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

Motterpaul

Tone is in the Ears
Messages
12,458
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...
It's fuzzy, McCartney says it was John who actually quit first, but that he wasn't taken seriously for quite awhile. The others went one like it hadn't happened. It was actually quite a few months later but John, George & Ringo signed up with Allen Klein anyway (in hopes of getting back some of the Apple Money) but Paul refused. Thene Paul said "I guess it really is over" at the point when he refused to sign the Allen Klein contract. It's all in that article. John's reaction was "good, finally everyone has realized I was serious."

Lennon was mad that Paul got to be the first to say he was leaving, he felt he had that right since he started the band, but Paul beat him to it by announcing his solo album.
 

RobBottom69

Member
Messages
354
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.
According to Peter Brown and other sources the meeting where John explodes and quits happened at a 9/20/1969 meeting, a week and a half after this new tape from 9/8. Somewhere between 9/8 and 9/20 Lennon had a change of heart.

From the wiki:

The formation of the Plastic Ono Band was conceived as an artistic outlet for Lennon and Ono, but the enthusiastic reception afforded their performance at the Toronto Rock and Roll Revival on 13 September 1969 ostensibly crystallised Lennon's decision to leave the Beatles, which he made on the flight back to London. During a band meeting at Apple on 20 September, he informed McCartney, Starr and Klein of his decision (Harrison was not present at the meeting), telling them he wanted a "divorce". That same day, the band signed a renegotiated recording contract with Capitol Records, guaranteeing them a higher royalty rate.[47] This was the group's last, transient demonstration of unity,[9] and the sensitivity of the negotiations with Capitol led to Klein and McCartney urging Lennon to keep his announcement private until the release of the Let It Be album and film the following year, which Lennon agreed to do.[47]
 

Juneaumike

Member
Messages
1,050
According to Peter Brown and other sources the meeting where John explodes and quits happened at a 9/20/1969 meeting, a week and a half after this new tape from 9/8. Somewhere between 9/8 and 9/20 Lennon had a change of heart.
Well Lennon also called an emergency board meeting at Apple because he had come to the realization while tripping on acid that he was Jesus Christ. Another time he insisted that Revolution #9 was the future of music. John Lennon was really good at banging out awesome pop songs. He was not so good at pretty much all the other things that make up everyday life. Not the Steady Eddie of the band, IMO.

(also, check your source. I think 9/20 was the release date of Abby Road, right?)
 

2HBStrat

Member
Messages
41,289
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)....
The term "naked" as it pertains to "Let it Be" should not be applied retroactively...the "Naked" label was added to the re/release re/issue of the album...actually should have been an entirely different release since the songs were different. As I recall they wanted to do an album with just the band more or less playing live like they used to do, but...not "naked!"
 

CrispyTone

Member
Messages
692
I still say the harder edged bands with the harder sound would have blown them off the stage, and those bands that I mentioned before wanted to play live in front of thousands of crazed fans and lived that lifestyle with the people going nuts and all the groupies. They wouldn't have been able to keep up with the stuff Zeppelin and Black Sabbath or Deep Purple were were putting out, their English counterparts in the movement of rock to the next generation of sound.
 

tim gueguen

Member
Messages
2,972
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.
Those bands had nothing to do with the Beatles breaking up, and wouldn't have caused the Beatles to break up if they had stayed around longer. Hendrix was a Beatles fan, and it's possible he might have followed the Beatles in becoming primarily a studio act if he'd lived. Certainly more and more of his music was becoming hard to directly interpret live. Deep Purple was only just gaining a foothold in the UK when the Beatles broke up, and were known in North America for their 1968 single "Hush," which was lot more R&B-ish that their later successful hard rock sound. Led Zeppelin's 1970 release was Led Zeppelin III, which introduced a greater acoustic sound to their music. The first Black Sabbath album came out a month before McCartney announced he was leaving the Beatles. And I don't have a clue what "endors(ing) the groupie lifestyle" has to do with anything.
 
Messages
1,515
Those bands had nothing to do with the Beatles breaking up, and wouldn't have caused the Beatles to break up if they had stayed around longer. Hendrix was a Beatles fan, and it's possible he might have followed the Beatles in becoming primarily a studio act if he'd lived. Certainly more and more of his music was becoming hard to directly interpret live. Deep Purple was only just gaining a foothold in the UK when the Beatles broke up, and were known in North America for their 1968 single "Hush," which was lot more R&B-ish that their later successful hard rock sound. Led Zeppelin's 1970 release was Led Zeppelin III, which introduced a greater acoustic sound to their music. The first Black Sabbath album came out a month before McCartney announced he was leaving the Beatles. And I don't have a clue what "endors(ing) the groupie lifestyle" has to do with anything.
Pretty well spot-on. I’d add that Lennon, who always liked Page as a guitar player, wrote “I want you (she’s so heavy)” as a heavy blues with a few brilliant Beatles twists, and Macca and George Martin “smoothed” it a little in the final production; nevertheless it showed what the Beatles could do with a heavier palette.

Thinking about the Beatles influences on popular music styles and genres, and things they pioneered:

“And Your Bird Can Sing” (1966) gave us the Allman’s, Thin Lizzy, the Yardbirds twin guitars, Wishbone Ash, Iron Maiden etc.

“Norwegian Wood” can be regarded as the birth of World Music becoming a significant part of popular culture.

Single songs from the Beatles have created or hugely influenced entire genres of music. (The same can be said for Sabbath, Zep and King Crimson.)

I’ll always love “Exile on Main St”, and think the Stones were more Rock ‘n’ Roll than the Beatles, and had songs that were as important... almost. But the only comparison I can make with the extraordinary creative output of the Beatles is with the great classical composers.

We have just lived through the songwriting equivalent of the Elizabethan age of Drama; and in this scenario the Beatles occupy the place of Shakespeare. (A few centuries later Tolstoy may have regarded Shakespeare as an inferior writer, but I don’t think the rest of us have the platform from which to spout such an opinion.)
 

CrispyTone

Member
Messages
692
What I meant by that was the Beatles stopped touring because of the frenzied fans. That was the era when bands wanted the frenzied cult-like fans to fill arenas, etc. The direction of music was changing and yes the Beatles were important in popular music but they wouldn't have been able to keep up with the intensity of the music that was starting to come out. It would have been like Elvis in Vegas without Elvis's energy.
 

CrispyTone

Member
Messages
692
Led Zeppelin III also had "Celebration Day" "Immigrant Song" and "Out on the Tiles." Led Zeppelin II in 1969 was definitely a change in sound. Everyone can be fans of each other, it doesn't mean they can keep up or change with the times.
 

GerryJ

Member
Messages
4,873
Whichever record had 'Because' on it, I read that the band collectively decided to bring George Martin in again as producer, because they realized it was impossible to work together on their own. This way, a neutral 3rd party (with plenty of talent and experience) called all the shots.
 
Messages
1,515
What I meant by that was the Beatles stopped touring because of the frenzied fans. That was the era when bands wanted the frenzied cult-like fans to fill arenas, etc. The direction of music was changing and yes the Beatles were important in popular music but they wouldn't have been able to keep up with the intensity of the music that was starting to come out. It would have been like Elvis in Vegas without Elvis's energy.
Harrison’s “All Things Must Pass” was released in ‘70. In ’71 Lennon released “Imagine”; the year after the rawness of “Plastic Ono Band”.
Four years after The Beatles quit, Macca still managed to out-bombast all the proto-metal bands with “Live and Let Die”.

If you’re thinking Elvis, think the ‘68 Comeback Special, not the Vegas years. If they needed a virtuoso to add something to go with their songwriting chops, they had lots of chums happy to guest. After all, Eric didn’t turn them down, did he?
 

Gevalt

Member
Messages
1,867
Epstein was crucial to be the scapegoat for discipline.
If they could have replaced their "Old Man Clemens" role with anybody but themselves, they could have been managed by "a common enemy" and continued to bond in that way. If they hadn't been made sick of Paul's leadership from MMT on, perhaps the other three wouldn't have rebelled by refusing Paul's veto on Klein.
If Paul hadn't publicly announced his quitting the group, the others may have kept it private until reconciliation. The other three were shocked and saddened when Paul called their bluff, but Paul was in the dark. Paul was finally out of the loop and it broke his heart. It was because they managed each other, they disintegrated.
 
Last edited:

Dark Matter

Member
Messages
606
Led Zeppelin III also had "Celebration Day" "Immigrant Song" and "Out on the Tiles." Led Zeppelin II in 1969 was definitely a change in sound. Everyone can be fans of each other, it doesn't mean they can keep up or change with the times.
Your argument is so massively overwhelmed by what actually happened that it is hard to know where to begin.
-- Paul McCartney and Wings released 6 consecutive platinum albums between 1973-79 -- arguably the height of Led Zeppelin's power -- one of which was a live album. And unlike Led Zeppelin, McCartney continues to record and tour to this day.
-- John Lennon released "Imagine" in 1971 and "Double Fantasy" in 1980, both of which were multi-platinum. (Granted, the latter no doubt got a sales boost when he was killed).
-- Beginning in the 90s, the Beatles began releasing re-issues, compilations, and studio sessions that have no doubt sold tens or hundreds of millions of copies. Beatles 1 alone has sold upwards of 40 million records worldwide, and according to Forbes magazine still sells 1000 copies per week. It went to #1 in 35 countries in 2000, and was (according to Wikipedia) the biggest selling album of that decade.

So could they have survived Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath? Good lord, they have outlasted them, not to mention Hair Metal, Grunge, Boy Bands, Madonna, Garth Brooks, and pretty much everyone and everything else that has come along since then. Even rap will eventually run its course, and the Beatles will (probably) still be huge.
 
Last edited:

GerryJ

Member
Messages
4,873
"Look, almost half of all marriages- marriages- fail! The fact that a band has members who, after awhile, don't want to spend their lifetime together should come as no surprise."
That's paraphrasing what David Gilmour said to the same inquiry about "why Pink Floyd broke up."

Really, the 'jazz' model - playing with many different people in many different settings over time- is much more normal than the life sentence approach.
Even with mega-success, many can't abide it - the original bassist from the Stones, drummer or bassist from Metallica, etc.
The pop band as blood brothers was a marketing strategy, especially in the 60s with the movies, lunchboxes revenue stream.
 
Last edited:

GenoVox

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
3,162
Even if Epstein were alive at that point, I highly doubt Lennon would've listened to him... not when it came to Yoko (plus the H factor)
 

RichusRkr

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
788
been watching interviews with those close to the band, Klaus Voorman and others, they say that John was on so many acid trips by the mid 60's and was into the mindset from his reading of the Tibetian Book of the Dead that his ego was getting virtually erased. no ego, no drive, no ambition, no organizational skills etc. He was ripe for Yoko, domineering female to come into the picture. Also his creative leadership of the Beatles from Revolver on was decreasing to almost nothing with exception of some amazing musical contributions which, while still great, were coming few and far in between compared to his 63 to 65 output. Paul was basically carrying the band from 66 on. From then on, the Beatles turned into Paul's band with John too checked to care and with George's increasing frustration and dissatisfaction with being Paul's guitarist and Ringo just wanting to be still in a great band doing his thing. Every indication is that Paul wanted the Beatles to continue if possible. If so Paul should have gotten together with George " Hey George, John's checked out, still going for the ride but in neutral, lets put more of your music in the albums and you and I can work on some material and create. We'll put up with Yoko and take John's 2 cents and maybe he'll come out of it and we could be a driving force in music through the 70s. I think John would have just floated along and of course Ringo would have hung in there....
 




Trending Topics

Top