10 Reasons The Beatles Broke Up PART ONE |
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 лис 2022
- The age-old question as to why The Beatles broke up is explored here in the first of three videos that discusses 10 main reasons. Make sure to watch all three and fill out the survey at the end of part three.
SUPPORT Pop Goes the 60s on PATREON: rb.gy/nhcy3
As much as I would have loved for the Beatles to not break-up, another part of me is happy that they did when they did. Left behind basically the most perfect discography in the history of mankind, no big blemishes. Nothing even just "okay", it's all at least great!
They would have continued making great albums together for at least another 10 years.
Butterfly effect. Maybe John would have lived if they'd stayed together for one more album. Not that it matters. I just like thinking about the what ifs because the reality sucks.
I am a big fan of The Beatles but I can’t agree that there was “nothing even just okay”. There is a reason that Revolution 9 is never heard on the radio. It is bad. Songs like Flying, Dig It, and Everybody’s Trying to Be My Baby are mediocre at best. I don’t think I have ever heard any of those played on the radio.
The Beatles had a bunch of great songs that are played on the radio on a regular basis. Because we hear those and not their occasional clunkers, I think it tends to warp our perspective a bit. They still top my list of favorite bands.
@@MinionofNobody I was speaking generally album to album. Compared to other bands their lesser songs are still leagues ahead imo
Hey, Everybody'e Trying To Be My Baby's great! Not that they wrote it, but it's still great. I haven't listened to the radio in years, but back in the early 2000s I definitely heard it on the radio. It wasn't a single and things that aren't singles (either UK or US) rarely get played, but there are a few breakthroughs and Everybody's Trying to Be My Baby was actually one of them!
In my head I've boiled it down to one very general thing: they inevitably lost their unity of purpose. The question is when it began, and the stages of it, I think, were maybe the post-Revolver break, the MMT period, and for sure after India. A band went to India, four guys came back. From there, gradually but inevitably. George was actively looking for other people to hang out with, John was building a new identity, Ringo was toying with acting, Paul was expanding into the void and trying to hold center, crowding the others in the process.
I think I am going to say basically same but here goes: 1. John was looking for what he was missing. He wanted to record in LA, NY, Paris... Beatles were stuck in London. And having found Yoko to do World Peace projects with, the group thing was just more of the same over and over. 2. Paul was concerned already about the Beatles 'legacy' - the need to keep writing, recording, putting out product. He came in to Let It Be with good songs and worked hardest to write more while filming. 3. George knew he was good but would never be John/Paul's equal within the group. I feel that was part of his hesitancy to do his songs live on the roof. He felt they needed studio overdubs. 4. Ringo never was going to create two songs per Beatles' album. I think acting was a fall back for when the band did split. We have four individuals with four visions. They could not be the mop-tops anymore.
@@peterlange4397 thanks Pete🌄
Well said. No doubt Brian Epstein gave them some of that. That probably wouldn't have lasted all that long, but still longer. Once Brian was gone, not only didn't they have him, but someone else had to take on a leadership role.
The band actually started splitting slowly than anyone here talks , started with Epstein , then India , then Apple , White album , then you have 1969 , Paul was bossing , because in the words of George Martin , they couldn't work . Watch again the original Let it be , not Jackson new happy version. Also , bit strange how this analyze goes. First from Epstein's death straight to Lennon's personal interest , then again back to 66. Kinda confusing. Not because I'm some hard core Macca fan , but he tried to keep the band more as he can . Remember or you might never know that John actually by telling I wanna divorce , Paul accepted , but the worst thing that John did is that he didn't show up on the day of Abbey road release , instead he went to Toronto on that silly gig with Clapton etc...hm. Good attempt. Without Epstein then did The White album , Abbey road , Let it be ...so there's a million different stuff beside Brian's death...
The reason that came across to me from the "Get Back" documentary was a sense of "Where can we take this? What can we do as Beatles that we haven't already done?" Business matters didn't help either.
Great series. The problem with Paul is like Lindsey Buckingham in Fleetwood Mac…you have a vision in your head of a song and will do whatever it takes to get it…even if it means playing the parts himself. A musical genius who was a beast at times in the studio due to his musical and songwriting prowess!
One point that struck me after first getting Mark Lewisohn's The Complete Beatles Recording Session book concerns the immense pressure that the commitments the Beatles had made to their recording contracts. They had to provide x number of singles and y number of albums over an incredibly short number of months (I don't remember the exact number). What that caused was the requirement to be in the studio day after day for weeks at a time in order to come up with the deliverables to satisfy the contracts. I've been in jobs that demanded working twelve to fourteen hours at a time, and it took everything out of me and my family life. The Beatles frequently had sessions extending to the wee hours of the morning, sometimes as late as 6:00 AM. That has to wear anyone down. I've often thought that a decision by all four in late 1969 to just take a year off rather than dissolve the financial obligations of the band would have done wonders to heal the frayed relationships caused by all the pressure to produce great music to an impossible schedule.
This reminds me of Paul's story about being out with Linda very early in their relationship and he was so exhausted that he didn't feel he could continue the outing. He turned to her and told her so. She responds, "It's allowed." He was so used to being under pressure and catering to other people's needs that this really struck him. It had never occurred to him that he was allowed to say no. He credits her with helping him to put less pressure on himself.
Aside from the pressure, the personal relationships and dynamics within the group were also shifting. In addition as mentioned in the video, business and money were also a big part of their dissolution. A year off may have simply eased some tensions, but I think the breakup was inevitable as the different dynamics stood at the time. Even if they would have gotten back together temporarily, would George be willing to deal with "studio Paul" again for example.
After watching Get Back I realized that George was a big part of the break up. He was upset and mad... and in the film Yoko was edited to look better than she was (as noted from some of the material which was selectively left out). She was still partially to blame but perhaps not as much as history had blamed on her
@@terrythekittieful The world would not have changed much if Maxwell had been left off of Abbey Road. It would have been a nice gesture to allow George a third track.
I always thought the Beatles broke up Yoko
I could not undertand your comment. First you said in the film yoko was edited to look better. (I don't think that was the reason as they left her screaming terribly and that alone showed how terrible she was). But in fact some awful moments were not included and they could not as Yoko was one of the producers. At the end you said "perhaps not as much as history had to blamed her"...How come? You know it was edited!
George's incessant whining about his material not being used .?
He wrote a handful of good songs
but as was later proved he was not
as good as Lennon / McCartney.
Billy was tellin the world who was behind paul's car crash@@keithdf2001
Some of the best discussion I have heard on this subject. They trusted Brian, when he died, they were wide open to be exploited. There whole company was top loaded with people they had brought from Liverpool. In a way, it is always the way that people from the "sticks" handle things, they trust people who they have always known, and not those sharpies in town.
Thank you, David - parts 2 & 3 coming soon!
Matt, you are one of very few people I would trust to tackle this subject in a nonjudgmental way with tact and thoughtfulness. Looking forward to the next videos…
Thank you, Cameron. Part 2 will be up in a few days.
Watching Paul, George & Ringo in Get Back shows how much they detested being around Yoko everyday. It was John's final nail in their amical working relationship & (imo) very intentional.
Paul says after he saw Get Back he started to no longer believe that he was "bossy", there is a lot of debate over how much he was bossy and how much he was simply trying to get them to work as he had a bigger worth ethic
Bingo! The disastrous 1966 Tour facilitated Brian's role with the Beatles becoming diminished. His death enabled an already pissed off Dick James the opportunity to stick it to Lennon & McCartney when there publishing went public. James selling of his publishing couple with the Beatles loss of control over their publishing rights, was the bands last straw. The preverbal Iceberg had been struck and the Good Ship Beatles was foundering. Never to recover. Spot on Matt. Cheers, RNB
I think the problem was they had two alphas, and one emerging alpha. Most bands don't have that. Even groups with two leads like the Beach Boys didn't have two prolific song writers as well
You give a lot of good and valid reasons here. I would add that while McCartney began to become rather overbearing in the studio, a factor that played into that was that Lennon had kind of stepped back from his role as the de facto leader. McCartney probably felt he was filling a bit of the void there. Of course, he went about it in the wrong way, as you note. And I'd also say that he still felt a little overshadowed by the force of Lennon's personality. You could kind of see him deferring any time Lennon was expressing an opinion in Get Back. Looking forward to the rest of this series. Great work!
Thank you for the comments, Cary - more to come.
Most bands break up and nobody cares. The Beatles broke up and it was the shock heard around the world. It had to have been crushing to so many fans back in 1970. It wasn’t an amicable split either. Things got really ugly and even years later, those scars remain.
I think before he was murdered that John was beginning to mellow a little and he started to look back on his past with justifiable pride. Had he lived I also believe he would have participated in an “Anthology” like documentary.
George was the one Beatle who seemed the least happy about his past although there were moments when he let his guard down. You can see it during the “Anthology” especially the earlier episodes and in the “Material World” documentary. From what I have heard, he and Paul parted on very good terms. I hope that’s true.
Paul in recent years has been revising history and it comes across to me like he’s trying to one-up John. I don’t like that. He’s also said things in a negative way about John when someone points out a genuine compliment from John: “I wish he would have told me that while he was alive”. But Paul was also the one trying to keep the band together and we definitely see that in “Get Back”
I think Ringo was just fed up with the BS. I don’t think Ringo wanted the band to split, but grew tired of all of the drama.
Although there were many indicators, I think the foremost reason for the dissolution of the group was their maturing. John finally found love which gave him a fresh focus. George was revitalized by finding a spiritual path to explore. Paul pushed to gain control of the direction of the band and Ringo was fairly neutral but exploring work as an actor. However, the four young men created music in six years that others couldn't do in a lifetime.
LOL when the Beatles broke up, I was I think 5 years old but my sister was 7 years older (13ish). My mother FORBADE her from discussing the Beatles breaking up around me because they were cartoon characters to me from TV. I learned that they broke up when Danny Partridge mentioned it on the Partridge Family a year or two later. When I finally knew, my sister blew up, telling me how happy she was to finally have the gag order lifted and how much she resented me LOL! She was not amused.
I forgot about the cartoon show they had.
I love how Paul characterizes it in retrospect. He said the Beatles we a lot like being in the army. Eventually you have to grow up, and go on with your life. George Martin said that the beautiful thing about them was that they were of their time. John said that there was not much more they could have done with it.
Absolutely, dead on. They were of their time and basically encapsulated the highs and lows of the 60s itself. Somehow it seems wholly appropriate that they ended with that decade.
well, I hate it. For me that was a total disrespect to us. .The Beatles and the Army. What? Nobody goes to Army because they want to. Were they forced to be together playing songs? That was their job for God's sake. Nobody needs to change jobs because they grow. What a lie. And yet George and Ringo said the same thing. I tend to think they decided it together to fool us. To my surprise some people really believed!
I remember a few years ago I was talking to my older son about some aspect of the Beatles' history. My younger son, then about 7 or 8 years old, said, "The Beatles broke up?" This was sometime in the 20-teens.
I guess in many ways, they never broke up because we keep them alive in all these inspiring ways. Thanks Anthony!
I was in the US in the late 70s. Americans were saying the Beatles were passé. More than 40 years later, they are still loved and continue to make news.
@@mikeymutual5489 You are not very smart. I was talking about Americans I knew. Even in the 60s, not all Americans were crazy about the Beatles.
Find and read the thread "Tell me more about the Beatles popularity in the 1970s". Some do say their popularity was waning in the (late) 70s.
@@mikeymutual5489 You really aren't very smart. I'm not talking about the solo artists. I'm talking about the Beatles of the 60s. Their populariy did wane in the late 70s.
Matt, not only do I think that the loss of Brian Epstein was the major cause of the break up of The Beatles, but the break up illustrates that without Brian Epstein they would not have been the Beatles, as we know them, in the first place. In the early years of the band, none of the members had the sophistication to guide the group to what they would eventually become.
The greatness of their music would never have come into fruition without Brian Epstein at the helm of their business dealings. After Brian’s death the group ran aground. I don’t think there existed another contemporary management team that could have propelled them to comparable fame in the similar way to how the events occurred. Without Brian Epstein, they would have remained a regional act with (possibly) a few breakthrough hits that we may (or may not have) heard in the states. It requires more than the raw talent and potential for greatness that Brian Epstein saw in them to create The Beatles.
You can say Paul was a factor in the breakup and people will instantly say “ but he helped keep em together “
But no one can understate the crater left by the meteor of Brian’s death. The dismissive tone in Lennon & Harrison’s post Beatle interviews would have broken Eppy’s heart and for fans to see the Macca / Harrison bickering in the Let It Be film , would be an anathema to Brian. R.I.P. sweet , beautiful soul.
I didn't see any bickering between Maca/ Harrison in the Let it be film. That was something that possibly happened since the early days that Brian Epstein saw several times. Not serious at all. It happens with all bands while recording. It is natural.
Yeah Ringo has said that even though Paul can be annoying when he was bossy, they needed a personality like that, otherwise they wouldn't get any work done. They would just be sitting in the garden all day and Paul's the one to call them up to go to work. Paul's like that responsible classmate who begs everyone to work on the group project while everyone is playing Call of Duty.
You make many good points about the breakup especially that it started with the end of touring and Brian’s death. But 1967 was one of their most glorious years despite the failure in the UK of MMT TV show. I don’t think that affected the fans at all. It wasn’t even shown in the US. I think main stream Brits were perplexed by it but we fans didn’t care. Their albums became better and better. Hey Jude in 1968 is their best selling record ever. Here’s my theory for whatever it’s worth. I realized this watching the Get Back series. The Beatles always had a small, exclusive circle of people around them that they trusted implicitly. John let Yoko into the circle, and according to Yoko, she was not interested in the Beatles. She was the first person let into the circle who did not love the Beatles as a group. Allen Klein was next, and he came on to John and Yoko first. Until John brought Yoko into the circle the Beatles said that every decision had to be unanimous between the four of them. When three of the Beatles went with Klein as manager, they broke the Beatles code of unanimity. And that broke up The Beatles. Paul says that John broke up the Beatles when he said he wanted a divorce in September 1969. Paul had to sue his band mates to dissolve their union in court or they would have lost everything, he claims. Later, John admitted that Paul was right about Klein. I remember reading about the Beatles break up in the newspaper on April 10, 1970 based on that questionnaire included in the mccartney album. By then, The Beatles had grown up and apart. It happens.
Excellent points Cynthia. I touch upon these facts in my next two parts: that Ono and Klein did not love the Beatles like Epstein or any of us fans did. They didn't put the group first.
Tremendous points, Cynthia.
Back in the 70s I practically idolised John Lennon but as I matured I realised that he was a deeply disturbed personality and, in my view, it was John's jealousy of Paul's almost unbelievable artistic ascent as a creative force which led to Lennon withdrawing his commitment to the band's purpose.
Look at the Get Back film and see Paul bringing in a series of fantastic songs - many of which the Beatles passed over! - while the only substantial tune which John brought to the sessions was a vague idea of Don't Let Me Down which went nowhere for days until Paul took command and guided it into the masterpiece that eventually emerged.
Why did the Beatles break up?
John couldn't handle not being the leader!
Certainly, they were maturing and growing apart already by late 1968, but in my mind, I keep going back to the business end of the partnership, and publishing in particular. Matt, I was pleasantly surprised during your interview with Felix Cavaliere when he mentioned that he negotiated the publishing rights with his first big recording contract. I can't think of any other bands that did this in the 60s, and to say it was an astute business move would be an understatement. An independent group called The Consortium had a 14 percent share of Northern Songs, and that's who MacLen wanted to buy out for an attempted controlling share after Dick James revealed that he sold his 30 percent during that contentious early April '69 meeting. It was the next meeting where things really fell apart. This was when John found out that Paul had been secretly buying shares of Northern Songs, and thus their partnership wasn't as equal as believed. According to firsthand reports of this meeting, John went into a tirade and raised his fists at Paul. How they managed to finish Abbey Road after this is beyond my comprehension. Hope I didn't spoil any of part 2 for you!
You've read Peter Doggett's book, You Never Give Me Your Money! Yes, I was in a state of mild disbelief when I read that McCartney had been buying those shares secretly. What an asinine thing to do.
If only Paul had gone to John and told him, instead of going behind his back. He should've said, "I'm going to buy more shares and I think you should too." If they had both had more shares it would've been easier to get controlling interest and stop the ATV deal. By the time this was pursued it was too late and they didn't have enough. Buying the shares was smart, not including John was selfish and short-sighted. If after telling him, John had still not bought the shares, then that would've been on him. He couldn't then accuse Paul of going behind his back. But as it was, John saw their songs as his babies and themselves as equal partners and parents. That Paul couldn't understand why John felt so betrayed is telling.
@@Kieop , perfectly said.
Matt thank you for another superb presentation. I think I speak for alot of us Baby Bommer/60s folk, you bring us all back to those great times and you are the BEST show on youtube!!
Thank you, Matthew - this is very kind of you. More to come!
The Beatles had a golden rule that all four had to agree on something before it could go ahead. The only time they broke the rule was when John, George & Ringo went with Klein and Paul chose Lee Eastman. If all four would have backed off and agreed to go with another party I'm convinced the Beatles wouldn't have split in 1970....
I’ve often wondered if they had just taken a break in 70, and waited a couple of years they might have realized that they could have gone back out to live playing with the changes that happened in live music. They might have even pulled off Pepper live with a couple of additional backup musicians
Guessing time for the next 6 reasons you came up with.
5) Alan Klein (pretty confident on this one)
6) George writing music (I generally consider this the number 1 reason)
7) Outside interests (the give peace a chance campaign, Ringo and movies, etc)
8) Different work ethics
9) Balancing band vs family time (Nice way of saying Linda and Yoko)
10) Phil Spector and the overdubs in Let it Be
And Paul wanting to release "McCartney" the same week as "Let It Be" didn't help.
George writing songs was an important factor
@@frugalseverin2282 In my opinion I'd always thought that Paul was determined to release McCartney as an answer to John releasing Instant Karma, which was the final overriding nail in the coffin for Paul as to confirm that John had really left the band.
One of the aspects of The Beatles that actually you outlined was the fact that Paul was more for stimulants (coke) when the other three were more into psychedelics. I hadn't even heard of that (and perhaps it was carefully omitted from what biographies I had read... especially the Anthology) but I think it plays into the "Paul broke up the Beatles" narrative... though I wouldn't say as much myself.
Really, it was a case of Paul was much more manic and full of energy than the other guys and it really was just that difference of personality and lifestyle (Paul staying in London while the others went into the suburbs) that drove a wedge between him and the others. I think of Pepper as a McCartney solo album (if not for four of John Lennon's best songs ever and I personally chuck "She's Leaving Home" for "Only A Northern Song" in my private discography because more Harrison please), Magical Mystery Tour was spearheaded by him, he had a lot of self-indulgent moments on The White Album (so did Lennon, but I imagine the negotiation between the two was something like "well, you got 'Why Don't We Do It In The Road!'"), and it was Paul that threw out the idea of Get Back a month and a half after they were done with the White Album. He was just too manic and full of ideas and because of that, pushing the others ahead. Lennon did come up to bat magnificently as an answer to Macca (see Pepper) most of the time, but he was nothing if not sick of it by 1970. George even more so.
I think Ringo summed it up well (IIRC on "Living In The Material World") as having a moment over at John's house when the phone rang and both groaned, thinking it was Macca: "Oh no, he wants us to work!"
Which Beatle didn't play on their last ever recording session - John! Which Beatle has shown more than a touch of business sense todate- Paul! What did the fans think of the MMT film on Boxing Day '67 in the UK - superb, but the press didn't! Group business didn't bring them down, they all have been very wealthy from their early twenties onwards.They just grew naturally apart as their lives changed.
Some interesting observations and comparisons of John Lennon and Paul McCartney:
John and Paul met at a church fete on 7/6/1957, where John is performing live with his band The Quarrymen. They are later introduced and John invites Paul to join his band. Paul accepts the offer. John and Paul are almost inseparable from this point as collaborators.
John had lost his mother as a teen in a tragic car accident.
Paul had lost his mother as a teen in a tragic battle with breast cancer.
John had a very turbulent family life growing up.
Paul had a very secure family life growing up.
John’s mother Julia supported her son’s musical pursuits.
Paul’s father Jim supported his son’s musical pursuits.
John mainly played guitar, piano and some harmonica on the side while with The Beatles.
Paul mainly played bass, piano, guitar and some drums on the side while with The Beatles.
John is usually thought of as the loud rocker in the band, but can write and sing soft ballads as well.
Paul is usually thought of as the soft balladeer in the band, but can write and sing loud rockers as well.
John is an outstanding lead vocalist and gifted songwriter.
Paul is an outstanding lead vocalist and gifted songwriter.
John and Paul mostly collaborate on songs together during the beginning of The Beatles timeline.
John is the assumed leader in The Beatles from 1960 to around late ‘66, by gradually losing interest in the role. John’s songs dominate the single releases for the band during this period. This period is called ‘The Touring Years’.
Paul gradually assumes the leadership role of The Beatles from ‘67 to early 1970, by his interest in saving the band. Paul’s songs dominate the single releases for the band during this period. This period is called ‘The Studio Years’.
John was married to Cynthia, they had one child together, Julian. John lived a quiet suburban lifestyle outside of London.
Paul lived a very active single bachelor lifestyle in the center of busy and noisy London. He was involved in many avant-garde pursuits and activities, like film making, seeing plays and visiting art galleries.
John divorces wife Cynthia and marries an American divorcée, Yoko, who has one child, daughter Kyoko from a prior marriage.
After marrying Yoko, John leaves the quiet suburban lifestyle and lives in London, getting involved in the avant-garde scene, making films, writing plays and getting involved with art galleries.
Paul’s engagement to Jane Asher ends and he marries an American divorcée, Linda, who has one child, daughter Heather from a prior marriage.
Jane had caught Paul cheating on her.
Cynthia had caught John cheating on her.
Paul and John rarely collaborate on songs together near the end of The Beatles’ timeline.
Paul says John ended The Beatles by making a private announcement, within the group, with the famous “I want a divorce” statement.
John says Paul ended The Beatles by making a public announcement, outside the group, with the press insert in his solo McCartney album.
Of all The Beatles, John was the one who most wanted to end the group.
Of all The Beatles, Paul was the one who most wanted to keep the group going.
John will eventually start performing with his wife Yoko, in his new band called The Plastic Ono Band.
Paul will eventually start performing with his wife Linda, in his new band called Wings.
The press and many fans say Yoko can’t really sing, and she and John receive much criticism.
The press and many fans say Linda can’t really sing, and she and Paul receive much criticism.
John doesn’t care what the fans and press say about Yoko, she is his new partner and collaborator.
Paul doesn’t care what the fans and press say about Linda, she is his new partner and collaborator.
Some pop and rock music critics say much of John’s solo work is a bit too heavy and harsh and hard to listen to.
Some pop and rock music critics say much of Paul’s solo work is too light and soft and hard to listen to.
Paul and Linda eventually leave the bustling city life of London and live on a farm in the quiet Scottish countryside. Paul helps with rearing of their daughter Mary, and his step-daughter Heather.
John and Yoko eventually move to the bustling city life of New York City, where John decides to step away from his recording career and become a house-husband helping to raise their son, Sean. John also wants eagerly to find the whereabouts of his step-daughter Kyoko.
Paul takes swipes at John in the lyrics of his solo work.
John takes swipes at Paul in the lyrics of his solo work.
Paul says he never really stopped loving John after the breakup, but was simply angry at John’s actions.
John says he never really stopped loving Paul after the breakup, but was simply angry at Paul’s actions.
Paul shows up at John’s home in New York City on 4/24/1976 and they watch Saturday Night Live on television…the show makes an offer for The Beatles to perform live, for $3000 as a joke. John and Paul toy with the idea of going to the SNL studio to perform live together. They eventually decide not to go and turn down the ‘offer’… they wind up not doing the performance, but their friendship is rekindled and some forgiveness is given on both sides.
Paul’s astrological sign is Gemini, an air sign, characterized by one set of two Twins.
John’s astrological sign is Libra, an air sign, characterized by one balance scale of two Bowls.
Amazing that these two individuals met each other when they did, created what they created, and climbed to the highest peak of their profession, only to walk away from the biggest band in show business, to recreate another life for themselves, separately, with a big focus on their families. They both thrived while working within a partnership. When their wives became their main working partners, they no longer needed to rely on each other as collaborators. This was one major reason why The Beatles ended. They simply had gotten older, had matured and wanted to work together with their wives as partners in music and other artistic pursuits.
Lots of good comparisons here, R Adams. Thank you for taking the time to list them!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Thanks. I really enjoyed watching all three of your ‘Why Did The Beatles Break Up’ videos. I agree there are many reasons it happened. Some major, some minor. They were an incredible band, and the pressure to be constantly outdoing themselves had to be intense. They were brilliant, and yet, still human. I like to think they all still loved each other as brothers even though they couldn’t work together as a unit. Like any ‘family’, there are some good times and some not-so-good times. I’m thankful we had them together as long as we did.
I've been listening to Badfinger this last couple of weeks and when you talk about bad businessmen you have to feel for this band and in particular Pete Ham and Tom Evans with how Apple treated them
It was their sociopathic manager, Stan Polley, that screwed them over, not Apple. I believe the story goes that George told them to wait on signing anything, but they trusted their crooked manager……that’s my understanding of it, anyway….
Perhaps but you might also want to remember that James Taylor also started with Apple and one only has to look at what an amazing career he's had since thanks to The Beatles and Apple.
@@nigelmurphy6761 JT had to fight Klein and Apple to get out of the label and sign with Warner Bros. because Peter Asher left Apple and Taylor wanted Asher to produce his albums. I also once read that Crosby, Stills, and Nash wanted to sign with Apple, but thank God they stayed on Atlantic (which had been Stephen Stills' former band, Buffalo Springfield's label), or else they would have not been as successful as they became because Apple's finances were messy at best.
@@terrythekittieful Do you know Stan Poley personally? You were disturbed when I was critical of Yoko Ono and then I find you disparaging my good friend, Stan? Have you no shame, sir?
@@terrythekittieful Good answer, Terry. You should likewise have no problem accepting my dislike for Yoko Ono for her well-documented damage to John Lennon and the Beatles. I’m glad we were able to clear all of this up.
No matter what happened ( everybody has their own idea) the magic of the Beatles wouldn't have been as big if they have stayed together IMO. We definitely wouldn't have all these "What ifs" going around to add to the magic.
I still contend that the Beatles broke up many years before 1970 as most songs had minimal collaboration. The common factor was George Martin, albeit an important component. I look at their solo material in 1970 and beyond, and I'm able to create solid "Beatles" albums by taking the best songs from each solo album. Essentially what was happening when they were called the Beatles. I don't see a drop-off in quality when compiling a 1970 Beatles album that contains songs like, "Maybe I'm Amazed", "My Sweet Lord" and "Instant Karma", just to name a few.
Got up early today, grabbed my coffee, and watched Part 1 and Part 2!! Loved them Matt! You really did an outstanding job researching and putting this together! Loved the VERY rare photos too! You're the man! Cheers Matt Street
Thank you, Sir!
I can't possibly react with the gumption of those comments below me. Everyone has a great point. It just amazes me that after 50 years, all of these views are valid, and it's hard to believe that thru the 50 years that the Beatles can still provoke heart-felt responses. I think this is an excellent start to a much loved band history. Your research and job doing this is tremendous!
Thank you, Michael - plenty more to come!
Can't wait.....bring more and more good stuff our way!
I remember when you had mentioned that some artists just break up because of lack of commercial success and they just call it a day. At the time of their break up the Beatles were not just the biggest band in the world, they were the top selling artist… and remained so almost until 1973. Go on UA-cam and look for several video showing the top selling artist of all time 1969/2019 and from the fourth quarter 1969 to almost the middle of the 70s the Beatles were the top selling artist by far, in fact they were selling at 3 times as many as the number two artist, Elvis.
Basically everything lined up for them to just disband. That's life unfortunately - sometimes it just happens in a certain way and it feels like that's the only way forward.
Loved the episode! Just going to try to add one "reason". It interacts with the lack of touring and is somewhat related to the "Paul bossiness" but I think distinct.
Purely on the artistic side, the lack of touring interacted with their increasingly difficult and laborious recording sessions. If you were to plot hours spent in the studio per song over time, I'm sure it is a steep curve around 66-67. Here is are some quick facts (using Wiki; not ideal source): Rubber Soul recorded over 1 month; Revolver over 2 months; Pepper over 4.5 month (Help! was recored over spread out sessions; but adding up time in studio I bet more similar to Rubber Soul). The lack of touring perhaps drove this as they felt they could afford it, but also perhaps their own artistic aspirations in the studio; the freedom George Martin and EMI gave them, and eventually Apple records.
The grind in a studio and the conflicts it generates affects all bands (Pink Floyd?), but it was relatively new at the time to spend so so so much time in that mode, with nothing else to decompress as artists (e.g. concerts). I think that would be a major factor of tensions even if Paul had only been a normal level of bossy or workaholic. Basically because of the kind of music they set out to do after Revolver, and because of their success with the polished albums Revolver and Sergeant Pepper the Beatles painted themselves into a corner of doing perfectly produced records with countless overdubs. This comes with a level of work load in the studio that was just not healthy for them. Recognizing this, they tried to take a break from this mode of operation with Get Back, but that had its own problems, as you have explained before.
For sure Paul's business may be part of the explanation for "time spent in studio" (there are notable examples of songs Maxwell's Silver Hammer) but I am not sure it is the only one. So I think this is a distinct point to emphasize.
The counterfactual is this one: If the Beatles (or EMI or George Martin) had maintained committed to a regimen where they rehearsed songs and coming into the studio and recording them in, say, at most 10 takes, plus a few overdubs over a period of a month per record, this would have made the enterprise more bearable.
Paul by nature is a people-pleaser but yes he's also a workaholic. John and the others used to not answer the phone when they suspect it was Paul calling wanting to make another record. He was also the best all-around musician of the group, he knew how to get the sound in his head down on tape and could be demanding or want to do the work himself.
Thanks Ivan! They clearly spent more time in the studio with each successive album from 1965-1968. One thing about Maxwell, is that it is not even in the top 20 of "most takes" for a song. The most in that top 20 belong to George (#1 with Not Guilty, which wasn't even released) and John. More to come!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Exactly, that was my point, that their time in the studio went up a lot and not all on account of Paul. I do remember you excellent episode making the point about George, his songs getting multiple takes and attempts from the band, him being the one saying no, all going against his narrative of him being ignored.
Honestly, I was hedging a bit against getting the reply "More time in studio was just because of Paul's bossiness." I don't believe it was a big factor. In fact, one could make the opposite point, that Paul might in many occasions helped things get finished, shortening the process; if not in hours worked, in weeks spent on a project. But in any case, my point is that for one reason or another their records became a huge ordeal to make, which wasn't the case before. It's really one of the other big differences from the early Beatles that I think contributed.
9:14 when I was growing up the Beatles seemed like old adults. Now I look back they seem like kids. Kids are born to fight each other. With everything dumped in their laps, women, money, fame, managers, publicists it's a miracle they lasted as long as they did. Impossible these days. Dave Chappelle on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast and YT said something to effect. 'Big famous talented musicians that everyone knew around the world like Elvis, Michael Jackson, The Beatles could never happen again.' Ya never know, maybe legacy and social big tech controller media will be gone someday and musicians that have resonance with people's hearts could be universal again. Good music is primal in my opinion. It could never disappear. As long as there are people there where be music. IMOx2
I was thinking the same thing. They were under 30 by the time they broke up. Still young.
I was in Jr High and High School during the Beatles run, 64-69. Outside of my parents the Beatles had the greatest impact on my life. We followed them to pot, other drugs, growing facial hair, etc. I remember being shocked by the breakup but don’t remember it affecting me too much. It was a time of shocks and I think I sort of got used to them, Bobby Kennedy, MLK, civil rights, Vietnam…..I just couldn’t react too much to the Beatles break up. And: I thought they would get back together. That’s me 1970.
Glad you raised Brian's management Matt. So often his death is not given the prominence it deserves.
Brian was crucial business side, but it's also fair to say his influence on the group was starting to wane. Brian had expressed these feelings to close friends. Let's not forget that the gruelling tour schedule was essentially down to Brian.
It made sense from a business/promotional perspective, but he was burning the group out, spiritually, musically & creatively.
As a side note, I strongly believe if Paul had not 'taken over' leadership, (post Brian) of the band, then we may not have had the amazing output from 1967-1969.
When the group decided they had had enough of touring ... Brian's influence was in decline (which in my opinion contributed to his demise). Whilst you can argue that had Brian lived then certain business decisions would not have been made in a certain way ...
I would argue that the Beatles juggernaut had become too big for Brian to manage on his own ... now that would have created issues as I don't believe anyone would have wanted to relinquish their influence on the band, especially Brian. That's not singling Brian out, it's just human nature.
As always Matt, you beautifully 👌 pull together many facts that many of us overlook. Can't wait for part 2 👍
Thanks New Jack! Part 2 will be out in a few days.
Everyone grows up.
Even my own band after 8 years.
When you fall in love and get married, the "Band" doesn't mean as much anymore.
Saying that, I wish we would've stayed together.
However, I'm finally content with the life I live now.
I still write and occasionally perform.
We all still keep in touch with each other, but we all live separate lives now.
It's what you value.
Ps. Don't trust a man named Dick or a man called Klein.
I think it's debatable to figure out which reason was the "definitive" reasons. It wasn't so much one big reason, but rather several factors that added up over time. The divide between the four men, and especially between John and Paul at the end played a large role. Epstein's death was catastrophic for the business side of things especially, and their arrogance probably made them think they were infallible or intelligent enough to make it work themselves. Yoko being around probably didn't help, but it sort of feels like her presence is more of a red herring or circumstantial compared to other factors.
Getting involved with Klein was probably the nail in the coffin. The band was probably doomed by that point anyway, but I think a slightly more cordial breakup was possible had Klein not been involved, as well as if the prior business dealings been handled by people who had experience in those things.
Yoko certainly didn't help. George was most open about her being there sitting on an amp and especially when she dare to offer musical criticism. He thought Paul felt the same way but wouldn't speak up about it, thinking that would drive John out of the group. Relationships became frayed.
I do enjoy pontificating about the Beatles break up, but I also believe that it wouldn't have been the same if they had stayed together. The thing had run its course and though they still loved each other, the magic was over. When John sang "the dream is over, what can I say?" it was true
Poor poor Brian.
He felt a loss without being there to be fathering and friendship with his four boys.
Touring was impressive and important to Brian, he was quite literally at a lost without it.
The Dick James section of Get Back was eye opening
As a Beatles fan for most of my life, I'm eager to view parts 2 and 3!!! I can't wait-but I'll have to!!!!
Only Brian could have managed them. The trust and respect he earned with them over the years couldn't be duplicated.
Great video once again!
the photos are rare and timeless. Thank you😊
Great points!
I can’t wait for part two
Well done Matt! Looking forward to part 2!
Great information as always. Thank you. I enjoy your content very much.
Nice job once again. I look forward to parts 2 and 3.
Great stuff, Matt ! Cheers Tim
Matt , very cool! I'm looking forward to the next parts!
They broke up simply because they were at the center of the tornado for years, sharing all the highs and lows of being four young lads with an extraordinary talent for creating future-proof music and the world at their feet.
They got older, fell in love, got married and eeach had integrity enough to not flog a dead horse and be defined as a beatle.
They could have milked it but they would have hated themselves, each other and their legacy.
They quit at the right time..and its all the more precious and artful for it.
Good thought provoking stuff Matt. Looking forward to next episode.
I love your Beatles content Matt. One home run after another. If I was Lennon, I bet when they turned down Cold Turkey, that would have pushed me over the edge. McCartney's bass on that would've been fantastic! Your reasons so far are pretty solid. As always I'm looking forward to the next part! Matt, you're the gift that keeps on giving!
Thanks st.rose! Cold Turkey would have been a great late 1969 single as the b-side to Maybe I'm Amazed, which Paul had also started around the same time. Oh well....
@@mikeymutual5489 I would agree, but then I remember how Revolution was also a B-side
I think the number one reason was the loss of Brian. I imagine he could have mediated differences and they could have done solo albums but stayed together. Brian was aware of his limitations and needed business help but he could have found a way. Half a century later we are still trying to get our heads around why. Management seems to be the most consistent issue with many bands. I play the what if game with Buddy Holly and I saw his music going down a strange path towards the end. He was falling for the guitar bands are dead idea. I wonder how many great bands could have given us so much more if the business was a better environment to be in.
As usual you do a great job. I think your first "reasons" are great and you put in some ideas that I hadn't thought of, like that while touring they split the money evenly....I knew it was true but didn't think of it quite the way you put it. I will wait to see it all before adding my 2 cents...:)
I understand that there's no one answer for the breakup, but in my analysis the best reason is that they simply grew too much as individual musicians to remain together. I divide the Beatles into three main phases. 1. The Beatlemania phase, in which they'd just become famous and were enjoying the success of having put in their 10,000 hours in Hamburg and other places. 2. The Psychedelic phase, starting with Rubber Soul, in which they were growing together as a group and learning new things and exploring the studio. And 3. Essentially, The Breakup phase, in which they had surpassed growing together as a group and had started growing as individuals, each capable of being their own unique selves and creating their own solo album. They started breaking up around the White Album, and tellingly it's the first album to depict them in separate portraits (inside the gatefold) rather than together. Very prescient.
What a Groovy Way to Start my Day!!! Morning Chai with Matt...... Life gets no better. ☮
Thank you, Rich. Parts 2 & 3 will be out shortly!
This is a good encapsulation. I'm not chiming in until I watch your upcoming videos and vote in your survey!
Brian's death hit them very hard. He had earned their respect and trust and he loved them. Irreplaceable. It's crazy they had no manager for 2 years, they needed the right person to represent them in non musical matters. I can't think of a character that could do that if not Brian.
Had Brian still been around Paul wouldn't have gotten so "bossy". Or maybe not!
Excellent video Matt. I will withhold my judgment until your next two videos. Your first 4 reasons were very informative. .
Well all businessmen were drunks back then, especially in show business. My father worked at Columbia Pictures, and both he and his boss had liquor bars in their offices.
But did they have cocaine, marijuana, speed, and LSD too? 🙂
Finally, someone bringing up the influence of ALL the drugs. I was very peripheral but I remember vividly how the aftermath that we call "the '70s" felt and how us late Boomers dived into all of it. The pill poppers of the 50s and 60s (like Elvis) had replaced the drunks of the 40s and 50s (Sinatra and Dean Martin). So then comes the grass/weed/pot (and all the code names), its derivative hash, the coke (you can't get addicted lie we bought), the heroin and opium from overseas (soldiers tried stuff), the LSD (from CIA) and other lab created stuff (meth from German drug companies). It was a free for all at colleges. Adding all the fun together, my motto became "I could never be an addict because I felt so lousy the next day". So I can testify what it was like, how my friends thought, what we talked about and did (an artsy lifestyle) and the consequences. The drugs and alcohol experience were HUGE for 20 30 years and more. My research on the Beatles has shown this for them, from the beginning, it was the lifestyle, and it expanded with each success. John and Yoko wanted a baby (for many reasons, all of which are interesting) and she had just had a miscarriage prior to the Let it Be Get Back filming. She was very depressed and I noticed some kindness shown to her as she sat on the amp. Apparently she and John consulted a Chinese healer (doctor) who said you both have to go off all drugs (ie John wrote "Cold Turkey") and go on a macrobiotic diet. They did this and we're able to have Sean a few years later. Regarding Paul: he adored pot, which was the cause of the Japan "incident" --and reportedly only stopped smoking it when Heather had their baby (early 2000s, unsure of date). George loved his pot, and Ringo famously an alcoholic. And all of them famous partiers, especially with Harry Nilsson. So my point is: the creativity and the atmosphere and ALL the behaviors and biz deals have to be seen through drug and alcohol filters. Plus the caveat that Ringo and George spoke (videos are on YT, Barbara Walters with Ringo especially good) and what was printed that John said: "None of what was reported about us was true; and half of it was rubbish". So thanks Matt for doing so much good research, we are so blessed to have the treasure troves of the internet aren't we? Love hearing your findings!!
@@lauraturner4216 Great points, Laura about the shift from liquor (Sinatra-Deano) to pills (Elvis), then on to the sixties which became the recreational pharmaceutical generation. My part 2 of this series will deal specifically on drugs being a reason for the breakup. It should have been uploaded last night but I have a kidney stone passing and had to go to the hospital. What did they give me for the pain? Good ol' fashioned morphine. 🙂
Thank you for the kind words.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Ouch! God bless you
Will wait to give my verdict, but I just LOVE the photo at 2:05 in the clip (George in dark shades). There's a similar one on the rear sleeve of the Oldies But Goldies album, which we had in the late 1970s- they looked so cool!
Keep up the good work man, ur very expressive. Looking 4ward watching the rest. Thanks!!!!
Thanks Kevin! Part 2 will be out in a few days.
Excellent coverage of this very complicated story!
Well said. I’m 60 with three older brothers who loved great music. I remember discussions of Paul is dead and fear of the draft. I was 7 or 8 I guess. I just saw “Get Back” on Blue Ray. This is what I observed. Paul and John loved each other like brothers and knew they were the best. George and Ringo seemed like they no longer were into Paul and John’s dominance. Yoko I dislike even more than I did before. It seemed over already and they were fooling around and going through the motions basically. When Billy Preston arrives things improved greatly. The rooftop concert was pretty cool with the cops and crowd’s reaction. Loved the sound they got. My current go to listens are The Esher Demo double LP, new Revolver double cd and the newest 62-66 double LP. Still the greatest band.
Thanks for the comments, Damian - more to come.
Very well said
Good one, Matt.
I get Paul's point with the 7#9 chord sounding dated for 1969, since it was so emblematic of Hendrix and Cream style blues rock of 1967. George's response that chords are just chords is true to a point - but certain types of chords and harmony do have certain connotations re: genre or time period. Similar case is the 6th chord that ends She Loves You, which George Martin thought was cheesy.
Ultimately though, if Paul didn't want a certain chord extension, he should've just politely asked George to keep it as a regular 7th chord. It's the abrupt way he expressed things that was sometimes the problem
This channel is so good. So, so good.
That's very kind of you, Joel. Part 3 will be up in a few days.
I think too many people were whispering things into Beatles ears in reality and it was time for them all to make a mark for themselves. But....they should have got back together in the late 70's for an album or 2. Unfortunately in those days when bands broke up they sort of did. Today no band really breaks up forever.
Wonderful analysis Matt, really enjoyed this a lot. Sure looking forward to the next 2 parts. I'm liking your new set up. Cheers.
Hey Tabby! The new set up is still a work in progress. I hope to have it more comfortable (on my end anyway) by Christmas.
@@popgoesthe60s52 I totally get it. It always takes a little time to break it in and make your own with adjustments along the way.
Great video. Great channel. You know your stuff and present it well. I look forward to parts 2 & 3, and I will say what I think after I have heard all of your thoughts on this topic. Thanks. 👍
Thanks MrGman, and I will thank you in advance for taking the forthcoming survey! My first on this channel.
Thanks for another good presentation. In retrospect we can see the hubris that lead to the unraveling. It is amazing they went without management for that long.
Very insightful! The relationship with Dick James is something I (and many people) never think of and the major reason they lost their publishing. I always assumed Allen Klein was the big bogeyman that broke up the Beatles.
Yeah, that Apple promo video is quite something. Neither party comes off well. Dick is very condescending, which is probably why John and Paul were so disrespectful to him. But the complete lack of judgement in including this dysfunctional meeting in a video made to promote your new company? Wow.
This is an excellent three part series.
Thanks. I just uploaded the results of the survey, so check that video out!
Excellent video, Matt...looking forward to the next two installments. Wondering if you've read Peter Doggett's "You Never Give Me Your Money" which highlights a lot of the business issues before and especially after the breakup.
Yes, I have - great book.
Super interesting!
This was another great episode on The Beatles... and, as I watched... I am reminded of the turmoil Journey is presently dealing with. If I am correct... I think they have been managing themselves for awhile... and it has been drama, after drama after drama. It's unsustainable... history repeats itself which seems so evident in seeing what brought The Beatles down.
I hope parts II & III will be released soon!
Yes, I'll just need a few days to edit each.
Yes, many reasons and all well discussed and documented here. The time together that they had - they always rallied and made things VERY special - even the Get Back project illuminates this. But business ultimately became the downfall along with the greater need for artistic freedom - on all four parts. It could have continued as John and George discussed in the film (Paul wasn't there to hear this). The 60's had ended - which the Beatles were a MAJOR piece and part of. They dominated the decade on the musical scope. The real testament to them was how each was able to successfully adapt on their own post-Beatles (artistically, business-wise, and their own family development).
Looking forward to Parts 2 and 3.
Regarding the Paul McCartney factor, the overbearing behavior comes through loud and clear in the Get Back movie when Paul as if he's speaking to a child, tells John to stop playing while he's talking and says "thank you" in a condescending way. I also think John's passive response caused George's temporary departure.
Hey thanks. Excellent research and well presented. I messaged you on FB about my presentation on the same subject. I hope you got the link. I look forward to the next episodes. Thanks.
Hey Derek - just listening to your podcast now. Very well-done.
@@popgoesthe60s52 thanks so much.
It happened only a couple times on their last US tour in 1966. They usually played through stadium PAs, a lousy quality with no foldback speakers. But a few businessmen who signed the contracts and leased the space did something unusual. They hired a sound system firm to beef the sound. Which is what they did, including a rudimentary fold-back system so they could hear themselves. The Beatles didn't know this until they started playing. From my source, they were so startled, they looked at each other in the first few moments of music and singing and beamed with joy. Too bad it happened only infrequently and on their last US tour ever. Factoid: They played the same set throughout the year's tour and were on and off in less than 30 minutes. The backing acts made it a show. Factoid 2: The hated the last US tour although they made the most money. Just a grueling tour with a disconcerting amount of empty seats.
I appreciate the added facts, Gene - thank you!
Thanks ...can't wait for the survey to be up for comments...I'll hold mine til then. You've nailed the first 4 right on. I image they were very tired of the whole thing as a band once things began to become ugly with the press, (so I guess I couldn't hold back, could I...)
Part 2 should be out in about 3 days.
I just ordered 'And In the End' by Ken McNab, not a new book, and hasn't arrived yet. I don't know that McNab did any new interviews or just collated available research - - but a quote from that book led me to it. It's Lennon explaining why he pushed for Klein: "Well he's the only one Yoko liked." (Klein made a point of flattering her art ventures.) This is Lennon passing the buck, and witlessly it puts more pressure on Ono as a reason for the split: ppl plausibly say division was more to do with Klein than Ono, but Lennon says Ono pushed for Klein so she's incriminated that way too.
Another possible reason for the Beatles split: the 1960s ended. The band's output and image was a dialogue with 1960s culture - - what other bands released made them raise their game which influenced other bands which made them raise their game again... how politics was shifting... economic prosperity... the 'new aristocracy'... public facilities (specially UK) including free further education and nationalised industries and the whole zeitgeist of 'the public interest' as a common cause... optimism for social change... the British film industry... fashion... counterculture infiltration - - drugs, eastern philosophy, art galleries... all 1960s trappings.
Once the 1960s was washed up, that well ran dry. The Beatles would have to be redefined by 1970s culture, which had less energy, lower prospects and more pessimism. The 1970s handover was already happening in Get Back sessions, January 1969. The trade-off with the culture was a low exchange rate by then. The UK tax exiles had already begun, and so had economic decline, and American money pulled out of the British film industry, and the cops were pulling the plug on the counterculture at the same moment as they pulled the plug on the Apple roof.
One reason The Beatles never reformed was because they couldn't recreate the decade that they prospered in. That was the expectation behind the drive to reunite them, a Sixties revival, just turn back the clock for god's sake, give us some hope, which was too much weight to lay on them.
Lots of reasons for the breakup and you mention some that I will touch on in parts 2 & 3.
I read Ken McNab's book. Highly recommend it. He just depicts the events of the 1969 timeline, touching on everyone's actions and quotes etc. It's not unbiased per se, but it's more balanced than many other books on the topic.
@@Kieop That book has been on my list - thanks for recommending it!
Great analysis as always. Eager to see the next one. Also, I look forward to your take on Paul as a poor PR man. As of now I strongly disagree, but perhaps (and this is why I love your stuff) you can show me a view I never thought before and change my mind.
"BANDS normally blame a mix of management, women, money, drink, drugs, ego and musical differences when they split,
says glam rock legend Noddy Holder"
Noddy's been there, he would know.
Hey Matt, thanks for the great videos. Ever consider doing one on The Blues Project? Their music seems hard-edged and very ahead of its time. A generally unnoticed band, in my opinion
Yes, I am a fan and they are on my very long list. 🙂
I agree with your initial reasons, Matt. They are thoughtful and well-reasoned, and teasing additional interesting material to follow. I was around at the time, but no Beatles scholar, so I'm learning something with your Beatles discussions. Many if not most of the comments below are helpful as well. I'd like to know more (though not in this series) about the Alan Klein thing, the loss of publishing, and Phil Spector's role at the end. If you've covered it before please advise where I should look to view or read. I eagerly await the subsequent installments. This stuff is the best.
Hi Joe! I have a book review coming up on Peter Doggett's You Never Give Me Your Money, which is about the break up and aftermath - an essential read on understanding the break up. I'll go more into the publishing and how they were lost. Brian's death help screw that up for them.
Great topic Matt! This is the type of topic that will go on for many years. When I was younger and less informed I would blame Yoko for the break up but now I know it’s much more complicated. Looking forward to the next videos to hear your thoughts. Thanks
Hi Bill! Part 2 should be up in a few days. It will be fun to collect all the data on the surveys!
I finally got around to watching this clip; I felt it was simply too tired a topic to waste time on. However, today I was bored so I decided, "Ah, what the hell..."
Actually, back in 1969 or 1970, I was naïve enough to believe that even if The Beatles broke up, so what? Each member couldn't help to keep putting out great records. After all, together or separate, it was still John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and good old Ringo Starr!
And then Macca put out "Another Day".
And Lennon put out "Cold Turkey".
And Harrison put out "My Sweet Lord" (admittedly, this single was easier for me to tolerate back then than today).
And Ringo, friggin' Ringo, put out the album "Sentimental Journey".
Boy, did I learn my lesson...
Great video Matt. I’ve been a huge Beatles fan my whole life..63 yrs. Paul McCartney is the reason I’m a bass player. Great insight into the breakup. Many reasons. I think the problem with Yoko is I believe she was telling John you don’t need them. That plus Johns drug use & although he came off as confident & times arrogant he was actually kind of frail. Brian Epstein death affected them greatly he kept them focused. They were lost without him & though a lot of people thought Paul became bossy...if he hadn’t stepped up to the plate who knows they could’ve ended sooner. I didn’t like the way they kind of relegated George’s stuff to the back burner. Actually from what I see as a musician they probably could have especially in the mid to later years could’ve just made the writing credits to all four of them. Just some of my opinions.
Thank you, Joe!
Hi Matt, as always, spot-on research. I’ve been a Beatles fan since February 9, 1964. So far, the first four reasons that you stated for the split, although all true and without a doubt damaging, still is not the true breakup answer. I am looking forward to parts 2 and 3; perhaps then something will be the definitive reason for the breakup. However, in the end, my opinion was always that….it was time to move on. Thanks, Matt for another gem topic. Stay well.
I must warn that I will not be giving "the true breakup answer," as you put it. There were multiple reasons and lots of blame to go around. More to come in parts 2 & 3!
I don’t think anyone can really give that definitive answer, Matt. Especially without John or George’s input. One thing is for sure, it ain’t Yoko. Stay well, Matt.
The Beatles have broken up?!... We're only just getting over John and his divorce from Cynthia here in Russia.