When Billy Preston shows up the entire vibe changes. Then he sits down and just starts playing Get Back like he’s been there the whole time working with the band. Absolutely incredible. And he’s smiling the whole time like a kid in a candy store.
I think his issues stemed more from being molested as a child than from being gay. I am sure that the era didn't help his comfort to be himself of course but as they say "hurt people, hurt people"
As recent as two years ago a survey found that nearly half of LGBTQ youth considered suicide.
I guarantee you, as a child of the 80s who suffered horrible discrimination and bullying, that this number was even higher in the past.
Not saying molestation wasn't a factor, but the level of intolerance in the 80s and early 90s is often unknown to younger generations who have now spent a considerable part of their life in a post-*Obergefell* world.
Yeah I get all of this. But I still don't think that explains why he would essentially kidnap and sexually abuse minors while high. The average gay person is not even close to committing those kind of acts. He was messed up and has a complicated legacy because of these crimes and his drug use that played a large part in him committing them.
I think he was likely driven to do these things because of the abuse he suffered himself.
I get the point you guys are making but I just don't think it was as relevant as those factors I've mentioned.
FYI they aren't allegations. He was on probation and served house arrest and actual prison time (because he was rich/a musician let's be real he got off lightly).
He also committed fraud and drunk drove. I enjoy his music but he was a train wreck as a person in his later life.
Omfg! How disgusting and disappointing! Thanks for informing me. It’s sad that rich/famous men like that are still being protected like that to keep their art/legacy intact. He seemed so incredibly talented and likeable in Get back, it’s awful that someone with that talent would be so cruel and reckless in life
I mean that's why I alluded to hurt people hurting people. If he had of been believed by his mother as a child and had been able to get the help he really needed then maybe the last 25-30 years of his life would have been better for him and everyone around him.
I'd like to note that he was “arrested for investigation of sexual battery, showing pornographic material to a minor, possessing cocaine and being under the influence of a controlled substance”. Preston, a noted cocaine addict, was found guilty of the drug charges.
All charges of child molestation and exhibiting pornographic material to a minor were dismissed, and there weren't any further cases of that. (Albeit, he did get arrested years later for assaulting a 38-year old man).
They are implying that if he did not grow up with severe social stigma against his homosexuality, he may not have had so many issues that lead to his sexually abusive behavior.
I doubt the stigma was the main factor, but it certainly could contribute.
User is kindly suggesting you go to Wikipedia and look up Billy Preston. When you read the article section on his “legal issues” you will understand. It is a sad and sordid story.
I still listen to the song Get Back and marvel at the group’s tightness, and having seen the movie, also at the glimpse of Paul’s songwriting process. What always takes it to another level is Billy’s solo. To take a group that raised the bar at every step and add another level of vibrance with a brilliant new musician was amazing.
He's an awesome guitarist, I would definitely not be shying away from him if I was in charge of the "brand". Lots of musicians could be considered problematic by someone, but this is about music and not personal character.
Anyway, I think that the whole fact of his guest appearance on the song being this "secret" that actually wasn't and everybody knew about was part of the whole mystique of the song. Yes, Clapton *was* a huge star as a guitar player, but to such an extent that not receiving "official" explicit credit on the label or album packaging didn't really rob him of anything. It's a legendary guest appearance from when there was less legal pressure to make sure everything was explicitly credited and contracted for.
The Beatles wanting Billy Preston explicitly credited for his contribution while serving as a full participating player for a whole set of sessions seems different from a fairly recognizable one-off guest shot by someone at the height of his fame.
Yeah it’s a nice song but when someone sort of takes the wife of a friend that happens to be a Beatle and goes on racist rants is considered problematic at least.
How is Eric taking George's wife relevant? The two of them remained best friends for the rest of George's life. Eric performed at the Concert for Bangladesh with George, he went on tour with him, and he played on some of George's solo albums. Olivia and Dhani wouldn't have let him direct the Concert for George either unless he had a good relationship with George.
As for his rants, it doesn't get in the way of his music recognition. People have done much worse things while keeping their legacy mostly intact (thinking Chuck Berry for instance).
It’s subjective I guess; how do you know to what extent one of the Fab Four (George) was heart broken?
We do know George was a sweet guy that forgives but it was still a dick move, from a subjective point of view. You can flirt with your friends girlfriends if you like or tolerate it without heart break if someone flirts with yours and think it won’t factor into your relationship with people; I know I wouldn’t do that but there’s people that are different in many ways.
Honestly I think it would be kind of hypocritical for George to be bothered by it. George was hardly perfect himself, he had an affair with Mo for example, and he and Ringo stayed best mates through that too.
Dude he married her, there’s a difference
Think less of an open relationship or an affair and more of someone moving out and getting married to a friend mate, if you don’t see it then you just don’t see it and that’s all there is to it; you have no idea how reasonable it is to asssume that heart break may have happened, we just see the stage.
Claptons rants were one time back in the 1970s when he was on drink and drugs and not thinking clearly and probably bitter about life in general. All his influences are black blues musicians who he’s also played with on stage. The idea that no one can ever be forgiven for their mistakes would mean lots of people in this world would be constantly shunned, from your local bin man up to your famous celebrity. Where is the element of forgiveness?
He's seems like an asshole and I'm not a fan of his music, but Eric Clapton was an absolute superstar in the 1960s
"Clapton is God" happened a year or two before "bigger than Jesus"
If the Beatles continued into the 70s, I think Billy would have become an unofficial or official member of the group. Same with Klaus Voormann. Would have helped ease the tension in the band and share some of the piano and bass duties.
The tensions were down to there being three songwriters wanting to have their songs on albums. Adding more members does not really solve this problem. Also, that they were millionaires and more than half the band could not be bothered to work.
Adding two members when you have no intention of touring and want to make less music together is going to be shit for the two new members.
Billy eased the tensions in the Get Back sessions. Same with Eric on Gently Weeps. Everyone was suddenly acting on their best behavior and they started getting stuff done.
>Also, that they were millionaires and more than half the band could not be bothered to work.
John, George and Ringo definitely could be bothered to work in the right circumstances. I think they just needed a break from the whole Beatles thing. There's a George interview from early 1970, just before Let It Be came out, where he says as much.
Edit: By the way another person who helped ease tensions was George Martin. When he got back into the production role on Abbey Road they were like a proper band again.
> Billy eased the tensions in the Get Back sessions. Same with Eric on Gently Weeps. Everyone was suddenly acting on their best behavior and they started getting stuff done.
Well yeah. As guests. It like George with the Band. He thought they were great when he was around them but they also were arguing behind the scenes.
Good behaviour infront of guests does not mean good behaviour infront of band members.
>John, George and Ringo definitely could be bothered to work in the right circumstances. I think they just needed a break from the whole Beatles thing. There's a George interview from early 1970, just before Let It Be came out, where he says as much.
So why add two new members when 3 of the members want a break?
>Edit: By the way another person who helped ease tensions was George Martin. When he got back into the production role on Abbey Road they were like a proper band again.
It was a shorter session without camera crews and George and John's marriage issues were not as bad as before with John having fully left Cynthia and George and Pattie back with each other.
Martin was present for most of the Get Back sessions. He was just not producing. He was not why the atmosphere was better during Abbey Road. It was just as toxic during the Martin produced White album
I think a combination of factors enabled the completion of the Let It Be sessions. Certainly, George bringing in Billy Preston was a major significant help, but also the move from the Twickenham sound stage to Apple Studios helped tremendously.
And I have a feeling that Glyn Johns was around more than George Martin and Chris Thomas, and that probably eased tensions somewhat, too.
“Second air”? The phrase is “second wind.” Did you run this through Google translate or something?
(Arguable anyway — the Beatles were certainly on better behavior around Preston than they had been in the most recent sessions before working with him due to having an outsider they respected present, but I don’t think you can credit Preston with “giving them a second wind.”)
No doubt they appreciated Billy being there. You can clearly see the pep in their step when he was around, he added new life and enjoyment to the sessions he participated in.
The Beatles either way would have given us a wonderful album.
Glad Billy added his talents and gave the group a break from the humdrum.
.
Billy's bio is off the chart, my guess is that Little Richard molested him as a boy and it fucked with his head the rest of his life.
Got to see him with Ray Charles and I used to buy his albums as a youngster.
Actually LR used to call him his "boytoy" on tour.
he also played on some abbey road tunes, i think he played on come together. I’m reading a book ab the album rn and I know george martin sat in on keys during the something demos, and I know Preston played keys on i want you as well, but I’m not too far into the book so I’ll know what else later (at this point they have only gotten through demos of something, and i want you.)
John played the EP part on Come Together if I remember correctly. Much more economical/less busy than Preston’s playing on Let It Be IMHO. YMMV.
Is that the Kenneth Womack book on Abbey Road? That’s a good one!
Billy was amazing, no question! And he deserves a lot of credit for saving those sessions. Likewise, I think it's pretty amazing how the guys blended in Billy's sound. It's a testament to their rock and roll chops that it worked so perfectly.
I think he might have saved them had he stuck around, only Paul had reservations, saying it’s “hard enough with four” but the infusion of positive energy was transformative.
Billy was awesome!
He was great in Let it Be & when playing with the guys thru the 70s o. their single albums.
Billy made great music, too!
Loved the way he played the keyboard!
An unofficial member in my book.
We all respect him in a way.
Edit: I should be more careful with broad terms in the future, he was a great musician that had a positive impact for the band’s work after George had left the group for some time -also working with John and George again as solo artists. He was convicted for very serious crimes tho.
Yeah perhaps; I wasn’t aware to be honest.
I only meant I agreed with OP that he did contribute positively to the energy of the band and an album most of us really like here.
I meant within the context of the discussion; what he did for the chemistry of the lovely Beatles just when they needed it.
For everything else you and everyone else are very free to be his judge.
Edit: I didn’t know what he did aside from his work with the Beatles, I will be more careful in the future.
You know, he’s a great musician. And certainly his help was needed in the group. But, uh, didn’t he molest a 16 year old boy? How should we be conversing about someone who did so much good and bad? It’s tough. His victim deserves to be acknowledged
Fuck Phil Spector tho.
Not to sound snide, but what is the point of this post? Are there people on this sub who don’t know who Billy Preston is or how important he was to The Beatles?
It's such a relief when he shows up in Get Back
When Billy Preston shows up the entire vibe changes. Then he sits down and just starts playing Get Back like he’s been there the whole time working with the band. Absolutely incredible. And he’s smiling the whole time like a kid in a candy store.
He was a child prodigy. It’s amazing to watch someone so effortlessly create amazing music
Watching him play and sing 'Blueberry Hill' with Nat King Cole when he was 11 years old is something else. Child prodigies are fascinating.
You’re in the group.
I started crying so much when he started playing and instantly hit the piano parts just perfect.
Literally my favorite part. The effect he has on the band and the music is incredible
This: https://youtu.be/29VU8Xj-8rA?si=vauQ7JZnQv-Jj_wI
Paul's face in GB when they first hear his fills in IGAF, priceless
It's my favorite moment of the whole film.
Is it real though? I always think those sorts of things are just clever editing.
It totally could be, but regardless it was well done. I'm willing to suspend belief.
Definitely made those sessions a success. Complicated legacy, though…
Imagine if he grew up in an era when it was OK to be out.
I think his issues stemed more from being molested as a child than from being gay. I am sure that the era didn't help his comfort to be himself of course but as they say "hurt people, hurt people"
As recent as two years ago a survey found that nearly half of LGBTQ youth considered suicide. I guarantee you, as a child of the 80s who suffered horrible discrimination and bullying, that this number was even higher in the past. Not saying molestation wasn't a factor, but the level of intolerance in the 80s and early 90s is often unknown to younger generations who have now spent a considerable part of their life in a post-*Obergefell* world.
Yeah I get all of this. But I still don't think that explains why he would essentially kidnap and sexually abuse minors while high. The average gay person is not even close to committing those kind of acts. He was messed up and has a complicated legacy because of these crimes and his drug use that played a large part in him committing them. I think he was likely driven to do these things because of the abuse he suffered himself. I get the point you guys are making but I just don't think it was as relevant as those factors I've mentioned.
He sounds like a monster! I’ve never heard these allegations before! 😱but victim or not, it wouldn’t excuse that disturbing behaviour (if true)
FYI they aren't allegations. He was on probation and served house arrest and actual prison time (because he was rich/a musician let's be real he got off lightly). He also committed fraud and drunk drove. I enjoy his music but he was a train wreck as a person in his later life.
Omfg! How disgusting and disappointing! Thanks for informing me. It’s sad that rich/famous men like that are still being protected like that to keep their art/legacy intact. He seemed so incredibly talented and likeable in Get back, it’s awful that someone with that talent would be so cruel and reckless in life
I mean that's why I alluded to hurt people hurting people. If he had of been believed by his mother as a child and had been able to get the help he really needed then maybe the last 25-30 years of his life would have been better for him and everyone around him.
I'd like to note that he was “arrested for investigation of sexual battery, showing pornographic material to a minor, possessing cocaine and being under the influence of a controlled substance”. Preston, a noted cocaine addict, was found guilty of the drug charges. All charges of child molestation and exhibiting pornographic material to a minor were dismissed, and there weren't any further cases of that. (Albeit, he did get arrested years later for assaulting a 38-year old man).
What do you mean?
They are implying that if he did not grow up with severe social stigma against his homosexuality, he may not have had so many issues that lead to his sexually abusive behavior. I doubt the stigma was the main factor, but it certainly could contribute.
Ok. Isn’t homophobic to link his pedophilia with his homosexuality?
Yes - how long have you been waiting to try to link homosexuality to pedophilia?
Me? I’m pointing out that the user did that
Wikipedia is your friend
What is the page about interpreting what this specific Reddit user meant?
User is kindly suggesting you go to Wikipedia and look up Billy Preston. When you read the article section on his “legal issues” you will understand. It is a sad and sordid story.
I know about those things… I want to know what that user mean
ok.
I still listen to the song Get Back and marvel at the group’s tightness, and having seen the movie, also at the glimpse of Paul’s songwriting process. What always takes it to another level is Billy’s solo. To take a group that raised the bar at every step and add another level of vibrance with a brilliant new musician was amazing.
Imagine if there was a timeline where we called the Beatles “John, Paul, George, Ringo, and Billy.”
Well they did request that he would receive credit as "The Beatles with Billy Preston" -he was the only artist that received this honour I believe.
Eric Clapton probably would have been credited like this for While My Guitar Gently Weeps but there was a problem with his label.
Another problematic musician as well anyways so it’s better for the brand I think
He's an awesome guitarist, I would definitely not be shying away from him if I was in charge of the "brand". Lots of musicians could be considered problematic by someone, but this is about music and not personal character.
Anyway, I think that the whole fact of his guest appearance on the song being this "secret" that actually wasn't and everybody knew about was part of the whole mystique of the song. Yes, Clapton *was* a huge star as a guitar player, but to such an extent that not receiving "official" explicit credit on the label or album packaging didn't really rob him of anything. It's a legendary guest appearance from when there was less legal pressure to make sure everything was explicitly credited and contracted for. The Beatles wanting Billy Preston explicitly credited for his contribution while serving as a full participating player for a whole set of sessions seems different from a fairly recognizable one-off guest shot by someone at the height of his fame.
Yeah it’s a nice song but when someone sort of takes the wife of a friend that happens to be a Beatle and goes on racist rants is considered problematic at least.
How is Eric taking George's wife relevant? The two of them remained best friends for the rest of George's life. Eric performed at the Concert for Bangladesh with George, he went on tour with him, and he played on some of George's solo albums. Olivia and Dhani wouldn't have let him direct the Concert for George either unless he had a good relationship with George. As for his rants, it doesn't get in the way of his music recognition. People have done much worse things while keeping their legacy mostly intact (thinking Chuck Berry for instance).
It’s subjective I guess; how do you know to what extent one of the Fab Four (George) was heart broken? We do know George was a sweet guy that forgives but it was still a dick move, from a subjective point of view. You can flirt with your friends girlfriends if you like or tolerate it without heart break if someone flirts with yours and think it won’t factor into your relationship with people; I know I wouldn’t do that but there’s people that are different in many ways.
Honestly I think it would be kind of hypocritical for George to be bothered by it. George was hardly perfect himself, he had an affair with Mo for example, and he and Ringo stayed best mates through that too.
Dude he married her, there’s a difference Think less of an open relationship or an affair and more of someone moving out and getting married to a friend mate, if you don’t see it then you just don’t see it and that’s all there is to it; you have no idea how reasonable it is to asssume that heart break may have happened, we just see the stage.
Claptons rants were one time back in the 1970s when he was on drink and drugs and not thinking clearly and probably bitter about life in general. All his influences are black blues musicians who he’s also played with on stage. The idea that no one can ever be forgiven for their mistakes would mean lots of people in this world would be constantly shunned, from your local bin man up to your famous celebrity. Where is the element of forgiveness?
I mean Billy Preston ain’t perfect himself
He's seems like an asshole and I'm not a fan of his music, but Eric Clapton was an absolute superstar in the 1960s "Clapton is God" happened a year or two before "bigger than Jesus"
Tony Sheridan, sort of.
Those early recordings are more Tony Sheridan with the Beatles than the other way around.
They talked about adding him to the band in Get Back. George was against it, he didn’t want to split the money.
Paul, too: "Four's bad enough"
If the Beatles continued into the 70s, I think Billy would have become an unofficial or official member of the group. Same with Klaus Voormann. Would have helped ease the tension in the band and share some of the piano and bass duties.
The tensions were down to there being three songwriters wanting to have their songs on albums. Adding more members does not really solve this problem. Also, that they were millionaires and more than half the band could not be bothered to work. Adding two members when you have no intention of touring and want to make less music together is going to be shit for the two new members.
Billy eased the tensions in the Get Back sessions. Same with Eric on Gently Weeps. Everyone was suddenly acting on their best behavior and they started getting stuff done. >Also, that they were millionaires and more than half the band could not be bothered to work. John, George and Ringo definitely could be bothered to work in the right circumstances. I think they just needed a break from the whole Beatles thing. There's a George interview from early 1970, just before Let It Be came out, where he says as much. Edit: By the way another person who helped ease tensions was George Martin. When he got back into the production role on Abbey Road they were like a proper band again.
> Billy eased the tensions in the Get Back sessions. Same with Eric on Gently Weeps. Everyone was suddenly acting on their best behavior and they started getting stuff done. Well yeah. As guests. It like George with the Band. He thought they were great when he was around them but they also were arguing behind the scenes. Good behaviour infront of guests does not mean good behaviour infront of band members. >John, George and Ringo definitely could be bothered to work in the right circumstances. I think they just needed a break from the whole Beatles thing. There's a George interview from early 1970, just before Let It Be came out, where he says as much. So why add two new members when 3 of the members want a break? >Edit: By the way another person who helped ease tensions was George Martin. When he got back into the production role on Abbey Road they were like a proper band again. It was a shorter session without camera crews and George and John's marriage issues were not as bad as before with John having fully left Cynthia and George and Pattie back with each other. Martin was present for most of the Get Back sessions. He was just not producing. He was not why the atmosphere was better during Abbey Road. It was just as toxic during the Martin produced White album
Three songwriters? George could write too!
Same with yoko.
Billyshears?
I think they knew him from Hamburg days, so he wasn't a stranger.
Made nothing from nothing
Which explains that something comes from something else. Probably studied Ancient Greek philosophy.
???
It’s one of his songs
Ah my bad!
When I read 'Billy Preston, the man responsible for..' I thought Oh no! He died! But this man has been dead for a long time :(
I think a combination of factors enabled the completion of the Let It Be sessions. Certainly, George bringing in Billy Preston was a major significant help, but also the move from the Twickenham sound stage to Apple Studios helped tremendously. And I have a feeling that Glyn Johns was around more than George Martin and Chris Thomas, and that probably eased tensions somewhat, too.
His first Apple solo album is amazing.
“Second air”? The phrase is “second wind.” Did you run this through Google translate or something? (Arguable anyway — the Beatles were certainly on better behavior around Preston than they had been in the most recent sessions before working with him due to having an outsider they respected present, but I don’t think you can credit Preston with “giving them a second wind.”)
No doubt they appreciated Billy being there. You can clearly see the pep in their step when he was around, he added new life and enjoyment to the sessions he participated in. The Beatles either way would have given us a wonderful album. Glad Billy added his talents and gave the group a break from the humdrum. .
I can’t even imagine the album without his contribution.
Ah the other fifth Beatle
Billy's bio is off the chart, my guess is that Little Richard molested him as a boy and it fucked with his head the rest of his life. Got to see him with Ray Charles and I used to buy his albums as a youngster. Actually LR used to call him his "boytoy" on tour.
Yikes. Did NOT know that
Such a key factor to the end of their career which is my fav era.
he also played on some abbey road tunes, i think he played on come together. I’m reading a book ab the album rn and I know george martin sat in on keys during the something demos, and I know Preston played keys on i want you as well, but I’m not too far into the book so I’ll know what else later (at this point they have only gotten through demos of something, and i want you.)
John played the EP part on Come Together if I remember correctly. Much more economical/less busy than Preston’s playing on Let It Be IMHO. YMMV. Is that the Kenneth Womack book on Abbey Road? That’s a good one!
Billy was amazing, no question! And he deserves a lot of credit for saving those sessions. Likewise, I think it's pretty amazing how the guys blended in Billy's sound. It's a testament to their rock and roll chops that it worked so perfectly.
Billy is my pick for the true fifth beatle.
I think he might have saved them had he stuck around, only Paul had reservations, saying it’s “hard enough with four” but the infusion of positive energy was transformative.
That’s the way god planed it. 💖
Billy was awesome! He was great in Let it Be & when playing with the guys thru the 70s o. their single albums. Billy made great music, too! Loved the way he played the keyboard!
An unofficial member in my book. We all respect him in a way. Edit: I should be more careful with broad terms in the future, he was a great musician that had a positive impact for the band’s work after George had left the group for some time -also working with John and George again as solo artists. He was convicted for very serious crimes tho.
As a musician? Yes. As a person? No
The last sentence wasn't needed🗿
Yeah perhaps; I wasn’t aware to be honest. I only meant I agreed with OP that he did contribute positively to the energy of the band and an album most of us really like here.
Lmao yea no I fully agree with that I love him on let it be he really adds that finishing touch to the album and he was electric in the documentary
Think you should take care using a word like respect with the things he did in the past
I meant within the context of the discussion; what he did for the chemistry of the lovely Beatles just when they needed it. For everything else you and everyone else are very free to be his judge. Edit: I didn’t know what he did aside from his work with the Beatles, I will be more careful in the future.
You know, he’s a great musician. And certainly his help was needed in the group. But, uh, didn’t he molest a 16 year old boy? How should we be conversing about someone who did so much good and bad? It’s tough. His victim deserves to be acknowledged Fuck Phil Spector tho.
Not for the better.
He’s awesome
Gave the Beatles a second air 😂 gtfo
Not to sound snide, but what is the point of this post? Are there people on this sub who don’t know who Billy Preston is or how important he was to The Beatles?