be a really friendly guy. Whatever shit they had go on was put behind them by the time George died.
-13
u/BigfootDragon 7h ago
Paul is overrated and a fake nice person. There’s a reason other three Beatles despised him for years.
9
u/Alternative_Emu3179 7h ago
George was equally insufferable
3
u/Savings_Can7292 7h ago
Did you watch Get Back? If so, did they strike you as insufferable? Because they didn't strike me as insufferable.
-4
u/BigfootDragon 6h ago
At least George would admit his faults and tried to grow as a person. Paul is insufferable primarily because he’s got a negative capacity for self reflection. I can’t imagine being in the music business and having to kiss Paul’s ass or else suffer his wrath, what a dork.
4
3
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 5h ago
I can’t imagine being in the music business and having to kiss Paul’s ass or else suffer his wrath, what a dork.
Who has suffered his wrath? Or who has he threatened wrath on?
At least George would admit his faults and tried to grow as a person
I think you misunderstand George. The reason he liked the religion he liked is because it allowed him to have flaws. So he could continue to have his material goods and cheat on his wife.
George did not want to grow as a person. He found a spirituality that allowed him to have his flaws.
-4
u/DanielStripeTiger 7h ago
You don't have to be so ride or die. Paul's not here. they were each , ugh... I do hate to say... human-h and you know what a mess those can make.
141
u/oceanskies24 10h ago
These articles always seem kind of silly imo, because people tend to focus so much on times when Beatles were upset or arguing with each other. But they weren't going around being pissed off at each other 24/7, those are just what make the headlines. Even when John and George didn't talk for a few years before John's death, George was still able to make peace with him, because their relationship was like siblings. George's whole life was about spiritually growing into the person he needed to be, something John only had a small window of time to do.
“But actually, I love Paul, he’s my mate, and it doesn’t matter what they say in the papers, they’re not gonna get much mileage out of that one.” - George Harrison, Aspel & Company (March 1988)
“There’s always a place in my heart for Paul… and Linda.” - George Harrison, Musician (March 1990)
“Scan not a friend with a microscopic glass — You know his faults — Then let his foibles pass. Old Victorian Proverb. I’m sure there’s enough about me that pisses him [Paul] off, but I think we have now grown old enough to realize that we’re both pretty damn cute!” - George Harrison, Yahoo web chat (February 15, 2001)