although some of us disagree on this whole disinterested/uninterested debate, everyone's been civil, which is great. I move we "get back" to discussing the Beatles.
Possibly. But as someone else pointed out, we also have George saying this in May 1970: "But it was just over the last year or so we worked something out, which is still a joke really -- Three songs for me, three songs for Paul, three songs for John, and two for Ringo." So, something along the lines of what Schaffner reported definitely happened. Whether it was recorded -- and whether it went down as "Beatles Forever" suggests -- is the question.
The other big question would be when it happened (ie, before or after John quit in September). I think there's good reason to be skeptical than John engaged in such a discussion after announcing he'd quit the band.
Was this quoted earlier in this thread? Maybe with a source? If you know the post #, please advise. Thanks.
Could it be that John's "divorce" comment was simply fueled by his anger over Paul and the others not snapping to and rushing into the studio to record "Cold Turkey" as a single? Paul had done so a few months earlier with "The Ballad of John and Yoko," so John probably just expected they'd always do that for him now. Whatever song he wanted to record would be done quickly and put out as a single... So he's upset about that and tells them, "fine you won't record that, well then I quit." Then a few weeks later, heads are cooler and their contracts are being negotiated/renewed, and he realizes there's a lot of financial value in being THE BEATLES and that he can do Plastic Ono Band singles and concerts but continue The Beatles too, so he calls this meeting suggesting they carve up their next album and collaborate with others on it still as the Beatles. Sounds like a "have my cake and eat it to" idea, like "I can get Yoko on a Beatles record and play whatever I want, and still make a ton of money off it." But then when the others balk at this idea, then it really starts to sink in that it's probably over. Still not 100% done, but most likely over.
It's from an interview with Howard Smith of the Village Voice. The interview itself was among those compiled in the book "The Smith Tapes: Lost Interviews with Rock Stars & Icons 1969-1972."
but John himself is on record about his decision to quit and announcing at the meeting, as far as i am aware there is no record of him saying he had second thoughts ....
Now this interview doesn't sound to me as if Harrison considered the Beatles disbanded. Far from it. I started to copy ... and then copy some more, and the then some more but finally just gave it up. This is now May and Harrison clearly plans on doing his album as a solo project and continuing to be a part of the Beatles. And, as an aside, he doesn't trash "McCartney", the album, at all. (Rattles off song titles, etc). This interview is a real eye opener for me. To the point where I'm now a believer in the mystery tape (in terms of very possible there was such a meeting).
I think George most likely soured on the idea of having to ever work with Paul when he was proved right about Klein and at the same time his own hits began to dry up, imagine the idea of Paul coming back rubbing it in their noses about Klein while still dominating the singles and possibly albums. For George this was probably a nightmare scenario.
Discogs says 'Mother' was released as a single nearly everywhere in the world except UK: John Lennon / Plastic Ono Band* - Mother
That interview, too, just matter of factly touches on recording--how McCartney did it all himself (like Eddie Cochran, per Harrison) and how Harrison himself will use full Band/orchestra depending on the song. All very matter of fact. No jeering or bashing. Back to business aspects, I'm assuming that the cost of recording gets applied against that particular album. Harrison, again in this goldmine of an interview, addresses the 25% shares in the company. (And, an unpopular thought, acknowledges that Klein brought fiscal clarity and order to the Beatles as s business entity.)
Is he on record before Paul's announcement saying this? I know after Paul's announcement what John's stance was, but what about before? I suppose Instant Karma was John's "announcement of sorts," but even so, that period Seems cloudier than immediately after Paul's announcement...unless someone has a direct quote of Lennon saying he's walked away... And George's interview in May 1970 indicates that all four could have gotten back together after solo projects were out of the way. Yes John wasn't at the "I Me Mine" session, but he was sending them (Paul included) happy postcards from Denmark at the same time. John was also the last of the four to start recording his own solo LP....So...
It is interesting to speculate what may have transpired if John hadn’t been out of the country during the I Me Mine session. What if the Beatles were inspired to do some more recording at the same time? If so, things may have played out differently in 1970......
I agree; there is no evidence that John had definitely quit; Paul has said that the other three would call each other once a month or so in early 1970 to speak about working together again and whether John just said something rash and that he could change his mind again. As George said, if you disagreed with what John said one week, just speak to him the next week instead; he admitted to being someone who changed his mind very often. Certainly John's comments at the time left a lot of room for the Beatles to continue; he was a troubled and confused man during a very stressful time of legal and business battles, personal falling outs with his dearest friends, and a severe drug addiction that left him reliant on Yoko ( who became a Mother figure as well as lover and partner, basically his crutch in life) and truthfully it seems likely that he was in no place to really know what he wanted. His and Yoko's political plans and statements changed often at the time, and his relationship with Yoko was also strained by 1970. I'm re-reading 'You Never Give Me Your Money', and John repeatedly made comments about how they could work together again if they wanted to, and he tried to arrange a live appearance for a cause he backed in Toronto, where he suggested The Beatles perform with the likes of Elvis, Led Zeppelin and The Who (when this show fell through because he wanted the acts to be paid but for the show to be free for fans, he sent an angry letter to the organisers, Karma, and Doggett suggests the song 'Instant Karma' was written about them in response). It seems John wanted freedom to create various forms of art and music with Yoko under the 'POB' name, but that he also believed it possible to record as The Beatles as well. I believe had Paul been given his demands regarding the halting of the release of the 'Let It Be' album to remix Spector's work, then things would have been very different. The staff at Apple, in regular contact with The Beatles throughout that time in various combinations, were certainly hopeful that in the summer of 1970, The Beatles would work again, after George and John returned from America. Klein held a lot of sway over John at that time as did Yoko, who backed Klein, and Klein desperately didn't want the group to end and even enquired about a world tour in 1970 for the group, so it is very possible that without Paul accidentally making it seem like he had quit, and then eventually deciding that he had to sue them, then the group could have continued. If they could work so well together on 'Abbey Road' after the ugliness of early to mid 1969, there is no reason to think that they couldn't again, even after Paul evicted Ringo from his house. Even George suggested that they reconvene and that it would be selfish not to.
I believe Anthony Fawcett taped this conversation in his capacity as John’s assistant. The following appeared in his 1976 book, One Day At A Time (p. 95-97): ——————————————— John, Paul and George discussed this problem at Apple in the autumn of 1969, on one of the rare occasions when they got together. John glared at Paul and said, sarcastically: "It seemed mad for us to put a song on an album that nobody really dug, including the guy who wrote it, just because it was going to be popular, 'cause the LP doesn't have to be that. Wouldn't it be better, because we didn't really dig them, yer know, for you to do the songs you dug, and “Ob-La-Di, Ob- La-Da" and "Maxwell" to be given to people who like music like that, yer know, like Mary [Hopkins] or whoever it is needs a song. Why don't you give them to them? The only time we need anything vaguely near that quality is for a single. For an album we could just do only stuff that we really dug." “We always carved the singles up between us,” he told Paul. “We have the singles market, [George and Ringo] don’t get anything! I mean, we’ve never offered George ‘B’ sides; we could have given him a lot of ‘B’ sides, but because we were two people you had the ‘A’ side and I had the ‘B’ side.” “Well the thing is,” Paul answered, without even looking at George who sat a few feet away, “I think that until now, until this year [1969], our songs have been better than George’s. Now this year his songs are at least as good as ours.” George was quick to correct Paul: “Now that’s a myth, ‘cause most of the songs this year I wrote about last year or the year before, anyway. Maybe now I just don’t care whether you are going to like them or not, I just do ‘em… If I didn’t get a break I wouldn’t push it. I’d just forget about it. Now for the last two years, at any rate, I’ve pushed it a bit more.” “I know what he’s saying,” John said, “‘cause people have said to me you’re coming through a lot stronger now than you had.” “I don’t particularly seek acclaim,” George said. “That’s not the thing. It’s just to get out whatever is there to make way for whatever else is there. You know, ‘cause it’s only to get ‘em out, and also I might as well make a bit of money, seeing as I’m spending as much as the rest of you, and I don’t earn as much as the rest of you!” Like the others, George was now out on his own musically. "Most of my tunes," he said, "I never had the Beatles backing me." "Oh! C'mon, George!" John shouted. "We put a lot of work in your songs, even down to 'Don't Bother Me'; we spent a lot of time doing all that and we grooved. I can remember the riff you were playing, and in the last two years there was a period where you went Indian and we weren't needed!" "That was only one tune," George said. "On the last album [White Album] I don't think you appeared on any of my songs--I don't mind." "Well, you had Eric [Clapton], or somebody like that," John replied, in a hurt tone of voice. There was a long pause as each Beatle seemed lost in contemplation, wondering. Not wanting to admit that they were becoming individual musicians, Paul grasped at the remnants of truth and spoke slowly, almost whispering. “When we get in a studio, even on the worst day, I’m still playing bass, Ringo’s still drumming, and we’re still there, you know.” ————————————————- There is more dialogue on pages 92-95 which is possibly from the same meeting (this one Fawcett ascribes to September 1969), wherein John complains about having to fight to get his share of songs on an LP, or single A-sides, and basically admits to having given up. I’m pretty sure this was Schaffner’s source in Beatles Forever (1977), although he may have gotten to hear the tape as well. There are a few people out there who claim to have heard portions of it (I certainly haven’t).
of course there is no record prior to Paul quitting because Klein and Paul persuaded him to keep it quiet which is one of the reasons John was so furious that Paul in the end upstaged him However John's account has never been disputed, not least by Paul. The Sept meeting where John quit is an accepted matter of record. Of course he could of changed his mind although there is little evidence that he did, however it is possible that if Paul had not lost patience with the whole thing and did what he did then it may have all blown over in a year or so which i suspect was the hope when John was persuaded to keep schtum ( ie oh thats John, maybe he'll change his mind ). However i suspect the plan about the song split may well have been true but i suspect that, if so, it dates prior to the John quit meeting and not in October.
i agree that the Beatles could have worked together again had not Paul been finally sent over the edge but as for denying the evidence that John might not had definitely announced to the band ( sans George i beleive ) he was quitting on 20th sept 69 is fanciful. Did he mean it ? at the time yes i am sure, did he still mean it come April 1970, maybe, maybe not , so maybe the band could have gone on, but the unfolding events make all this moot anyway. What is not in dispute is John quit the band in Sept 1969 but was persuaded to keep quiet,
