Well, it’s a fact that John brought Yoko to the studio. It’s a fact that John was on heroin. It’s a fact that by all accounts Klein was completely untrustworthy. It’s a fact that Paul didn’t want Klein to represent him. It’s a fact the other Beatles did. It’s a fact Paul thought Klein wasn’t trustworthy, and by all accounts he was right. But the others voted as a partnership to have Klein represent the Beatles. That’s a fact, too. It’s a fact that shortly after that, because he so disapproved of the decision to hire Klein, that Paul sued the other 3 to dissolve the partnership and thus broke up the Beatles. Paul broke them up. It’s a fact. Now, was Paul controlling? That’s an opinion, but I think the other Beatles’ view of him is pretty well documented, but that is an opinion. Did the others disapprove of having Yoko in the studio? I’ve read no direct quotes from the others on that matter, but it seems they did. I’ll admit that’s not necessarily a fact. Maybe they liked having Yoko at a Abbey Road, but I doubt it. That’s just my opinion, too. Did John’s heroin use affect his musical output? I’ve read comments from Paul indicating that was the case and he disapproved, but that’s really just Paul’s opinion. So, some of this was my opinion or others’ opinion. But some other things, like Paul is the one who broke up the Beatles, that’s actually a fact with a lawsuit and documentation behind it.
Well, the others probably put up with her near-constant presence because they had little recourse. Demands and such would have forced John to quit, or at least resent the others far more than he did at that time. Over the years, wives and girlfriends popped in the studio, sometimes even joining in on a bit background vocals and such, but none of them ever became ensconced there. My opinion is that the others thought perhaps it was just a phase John was going through. Which never really waned. It was only when Yoko became comfortable enough to offer opinions and such that the others, mainly George and Paul, got a bit peeved. No doubt they blamed her for John's heroin addiction. Certainly comments have surfaced about tense times during the long White Album sessions. The infamous "digestive biscuit" story being just one. John probably thought the others were unfair and mean spirited, but bringing her to nearly every session after they got together, was definitely NOT protocol. He demeaned the others when he protested that "they were in love" as if George, Paul and Ringo weren't "in love" with their respective loved ones. A bit simple-minded on John's part, again, in my opinion. Paul's 1971 lawsuit win dissolved the Beatles partnernship, not the Beatles as an entity. The band "broke up" in May 1970. No further sessions, appearances until 1994! Their 1967 and the subsequently upgraded 1969 contract, remained in effect until 1976. Proceeds from all solo albums, monies from record sales old and new, were divided between them and their publishing companies. IF they ever regrouped a new contract would have to be written and accepted by all. This reason alone probably kept the four of them from ever regrouping. Too complicated from a business point of view and would have required major revisions for George and Ringo who may have been the two "biggest" ex-Beatles in the early-to-mid 1970's. Ron
If you have to ask that question, there is no way I could explain my point of view to your satisfaction. Let it suffice to quote the Nobel Laureate from Minnesota: "....You are right from your side...and I am right from mine..."
The history is absolutely fascinating, so I'm in that church with you too. And we all make judgments. We're human. But again, what gives me pause is using these discussions to repetitively campaign against Paul or John, to build up the other. They're not competing for our votes, and nobody will ever "win" superiority over the other. That kind of obsessive behavior just demonstrates insecurity.
Paul’s lawsuit broke up the band. That was it. They weren’t a band after that. The so-called break-up in May, which was really in April, was also Paul announcing that he was leaving, thus breaking up the band. The entity that came after is a different legal entity. It’s not the original band. It’s a legal fact: Paul broke up the Beatles.
All true from a legal standpoint. But from a practical standpoint, the band ceased to exist when John announced he wanted a divorce at the Apple meeting in September 1969. In this scenario, John Lennon broke up the band. So it really depends on where you spot the ball on the Beatles breakup field. Both points are valid, IMO. No wonder we still talk about this, and debate this, half a century later. Yet no matter what side one comes down on, the result is the same.
Thank you for this Chip. John's not exactly clear here. Yet, his answer references both the Paul is dead conspiracy and a key line from the McCartney written title song of the Beatles next and final album seems like a wink from him. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it!
Yep. John said he was the one that broke up the band. Paul agrees with him and credits John with breaking up the band. It seems pretty clear that Paul initiated his legal efforts to break up the band because he'd concluded John was serious about quitting the band and was not going to change his mind.
They could have started another band consisting of Yoko, John, Paul, George and Ringo called ‘Beatles’. Meanwhile John, Paul, George and Ringo, alone, could have continued to comprise ‘The Beatles’.
I wonder if there is ever any absolute truth to be established regarding the break up and it's aftermath, other than the four of them never graced a stage or recording studio together again. Scrutinising the public record, for tossed off remarks about supposed intentionality of double entendres, still only contributes to another 'version' of events dominated by the scribes of the moment and interested parties with the loudest voices and/or most passionate biases. I think the real heroes of the break-up are the albums Plastic Ono Band, All Things Must Pass and Ram. They all came across as much happier after they freed themselves of the band and got their finances sorted. It was essentially relationship issues (and US Government pressure in the case of John), which derailed J&G at certain moments in the 70's, and lack of critical acceptance early on for Paul that seemed to keep him unhappy. They all seemed in a much more contented place by '76 at least.
Except he really did not. George certainly did not think so, John himself in interviews during the time and after did not seem to think the Beatles were definitely over. John did what Ringo and George did in the past, announce he was done with it. Given only a week or so earlier he was talking about future Beatle plans it is hard to argue that John's statement carried any real weight. Paul's lawsuit did. After John's statement there was still Beatle sessions. Paul. George and Ringo finished off I Me Mine in the studio, so the Beatles still existed as recording artists even after John's declaration.
I believe McCartney's press release included with the release of the McCartney album, was the true public announcement that the band was no more, so April 9 1970.
It's interesting how we all have different dates for the breakup of the band. In one corner, there's the Lennon divorce statement. In the far corner is the final 60's Threatles session. In the near corner is the McCartney album press release, and in the final corner is the filing of McCartney's lawsuit. Did I forget any Beatle breakup date/moment? At the sounding of the bell, start swinging and nothing below the belt. Maybe we should have a poll. Seriosuly though, I think we all make interesting points. And no matter which road we chose, they all take us to the same sad place. There are no winners. Except the lawyers. They always win.
A FB-user who calls himself Mal Evans posts information about him, doing so in first person. The person claims that this is not a diary entry by George but by Mal. Has Dhani and all of us been mistaken? In that case it would not be a quite nonchalant note of leaving the band but maybe just Mal describing the end of a work day.
If I may throw in another breakup moment: 1974, when John signed the legal documents to dissolve The Beatles at The Polynesian Resort at Walt Disney World.
Macca made a big strategic mistake when he voted for his girlfriend's father to be installed as manager. He should have picked someone independent from his own circle.
And it seems to be written by the same hand that put the lyrics to I Me Mine, All Things Must Pass and For You Blue on paper
Sorry, but John met Klein on a whim, thought he was a musical genius because he could correctly identify John songs from Paul songs; thought he was a brilliant businessman simply because he knew things that any competent manger would know (as is now obvious from the Get Back book), then declared that Klein was going to be the manager from then on without consultation, before the others had even met Klein... That's looking for trouble. I'm not denying the conflict of interest in Paul suggesting his father in law, but he didn't force Lee Eastman on them. They didn't even mind Lee Eastman in the first instance, although not ideal. It was John Eastman John objected to. And once he met Klein, any Eastman was off the table. They had looked for someone independent. They looked far and wide. No one would take them on.
