What an excellent, intelligent, well-balanced post from Strawberry Fields (above). A whole lot to agree with there.
Of course Yoko didn't break up The Beatles. She was a very convenient scapegoat on which to pin the blame for the demise of something magical which had run its course anyway. It's been said many times but surprise surprise those cheeky young moptops had the audacity to grow up folks! John had always been an obsessive person, at various times and intensity with guitars, with rock & roll music, with Cynthia, with "Beatles"... each waxed and waned in his restless, mercurial consciousness. He got bored. When Yoko Ono arrived she quickly became his new, all encompassing obsession. She was HIS omnipresent muse, not ours, and he had a right to follow the course he felt his life should take. Ironically, this "take me or leave me" honest attitude John presented to the public - a stance so admired by George - seemed only to generate yet more magnetism towards and fascination in him.
No one Beatle could sensibly be regarded as the "best" Beatle. "Best" in what sense? I'd bet John would have given anything to have had the blessings Paul or George had with their close siblings and loving, stable, extended and protective families. No doubt if he had he would have been a more rounded and tolerant person and we would never have known the kind hearted but armour plated, spiky, confrontational genius we were lucky enough to witness. He had a more materially comfortable but far more emotionally damaging childhood than Paul, George or Ringo. He could have developed into a really nasty bastard but he always seemed to want to improve as a person and recognised his own shortcomings. That honesty is just as admirable to me as Paul and Ringo's affability and George's deep spirituality. All four Beatles were flawed but for sure all were good men.
Astonishingly considering his breadth of talent, Paul was in many ways the insecure Beatle. Yes he fought tooth and nail to keep the show on the road whereas John and George lost interest and Ringo gamely tried to keep the peace. It's always been ironic to me that Paul got blamed for breaking up the group when each of the other three had all quietly quit at various times before cautious, wary Paul did. I'm sure loyalty and a sense of duty to his public fired a lot of Macca's drive to maintain the band. I wonder too though whether Paul had a certain caution, bordering on timidity towards change. The last to dabble with LSD, the last to marry, the last to leave London, the last to call time on the public's beloved Beatles. Of all the four it could be argued he was best equipped to cope in a solo musical, post-fabs environment. Yet he was the one whose confidence went into a nervous tailspin, while George flourished, John embraced the split as cathartic and Ringo defied all expectations.
Paul was right about Klein, though. Maybe Klein broke up The Beatles?
