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.
You're so vain, you probably think this post is about you.
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!"
You're so vain, you probably think this post is about you.
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.
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.
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.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
beatlesnumber9
Female
Male
Logged
