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

Discussion in 'The Sound Hound Lounge' started by RichusRkr, Sep 9, 2019.

  1. leftygeetar

    leftygeetar Member

    Messages:
    941
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2017
    For me it's "The death of Brian Epstien in 67", they tried to continue but it was going down.
     
  2. Abram4235

    Abram4235 Supporting Member

    Messages:
    4,169
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2015
    Location:
    Maine
    WTF
     
  3. Motterpaul

    Motterpaul Tone is in the Ears

    Messages:
    11,674
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Location:
    Encinitas, SoCal
    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.
     
  4. Motterpaul

    Motterpaul Tone is in the Ears

    Messages:
    11,674
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Location:
    Encinitas, SoCal
    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.
     
    Gevalt and GenoVox like this.
  5. RobBottom69

    RobBottom69 Member

    Messages:
    232
    Joined:
    May 1, 2018
    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]
     
    RichusRkr and Gevalt like this.
  6. Juneaumike

    Juneaumike Member

    Messages:
    805
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2019
    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?)
     
    Gevalt likes this.
  7. billyguitar

    billyguitar Member

    Messages:
    4,728
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Location:
    Kansas City
    I don't think it can be pinned on any one issue in particular. Many issues coincided to bring it all down.
     
  8. 2HBStrat

    2HBStrat Member

    Messages:
    41,217
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Location:
    East of the Rockies...
    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!"
     
  9. grritz

    grritz Supporting Member

    Messages:
    124
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2014
    Location:
    Rock Hill, SC
  10. CrispyTone

    CrispyTone Member

    Messages:
    484
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    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.
     
  11. 313ryans

    313ryans Member

    Messages:
    58
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2018
    Location:
    Detroit
    Please everyone, if they haven't done everything they could have done, they tried.
     
  12. tim gueguen

    tim gueguen Member

    Messages:
    2,808
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Location:
    Saskatoon, SK.
    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.
     
  13. Johnny Ninefingers

    Johnny Ninefingers Member

    Messages:
    1,037
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2016
    Location:
    London
    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.)
     
    Thumpalumpacus and Mr. Crow like this.
  14. CrispyTone

    CrispyTone Member

    Messages:
    484
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    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.
     
  15. CrispyTone

    CrispyTone Member

    Messages:
    484
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    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.
     
  16. GerryJ

    GerryJ Member

    Messages:
    4,577
    Joined:
    May 27, 2002
    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.
     
  17. Johnny Ninefingers

    Johnny Ninefingers Member

    Messages:
    1,037
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2016
    Location:
    London
    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?
     
    Dark Matter likes this.
  18. Gevalt

    Gevalt Member

    Messages:
    1,354
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    Location:
    Canada
    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: Sep 20, 2019 at 1:45 AM
    RichusRkr likes this.
  19. Dark Matter

    Dark Matter Member

    Messages:
    521
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2017
    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: Sep 13, 2019
    DTuned likes this.
  20. GerryJ

    GerryJ Member

    Messages:
    4,577
    Joined:
    May 27, 2002
    "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: Sep 13, 2019

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice