Another theory as to why The Beatles ended.

I think Yoko had everything to do with the break up of the Beatles – but I don’t think she caused the break up of the Beatles.

John has always been restless and always looked outside of himself and the Beatles for direction and personal growth. Consider how profoundly some of these outside influences affected his worldview: Dylan and pot changed his outlook and songwriting, LSD did the same, as did the Maharishi and meditation, as did the Avant Gard movement, as did heroin, primal scream therapy & the New York political underground. Paul was always John’s partner in crime, showing unconditional support – until LSD where he balked. Paul was into the Avant Gard and incorporated it into the Beatles music but was always conscious of commercial considerations. Paul was happy to push the envelope but didn’t support John when he destroyed the envelope by posing nude on an album cover or insisting that an eight minute sound collage be inserted into a Beatles album. Paul certainly didn’t support John’s heroin addiction. When John introduced the song Revolution and declared it a single, Paul did not support having such an uncommercial track issued as a single. John re-recorded it and it still got pushed aside by Paul’s Hey Jude.

As an accomplished artist and, importantly, performance artist, Yoko supported John’s every whim. When John wanted her to attend every recording session, she supported that decision. When John wanted her to have a live microphone at all times and have her input considered as an equal part of the band, she supported him. When John decided he no longer wanted to speak during recording and, instead, have Yoko speak for him, she supported that decision. Paul supported none of this.

Now certainly all of this behavior was disruptive to the Beatles as a band. A typical woman would have recognized this and, likely, would have backed off or, at least, been more discrete. But, no matter how you feel about Yoko, you have to admit that she was not a typical woman of her time – she was an exceptional woman. As Beatle fans we are horrified by her behavior as we value the Beatles above all else but who is to say how Yoko viewed the Beatles. Certainly we can say that she didn’t value them the way the fans do. We can speculate that she was used to having a say in artistic endeavors. Certainly, within the art world, she had earned that. And John clearly felt that her input into the Beatles art was as valuable as Paul’s & George’s. And, we cannot forget that the intensity of this behavior was fueled by heroin addiction. So, in that sense, all bets were off.

Yoko showed John that he had no limitations. Paul showed John that the Beatles presented their own limitations to John’s grandest notions. John was already on his way to somewhere he couldn’t go with the Beatles. Yoko offered the momentum and the support he needed to go there.

Without a doubt her presence (in its intensity) contributed greatly to the demise of the Beatles. But we can only speculate what would have happened if Yoko hadn’t been introduced into the Beatle dynamic. All we can know for sure is that George would have had a few extra digestive biscuits to eat.

 

What I get out of all that is that John needed a psychiatrist.

 

George had issues with Paul and not John. Everything is speculation except John saying George has chords that are difficult for him...no hatred involved.

 

After Bangladesh...that changed. OK for George to help out John....not ok for John to help out George. That's on John.

 

Or maybe it was because Paul was jealous of Ringo starting to write songs and take lead vocals. About as likely.

 

I think John was already insecure in his abilities compared to Paul starting in 1967 which led to the drug addiction, Yoko, etc. In a vacuum I don't think he would've been bothered by George bringing in strong material -- he was his biggest cheerleader in some ways -- but maybe on top of everything else it was another blow to his ego.

 

If there is one thing we can be grateful of that their permanent split is an example for other great bands. F.e., Radiohead has stayed together for 25+ years now because they're all ok with Thom & Jonny doing separate projects and then coming back every few years to the group. I have to believe that The Beatles showed what NOT to do had an impact here.

 

As far as I can tell, it was January '69 when George was running through Let It Down, and Lennon commented something along the lines of "that's a lot of chords". At the time they were trying to quickly put together a dozen or so new "back-to-basics" songs to be performed live in just a few weeks. In that case I'd hardly hold a comment like that against John, a relatively complex song like that just wasn't particularly appropriate for the project at hand. On the other hand, the much simpler For You Blue was something John dove right into.

 

Looking at the songs John wrote on Plastic Ono Band and Imagine, to suggest John would only have two songs per album is laughable.

 

4 songs is what he proposed. I don't think Paul & George were willing to be limited to 4 songs each on the next Beatles LP considered they were brimming with dozens.

 

I'm wondering now if the whole 'back to basics' Get Back is more Anthology spinning considering the complexity of many of the new Paul & George songs. Meaning they felt a marketing ploy was needed due to the vagaries of the music business.

 

The more fervent of the Bitter Beatle's acolytes are an interesting lot.

 

Name me any other group from the 1960s that people can't stop talking about.

 

I feel Paul has a tendency to romanticise the past. He always has to emphasise how special and meaningful his relationship with John was.

 

I bought a book when I was a kid back in the '70s called "Apple to the Core." I found it a few months ago and reread it. It was written a few months after the first settlement with Allen Klein. The people who wrote it had backgrounds in business reporting. They did interviews with Klein, Lew Grade, and others around at the time. My takeaway is that Brian Epstein's demise was the start of it all, but that John hiring Klein (probably at the suggestion of the Rolling Stones) and Paul's decision to use John Eastman as his own rep was the catalyst. The Eastman family (father and son lawyers Lee and John) do not come off well, particularly in terms of respecting the band relationship.

 

The break up of the Beatles was a complex situation that played out over a period of time. There were a number of factors at work. Whether something was a factor, or how much of a factor some one thing was can be debated. But not past the point of recognizing that a number of other factors were definitely involved as well.

If any one factor was so significant as to dominate the decision, it would have been apparent. It would have stuck out, and logic would have demanded it be recognized as such.

For those tired of the question on SHF, beyond the obvious point they need not join discussions of this sort, it might help to recognize that the breakup was not only significant in terms of its leading to the demise of the favorite band of many here. It is precisely that it was complex that makes it an interesting subject, one involving interpersonal dynamics, artistic goals, money, and the countless variations thereof.

Having said that I don't have much patience with suggestions that any one factor was so overriding as to have dominated the process.

 

this.

 

Yes, I think Yoko and the death of Brian Epstein are the most important reasons for the band's break up. All of the Apple madness, Allen Klein taking over, George growing as a songwriter, John's drug abuse, Phil Spector ruining "The Long And Winding Road", it all contributed but in the end just accelerated something that was already happening.

 

I think that all of the songs from 69 are terrific, with the only exceptions being the fragments from the Medley, which are still pleasant. The songwriting resulted in five singles released in 1969, four A-sides (“Ballad of John and Yoko", “Come Together”, "Give Peace a Chance", "Cold Turkey"), and a prominent B-side ("Don't Let Me Down"). If that is "slim pickings" to you, then I don't know what to say. Just for reference, only one A-side of a single released in 1969, "Get Back" , was written by McCartney.

He also put a band together, played two live shows, released a live album, recorded and released the two "art" albums with Yoko, got married, held the bed-ins, etc. He might have even done the Bag One lithographs, and filmed a couple of those shorts during the year, but I don't have the dates in mind.

He was incredibly prolific. I ask myself what I've done in the last 12 months . . . . .

 

Actually three live shows, if you count Yoko's Cambridge gig. Also in '69, the Give Peace A Chance promo video and his contributions to the Beatles Christmas record.

 

Right. John quit because George wrote 2 or 3 good songs.

Some people have way too much time on their hands.

 

Honestly, can anyone imagine The Beatles coming together through the 70s? Those guys lived a life together between 1955 and 1970, and by1970, it's clear they were all ready for something else. It's clear from 1068 onwards, they did not have a collective vision that they could unify around. If you go on Youtube, you can sometimes find "dream albums" for what a Beatles album would've sounded like for each year between 1971 and 1980, and it's not usually all that inspiring. At best, it would have been a flag of convenience, and likely one of diminishing returns. The Beatles were fortunate enough to end it all before they were completely eclipsed by other more compelling acts in the 1970s.

 

Yes. And, well, while most of us didn't actually enjoy the Cambridge recording or the Wedding Album, or other "artistic" endeavors like the acorns stunt, you do have to appreciate that effort and thought went into each project (including the cake in the Wedding Album and the calendar in Live Peace).

 

Absolutely, he was really on a roll artistically. And if you back it up to Dec '68, there was also his Rock n Roll Circus performance. He was a busy guy!

 

Indeed. Even William the Conqueror made remarks to that effect. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle sayeth so.