HI All!! I spend most of my time over at turntables..just browsing.... one topic that caught my attention...and I thought I knew it all...about the Beatles. YOKO didn't break them up...maybe a little...John was a little weird...they were really sick of each other by the white album...it was always a power struggle between John and EVERYBODY. George was the first guy who wanted out and was the most under utilized guy they had...he had over 200 songs that would have worked very well for them. YOU GOTTA READ JOHN LENNON by PHILIP NORMAN 800+pages.....,unbelieveable reads quick and i'm three quarters illeterate...only kidding best regards daveb.

Many things transpired to lead to the break-up. John once said he'd like to get back together. I think he missed it terribly, and was never the same since.

And George was under utilized. Too bad. He was a monster talent.

I read somewhere that most of the content released on All Things Must Pass were songs recorded after their breakup that he'd written just before the breakup. What a great album, too.

The 200 songs claim is absurd.

John and Paul limited George to a song an album, later a song per side, because his songs just weren't as good as theirs. His later solo albums had lots of filler.

Norman is very biased favorably toward John. Take what he writes with some skepticism, because his point of view is not necessarily the whole truth.

I read that Ringo actually left the band before anyone, only because he was tired of all the infighting, but was convinced to come back pretty easily.

A shame, really. These days bands are apart doing their own thing then come together to put out an album every 4 or 5 years. There would have been time for all their individual projects as well as the occasional Beatles release.

I have a magnet on my fridge that says "Still p**sed at Yoko" :)..... rings pretty true, too!

HI All!! I spend most of my time over at turntables..just browsing.... one topic that caught my attention...and I thought I knew it all...about the Beatles. YOKO didn't break them up...maybe a little...John was a little weird...they were really sick of each other by the white album...it was always a power struggle between John and EVERYBODY. George was the first guy who wanted out and was the most under utilized guy they had...he had over 200 songs that would have worked very well for them. YOU GOTTA READ JOHN LENNON by PHILIP NORMAN 800+pages.....,unbelieveable reads quick and i'm three quarters illeterate...only kidding best regards daveb.

I got that book for Christmas 2008 and yes it's a good read. John was usually on a different page than everyone else anyway so there are no surprises for me in the book-nice read though.

I read somewhere that most of the content released on All Things Must Pass were songs recorded after their breakup that he'd written just before the breakup. What a great album, too.

Actually, many of George's songs on ATMP were recorded by the Beatles while they were recording material for the Get Back/ Let It Be album. You can listen to these recordings on Yellow Dog bootlegs and such. John & Paul didn't think enough of this material to develop it further as Beatle songs, hence they dropped these compositions for contention for the Beatles' Get Back project.

HI All!! I spend most of my time over at turntables..just browsing.... one topic that caught my attention...and I thought I knew it all...about the Beatles. YOKO didn't break them up...maybe a little...John was a little weird...they were really sick of each other by the white album...it was always a power struggle between John and EVERYBODY. George was the first guy who wanted out and was the most under utilized guy they had...he had over 200 songs that would have worked very well for them. YOU GOTTA READ JOHN LENNON by PHILIP NORMAN 800+pages.....,unbelieveable reads quick and i'm three quarters illeterate...only kidding best regards daveb.


I have read numerous books on the Beatles so here is my take/theory:

The Beatles were four VERY different guys. Its a wonder they were even a band to begin with. But they were for roughly 10 years and the results speak for themselves.

At first, they were a tight, cohesive unit. The first shot across the bow was probably when John & Paul ceased composing together although they continued to issue joint credits throughout their career. I believe Revolver was the first one where they wrote their own stuff, although there would be a few exceptions (Yellow Submarine, Goodnight).

The second was the cessation of touring which had become too stressful. However, it also robbed them of a continuing purpose and common bonding experience- if you are not composing and not performing together, well, are you a group anymore?

The third and most profound was the death of their manager, Brian Epstein as he really kept them in lockstep. He left a huge void which was filled by business chaos thereafter.

These three led to the eruption of their individual personalities. John was getting into avant garde (hence Yoko) and radical politics. George was delving deeper into mysticism and, as mentioned, was under utilized. Paul, always more cheerful and nostalgic than John, was looking to domesticate. Ringo, as implied, probably was sick of it all.

No unit could withstand these fissures and by the White Album, open warfare was breaking out. Two years later it was done for good.

So while Yoko might epitomize John's...new proclivities let's call them, NO, she did not break up the Beatles. That is giving one person way too much credit. They felt they had done all they could together and decided to move on. Although Paul officially left first, it was by and large a simultaneous decision.

Take that for what's if worth.:music:

IMO the Beatles put out some wonderful music while together, and equally wonderful apart. It's kinda like food. I like pizza, but I also like bread, cheese, tomatoes and pepperoni. Together or separately. Sometimes the balance brings a whole new flavor.

:scratch2:

Just finishend the Philip Norman JOHN LENNON wow!!! Also trenendous imput after my initial thread. AGREED, AGREED, many things contributed to the break up business contracts Apple Epsteins death burn out personality conflicts ETC...... Ran to the library to get SHOUT The Beatles in their generation by Philip Norman Revised and up dated printing 2003, suppose to have corrected some myths or inconsistancies (correct spelling)???? Anyway I'll let you know how it goes, .........back over to turntables best regards Dave b

I don't get the animosity towards the breakup. Bands are like jobs. Good job or not, sometimes you just have to move on. You might fall into a different rut (I think both Paul and John did) but at least it's not the SAME rut. Perhaps it's because i was never a huge fan of the Beatles that I feel they had every right to call it a day. What else were they going to accomplish? I think they did all they could together, and the albums weren't getting better, at least in my opinion they weren't. Again, my whole opinion is coming from somewhere that the true fans aren't coming from. I actually listen to Plastic Ono Band more than any Beatles album. I think it was probably a lot of things. In the garage bands I've been in, we all started as best friends and ultimately ended up hating each other. It just happens.

I have read numerous books on the Beatles so here is my take/theory:

The Beatles were four VERY different guys. Its a wonder they were even a band to begin with. But they were for roughly 10 years and the results speak for themselves.

At first, they were a tight, cohesive unit. The first shot across the bow was probably when John & Paul ceased composing together although they continued to issue joint credits throughout their career. I believe Revolver was the first one where they wrote their own stuff, although there would be a few exceptions (Yellow Submarine, Goodnight).
(snip)


Take that for what's if worth.:music:
As someone who has read a lot of books on the Beatles, albeit not the one mentioned in the OP.
I agree 100% with ever single point you make. Except the the one highlighted above.

From all I've read, it was only a small handful of songs, that as both, Lennon and McCartney, later described the procedure as, 'written 'nose to nose, facing each other'.
Usually they were the songs with co-lead vocals. Such as 'I Want To Hold Your Hand', 'Eight Days A Week', 'She Loves You', 'A Hard Days Night'.

The vast majority of their supposedly co-written songs were almost always fairly to fully complete, before one showed it to the other. Even in the earliest pre-fame days.

And I had always assumed Paul broke up the Beatles, (by not signing with Allan Klein, as the other 3 already had), not John.

John and Paul limited George to a song an album, later a song per side, because his songs just weren't as good as theirs. His later solo albums had lots of filler.



Perhaps Robert Christgau put it best in a review of All Things Must Pass: "...[Harrison's] never been good for more than two songs per album, and after "My Sweet Lord" I start to get stuck."

I don't get the animosity towards the breakup. Bands are like jobs. Good job or not, sometimes you just have to move on. You might fall into a different rut (I think both Paul and John did) but at least it's not the SAME rut. Perhaps it's because i was never a huge fan of the Beatles that I feel they had every right to call it a day. What else were they going to accomplish? I think they did all they could together, and the albums weren't getting better, at least in my opinion they weren't. Again, my whole opinion is coming from somewhere that the true fans aren't coming from. I actually listen to Plastic Ono Band more than any Beatles album. I think it was probably a lot of things. In the garage bands I've been in, we all started as best friends and ultimately ended up hating each other. It just happens.

I have been a fan for as long as I can remember, and I agree with you that they had every right to break up. It was a job, and if they were no longer happy working together, they certainly had enough money that they could call it a day if they wished. Obviously, they saw it that way, too.

The animosity toward the breakup that people often have, however, is because people are selfish and want more from them together than they were willing to produce. People wanted them to keep putting out albums together, and they were disappointed that that didn't happen. I also think that their solo work afterwards had more filler junk than their work together, because when they were together, there was competition to get things on the albums, and the others would object to things they didn't like. But obviously, a big star working solo can put out any crap he or she wants to fill out the album, and that is what happened, in my opinion.

But I don't think it is inevitable that people will end up hating each other if they work together, and this applies to bands as well as other kinds of jobs. However, if someone does have some major personality problems, then working closely with them is likely to end up being very off-putting, to say the least. If everyone is reasonable, and has compatible business interests, there will be no reason they will end up hating each other. Of course, many people are not reasonable, and in the case of the Beatles, they had different ideas about what they should be putting out (a famous example is Revolution 9). (I don't know if they were reasonable or not, so I won't comment on that.)

I didn't mean to suggest that it was inevitable that bands would hate each other, I just think that it happens a lot. Artists often want to get their way and are very passionate about what they do. They have a vision, and being in a band means more decision makers, whereas a lot of artists don't want a democracy..they want a dictatorship of sorts. But there are a number of bands that didn't end up hating each other even after years and years together. When you look at those bands, often there is some sort of situation where there's one person doing a lot of the creating and the others are content to back them up. It's the contest of egos that I think breaks up a lot of bands. Or the drummer or bass player or whoever finally gets sick of being the back up. Or the singer thinks that they're the star and can do it with a band who doesn't take so much of the money. I'm being cynical...there are, of course, very healthy bands around, who do things in a friendly manner.

I often wonder what a final album the Beatles would have made had they let Paul just leave. It may have been great or terrible, but I'd really like to have heard it.

As someone who has read a lot of books on the Beatles, albeit not the one mentioned in the OP.
I agree 100% with ever single point you make. Except the the one highlighted above.

From all I've read, it was only a small handful of songs, that as both, Lennon and McCartney, later described the procedure as, 'written 'nose to nose, facing each other'.
Usually they were the songs with co-lead vocals. Such as 'I Want To Hold Your Hand', 'Eight Days A Week', 'She Loves You', 'A Hard Days Night'.

The vast majority of their supposedly co-written songs were almost always fairly to fully complete, before one showed it to the other. Even in the earliest pre-fame days.

And I had always assumed Paul broke up the Beatles, (by not signing with Allan Klein, as the other 3 already had), not John.

You are actually saying the same thing as I did only in a different way. Sure, its not like they sat down by candlelight and composed from scratch. But taking unfinished work to the other still constitutes collaboration as well ass artistic interchange. Nonetheless that ceased at roughly the midpoint.

Yes Paul signed with Lee Eastman while the other three signed with Allen Klein. Hence my use of the term, "Business Chaos." Of course Paul had the last laugh as Klein turned out to be a crook.

All 4 knew it was done by Abbey Road, but agreed to hold off on announcing it. Paul shattered that my announcing it with the release of his solo album which came with a concocted and bitter self-interview. Not a classy move IMHO.

The Rubicon had been crossed...:sigh:

When you look at the beatles, you must look at it in it's entirety. beatlemania would drive almost anyone up a wall after awhile, sure its fun at first till you realize your privacy is gone. then they all but lived together for a long time...beatles broke up its a wonder they stayed together as long as they did..bickering among themselves over silly crap... sounds like a young marriage to me. yoko was a straw thats all

I agree that Beatlemania did more harm than good for the band as a unit. One result was George no longer wanting to tour, and that in itself can do alot towards keeping a band together or apart. Living behind closed hotel room doors because of the literal mania around them had to be taxing.

Give these guys the same luxury of only working together every few years (Ala, for instance, Fleetwood Mac these days) and I think it would have been much easier to get the boys together under one roof. Plenty of time for everyone's solo career when you only release two new Beatles albums in a decade!

Had John lived past '80 I'm pretty sure we would have eventually seen a reunion of some nature, because from what I remember and have read he and Paul were beginning to get along again. There is the story out there about John asking Yoko who they could contact in Japan for Paul, frantically trying to get McCartney some legal assistance when he was in jail over the Tokyo pot bust, for example. Lennon's last album was much more accessible than the ones prior to that, too. IMO it would have been a natural step towards working with Macca again in time.

Bring those two together and I think they would have convinced George to come in over time. He was a willing participant on the Anthology project. Ringo loved working with all of them individually, or so it seems at least.

Yeah, sorry for the speculatory ramblings here ;)... I've been a Beatlefreak since way back when and have happily attended several Beatle conventions over the years, Beatlefest in particular.

I think the end began after Rubber Soul. When Paul realized his songs were as good as Johns (Yesterday) that flipped the entire dynamic of the band. Bt the time Pepper rolled around John was already kinda spacing out, and was really the last album they collaborated as a band to create songs. Help through Pepper was the peak of their careers, timeless records that will outlast MMT, LIB and White IMHO. Abbey was a stellar swan song.

Yoko was a sign of the times and her perceived lack of respect for 'beatles', contributed greatly to the demise. For most of the decade no-one was allowed in the recording sessions.

She got comfortable following John on a leash, but he clincher was when she brought a bed into the studio for Abbey Road. A bitchy move that showed no respect for anyone but John. John knew she exacerbated the situation and that's exactly what he was aiming for, to show Paul that it wasn't all his to inherit. John without question split the Beatles apart. He was too strung out on Heroin and noise to care if the wheels came off.

I actually listen to Plastic Ono Band more than any Beatles album


I prefer Beatle's music. Just sayin'....:)

To each his own , but , I would sooner throw up in my mouth. Just sayin'.

Now, now, there is no need for that. There are plenty of people with different taste in music, and there is no need to say something quite that strong, even if it accurately reflects your opinion. I think it is enough to say that you prefer something else. It is nicer, and still is honest and conveys the right idea.

Of course, you can tell me to ..... if you want.

QUOTE=Pyrrho;2448886]Now, now, there is no need for that. There are plenty of people with different taste in music, and there is no need to say something quite that strong, even if it accurately reflects your opinion. I think it is enough to say that you prefer something else. It is nicer, and still is honest and conveys the right idea.

Of course, you can tell me to ..... if you want.[/QUOTE]

:thmbsp:

Actually, IMHO John Lennon Plastic Ono Band and Imagine are the only solo Beatles works that stand up to the actual Beatles work. They are both stellar albums, perhaps masterpieces. As they came out in the immediate aftermath of the Beatles breakup, it seems John was still in his creative peak. The other three had more than a few moments after the Beatles, but John's stuff was the best. He never released anything really bad while the others had a few klunkers. Of course his ended the earliest, plus he took 5 years off as well.

I have to agree with this....I know it's not the consensus opinion but I like Yoko's work, meaning I think it's interesting and ahead of its time but also enjoyable to listen to. "Don't Worry Kyoko" is a killer. Absolutely insane.

Actually, IMHO John Lennon Plastic Ono Band and Imagine are the only solo Beatles works that stand up to the actual Beatles work. They are both stellar albums, perhaps masterpieces.

I have to agree with this....I know it's not the consensus opinion but I like Yoko's work, meaning I think it's interesting and ahead of its time but also enjoyable to listen to. "Don't Worry Kyoko" is a killer. Absolutely insane.


Well to clarify, I meant the album titled, John Lennon Plastic Ono Band, the album he did after his Janov therapy. Yoko did her own version as well. I cannot say she ever did it for me musically. She has a brain and was probably a decent Avant Garde artist. I have nothing against her personally at all. :music:

There are John fans and Paul fans. I'm a Paul fan so I'm very biased in my opinion that Paul did plenty of great albums after the breakup. I think the Ram album might be my favorite of any album I own; to me it's very much White Album in feel and content.

That isn't to say I don't feel Paul didn't so some absolutely terrible albums too though - he sure did. I'll also admit to not giving John all the credit he had coming for some of his solo efforts when I was younger.

There are John fans and Paul fans.

This is true, hence, the differing accounts of the breakup.

When monster talents such as John and Paul collaborated, there was bound to be some big differences in opinion among them. I, for one, am glad they got together to make some of the greatest music ever. Their differences make for interesting commentary, and will be discussed for a long time to come.

I think Paul had very good success after The Beatles. McCartney (1970), Ram, Band on the Run and Venus and Mars naturally come to mind.

John's Imagine, Double Fantasy and Plastic Ono Band are equally good, but with a definite distinction from Pauls' albums, which define who they are (or in Johns case, who he was.) The affect that Yoko had on John is ever present.

Hard to believe John was taken from us at age 40, and harder to believe all that he accomplished in such a short time.

WOW A LOT OF GOOD STUFF......A possible renunion I don't think was forthcoming...I think they didn't want to be old men up there performing forgetting lyrics...tarnishing their legacy I think i saw that on ANTHOLOGY DVD's. What impressed me was George Martin often syphoning "tid" bits or fragments from both and pieceing and adding and layering etc , he played a monumental part. On the let it Be Phil Spector added stuff that the guys diplored.....OH I saw some staggering offers of 50 million for 30 minutes that was flatly refused...mostly they were scared to death of getting shot or killed in the US by some lunatic, how foretelling hu. As far as having toooo much $$$ they came dangerously close Apple time to becoming "broke" If the Beatle merchandising rights were don properly...not 90-10% split tey wouldn't have needed to even sell another record ever, they simply made great music..they were not business men...they really missed Epstein that hurt and even he made some bad judgements. lada dave b. ........I better find a job.....too much time on my hands!!!!!!!!!...!!!!!!.

There are John fans and Paul fans. I'm a Paul fan so I'm very biased in my opinion that Paul did plenty of great albums after the breakup. I think the Ram album might be my favorite of any album I own; to me it's very much White Album in feel and content.

That isn't to say I don't feel Paul didn't so some absolutely terrible albums too though - he sure did. I'll also admit to not giving John all the credit he had coming for some of his solo efforts when I was younger.

I do not favor one over the other. Two very different men and that is what helped make the band interesting.

I agree that Paul has made some very good solo stuff- Band on the Run, Venus & Mars, etc. He is also a showman like no other. I have seen him twice and the guy just loves to perform.

But...I stand by my opinion, and that's all it is really, that Lennon's first two solo records are on the level with the Beatles. With regards to Paul, Maybe I'm Amazed is the only piece of work I can imagine on a Beatles record.

Paul was/is a very sentimental man. He loves pop. John was angrier, a searcher, a dreamweaver. Always made his stuff more interesting, more cerebral.

But hey, its all great. :music:

To sum up so far:

Not Yoko's fault.


Has anyone mentioned the drugs? Going from marijuana cigarettes to shooting heroin can create quite the rift. I'll speculate that hard drugs had a hand in breaking up the Beatles.

Ken

I do not favor one over the other. Two very different men and that is what helped make the band interesting.

I agree that Paul has made some very good solo stuff- Band on the Run, Venus & Mars, etc. He is also a showman like no other. I have seen him twice and the guy just loves to perform.

But...I stand by my opinion, and that's all it is really, that Lennon's first two solo records are on the level with the Beatles. With regards to Paul, Maybe I'm Amazed is the only piece of work I can imagine on a Beatles record.

Paul was/is a very sentimental man. He loves pop. John was angrier, a searcher, a dreamweaver. Always made his stuff more interesting, more cerebral.

But hey, its all great. :music:

This made me think of what people have had to say about Paul's Silly Love Songs. In my opinion, it is one of the most self-aware songs ever in rock/pop. It certainly shows more sense than most songs, especially more than what is usually produced when a rock musician attempts to be profound in a song, as they usually end up with nothing greater than the profundity of an unimaginative 14 year old. (I won't name any names, as there is no need for me to offend those who are impressed with drivel.) Silly Love Songs is what it is, and doesn't attempt to be anything more than it is. That makes it much more sensible than pretentious twaddle that some rock musicians produce.

I agree that Maybe I'm Amazed is a great song, but I think he did some others that are also great. And given what I seem to remember him saying in an interview many years ago, that (at that time) he wrote all of his love songs for his wife Linda, I think it is rather sweet that he wrote so many of them. He must have been devastated when she died.

WOW A LOT OF GOOD STUFF......A possible renunion I don't think was forthcoming...I think they didn't want to be old men up there performing forgetting lyrics...tarnishing their legacy I think i saw that on ANTHOLOGY DVD's.

The years and the decades make people very different and heal one hell of a lot of wounds. These guys loved each other at the core. The fact that the Anthology set came out is indicative to me that they would have gotten together for a one off performance at some point, be it the 80's, 90's, anytime before the natural death of George. We got to see Pink Floyd and Led Zep reunite (yeah, I know, John Bonham's presence was sadly missed) and I think the boys would have done something at some point, maybe just not on a mega-market scale.

In a sense they did collaborate after the Beatles demise. Ringo's self titled album featured the other three as contributors, and I'm pretty sure his Rotogravature album did as well.

I do not favor one over the other. Two very different men and that is what helped make the band interesting.

I agree that Paul has made some very good solo stuff- Band on the Run, Venus & Mars, etc. He is also a showman like no other. I have seen him twice and the guy just loves to perform.

But...I stand by my opinion, and that's all it is really, that Lennon's first two solo records are on the level with the Beatles. With regards to Paul, Maybe I'm Amazed is the only piece of work I can imagine on a Beatles record.

Paul was/is a very sentimental man. He loves pop. John was angrier, a searcher, a dreamweaver. Always made his stuff more interesting, more cerebral.

But hey, its all great. :music:

It IS all great! Even Ringo has had some fun albums over the years :yes:.... if fact, there was alot of hype over the fact that he had such good success when his self titled album came out.

I saw Paul in '76, then in '90 on the Flowers In The Dirt tour and (I think) '92 when Off The Ground was released. Great performer.

To sum up so far:

Not Yoko's fault.


Has anyone mentioned the drugs? Going from marijuana cigarettes to shooting heroin can create quite the rift. I'll speculate that hard drugs had a hand in breaking up the Beatles.

Ken

I'll second that speculation. It applies to any relationship...changes the dynamics profoundly.

I really believe that Yoko had a lot to do with the break-up. Messin with Johns mojo.

Many comments here about the various Beatles personalities and songwriting talents.

One thing that you ought to bear in mind is that John and Paul controlled the Beatles. They 'allowed' George and Ringo to put some songs on the albums. Now come the economics, i.e. the money. The Beatles was never really a four-way $$ split. The guys with the songs on the albums made more money from the record sales. They also got ALL of the royalties when other artists recorded their material. There wasn't much incentive for John and Paul to open that door for George and Ringo. And it most certainly was never a qualitative decision where all the possible songs were weighed regardless of the author and then a decision was made about its inclusion in an album.

When they started the group they each came from varying poor to comfortable backgrounds, and making 'real money' and 'stardom' or 'celebrity' works as a cement. Once they had all made quite a lot of money and their celebrity was firmly entrenched then the need to stick together to keep it all going diminishes.

Certainly the various factors that came into play in the breakup no doubt all contributed ... but I can certainly imagine the financial resentment that would build up over time when Paul and John controlled the album content with an iron fist .... whatever you might think of their respective songwriting talents, it was the significant extra money that drove the album mix. There is a reason why Paul is so significantly wealthier than George or Ringo.... its all those song royalties.

I'll second that speculation. It applies to any relationship...changes the dynamics profoundly.

You can't really communicate effectively with someone on heroin, and toward the end that's what they desperately needed to do. John and Yoko were so far out in left field at the time that nobody could get through. Instead of the million things that needed to be worked out, the focus went to the distraction of John dragging her with him everywhere and not focusing on the band's work. And face it, once you force feed your old lady to the boys, it ain't gonna be the same. John built quite the fortress around himself in those days. I'd say that he saw the split coming and tried to insulate himself from it with the dope, thereby exacerbating the existing problems and creating a huge new one.
It's weird, in Keith Richards' heroin phase the Stones became the enablers, allowing his idiosyncratic approach to recording and work in general to shape the band's modus operandi. Plus, there were a lot more musical hangers-on around the Stones who'd pick up the slack. But Lennon was not Keith, and there were other strong personalities within the Beatles who were willing to fill the void if necessary. There were a minimum of musical guests on Beatles tracks, aside from Billy Preston here and Clapton there (and of course Mr. Martin). Just four guys with seperate personal/professional agendas trying (or not) to work together. I've never thought the timing of McCartney's solo album was a very cool thing to do, but I understand why he had to do the album itself. Sometimes you've got to find out for yourself whether your working situation has poisoned your talents, and perhaps give your longtime partner a wake-up call at the same time.
And because some head case with a gun decided to take the quick way to his 15 minutes of fame, we'll never know what might have been.