Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Il Zio, Jul 19, 2021.
The Walrus was Maher?
And I am a fan of his.
The writing was on the wall. John said somewhere that having each of them have four songs on an album would basically be a repurposed Beatles - ie., not the original vision of the band - which showcased Lennon-McCartney songs. And he said he didn't know if he would be interested in that 'new and improved' format. Elsewhere he said that he had to burn the Beatle house down in order to save it. The band had the integrity to quit while they were ahead.
As for Paul, the practical side of him kept the boat steady after Epstein was gone. But him suggesting his in-laws as management was an over the top gambit. The rest of the group were annoyed by his working personality, even if it got things done. And - people who have been in bands have likely had experience with this - there is usually one guy in the band who thinks of himself as better looking and more talented than the others and that the band only exists to showcase his wares to the world. The rest of the band eventually grow to hate the guy and would rather blow the whole thing up than continue enabling him.
I'd say George's contributions to Rubber Soul were about on a level with John and Paul's as well. But he had 2 to their 14 (including the non-LP single) and didn't have a backlog of other options in 66 as he did in 69.
Quality of his offerings was a lot lower from 66-68. Really only love WMGGW - and that more for Paul's piano and Clapton's guitar than for the song per se.
This would be a more logical argument had Paul not quit the band and the band decided to call it a day after that.
If Paul was the problem, which your post alludes to, then him quitting would have no negative effect on the other three and they would continue.
I recently listened to an interview with John and some dj, discussing the soon to be released abbey road album. John seemed very pleased about George’s contributions to the album. I didn’t get a sense of any jealousy.
It makes more sense when you consider that Paul uses the break up of the band to publicize his first solo album. Total Paul move. Even Paul can't drive the Beatles vehicle if it's out of gas. I guess he could get the others to get out and push... if only they would.
Really? What similar moves had he done to that to make that a 'total Paul move'?
And have you actually read the interview in Question? Paul only says he does not see himself working with them in the future, he does not rule it out.
Paul McCartney Interview: Beatles Break-up 4/9/1970 - Beatles Interviews Database
Q: "Are you planning a new album or single with the Beatles?"
Q: "Is this album a rest away from the Beatles or the start of a solo career?"
PAUL: "Time will tell. Being a solo album means it's 'the start of a solo career...' and not being done with the Beatles means it's just a rest. So it's both."
Q: "Is your break with the Beatles temporary or permanent, due to personal differences or musical ones?"
PAUL: "Personal differences, business differences, musical differences, but most of all because I have a better time with my family. Temporary or permanent? I don't really know."
This was not a series of worldwide TV interviews by Paul. It was not a single TV interview by Paul or even an actual Newspaper interview. It was a Q and A he released with his new album.
Had he wanted to court publicity, he could have done a lot, lot more. The press did not go ballistic 6 months earlier when he told Life journalists that 'the Beatle thing is dead' so you can hardly blame him for how the press reacted to a much more tame and open ended future with the Beatles.
With answers like this, you'd think they'd be begging him to come back... or not leave, whichever Paul prefers.
Nice, thoughtful press release for his first solo album, tho. Surprised there wasn't an instruction manual included - 'how to hit a backhand'.
Q: "Did you miss the other Beatles and George Martin? Was there a moment when you thought, 'I wish Ringo were here for this break?'"
Q: "Do you foresee a time when Lennon-McCartney becomes an active songwriting partnership again?"
Q: "What do you feel about John's peace effort? The Plastic Ono Band? Giving back the MBE? Yoko's influence? Yoko?"
PAUL: "I love John, and respect what he does - it doesn't really give me any pleasure."
Q: "What is your relationship with Klein?"
PAUL: "It isn't. I am not in contact with him, and he does not represent me in ANY way."
Q: "Have you any plans to set up an independent production company?"
PAUL: "McCartney Productions."
My thoughts from reading too many Beatle books, articles and inter web articles over the last 30 odd years:
Paul called John's bluff by publicly announcing the split. I don't believe John wanted the Beatles to end, despite his behaviour over the previous couple of years. The "divorce" statement I believe can be dismissed as petulance, had he really wanted that he would have been on the steps of Apple telling the world without a thought to the consequences. John very much did care about hits, and when Plastic Ono Band was not a hit he was rather shocked and this lead to the more easy listening Imagine. Inviting George to the Imagine sessions may well have been another way of getting at Paul.
It's a shame, because really all that needed to happen was an open and frank conversation between Lennon and McCartney about what they wanted to do in the future. Unfortunately ego, drugs, power play, other voices, got in the way of that. Someone said earlier in this thread that John saw heavy rock as the future and wanted to go down that route, I can't say I see any evidence of that in the music he subsequently released.
George and Ringo had no say in the matter either way
At this point dude, you seem to be looking to be offended on what Paul has said. John was saying pretty much the same on the possibilities of a Beatles future before this album press release
“The Beatles split up? It just depends how much we all want to record together. I don’t know if I want to record together again. I go off and on it. I really do."
John Lennon Interview: New Musical Express 12/13/1969 - Beatles Interviews Database
Why are you taking such umbrage with one Beatle when his songwriting partner held the same position publicly.
Dude - no umbrage. John's are a lot less negative or 'done' than Paul's answers. But, of course, the interviews you refer to are from different times - Paul's is from spring, 1970. John's is from December 1969. The difference is that Paul's 'interview' serves as the press release to his new solo album.
Apparently we do have to "go through this idiocy" again because folks like you keep posting false and inaccurate information. Man, this is the kind of junk that made me leave this place for 2 years. It's been explained repeatedly to you over the years that Paul DID NOT say what you claim he said here. He DID NOT object to George getting 4 tracks on the next album and he DID NOT say that George's current songs weren't worthy of the next album. In fact Paul said just the opposite of what you've written: that George was NOW writing songs as good as John and Paul's.
This has been explained repeatedly. Yet you keep repeating the same bizarre inaccuracies.
P.S. John said some fairly harsh things in the 1970s about George's music and intellect.
P.S.S. The Beatles broke up for a lot of complicated reasons. There was no single villain. Then or now.
It's all of their faults. They didn't want to continue at all costs, and they did not.
And I admire them for not dragging it out past its shelf life.
Great post. I also think that John's invite to George was a way of getting at Paul. Yes, I don't believe John wanted the Beatles to end either. In the moment he did. He apparently got some 'adrenaline rush' as he was announcing it, which tells us a lot. I don't know about calling his bluff. It might have gone deeper than that. Something must have snapped in Paul, because he went from doing all he could to keep the group together, to doing all he could to keep them apart, even when the door was open for his return.
This, from John Lennon For the Record, makes for intriguing, if sad, reading.
Int.: Let’s talk a bit about Paul’s aversion to Klein…it wasn’t there in the beginning, even though Paul wanted the Eastmans to run things. But it came on later as things progressed. And yet despite this, we gather that Klein was still hoping that Paul would return to the group.
John: Oh, he’d love it if Paul would come back. I think he was hoping he would for years and years. He thought that if he did something to show Paul that he could do it, Paul would come around. But no chance. I mean, I [John's emphasis] want him to come out of it too, you know. He will one day. I give him five years. I’ve said that. In five years, he’ll wake up.
Yoko: …And so Klein thinks he’ll give Paul two years Lindawise, you know. And John said, “No, Paul treasures things like children, things like that. It will be longer.” And of course, John was right.
Int.: I asked Lee Eastman for his view of the split and what it was that prompted Paul to file suit to dissolve the Beatles’ partnership, and he said it was because John asked for a divorce.
John: Because I asked for a divorce? That’s a childish reason for going into court, isn’t it?
N.B. these quotes are snipped from a wider context for the sake of brevity.
I find it interesting that Paul's failure to return by the end of John's time frame coincides with his going into retirement. Coincidence?
Very selfish of them to deprive us of new Beatles music!
The dream was over.
I just thought maybe then the dream really was over? I'm generally reluctant to use John's quotes because he chopped and changed his mind so much but that was more to make a point about Paul. I mean, elsewhere in the interview John alternates between wanting to regroup and not wanting to regroup - in the one interview!
I don't particularly like the mythologising of the Beatles and their end, perhaps its my history education (I wanted a shrug emogy thing here but couldn't find one). I am though fascinated by how what started as a "big laugh" could have ended so acrimoniously.
Yoko said Paul hurt John more than anyone else ever did, and I believe this was when he publicly announced the Beatles split. This led John to spend some time dismissing the Beatles, and the Rolling Stone interview. John had expensive tastes and spend wildly, so could have done with the money a Beatles record would bring in. But more than that, he and Paul started together playing rock and roll live, and I think the greatest shame is that they never got to do that again. I am sure they would have had a great time touring during the 70's and I would love to see how they evolved as a live act over that time.
When I say Paul called Johns bluff, I may have worded that quite badly. I do think that perhaps he had got a bit sick of John's yo-yoing, and the inactivity of the band because of this. Had John said "lets go to Abby Road" in early 1970, I am sure they would all have been there.
John did do that. They tried to trick Paul into attending a Beatles session so they could use it against him in the court case to remove himself from the Beatles/Apple.
In that interview Lennon calls ' Something ' the best song on the album .
If they had all wanted it not to end, it wouldn't have; it was within their power to keep the band together. But something bigger than them was at work, I think - just as the impact of the band was bigger than them. The bonds were broken and couldn't be glued or inked back together; you know how it is with friends. Even the greatest albums and careers must end. It is fitting that the last time they all recorded together was - 'The End'.
This is very true. Seems that they each wanted it at various stages but never all together.
I guess we can take consolation from the fact that they did end on a high musically and have thus been spared the old endlessly touring legacy act.
Yep…reported cuz if “Paul is dead” is true, then the other three Beatles were complete frauds for putting him in there. Whole group is guilty of fraud just to go on a few more years and launch their solo careers…greedy b******.
He said that actually at the time…John thought Yoko was his new Beatles and wanted to do projects with her.
Separate names with a comma.