• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

the Beatles; why?

The Beatles broke up because...

  • Of Yoko

    Votes: 3 9.1%
  • Of Linda

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Of Linda's dad

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Of Paul's ego

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Of John's ego

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • A combination of John and Paul's egos

    Votes: 6 18.2%
  • of The different ways the diffrent band members wanted to go in a musical direction

    Votes: 7 21.2%
  • of a CIA covert operation...

    Votes: 3 9.1%
  • Some of these

    Votes: 14 42.4%
  • none of these

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
If you have lived as long as I have, the speculation as to why/who broke the Beatles up has as many conspiracy theories as JFK's death. So...what do you think???? And why??? Check the related POLL

Rob
 
Why people do the things they do is never down to one pat answer, especially when multiple people are involved. The other guys didn't like Yoko; John and Paul wanted different things, the bandmates got frustrated when things didn't go their way or they weren't listened to.

It's always a combination of things.
 
Some of these, but more specifically, I think it was their drug use that caused their various personality quirks to spin out of control. It also contributed to the over-the-top quality of some of their songs, so it wasn't all bad.
 
Oh, I agree with you Auntiehill. But it makes for great conversation. I was at a Denny's one time and at a table with like ten other people. This topic came up and, well, we were eventually thrown out of Denny's for letting the conversation get a bit, well, loud. I didn't do any of the arguing, but I thought it was fun to watch the McCartney and Lennon troops fight it out...

Rob
 
Lennon was ready to quit back in 1966. Among other reasons, I think it was really not being able to play live anymore. Being a studio-only band started to feel like a job. The Let It Be project was supposed to be them rehearsing for a concert not recording a new album. I think that's the only reason Lennon was even on board even though he was dubious of the Beatles ever playing live again. If they had the sound systems that people like Hendrix had, they might have been able to play above the screaming but it was almost like amateurs on tour as far as the logistics went. I saw a documentary on the Beatles last show and the guy says that the modern concert age began 15 minutes after the Beatles walked off the stage.
 
Some interesting votes here...but the CIA theory? I just threw that in there because an old friend of mine believes to this day it was a CIA/FBI plot, hatched by Hoover himself...

Rob
 
While I have no overt love for Yoko Ono, I do think she gets more of the blame than she deserves.. It's an easy out that people like to take.

John and Paul had different ideas about where the band should go. I agree with the idea that John was ready to pack in in well before it happened. He was happy padding around with Yoko in bare feet and preaching peace. The Beatles had become a job that Paul was all to happy to make his primary focus.

I really think that most of the choices given played a contributing factor.
 
I'm sure that when Paul/Ringo are gone, someone is going to release a book that is going to 'spill it all'. Then someone else will release another one...I doubt we've heard the last of it..sadly.

Rob
 
Huge combination of things, nothing in particular:

-Egos of the band members
-Drugs
-Stress of living in a fishbowl for that long, starting as teenagers
-Differences of opinion musically
-No more concerts, all studio work
-Nothing left to prove, they'd already smashed all the records, been set for life, and become the center of the universe. Where do you go from there? "Better to burn out than to fade away" as it were...
 
Still blows my mind that they were only together for 7 years, and have this level of fame/influence. Hell, most bands only put out a couple albums in that time, with a handful of songs that are worth mentioning per album. The Beatles just flooded everything out at once, and then quit.

Partially helps that they went away before they had to, as well. If you quit on top, no one has to deal with the decline, and you're remembered better. Nice that Abbey Road was such a great final album...
 
Still blows my mind that they were only together for 7 years, and have this level of fame/influence. Hell, most bands only put out a couple albums in that time, with a handful of songs that are worth mentioning per album. The Beatles just flooded everything out at once, and then quit.

Partially helps that they went away before they had to, as well. If you quit on top, no one has to deal with the decline, and you're remembered better. Nice that Abbey Road was such a great final album...

That is topic I have always wondered about. Had they not broken up, would they have over stayed their welcome and their material have suffered? Once you get into the mid 70s, rock music really began to morph. Would they have been battling it out with, say, The Eagles? Or do they go more 'rock' like Led Zeppelin?

If Paul's solo career is any indication, I think they would have gone toward the Eagles/FleetWood Mac side of the house. Would have been interesting...

And even John's later stuff, like "woman", seems to point towards the 'lite rock' of the mid 70s. I like the Eagles, not so Fleetwood Mac, but I am glad the Beatles ended when they did.

Rob
 
I wonder too had they continued on in the 70's how much different they would have sounded being able to use 24 or 36 tracks. Much of the energy from the early albums resulted from only having 4 tracks and needing to do most songs "live". Overdub some backing vocals, handclaps, piano etc and you're done in few hours. Even by the late 60's their songs were taking days if not weeks to complete.

But, pick the best solo songs by the ex-Beatles..imagine them working together on them and I bet those songs would have been legendary. What would Imagine have sounded like with George Martin instead of Spector and with McCartney adding his touches?

I also agree that Yoko gets more blame than she deserves. She was a way out for Lennon but he was going anyway.
 
Lennon was ready to quit back in 1966.
While Lennon was rattled by the "bigger than Jesus" controversy in the United States, and the band as a whole was shocked by the Philippines concert, Lennon wasn't looking to quit in 1966. Rather, it was Harrison that announced that the 1966 concert tour was the last, and the band, especially Brian Epstein, genuinely didn't know how to continue from there because being a band meant playing concerts. Everyone agreed to take a break and do their own things -- Lennon did some acting, McCartney did some music composition -- and they decided to do an album and see what happened.

Sgt Pepper is what happened.

Being a studio-only band started to feel like a job.
It did, but only in the sense that they didn't know what else to do. It wasn't like they had role models to follow; there wasn't another band who had given up the touring/live aspect.

The Let It Be project was supposed to be them rehearsing for a concert not recording a new album. I think that's the only reason Lennon was even on board even though he was dubious of the Beatles ever playing live again.
Actually, Lennon was quite enthusiastic about the "Get Back" project. They all were, until it dawned on them that 1) sitting in a cold and drafty movie studio wasn't their idea of fun, 2) they had to work to the film crew's schedules and not their schedules, 3) the studio had always been their creative environment and having others there inhibited that, and 4) showing up for filming was really too much like work. Lennon didn't take the "Get Back" sessions especially seriously, but Lennon didn't take much of anything seriously at that point.

Despite the famous scene in Let It Be of McCartney and Harrison sniping at one another, they got along quite well during the sessions, and together they worked out "Isn't It a Pity?" and "All Things Must Pass," two songs that would ultimately end up on Harrison's first solo album. The real tension was between Lennon and Harrison, and Harrison bolted from the band when the two got into a fistfight, which resulted in the band taking a time out, canceling the Twickenham filming, and bringing keyboardist Billy Preston into the band.

Lennon wouldn't decide to leave the band until the summer of '69, when he finally realized that he didn't need the other three as sidemen any more. Lennon still needed sidemen, he wasn't the multi-instrumentalist that McCartney was (and is), but he could find them easily. And with the other Beatles rejecting "Cold Turkey" as a Beatles single, he moved on.

There are lots of reasons the Beatles broke up. Ultimately, I think they simply needed space. Not creative space, in the way that George Harrison clearly did, but emotional space. They had been together, at that point, for over a decade, and their lives had been built around each other. Paul finding Linda, John finding Yoko started the two men off on different paths where johnandpaul diverged in two directions.

Ringo, of course, played with everyone. George worked with John as a sideman on Imagine, but the Concert for Bangladesh drove a rift between them that never healed. John and Paul very nearly came back together again in 1975 for Wings' Venus and Mars album. The failure of George and Paul to work together, outside of "All Those Years Ago" (even then done entirely at distance) and the Anthology is, in my opinion, the great tragedy of the break-up, because it was very much borne of a failure to communicate. John and Paul each needed to find their individual footing, but George and Paul never had a compelling need or desire to work together again.
 
The poll was already closed when I got here, but I'd have voted "Some of these". The impression I've always had is that the four simply grew apart. You can tell by looking at the side projects they were all working on. Lennon was going all weird and avant garde with Yoko, Harrison was doing electronic music and wanted to spend most of his time playing sitars, McCartney wanted to go his own way and was also spending time developing talent like Mary Hopkin, and Ringo has his own music side-projects. By the time Let it Be came out, and in act probably by the time Abbey Road came out, they'd all either had solo albums out, or were about to release them. Maybe Yoko rubbed someone the wrong way, or some egos clashed, or some lawyers started to play footsie, but I really don't think we can peg it down to one specific reason.

Much as we'd like to think they could have stuck together forever, if you follow their career and musical evolution, it was pretty clear by about the time they recorded Yesterday that the Beatles as a group had a limited life expectancy because they were diverting. We're lucky they held together as long as they did.

Alex
 
People put a lot of store in "Double Fantasy" as evidence that John had gone "soft" in his later years and was heading toward "McCartney" territory. I've read any number of interviews though from around the time of the release of "Double Fantasy" where John specifically states that he "toned it down" because he felt he'd alienated a large segment of the public with his "outrageous exploits" and more experimental efforts--particularly with Yoko on board the album. I read in one book that John wanted a TRULY solo album but Yoko shoehorned her way onto it and wouldn't stop until she got her way. John changed his priorities slightly at that time and decided to use "Double Fantasy" to mend some fences with the public and make all his work on it very "radio friendly" and to try to produce Yoko in a way that people would like. I think he accomplished both with the album. He was an artist AND a craftsman and he didn't want to release an album of "weirdness" that would flop out of the gate. Not John. He HAD an ego and McCartney was the top selling artist of the '70's at that time. He CRAFTED "Double Fantasy" to try to make it appeal to as broad an audience as possible. While I DO believe he had a new appreciation for home and family at that point in his life, he had NOT lost his edge. Just listen sometime to the demo of "Serve Yourself" which he intended likely for his follow-up to "Double Fantasy" when he planned to "Let'em all have it" and prove that "Crazy John" was still alive and well.

"Serve Yourself"
was written in response to Dylan's song "Serve Somebody" and his "Christian" phase.

Incidentally, I have little doubt John and Paul were LOOKING for a way to work together again at the time John was killed and you can DEFINITELY hear a dialogue going on between them in these two songs.

Paul's overture to work with John came first, here: "Coming Up"
This song STUCK in John's head (EXACTLY as I'm sure it was intended to do) and he cited this along with the B-52's "Rock Lobster" as what motivated him to start recording again.

John responded to "Coming Up" with the coy and HONEST "I Don't Wanna Face It" which commented on his uncertainty about the idea of stepping BACK into the eye of the celebrity hurricane.

Listen to the songs back to back and you can CLEARLY hear a dialoge going on between the two men; John and Paul finished the '70s the same way they started the decade, talking to each other through songs.

And, yeah,I believe they WOULD have worked together again if . . . well, we all KNOW what happened.

 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top