|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Jul 14, 2008 16:35:25 GMT -5
It was tongue in cheek up to a point. Gotta admit though, he was cold and heartless towards Yoko. Wouldn't you say? Now, she qualifies as the ultimate Apple Scruff!!! Paul could have treated Yoko better. The same can be said for the othe two Beatles. Cold yes. Heartless came later when the breakup took place and both sides had reason for greivance. Paul was actually making nice after the first awkward scenes with Yoko. But it was not to be. Yoko wanted the stage with John without the three in-laws and John felt Paul was taking over the Beatles anyway. What better way to stop the train than to say I'm getting off at the next stop. The only thing Paul did that John resented was that Paul jumped off the train before waiting for the stop. How true this is. So, Paul being the businessman and not the team player is truly the cause of the Beatles breakup? I've always thought it was a Yoko thing. She played a part, but it was Paul in the end that delivered the final blow. Let me ask you this RTP. If Paul had not petitioned for the breakup of the Beatles to further his own gain, would they have stuck around for another album or two? Just because John had threatened and said that he was leaving the Beatles doesn't mean that it would be so. It was Paul and his love of money that brought that band to its knees. Greed and not love broke up that band. And John was all about love. Paul somehow missed that message until he started with the Silly Love Songs!!! Too little and way too late!!!! It wasn't Klein and it wasn't Yoko. In the end, it was Paul. Paul could not live with the fact that a manager would get 20% vs. 15%. How much money did the boys need? Apparently not enough for Paul. I rest my case here.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Jul 15, 2008 7:27:30 GMT -5
Paul could have treated Yoko better. The same can be said for the othe two Beatles. Cold yes. Heartless came later when the breakup took place and both sides had reason for greivance. Paul was actually making nice after the first awkward scenes with Yoko. But it was not to be. Yoko wanted the stage with John without the three in-laws and John felt Paul was taking over the Beatles anyway. What better way to stop the train than to say I'm getting off at the next stop. The only thing Paul did that John resented was that Paul jumped off the train before waiting for the stop. How true this is. So, Paul being the businessman and not the team player is truly the cause of the Beatles breakup? I've always thought it was a Yoko thing. She played a part, but it was Paul in the end that delivered the final blow. Let me ask you this RTP. If Paul had not petitioned for the breakup of the Beatles to further his own gain, would they have stuck around for another album or two? Just because John had threatened and said that he was leaving the Beatles doesn't mean that it would be so. It was Paul and his love of money that brought that band to its knees. Greed and not love broke up that band. And John was all about love. Paul somehow missed that message until he started with the Silly Love Songs!!! Too little and way too late!!!! It wasn't Klein and it wasn't Yoko. In the end, it was Paul. Paul could not live with the fact that a manager would get 20% vs. 15%. How much money did the boys need? Apparently not enough for Paul. I rest my case here. I don't know where you came up with the idea that Paul's suit was due to greed, but that's not the case at all--unless you call self-preservation "greed." It wasn't a matter of Klein taking 20% as much as it was Klein taking money he wasn't entitled to under the contract. There were significant tax obligations coming due, without sufficient funds to pay such, yet Klein kept taking money from the coffers that exceeded his contracted fee. You might want to read this excellent ;D article on the rationale behind the McCartney action and get back with us: abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/paullawsuit.htmlJcS
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jul 15, 2008 19:20:42 GMT -5
Chainsmoker, you have brought up a very interesting question. I have always maintained that Paul leaving the Beatles because of Klein's meddling and other shenanigans was what was the final blow to the group, not John's "announcement" that he was leaving several months earlier. Had Paul weathered it out and got over his irritation with Klein putting his logo on Paul's record unrightly, Klein trying to dictate when Paul could release his album and worst of all changing Paul's recording of The Long And Winding Road, even removing his piano notes and adding strings and a women's choir and then not asking for some approval or review before releasing it, the Beatles might have stayed around for an album or two. Or what might have happened is Paul would have done McCartney, George All Things Must Pass, Ringo Beaucoups of Blues (and Sentimenal Journey) and John POB, then they would have reunited in early 1971 for a new Beatles album after having convinced the world that they could do it on their own.
John never accepted the Beatles were really over until Paul called him that April day to say he was leaving. What many people don't know is that John hung up the phone and wrote his song God that very day. It is in that song that he finally exorcizes the demon of the Beatles in his own mind finally concluding that it was just Yoko and him left alone to conquer the world. If you notice a few months earlier when he was doing publicity for the single Instant Karma, he was asked about the future of the Beatles. John said it could go either way--they may get back together or they may not. I believe it was his true indecison speaking at the time. He didn't say its unlikely or decline to answer.
But when Paul wasn't there later holding down the fort, there was nothing to return to after a solo album or two. Too bad in a way that they didn't stay calm as Klein would be out of the picture within two or three years. If Paul would have worked toward that end, it would have been better all around.
But I don't blame him for suing. That was a good post from Joey. Paul was breaking up a partnership agreement that was designed for a group not four individual artists. Why should he equally split the revenue when surely he would be doing more of the work. And that was proven as the years went on. It wasn't greed. He wanted to control his own destiny. Don't we all.
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Jul 16, 2008 8:08:31 GMT -5
John being all about love is too simplistic for me. He was not. He may have written songs about it and put himself out there as that, but his life was not that.
He did not have to take care of business because "Mother" took care of it. Yoko was/is the one who handled his business so he never had to worry about it. He certainly cared about it though. He did not live the life of a pauper. Imagine no possesions? Please. Nice theory, but it does not go with most people and certainly did not go with John.
Allen Klein was hinky at best and all of the Beatles ended up suing him as I recall. I think he even did jail time for tax/money fraud. Why would anyone want to pay him even 1% of their earnings.
I am not so sure the Beatles would have ever worked together again when John was still with Yoko. He was WITH Yoko and I think he would have wanted to include her (or she would want to be included) in anything he did, including the Beatles. He certainly said it enough in interviews. In one letter he wrote that he was "johnandyoko". It does not get any clearer.
The Beatles were done and John left the group emotionally. I don't think he had the strength to end it himself though. Paul did not want it to end, but when he knew it was really over he ended it. The end was not a clean break, but I think time has shown that Paul was right about Klein. It also never ever would have worked with John inmcluding Yoko in the group. It is not Paul's fault as George was not a Yoko fan either.
|
|
|
Post by revolver66 on Jul 16, 2008 10:35:33 GMT -5
Great post Barbara! Really all good things come to an end. I guess the Beatles had enough and wanted to try new things. To blame just one person is silly. Ringo quit during the White Album sessions. George came back from a break only to find the Beatles situation not much to his liking(especially when he was free of it). John was with Yoko and entered a new different Phase of his life. In fact Paul was the only one who truly showed that he wanted to carry on. However he knew when it was truly over and ended it regardless of his feelings. He was right about Klein too. Lennon had been warned by Mick Jagger of Kleins unruly methods to no avail. As can be seen by the solo careers Macca stayed the most excited about Music(judging from his output). John and to a lesser extent George actually retired or took extended periods of time off for things that were more important to them. Ringo too became more interested in DRinking than Music(happily that is no longer the case). Truly how can it get anymore exciting than the Beatles early years?
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Jul 16, 2008 13:36:58 GMT -5
Chainsmoker, you have brought up a very interesting question. I have always maintained that Paul leaving the Beatles because of Klein's meddling and other shenanigans was what was the final blow to the group, not John's "announcement" that he was leaving several months earlier. Had Paul weathered it out and got over his irritation with Klein putting his logo on Paul's record unrightly, Klein trying to dictate when Paul could release his album and worst of all changing Paul's recording of The Long And Winding Road, even removing his piano notes and adding strings and a women's choir and then not asking for some approval or review before releasing it, the Beatles might have stayed around for an album or two. Or what might have happened is Paul would have done McCartney, George All Things Must Pass, Ringo Beaucoups of Blues (and Sentimenal Journey) and John POB, then they would have reunited in early 1971 for a new Beatles album after having convinced the world that they could do it on their own. John never accepted the Beatles were really over until Paul called him that April day to say he was leaving. What many people don't know is that John hung up the phone and wrote his song God that very day. It is in that song that he finally exorcizes the demon of the Beatles in his own mind finally concluding that it was just Yoko and him left alone to conquer the world. If you notice a few months earlier when he was doing publicity for the single Instant Karma, he was asked about the future of the Beatles. John said it could go either way--they may get back together or they may not. I believe it was his true indecison speaking at the time. He didn't say its unlikely or decline to answer. But when Paul wasn't there later holding down the fort, there was nothing to return to after a solo album or two. Too bad in a way that they didn't stay calm as Klein would be out of the picture within two or three years. If Paul would have worked toward that end, it would have been better all around. But I don't blame him for suing. That was a good post from Joey. Paul was breaking up a partnership agreement that was designed for a group not four individual artists. Why should he equally split the revenue when surely he would be doing more of the work. And that was proven as the years went on. It wasn't greed. He wanted to control his own destiny. Don't we all. It is ChokingSmoker and not Chainsmoker, although at times I wonder,when the suds are flowing. It is nice to see you admit the fact that, if Paul had stayed calm and held back, the Beatles probably would have continued. The fact of the matter is, is that Paul divorced himself from the Beatles. Just like a lot of couples today who throw the towel in way before it is necessary. I don't blame him though. It was an overall monetary decision on his part though. It wasn't for the good of the band, but his own in my opinion. Yes, he kept the fort together and we got another album out of the Beatles. But the simple fact is, I wanted more. Greed on my part I guess. But, can you blame me? And for the final blow. Nothing those guys put out on their own is even remotely close to the stuff they did together. Started on your article Joey and it will be a little bit before I get back on that.
|
|
|
Post by revolver66 on Jul 16, 2008 16:33:21 GMT -5
Chainsmoker, you have brought up a very interesting question. I have always maintained that Paul leaving the Beatles because of Klein's meddling and other shenanigans was what was the final blow to the group, not John's "announcement" that he was leaving several months earlier. Had Paul weathered it out and got over his irritation with Klein putting his logo on Paul's record unrightly, Klein trying to dictate when Paul could release his album and worst of all changing Paul's recording of The Long And Winding Road, even removing his piano notes and adding strings and a women's choir and then not asking for some approval or review before releasing it, the Beatles might have stayed around for an album or two. Or what might have happened is Paul would have done McCartney, George All Things Must Pass, Ringo Beaucoups of Blues (and Sentimenal Journey) and John POB, then they would have reunited in early 1971 for a new Beatles album after having convinced the world that they could do it on their own. John never accepted the Beatles were really over until Paul called him that April day to say he was leaving. What many people don't know is that John hung up the phone and wrote his song God that very day. It is in that song that he finally exorcizes the demon of the Beatles in his own mind finally concluding that it was just Yoko and him left alone to conquer the world. If you notice a few months earlier when he was doing publicity for the single Instant Karma, he was asked about the future of the Beatles. John said it could go either way--they may get back together or they may not. I believe it was his true indecison speaking at the time. He didn't say its unlikely or decline to answer. But when Paul wasn't there later holding down the fort, there was nothing to return to after a solo album or two. Too bad in a way that they didn't stay calm as Klein would be out of the picture within two or three years. If Paul would have worked toward that end, it would have been better all around. But I don't blame him for suing. That was a good post from Joey. Paul was breaking up a partnership agreement that was designed for a group not four individual artists. Why should he equally split the revenue when surely he would be doing more of the work. And that was proven as the years went on. It wasn't greed. He wanted to control his own destiny. Don't we all. It is ChokingSmoker and not Chainsmoker, although at times I wonder,when the suds are flowing. It is nice to see you admit the fact that, if Paul had stayed calm and held back, the Beatles probably would have continued. The fact of the matter is, is that Paul divorced himself from the Beatles. Just like a lot of couples today who throw the towel in way before it is necessary. I don't blame him though. It was an overall monetary decision on his part though. It wasn't for the good of the band, but his own in my opinion. Yes, he kept the fort together and we got another album out of the Beatles. But the simple fact is, I wanted more. Greed on my part I guess. But, can you blame me? And for the final blow. Nothing those guys put out on their own is even remotely close to the stuff they did together. Started on your article Joey and it will be a little bit before I get back on that. Chokingsmoker, I don't think Paul was the cause of the split(see above post). However he knew when it was time to call it a day. I mean if John was no longer into the band and would rather do solo projects and George was going to argue and never really agree with Paul what would be the use? You really think it was all about Money??
|
|
JMG
Very Clean
Posts: 412
|
Post by JMG on Jul 16, 2008 17:08:06 GMT -5
Interesting when you consider the fact that this thread started out to be about a new Ben & Jerry's ice cream and turned into a discussion of why the Beatles broke up. Fascinating turn of events. ;D
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Jul 16, 2008 18:48:21 GMT -5
It is ChokingSmoker and not Chainsmoker, although at times I wonder,when the suds are flowing. It is nice to see you admit the fact that, if Paul had stayed calm and held back, the Beatles probably would have continued. The fact of the matter is, is that Paul divorced himself from the Beatles. Just like a lot of couples today who throw the towel in way before it is necessary. I don't blame him though. It was an overall monetary decision on his part though. It wasn't for the good of the band, but his own in my opinion. Yes, he kept the fort together and we got another album out of the Beatles. But the simple fact is, I wanted more. Greed on my part I guess. But, can you blame me? And for the final blow. Nothing those guys put out on their own is even remotely close to the stuff they did together. Started on your article Joey and it will be a little bit before I get back on that. Chokingsmoker, I don't think Paul was the cause of the split(see above post). However he knew when it was time to call it a day. I mean if John was no longer into the band and would rather do solo projects and George was going to argue and never really agree with Paul what would be the use? You really think it was all about Money?? I think money was a major motivator here. Just look at how well Paul has done up to this point. He is a businessman first and an entertainer second. Michael Jackson taking Paul's advice on copyrighted music being the financial future in music proves that. The fact that Micheal could outbid him at the time and get those rights that Paul advised him on shows where Paul's head is at. Sour grapes on Paul on that one. And major sour grapes on Michael for misusing some of those Beatle songs. Business is cold at times and Paul caught a major ice cream headache on that one. The fact that the boys did solo projects did not have to mean the end. Paul ended it. Period. For whatever reasons, being Klein, Yoko or bickering in the band, it was him that was compelled to slam that final nail. And the fact that he got his solo album out before John did, really caused an even greater rift between the two.
|
|
JCV
Very Clean
Posts: 545
|
Post by JCV on Jul 17, 2008 11:38:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jul 17, 2008 11:54:48 GMT -5
Sorry about mangling your name ChokingSmoker. Speaking of solo albums as you were, this leads to one of my favorite topics. It is my opinion that the McCartney album started the singer/songwriter trend in the music industry. Its not that it was the first singer/songwriter album. Dylan has that beat by many years. Its that it was influential and successfull enough to start a major trend in the industry. Look at all the singer/songwriters who followed: Elton John, James Taylor, Neil Young said it inspired him to make a solo album, Neil Diamond released his first real cohesive album in 1970 and not just a compilation of covers and a and b sides as he had before, Joni Mitchell had her first successful album after the McCartney album made way for the singer/songwriter. Additional artists include Gordon Lightfoot, Carole King, Cat Stevens, Jim Croce, Billy Joel, even one hit artists like Norman Greenbaum in the summer of 1970. The industry was waiting for these types of artists after the success of the McCartney album in the Spring of 1970. Paul Simon released his first solo album soon after this in which he included personal/confessional material. Eric Clapton released his first solo album in August 1970.
Stevie Wonder began making his own more personal albums with songs written by himself almost exclusively beginning later that year with Where I'm Coming From. That was the start of Stevie recording his own material and having control over the project. The same is true of Marvin Gaye with What's Going On released in Dec. 1970. Before that it was like Neil Diamond --these artists would take a couple of their latest singles, add a b-side or two rely on other songwriters and do some covers and that was their album. That formula was changed forever by the McCartney album which, when taken as it was conceived as different pieces of music that flow together seamlessly as one, is an outstanding achievement.
It was really the first at that time that an album was made essentially by one person (preceeding Stevie Wonder by a year) who wrote these songs from a personal point of view. Paul had Dear Friend written and ready to go for the album and kept it off because of its reference to his and John's relationship. He thought it might be too harsh at the time. I must admit that John took the concept even further with his POB album, but the trend had already begun.
It would have been quite an album if he would have replaced the last song with Dear Friend:
The Lovely Linda That Would Be Something Hot As Sun Suicide (full version) Every Night Junk Man We Was Lonely Ooh You Momma Miss America Teddy Boy Singalong Junk Maybe I'm Amazed Dear Freind
Even leaving out the weakest song (you pick it) there would still be 12 tracks left. The additonal of the last song makes it even more AMAZING.
If Paul had used other songs he already had lying around like Some People Never Know and Tomorrow, he could have put together a Beatles level album:
The Lovely Linda That Would Be Something Hot As Sun Every Night Junk Man We Was Lonely Tomorrow Some People Never Know I Am Your Singer Singalong Junk Maybe I'm Amazed Dear Freind Bonus: Suicide (full version) Come and Get It (demo) Goodbye (demo) As you may notice, I think Some People Never Know (with the proper editing) is one of Paul's best solo songs. Is it a dig at John and Yoko? Perhaps. And perhaps that's why it was not put on the album although it was written in late 1969 along with the rest of the album.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jul 17, 2008 12:25:47 GMT -5
Other examples include John Denver, Jackson Browne, Dave Mason, Randy Newman, Carly Simon, Harry Chapin and Dan Fogelberg. Some of these artists had released albums prior to 1970 that did not make an impact for them as a performing artist. By 1970 this had changed. Many of them saw their first success as artists in their own right in the last half of 1970 or 1971. It certainly is no coincidence that Paul's album was the first in the trend.
It can be argued that some bands of the era - most notably the Beatles and the wave of artists on both sides of the Atlantic that followed in their wake - fit the definition of singer-songwriters, with most or all of their members taking an active role in the songwriting process. While there is some debate over the claim, it is worth noting that many former band members (including Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrison, Peter Frampton and later Don Henley and Glenn Frey) found success as singer-songwriters.
|
|
JMG
Very Clean
Posts: 412
|
Post by JMG on Jul 17, 2008 12:55:38 GMT -5
mmmmm....that does sound yummy. However.... BREAKING NEWS. "Your reporter, Les Nessman, has just learned Ben & Jerry's and Häagen-Dazs ice cream is on sale... 10/$10..." Eat your heart out, JCV! I'd ship you a few pints but it might get messy in transit! ;D
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Jul 17, 2008 15:31:43 GMT -5
Great post Barbara! Really all good things come to an end. I guess the Beatles had enough and wanted to try new things. To blame just one person is silly. Ringo quit during the White Album sessions. George came back from a break only to find the Beatles situation not much to his liking(especially when he was free of it). John was with Yoko and entered a new different Phase of his life. In fact Paul was the only one who truly showed that he wanted to carry on. However he knew when it was truly over and ended it regardless of his feelings. He was right about Klein too. Lennon had been warned by Mick Jagger of Kleins unruly methods to no avail. As can be seen by the solo careers Macca stayed the most excited about Music(judging from his output). John and to a lesser extent George actually retired or took extended periods of time off for things that were more important to them. Ringo too became more interested in DRinking than Music(happily that is no longer the case). Truly how can it get anymore exciting than the Beatles early years? Thanks. Good post yourself. I think being a Beatle must have been like living in a blender turned on high. They seemed tired and it was time to call it a night. George seemed especially tattered by it. John appeared to feel trapped by it. If you look at their schedules from that time they were "Beatles" morning noon and night. I think the best thing for them was that it ended. It is a perfect little time capsule.
|
|
JCV
Very Clean
Posts: 545
|
Post by JCV on Jul 18, 2008 11:43:02 GMT -5
mmmmm....that does sound yummy. However.... BREAKING NEWS. "Your reporter, Les Nessman, has just learned Ben & Jerry's and Häagen-Dazs ice cream is on sale... 10/$10..." Eat your heart out, JCV! I'd ship you a few pints but it might get messy in transit! ;D Oh...you're kidding!! With a $1 off coupon, you could get one for free! Where do you live - I'm on my way! ;D JCV
|
|
ChuckE
Very Clean
AlexE & RachelE, May '08
Posts: 77
|
Post by ChuckE on Jul 18, 2008 12:02:30 GMT -5
JCV, if JMG lives in northern Illinois (as his stats say), you might just have to stop in Indy on your way back to Pittsburgh, and drop some of that ice cream off. (You ARE taking a refrigerator semi, right?!? ) NP: the Rolling Stones, "Little T & A," Tattoo You (one I don't dare crank up too high at work, though I love it!)
|
|
JCV
Very Clean
Posts: 545
|
Post by JCV on Jul 18, 2008 12:04:53 GMT -5
JCV, if JMG lives in northern Illinois (as his stats say), you might just have to stop in Indy on your way back to Pittsburgh, and drop some of that ice cream off. (You ARE taking a refrigerator semi, right?!? ) NP: the Rolling Stones, "Little T & A," Tattoo You (one I don't dare crank up too high at work, though I love it!) At that price, I sure am!! Gosh...worth the price of gas for that trip! Or perhaps you, JSD, and gman can go on a roadtrip this weekend and then ship me some! ;D JCV
|
|
JMG
Very Clean
Posts: 412
|
Post by JMG on Jul 18, 2008 23:56:42 GMT -5
[Oh...you're kidding!! With a $1 off coupon, you could get one for free! Where do you live - I'm on my way! ;D JCV LOL! Rockford IL. The local Highlander is running a sale(it's like four blocks from my house)...'you better hurry as it's getting very late(Sgt Peppers) 'and JMG is depleting supplies. ;D God, how I wish you guys were here! We could have steaks on the grill and ice cream for dessert. Oh....what might have been....(slurp)
|
|