here we go again... what was #1 reason for Beatles Breakup?

drewl

Member
Messages
8,528
Just to muddy the waters, here's an article quoting a noted Beatles expert stating that, after Abbey Road was recorded, Lennon convened a meeting to talk about a Xmas single for 1969 & a new album with 4 songs each from Lennon, McCartney & Harrison plus 2 from Ringo "if he wants them"...

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...ohn-abbey-road-hornsey-road#comment-132987594

Interesting if that is real.

All they needed was a break, take a couple years off and they probably would have worked as a band again.
They almost did even after such a bad break up.


In the end Paul WAS right and went on to become one of the wealthiest musicians ever.
 

Dark Matter

Member
Messages
606
the thread guardians took no time to pounce.... well what in life is not an exercise in futility? (As he works on his golf swing and his sweep picking he asks..)
I will never understand the kind of person who takes the time to type a post telling others that the topic they are discussing isn't worthy of discussion. The irony of doing so -- not to mention just the incivility -- is seemingly lost on them. As I have said before, it's a bit like a guy in the stands at a baseball game telling everyone around him what a waste of time sports are. There are lots of topics here that don't interest me, to which I respond by.......not responding. Others are obviously interested, so that is all that matters.

In addition the the "this is pointless" crowd, there is the "we have already discussed this" crowd. Some of the old-timers love to show us all how over it they are, apparently unaware of the fact that just because THEY are done with a topic, others may still be interested. Confounding.
 

Rockledge

Member
Messages
5,557
Fraud was unnecessarily harsh. Consider this...

It is a matter of history that George Martin is widely regarded as being the 'fifth Beatle'. He was their producer all the way from the first single through to their final album to be recorded, Abbey Road. Few Beatles songs do not list George Martin as producer.

However, there is strong evidence to suppose that Martin was more than just a producer. In fact, he virtually was The Beatles, and the four mop-headed lads from Liverpool had no higher status than the hired hands that fronted the Monkees.

Let's look at the evidence. Firstly, of the very early material that has emerged, before George Martin's involvement, none achieves the status of anything more than energetically performed rock 'n' roll or cutesy ballad. Yet only a couple of years later 'their' writing was masterful.

None of The Beatles had any musical training. However, the quality of the musical arrangements would stand comparison with the musical greats of any century. Take for example I Am The Walrus, credited to Lennon and McCartney but widely acknowledged to be Lennon's work. The introduction - just the introduction mind - has a sequence of eight complex chords that could only be the work of someone who has studied harmony deeply and has the wealth of background and experience to derive such a sequence. And who has that musical knowledge? George Martin of course who studied at the Guildhall School of Music. Martin has publicly proven himself to be a very capable composer.
Now, take the arrangement for Penny Lane, ostensibly one of McCartney's songs. During this short song, the key changes - or modulates - no fewer than seven times. This would be a feat for a highly competent classically trained composer to accomplish (in a movement from a symphony, typically the key modulates once, then modulates back again, that's all). It would be impossible for a 24-year old McCartney to do this seven times in one song. George Martin could do it though - and in fact he has done it incredibly well because at no point does the listener become aware of any musical 'trickery' going on.

My third demonstration is Eleanor Rigby. It is no secret that the string arrangement is the work of George Martin. But the song itself betrays touches of which Schubert would have been proud. And of course Schubert would have been part of Martin's musical education.

The Beatles are widely regarded as studio innovators too. However, George Martin had already built up a significant reputation as a producer of comedy recordings before the advent of The Beatles. There is little in terms of creativity that Martin would not have been capable of, assisted by highly competent Abbey Road engineers.

The final proof is the one complete album that George Martin did not produce - Let It Be. By this time, some of Martin's skills had rubbed off and most of the songs are workmanlike or even quite good (and some are dreadful). But compared to Revolver, Sgt. Pepper or Abbey Road? There's no comparison.

I think it's time that The Beatles, well McCartney at least, come clean and give George Martin the credit he is due as the most successful popular songwriter and composer ever. The 'fifth Beatle'? George Martin was The Beatles!

https://www.audiomasterclass.com/newsletter/george-martin-was-the-beatles
You obviously don't have a clue. The Beatles never claimed to be arrangers and producers, and throughout recording history most artists did not act as their own arrangers and producers. With the exception of guys like Tod Rundgren, few rock era artists did.
Are they all frauds? Are pop singers like Elton John frauds because they used guys like Gus Dudgeon and Paul Buckmaster to produce them?
Rock artists didn't need to all be Brian Wilson or Steven Wilson.

Are the Eagles frauds because Bill Myxptlk and Glynn Johns produced them?
Their albums plainly stated who produced them, and typically with rock era musicians the liner notes included everyone from the guy that took the album cover picture to the studio personnel.

Quite obviously producers and arrangers make or break artists, but that does not make artists frauds. I can't remember rock artists who tried to deceive the public by claiming to be their own producers/arrangers/engineers when they did not do those duties themselves.
George Martin was a very talented producer and arranger. And he did indeed make what the Beatles could do better by his talent being involved. But he didn't write the songs or the music, he didn't play the instruments, and he didn't sing.

The Beatles never claimed to be producers or arrangers, and defrauded nobody. With the exception of Paul McCartney, who obviously has production and arranging skills, which he did not take credit for either in the Beatles, even though it is very likely his input was regarded by Mr Martin.

Get your facts straight so you aren't making absurd assumptions.

And pull out a dictionary and look up the word "fraud".
 
Last edited:

tikiking

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
57
Funny story:

There is an all star band in my town. Several lead singers and great musicians. They have been together for years. The singer for my band is a member but a bit of outsider as he doesn't play in any other other bands with the other musicians. I got called to sub on guitar the other night and on the first break my singer gets in an argument with the other lead singer and the guy packs up his guitar and leaves before the second set starts. We all joke that I broke up the band even though I had nothing to do with their argument.

However... I was thinking later maybe I did. My singer has always been out numbered in that band and maybe him having a real band mate with him changed the band dynamics. Maybe just my presence empowered him to challenge the other guy.

Perhaps John knew that Yoko would always have his back and that empowered John to stand up to the band and Paul, George and Ringo were thinking I don't have to take this crap, I am out of here.
 
Last edited:

beanbass

Member
Messages
1,645
I will never understand the kind of person who takes the time to type a post telling others that the topic they are discussing isn't worthy of discussion. The irony of doing so -- not to mention just the incivility -- is seemingly lost on them. As I have said before, it's a bit like a guy in the stands at a baseball game telling everyone around him what a waste of time sports are. There are lots of topics here that don't interest me, to which I respond by.......not responding. Others are obviously interested, so that is all that matters.

In addition the the "this is pointless" crowd, there is the "we have already discussed this" crowd. Some of the old-timers love to show us all how over it they are, apparently unaware of the fact that just because THEY are done with a topic, others may still be interested. Confounding.
I never tire of talking about the Beatles.
 

GenoVox

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
3,162
Again... McCartney was actually the LAST to leave, after the band had already effectively fallen apart – the only difference is, he was the only one to go PUBLIC with it (again, because he used it to help promote his 1st solo album)

These are the facts, and all 4 Beatles have described the same thing over the years – anything else is just purposely argumentative semantics, honestly...
 

CrispyTone

Member
Messages
692
Bands like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, the Jimi Hendrix Experience, Deep Purple, etc., Harder rock/early metal were coming out and the Beatles couldn't keep up with that with that style of music, and those bands were willing to play live in front of thousands of crazed fans and endorsed the groupie life style.
 

Juneaumike

Member
Messages
1,050
Again... McCartney was actually the LAST to leave, after the band had already effectively fallen apart – the only difference is, he was the only one to go PUBLIC with it (again, because he used it to help promote his 1st solo album)

These are the facts, and all 4 Beatles have described the same thing over the years – anything else is just purposely argumentative semantics, honestly...
The problem with that premise is that these guys were always quitting and throwing temper tantrums and disappearing. So until someone actually nails their resignation letter to the outside of the studio door, it doesn't really count. McCartney's leaving didn't signal the end of the group, but his public statement set the dominoes in motion.
 

Vishnu

Member
Messages
7,324
You know, no matter how awful art is it will travel full circle and eventually be accepted and understood but not Ono,she is destined to be cr*p for eternity,unique in it's own way i suppose,props

and yes it was definitely George's love of eastern religion that broke the Beatles up
 

GenoVox

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
3,162
The problem with that premise is that these guys were always quitting and throwing temper tantrums and disappearing. So until someone actually nails their resignation letter to the outside of the studio door, it doesn't really count.
I'm just going by what the band members themselves have said.... but hey, what do they know :rolleyes:
 

Juneaumike

Member
Messages
1,050
I'm just going by what the band members themselves have said.... but hey, what do they know :rolleyes:
Well, that is a very good point; what do they know? Not much when you get right down to it. There are times when the best thing you can do to arrive at the truth is to ignore what people say and instead watch what they do.

But if we are to take them at their word, then shouldn't we give Mark Lewinshon's new tape recording of a Beatles meeting held in September 1969 some weight as well. Remember, this is the month that their last album Abby Road has been released. (Let It Be came out later, but was recorded earlier and by all accounts Abby Road was a really happy experience for all involved.)

In the tape, which they made so that Ringo could hear the meeting while he was in the hospital, they are discussing getting together for another album and releasing a single. And they are planning on giving George an equal number of songs as the other two principal songwriters. In short, everyone is still in the band and planning the next project precisely at the same time as Beatles watchers have said the band should have been in the process of formally dissolving.
 
Last edited:

Motterpaul

Tone is in the Ears
Messages
12,458
The Beatles broke up because George Martin was no longer in the picture and the Beatles were afraid their fraud would be exposed if they tried to arrange and produce their own music.
I'm not sure anyone has mentioned that Let It Be, the next to last album, was NOT done by George Martin at all, First it was recorded "naked" but when the Beatles didn't really like it they got Phil Spector to do some orchestration (Long & Winding Road, for example).

Then, GM agreed to produce their final album, Abbey Road, and only to do it because they said they wanted to do "like we used to do it with you before." I admire GM greatly, but he would be the first to say they were amazing songwriters, and he mostly just produced & arranged the orchestration, but he did not tell them what to do musically.
 




Trending Topics

Top