DM's Beatles forums
Beatles forums => The Beatles => Topic started by: beatlesnumber9 on March 29, 2005, 02:06:42 PM
-
Setting aside wishful thinking and Beatle fiction masquerading as fact, let's look at history. There's a lot of truth in factual history. You are entitled to all kinds of opinions, but it doesn't change reality.
Even after the April 10th announcement, the remaining three Beatles were still publicly stating that the Beatles, as an entity, still existed and this was a temporary hiatus. A few weeks after Paul's statement, Ringo told a reporter, "I just feel it in my bones that we'll probably all be recording together again before very long." George said, "There is every prospect" that the Beatles eventually would work together again. "Everyone this year is trying to do his individual album, but after that, I am ready to go back to work together again." In early summer, George, while working on "All Things Must Pass", again said he'd expect the Beatles to be working together, possibly by the end of the year.
John initially had little response to Paul's announcement, saying only, "Paul phoned me to say 'I've decided to leave The Beatles.' It was good to hear from him, now that I know he's not dead [a reference to the "Paul is dead" hoax that broke the previous fall]."
In the May 14 edition of _Rolling Stone_, John made his feelings clearer: "It's the simple fact that [Paul] can't have his own way, so he causing chaos. I put out four albums last year, and I didn't say a f***ing word about quitting."
In June, Paul, through his attorney, began the slow process of dissolving the partnership, raising the issue with John via a letter later that summer. John refused to discuss the issue. Paul again raised it during a meeting with the other three in New York that October. They refused to address it then, either.
McCartney filed suit against the Allen Klein and the other three Beatles on December 31, 1970, asking that The Beatles and Co. be legally dissolved that that a receiver be appointed in the meanwhile.
With that, the Beatles were no more.
Say what you will about the various arguments over guitar leads, drum breaks and girlfriends, but make no mistake, the facts are these: Paul went public and ignited the press firestorm that immediately erupted thereafter. He insisted on an immediate legal dissolution of the partnership, igniting almost a decade of vitriolic court battles.
It is important to note that all of John's statements regarding the breakup, such as the fact that he'd actually left first, et cetera, were made after Paul's public announcement and the subsequent hard feelings it generated.
The bitter statements against Paul by the other three that appear in the court affidavits leave no doubt whatsoever as to who "broke up the Beatles."
[/b]
The ironic thing is that, a mere three years later, John, George and Ringo split with Allen Klein and sued him. If Paul had bided his time, he'd have gotten what he'd wanted (the problem, of course, was Klein; Paul wanted Eastman to manage the group), and the Beatles might have been back in the recording studio in 1975.
Or maybe not.
-
To tell the truth, I really do not care who broke them up. The sad thing is, that they broke up.... :(
-
The post is a response to the people who still blame Yoko. IF you want to blame one person, then blame Paul.
It might be a sad thing they broke up (it was at the time). But they went out on top with Abbey Rd and ensured their status as a legend.
-
John Lennon's mind was passing from the Beatles, certainly by late 1967. George Harrison was getting increasingly frustrated that the Beatles were a vehicle for Lennon & Mccartney to realize their songs, and not his. Ringo was getting frustrated with his increasingly minimalist role (remember his memory of Pepper was being bored and playing cards with Mal).
They were changing. THAT'S[/b] what broke up the Beatles.
-
The post is a response to the people who still blame Yoko. IF you want to blame one person, then blame Paul.
It might be a sad thing they broke up (it was at the time). But they went out on top with Abbey Rd and ensured their status as a legend.
People who know anything about the Beatles know that there was no one person responsible for the break-up. You cannot "blame" Yoko, or Paul, or any one person.
What a myth this "Abbey Rod ... ensured their legend status" is. Come on, they were legends because of what went before 1969. Much as YOU might like Abbey Road, I think an album half-full of glossy unfinished songs has little to do with the Beatles legendary status.
-
the beatles wives
-
especially linda and yoko
-
the beatles wives
Guess again.
especially linda and yoko
And again.
-
YEAH RIGHT! It was NOT Linda and Yoko. If anything, they helped their husbands through the breakup. (Well, that was mainly Linda, but anyways, that's not the point...)
It was no single person. It was everything, they changed.
-
It was Life...
It was only a band, like Lennon says...
I'm glad they broek up when they did, although the split was bitter.
If they never split, we may have got another Abbey Road, except this time, the artificial glitter would have lost its sparkle.
-
What's happening, Indica? I'm in total agreement with you.
-
I have no idea! :)
-
an album half-full of glossy unfinished songs
ouch! i love those glossy songs... ::)
~ missy
-
People who know anything about the Beatles know that there was no one person responsible for the break-up. You cannot "blame" Yoko, or Paul, or any one person.
What a myth this "Abbey Rod ... ensured their legend status" is. Come on, they were legends because of what went before 1969. Much as YOU might like Abbey Road, I think an album half-full of glossy unfinished songs has little to do with the Beatles legendary status.
Hi there. I never gave my critique of Abbey Rd, because that wasn't the point of my post. They did however go out on top.
The break up was provoked by a lot of things. It may have been inevitable and completely unavoidable. It may have been right, it might have been wrong. Wives, egoism, Brian's death, growing up, etc. These are all valid opinions.
But I stand by my first post. Only in the historical, legal and physical sense of the word, Paul dissolved (broke up) The Beatles. This is a fact.
I feel that things changed the most at the time Paul wrote Yesterday and John made the statement (out of context) that The Beatles were bigger than Jesus. It might not have been apparent to the world, but the other three were not happy with John. On top of that he was getting death threats and the KKK demonstrated a concert in Alabama. John was a wounded man, and very paranoid. The stage was set for Paul to play leader of the band. They quit writing together and wrote in competition (a good competition that produced some great music), but things were changing rapidly. The split had been set in motion.
They were the greatest band on earth. Each Beatle handled mega-fame and fortune in a sane down to earth way. They were/are each magnificant, friendly, very talented and very human people.
I miss John and George very much. :'(
I LOVE THE BEATLES
-
ok i am only gonna say this once.I DID IT!!!
i think what we thought was a beatle was different than what they thought.
-
oh and for the record john was done after help......
-
A band doesn't last forever and I think there are several people you can blame for this breakup, but in the end, there wasn't much left for them to do. I disagree with Ydoll and Indy that Abbey Road was a bad album and think there were some superb songs, along with a few bad ones ( but what album doesn't have a 'Her Majesty' or 'Polythene Pam'). However, I do agree that their later works wouldn't have been as genius as their work in their prime. You can't be a good band if the members don't cooperate and John's paranoia had developed into rather obnoxious personality.
-
it was me dammit...........
-
it was me dammit...........
still mad about breaking up the beatles eh...
-
It was a conspiracy greater than JFK.
-
i don't know why you feel you like you have to take this away from me.........
-
I don't blame Yoko for breaking up the Beatles, but having her wheeled around on a gurney during the White Album didn't help any. If anything, I'd blame John's obsessive-compulsive disorder, psychological problems and ill-advised drug intake for the split. It's amazing the band lasted as long as it did before he basically imploded. The other three guys were basically emotionally healthy. George himself stated in the Beatles Anthology that the other guys didn't realize how f***ed up John was until he did the primal scream record.
-
i put it in their soup.......
brian wilson did primal scream therapy too.....and the beach boys left him and went on....
-
Guess again.
And again.
the beatles wanted to be with their wives more then the band ydoll gwyn
-
they jsut couldnt do magic anymore..
-
he can't relate.......then they left
-
End of touring/Brian Epstein's death.
-
A band doesn't last forever and I think there are several people you can blame for this breakup, but in the end, there wasn't much left for them to do. I disagree with Ydoll and Indy that Abbey Road was a bad album and think there were some superb songs, along with a few bad ones ( but what album doesn't have a 'Her Majesty' or 'Polythene Pam'). However, I do agree that their later works wouldn't have been as genius as their work in their prime. You can't be a good band if the members don't cooperate and John's paranoia
-
i think what we thought was a beatle was different than what they thought.
This is a really good point. Yoko was quoted last week as saying that John didn't feel he was that famous. He said if he'd have been born in New York City he'd have been bigger.
There's something sad about that...
If he only knew how BIG he really was.
-
It was...
1 part Yoko
1 part Linda
1 part growing apart as people
1 part frustration at never being able to play live without it being a total zoo
1 part frustration over business affairs
1 part pride
1 part desire to have a real life outside of The Beatles and...
1 part inability to work together effectively
Stir 'em all up and you have a break up waiting to happen.
They broke up during a time in Rock history when it was unheard of for band members to do solo projects outside of a group or go on an extended haitus. All of these things would become common place in the 70's and beyond.
-
and 2 parts Pete Best
-
and 2 parts Pete Best
;D
-
And ego :)
-
Definitely ego, huge egos. John said, "there just wasn't enough room for 4 egos on one album anymore."
But then, The Rolling Stones didn't break up. The Beach Boys are still a band. Even Queen is touring this summer. The Beatles were just TOO big.
I guess? I mean, it was pretty ugly for a few years. If, as is said, they put all that behind them, I guess we should too.
-
The Beach Boys aren't really a band... thee's been a lot of petty squabbling going on from what I've heard. Especially between Brian and Mike.
-
Definitely ego, huge egos. John said, "there just wasn't enough room for 4 egos on one album anymore."
But then, The Rolling Stones didn't break up. The Beach Boys are still a band. Even Queen is touring this summer. The Beatles were just TOO big.
I guess? I mean, it was pretty ugly for a few years. If, as is said, they put all that behind them, I guess we should too.
The biggest part of Queen is dead, however. That's sans one ego
-
The biggest part of Queen is dead, however. That's sans one ego
I wouldn't buy a ticket. It's not Queen without Freddie, but they're are gonna give it a shot.
The Beach Boys are a trip. Brian is a genius. I'm so glad Smile was well recieved. They've had a lot of quarrels, but they didn't break up. Just an observation... I DIG The Beach Boys! Awsesome sound.
-
The Stones are Keith and Mick. Wyman has said he gave up suggesting anything musically. The other band members rode the 'gravy train.'
Beach Boys didn't write, except Brian.
The Beatles were all song writers with creative ideas. Too much energy. It imploded.
-
flux brings up a good point. they all wanted their input and thats sometimes bad cause their ideas might confront.
-
The Stones are Keith and Mick. Wyman has said he gave up suggesting anything musically. The other band members rode the 'gravy train.'
Beach Boys didn't write, except Brian.
The Beatles were all song writers with creative ideas. Too much energy. It imploded.
thats not entirely true about the beach boys carl has a solo album as does dennis.....
-
Mike Love as co-written also.
Lennon agrees with these posts, as he said, "There just wasn't enough room on one album for 4 huge egos."
Makes sense to me. Look at Waters and Gilmour, and so many other bands that broke up over false pride. Human nature at it's worse.
It's just sometimes a shame that The Beatles, of all people, couldn't rise above such pettiness. They were the embodiment of love and peace, and they couldn't even maintain their friendship. That was my thinking at the time they broke up.
I also have a problem with John's pain at his father for not being there, then doing the samething to Julian.
Human beings. As much as I love them, and at times worship them, they were human beings. The difference is John wrote about it, his songs were more autobiographical. Paul stayed stuck in pop and bubble gum. And I'm off topic, so I'm shutting up.
This is one of the better boards I've been to. GH.com is a great place. And of course my favorite is my own forum. But you guys are really cool.
-
we love you too big number nine......i enjoy your site as well.
-
The difference is John wrote about it, his songs were more autobiographical. Paul stayed stuck in pop and bubble gum. And I'm off topic, so I'm shutting up.
I'm going to pretend I didn't see that "pop and bubble gum" remark and just correct you by saying that Paul's songs were also autobiographical. They were about the love of his life, Linda.
But like you said, this is off topic. So let that be an end to it.
-
I think George had most to gain from the breakup because they were routinely passing over great songs (like "All Things Must Pass") for dreck like Maxwell's Silver Hammer or I Dig a Pony.
John and Paul had most to lose, because even though they weren't writing together at the end of the Beatles they still operated as a check/competitor. Neither John nor Paul's 70s stuff has the spark that the Beatles stuff did--maybe it's just a question of knowing that the other guy would be in the recording studio, who knows.
Ringo, oddly enough, sold a helluva lot of records after the split.
-
The sad fact is that the breakup was mutual and The Beatles just grew apart both musically and as friends. No one was to blame but unfortunatly it was just the way things had to be. Sometimes we should be thankful that they broke up becuse if they stayed together now they probablly would have just been has beens like "The Who" or "The Rolling Stones".
Mr. Kite
-
I'm going to pretend I didn't see that "pop and bubble gum" remark and just correct you by saying that Paul's songs were also autobiographical. They were about the love of his life, Linda.
But like you said, this is off topic. So let that be an end to it.
Paul's songs weren't ALL pop, he's got some fabulous rockers, but he wasn't as autibiographical as Lennon, even in interviews he wasn't as open as John. There's nothing wrong with that. But don't deny it! Paul's sense of what sold helped make the Beatles the best.
Not one of the four on his own could be as big as the whole. Somewhere along the line they seemed to have forgotten that they were each 1/4 of the Beatles. No more, no less.
George has been quoted as saying his biggest break came with being in The Beatles, his second biggest break was getting out. His songs always took a back seat to Lennon/McCartney.
I don't think there's anyone to blame exactly, but the deed was done by Paul. That's just a fact. Be it good or bad or indifferent. Assigning blame is opnion. Paul going to court to break up The Beatles is fact. You can't disagree with a fact.
-
He made the break-up legal, but I don't think it was his fault that the band broke up, nor did he attempt to break up he band. He was the one wh tried to hold them together when they were falling apart. In fact, I think if Paul had his way he would have kept the Beatles together long after their prime.
-
I wouldn't go so far as to paint a halo over Paul's head. He's as much to blame as anyone else.
His argument with George on Let It Be was just a sneak peek into Paul's ego and how he wanted things his way. Ringo's the one who tried to patch things up and play mediator. And Paul snubbed Ringo by calling him a lousy drummer and as a result Ringo quit. That's why Paul plays drums on Back In The USSR. (He later made up by filling Abbey Rd studio with tons of flowers for Ringo).
John had no business bringing Yoko into the recording studios. What an arrogant thing to do. It was always just the 4. He even let her sing on a few songs. This just provoked the others. (I resented John for shoving Yoko down our throats. We had to buy her "music" to own his. She took up half his albums with her shrieking 'Avant Garde' muzak.
Lennon/McCartney were HUGE egos, and what brought them down was false pride.
-
Oh, I wasn't trying to make Paul look like an angel. I was just pointing out that he wanted them together even though it wasn't the best for them.
You're definitely right in that it was an ego problem. Both of them were basically thinking, "Look how great I am, I don't need you! I have Yoko/Linda now!"
-
But we can celebrate what was. It was the greatest show on earth!
I want to conventrate on the positive for a while. I'm going to hop around on your forum a bit. Feel free to point me in the right direction ;)
-
I changed my avatar. The other pretty much let it out of the bag that I'm crazy :)
-
Competiveness between John and Paul. Georges frustration about being used more as a session player than contributor. The "Yoko" wedge that "John" cleverly used to frustrate all the other lads while recording Let It Be. Bordom of being a "Beatle" and wanting to do other things in their lives due to their immense wealth. It all points towards a split and not ammicable! Even when the big signing to dissolve the Beatles was to take place "John" didn't show up which made George and Paul crazy!!!!!!!!!!
-
It's just sometimes a shame that The Beatles, of all people, couldn't rise above such pettiness. They were the embodiment of love and peace, and they couldn't even maintain their friendship. That was my thinking at the time they broke up.
I also have a problem with John's pain at his father for not being there, then doing the samething to Julian.
Very well said number 9. I think that's why the Beatles split meant as much as it did--because these were the peace and love guys at each others throats. Meanwhile Mick Jagger's Satanic crew sail along placidly, sticking by each other for the next thirty years (albeit with a few spats in there).
Where's the logic?
And poor Freddie Lennon. Has anybody heard his album?
-
I never heard his album. I don't think that was a wise career move for him. But since John had lost his mom and uncle and so many dear friends, you'd think he'd have found a place in his heart for what little was left. He almost went with his dad as a child and changed his mind at the last minute. It's not like he was abused by him.
It's hard to realize your hero was only human, eh? I think that's what John was trying to tell us all along. But you gotta admire the fact he didn't try to hide his real self.
I'd still like to believe they'd have made up and recorded again.
-
I feel that things changed the most at the time Paul wrote Yesterday and John made the statement (out of context) that The Beatles were bigger than Jesus. It might not have been apparent to the world, but the other three were not happy with John. On top of that he was getting death threats and the KKK demonstrated a concert in Alabama.
To be frank, this is a particularly American perspective, and they weren't an American band. The issues you raise here are probably far more important to US fans than they were to the Beatles themselves, and certainly weren't anything to do with the split. I hadn't even heard of the KKK thing.
It was John who broke up the Beatles really, long after Paul wrote Yesterday. He'd moved on.
-
john said he was done b4 they filmed help.........
-
To be frank, this is a particularly American perspective, and they weren't an American band. The issues you raise here are probably far more important to US fans than they were to the Beatles themselves, and certainly weren't anything to do with the split. I hadn't even heard of the KKK thing.
It was John who broke up the Beatles really, long after Paul wrote Yesterday. He'd moved on.
I can agree with this statement.
You really don't remember the bible thumpers in the US burning Beatle albums and the KKK protesting a concert? It's in a lot of films, Anthology included.
John was through with touring, and probably through with the Beatles as well.
I'm only saying the physical deed of breaking up the Beatles was done by Paul. That is an unemotional historical fact, without assigning blame really.
-
I finally figured it out!
Osama Bin Laden did it.
He was in London in the late 60s and was probably gearing up for his later holy war.
He's probably also the one who killed the real Paul McCartney.
Word has it that he has been siphoning money to all these current crybaby wannabee beatles bands (oasis, coldplay, et al) to weaken our collective will to resist.
Insidious terrorists!
-
If you want to find out what full story on the break up click this link. It has everything about it. http://beatles.murashev.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b=cc,v=display,m=1112105202,s=45. It makes me sad that Paul had to sue the other three. It really sucks it ended the way it did.
-
If you want to find out what full story on the break up click this link.
-
Who?
Nobody.
They had grown from each other and wanted more freedom. They should have take a break like many bands do today. Maybe in 1968. This way they would have lasted longer. Huge bands today take 2-4 years between albums and it
-
Oops I copied the wrong link.
-
I reackon musicaly Abbey Road shows they could have survived the early 70's at least. It definately owes more to what was comming than what had been.
So I think they had maybe another 2 albums in them. But breaking up in 1970 is a great marketting ploy. Their music is now nicely packaged forever tied with the 60's
-
Oops I copied the wrong link.
-
The Beatles themselves broke up. I don't believe one person could do that all on their own if the relationships were completly stable and trustworthy. They just broke up. Sooner or later every band does... The fortunate part is atleast we had them for almost a decade :)
-
I think Heart has it right. But, sketchy as my knowledge is, I wonder if there might have been a push and pull effect within this complex affair; Paul pushing the others too far with his leadership intentions, and pushing John away, and Yoko pulling John away. Let's not forget how the British press couldn't respect Ono much, but the U.S. press did. America must have looked attractive to them both. And, of course, George was very fed up of John and Paul dominating the band.
-
I finally figured out who broke up the beatles!! are you ready for this?!?
IT WAS MARTHA!!!!
-
I still like to give Yoko credit. Just cuz it's sounds so good. I mean, if not, then all the Yoko jokes would stop and they're just too good to have come to an end. ;)
-
Brian Epstein.
-
I've finally figured it out! God broke up the Beatles. Yes, it was the Almighty Himself, God the Father, incensed at Lennon's claim that the Beatles were "bigger than Jesus," and fearful that if they continued to make music they might one day be bigger than Himself. The prospect of the four liverpudlian moptops running the universe were just too much for the Big Guy to handle so he made the fateful decision to allow Yoko Ono to ingratiate herself into the Fab Four's company (just as he allowed the snake into the Garden of Eden). And then he threw in Allen Klein for good measure.
"Bigger than Jesus, my ass," God is reported to have said as the Beatles crumpled like a pansy under the dual assault of Klein and Ono.
God takes no credit for the work of Phil Spector on "Let it Be" although admits that He prefers the original arrangements, heavy with orchestras and angelic choirs, to the stripped-down "Let it Be Naked."
Says God, "What can I say, I'm a creature of habit."
-
^LOL!!
-
John meant they were TALLER than Jesus.
-
John meant they were TALLER than Jesus.
... but I insist: not at 5.11 but 5.9 aprox. ;D
-
They were with each other since they were teenagers, they'd had enough.
They were grown men who wanted their OWN lives, not to be Beatles anymore.
-
Personally I'd rather be in a band than go solo, but it doesn't really make sense why any of them would want to leave the most famous group ever
-
Brian Epstein.
An interesting theory which I, and maybe a lot of us, overlooked. Just by sadly passing away, Epstein may well have been the initial catalyst. If he'd stayed with us, he might have been able to manage the conflict and tension between the guys and keep them together who knows how long...!!!!!
So, see my new thread... :)
-
Paul, ... by mistake, ... it was an accident: he didn't want to, y'know ... I do believe in him.
-
Paul, ... by mistake, ... it was an accident: he didn't want to, y'know ... I do believe in him.
But, apparently, John walked out in 1969, didn't he?
-
But, apparently, John walked out in 1969, didn't he?
Well, it was a matter of time as Ringo and George did in the past. He was hot when he said what he said.
He continued presenting himself in public as one of the guys in early 1970,... he didn't really want to leave the group.
He (with George) also gave the tapes of Get Back project (then Let It Be LP) to Spector after the good work he did in John's Instant Karma: another proof of his real wishes,... he was one of them.
-
OK. But, here is what DM says;
Sep 20 (1969)
Saturday John Lennon announces to the others that he is leaving the band. Lennon's announcement never made it to the press because of their newly negotiated royalty contract they signed with EMI.
Could well be that this had some bearing on later events..?
-
^Could the negotiations last so long (from Sept 69 till Apr 1970) and so John couldn't announce it to the world???Did he really want to??? ::)
-
I think this is an interesting reading (from here): http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/beatles_breakup_1.html
"What broke up the Beatles was Paul's public announcement on April 10th, 1970, that the Beatles would never work together again, and the subsequent lawsuit he filed against the other three on December 31, 1970.
Until then, no matter what they said privately to each other, all their public statements conveyed the message that the partnership was to continue indefinitely. In the fall of 1969, after "Abbey Road" was released, John told Melody Maker that "after 'Get Back' is released in January, we'll probably . . . do another one." In February of 1970, he told Rolling Stone, "We still might make Beatles product . . . but we need more room--The Beatles are just too limited., that's where the trouble is." He told the New Musical Express, "It just depends on how much we all want to record together." He said that trying to accommodate everyone's songs on one album was the main problem.
Ringo told NME in March of 1970, "Everything's fine. I've got things to do and George has got things to do and Paul has his solo album and John has his peace thing. We can't do everything at once." George said, in the same article, "Say we've got unity through diversity, because that's what it is . . . we had to find ourselves, individually, one day."
When John Eastman (Paul's brother-in-law and attorney) announced on April 7th that the release of Paul's solo album, "McCartney," was coming out and it meant, in essence, the end of The Beatles, Apple spent three days denying it before it reluctantly released, on Paul's demand, the "self-interview" (subsequently was included in UK copies of "McCartney") that made the split official.
On that day (April 10), Apple also released a statement on behalf of the Beatles that read, "The world is still spinning and so are we and so are you. When the spinning stops--that'll be the time to worry. Not before. The Beatles are alive and well and the beat goes on. The beat goes on."
Even after the April 10th announcement, the remaining three Beatles were still publicly stating that the Beatles, as an entity, still existed and this was a temporary hiatus. A few weeks after Paul's statement, Ringo told a reporter, "I just feel it in my bones that we'll probably all be recording together again before very long." George said, "There is every prospect" that the Beatles eventually would work together again. "Everyone this year is trying to do his individual album, but after that, I am ready to go back to work together again." In early summer, George, while working on "All Things Must Pass", again said he'd expect the Beatles to be working together, possibly by the end of the year.
John initially had little response to Paul's announcement, saying only, "Paul phoned me to say 'I've decided to leave The Beatles.' It was good to hear from him, now that I know he's not dead [a reference to the "Paul is dead" hoax that broke the previous fall]."
In the May 14 edition of Rolling Stone, John made his feelings clearer: "It's the simple fact that [Paul] can't have his own way, so he causing chaos. I put out four albums last year, and I didn't say a f***ing word about quitting."
In June, Paul, through his attorney, began the slow process of dissolving the partnership, raising the issue with John via a letter later that summer. John refused to discuss the issue. Paul again raised it during a meeting with the other three in New York that October. They refused to address it then, either.
McCartney filed suit against the Allen Klein and the other three Beatles on December 31, 1970, asking that The Beatles and Co. be legally dissolved that a receiver be appointed in the meanwhile.
With that, the Beatles were no more.
Say what you will about the various arguments over guitar leads, drum breaks and girlfriends, but make no mistake, the facts are these: Paul went public and ignited the press firestorm that immediately erupted thereafter. He insisted on an immediate legal dissolution of the partnership, igniting almost a decade of vitriolic court battles.
It is important to note that all of John's statements regarding the breakup, such as the fact that he'd actually left first, et cetera, were made after Paul's public announcement and the subsequent hard feelings it generated.
The bitter statements against Paul by the other three that appear in the court affidavits leave no doubt whatsoever as to who "broke up the Beatles."
The ironic thing is that, a mere three years later, John, George and Ringo split with Allen Klein and sued him. If Paul had bided his time, he'd have gotten what he'd wanted (the problem, of course, was Klein; Paul wanted Eastman to manage the group), and the Beatles might have been back in the recording studio in 1975.
Or maybe not."
-
Thanks for that, Raxo. Interesting. Well, also so sad! Of course.
-
Sadly Paul moved too fast,... and then there was no chance for the others.
Even in John's words I can read that he's angry but I think it's not only by the publicity, the place he was in, and so... but because he was not thinking about the split and Paul's announcement change all his plans.
A terrible mistake, I think. Paul should have waited and the facts could have been very different,... as George pointed: it'd be very selfish not to spend three months per year recording an album all together (not exactly words but almost).
-
I think that article has a little bit of a simplistic approach. It wasn't just the Eastman/Klein thing that drove Paul to do what he did, nor was it the release of McCartney.. We all know that things had been building up for a longtime, and Paul must have felt very isolated by then.
Paul's writ to dissolve The Beatles was the result, not the cause, of the breakup. (IMO of course)
-
I think it sum up the essential facts.
Paul could feel isolated but I think it was because he wanted to do things and the others wanted to take a rest for other things, so Paul coulndn't wait and the McCartney LP thing happened.
The breakup came when one of them left the others.
They'd got big problems in the past (Rishikesh, Ringo and then George leaving, the very serious ATV thing,... only as examples) and nothing really happened (I'm talking about a breakup). They made Abbey Road and they were getting on again (John+Paul recording of The Ballad Of John And Yoko, Abbey Road LP cover photo session ending John+Paul at Cavendish Avenue, Paul arrangement to one song of Ringo's Sentimental Journey, The Threetles recording I Me Mine,... there are lots of examples).
The other three didn't want the breakup: played together a lot in the 70s and even spoke about reunion, but the doors (the coffin) were closed,... by Paul.
P.S.
-
I think John didn't mind to split.
-
I think John wouldn't have gone so far.
-
He already had enough of the band by late 1969. John felt he had to choose between a marriage with The Beatles and a marriage with Miss Ono. He often mentioned that the other three dispised and insulted her, in which they were right of course, but John chose Yoko's side. If he had to leave the band for it, so be it. Moreover, in later interviews he stated more than once that since the mid-sixties he was always looking for an opportunity to leave the Beatles. Another thing is that The Beatles might have existed without Paul. The Rolling Stones had some personnel changes as well. If John, George and Ringo really wanted the band to keep existing, they would have found a way, with or without Paul.
-
The Rolling Stones had some personnel changes as well. If John, George and Ringo really wanted the band to keep existing, they would have found a way, with or without Paul.
Interesting. Do you think the world would have accepted The Beatles with John, George, Ringo, and say Klaus Voorman and Billy Preston?
I'm trying to imagine what would go on their 1st album - would George step into Pauls shoes and split the listings with John. Or would they have gone for the whole democracy thing with everyone chipping in. Did Klaus write?
-
It's true that Paul was an important member of the Beatles and his stepping out would have had a great impact. But I think the world would have accepted a new line-up after some time. As long as John was there, certainly.
-
He already had enough of the band by late 1969. John felt he had to choose between a marriage with The Beatles and a marriage with Miss Ono. He often mentioned that the other three dispised and insulted her, in which they were right of course, but John chose Yoko's side. If he had to leave the band for it, so be it. Moreover, in later interviews he stated more than once that since the mid-sixties he was always looking for an opportunity to leave the Beatles. Another thing is that The Beatles might have existed without Paul. The Rolling Stones had some personnel changes as well. If John, George and Ringo really wanted the band to keep existing, they would have found a way, with or without Paul.
-
-
Because John usually walked away from trouble. In a way he was a coward.
And a double-minded man who didn't always know what he thought or believed, is the impression I get of Lennon.
-
Because John usually walked away from trouble. In a way he was a coward.
Don't you think that by leaving the band he could have answered to that? Why he continued with them? Are you saying he was hypocritical too? If he was... what do you think about his late interviews about his wishes of leaving them in mid 60s?
-
And a double-minded man who didn't always know what he thought or believed, is the impression I get of Lennon.
Must we believe in everything he said about what he really wanted in mid 60s or late 69? I'm talking about the breakup and all that, of course.
-
Must we believe everything he said about what he really wanted in mid 60s or late 69? I'm talking about the breakup and all that, of course.
I don't know too much about what he said, unfortunately. But I do think he was erratic in his mind. Maybe that was part of his insecurity complex, and about looking to Ono as a figure to look up to. Needing someone to look up to in his life and that was Yoko. Yoko pulling him away from the Beatles.
-
The thing is that he was afraid of the answer and its consequences. Yes, he was hypocritical. The day before Pete Best was fired, he just said 'See you tomorrow' to the guy, knowing that Brian Epstein should fire him the next day. None of the Beatles had the guts to tell Pete that he was out of the band.
In interviews from the 70's, John had a big mouth saying he was always looking for an opportunity to leave the band. Obviously, he didn't have the guts to really do it and accept the consequences of that. I think it's not the signs of a strong character to say such things seven or eight years later. He should have done it or never talked about it anymore. At least Paul McCartney did it, not in a very elegant way, but he said it out loud. John's later remark that he already had left the band but decided to keep it a secret within the band: crap. But it's clear that John had enough of Paul's dominant behaviour. After all, it was John's band. That how he looked at it. That's why I think he didn't mind to split up the band. And the insults on Yoko's address.
-
It's true that Paul was an important member of the Beatles and his stepping out would have had a great impact. But I think the world would have accepted a new line-up after some time. As long as John was there, certainly.
It could have happened, but a lot of people might have been unhappy about a 'new' Beatle at such a late stage. Could be a seperate thread, though, for fun! WHO WOULD YOU REPLACE PAUL WITH IF PAUL HAD LEFT AND THEY NEEDED A NEW GUY???
-
Paul did it the other way round. He formed his own 'New Beatles'.
-
It could have happened, but a lot of people might have been unhappy about a 'new' Beatle at such a late stage. Could be a seperate thread, though, for fun! WHO WOULD YOU REPLACE PAUL WITH IF PAUL HAD LEFT AND THEY NEEDED A NEW GUY???
Klaus Voorman. With Preston on keyboards
-
... But it's clear that John had enough of Paul's dominant behaviour. After all, it was John's band. That how he looked at it. That's why I think he didn't mind to split up the band. And the insults on Yoko's address.
Yep, Ringo and George had enough of "Paul's dominant behaviour" too. All of them (even John) felt that it was Paul's band (and it was, really, 66 onwards: he planned all their activities except Rishikesh).
I think John wouldn't have gone so far. It was not his plan. It really changed all his future plans (and Ringo's and George's too).
-
Paul did it the other way round. He formed his own 'New Beatles'.
I wondered several times - beetles, have wings, so ...Wings????
Aslo thought he needed a band around him for the missing Beatles 'chemistry'. But, Denny Lane was no match for Lennon!
-
Klaus Voorman. With Preston on keyboards
Or, Paul Simon!!! John, Paul, George, and Ringo!
'Beatles II' (Or III!)
-
But Denny did what Paul wanted him to do. There's your clue.
-
But Denny did what Paul wanted him to do. There's your clue.
Right! All Gravy, all education! Thanks! :)
-
John George and Ringo surrounded themselves with superstars after the split. I think Paul was making a definate statement in creating a new band of relative unknowns, rather than the tempory supergroups preferred by the others.
Not too sure about the beetle-wings thing. I think Paul was trying to move from the past as much as he could. Probably more a play on his new-found freedom.
-
John George and Ringo surrounded themselves with superstars after the split. I think Paul was making a definate statement in creating a new band of relative unknowns, rather than the tempory supergroups preferred by the others.
Not too sure about the beetle-wings thing. I think Paul was trying to move from the past as much as he could. Probably more a play on his new-found freedom.
So maybe then not just about freedom for Macca, but also about control. Easier to control relative unknowns than superstars.
-
I read an interview with Denny. He said after he joined Wings all his friends were saying "Whats going on? You were a big man in the Moody Blues, singing and writing, now you're playing second fiddle to McCartney."
Unfortunately, I can't remember his answer.
-
Unfortunately, I can't remember his answer.
That says it all.
-
Not too sure about the beetle-wings thing. I think Paul was trying to move from the past as much as he could. Probably more a play on his new-found freedom.
Well, he said the name came to him while Linda was busy giving birth to his daughter. Sound familiar somehow, doesn't it?
-
So maybe then not just about freedom for Macca, but also about control. Easier to control relative unknowns than superstars.
You could be right, but in lieu of evidence to the contrary I'm prepared to give Macca the benefit of the doubt.
I don't like the "control freak" tag - someone had to take the band by the lead after Brians death. John could have but chose not to. He was too busy turning Japanese. (I really think so)
-
You could be right, but in lieu of evidence to the contrary I'm prepared to give Macca the benefit of the doubt.
I don't like the "control freak" tag - someone had to take the band by the lead after Brians death. John could have but chose not to. He was too busy turning Japanese. (I really think so)
And too busy getting stoned. And again: walking away from the responsibility.
-
John George and Ringo surrounded themselves with superstars after the split. I think Paul was making a definate statement in creating a new band of relative unknowns, rather than the tempory supergroups preferred by the others.
Not too sure about the beetle-wings thing. I think Paul was trying to move from the past as much as he could. Probably more a play on his new-found freedom.
Perhaps Denny Lane was in his ears and in his eyes!
-
I'm glad. This is my post number 1000 and here I am: congratulations, GreenApple, for your avatar!
Should I choose another? I'm not sure. I think I'm not going to change never (Don't Ever Change) so I'll wait 'till my next reincarnation.
-
It's true that Paul was an important member of the Beatles and his stepping out would have had a great impact. But I think the world would have accepted a new line-up after some time. As long as John was there, certainly.
The Beatles without Paul? No, I don't think anyone would have excepted that. The Beatles are JohnPaulGeorgeandRingo. That's it. They are like one.
Also, I think if the Beatles had kept going, Yoko would have had to join the freaking band. That's the way it was going. That's what he other three talk about in Anthology when they get to the break up. I think Paul wanted the band to continue more than anything, but when all this stuff went down he acted like a spoiled brat or jilted lover. They had had enough of each other I think and they probably wouldn't be as legendary if they had gone on and possibly started to produce mediocre music like so many of the 60's bands. Although I think they had at least 3 or 4 more great albums in them. Considering the solo work.
-
I'm glad it finished when it did, really.
Some bands might of fought through the depression, anger and sadness just for the money. But the Beatles ended it, finally - when the magic wasn't being created.
-
The Beatles broke up because John, Paul, George & Ringo wanted to do other things & they were growing apart musically, personally & professionally. Allen Klein is one of the main reasons they broke up as well because he turned Lennon & McCartney against each other when it came to the business side. Yoko & Linda didn't cause the breakup of the Beatles at all but it's easy to think so in their history.
-
I'm glad. This is my post number 1000 and here I am: congratulations, GreenApple, for your avatar!
Should I choose another? I'm not sure. I think I'm not going to change never (Don't Ever Change) so I'll wait 'till my next reincarnation.
If the avatar is the pic of The Beatles single All You Need Is Love cover, then - thanks! The jaded-but-still-relevant-message-which-we-know-is-still-true-just-by-watching-the-news being spread is among the few feeble things I can do to even try to make the world a better place! My favourite charity is Oxfam (Oxford Famine Relief), by the way. At least it wasn't just snobbery which was invented in Oxford! ;D
And, if I'm starting to seem like a 'bot' (whatever it means), then at least I'm a well-intentioned one! (flower)
-
I think and they probably wouldn't be as legendary if they had gone on and possibly started to produce mediocre music like so many of the 60's bands.
I suppose this is the main point of consolation for Beatles fans everywhere - that they may well have peaked with Abbey Road, but, if they hadn't, Abbey Road sure was a fine point to end on.
-
If the avatar is the pic of The Beatles single All You Need Is Love cover, then - thanks! ... [...]...And, if I'm starting to seem like a 'bot' (whatever it means), then at least I'm a well-intentioned one! (flower)
Yes, it is. Not at all!
I know you are, mate. ;)
-
:) + :) = :) :)
-
;) + ;) = ;) ;)
-
This was a year ago ...
-
Really?
-
Well, more or less ...