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...!!!!!
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.
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..?
"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 fucking 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.
Thanks for that, Raxo. Interesting. Well, also so sad! Of course. When I first came to this site I soon mentioned Paul's interview on UK BBC's Top Of The Pops 2 several years ago, where Paul said that as far as he knew, John went back into the recording studio after he heard Coming Up. Well, Macca also said in that programme that he left the Beatles because he knew John was about to!!!! I am sure I recall Macca saying that. Confuses the complex picture still more!
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.
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?
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
GreenApple
Male
Logged
When I first came to this site I soon mentioned Paul's interview on UK BBC's Top Of The Pops 2 several years ago, where Paul said that as far as he knew, John went back into the recording studio after he heard Coming Up. Well, Macca also said in that programme that he left the Beatles because he knew John was about to!!!! I am sure I recall Macca saying that. Confuses the complex picture still more!