I've heard the podcast and they seem legit, having had Mark Lewisohn himself on as a guest, and one of them even worked with John in the 70s. John is notoriously fickle. I would not be surprised if one day in September he suddenly decided he was into the Beatles again. As quickly as he got over it, he could've gotten back into it for a day. And everyone would've gone along with it, since John was still the spiritual leader. It would make sense if the meeting was secret because they didn't want the media spreading even more rumors until they at least knew what they were going to do. I also wouldn't be shocked if Paul said no to a record with a 4-way Beatles split. He was used to the Lennon-McCartney status quo.
John had said in later interviews he was expecting Yoko to join the Beatles. It was probably very apparent to Paul that Yoko certainly was the motivation to John to get back to performing in the studio, despite her presence. She may not have been a very noticeable presence on any future Beatles albums, in retrospect. Her recordings were separate from John's during most of the solo years. The few times they did joint work together on one album was for Some Time in New York City, Double Fantasy and the posthumous Milk and Honey. I'm not counting the first three John and Yoko albums in this post, but the others may have thought her contributions would be what the first three John and Yoko albums were.
George, May 1970: Q: "How was it decided how many songs you would have on a Beatles album? Is it, like, just whoever pushed and shoved the hardest?" GEORGE: "Yeah. It's always... it was whoever would be the heaviest would get the most songs done. So consequently, I couldn't be bothered pushing, like, that much. You know, even on 'Abbey Road' for instance, we'd record about eight tracks before I got 'round to doing one of mine. Because uhh, you know, you say 'Well, I've got a song,' and then with Paul -- 'Well I've got a song as well and mine goes like this -- diddle-diddle-diddle-duh,' and away you go! You know, it was just difficult to get in there, and I wasn't gonna push and shout. 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."
As long as they remained partners in apple the door was always going to be open to future Beatle albums. It took the law suit to end them.
Pete Doggett has a different take as he comes to the conclusion that they never came to an understanding Eastman arrived on 15 September, 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. A saga that had begun in passionate commitment to rock 'n' roll music ended in a life-draining argument about the consequences of that passion. The fact that Lennon was willing to argue over it kind of suggests that his foot was not entirely out the door.
^John was never really going to end it himself, I don’t think. I think it’s possible he just wanted to have his way— Yoko as his muse and Klein as his manager and assumed everybody would acquiesce. Paul didn’t, of course.
I've seem this mentioned since, well, since 1970. Why would Paul's album be the end of the group? John had already released two Plastic Ono Band singles, one solo single, one POB live album and three Yoko experimental LPs. George had released an instrumental soundtrack and experimental synthesizer album. Even Ringo had just released his first album. So why was Paul not entitled to release a solo album without it ending the group? Just after Paul's album came out George was very conciliatory about the band and its future. He seemed sure they would reconvene in later 1970 after they all released solo albums. Ron
Not so much the album but his statement and the legal proceedings that followed it brought an end to Paul's involvement in the band. They could have carried on without him, George in 1970 would certainly have been up for it, Ringo was happy to form another band with the two of them but I suspect John would not want to for a variety of reasons.
I’ve come to this way of thinking after reading the Doggett book, and reading various contemporary comments from the John, George, and Ringo in the September 1969-March 1970 timeframe discussing the Beatles as an ongoing thing. Paul’s “press release” became the breakup because it was never corrected by Paul, who I imagine wasn’t 100 percent sure he really wanted to end the group, but couldn’t assure the world they had not broken up, given that John said he left the group. Going into the summer 1970, there weren’t any plans for group work. Rather, they were digging even further into their solo careers. Still, I’m not sure anyone believed they broke up until Paul sued to end the partnership.
Howie Edelson is a Beach Boys guy. An insider of sorts, especially recently, but I’m not entirely clear what his “in” was. I think he basically pushed his way in there. Great writer, very opinionated, impossibly high standards and doesn’t suffer fools. He wrote the liner notes to last year’s “Sunshine Tomorrow “ 1967 copyright protection release. If anyone wants to contact him and ask him to participate in this discussion, I suggest going to the smileysmile message board. I believe he still probably holds court there. I never go there myself, haven’t for years, since the lunatics started running the asylum. Oh, I think he has a blog too. Google could help with that. No idea if he’s a member here (probably).
At least one thing good came of this thread and that is now we all know that not even McCartney likes Maxwell's Silver Hammer and Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da (at least not anymore)
I had forgotten about that one, thanks for sharing! My own memories from the summer of '70 - perhaps even precisely as of August, for personal reasons - is that the local music press "believed" that Paul had truly quit the group, that The Beatles were over, using obit kind of coverages and front pages. Can't tell if this was sincere or just to sell copy though...
But it was McCartney at the press conference to announce his first solo album that he also announced that he was quitting The Beatles and therefore it's over and that's why he gets the blame. But (yes another but) Lennon was pissed that he didn't do it first like he wanted to.
And this is the same man who bemoaned Paul and Ringo for recording Why Don't We Do It In The Road without him? He didn't mention Don't Pass Me By or Martha My Dear or Savoy Truffle, but "Road" of all songs? John wanted things HIS way or no way. Certainly by mid-1969 he was content to release Plastic Ono Band singles, fully including Yoko. Why was this not good enough? Why did she have to be a Beatle too? If he wanted the Beatles to continue why not record one Beatles album per year, then allow many months for EACH member to do whatever they wanted to? This sorta happened in 1969 as it was. One Beatles album, one stand-alone single, POB singles and live album, George working with Billy Preston and others, Paul working with Mary Hopkin. Of course there was the three week Get Back sessions to start the year, which ended up producing an album and film released the following year, but this soured each of them in differing ways. Speaking of Get Back/Let It Be... Why did John get Phil Spector to go through the tapes but not get involved in ANY way with the project? Why did Paul "allow" Phil to be involved and not get involved in ANY way? Why didn't ANY of the members tell Glyn to drop the crap songs he had used on each of his "compilations" and start from scratch? There's hundreds of such questions that really have never been answered. Maybe Lewisiohn will clue us in during the summer of 2041 when most of us will be long gone...
John had already quit. The others knew. Klein knew. POB members knew. It just wasn't publicly known. John was upset HE didn't hold THE press conference. John had nothing to do with the Beatles after his last BBC appearance promoting Abbey Road. He got Spector involved in the now, re-named Let It Be project, but didn't participate in ANY way. While he was in Denmark for the I Me Mine and Let It Be overdub sessions he COULD have gone to the studio and re-worked Across The Universe for the album. Easily. He did not. What does he do? Records Instant Karma and rush-releases it as a solo single. Would have been a keen Beatles singles eh? It's said that Allen Klein really held sway with John and Yoko at this time. Telling him throughout the rest of 1969 not to mention the Beatles were split. When Klein had their contracts redone he knew that solo albums would count towards Beatles product. A brilliant stroke of the pen from Klein, but it caused exceeding friction on the band members. Why record together when solo albums counted? Paul knew this. John knew it too, but still bitched and moaned when Paul made his declaration known. Ron
Being ambivalent about even a likely end result of one's behavior does not mean that such behavior didn't lead to that result. I am a John fan for his work in the group, but there's no doubt in my mind he was more responsible for their end than any of the rest of them. Not that they did not have their parts, perhaps other than Ringo. For example John was very big on Klein, and Klein would not have happened were it not for his support. But trying to put myself in Paul's position at the time, I would likely have opposed Klein as well. But then Paul had the unfortunate appearance of doing so because he really only wanted to get the Eastmans in there. (I know there are timing issues here, but the perception remained that was the case.) Of course we don't know what might have happened if Paul had somehow prevailed on the others, since he didn't. But I think it's fair to say they were wrong about Klein and Paul was largely right. Then there's the whole Yoko thing. I know in interviews Paul has said that he understood how John wanted to be with her and that he saw this as requiring a distance from the others, from his life before, which meant the Beatles. Well, John certainly did seem to see it that way, but I tend to think that's more about her than what is normally required in such situations. I didn't have to throw all my friends over when I married my wife, only the ones I probably should have. Heh. It is also important not to lose sight of John's heroin use and how that likely was affecting his judgment and even more so what he cared about. Paul's press conference did seem to lead to an endgame, or was the endgame. But what would have happened if he'd played it differently? I am skeptical that it would have made much difference.
I know the references from the You Never Give Me Your Money book but one of us would have known about the October date. I think the guy got the month wrong. John didn't just come to the meeting and say 'I'm out'. They were talking how they would continue to release Beatle projects in the future because they all had a lot of songs and not enough room now that George was truly coming into his own. It's the meeting where he argues that to Paul that they had been holding George back not giving him A-sides and that George should get more time on albums. John says he's willing to only have 4 songs per album if necessary but then later says if we wanted all our songs coming out we'd have to do all double albums which he thought was impossible. (Chicago was starting to do that though that year.) John also mentions "You Know My Name" and "What's the New Mary Jane" being released as a single in late 1969 which must be the "Christmas single" the podcast guy mentions. Not Christmas songs but this single released around Christmas. The others say 'no' which is probably what John anticipated and after getting a 'no' for "Cold Turkey", it was enough along with the Toronto live performance for John to say he was leaving. Of course John, Allen Klein and the other Beatles want Abbey Road to have a good run so they all agree that they won't say anything about a breakup or John leaving to the press. I think the podguy got his September facts and put them in October in his mind years later.
I struggle to believe that. Would John really want George to have the same amount of songs as him and Paul?
That comment George makes at the "I Me Mine" session about "Dave Dee" not being with the group anymore makes me think, at least by that point, they know John was gone for good.
