John lennon beatles break up??

dave b

dave b

Well-Known Member
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.
 
Register to hide this ad
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!
 
Beatles/ George Harrison/ATMP compositions

beans said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dave b said:
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.
Click to expand...


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:
 
Beatles breakup blame yoko part II ????!!!!???

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.
 
Jack Lord said:
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:
Click to expand...
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.
 
PaulParrot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
JohnVF said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Saint Johnny said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Alaric said:
To each his own , but , I would sooner throw up in my mouth. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom