When was the last time the Beatles were happy as a band?

1963

 

From the Jan. 7, 1969 "Get Back" sessions:

George: "Ever since Mr. Epstein passed away, it hasn’t been the same."

Paul: "We’ve been very negative since Mr. Epstein passed away."

 

Well, now that's intriguing! You can't leave it at that - what's your pet theory? lol I love reading about people's pet theories! Have a couple of my own of course.

 

I stated my "pet theory" upthread. And repeatedly on this forum for years.

What do you want me to elaborate on? LOL

Speaking of "Unhappy Beatles" in 1966. I just found this. I had never seen it before! It is FASCINATING!
Just look how happy and over-joyed the 4 Fabs are here, in LA in Aug 1966! Answering the same stupid questions, for as John explicitly states is the "800th time". LOL

And George specifically references Manila, but tries to diplomatically diffuse the anti-American comment he had made in England earlier, about going to America, next.
Fascinating!

 

I can't either.
But I could never, ever have survived or even have endured for one week, what the Fabs endured most everyday from 1963 until 1970.

Not for all the money in the universe!

 

Probably been stated a few times but IMO the start of the 1968 -first few weeks perhaps - trip to India. They looked genuinely happy for the Lady Madonna video shoot and from what I've read in the beginning of the India trip. The bad vibes started there or just after.

 

must have been wild! but they knew what they were fighting for...

 

I seriously doubt that they did know, or even have any idea, what it would become.

I imagine (no pun) it must have been torture for them everyday, from mid 1965 onwards.

Just look at the look on all 4 faces on the cover of "Beatles For Sale" (late 1964). And could that title and the next one, "Help" have had some deeper meanings?
John says so explicitly, years later.

 

when dylan introduced them to drugs...

 

26 August 1967
The day after, Brian Epstein died. Then came the three funerary albums.

 

I suspect it really inexplicably hurt John that Paul left Rishikesh so early with Jane. I think in Hunter Davies’ book there’s a bit with Cynthia from January 1968 where she tells John he needs the other Beatles psychologically more than they need him, and he doesn’t disagree. Paul was recently engaged to Jane as well, so their departure may have re-ignited John’s fear of abandonment. It’s possible that John’s whole relationship with Yoko was a reaction to his fear of abandonment (“I’ll replace you before you can replace me”) and a provocation to Paul to declare his allegiance, as much as it was a rebound from Cynthia or a ‘true love’ story.

 

Then they formed this band. The Walrus had split from the band earlier.

 

I don't think being happy for one song or one photo-shoot is exactly what the thread-starter is looking for. Up to the end, they were probably fairly happy most of the time; it was just that they were all going in different directions.

My guess is that the last time all 4 were on the same page, so to speak, is the very-early 1968 recording of 'Lady Madonna', 'Across The Universe', and 'Hey Bulldog'. Just four or five days later, John and George went to India. Everyone was focused on the tunes, and everyone was united in preparing for their trip abroad.

The India trip is an obvious demarcation point in The Beatles' history, and in some ways it's the end of the group. What presumably happens here -- when half the group (and spouses) was in India for a two months -- is that everyone slows down, gets off the drugs, gets away from the "Beatle machine" for the first time since 1961 or so, and in general just dries out. The days of Paul's long-term relationship with Jane was numbered once the India trip ended, and John's marriage essentially ended during it.

They were probably all more-or-less on the same page when sessions for The White Album started, but as soon as they got down to work it became evident that the old camaraderie was gone (see: Ringo quitting early in the sessions). Months and years later, John was still bitter about these sessions.

I think their general busy-ness right after Brian's September 1967 death (not to mention everyone being on various drugs at the time) shielded them from the pain and insecurity that event brought on long enough to carry them through the film and the New Year and to get them all to India. But once they got there, they were confronted with themselves, as you are when you're sober and meditating every day, and since they had all grown-up anyway since 1962 or whenever, they suddenly realized they were each an individual now.

So, in sum, I'd say the February 1968 recording sessions were probably the last time the "Beatles" as a collective was quite happy, whatever that means.

 

It's possible but I don't see John being that cut with Paul and Jane leaving early. Rather than the Beatles Yoko was John's release from the suburban hell he was living in with Cynthia. I do think John felt abandoned by Stu leaving with Astrid which is ironic considering how things turned out with John and Yoko

 

They still sound pretty happy on 'Abbey Road', to me. And they fact they were talking about future plans a few weeks after they'd finished it seems to indicate they still enjoyed being a band -- nobody was forcing them to do anything.

What happened after that is another matter.

 

Exactly.

John was always looking for that kind of intense romantic/artistic/mothering relationship all his life and was hugely jealous of Stuart and Astrid. I think the theory that John was worried about Paul abandoning him in some way is quite likely even though I don't think Paul really understood his friends anxiety.

I think it's often forgotten that it was Stuart not Paul that was the major influence on John. John and Paul were complete opposites in a lot of ways and their relationship brought a lot of Johns insecurities out to the fore.

 

But I haven't been on this forum for years, so I've missed all the interesting bits! So your pet theory is that they'd achieved everything they set out to achieve? But what was the thing you mentioned about going back to their childhoods and that it was signposted throughout their careers? Could you elaborate on that, or else I've just misread your post.

 

This was a major factor too, but why ? It certainly wasn't for his business acumen.
No, because his role was too soothe the individual band members egos and in particular placate John.

 

I do agree that Stuart was a hugely important person in John's life. I never realised quite how important until I read Tune In and listened to Cynthia's audio book. However, I disagree that Paul wasn't equally, if not more influential than Stuart. I would go so far as to say that fans and biographers alike underestimate how important Paul was to John, and vice versa. Considering Lennon/McCartney were the most successful song writing partnership of the 20th century, I think that their relationship - beyond songwriting - is criminally underplayed and unexplored in Beatles literature. I would add that both Cynthia and Linda stated that John and Paul had much more in common than people supposed. They were as alike as they were different. Such a fascinating partnership.

Edit: totally agree with you that Paul might not have been as aware of John's anxiety as he perhaps should have been. I think he was pretty oblivious. John once said this if I remember correctly?

 

They looked pretty giddy receiving those personalized steak branding irons!

 

I agree with this. I think there was a lot to be gained, from within the band and outside of it, in pitting John vs. Paul. Especially, during and post breakup when John and Paul became de facto political figures - radical/revolutionary vs. straight/square. The real vitriol between them seemed to be rather short lived. But, many fans, press, etc. had picked their side and had a vested interest in seeing them as rivals. Their friendship has been underestimated I believe.

 

I don't think my 'theory' is as linear or as simple as that. "We made it to the top, lets give up, now."
Because life usually can not be lived entirely linearly. Especially not by 4 separate individuals that also, happened to be in a creative musical collective.

I'm not alone in noticing or even just pointing out the undercurrent of, for lack of a better term, "sadness" in a lot, if not most Beatles music.
It is always there, just under the surface, even in the 'happy' sounding songs.
And going back to the Fabs childhood, three of them had very tragic, unsettled childhoods, even if not totally unhappy. Which could be the source for some of that underlying sadness.
And it has been noted by many Beatles authors John and Paul had a deep type of bonding shared by both, due to losing their mothers tragically, when they were both teenagers.

So the 'signposts' are always there from the beginning of their complex relationship and it plays out in their music as well.

Eleanor Rigby
I'm A Loser
I Should've Have Know Better
I Call Your Name
Help
No Reply
Let It Be

The touchstones are in their songs just below the most obvious surface and in the way they lived their lives, that sadness or tragedy is always just around the corner.

The whole 'let's buy an entire private island' thing is another indicator of wanting to escape fame. As was adopting the name "Sgt Pepper", as a type of pseudonym.

 

Great post. I particularly like the point you made of India being a demarcation in the Beatles story. Neat way to put it, really. Whichever way we spin the India trip - positive or negative - it seems that it was a turning point. Was it because John was struggling to come to terms with Brian's death? Or his marriage being over? Or Yoko coming into his life? All three? All other issues aside, it seems that whatever John went through, or whatever happened to him there, affected the whole outlook and group dynamics from that time on. I like your idea of Feb 1968 sessions as being the last time they were all on the same page, although saying that, they did produce an album of widely different styles. Maybe they should have just embraced that though instead of trying to 'get back' to what they'd been before?

 

I don’t think the Beatles trying to take care of the business side helped one bit after Brian died.

 

Aaand another fantastic post. Really enjoying the contributions to this thread, all giving me food for thought.

This is worth repeating:

'The touchstones are in their songs just below the most obvious surface and in the way they lived their lives, that sadness or tragedy is always just around the corner.'

I mean, that does make you stop and think. And it's not that ordinary people didn't also have traumas in their lives, but the Beatles had to live out their traumas with everyone else looking on. Interviewing them about Brian's death moments after they learned of it - it's a bit much. And then Paul being subjected to the same treatment over John's death, and being criticised for his response.

So much of their thoughts and feelings must have played out in their songs, on both a lyrical and musical level. I find some of George's songs to be among their darkest - possible reaction to the fame that he hated so much?