Out take from Let it Be

I believe this is an out take from the Let it Be movie. I like the
drumming.

donz5...

This was the day George had left the band -- January 10, 1969. A bit of
violent energy released.

fattuchus...

George was lucky he wasn't there.

Toxteth O'Grady...

Interesting that Fatty gleaned so much enjoyment from this inauspicious
clip.
Not unexpected, but still interesting.

giorn123...

Why did George leave? Anyone know what set him off?

donz5...

A long story. Common myth had it that George was sick of Paul telling
him what to play, what not to play (as captured in the released film;
the encounter had actually occured a couple of days before George
quit), but the complete Nagra tapes betray a fuller picture: George was
actually disgusted with John's inertia, disinterest, and almost total
capitulation to Yoko's wishes.

The following Monday, after George had quit the previous Friday, the

Sean Carroll...

Not having seen the tapes in question, I can only take your word for it.
But without exact quotes, as far as I know this is only your
*interpretation* of what they said, not necessarily what they actually
meant. And even if it is what they meant, that still doesn't prove

donz5...

It's not my 'interpretation"; see Doug Sulpy's lengthy discussion of

Sean Carroll...

If it's not exact words, it's an interpretation. That doesn't mean
you're lying, it doesn't mean you're incorrect. It just means that the
words you said are a summary and description of what was actually said,
not what was actually said. It's hearsay evidence. There are all kinds
of unpredictable influences that make hearsay testimony less reliable
than the raw material of direct observation.

Chances are you're entirely right about what they were saying, but I
have no way of knowing that for *sure* without *their actual words*.

the weekend meeting in his book "The 'Get Back' Disaster." He's going

Sean Carroll...

Okay. Buy me a copy and send it over. ;)

by the actual recording of Paul and Ringo discussing what had
transpired over that weekend. Those recordings are as close as we're
going to get to being a fly on the wall.

Sean Carroll...

There is still a big difference between 'GOING BY' the actual
conversations, and BEING the actual conversations. But I will stop
belabouring this point, because it's really a tangent that doesn't bear
on the main discussion.

anything. When you're right in the middle of a complicated situation is
easy to attribute false causes and explanations to things.

donz5...

Or, conversely, it pinpoints precisely what everyone was feeling at the
time.

Sean Carroll...

The words of Paul and Ringo at the time can only pinpoint precisely what
Paul and Ringo were feeling at the time, not George. Only George's words
can do that.

Also, in this case Paul even had a personal motivation to blame it on
John, because it would have helped him avoid admitting that *he* was the
primary cause. (Even if he didn't reason this way consciously, it would
still have been a powerful unconscious motivator.) And Ringo himself,
being the least personally involved in the difficulties that were going
on, was not likely to have had, at the time, the inside information to
allow him to accurately figure out George's motivations. All of them had
a better understanding of the situation, and less motivation to be in
denial, years later, when things had cooled off and become history. And
at that time they all agreed that the fight with Paul was the last straw
for George.

I think you're reading way too much into one little conversation. Paul
and Ringo have a little talk at one point where they come up with an
idea to explain things. Decades later, when all of the talks among all
four of them and other observers are sorted out and put into context, a
different explanation emerges. This happens all the time in life. In a
case like this, you accept what the overwhelming flood of evidence from
multiple sources points to, not what one minor idea-at-the-time driven
by a complicated and unclear situation says.

donz5...

"A different explanation emerges." Yes. Separate and apart from the
actual feelings at the time. Again, I'll go with what was said at the
time, not years later.

Sean Carroll...

But you do realise that *at the time* all of the Beatles were moving in
different directions, were looking at things in different ways, were
seeing and thinking different things? Maybe if you had *George's* words
at the time you'd have a point, but Paul's and Ringo's words at the time
are less reliable than their own at a less biased time *or* George's at
the time *or* George's later, two out of three of which agree.

Sean Carroll...

And as I said, I'm not claiming that John and Yoko didn't annoy George
as well.

Sean Carroll...

And all the evidence forces me to the opposite conclusion. Even aside
from all I've already pointed out, let me quote to you from my muse, a
certain fictional Gregory House MD:

'You get home one night. Your wife hits you with a baseball bat. Likely
cause is the fact you haven't thanked her for dinner in eight years, or
the receipt for fur handcuffs she found in your pants? Sudden onset
equals proximate cause.'

In the same way, which explanation makes more sense--that John's
attitude--which had been going on the whole time, and, by its very
nature, since John was being 'lethargic', could not have caused a sudden
explosive fight--pushed George over the edge, or that the loud, angry
argument with Paul that brought a lot of issues to a sudden and violent
head a few days earlier did it? That a quiet due that's not paying
attention to you would make you suddenly snap, or that the dude you just
had a row with would? All scientific logic indicates the second option.

Sean Carroll...

You can do that if you want. I'll go with the testimony that's summed up
over the years from multiple sources and multiple time periods that
cancels out the effects of false understanding and personal interest.

donz5...

Well, we're entitled to believe which version we choose. I'll go with
what was felt at the time, not what was rationalized years later.

Sean Carroll...

Again, if Paul and Ringo said at the time that John was the cause, all
that proves is that *Paul and Ringo* felt at the time George was the
cause. It is no kind of evidence that George felt the same thing.

Sean Carroll...

Err, yeah, I meant John, not George. I'm sure you guessed.

Who has a better understanding of a tornado, the person who's in it
right now or the person who was in it once, but a long time ago? The
former is being tossed around, in danger for her life, and sees
everything upside-down and clouded by debris. The latter has the
personal experience to have seen the tornado from the inside, but she
has gotten out of the situation and calmed down and grown up and been
able to examine the evidence objectively, compare the testimonies of
others to what she saw in order to determine which impressions were real
and which were the result of confounding variables, and come to a full,
mature understanding of the experience in the light of the wisdom of
life gained since then?

donz5...

It's an interesting analogy, and you raise valid points. What I'm
arguing here is what was being felt _at the time_, not what was
explained years later. And _at the time,_ George's beef with John was
the tipping point for quitting.

Regardless of what he said years later. _At the time_, he left because
of John.

Sean Carroll...

And again, you'd have to produce *George's* words at the time, not
someone else's, to prove that.

Nagras capture Paul describing the weekend meeting with all four, where
the truth was laid out. Paul was reluctant to confront John for fear of
losing him as well. Then there's the lunch tape later that Monday
afternoon, where John and Paul can be heard discussing the current
dysfunction of the band, now sans George.

Also, the venue (Twickenham film studios) was deemed unproductive. So
after a week, they set up shop at Apple (courtesy of borrowed EMI
equipment after Magic Alex's promised techology was shown to be bogus),
and, with George's return, plus the addition of Billy Preston, they
began to play as a band again.

That's the short version. :)

fattuchus...

Thanks for the explanation.

I think George did say at one point he was tired of Paul's bossiness.
Perhaps George didn;t want to mention the Yoke to be deferential to
John . . . .George must have realized he would anger John if he said a
word about the Yoke. I believe he left because of the whole
combination of events (Paul, John, Yoko)

ghugle...

Its that bitterness rearing its head, huh fattuc?

Frank from Deeetroit...

Wow, that is painful. Yoko sounds like an injured cat that needs to be put
to sleep.

TAR...

Oh, man. It was like having a bad dream.

mcnews...

37 years later and she's *still* ahead of her time..........!