Another theory as to why The Beatles ended.

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by manco, Apr 9, 2019.

  1. manco

    manco Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    We all know John quit on September 20, 1969 to the other 3, not to be officially revealed until 1970. For such a long time I'd bought into the mythology of The Beatles Anthology as to why it ended. Basically we have been told forever that the band quit because 'they all needed to go in different directions, blah blah blah'.

    However since last year really listening to ATMP in its entirety & listening to the White Album(2018 remix) and discovering more things like:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOvOvDX_ArU

    I've been coming to the startling conclusion as to WHY John quit when he did. It's painfully obvious that George was eclipsing John as a songwriter by January 1969 and throughout the year. The only reason George was relegated to 2 songs on Abbey Road, when most of Lennon's material was mediocre was the inertia of John's bullying. He just couldn't handle the idea that by 1970 it would be been ridiculous to limit George to even 2 songs per side, they would have to give equal track slots going forward. I think Paul was secure in himself because he was brimming with songs in 1969 himself. But between heroin & Yoko, John was slumping and George was suddenly bringing in masterpiece after masterpiece and he felt f-en insecure all of a sudden in a way he never had before.

    Basically John preemptively struck to ensure in his own mind the legacy of Paul & him as the 2 songwriters of The Beatles. If things had continued on for a few more years, John might have been relegated to 1 song per side. It would have been an utter humiliation for the younger brother George to have eclipsed him on Beatles records, one after another like that. So he ensured his legacy for nearly 50 years. But people are catching on now.

    I think essentially ending the group hurt them all. In an alternate universe I think George is more benefiting from being in the group, motivated by the competition and he doesn't become drug addicted in the early 1970s after he'd blown his wad of songs. Paul would have continued benefiting form the quality control of the other 3. Sooner or later John would have gotten his act together and started writing quality material again. I wonder if all these things were on his mind in 1975 when he became a 'house husband', but it was too late? I imagine he might have forgotten about his grudges by 1980 but we know what happened...
     
    tug_of_war, Pouchkine, L.P. and 23 others like this.
  2. Remote Control Triangle

    Remote Control Triangle Forum Resident

    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Nope. But good try though.
     
  3. vinylontubes

    vinylontubes Forum Resident

    Location:
    Katy, TX
    I'm sticking with Yoko being the reason.
     
  4. manco

    manco Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    So you quit the biggest band in the world just for Yoko?
     
  5. manco

    manco Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    I'm beginning to see The Anthology(1995) as more of a piece of propaganda by Paul, Ringo & George Martin, spinning a mythology that they wanted us to believe. I think George Harrison tended to sound more honest on that, like his comment about how the band gave their nervous systems to the fans and of course all we have of John are his interviews from 1970-1980.
     
    L.P., fer2, steppednwhat and 3 others like this.
  6. lester christgau

    lester christgau Forum Resident

    Location:
    Rugby
    I thought they quit because they were so sick and tired of the endless, repetitive threads on the Hoffman forum?
     
  7. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    Ridiculous theory.
     
  8. qwerty

    qwerty A resident of the SH_Forums.

    The Beatles were always a John+Paul concern (just like the Stones are a Mick+Keith concern). Sure, George's development as a songwriter would have changed the dynamics within the band, but I don't think his creativity was the cause of the breakup.

    There were lots of things which contributed to the end of The Beatles -- drugs, Epstein's death, Yoko (and other personal relationship problems), sibling rivalry, inflated egos, power struggles, lack of quality management, hangers-on and users, the media pressures, being worn-out, and many more. You can't blame one thing, but you can find many contributing factors.
     
  9. kahlveen

    kahlveen Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    I imagine this was certainly one of few contributing factors to his dissatisfaction with the situation at the time. He did seem a bit fed up with contributing to or even learning George's songs, going as far to complain about "too many chords" or something along those lines. Also, there's his mention of bringing in Clapton (to replace George) who was certainly not a prolific songwriter at the time, but instead a proficient guitar player that wouldn't be taking up many tracks on an album.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2019
  10. Joel1963

    Joel1963 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Montreal
    John was messed up at the time on drugs, or just getting off heroin, and IMO it affected his attitude towards things.
     
  11. manco

    manco Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    True, there were many factors contributing to John's being fed up. But I do buy the idea that he couldn't stomach doing one more session figuring out not only Paul's songs but George's as well.

    There is also another musical factor here. By late 1969 John was clearly inferior to Paul & George on musical instruments. When John was called upon to play a few bass parts in 1969 they were terrible. He really was just a rhythm guitarist and could play some simple piano chords. By 1970 it was expected to be able to play multiple instruments proficiently and that was something John was NOT in the mood for. Also bringing in Eric Clapton, Klaus Voorman or Billy Preston full time was a non-starter.
     
  12. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    YOKO took John out in more than one way...
     
  13. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    and that's all he needed to be! a fantastic lead vocalist, fantastic writer and great rhythm player...he shined! ...and he was my favorite Beatle since day one...IMO, Clapton was an insult and uncalled for..they didn't need him by any means...
     
  14. manco

    manco Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    The saddest thing is I think John was mentally close to the possibility of reforming the band by 1981-1982, but deprived by some animal.
     
  15. Haystacks500

    Haystacks500 Active Member

    Location:
    San francisco
    I'd say that's a viable proposition considering the personalities and patterns of behavior at that time.
    Still I'm not quite convinced. How about some examples of comparable songwriting supporting your theory?
     
    Paulette likes this.
  16. A Saucerful of Scarlets

    A Saucerful of Scarlets Commenter Turned Viewer

    So they ended because John was jealous of George... really? Really?
     
  17. Diamond Star Halo

    Diamond Star Halo Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vancouver
    I’m not sure I agree with the notion that George had a better 1969 than John.
     
    Tingman, DennisF, andrewskyDE and 4 others like this.
  18. kahlveen

    kahlveen Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    If I remember correctly, it was John himself that suggested (perhaps jokingly?) bringing in Clapton to replace George who had walked out or had not showed up to the studio in early 69.
     
    andrewskyDE and Michael like this.
  19. manco

    manco Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    All because Paul & John were rejecting George's songs that largely ended up on ATMP in 1970, largely with Eric Clapton playing on them!
     
  20. Dr. Robert

    Dr. Robert Forum Resident

    Location:
    Curitiba, Brazil
    I don't think it was the only reason, but it sure played a part. That and Apple slowly disintegrating and failing, his drug abuse, Yoko, the fighting within the band, and all the rest are intertwined in the mess that was their breakup.
     
  21. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    so? I stick by my comment...Clapton wasn't need...I found it annoying that they brought him in...I found his lead unnecessary. It was a great song even on acoustic guitar.
     
    BeatlesBop likes this.
  22. Hall Cat

    Hall Cat Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chicago, IL USA
    I thought they agreed to give each writers 4 songs per album if they were to record again
     
  23. Hollow Horse

    Hollow Horse To pretend to be happy could only be idiocy

    :righton:
     
  24. manco

    manco Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    You mean in the early 1980s if John had lived?
     
  25. Dr. Robert

    Dr. Robert Forum Resident

    Location:
    Curitiba, Brazil
    It's sure one hell of a fight:

    All Things Must Pass - Dec. 1968
    Behind that Locked Door - Aug. 1969
    Hear Me Lord - Dec. 1968
    Here Comes the Sun - early 1969
    I Me Mine - Jan. 1969
    I'd Have You Anytime - Dec. 1968
    Let it Down - Dec. 1968
    Nowhere to Go - Dec. 1968
    Old Brown Shoe - Jan. 1969
    Run of the Mill - early 1969
    Something - late 1968
    Wah Wah - Jan. 1969
    What is Life? - June 1969
    Window Window - Jan. 1969

    plus some other ATMP written thoughout the year
     

Share This Page