|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 4, 2008 4:12:09 GMT -5
The main site contains a solicitation from Steve for reference-type articles. The Let It Be thread is carrying a discussion which is moving into reasons for the breakup, and this led me to think about the young Beatle fan, discovering their music and then their story, and then falling headlong into multiple apparently contradictory reasons for the split: I thought that it might be helpful to see all the main reasons brought together in one place.
So what follows is a first (and incomplete - it has no conclusion) draft of an article in rather simple terms, pitched at a youngish reader. I would welcome comment on inaccuracies, major omissions, misplaced emphasis etc.
WHY DID THE BEATLES BREAK UP?
So you've discovered The Beatles' music, and you've been tracking down their back catalogue. As you've gone along, you've begun to appreciate their huge influence on popular music from the 60s onwards, and you've also found out that they had quite an interesting story. At the end of that story - or, at least, the end as regards The Beatles as a functioning music-producing unit - you have encountered the question "Why did The Beatles break up?" Sometimes this is posed as "Who broke up The Beatles?" You may have met a number of different answers to those questions, and this may have led towards confusion. So here is my attempt to bring most of those answers - and considered explanations - into one place.
Yoko Ono broke up The Beatles
This is probably the one you will hear most often. Is it true? Well, there is some truth to it - it is fair to say that Yoko's entry into The Beatles' inner circle is one of the main factors behind the break-up.
Yoko Ono encountered John in 1968 through her art. Having sought his patronage, a relationship developed between them. This relationship impacted on The Beatles in a number of ways, all of which worked towards breaking up the group.
One, John didn't want to be separated from her, and he brought her into the recording studio during recordings for The Beatles album (the White album) in late 1968. This broke an unspoken rule that wives/girlfriends didn't have any place in The Beatles working world, especially as Yoko was more then willing to voice her opinions as if she was an equal collaborator.
Two, she became John's main artistic collaborator, which robbed The Beatles of the creative dynamic between John and Paul.
Three, it appears that, at the time, she did not really appreciate the cultural significance of The Beatles. Whether consciously or unconsciously, she regarded the group as rivals for her place in John's world, and the Yoko/Beatles issue became "either/or", instead of "both," with the significance of the group not mattering.
John Lennon broke up The Beatles
John was a complex and contradictory man. Having achieved the wealth and fame he had sought, he realised it wasn't really what he wanted. Yoko proved to be what he was looking for, and she filled the spiritual gap he had. She undoubtedly influenced him, but it is fair to say that this would only be because he wanted to be influenced.
There are many quotes from John around this time (1970 onwards) which mention things like him wanting a "divorce" from the group, and being the one who initially left the group (although he was persuaded not to make it public). John felt he had to make a choice between Yoko and The Beatles, and he chose Yoko
Did John Lennon break up The Beatles? Not as such, but he was definitely moving away from them both artistically and spiritually, and that was one of the factors leading towards the split. .
Paul McCartney broke up The Beatles
The claim that Paul McCartney broke up The Beatles is based primarily on the press release which he issued with his first solo album in April 1970, in which he made it clear that he had no further plans to record again with the group. This was the first public declaration that the group was fragmenting, made at a time of great unhappiness on Paul's part, and widely criticised in the years since on the grounds that he used the group's demise to publicise his record.
There was further nastiness at the time centred around scheduling conflicts between Paul's album and the group's album Let It Be - these culminated with Ringo Starr going to see Paul about the matter, and Paul threatening him.
Another factor which has often been suggested is Paul's bossiness within the studio. It is best to simply comment on the two opposing viewpoints as there will probably never be any definite conclusion to be drawn here (other than there is likely to be justification for both views). The negative viewpoint says that Paul was simply bossy, imposing his view on the others (there is a famous sequence in the film Let It Be showing an argument between Paul and George Harrison). The positive viewpoint says that The Beatles had lost all direction since Brian Epstein died, and that Paul was simply acting as a strong positive musical director, constantly pushing the group to keep working and keep going forward, particularly in the light of John having lost interest in the group in favour of Yoko.
George Harrison broke up The Beatles
While it hasn't been suggested that George Harrison broke up The Beatles, he nonetheless walked out on the group in January 1969 during particularly tense rehearsal sessions for the Get Back/Let It Be project.
Why did he do this? For one thing, he was fed up with the arguing and tensions which had shown up so far. For another, he was terribly upset at constantly being marginalised by Lennon and McCartney. He had always been very much the "junior partner" - he was the youngest member of the group, and Lennon and McCartney still had the same attitude towards him which they had had over 10 years earlier, when George had been barely 15. Also, while Lennon/McCartney had been a songwriting powerhouse for 7 years, George had been far less prolific and had started wring much later. Yet, during the Get Back/Let It Be project in January 1969, George was bringing new songs in every day, and finding that Lennon and McCartney were ignoring them (despite the fact that John was contributing very little of his own). This created an element of bitterness in George which persisted beyond the end of the group.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 4, 2008 4:14:19 GMT -5
Ringo Starr broke up The Beatles
Despite the fact that you are unlikely to encounter this as a serious suggestion, it remains a fact that Ringo was the first Beatle to walk out on the group, which he did during the White album sessions in 1968 due to the bad working atmosphere at the time. He was welcomed back soon aferwards. This illustrates the pressures at the time, but isn't in itself one of the reasons behind the break-up.
Allen Klein broke up The Beatles
Allen Klein himself didn't break up The Beatles, but a number of matters relating to him are undoubtedly contributory factors.
His appointment is the first one of these. The Beatles badly needed some sense made of the administration of their company, Apple (they had been managing themselves since Brian Epstein's death in summer 1967, and they weren't very good at it). Klein was an efficient manager, but Paul didn't want him, while the other three did. This set Paul against the other three.
Paul had heard negative things about the way Klein did business, and the management contract between Klein and The Beatles eventually ended up in legal action centreing around how much commission Klein was allowed to take.
Klein's management style meant that morale at Apple went very low. Given that some of the people whose jobs were threatened had been within the Beatles' circle for some time, those people did their best to put the Beatle to whom they were closest under pressure to help save their jobs.
Musical differences broke up The Beatles
Rock and roll was what brought The Beatles together - they shared a love for the seminal early rock and roller and related acts - Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, the Everly Brothers and many other far less well-known performers. But even from the start, their influences were far wider (partly because they were constantly having to extend their repertoire during the hours they spent on stage in Hamburg, they were open to trying to incorporate any popular song into their act). They were unusual at the time for writing much of their own material. They recorded some songs by other writers - enough to give a flavour of their influences - but the most interesting thing about their songwriting is to look at how they took what influenced them and developed it into something else.
As the years went by, their songwriting showed that each of the three songwriting Beatles was moving in a different direction. George was incorporating a distinct Indian influence into a number of his songs. John's songwriting became undisciplined and experimental, a characteristic which became even more extreme when Yoko began to influence him. And Paul remained very mainstream and conventional. It is true to say that all three of them wrote and recorded material which was released on Beatles' records which the others had little interest in and, to that extent, they were drifting apart musically during the later years (equally, it is also fair to say that, right up to the end, there were times when the old enthusiasm broke through).
It is important to understand that these observations are generalisations - John, Paul and George all wrote very diverse material throughout their musical careers, and examining their songwriting in detail is very worthwhile.
Drugs broke up The Beatles
Drugs play a part throughout The Beatles story in four main areas. One, the use of amphetamines as stimulants to help them get through the exhaustive live performances demanded in Hamburg; two, the discovery of marijuana as a recreational drug; three, LSD for the profound effect it had on personality and perceptions, and the way that fed through into songwriting and the production of recordings; and, four, the introduction of addictive hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin.
Of these four areas, it is suggested that only the final one - the use of hard drugs, particularly John and Yoko's use of heroin during the The Beatles' final couple of years - would have had a direct bearing on the group in terms of factors leading towards a breakup.
Heroin is a harsh mistress, and it is likely that John was succiciently in its thrall that even Yoko took second place. Reports of his state of mind during the Get Back / Let It Be project in January 1969 have him alternating between the nervous edginess of someone awaiting a fix and the zoned out torpor of someone who hasjust had a fix. By all accounts, he more or less abdicated from taking part in group decision making, either not taking part at all, or else sitting there in silence while Yoko spoke for him. His indifference towards the group (whether because of Yoko, drugs, or both) must have been a major factor in the breakup.
Business pressures broke up The Beatles
The Beatles were the most financially successful British act ever, up to the 1960s. By the time Brian Epstein died in mid-1967 there had already been a number of business moves which were, at the time revolutionary (merchandising, setting up a proprietary music publishing company, issuing shares to the public etc.). Apple had been conceived as an umbrella organisation for all The Beatles' activities prior to Brian's death, and they went ahead with it afterwards. The problem was that they all tried to manage it, none of them was a manager by nature, they constantly contradicted each others' decisions, and there was no-one to actually manage their resources. As a result, their well-intentioned business strategy resulted in their staff (and other visitors) stealing from them right from the moment Apple opened its doors. Their record success wasn't sufficient to cover the losses from theft and bad business decisions. This put them, as individuals, under financial pressure, and led eventually to the appointment of Allen Klein, which brought its own pressures with it.
When the Beatles were looking for a new manager, Paul suggested Lee Eastman, a show-business lawyer and father of Paul's then girlfriend Linda (who we subsequently married). The others disagreed on the grounds that, if he was Paul's prospective father-in-law then he might favour Paul, so he couldn't represent them all fairly.
Finally, there is a very telling moment in the final Anthology programme. Paul remembers the moment when he was outvoted by the other three over the appointment of Allen Klein to manage them. He says that, right up to that point, all important group decisions had been unanimous. Put another way, any decision was vetoed if just one member said, "No." For the first time, three members used the legal force of the partnership contract to force their wishes on the fourth member. That is the point at which it could no longer be denied that the bond of trust between the four Beatles had gone: perhaps, therefore, that is the most fitting point to regard as the moment when The Beatles broke up.
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Aug 4, 2008 6:55:31 GMT -5
Interesting post, Vectis... I don't buy the 'musical differences' argument. From January 1970 onwards, Lennon's output is utterly mainstream. John's sudden surge of enthusiasm for the avant garde and left-field experimentation dried up around the time that he told Paul he wanted a 'divorce' (September 1969). ...in fact, I'm tempted to say that John's badgering for 'Revolution 9' and 'Mary Jane' to be included on the White album was really a stick to beat McCartney with -- a sort of musical wedge for him to stake his own ground away from his erstwhile collaborator and explode the cosy image of the Beatles. As soon as the Beatles were effectively finished, the conventional song structures returned almost immediately. I reckon the musical differences were a smokescreen -- they were a symptom of existing tensions and differences and not the origin.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Aug 4, 2008 10:21:46 GMT -5
The Beatles themselves have said the group split because they all grew up. That puts a wealth of things under one umbrella, and rightly so. George's frustrations. Ringo's frustrations. Paul's move toward his own independence. John and Yoko's relationship, which also showed John's independence. Allen Klein. And just a general tiredness. I don't think you're wrong, vectisfabber. I just think there is a lot simpler way of saying it.
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Aug 4, 2008 11:04:15 GMT -5
If you have to pick one Beatle who was responsible for breaking up the Beatles, that has to be John.
After Abbey Road, John decided that life would be better (and he would have greater artistic freedom of expression) without the millstone of the Beatles around his neck, so he signalled his intent for a 'divorce'.
Paul desparately wanted to keep the group going -- we know that much.
I think George would have carried on under the proviso that the time allocated to the Beatles was drastically reduced and he had a free hand to pursue solo projects. I think Ringo would probably have wanted the same.
The only person who really wasn't up for it in one form or another was John.....and he spent much of the next two years 'exploding the myth'.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 4, 2008 13:20:45 GMT -5
I concur that musical differences can be ruled out. John, Paul, and Ringo were pleased to put Indian-influenced songs on singles, on Revolver and Abbey Road; meanwhile, George's songs around 1969 were much more mainstream than any he'd been writing for three years (see All Things Must Pass). John still wrote 90% mainstream stuff and Paul as well, of course. Actually, all of The Beatles had quite similar tastes in music, I think.
You just have to look at their ages combined with the pressures on them to see why they stopped working together (they never really "broke up" as such -- the 4 guys never agreed to break up, and their business-partnership lasted to 1975). Having completed Abbey Road, John and Ringo were just turning 29, Paul was 27, and George was only 26. I was those ages myself a few years ago, as most of us have been, and it's entirely natural and healthy to want to start a family, be on your own, follow your own path etc., at those ages.
One of the paradoxes for people who become famous in bands (or small groups of any sort, I suppose) is that, while the rest of the world is lining up to shake your hand and tell you how brilliant you are, the small coterie of pals you grew up with is constantly telling you you're crap, criticizing everything you do, and generally dragging you down to earth. Do you really need it? The easy thing to do is quit, take the money and run, and then hire sycophants to kiss your ass and meet your every need until you retire (this is effectively what happened to Elvis after the army, since he never had a band to argue with).
I give the Beatle-guys credit for surviving the 70s as well as they all did, considering how free they all became after about 1975, and considering the craziness they had all gone through. None of them quite became like Elvis. All The Beatles (except Paul) seemed to grow more and more weary of Apple, of Klein, of the changing music scene, of the challenges of being a high-profile musician, by the mid-1970s. They all, but Paul, effectively put a hold on their recording careers after that (or at least, they put a hold on their ambitions).
While I agree that the presence of Klein and Yoko greatly changed things in 1968-1969 -- things which contributed to the eventual fall-out -- I think it's more accurate to look at the power-balance between John and Paul as the main force, within the Beatles themselves, which led to a "break-up." As long as Paul and John were the chief-Beatles, in theory if not in practical reality, then "the Beatles" could continue to function (for one reason, the others didn't like to take a stand with John); but as soon as John decided to put his energies elsewhere, that left Paul to boss everyone around, thus disrupting the power-balance and effectively creating "The Threetles." Given that George was already getting shafted as a Junior Partner by John and Paul, there was left absolutely no reason for him to stand around and take it from Paul if John wasn't there to balance Paul.
I guess what I'm saying is, there was a web of reasons why the band stopped functioning, but I believe it was a very "organic" (sorry to drag that word out!) process that led to its end. It certainly wasn't one of the Beatles alone, or any one person outside the group.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Aug 4, 2008 15:28:40 GMT -5
If you have to pick one Beatle who was responsible for breaking up the Beatles, that has to be John. After Abbey Road, John decided that life would be better (and he would have greater artistic freedom of expression) without the millstone of the Beatles around his neck, so he signalled his intent for a 'divorce'. Paul desparately wanted to keep the group going -- we know that much. I think George would have carried on under the proviso that the time allocated to the Beatles was drastically reduced and he had a free hand to pursue solo projects. I think Ringo would probably have wanted the same. The only person who really wasn't up for it in one form or another was John.....and he spent much of the next two years 'exploding the myth'. But is it fair to pin it on John? I don't think so. There was dissatisfaction in all the others.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 4, 2008 15:52:57 GMT -5
Vectis -- where in your listing is the one true answer? --- The Beatles broke up due to a variety of different reasons.
All 4 Beatles have weighed in on this ad nauseum for 40 years, and that's about the size of it.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 4, 2008 16:49:17 GMT -5
Vectis -- where in your listing is the one true answer? --- The Beatles broke up due to a variety of different reasons. All 4 Beatles have weighed in on this ad nauseum for 40 years, and that's about the size of it. LOL, I was going to write that The Beatles broke up, "for all of the above reasons," but you beat me to it Joe. I don't see there being one correct reason for the breakup. It happened at the right time though.
|
|
|
Post by revolver66 on Aug 5, 2008 10:38:39 GMT -5
I concur that musical differences can be ruled out. John, Paul, and Ringo were pleased to put Indian-influenced songs on singles, on Revolver and Abbey Road; meanwhile, George's songs around 1969 were much more mainstream than any he'd been writing for three years (see All Things Must Pass). John still wrote 90% mainstream stuff and Paul as well, of course. Actually, all of The Beatles had quite similar tastes in music, I think. You just have to look at their ages combined with the pressures on them to see why they stopped working together (they never really "broke up" as such -- the 4 guys never agreed to break up, and their business-partnership lasted to 1975). Having completed Abbey Road, John and Ringo were just turning 29, Paul was 27, and George was only 26. I was those ages myself a few years ago, as most of us have been, and it's entirely natural and healthy to want to start a family, be on your own, follow your own path etc., at those ages. One of the paradoxes for people who become famous in bands (or small groups of any sort, I suppose) is that, while the rest of the world is lining up to shake your hand and tell you how brilliant you are, the small coterie of pals you grew up with is constantly telling you you're crap, criticizing everything you do, and generally dragging you down to earth. Do you really need it? The easy thing to do is quit, take the money and run, and then hire sycophants to kiss your ass and meet your every need until you retire (this is effectively what happened to Elvis after the army, since he never had a band to argue with). I give the Beatle-guys credit for surviving the 70s as well as they all did, considering how free they all became after about 1975, and considering the craziness they had all gone through. None of them quite became like Elvis. All The Beatles (except Paul) seemed to grow more and more weary of Apple, of Klein, of the changing music scene, of the challenges of being a high-profile musician, by the mid-1970s. They all, but Paul, effectively put a hold on their recording careers after that (or at least, they put a hold on their ambitions). While I agree that the presence of Klein and Yoko greatly changed things in 1968-1969 -- things which contributed to the eventual fall-out -- I think it's more accurate to look at the power-balance between John and Paul as the main force, within the Beatles themselves, which led to a "break-up." As long as Paul and John were the chief-Beatles, in theory if not in practical reality, then "the Beatles" could continue to function (for one reason, the others didn't like to take a stand with John); but as soon as John decided to put his energies elsewhere, that left Paul to boss everyone around, thus disrupting the power-balance and effectively creating "The Threetles." Given that George was already getting shafted as a Junior Partner by John and Paul, there was left absolutely no reason for him to stand around and take it from Paul if John wasn't there to balance Paul. I guess what I'm saying is, there was a web of reasons why the band stopped functioning, but I believe it was a very "organic" (sorry to drag that word out!) process that led to its end. It certainly wasn't one of the Beatles alone, or any one person outside the group. Good points but some I would like to address. First I don't think John or Paul were that pleased to put George's Indian influenced Songs on the LPs or singles. However George had some say as a band member. John stated that he didn't like All Things Must Pass which surely irked George. Also there were times that John wanted nothing to do with George's Music. You also say that all the Beatles except Paul grew weary of Apple & Klein. Well wasn't Paul the one against Klein? I would say he was the weariest of all the guys about business and Klein! Sometimes things end because it is time. I always felt that way about the Beatles. Unfortunately like most bands who just call it a day and walk away there was too much business hassles for the Beatles to just end without repercussions. Also being the Biggest Band in the World makes a difference too!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 5, 2008 11:44:53 GMT -5
I'll start a firestorm. It was not their time. It (the break-up) sealed their legend-to that I'll agree.
They should have taken a break and gone their separate ways, solo albums and all, just as George discussed during the get Back sessions- the timing was right for that.
However, a couple of mid seventies studio albums and even a big city tour around '75 would have produced great music, established them as a seventies band (not unlike the Stones, Kinks, Who, Floyd), and would have given us a definitive video/audio live archive including "live Beatles" versions of Imagine, It Don't Come Easy, Maybe I'm Amazed and What is Life (John and Paul would probably never agree to perform My Sweet Lord live).
Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by revolver66 on Aug 5, 2008 16:31:45 GMT -5
I'll start a firestorm. It was not their time. It (the break-up) sealed their legend-to that I'll agree. They should have taken a break and gone their separate ways, solo albums and all, just as George discussed during the get Back sessions- the timing was right for that. However, a couple of mid seventies studio albums and even a big city tour around '75 would have produced great music, established them as a seventies band (not unlike the Stones, Kinks, Who, Floyd), and would have given us a definitive video/audio live archive including "live Beatles" versions of Imagine, It Don't Come Easy, Maybe I'm Amazed and What is Life (John and Paul would probably never agree to perform My Sweet Lord live). Just my opinion. What makes you think John(or the others for that matter) would be interested in performing one another's solo recordings? With the possible exception of Ringo I highly doubt any of the others would go for that. John wasn't much for George's solo stuff. Paul wasn't much for John's and Vise Versa. This would have never happened. John & George for the most part were done with Touring.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 5, 2008 17:53:16 GMT -5
Any mid 70 reunion would require some sort of acknowledgment of 70s achievements. They wouldn't just go out there and play She Loves You and Day Tripper, nor would they go out with all new material.
In '89 the Monkees were joined by Nesmith on several of Mike's solo hits.
In '94 the Eagles performed many of the 80s solo hits as the Eagles and personally I enjoyed that part more than them reciting their old hits note for note.
Okay-the Monkees and the Eagles are not the Beatles, and we'll never really know.
Bottom line is that there could have been more good music- but they could never have lasted as long as the Stones under any circumstance.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 5, 2008 18:56:02 GMT -5
Bottom line is that there could have been more good music- but they could never have lasted as long as the Stones under any circumstance. I love the scenario you evoke, mike, of The Beatles taking a break from each other, catching their creative second wind and putting out some killer 1970's albums as did some of their contemporaries(The Stones, Kinks and Who) and later 60's bands like Led Zep and Pink Floyd who scored some classic albums in the 70's. I think these four men together were capable of anything in the sudio, especially if rejuvinated and at least semi-digging each other. The least likely and least potentially successful(at least artistically) scenario would be that The Beatles would tour again in the 1970's. Paul could easily hold his end up live musically and John sure as hell would have powerful onstage charisma, a commanding presence, but I'd worry about our lead guitarist and drummer performing powerfully live on a consistent basis. Both Ringo and George seemed to regularly surround themselves onstage with musicians of like kind. In George's rare live appearances, he always liked to have lots of guitarists onstage with a strong lead gutarist like Eric Clapton or Jesse Ed Davis to take the majority of solos. Strange habit for a lead guitarist, shows a lack of confidence Ringo has been the same and to this day Ringo always takes the stage with another drummer to help. This is all "what ifs" but I'd like to believe that a refreshed Beatles could have made some more incredible studio albums but I'm not sure the four of them would have been a stellar live act.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 5, 2008 21:58:57 GMT -5
I think if all four played, you would have people like Keltner, Preston, and Voorman along to help duplicate and build up some sounds. In the pre-synth (non "Moog" 70s) it would have still been hard to reproduce stuff like Pepper and Walrus, but by the second half of the 70s most bands had some capabilities to create strings, etc.
You certainly can't go by the Threetles reunion at Clapton's wedding celebration in 1979, which was by all accounts even more horrific than Toot and Snore.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 5, 2008 22:16:57 GMT -5
Quote: Good points but some I would like to address. First I don't think John or Paul were that pleased to put George's Indian influenced Songs on the LPs or singles. However George had some say as a band member. John stated that he didn't like All Things Must Pass which surely irked George. Also there were times that John wanted nothing to do with George's Music.
You also say that all the Beatles except Paul grew weary of Apple & Klein. Well wasn't Paul the one against Klein? I would say he was the weariest of all the guys about business and Klein!
Disagree about John and Paul vis-a-vis George. Surely they wouldn't have allowed "Love You To" on Revolver or "Within You, Without You" on Pepper if they didn't like them. You can't trust anything John said about anything in 1970-1971; years after he made jokes about All Things Must Pass, he changed his mind and said good things about it. Bottom line, musical differences didn't break up the Beatles. There's no big dividing line between John, Paul, and George's first post-Beatles albums.
Of course you're right about Paul and Klein, but I wasn't really suggesting that Paul liked Klein. When I said they "grew weary", I was was referring to the mid-70s, long after the group had broken up. Paul of course detested Klein, but he was the only Beatle who seemed not at all "beaten down" by post-60s fatigue and burnout in the mid- to late-70s.
As for the suggestion that the Beatles could have gotten back together in the 70s for a tour..... God help us all!! That would have ushered in punk rock faster and killed off all the Beatles' careers.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 6, 2008 4:20:57 GMT -5
A quick comment whil I can - it remains a fact that "Musical differences" is one of the "reasons" commonly quoted as being a contributory factor to the break up, and it therefore needs to be considered even if there is no merit to it.
Thanks for your comments/observations everyone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2008 5:03:39 GMT -5
I favour the theory that The Beatles broke up for a number of different reasons and the majority of those have been mentioned throughout this thread.
I'm glad The Beatles never got back together after they broke up in 1970.It's where the story ends and i'm happy to leave it there.When they broke up they had no idea the legend would live on in the way that it has.....
The only Beatle who really embraced playing live as a solo artist was Paul and he wasn't so sure of himself either at the start ,hence the reason he turned up at Universities asking if the band could play for them.....
John's Live in New York City is not the work of an accomplished live artist either,in fact ,it borders on amateur.....
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 6, 2008 6:48:30 GMT -5
John's Live in New York City - the one that was released was the afternoon rehearsal show. Listen to any of the numbers from the Lennon NYC evening show-two were on Anthology- they were much tighter. The evening version of Imagine was excellent, still not released. I taped it off of King Biscuit 27 years ago, and haven't heard it anywhere since. I also think the mix from the released NYC was pretty poor digital.
None of us can really say. They would have had very big shoes to fill-but they were their own.
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Aug 6, 2008 7:11:37 GMT -5
As I think I said on a different thread, I reckon the Beatles could have gone on to produce two or three more really strong albums in the early seventies. The Rolling Stones managed much the same feat with 'Sticky Fingers' (1971) and 'Exile...' (1972). After that, it's easy to see them getting overtaken by newer, fresher bands, more relevant to the times (as happened to the Stones). That would have been a real pity and, on balance, I'm glad the Beatles called it a day when they did....
The only thing that really saddens me about the Beatles' demise was the acrimony that accompanied it.
Musical differences? Dunno. Although I'm still not convinced, 'Teddy Boy', 'Ob la di....' and 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer' have just popped into my head. I still think this reason gets over-played and as I said before, John's predeliction for the avant garde was fairly short-lived. I think the personal differences were far more important.
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Aug 6, 2008 12:30:58 GMT -5
*** Important statement from SuperHans*** D'you know why the Beatles broke up? Because after about 1967, Paul started irritating the hell out of John. Rightly or wrongly, everything flowed from that. Think about it -- Klein, 'musical differences', business differences......sadly, they were all a result of that one, insurmountable fact. Yoko seemed like part of the problem, but underlying even that was the pre-existing rift between Lennon and McCartney.....a sort of one-way, unrequited rift, if you like. Macca's overbearing and slightly bossy nature wore Lennon down and the game was up. Look at the number of line-up changes in Wings if you need any verification of this fact. Right. That's sorted. Next question, please?
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 6, 2008 17:24:41 GMT -5
The evidence for which (during The Beatles) is....?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 6, 2008 21:48:36 GMT -5
*** Important statement from SuperHans*** D'you know why the Beatles broke up? Because after about 1967, Paul started irritating the hell out of John. Rightly or wrongly, everything flowed from that. Macca's overbearing and slightly bossy nature wore Lennon down and the game was up. Look at the number of line-up changes in Wings if you need any verification of this fact. I don't think this is quite right. In my opinion, The Beatles would have ended sooner without Paul's efforts to keep it together -- the others talked endlessly about how Paul pushed and bossed them into recording and working when they didn't feel like it. So, yes, he probably irritated John to some extent, but after all John needed someone to balance him out and he knew it. Without Paul, The White Album would probably have been the last album. (Imagine Let It Be without Paul's songs... it would have sucked... if it had ever existed.) Also, consider: according to your theory, with Paul out of the way, the other three could have just got on together happily without him. But how many recordings / concerts did John, George, and Ringo do together -- I mean all 3 of them -- once The Beatles' partnership was dissolved? That would be about zero... I've no idea about how "annoying" Paul was in Wings... but, that's totally different. He was the boss, he put the band into existence. Everyone hates the boss to some extent.
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Aug 7, 2008 2:31:38 GMT -5
The evidence for which (during The Beatles) is....? I suppose I'm reading between the lines a bit, Vectis. In no, one interview does John say, "Macca started irritating the hell out of me at such-and-such-a-time" (although it is implicit in an awful lot of interviews post split). After a quick pause for reflection, this is what I came up with: - Macca basically bossed the group into the chaotic and below-par MMT - Lennon said a rift was 'Evident in India' (Anthology) - The tensions, especially between Macca and Lennon, were rampant during the White Album - Macca's insistence on Eastman went down like a lead balloon - 'Let it be' was 'For Paul and about Paul' - Musically, 'Ob-la-di Ob la da', Maxwell's Silver Hammer, and Teddy Boy were pushed at the group beyond endurance I think Lennon wanted to get away from the benign 'control' exerted by McCartney. If Lennon wanted 'out' of anything it was his close association with Macca more than anything else....and so it panned out.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Aug 7, 2008 5:04:20 GMT -5
I think superhans makes a good point.
Of all the Beatles the only two that never worked together after the split were John and Paul.
That's a telling fact.
I'm glad they stopped when they did but I am disappointed that as mates that grew up together they weren't as close as they once were.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Aug 7, 2008 10:12:34 GMT -5
Wonderful theories on why the Beatles broke up.Here are the goods though.
Paul was and still is an arrogant control freak that finally broke the Camel's back (or should I say Beatles)!!!! He really and truly is full of himself. Arrogance on a high rock and roll scale. It almost makes me sick at times. They were still together until Paul slammed the final nail. All other theories and reasons are all moot. He ended it period!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Aug 7, 2008 10:24:00 GMT -5
Wonderful theories on why the Beatles broke up.Here are the goods though. They were still together until Paul slammed the final nail. He 'slammed in the final nail' but, in truth, the Beatles were no longer a viable four-piece at this time, anyway (April 1970). The infamous 'interview' that came out with 'McCartney' was little more than a self-indulgent post-script.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Aug 7, 2008 13:29:00 GMT -5
Wonderful theories on why the Beatles broke up.Here are the goods though. They were still together until Paul slammed the final nail. He 'slammed in the final nail' but, in truth, the Beatles were no longer a viable four-piece at this time, anyway (April 1970). The infamous 'interview' that came out with 'McCartney' was little more than a self-indulgent post-script. Give me a break!!!! Viable??? What is exactly viable? Maybe not at that present time, but in no way could they be discounted for the future. He (and I mean PAUL) took care of that option. Undermined John with his solo album to enhance his dollar portfolio!!! Absolutely friggin creepy in my estimation!! The fact still remains intact. If Paul had just weathered the storm, the Beatles would have endured in some capacity. I cannot understand how some of you on this board actually think that it was the right time. That can never be determined., although Paul did a helluva good job in that department. And as Paul said, "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make". Too friggin bad he couldn't stick to his own friggin poetry and beliefs!!!! Scallywag I say!!!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Aug 7, 2008 15:01:56 GMT -5
Give me a break!!!! Viable??? What is exactly viable? Maybe not at that present time, but in no way could they be discounted for the future. He (and I mean PAUL) took care of that option. Undermined John with his solo album to enhance his dollar portfolio!!! Absolutely friggin creepy in my estimation!! The fact still remains intact. If Paul had just weathered the storm, the Beatles would have endured in some capacity. I cannot understand how some of you on this board actually think that it was the right time. That can never be determined., although Paul did a helluva good job in that department. And as Paul said, "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make". Too friggin bad he couldn't stick to his own friggin poetry and beliefs!!!! Scallywag I say!!! It's pretty obvious from looking at "Let It Be" that they really didn't want to keep it going forever. Even if you consider that "Let It Be" pointed up a lot of negative, then they turned around and showed how good it could all be with "Abbey Road," they were still tired and ready for a break. Whether they could have returned is irrelevant, really, because they would have if they could have. They didn't.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Aug 7, 2008 18:41:57 GMT -5
Give me a break!!!! Viable??? What is exactly viable? Maybe not at that present time, but in no way could they be discounted for the future. He (and I mean PAUL) took care of that option. Undermined John with his solo album to enhance his dollar portfolio!!! Absolutely friggin creepy in my estimation!! The fact still remains intact. If Paul had just weathered the storm, the Beatles would have endured in some capacity. I cannot understand how some of you on this board actually think that it was the right time. That can never be determined., although Paul did a helluva good job in that department. And as Paul said, "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make". Too friggin bad he couldn't stick to his own friggin poetry and beliefs!!!! Scallywag I say!!! It's pretty obvious from looking at "Let It Be" that they really didn't want to keep it going forever. Even if you consider that "Let It Be" pointed up a lot of negative, then they turned around and showed how good it could all be with "Abbey Road," they were still tired and ready for a break. Whether they could have returned is irrelevant, really, because they would have if they could have. They didn't. Not going to argue with you. Anybody else,yes. This is the first direct response towards me from the board moderator. Oh, how I wish to slam you!!!! And yes, I've changed my mind and am going to slam you. I understand that you are standing by history. This doesn't mean it had to end the way it did. For arguments sake, if Paul had come back and said lads "let's give it one more for the ages" what would have been the response??? Instead, he gives us McCartney and pisses everybody off. All I'm saying is, if cooler heads had prevailed, would it have been the end or a carryover of brilliant music that we have all been deprived of because of egos that had gone rampant? If only Brian had not died. That is the answer to the riddle.
|
|