Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loco Mo]

I think there ought to be a specific thread for this topic.  I've been thinking a lot lately about the ending of the Beatles and although various causes have been discussed throughout the Forum, I would like to see a focal thread.

I will start out by making a few statements (all are conjecture).

Brian Epstein's death started the progression to the end.  Recall that Pete Best and his mom, Mona, were sort of managers for the early Beatles (before Brian).  That role did not prevent Pete from being sacked.

Paul tried to fill Brian's shoes.  Technically speaking, I don't think any of the Beatles could have assumed this role.  The Beatles were considered to be a 4-man unit with no individual member taking precedence over the others.

Despite the above statement, John was considered to be the leader of the Beatles.  Interestingly enough, George Martin thought of Paul as the leader in the early days but changed his viewpoint after seeing them perform live together.

John should have stepped into his leadership role after Brian's passing but he didn't.  He seemed to begin a psychological detachment from the group.

Paul began taking more control.  Consider that Sergeant Pepper was his idea as was Magical Mystery Tour.  In a sense, Paul was unwittingly challenging John’s dominance in the band.

The White Album, despite all the praise, was truly a collection of Beatles solo efforts even though modern critics are trying to rewrite their original assessments of a broken Beatles by proclaiming that although they seemed to be independent of each other at this point, that they were still working together as a group behind the scenes.  Not obvious, but contemporary commentators seem compelled to want to always paint the Beatles in a positive light.

Yoko didn’t break up the group.  Paul made the announcement because he probably thought they needed to be cutting a new album soon.  At that time, I don’t think many artists took hiatuses from their work as they do now.  It was like you needed to produce at least an album a year.

Paul ended it when maybe he should have “let it be” and not pushed for a final word on the subject.  I still think the Beatles might have produced at least one more album, even though dragging their feet for some time before and while doing so.

Who broke up the Beatles?  The simple answer is that the Beatles broke up the Beatles.  It was a process whose conclusion was inevitable given the various circumstances and unresolved issues that led up to their final disintegration.

So, this is my thesis thus far.  What say ye else?

[Loco Mo]

Actually, the Beatles broke up because John couldn't keep up with Paul anymore.  Paul was a music factory.

None of the other Beatles could equal his output.  This caused a major imbalance in the Beatles.

They were all supposed to be equal, right?  4 was supposed to equal 1.  But, it no longer did.

Hence, splitsville for the Fab Four.  They were no longer the fab foursome.

And solo Beatles did not equal Beatles and neither did Wings.

[Loco Mo]

It's a hard truth to admit but Paul was the monster talent of the Beatles.

I love the mythology of the Beatles but it's a form of denial not to recognize's Paul enormous songwriting talent as superior to John's.

I hate saying it.  I don't like it at all.  I love many of John's songs.

But ...  This is why you couldn't have Beatles anymore.  One member was outshining them all and that was Paul.

(But ... maybe I'm wrong - just maybe.  After all, I'm not a musicologist or an expert by any means.)  I hope I'm wrong.  I want John and Paul to be equal geniuses.

[Loco Mo]

Please ignore my post below.  Paul is not greater than John - by no means!!!  Paul pales by comparison.

I strongly regret suggesting otherwise!  Oh, woe is me and Moe am I!!

From now on, I will only drink a warm cup of milk when I post here in the evenings.  I may have a cookie or two with that as well.

Forgive me, John!  I am one of your greatest fans - I mean it!!

[Moogmodule]

  You’re a hoot Loco.

[GeraldHeise]

The mono boxs were supposed to be numbered, but ultimately werent. Is this sale based on a new pressing or did they not sell that limited amount?

[nimrod]

I think there ought to be a specific thread for this topic.  I've been thinking a lot lately about the ending of the Beatles and although various causes have been discussed throughout the Forum, I would like to see a focal thread.

I will start out by making a few statements (all are conjecture).

Brian Epstein's death started the progression to the end.  Recall that Pete Best and his mom, Mona, were sort of managers for the early Beatles (before Brian).  That role did not prevent Pete from being sacked.

Paul tried to fill Brian's shoes.  Technically speaking, I don't think any of the Beatles could have assumed this role.  The Beatles were considered to be a 4-man unit with no individual member taking precedence over the others.

Despite the above statement, John was considered to be the leader of the Beatles.  Interestingly enough, George Martin thought of Paul as the leader in the early days but changed his viewpoint after seeing them perform live together.

John should have stepped into his leadership role after Brian's passing but he didn't.  He seemed to begin a psychological detachment from the group.

Brians death seemed to me to separate the John era and the Paul era.
John wrote lots of No 1's in his era, Help, Hard Days Night, Ticket To Ride, Please Please Me etc and Paul wrote most of the later No 1's

[Bulldog]

The Beatles were together for well over 10 years.

Suspect they all realised individually they had all reached their song writing musical peak at the same time.  Within the group.

Doubtful they would have kept up the quality & quantity of songs throughout the 70's. Espescially as they now had wives & other interests. A split occurred before a decline started & the groups reputation started to decline. 

In those days, there were no 3 year album gaps for bands. It was either split up or continue as before. John wanted to share a stage with other artists & Yoko. Once Paul released his message on the McCartney album, John was not going return 6 months later.

[Loco Mo]

I want to add a thought to this thread although late.

Someone speculated some months ago that John and Yoko's addiction to heroin played a role in breaking up the Beatles.  This makes sense to me because I think the addiction would have adversely affected John's songwriting ability and his commitment to the band.

Another thought:  I recently read a comment by George that he didn't care to play with Paul as a solo artist because he wasn't into Paul's type of music and that it wasn't anything personal against Paul.  If you listen at the Traveling Wilburys, you can see how different that music is from Paul's.  George seemed to like that country twang flavor.  Ringo was a country fan, too.

So this seems to illustrate that musical differences probably impacted the Beatles breakup as well.

[tkitna]

They were just four different people that had changing interests the longer they went on.  I think John was fed up with all the mania as early as 65' or 66'.  He admitted as much in 67'.  He was miserable with the whole process.  Paul was a workaholic that loved being in the studio and creating.  He pushed the other guys constantly.  The band wasnt four equal parts either as much as some would like to believe.  George had to fight tooth and nail to get his songs on the albums.  Regardless, the break up was caused by a mounting of issues and not just one thing.

[Loco Mo]

The band wasn't four equal parts either as much as some would like to believe.

tkitna:  I strongly agree with your statement.  There is a mythology about their all being equal.  I don't think any partnership is totally equal.  The fact is that the differences between these guys somehow gelled really nicely.  They created something bigger than themselves.  That's why I think it's unsatisfying to try to analyze them as individuals.  It was their chemistry together that made them big.  It wasn't one of them being the most important Beatle or the most talented or the most charismatic.

Lots of people would like to have a Beatles-formula they could apply to their own bands but I don't think such a formula exists.  Besides if you try to do that all you are doing is copying them.  They were originals.  If you want to surpass the Beatles, you're going to have to be original and unique in your own way.  The world has had enough of Beatle soundalikes.  Who cares about them?  When I want to listen to Beatles, I don't want to listen to other people doing covers of them or trying to compose songs that sound Beatlesque.  I want the real Beatles all the way all the time!  May their names live forever more!