after Paul's Q&A the world regarded the group as disbanded so it would be odd if George thought otherwise. However he may have still be keeping the door open in public/in the press in case of any volte face. He was probably hedging his bets.
I don't have the details, but didn't John do a brief interview with Rolling Stone in April/May 1970 in which he said that he didn't know if the Beatles had a future, but he didn't rule it out? I agree that John's 'I'm quitting' outburst in September 1969 was probably just that, an outburst. The main opposition to the 4-4-4-2 arrangement evidently came from Paul. Not surprising perhaps, given that he had dominated the songwriting on their last album and no doubt didn't want to be limited to 4 songs.
John is certain that Klein did, he's less clear about Paul. I announced it to myself and the people around me on the way to Toronto a few days before. And on the plane – Klein came with me – I told Allen, “It’s over.” When I got back, there were a few meetings, and Allen said well, cool it, cool it, there was a lot to do, businesswise you know, and it would not have been suitable at the time. Then we were discussing something in the office with Paul, and Paul said something or other about the Beatles doing something, and I kept saying “No, no, no” to everything he said. So it came to a point where I had to say something, of course, and Paul said, “What do you mean?” I said, “I mean the group is over, I’m leaving.” Allen was there, and he will remember exactly and Yoko will, but this is exactly how I see it. Allen was saying don’t tell. He didn’t want me to tell Paul even. So I said, “It’s out,” I couldn’t stop it, it came out. Paul and Allen both said that they were glad that I wasn’t going to announce it, that I wasn’t going to make an event out of it. I don’t know whether Paul said “Don’t tell anybody,” but he was darned pleased that I wasn’t going to. He said, “Oh, that means nothing really happened if you’re not going to say anything.” - John 1970 That last line makes it sound like Paul did not truly believe John.
Odd or not, this interview clearly shows Harrison doesn't think of any of this as any more than a temporary spat.
Is there record of Klein and the other three telling John to not announce his decision to leave the Beatles? Is the only evidence of this John's word in interviews AFTER the official breakup? If there's no evidence of it, no letter or postcard or taped conversation in which one of them tells John to keep quiet about leaving or alludes to having at an earlier point telling John to keep quiet, I'm doubtful that John's relationship to the others post the "divorce" comment was as definitive as John later claimed, and I'm doubtful whomever was in that meeting took John's word in the moment to be the gospel and not something that was spur of the moment and likely to change whenever John had a new song or new idea for something the Beatles should do...John often exaggerated in interviews. Most of the time really, but especially in 1969-71-ish. John announcing a "divorce" in September of 1969, being 100% certain of his stance but keeping quiet about it for 7 months afterward seems very unlike John Lennon. 8 months. 8 months during a time when he and Yoko made an event out of everything, he didn't make an event out of ending the Beatles? I really think anything could have happened until "Instant Karma!" was released in February of 70 as John Ono Lennon...not even Plastic Ono Band....But even in this case, the song was written and recorded in a span of 3 days and released a week later (with Beatle pals George and Billy Preston playing on it!). After that, and the hassle the other three gave Paul about his album release date and the Specter arguments, things would have been a little tougher, but still possible after a couple months of cooling off. Paul's Q&A was the nail in the coffin. His lawsuit was lowering the casket. The "divorce" meeting was in Sept of 1969, and John didn't start recording his debut solo album until a full year later. Think about that!
I don't think the other band members thought much of the Q&A. The world seems to have, but not the Beatles. But the lawsuit was the nail. My opinion.
Remember, John had already told the others he was Jesus Christ during a board meeting. There was no reason for them to take anything he said particularly seriously. I’m a big John Lennon fan in general, but I think it is still not properly appreciated that from 1968 till the end, the other three Beatles were dealing with an unstable addict. Anybody who’s dealt with such a person will tell you it is very difficult.
You mean like how during the February ‘65 sessions they started recording I Need You on the first day? Or in the October ‘65 sessions they commenced If I Needed Someone on the third day? Or in April ‘66 it was the third song attempted? It’s nonsense that George didn’t get a look in for “weeks” or whether he claimed. They spent longer on the others’ material but that was because they always had the songs written and ready. He didn’t. It’s a conspiracy theory.
IIRC John wasn't a fan of what Paul did with the Q&A. His comment was a backhanded compliment of saying "he used our breakup to sell a record, I should have thought of that," something along those lines. Great point. And here's another theory to go along with it: In '68 John, in the middle of a massive LSD/mandrax bender, calls a meeting and announces to the band and Apple staff that he's Jesus Christ reincarnated. The band especially are flabbergasted and they tell John to keep it quiet until they figure out how to handle "the situation" so to speak. John soon lets go of these thoughts of course (though the feeling would linger on for the chorus of "The Ballad of John and Yoko") A year later, John, addicted to heroin for a year at this point, is in a heated Apple meeting where he blurts out "I want a divorce" or something to that effect. *Perhaps* he lets go of that thought, too? Regardless, a year after THAT, could John have either unconsciously or intentionally conflated the two events? Memory is a tricky thing, and there are major similarities between the two events: 1) Meeting at Apple, 2) John making a big statement, 3) Drugs....Maybe either unconsciously or intentionally, John began telling the story that when he told the others he wanted to leave the band that he was encouraged not t0 say anything, because that's exactly what happened with his Jesus statement in 68.
On the flipside, is there any evidence contradicting what Lennon said? Did Paul or George ever claim that Lennon expressed interest to them in recording with the Beatles again, subsequent to his September "I quit" announcement? Did they (or anyone else with insider knowledge) ever suggest Lennon's description of events was inaccurate?
I AGREE with a lot of what you have said but not your denial that the meeting that John quit the Beatles took place and even if it did, that he was not asked to keep quiet, i believe Paul has confirmed John's - or has made the same account this but if no quotes can be sourced has at least never denied it, nor for that matter has Ringo.
Sorry if you did not realise that i was being slightly facetious, however I think Georges claims in this regard seem to mount pace from the White Album sessions.
i think he may have thought that before Paul dropped the big one but after, he think in public he was trying to tread a fine line just in case Paul's denials, however unlikely, might possibly be true. It was still early days and a lot of money was involved and he may have also been trying not to jeopardize the chance of a more soft Macxit rather than the full hard Macxit that came with the lawsuit. In otherwords he was trying to be diplomatic.
This is my take as well... McCartney included a vague and somewhat provocative interview with the promo copies of his new solo LP (which he was surely a bit insecure about)... The news media saw an angle and made the more explicit declaration that "The Beatles are breaking up" -- The media, in this case, gave us more of the "red meat" than McCartney did. If that typed interview with the promo copies of the LP was McCartney's "declaration," why didn't he follow it up with interviews -- news and print -- with definite "Oh yes, I am surely leaving the Beatles. They are done deal"? That would have surely been an even bigger story and sold more LPs. As I stated in one of my previous posts, McCartney's real and formal "break up" announcement came on 12/31/70 when he served the lawsuit papers to the other Beatles seeking legally to dissolve the partnership. Previous this, all the fuss about the "break up" was purely conjecture and emotion... could be compared to just a "marital spat"... 12/31/70 was the date McCartney formally stated he wanted a "divorce."
Exactly. The day after the Mirror ran the headline that he had quit, he said to the Times that he had not and that the headlines were wrong.
Yes memories can be unreliable but John's statements date from only a year or so later so still close enough to the event in question, add to this that Paul at best has either more or less confirmed John's account, here is Paul 28.28 confirming John quitting and although there is no specific confirmation on this clip Paul does say that when he dropped the Macxit bomb John was pissed and said that he had wanted to do it, why would John be pissed if he hadn't been persuaded to keep it all under his hat 10.26 in - of course John could have been keeping quiet for his own reasons but isn't it more likely he was either persuaded - as he said - or they collectively agreed he would keep it quiet - which when you think about it amounts to the same thing. And like i say Paul has never questioned John's account. Paul McCartney On The Beatles' Breakup and What Lead To It (1990)
If what you say is true why did he not call out the press for " fake news " ? - for sure he worded his Q&A carefully and having no plans is not the same as ruling something out but he had ample chance to correct the press had he wanted to, and to my knowledge he didn't.
i am sure Paul hoped that it would go away or John would change his mind so it would certainly make sense if Paul had helped persuade John not to announce it but i agree John's recollection in that regard is more ambiguous
@theMess indicates that he did (see just above), but I found this, copied from April 11, 1970 New York Times archives; by Alvin Shuster with headline McCartney Breaks Off With Beatles "In a light‐hearted statement, both Mr. Starr and Mr. Har rison commented: “The world is still spinning and so are we and so are you when the spinning stops — that'll be the time to worry. Not before. Until then, the Beatles are alive and well and the beat goes on. The beat goes on.”
To add to the plot (still from April 11, 1970 NYT): In a statement taking the form of an interview with him self, Mr. McCartney said he no longer wanted to record with the group nor write any more songs with Mr. Lennon. But he qualified this by saying he did not know whether the break was temporary or permanent.
i was certainly aware that he did claim not to have left the band and he did have plausible deniability on his side ( John said as much but was dismissive of it ) but remain curious that this claim did not get much traction. I mean I even recall a night gallery episode with a hippy in hell that refers the the Beatles breaking up ( John Astin ? ) which i think may have filmed around the same time - citation required on that though. I feel like i am living in an alternate timeline where neither John or Paul really quit the Beatles, maybe it didn't happen and it is a 50 year old bad dream ???
Yes there is. He himself said that he had definitely quit at that point, in subsequent interviews. That is most definitely evidence. It's not conclusive evidence (since he could have been lying after the fact) but it's evidence. And then the question is "what evidence is there that he was lying?" To my knowledge, none of the other Beatles ever challenged his account of how he quit. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, it makes sense to believe his account.
