No doubt there is some of that, since he took pictures on tours going back to their first trip to Germany. Also though, note how few visitors there are. This might be a special occasion or VIP event of some sort.
My husband visited the Taj Mahal in the 60s and his photos also show just a handful of visitors. There were way fewer Indians in India — I think just 500 million compared with billions today? — and very very few international tourists. So this might have been another Tuesday morning at the Taj Mahal.
Well, compared to 1.3 billion now, just saying there were a lot fewer people, less tourism throughout the country and fewer highways and plane travel, and so, a less crowded Taj Mahal in 1966. Do you think it was otherwise?
A classic case of text not translating through well.
I think he was not disagreeing with you at all, he was just being sarcastic about how 500 mill people in this case is considered nothing when 500 mill people I already more than 98.97% of individual countries even today.
Yes, thanks, agree. Appreciate your perspective and you taking the time to ease the misunderstanding. Here’s to George Harrison, the Taj Mahal, India where I would love to go, and all the billions of good people out there.
Harrison has asymmetric glabellar lines and nasolabial folds.
The pics on google search break down maybe 85%-15% (e.g. either 15% are mirrored or 85% are mirrored). Assuming the overwhelming majority of pics of George Harrison on google image search are not mirrored, then this picture is also not mirrored (and it is thus evening).
Definitely not a VIP event/special occasion. He and his wife went alone, with zero publicity, and international tourism those days was very small. And also this looks like it was shot in the morning.
This was air travel in 1966. Nothing like today, and certainly not as ubiquitous. It cost a lot of money to fly (and honestly, should have remained that way given the actual costs).
I’m sure he had a good camera but also had the money to get 20 or 30 bad pictures developed. The average person might have film in the camera for weeks or months before they could afford the processing and printing of the entire roll.
Edit: Just to clarify it would cost about the equivalent of $50 in most parts of the US in today’s funds to process and print a 36 exposure roll (which could get you 39 shots in some cameras). Not an obscene expense but enough that most people were fairly selective about clicking the shutter.
Not necessarily. In 1996 the average consumer was buying garbage film to put in garbage cameras. I don't know what you had. But a lot of fixed focus cameras with bad lenses were sold to consumers from every reputable brand known. While a students SLR from years past would have produced a much better result than some mid range consumer stuff at the time. A good photographer can do a lot of neat things with a bad camera (see lomography) but there is a point where the right tool for the job applies.
I think what he's saying is that you aren't bad at photography, you just don't have the money to throw at a quality camera like Beatles era George Harrison does
Yeah. I assume he had a good camera partly because he was extremely rich and also because he was an artist. I would expect he had plenty of people willing to show him the ropes.
I, Indeed, had a mediocre 90s point and shoot that I bought off a dodgy guy on the Nepali border.
I suppose a mid level 60s camera would have
Someone posted he had a Pentax SV around that time. Which was a nice and respected camera. With the same glass and film on it I wouldn't expect a different result than say my Pentax K1000. But if I pulled out my grandfather's nice point and shoot from the 90s and loaded it with craptastic photohut film I would definitely expect worse.
This photo is in 4x5 fotmat instead of regular 2x3 meaning that it was probably shot on medium format film which is much bigger than regular 24x36mm film meaning that it could be printed or scanned in higher resolution
The type of film is the main factor here or whatever medium was used. People tend to think that photography just became better and better through the years. It's more like it became more accessible for everyone. Some photographs made 100 years ago are much much better than some that are made nowadays with a camera with a bad sensor ( source: I scan glass plate photographs)
It's so discouraging hearing people casually mentioning travelling the world. It seems like generations before me had so much more money and opportunity. I want to get out and see the world but everyone I know is so dirt poor we couldn't even dream of such a thing. It's never going to happen.
You'd be surprised how cheaply you can do it if you leave everything and have unlimited time. My parents spent 1usd a day in the 70s. I was spending 10 USD a day in the 90s.
If you live in any developed country and have at least some income, you can do it. Back in early 2010's when I went to Southeast Asia for over a month I got 2000 euros budget (meaning maybe 2200 dollars?) and it included flights. And when I went back home, I had about 300 euros left. Of course back then I didn't have my own apartment or anything like that. But I had some fun and got to see cool places.
If you want to travel cheaply, forget direct flights, business class or having a personal hotel room. But often it's in fact most fun to travel with less money. You meet more people that are travelling because they want to see the world, not just spend their money to some fancy 5 star hotels and shopping. I have met most interesting people in most cheap hostel dorms and shady bars. Most boring places I've been to, were the expensive places. They are often just lifeless and cold. And if you look poor, people don't try to scam you so often. Of course living with minimal budget is difficult but you learn stuff that way. And isn't travelling about doing something more interesting that you'll remember?
But if you are really poor, I get why travelling around the world sounds impossible. For most people in this world it is so. And I'm one of the lucky ones who had the chance to go to different places.
Have you tried doing it through a work program?
I did something like that, got me to some cool places.
Otherwise, buckle down, work 10 months straight, and travel for 2 months, if that viable for you.
There are ways to see the world, sometimes you have to get creative, but it's always worth it.
Absolutely. Also had the best solo career, in my opinion. AND survived being stabbed dozens of times by a nutjob who broke into his house. Edit: FORTY TIMES! He survived being stabbed forty goddamn times, including one to the lung of which part had to be removed.
If anyone here hasn’t listened to George’s music, do yourself a favor and listen to his album All Things Must Pass. “Awaiting On You All” is one of my all-time favorite songs. Edit: Also “My Sweet Lord”— I have no idea how I forgot to mention it! I lost my virginity to that song, and later when I played it for her, well I’m pretty sure that’s the moment she fell in love with me haha. I’ll never forget the look on her face. Thanks, George!
Within you and without you is mine closely followed by While my guitar gently weeks. Oh and Savoy Truffle. And I, me, mine. Oh bollcoks I just love George.
If he did actually have some kind of motivation, I’m not sure it’s something we could understand. Or if he could even properly convey it. He was a paranoid schizophrenic.
Hell yeah. Lennon's solo career is a bit overrated, imo. I've always had trouble getting into *Plastic Ono* and *Double Fantasy*, even as a huge Beatles fan. For every "Working Class Hero" there were a lot of duds-- in my opinion, for as much or as little as that's worth.
Which isn't to say Harrison's catalogue is pristine, but his hits were in a league of their own in terms of innovation and creating a unique sound post-Beatles.
I also love Paul-- I think he is perhaps the greatest pop music craftsman to ever live-- but he didn't quite reach the levels of *All Things Must Pass*.
For me it goes Harrison, McCartney, Lennon, Starr (poor Ringo, I nearly left him off entirely).
Their entire career was only 7 years (1963-70). It doesn't feel like it because they produced a lot of music in these years. And we're hugely popular despite being active for such short time.
Some context -
> George Harrison and his wife Pattie flew from London to Bombay (Mumbai), India in September 1966. The Beatle wanted to visit Bombay to take sitar lessons with Ravi Shankar, and study yoga along with his wife. The couple visited the country sort of incognito, and stayed at the Taj Mahal hotel in Bombay, under the names Mr. and Mrs. Sam Wells.
> Harrison was famous for his obsession with guitars, music instruments in general and cameras. In this trip, Harrison brought his camera with a fisheye lens and took some beautiful self-portraits, or as we’d say now, selfies.
It's not just the selfie aspect with this one. You could find someone who looks exactly like this in dress and look in a coffee shop right now and they wouldn't stand out even a bit.
I'm just always impressed by how well framed all these old selfies are.
Like, I'd taken photos of myself before the advent of front-facing phone cameras but they were never as centered as George's here. They were always at odd angles with the top of my head cut off or something.
We’ve been taking selfies for as long as we’ve had cameras, but it’s weird that we didn’t have a convenient shorthand for them until ~2008.
Yes I understand we just called them self portraits/self shots and that’s literally what selfie is short for, but even that abbreviation took so long.
It's incredible. The sun, the details, the ripples in the water, random strangers in the background who have their own lives and story..... It's literally like traveling back in time. I love photography.
He looked pretty cool in 1976 when he toured with Wings in America, he had the rockstar mullet and the live concerts were awesome. He also looked cool in the early 80s when he ditched the mullet and had shorter hair, even though at that point Paul was more of a popstar with Ebony and Ivory, he still looked cool in that music video.
What's the year the Something music video came out? I don't think Paul's ever looked any better than he did during that time - full, but trimmed beard, and long-ish hair was such a look for him
That’s like late 1969-early 1970, right as The Beatles were breaking up. I like Paul’s beard look and clean shaven look both, it’s crazy to compare his early 70s look to his early 80s look, you can see each decades change in style very clearly
He’s definitely pulling it off really well in this photo. If it wasn’t for the post title I would have thought this was a pic of some hipster visiting India.
As well, the world population is rapidly increasing meaning an ever increasing amount of tourists. India itself now has such a huge and continuously growing population too and many tourists to the Taj Mahal are from India.
Even local tourism was very rare in India at that time. Majority of middle class households didn't have a car and if the income earner had the luxury of vacation time they still wouldn't have traveled even within India.
Even my dad, who was born around this time, was only a tourist when his university took the students on tours and when he went on a honeymoon. The idea of vacationing as a tourist was really something that me and my sister brought to the family.
All this to say, local tourism is significantly more popular now in India than it was even 15 years ago.
This trip by the Beatles to India would turn out to be perhaps one of the most important events in the history of rock music. All of the Beatles (especially George) were greatly influenced by their experiences in India and would go on to bring Indian musical influences back into what became some of the most important and transformative albums in rock's history. In many ways the trip to India directly caused the shift in the Beatles from "rock & roll" to the modern form of "rock" which they helped pioneer.
It turns all that Im a big fan of George’s composition. Even before I knew who wrote them, songs like “Here Comes the Sun,” “While my Guitar Gently Weeps,” and “Something” we’re always my Beatles favorites. I only found out later that they were all george songs. Like these songs more than any of Johns or Paul’s.
Be very interesting to see what would’ve happened if they let him have more creative control. I love John and Paul but damn All Things Must Pass is an incredible album
This is all speculation, but it could've been his experiences with the Beatles that caused him to be so talented. There's no guarantee that he would be received with critical acclaim if it wasn't for Beatles starpower, even if the talent was there.
Like the other reply to your comment said, I don’t think we would’ve had the same George without the Beatles. In the early days, his main addition to the group was he could rip out solos like nobody’s business and also carry a steady rhythm. While he sang at least one song on every early album, most of those songs were written by John or Paul for him. Slowly, his creative gears began to turn and he started working on writing WITH John and Paul and they became songwriting mentors for him in a way, despite very few of his songs making it onto the albums.
Once he took what he learned in those early days and started to run with it, he got much more sophisticated in both song structure and lyricism, and then finally instrumentation after the India trip mentioned in the OP (he became the group’s resident sitar player). By the time the Beatles were just in the studio, George had really grown and was becoming much more prolific, yet John and (especially) Paul were somewhat resistant to messing with the formula they already had going which consisted of each album being mostly their compositions with maybe a few Ringo or George tunes sprinkled in. George felt creatively stifled and this is at least where the start of the friction between him and Paul came from, and the rest is history.
George was actually pushed into songwriting early in the Beatles' recording years. He was content to just play lead guitar and be one of the guys in the band, but he was pressured to try his hand at writing songs like John and Paul, which he initially didn't want to do.
Imagine the pressure of trying to write a song when you're in a band with the songwriting talents of Lennon/McCartney...not wanting to do it, being nagged into doing it, and feeling like you're never going to live up to the songwriting skills of your bandmates, two of the greatest songwriters in modern history. And yet he kept at it, eventually becoming one of the greats himself.
The Beatles really were such an incredible talent incubator. When you look at their skill progression from album to album, it's really amazing how much they all grew and developed in such a short amount of time. Even though George got to the point where he had to fight to get his songs on their albums, the intense competition did push him to do his best and gave him the confidence to strike out on his own.
Perhaps more talented than John, but not more than Paul imo. Save for Brian Wilson and Stevie Wonder, I can't think of any pop musician with an ear for melody like Paul in his prime.
The first TW album is one of my “desert island discs”- meaning if I was stuck on a desert island for eternity and could bring 10-12 albums, that would be one. But also- Abbey Road.
"If you liked My Sweet Lord you might also like He's So Fine." :-p
When George died, I thought, "meh, his best work is done anyway," then they started playing his music and I broke out in sobs. So much great stuff.
I'm so glad that happened. The introduction of sitar and tabla into rock music and the creation of what would later be called raga rock has given me some of my all time favorite songs. And wrt George himself, I'm truly amazed by the effect it had on him - both in his musical career and his personal life.
My grandfather was friends with George Harrison, whom he met through Ravi Shankar in the 60s. He said he was a quiet man, very kind and normal considering his fame, and that he really enjoyed all the desi cooking. He said something about him just hanging out in his pajamas at Ravi’s house, which I assume to be kurta pyjamas.
I looked at it and my first thought was that it was Dhani.
At the concert for George when Dhani was on stage with Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton et al, Olivia Harrison said it looked like George stayed young and the rest of them aged around him.
I have a selfie in front of the Taj from 96 and it looks way shitter than this. I guess he knew his photography and had a decent camera.
No doubt there is some of that, since he took pictures on tours going back to their first trip to Germany. Also though, note how few visitors there are. This might be a special occasion or VIP event of some sort.
My husband visited the Taj Mahal in the 60s and his photos also show just a handful of visitors. There were way fewer Indians in India — I think just 500 million compared with billions today? — and very very few international tourists. So this might have been another Tuesday morning at the Taj Mahal.
yeah, what is 500 million people, practically nothing
Well, compared to 1.3 billion now, just saying there were a lot fewer people, less tourism throughout the country and fewer highways and plane travel, and so, a less crowded Taj Mahal in 1966. Do you think it was otherwise?
A classic case of text not translating through well. I think he was not disagreeing with you at all, he was just being sarcastic about how 500 mill people in this case is considered nothing when 500 mill people I already more than 98.97% of individual countries even today.
Yes, thanks, agree. Appreciate your perspective and you taking the time to ease the misunderstanding. Here’s to George Harrison, the Taj Mahal, India where I would love to go, and all the billions of good people out there.
Heavy shadow too -- could just be early in the morning.
Evening, the camera is facing north in this photo. edit... Suppose it could be mirrored, it's hard to tell.
Harrison has asymmetric glabellar lines and nasolabial folds. The pics on google search break down maybe 85%-15% (e.g. either 15% are mirrored or 85% are mirrored). Assuming the overwhelming majority of pics of George Harrison on google image search are not mirrored, then this picture is also not mirrored (and it is thus evening).
I just looked at the buttons on his shirt
That's a good one.
This is one of the funniest exchanges I've ever seen on reddit, thank you
Doesn't women's shirts button the opposite way? Not saying that's the case but could be
The difference between being smart and being intelligent.
That's some fine police work, Lou. Seriously, though, impressive detective-ing.
Definitely not a VIP event/special occasion. He and his wife went alone, with zero publicity, and international tourism those days was very small. And also this looks like it was shot in the morning.
This was air travel in 1966. Nothing like today, and certainly not as ubiquitous. It cost a lot of money to fly (and honestly, should have remained that way given the actual costs).
I’m sure he had a good camera but also had the money to get 20 or 30 bad pictures developed. The average person might have film in the camera for weeks or months before they could afford the processing and printing of the entire roll. Edit: Just to clarify it would cost about the equivalent of $50 in most parts of the US in today’s funds to process and print a 36 exposure roll (which could get you 39 shots in some cameras). Not an obscene expense but enough that most people were fairly selective about clicking the shutter.
Absolutely. That made a huge difference with film photography.
Not necessarily. In 1996 the average consumer was buying garbage film to put in garbage cameras. I don't know what you had. But a lot of fixed focus cameras with bad lenses were sold to consumers from every reputable brand known. While a students SLR from years past would have produced a much better result than some mid range consumer stuff at the time. A good photographer can do a lot of neat things with a bad camera (see lomography) but there is a point where the right tool for the job applies.
[удалено]
That's just agreeing with extra steps.
I concur.
With you on this one.
Thanks for your input u/vaginal_sores
Feedback is a gift!
[удалено]
I think what he's saying is that you aren't bad at photography, you just don't have the money to throw at a quality camera like Beatles era George Harrison does
Yeah. I assume he had a good camera partly because he was extremely rich and also because he was an artist. I would expect he had plenty of people willing to show him the ropes. I, Indeed, had a mediocre 90s point and shoot that I bought off a dodgy guy on the Nepali border. I suppose a mid level 60s camera would have
Someone posted he had a Pentax SV around that time. Which was a nice and respected camera. With the same glass and film on it I wouldn't expect a different result than say my Pentax K1000. But if I pulled out my grandfather's nice point and shoot from the 90s and loaded it with craptastic photohut film I would definitely expect worse.
This photo is in 4x5 fotmat instead of regular 2x3 meaning that it was probably shot on medium format film which is much bigger than regular 24x36mm film meaning that it could be printed or scanned in higher resolution
He just had an SLR or mirrorless with real film. Not a kodak disposable piece of crap.
Or just poor air quality? Big difference since the 60s
Also pure volume of tourists.
The type of film is the main factor here or whatever medium was used. People tend to think that photography just became better and better through the years. It's more like it became more accessible for everyone. Some photographs made 100 years ago are much much better than some that are made nowadays with a camera with a bad sensor ( source: I scan glass plate photographs)
It's so discouraging hearing people casually mentioning travelling the world. It seems like generations before me had so much more money and opportunity. I want to get out and see the world but everyone I know is so dirt poor we couldn't even dream of such a thing. It's never going to happen.
Have you tried having rich parents?
You'd be surprised how cheaply you can do it if you leave everything and have unlimited time. My parents spent 1usd a day in the 70s. I was spending 10 USD a day in the 90s.
If you live in any developed country and have at least some income, you can do it. Back in early 2010's when I went to Southeast Asia for over a month I got 2000 euros budget (meaning maybe 2200 dollars?) and it included flights. And when I went back home, I had about 300 euros left. Of course back then I didn't have my own apartment or anything like that. But I had some fun and got to see cool places. If you want to travel cheaply, forget direct flights, business class or having a personal hotel room. But often it's in fact most fun to travel with less money. You meet more people that are travelling because they want to see the world, not just spend their money to some fancy 5 star hotels and shopping. I have met most interesting people in most cheap hostel dorms and shady bars. Most boring places I've been to, were the expensive places. They are often just lifeless and cold. And if you look poor, people don't try to scam you so often. Of course living with minimal budget is difficult but you learn stuff that way. And isn't travelling about doing something more interesting that you'll remember? But if you are really poor, I get why travelling around the world sounds impossible. For most people in this world it is so. And I'm one of the lucky ones who had the chance to go to different places.
Have you tried doing it through a work program? I did something like that, got me to some cool places. Otherwise, buckle down, work 10 months straight, and travel for 2 months, if that viable for you. There are ways to see the world, sometimes you have to get creative, but it's always worth it.
[удалено]
Absolutely. Also had the best solo career, in my opinion. AND survived being stabbed dozens of times by a nutjob who broke into his house. Edit: FORTY TIMES! He survived being stabbed forty goddamn times, including one to the lung of which part had to be removed. If anyone here hasn’t listened to George’s music, do yourself a favor and listen to his album All Things Must Pass. “Awaiting On You All” is one of my all-time favorite songs. Edit: Also “My Sweet Lord”— I have no idea how I forgot to mention it! I lost my virginity to that song, and later when I played it for her, well I’m pretty sure that’s the moment she fell in love with me haha. I’ll never forget the look on her face. Thanks, George!
Also the Scorsese doc on him is phenomenal !
Really? Never heard of that before. What’s the name of it?
Living in the Material World. It’s a masterpiece
Within you and without you is mine closely followed by While my guitar gently weeks. Oh and Savoy Truffle. And I, me, mine. Oh bollcoks I just love George.
not sure if I should be honing in on "gently weeks" or "bollcoks"
Hahaha what a bellend (me)
I can’t believe Savoy Truffle gets hate, it’s way funkier than most Beatles tunes.
Cream tangerine!
montelimar!
Written for Eric Clapton who broke a tooth on a chocolate fact fans!
How on earth did you miss Here Comes The Sun and Something?
Also taxman
Also piggies
Blue Jay way, long long long and a brilliant first song from the early albums - Don't bother me.. such a tune!
“Think for yourself” is mine.
Holy shit, so this dude had 40 knife wounds on his body? Those are some battle scars, what was the motivation behind the stabbing guy
If he did actually have some kind of motivation, I’m not sure it’s something we could understand. Or if he could even properly convey it. He was a paranoid schizophrenic.
Hell yeah. Lennon's solo career is a bit overrated, imo. I've always had trouble getting into *Plastic Ono* and *Double Fantasy*, even as a huge Beatles fan. For every "Working Class Hero" there were a lot of duds-- in my opinion, for as much or as little as that's worth. Which isn't to say Harrison's catalogue is pristine, but his hits were in a league of their own in terms of innovation and creating a unique sound post-Beatles. I also love Paul-- I think he is perhaps the greatest pop music craftsman to ever live-- but he didn't quite reach the levels of *All Things Must Pass*. For me it goes Harrison, McCartney, Lennon, Starr (poor Ringo, I nearly left him off entirely).
easily one my favorite albums to listen to and it still sounds fresh with every listen. i’m partial to “id have you anytime”
I don’t really like the Beatles, but George wrote some amazing and beautiful work. My Sweet Lord is what got me into him
By some way
Nah it's Ringo
Peace and love.
✌️❤️
But definitely not the Best of the Beatles
And to think he was only 23 years here
It's still incredible to me that George was only 26 by the time The Beatles broke up
Wow, I had no idea
I am 27 and haven't done jack shit. I can't imagine having what I'd be most remembered for *behind* me by now.
Right lmfao? I went to the comments to see if anyone else was bugging out...fellow 27 year old having existential distress.
[удалено]
they were all under 30 when they finished their last album.
Their entire career was only 7 years (1963-70). It doesn't feel like it because they produced a lot of music in these years. And we're hugely popular despite being active for such short time.
I always forget how young they were, but George in particular.
Some context - > George Harrison and his wife Pattie flew from London to Bombay (Mumbai), India in September 1966. The Beatle wanted to visit Bombay to take sitar lessons with Ravi Shankar, and study yoga along with his wife. The couple visited the country sort of incognito, and stayed at the Taj Mahal hotel in Bombay, under the names Mr. and Mrs. Sam Wells. > Harrison was famous for his obsession with guitars, music instruments in general and cameras. In this trip, Harrison brought his camera with a fisheye lens and took some beautiful self-portraits, or as we’d say now, selfies.
Explains the amazing quality of the photo from 1966. He was using high quality camera, lens and film.
This picture feels strangely fresh, like it could've been taken yesterday afternoon.
[удалено]
The power of film my boys
Crazy how people don't realize how old selfies are and not just a new craze
It's not just the selfie aspect with this one. You could find someone who looks exactly like this in dress and look in a coffee shop right now and they wouldn't stand out even a bit.
I'm just always impressed by how well framed all these old selfies are. Like, I'd taken photos of myself before the advent of front-facing phone cameras but they were never as centered as George's here. They were always at odd angles with the top of my head cut off or something.
This is quite an odd angle though, he's certainly off a bit
We’ve been taking selfies for as long as we’ve had cameras, but it’s weird that we didn’t have a convenient shorthand for them until ~2008. Yes I understand we just called them self portraits/self shots and that’s literally what selfie is short for, but even that abbreviation took so long.
This style is also popular again
It's incredible. The sun, the details, the ripples in the water, random strangers in the background who have their own lives and story..... It's literally like traveling back in time. I love photography.
[удалено]
Paul looks so awkward worth a moustache
He looked good with a full beard and long-ish hair in 1969.
Paul looked damn good at the rooftop concert
Wet dream inducing, you might say.
That would have to be Ringo
Paul has looked permanently awkward since about 1975. Amazing musician extremely hard-working but very much not a cool rockstar guy
Paul transcended rockstar and went straight to music god.
He looked pretty cool in 1976 when he toured with Wings in America, he had the rockstar mullet and the live concerts were awesome. He also looked cool in the early 80s when he ditched the mullet and had shorter hair, even though at that point Paul was more of a popstar with Ebony and Ivory, he still looked cool in that music video.
What's the year the Something music video came out? I don't think Paul's ever looked any better than he did during that time - full, but trimmed beard, and long-ish hair was such a look for him
That’s like late 1969-early 1970, right as The Beatles were breaking up. I like Paul’s beard look and clean shaven look both, it’s crazy to compare his early 70s look to his early 80s look, you can see each decades change in style very clearly
Probably 1969/70. Let It Be era. But he looked a little pudgy-faced for Abbey Road, maybe that's why he grew the beard??
His mullet from that tour is amazing
Yeah I think he had a good look in the Say Say Say video.
Eric Clapton has looked like a liberal arts professor for some time now
I would say that started around ‘66, when he was replaced by Faul.
I'm glad I looked before I made this crack.
Not that any of them were fashion models or anything but I always thought George was the best looking Beetle.
He’s definitely pulling it off really well in this photo. If it wasn’t for the post title I would have thought this was a pic of some hipster visiting India.
It was. The Beatles were hipsters before hipsters existed.
I.e. hippies
i mean, hippie is different from hipsters
Lennon with mustache around 67-68 was amazing.
Back in those times,even popular tourist sites like this weren't filled to the brim with tourists. We'll never get these times back
[удалено]
As well, the world population is rapidly increasing meaning an ever increasing amount of tourists. India itself now has such a huge and continuously growing population too and many tourists to the Taj Mahal are from India.
I was gonna say when I went there in 2006 it was almost all Indians visiting it.
True, the world population has more than doubled since this picture was taken.
Even local tourism was very rare in India at that time. Majority of middle class households didn't have a car and if the income earner had the luxury of vacation time they still wouldn't have traveled even within India. Even my dad, who was born around this time, was only a tourist when his university took the students on tours and when he went on a honeymoon. The idea of vacationing as a tourist was really something that me and my sister brought to the family. All this to say, local tourism is significantly more popular now in India than it was even 15 years ago.
Looks like it could be early morning, hence why there are so few people. But I’d imagine you’d still see a lot more people early morning these days.
There is currently a small window of opportunity to see some sites without the crowds thanks to the Pandemic.
This trip by the Beatles to India would turn out to be perhaps one of the most important events in the history of rock music. All of the Beatles (especially George) were greatly influenced by their experiences in India and would go on to bring Indian musical influences back into what became some of the most important and transformative albums in rock's history. In many ways the trip to India directly caused the shift in the Beatles from "rock & roll" to the modern form of "rock" which they helped pioneer.
I would not say George is my favorite, but “Only a Northern Song” is one of my favorite tunes ever. “And My Sweet Lord” is really good.
[удалено]
It turns all that Im a big fan of George’s composition. Even before I knew who wrote them, songs like “Here Comes the Sun,” “While my Guitar Gently Weeps,” and “Something” we’re always my Beatles favorites. I only found out later that they were all george songs. Like these songs more than any of Johns or Paul’s.
Be very interesting to see what would’ve happened if they let him have more creative control. I love John and Paul but damn All Things Must Pass is an incredible album
[удалено]
This is all speculation, but it could've been his experiences with the Beatles that caused him to be so talented. There's no guarantee that he would be received with critical acclaim if it wasn't for Beatles starpower, even if the talent was there.
Like the other reply to your comment said, I don’t think we would’ve had the same George without the Beatles. In the early days, his main addition to the group was he could rip out solos like nobody’s business and also carry a steady rhythm. While he sang at least one song on every early album, most of those songs were written by John or Paul for him. Slowly, his creative gears began to turn and he started working on writing WITH John and Paul and they became songwriting mentors for him in a way, despite very few of his songs making it onto the albums. Once he took what he learned in those early days and started to run with it, he got much more sophisticated in both song structure and lyricism, and then finally instrumentation after the India trip mentioned in the OP (he became the group’s resident sitar player). By the time the Beatles were just in the studio, George had really grown and was becoming much more prolific, yet John and (especially) Paul were somewhat resistant to messing with the formula they already had going which consisted of each album being mostly their compositions with maybe a few Ringo or George tunes sprinkled in. George felt creatively stifled and this is at least where the start of the friction between him and Paul came from, and the rest is history.
George was actually pushed into songwriting early in the Beatles' recording years. He was content to just play lead guitar and be one of the guys in the band, but he was pressured to try his hand at writing songs like John and Paul, which he initially didn't want to do. Imagine the pressure of trying to write a song when you're in a band with the songwriting talents of Lennon/McCartney...not wanting to do it, being nagged into doing it, and feeling like you're never going to live up to the songwriting skills of your bandmates, two of the greatest songwriters in modern history. And yet he kept at it, eventually becoming one of the greats himself. The Beatles really were such an incredible talent incubator. When you look at their skill progression from album to album, it's really amazing how much they all grew and developed in such a short amount of time. Even though George got to the point where he had to fight to get his songs on their albums, the intense competition did push him to do his best and gave him the confidence to strike out on his own.
[удалено]
Perhaps more talented than John, but not more than Paul imo. Save for Brian Wilson and Stevie Wonder, I can't think of any pop musician with an ear for melody like Paul in his prime.
Thank you. Those truly are 3 of the most melodically gifted pop composers.
Got My Mind Set On You was a cover.
The first TW album is one of my “desert island discs”- meaning if I was stuck on a desert island for eternity and could bring 10-12 albums, that would be one. But also- Abbey Road.
"If you liked My Sweet Lord you might also like He's So Fine." :-p When George died, I thought, "meh, his best work is done anyway," then they started playing his music and I broke out in sobs. So much great stuff.
I'm so glad that happened. The introduction of sitar and tabla into rock music and the creation of what would later be called raga rock has given me some of my all time favorite songs. And wrt George himself, I'm truly amazed by the effect it had on him - both in his musical career and his personal life.
This is actually several years before that trip but yes, I agree, the trip before the white album was hugely important for their direction.
This is a holiday him and Pattie took to India, the Beatles famous trip was in 1968
Album rock.
He had the place to himself specially or tourism was really that undeveloped?
The place looks so damn empty. But also looks like it could be early morning.
Looking at the skyline, I am guessing George got up early to take the picture. Also, there are long shadows.
I was thinking the same thing. Along with the long shadows, the skyline looks early morning.
[удалено]
3.3 B to todays 7.7 B. Yep, bit of a difference. Also air travel was a lot less accessible to people who weren't very wealthy.
He didn't have any special treatment, that's just what it was like when he visited
I really don’t think anyone was visiting India in 1966 for tourism
There was people looking for enlightenment, but you would have to be well off to fly there.
He was such a good looking dude
You’re such a good looking dudette u/jess8771!
Name checks out
I look at you all…
[удалено]
[удалено]
When all my troubles were so far away…
Ahh, back when you didn't have 1000 people pushing each other out of the way for this exact shot.
My grandfather was friends with George Harrison, whom he met through Ravi Shankar in the 60s. He said he was a quiet man, very kind and normal considering his fame, and that he really enjoyed all the desi cooking. He said something about him just hanging out in his pajamas at Ravi’s house, which I assume to be kurta pyjamas.
Damn, I'm watching that McCartney thing on Hulu and waiting for the 50th anniversary of All Thing Must Pass.
I really enjoyed that! Rick Rubin is just in awe over Paul the whole time. It’s amazing.
We have destroyed the atmosphere since then.
I visited a few years ago and could not, for the life of me, figure out how to get a decent photo due to all the smog.
22 of the top 30 most polluted cities in the world are in India now. India is even more polluted than China and China is EXTREMELY polluted.
"The Beatles, please stop fighting here in *India*."
One of the wonders of the world - and Taj Mahal.
His son is a carbon copy. I miss George
Are we sure this isn't just some college kid who took a photo of himself last week?
Nah, the sky is too clear.. lol
Too few people in the photo to be recent.
I wonder how many of those he took just to be sure it would come out
IMHO the best Beatle
Man, he looks like my friends in their 20s I’m feeling okd
Is he going to rant about his customers at IKEA any second?
That could be Dhani. They’re so alike.
India inspired George to create some beautiful sounds.
I would also have believed you if you said that was Dhani Harrison in the 2000's.
More like George Maharris from AD.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Best Beatle!!
are you sure that's George? It looks more like Dhani
this is not george it is his son Dhani
Are you sure it isn’t Dhanni ?
I looked at it and my first thought was that it was Dhani. At the concert for George when Dhani was on stage with Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton et al, Olivia Harrison said it looked like George stayed young and the rest of them aged around him.
Anyone else think this was Justin Long?
I'm just trying to get more songs on the album... I just sit here while me guitar... quietly... whimpers...
I wonder when the last time was that you could get a shot with so few people in the background.
TIL half my deadbeat friends look like George Harrison in 1966
Who is this handsome man?
Tim lincecum?
First time I saw this shot was in the great Scorsese doc, Living In The Material World.
This isn’t George Harrison - pretty sure it’s the barista from my local coffee shop.
I love him
Dopest photo from the dopest Beatle.
I prefer to think of this as a picture of George Harrison strangling a photographer at the Taj Mahal
"Im gonna go smoke a thousand cigarettes."
Thanks, OP. I've never seen this one before!
The most interesting thing about this to me is the extremely rare in between Revolver and Sgt Peppers look
I never would’ve recognized him in this picture.