Another theory as to why The Beatles ended.

Just to run with the OP for a moment, and I appreciate that there were many factors contributing to the break up, but, if the rumours are true about this Sep/Oct 69 meeting, then it could be telling that it was John who suggested 4 songs per songwriter and George who rejected this in favour of picking songs on merit. On the surface it would appear to favour George giving him 2 more songs than his usual allocation. But perhaps John was fearful that the ever-confident McCartney would not be reducing his allocation and with George improving that it may be himself who would suffer. So to preserve his share he suggests an equal split, and when it's rejected, he realises this is one more factor that suggests it's time for him to go solo. Perhaps also George was gaining confidence that his contributions would be stronger and therefore would benefit from selection on merit.

It's an interesting idea, but with no firm evidence and anyway would not constitute the main, let alone the only, reason for the split.

 

Unfortunately the equal split wasn't discussed, but Mark Lewisohn mentioned the tape on BBC radio yesterday and did confirm that they had the conversation about soon working on another album, and that the Paul and John songs should no longer feature the 'Lennon/McCartney' title unless they were actual co-writes, so a song like 'Yesterday' released after would have been listed purely as 'McCartney'.

All of them sounded positive about their recording future according to Mark, which is also interesting. It was recorded so that Ringo could hear it, as he couldn't make it to the meeting.

 

It ended because it reached its expiration date. Period.

Be honest and not influenced by nostalgia or Beatlemania or what Lennon described as people saying "we missed it the first time, can you give it another go?"

After the definitive closing statement of Abbey Road, what was left undone or unsaid between these people?

Plus if we're going to do what ifs ... a satire/fantasy book came out in the late 1970s that I believe was called Paperback Writer. It was about the Beatles reuniting and making a new album then playing a concert. They opened said concert with their new music, got booed off the stage and had to swing into All My Loving to prevent tomatoes from being thrown. John made the comment to Paul, "They really didn’t want to hear or see us, they wanted to relive something they lost."

 

Are you sure about this? Pete Doggett, the writer of the excellent You Never Give Me Your Money, says it was the otherway round (iirc) and that it turned into an argument never resolved at the meeting.

"...and a day or two later all four Beatles endured a turgid discussion about voting rights and share options, which broadened into a desultory fight between Lennon and Harrison about the latter's right to equal exposure on any future Beatles record. Though nobody realised it at the time, this was an epochal moment: it was the last occasion on which Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starkey would be together in the same room."

George himself says they agreed on an equal 3 songs for John, Paul and himlself and 2 for Ringo 1970

George: "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."

George Harrison Interview: Howard Smith, WABC-FM New York 5/1/1970 - Beatles Interviews Database

While John in another interview indicates that he was not happy making an album with that amount of songs

John: “The problem is that in the old days, when we needed an album, Paul and I got together and produced enough songs for it. Nowadays there’s three if us writing prolifically and trying to fit it all onto one album. Or we have to think of a double album every time, which takes six months.

“That’s the hang-up we have. It’s not a personal ‘The Beatles are fighting’ thing, so much as an actual physical problem. What do you do? I don’t want to spend six months making an album I have two tracks on. And neither do Paul or George probably. That’s the problem. If we can overcome that, maybe it’ll sort itself out.

“None of us want to be background musicians most of the time. It’s a waste. We didn’t spend ten years ‘making it’ to have the freedom in the recording studios, to be able to have two tracks on an album.

John Lennon Interview: New Musical Express 12/13/1969 - Beatles Interviews Database


I don't think John and George ever came to an agreement, George may have assumed John would have his back in 'future' albums, but from the sound of it nothing was decided.

 

It seems that after that interview, John, George and Paul had a meeting where they worked out a deal where the 'Lennon/McCartney' title wouldn't be used unless they were genuine co-writes, and where they discussed plans for the next album of new material that would follow up 'Abbey Road' (meaning not 'Let It Be').

Lewisohn has heard the tape, discussed it on the radio yesterday and said they sounded positive about the future of recording together. It was recorded for Ringo who didn't attend.

 

No, hence why I said "if the rumours are true", based on the post I was answering.

 

I found this interview from 1969 where George mentions them having an equal split going forwards. I think this is the interview which Beatles Book Monthly used as a blurb in one of their issues that same year. I posted the blurb in a different thread and wasn't sure how real it was.

 

WTF!!! The Beatles broke up???...

 

Referring to the OP...John had some excellent songs up his sleeve...as proven by his first two solo albums...that I don’t think he was running out of good songs. Or jealous of George.

No doubt though, George was hitting his creative songwriting peak around Abbey Road.

 

I'm thinking it was because The Stones started kicking *ss!

 

Interestingly the Beatles were invited to play on one or more of The Stones homecoming concerts in London in December 1969.
They were offered the choice to open or close the show but apparently neglected to even answer the Stones invitation.
I guess in the main part this shows the less than total harmony at the time between the band members but was also a smart move by them not to co headline a Stones show in London when they're hot from the road and the Beatles are sorely lacking in the recent live roadwork department.

 

wow!
I did not know that story!!
That would have been so historic!

ya, The Stones were red hot in '69

 

Procol Harum ended up as the opening act for 2 of those concerts in London. There were a total of 4 London gigs in mid-December 1969; 2 at the Saville Theatre and 2 at the Lyceum Theatre, with Procol Harum appearing at the Lyceum.

 

With the odd noteable exception I don't see George even close the John in the songwriting department.
A Beatles album that had more George songs than John songs would have been all the worse for it.
Yes George had a little prolific period going for a while around the turn of 1970.
I enjoyed his great songs but John was in another league.

 

This theory is too subjective and speculative to be legitimately considered. Something “painfully obvious” to you might be the other way round for someone else. Just yet another theory.

 

over time of reading several books about "the end of the Beatles" I've come to one conclusion - only Ringo seemed to have a lick of sense left.

so, many other problems besides Lennon's fears of Harrison overtaking him in songwriting.

no rock band that successful dissolves over one issue.


huge financial problems

Lennon not really wanting to do it anymore, some people have suggested he wanted out as early as 1965 or 6 - yoko didnt help but it was Lennon who enabled her to interfere

McCartney apparently becoming an insufferable task master altho that may be overblown for the sake of selling books; however Ringo did supposedly quit over this issue or a variance of it

Harrison and Lennon having issues, sometimes severe - that was indeed a problem, however, Harrisons continuing concentration on Hinduism and the pursuit of all that, the mystique of it, and the devotion to it... probably another distraction

 

Yes, all true.

But as I have said before: Once they loosened up their trousers, it was a steady decline with regard to the band's camaraderie and their days were numbered. ...

 

FWIW, there's this from Leslie Cavendish who was The Beatles' hairdresser and was particularly close to Paul, so he's not biased.

Q - Did one guy in the band stand out as giving you problems?

A - You could feel sometimes the tension in the band. The one I had problems with was Ringo because I think Ringo had a problem with the band. I'm not sure he realized how important he was in that band.

Q - Very important!

A - He was very important. At the time he didn't write. He was there to be told how to play the drums by Paul. Paul is a fantastic drummer. I saw him a few times take the drum sticks from Ringo's hand and tell him "That's not the way I want it played." Now, he would do that in the studio. I can remember being in the studio and Ringo didn't like the idea of just me being there when someone's doing that to other people and got quite aggressive.

Q - What song did that dispute happen with? Do you remember?

A - It was the "White Album". One of the songs. I never knew Paul could play drums. I knew he played piano and guitar. He's a fantastic drummer.

From this interview.

 

Ain't THAT the truth

 

Yes, Revolver. Known to be one of their worst albums.

 

George probably did have parity with John on that album; he basically co-wrote 'She Said She Said', contributed lyrics to 'Eleanor Rigby', added a lot to 'Tomorrow Never Knows' and had his three original songs on the album.

 

Capitol Revolver with two John songs, three George songs. But you like it better than the regular Revolver, huh? OK.

 

That's not what happened though- George and John have both separately said that George reminded John of two bits of songs he (Lennon) had written that would make a good bridge for She Said, She Said, and helped arrange the middle, not that he wrote any of it. He is prominent as both guitarist and singer on it, though. Shades of You Really Got a Hold On Me.

 

Ringo did want to open his own chain of hairdressers, perhaps Leslie was trying to paint a bad picture of a future competitor. The swine!

 

Um...what? John had all three of the different segments; George helped John weave them together, but he didn't write any melodies or lyrics as far as we know. Meanwhile, John wrote many of the lyrics to Taxman. We have no idea what George contributed to Eleanor Rigby, lyrically. Out of all the Beatles, George added the least to Tomorrow Never Know--the loops and backward guitar is McCartney, and in any event, adding to an arrangement is not songwriting.

Lennon wrote 5 songs and contributed the verses of Yellow Submarine (music and lyrics) and a good amount of the lyrics to Taxman. The George revisionism these days is bizarre.