Another theory as to why The Beatles ended.

The Beatles broke up because they became grown men who were ridiculously successful, grew tired of the whole Beatles thing, had varying degrees of drug or alcohol use/dependence, had money and management disputes and most importantly they just didn't NEED to be in the band any more for money or ego purposes. Things end, end of story.

 

People are also catching on to the flat earth - according to the flat earth society.

 

Oh sure. I can see that. Along those same lines I tend to find a few of George Martins musical contributions a bit unnecessary/annoying. That sped up piano break in In My Life comes to mind.

 

I disagree. It's clear from the solo albums after 1970 that they all could have benefited from the quality control of the other 3.

 

The Beatles had a giant food fight melee over favorite foods. John said NY slice was the best, Paul said you can’t beat good ol’ English fish and chips, Ringo said ice cream sundaes rule man, and George said you haven’t lived til you had spinach paneer and naan. It was a ruthless and mean-spirited slug fest of a food fight. When the spaghetti settled on their heads and the mustard burned their eyes to tears — they knew the Beatles were over.

 

They secretly wanted to reform with Pete Best for studio work, and tour with Jimmi Nicol and Eric Griffiths. John still thought George was too young to be in the band...

 

VS thread.

 

No, the Sept 69 meetings

 

He said they didn’t need the band for money or ego purposes.

He said nothing about them needing it for the quality of the music.

 

Epstein's death + John's ego are the biggest factor in my opinion.

I know it's frustrating to us Beatles fans that they made a masterpiece album in 1969 (with several before that) and permanently broke up shortly after, but John seemed like his mind was completely made up. I listened to Lennon/Plastic Ono Band for the first time and it seemed like he had zero interest in being a Beatle again. It seemed to me like he was even mocking George being a Hindu.

 

Or maybe it's a sign that post-1970 just wasn't the Beatles time. They came to a natural conclusion in '69-'70 as the music world was getting ready to move on to its next big sounds (arena rock, Bowie, heavy metal, singer-songwriter, etc.).

 

Every Beatles album sounded different from the last, though.

I wish they could have stuck around (with the addition of Billy Preston) and made some funk music!

If the Stones could adapt to 1978, surely the Beatles could at least adapt to the early to mid 70s.

 

I think this is the thread that will explain this. It's a long thread, however I think there is now plenty of evidence that this conversation took place, but likely in early-mid September 1969 before Lennon quit. It includes a discussion where Lennon proposes recording a new album very soon, and brings up the high quality of Harrison's songs, and proposes 4 songs per album each for him, McCartney and Harrison. Harrison is against this on the basis that songs should be selected on merit.

Beatles meeting Oct '69, where's the tape?

My view is - as others have said above - the break up of the Beatles cannot be attributed to any one thing. I think that the Allan Klein and general business situation was probably the most significant factor, but tensions over Yoko, drugs and probably some politics and dissatisfaction related to the theme of this thread and on the part of various parties also contributed.

 

Quality control for what? They already had the most massive successful band in history, tons of money, fame, etc. Why do you think the quality of their solo output factors into why they as humans, for their individual needs quit the Beatles?

 

Good theory, OP.

The more I read about the break up the more I think John regretted it more than the other three. He put on a strong face for the Lennon Remembers interview (which he later dismissed), and of course declared "The dream is over," but if I'm not mistaken, he was the first to become nostalgic about the group. I think part of his motivation for quitting was to get Paul to sort of step back and let John become the leader again. Paul suing the other three to dissolve the partnership really showed that it was over for good. And wasn't it John who was the last to formally sign the papers ending the group?

 

I love that album but I prefer ten.

 

They got sucked down a straw with no holes into a single use plastic bag that was banned.

 

I read somewhere that someone gave John a copy of King Crimsons In the Court of the Crimson King and he said "This is the future Man I can't hang with this "
And the rest is history.

 

A ludicrous theory that is completely unsupported by the evidence. John's strongest work post Beatles was 70-71.

 

John met Yoko Ono.


And the rest, as they say, is HerStory.

 

fair enough. ; )

 

so well put! Bravo...nailed it...John's Beatles fate was sealed.

 

The Beatles lost their mojo when Epstein died. The white album was all over the place and packed with dull songs and a ton of filler. The Get Back album was abandoned it was so bad. They saved face with (middle of the) Abbey Road to some degree but they were long past their sell-by date and John was the one who had the courage to openly admit it and kill it. As for Georges songs,... meh.

 

There probably needs to be a ban on new Beatles threads. At least until a new reissue is announced.

 

I would not be surprised if he secretly would have been okay with the Beatles getting back together. Especially by the late 70s