Why did the Beatles break up?

[dalsh327]

Same question as the title.

Also, when did the disintegration of the band begin? Was there ever any point where there was a "last chance" for the band not to break up--where it was reconsidered, like say during the Abbey Road sessions?

Also, who was the principal factor in the breakup? And what do you guys think a next Beatles album would've sounded like had they stayed together past 1970?

Go to the library and find a copy of Rolling Stone from a few years back, they did a whole article about it, and it does a pretty good job breaking it down.

If you want the basic reasons:

McCartney tried to take control of the band after Brian Epstein died.

They became divided in India, Ringo couldn't stand it, John bought into Magic Alex's gossip, but he was ready to see Yoko again. They did write a LOT of songs though.

Yoko was his drug buddy/fuck buddy at first, fell in love with her pretty fast, and he started incorporating her into the sessions, but she brought the idea of "Because" into the group. He knew having her there would piss them off, but for the most part, it was just one added thing on top of a bunch of other things. Like George had said, he was pissed off because she helped himself to his snacks, and called her a bitch. John of course went off on him, but the White Album sessions were pretty tense (Geoff Emerick did a great job explaining the tensions, he quit mid-session).

Paul got married, his father in law was a lawyer, and John Lennon brought in Allen Klein. Klein and Lee Eastman got into it, Klein won the fight.

Paul went behind their backs to get more royalty points.

There's a tape from Sept. 1969 of their last meeting. I don't know if it was ever transcribed, but that was when the breakup unofficially happened. The week after, "Abbey Road" came out. I just think John's summer was probably a fun one and then going back to

John was tired of Paul going to the media - talked about drug use, then was the first to go to the press about the breakup. John was told not to, even though he had left, and kept quiet about it. He was interviewed about "Abbey Road" and didn't mention anything was wrong.

George was writing more and more, got tired of getting approval from John and Paul over which of his songs would make it. He also gained control of his publishing during White Album, so everything on there to Let It Be was money in his pocket, not Michael Jackson's.

1973-1974 - they were all in Los Angeles at the same time, and as May Pang's book shows, Paul and John got together during the "Lost Weekend". Ringo had recorded with all the ex-Beatles on his solo album. George and John fell out over the Concert for Bangladesh.

1974- The Beatles officially broke up. John was the last to sign the papers, and just from what May said, he took his time in signing it, was thinking about something, like looking back at his time in The Beatles, and then signed off on it, probably knowing once he did it, he probably wouldn't get the band back together, or if they did, it would never be the way it was during the 60s. It was a phenomenon that could never be duplicated.

It was discussed though. During the lost weekend, and when they discussed what was to become the Anthology - they talked about playing together for the original version of the documentary.

They just grew apart, they became individuals, because they spent most of their teens and twenties joined at the hip.

[Johnny Drama]

Same question as the title.

Also, when did the disintegration of the band begin? Was there ever any point where there was a "last chance" for the band not to break up--where it was reconsidered, like say during the Abbey Road sessions?

Also, who was the principal factor in the breakup? And what do you guys think a next Beatles album would've sounded like had they stayed together past 1970?

Go to the library and find a copy of Rolling Stone from a few years back, they did a whole article about it, and it does a pretty good job breaking it down.

If you want the basic reasons:

McCartney tried to take control of the band after Brian Epstein died.

They became divided in India, Ringo couldn't stand it, John bought into Magic Alex's gossip, but he was ready to see Yoko again. They did write a LOT of songs though.

Yoko was his drug buddy/fuck buddy at first, fell in love with her pretty fast, and he started incorporating her into the sessions, but she brought the idea of "Because" into the group. He knew having her there would piss them off, but for the most part, it was just one added thing on top of a bunch of other things. Like George had said, he was pissed off because she helped himself to his snacks, and called her a bitch. John of course went off on him, but the White Album sessions were pretty tense (Geoff Emerick did a great job explaining the tensions, he quit mid-session).

Paul got married, his father in law was a lawyer, and John Lennon brought in Allen Klein. Klein and Lee Eastman got into it, Klein won the fight.

Paul went behind their backs to get more royalty points.

There's a tape from Sept. 1969 of their last meeting. I don't know if it was ever transcribed, but that was when the breakup unofficially happened. The week after, "Abbey Road" came out. I just think John's summer was probably a fun one and then going back to

John was tired of Paul going to the media - talked about drug use, then was the first to go to the press about the breakup. John was told not to, even though he had left, and kept quiet about it. He was interviewed about "Abbey Road" and didn't mention anything was wrong.

George was writing more and more, got tired of getting approval from John and Paul over which of his songs would make it. He also gained control of his publishing during White Album, so everything on there to Let It Be was money in his pocket, not Michael Jackson's.

1973-1974 - they were all in Los Angeles at the same time, and as May Pang's book shows, Paul and John got together during the "Lost Weekend". Ringo had recorded with all the ex-Beatles on his solo album. George and John fell out over the Concert for Bangladesh.

1974- The Beatles officially broke up. John was the last to sign the papers, and just from what May said, he took his time in signing it, was thinking about something, like looking back at his time in The Beatles, and then signed off on it, probably knowing once he did it, he probably wouldn't get the band back together, or if they did, it would never be the way it was during the 60s. It was a phenomenon that could never be duplicated.

It was discussed though. During the lost weekend, and when they discussed what was to become the Anthology - they talked about playing together for the original version of the documentary.

They just grew apart, they became individuals, because they spent most of their teens and twenties joined at the hip.

Yeah India sucked ass , fucking ruined everything IMO - with the divide between George who bought into Maharishi's crap, Ringo hated it there and the food, John hated the Maharishi and bought into Magic Alex and it was like the official split between him and Cynthia.

When I said Paul's medley I meant it was mostly his idea, not that all the songs were his. Sorry.

[luciusfunk]

I'm moving and I actually just ran across that issue of RS in my room.

[grigori]

Number 5 is really all you needed to say

Number 8 is even better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZe9_LWlOtM

[DirtyDeeds]

Man I wish I knew more about the history of the Beatles. I really like their music but know nothing of the story.

[moreblack]

I'd say the absence of Epstein set off a chain reaction.

Edited May 28, 2012 by moreblack

[Johnny Drama]

Number 5 is really all you needed to say

Number 8 is even better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZe9_LWlOtM

How dare you? Clearly it would have been the obligation of myself or Axlisold to post that video.

Ill let you off this time.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Same question as the title.

Also, when did the disintegration of the band begin? Was there ever any point where there was a "last chance" for the band not to break up--where it was reconsidered, like say during the Abbey Road sessions?

Also, who was the principal factor in the breakup? And what do you guys think a next Beatles album would've sounded like had they stayed together past 1970?

Go to the library and find a copy of Rolling Stone from a few years back, they did a whole article about it, and it does a pretty good job breaking it down.

If you want the basic reasons:

McCartney tried to take control of the band after Brian Epstein died.

They became divided in India, Ringo couldn't stand it, John bought into Magic Alex's gossip, but he was ready to see Yoko again. They did write a LOT of songs though.

Yoko was his drug buddy/fuck buddy at first, fell in love with her pretty fast, and he started incorporating her into the sessions, but she brought the idea of "Because" into the group. He knew having her there would piss them off, but for the most part, it was just one added thing on top of a bunch of other things. Like George had said, he was pissed off because she helped himself to his snacks, and called her a bitch. John of course went off on him, but the White Album sessions were pretty tense (Geoff Emerick did a great job explaining the tensions, he quit mid-session).

Paul got married, his father in law was a lawyer, and John Lennon brought in Allen Klein. Klein and Lee Eastman got into it, Klein won the fight.

Paul went behind their backs to get more royalty points.

There's a tape from Sept. 1969 of their last meeting. I don't know if it was ever transcribed, but that was when the breakup unofficially happened. The week after, "Abbey Road" came out. I just think John's summer was probably a fun one and then going back to

John was tired of Paul going to the media - talked about drug use, then was the first to go to the press about the breakup. John was told not to, even though he had left, and kept quiet about it. He was interviewed about "Abbey Road" and didn't mention anything was wrong.

George was writing more and more, got tired of getting approval from John and Paul over which of his songs would make it. He also gained control of his publishing during White Album, so everything on there to Let It Be was money in his pocket, not Michael Jackson's.

1973-1974 - they were all in Los Angeles at the same time, and as May Pang's book shows, Paul and John got together during the "Lost Weekend". Ringo had recorded with all the ex-Beatles on his solo album. George and John fell out over the Concert for Bangladesh.

1974- The Beatles officially broke up. John was the last to sign the papers, and just from what May said, he took his time in signing it, was thinking about something, like looking back at his time in The Beatles, and then signed off on it, probably knowing once he did it, he probably wouldn't get the band back together, or if they did, it would never be the way it was during the 60s. It was a phenomenon that could never be duplicated.

It was discussed though. During the lost weekend, and when they discussed what was to become the Anthology - they talked about playing together for the original version of the documentary.

They just grew apart, they became individuals, because they spent most of their teens and twenties joined at the hip.

This is basically it but it's just fuckin ridiculous bitchiness, the kind of sniping that basically is a result of people just not getting along anymore. Paul is painted as the bad guy a lot but i reckon thats a load of bollocks, quite frankly Klein was a fuckin snake and he proved himself to be a snake and McCartney was right to be wary of him. And as far as Paul trying to take over when Epstein died that was more a case of just, y'know, whoever taking the reins, it just happened to be Paul...also, in The Beatles it was just a case of like, whoever came up with the ideas and at that time, he was the one coming up with the most of them so he was sort of de facto at the reins. A lot of the heat, MOST of the heat for The Magical Mystery Tour is rested on the shoulders of Paulie but, y'know, fuckssake, c'mon, if they weren't fuckin into it no one was putting a gun to their head and NOBODY on this planet made that narky bastard Lennon do anything that he didn't want to. Post-Revolver and Rubber Soul Lennon just wanted to be off his tits most the time, thats the truth of it.

But basically it was just the lot of them being fuckin tarts, they were talented musicians but being talented musicians doesn't necessarily mean astute at business or even particularly nice people. Friendships are only tested when you go through rough times and, to varying degrees but particularly with Paul and John, they were all cunts really, in their behaviour in them last days...and this is a huge fan of theirs speaking.

[dalsh327]

Same question as the title.

Also, when did the disintegration of the band begin? Was there ever any point where there was a "last chance" for the band not to break up--where it was reconsidered, like say during the Abbey Road sessions?

Also, who was the principal factor in the breakup? And what do you guys think a next Beatles album would've sounded like had they stayed together past 1970?

snip

They just grew apart, they became individuals, because they spent most of their teens and twenties joined at the hip.

This is basically it but it's just fuckin ridiculous bitchiness, the kind of sniping that basically is a result of people just not getting along anymore. Paul is painted as the bad guy a lot but i reckon thats a load of bollocks, quite frankly Klein was a fuckin snake and he proved himself to be a snake and McCartney was right to be wary of him. And as far as Paul trying to take over when Epstein died that was more a case of just, y'know, whoever taking the reins, it just happened to be Paul...also, in The Beatles it was just a case of like, whoever came up with the ideas and at that time, he was the one coming up with the most of them so he was sort of de facto at the reins. A lot of the heat, MOST of the heat for The Magical Mystery Tour is rested on the shoulders of Paulie but, y'know, fuckssake, c'mon, if they weren't fuckin into it no one was putting a gun to their head and NOBODY on this planet made that narky bastard Lennon do anything that he didn't want to. Post-Revolver and Rubber Soul Lennon just wanted to be off his tits most the time, thats the truth of it.

But basically it was just the lot of them being fuckin tarts, they were talented musicians but being talented musicians doesn't necessarily mean astute at business or even particularly nice people. Friendships are only tested when you go through rough times and, to varying degrees but particularly with Paul and John, they were all cunts really, in their behaviour in them last days...and this is a huge fan of theirs speaking.

McCartney wanted to make this 1 hour TV special about the Electric Kool Aid Acid Test meets the Blackpool Lights. It was the same problems that Mick and Keith ran into in the early 80s, once Keith saw Mick trying to take everything over, he fought back. So did John, but he kind of put Yoko into a situation where he also didn't want to deal directly with Paul if he could help it. All it meant is that the Lennon-McCartney partnership was over - and the Get Back sessions - they all said it was miserable trying to record in the movie studio in January. But when they recorded Abbey Road, they were in a better mood, John threw together the band with Clapton for Toronto, but then around September, they had their meeting and that was it.

John and Paul's big fallout was in 1970 when Paul made the official announcement about The Beatles breaking up, after John was told not to say anything. He was considered the leader. Paul even says that now. They took swipes at each other for maybe a couple of years, but then it kind of died out.

Ringo was off acting, same with Garfunkel during that time - that def. didn't help. Harrison had this backlog of songs and was ready to move on, and he was really the reason why Derek and the Dominos happened - George recommended Delaney and Bonnie to Eric to open for Blind Faith, George also toured with them as this southern rock meets British rock royalty supergroup.

Lennon was doing the experimental films and tapes, it was amateur hour, and I think even Yoko said it was pretty crude and amateurish.

Paul, Ringo and George said Yoko was an annoyance because she'd whisper to John - keeping in mind they just dealt with Magic Alex doing the same thing and spending crazy amounts of money - but had nothing to do with the breakup. Alex is another story, he was in India, and like Geoff Emerick wrote in the book, India was the catalyst as far as the breakup goes.

Later on, they realized Brian Epstein was not a great manager. If they had someone like Peter Grant, they prob. would've still broken up, but they would've had way more control. Even though Allen Klein was painted as a bad guy, they wound up with higher royalty rates from that point on, even though the publishing was split and sold.

Also as a pop group, they prob. felt the audience was prob. going to move on to other things. I'm sure they noticed some of the comments made about them getting older, and both Yoko and Linda got death threats when they married John and Paul respectively.

I can't even imagine what people first thought of "Plastic Ono Band". Pretty bleak shocking stuff for that time, really cynical and explicit. I mean, ripping apart religion and his bandmates all in one song, the screaming, I have to think people were really divided on it. "Imagine" was a lot softer and warmer. I think if Axl did "Mother" (and I hope to never hear Christina Aguilera sing it again), he'd prob. blow fuses. And I love McCartney and Ram, Paul really was living "off the grid" because Allen Klein froze his royalties... Linda was the breadwinner for a while, and that time probably played a huge part in why they stayed together until she died.

The "1971" album as I call it would be a mix of "Imagine", "McCartney", "Ram", "All Things Must Pass", and "Ringo", mixed in with some of the singles like "Cold Turkey" or "Ballad of John and Yoko", "Old Brown Shoe". It's likely Phil Spector would've produced it. But I also think in 1974, they could have gotten together in Los Angeles with Harry Nilsson's producer and recorded a new album, and I think it would've disappointed a lot of fans - go through "Living In the Material World", "Dark Horse", "Walls and Bridges", "Goodnight Vienna", and "Venus and Mars" (Paul recorded in New Orleans, Ringo had Dr John on one of his songs so The Beatles could've wound up there). But an "LA" sounding Beatles album?

It's possible "Rock and Roll" would've been the album the Beatles wound up doing though. No originals - just covers.

[rock4eva]

Boy you people must be so young if you don't know the story of the Beatles. I remember Lennon being killed so vividly, exactly where I was when I heard the news.

For John's lost weekend which has been mentioned try getting a copy of May Pang's book - Loving John

There are so many books on the Beatles - All You Needed Was Love - John Blake another good one.

Yoko was the scapegoat but as somebody said - they really did too much too soon, too young, & like Elvis they had nothing else to achieve but constantly singing & recording. They stopped touring ages before breaking up & Let It Be the film where Lennon & McCartney had a big argument took ages to make & release.

They needed to go their separate ways and the sniping between Lennon/McCartney did nothing to add to the unhappy atmosphere hanging over them.

Geez.......does this seem to sound a bit familiar???

[Dr. Who]

Bump.
Also, has anyone ever had a lost weekend like Lennon?

[Len Cnut]

No and neither have you, you fat spotty bastard.

[Dr. Who]

No and neither have you, you fat spotty bastard.

I'm not fat and I want to. I just want to forget.

[Len Cnut]

Now you know how this forum feels about your bullshit posts.

Boy you people must be so young if you don't know the story of the Beatles. I remember Lennon being killed so vividly, exactly where I was when I heard the news.

For John's lost weekend which has been mentioned try getting a copy of May Pang's book - Loving John

There are so many books on the Beatles - All You Needed Was Love - John Blake another good one.

Yoko was the scapegoat but as somebody said - they really did too much too soon, too young, & like Elvis they had nothing else to achieve but constantly singing & recording. They stopped touring ages before breaking up & Let It Be the film where Lennon & McCartney had a big argument took ages to make & release.

They needed to go their separate ways and the sniping between Lennon/McCartney did nothing to add to the unhappy atmosphere hanging over them.

Geez.......does this seem to sound a bit familiar??? http://www.mygnrforum.com/public/style_emoticons/#EMO_DIR#/smiley-confused.gif

Too much too soon? Thats what you say about people who fucked up, The Beatles career wasnt some tragic tale of unfulfilled promise yknow, they were the biggest thing in the whole world, nothing about their career was cause for regret, some of yous have a funny way of looking at things.

[rock4eva]

Now you know how this forum feels about your bullshit posts.

Boy you people must be so young if you don't know the story of the Beatles. I remember Lennon being killed so vividly, exactly where I was when I heard the news.

For John's lost weekend which has been mentioned try getting a copy of May Pang's book - Loving John

There are so many books on the Beatles - All You Needed Was Love - John Blake another good one.

Yoko was the scapegoat but as somebody said - they really did too much too soon, too young, & like Elvis they had nothing else to achieve but constantly singing & recording. They stopped touring ages before breaking up & Let It Be the film where Lennon & McCartney had a big argument took ages to make & release.

They needed to go their separate ways and the sniping between Lennon/McCartney did nothing to add to the unhappy atmosphere hanging over them.

Geez.......does this seem to sound a bit familiar??? http://www.mygnrforum.com/public/style_emoticons/#EMO_DIR#/smiley-confused.gif

Too much too soon? Thats what you say about people who fucked up, The Beatles career wasnt some tragic tale of unfulfilled promise yknow, they were the biggest thing in the whole world, nothing about their career was cause for regret, some of yous have a funny way of looking at things.

Good grief where did you pull that post from Len? Haha nearly 3yrs ago?

I think what I was saying back then that they made it big so young and yes, they were the biggest thing in the whole world and still are.

Once they achieved what they set out to achieve they were still very young and had the world at their feet, yet they started growing apart with their differences. Epstein died which shocked them although I don't remember if he was still with them, some were into meditation and the Maharishi, some had families & wives and they unfriended each other.

No there was nothing to regret about their careers, they paved the way for so many artists but at a price.

Most people don't hit the height of their career until maybe into their 40s/50s - they were there in their early 20s.

I suspect we'll never see the likes of the Beatles again. Young ones today don't know who Paul McCartney is but surely they know their music. Or not?

[bacardimayne]

No and neither have you, you fat spotty bastard.

:rofl-lol:

[Len Cnut]

Now you know how this forum feels about your bullshit posts.

Boy you people must be so young if you don't know the story of the Beatles. I remember Lennon being killed so vividly, exactly where I was when I heard the news.

For John's lost weekend which has been mentioned try getting a copy of May Pang's book - Loving John

There are so many books on the Beatles - All You Needed Was Love - John Blake another good one.

Yoko was the scapegoat but as somebody said - they really did too much too soon, too young, & like Elvis they had nothing else to achieve but constantly singing & recording. They stopped touring ages before breaking up & Let It Be the film where Lennon & McCartney had a big argument took ages to make & release.

They needed to go their separate ways and the sniping between Lennon/McCartney did nothing to add to the unhappy atmosphere hanging over them.

Geez.......does this seem to sound a bit familiar??? http://www.mygnrforum.com/public/style_emoticons/#EMO_DIR#/smiley-confused.gif

Too much too soon? Thats what you say about people who fucked up, The Beatles career wasnt some tragic tale of unfulfilled promise yknow, they were the biggest thing in the whole world, nothing about their career was cause for regret, some of yous have a funny way of looking at things.

Good grief where did you pull that post from Len? Haha nearly 3yrs ago?

I think what I was saying back then that they made it big so young and yes, they were the biggest thing in the whole world and still are.

Once they achieved what they set out to achieve they were still very young and had the world at their feet, yet they started growing apart with their differences. Epstein died which shocked them although I don't remember if he was still with them, some were into meditation and the Maharishi, some had families & wives and they unfriended each other.

No there was nothing to regret about their careers, they paved the way for so many artists but at a price.

Most people don't hit the height of their career until maybe into their 40s/50s - they were there in their early 20s.

I suspect we'll never see the likes of the Beatles again. Young ones today don't know who Paul McCartney is but surely they know their music. Or not?

I think we'll see the like of The Beatles again. In terms of talent at least, what remains to be seen if the right set of social circumstances will be in place for them to become demi-Gods. That bit remains to be seen. There were a lot of fantastic songwriters about in and around their era, great musicians, great composers (in the literal sense of composing music, nothing to do with classical and the mad haired bloke with the fiddle-stick )

Edited January 12, 2015 by Len B'stard

[dalsh327]

A lot of bands stay together just for money and can't stand each other. Through the 70s, they still kept in touch to not miss each other, but the fans saw it as a permanent rift and the end of their youth. But then you look back and see George was...27 when they broke up?

Elvis was kind of isolated and probably not that different from what Hendrix dealt with.

[blablabla123]

Do Beatles online fan communities have the same atmosphere that GNR ones do?

Probably not because:

1) The Beatles broke up after releasing three or four albums which are considered classics. Slash era GN'R ended after only 3 full original albums, 1 mini album and one cover album as their last release. There is a sense that the Beatles ended when they were "supposed" to, whereas GN'R ended too soon.

2) The Beatles broke up 42 years ago, as such any anger over it is long since subsided because, it's more a matter of history than current debate. all traces of the AFD-UYI GN'R ceased to exist in 1997, only 13 years ago--recent in comparison. And the Beatles' fans are likely older than GN'R fans, and so likely more mature. If there was a Beatles discussion board in say 1975, it'd probably have the same atmosphere as now.

3) Much of the contention in the GN'R community stems from a desire to see a reunion, and people's anger and disappointment that it won't happen despite all AFD and UYI members being alive and well. Whereas 2 out of 4 Beatles are dead--There is thus no hope for a reunion. The Beatles had a partial reunion in the '90s where George, Paul and Ringo recorded instrumental tracks to demos of Lennon singing songs he didn't end up releasing.

4) The ex-Beatles all gave the world pretty great music on their own after the breakup. The ex-GN'R members...Well, it's up to one's own taste really what you think of each member's post GN'R work.

5) Neither John nor Paul ever tried to continue on as The Beatles while not having any of the other Beatles on board.

I know this post is old, but where can I hear the reunion that you said that happened in number 3?

[luciusfunk]

Do Beatles online fan communities have the same atmosphere that GNR ones do?

Probably not because:

1) The Beatles broke up after releasing three or four albums which are considered classics. Slash era GN'R ended after only 3 full original albums, 1 mini album and one cover album as their last release. There is a sense that the Beatles ended when they were "supposed" to, whereas GN'R ended too soon.

2) The Beatles broke up 42 years ago, as such any anger over it is long since subsided because, it's more a matter of history than current debate. all traces of the AFD-UYI GN'R ceased to exist in 1997, only 13 years ago--recent in comparison. And the Beatles' fans are likely older than GN'R fans, and so likely more mature. If there was a Beatles discussion board in say 1975, it'd probably have the same atmosphere as now.

3) Much of the contention in the GN'R community stems from a desire to see a reunion, and people's anger and disappointment that it won't happen despite all AFD and UYI members being alive and well. Whereas 2 out of 4 Beatles are dead--There is thus no hope for a reunion. The Beatles had a partial reunion in the '90s where George, Paul and Ringo recorded instrumental tracks to demos of Lennon singing songs he didn't end up releasing.

4) The ex-Beatles all gave the world pretty great music on their own after the breakup. The ex-GN'R members...Well, it's up to one's own taste really what you think of each member's post GN'R work.

5) Neither John nor Paul ever tried to continue on as The Beatles while not having any of the other Beatles on board.

I know this post is old, but where can I hear the reunion that you said that happened in number 3?

The Beatles Anthology 1/2, Free as a Bird and Real Love. Though Real Love wasn't an unreleased track like Free as a Bird had been.

I personally prefer Real Love over Free as a Bird.

Edited January 13, 2015 by luciusfunk

[Dr. Who]

and this is the boys reuniting in concert for the last time in '94

[Val22]

Yeah, back then everyone blamed Yoko, but I think John and Paul just felt it was time to part.

I felt bad about it, but then Paul, Ringo, George and John continued to make music and live their lives to the fullest.

The Beatles music will live on forever and it was a magically time when they first came to the US. I'm glad I was there to see it.

Life goes on and people change.

[DieselDaisy]

I think Paul was the one who didn't want it to end the most. Remember, the band had already broken up before his letter which confirmed it. He had all of these schemes to reinvigorate the band for the Let it Be project, such as playing a bunch of pubs, but none of the rest were interested. John was besotted with Yoko and wanted to get into politics and the avant garde more. George was now peaking as a songwriter but was still only getting one or two songs on the albums, so he wanted a solo career. Ringo had the acting bug.

[rock4eva]

Yeah, back then everyone blamed Yoko, but I think John and Paul just felt it was time to part.

I felt bad about it, but then Paul, Ringo, George and John continued to make music and live their lives to the fullest.

The Beatles music will live on forever and it was a magically time when they first came to the US. I'm glad I was there to see it.

Life goes on and people change.

Do you remember on the Let It Be movie/doco or whatever it was Paul & John were having an argument? They seemed to be trying to do it quietly knowing they were being filmed but they were not happy with each other.

Then we went through the fights with music - Paul's song Silly Love Songs in reference to John and John's comeback with How Do You Sleep in which the words were quite cutting.

Maybe Axl and Slash could have written songs like that, might have cleared the air a bit.

[DieselDaisy]

They did: 'What Do You Want to Be'; 'Sorry'; 'Ghosts'.

PS

Sorry, not Ghosts, The Ozzy one, Crucify the Dead.

Edited January 19, 2015 by DieselDaisy