Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
3.46am
13 November 2009
Offline
Ok, so it seems like we're in agreement. Correct me if I misunderstood you, but it seemed like you were implying that it was some how her fault? 
4.00am
1 May 2010
Offline
skye said:
Ok, so it seems like we're in agreement. Correct me if I misunderstood you, but it seemed like you were implying that it was some how her fault?
I think it's mostly John's fault that the Beatles broke up, but she was the biggest factor in the change that occurred in John. So, by the transitive property, she should be given at least some of the blame. I don't think she was intentionally trying to sabotage the group like a lot of people think, but the choice came down to her or the Beatles for John and he chose her. You can't really blame John for choosing her just like you can really blame the other three for not accepting her as one of the group like John wanted, but I do think that she was the biggest factor in his decision to leave.
4.32am
13 November 2009
Offline
I see. I'm not sure factor is the same as blame. Blame implies that it was intentional.
But on the other hand, isn't she usually described as being bored during their sessions? She's not a timid woman, and if she wanted to leave and work on her art, she would do so. She said herself that her attitude was more "Screw you, I've got my own problems" at the time. Was this passive aggressive behavior a team effort? If that's the case, then yes, she deserves some of the blame.
10.37am
31 March 2008
Offline
I don't have the quote to hand, but in 1970 Paul said he felt intimidated by Yoko's presence during the LIB sessions. Instead of writing something like "I really love you, girl" he felt he should come up with something more sophisticated because she was there. On reflection, he realised that he should have gone with what he originally wanted, and that Yoko would have liked the simple lyrics anyway, but in January 1969 he wasn't sure how to read her.
I think George and Ringo probably felt similarly, to a greater or lesser degree. It was unusual for a wife to be present in the studio for Beatles sessions, and suddenly John presented Yoko as an extension of himself ("Where I go, she goes" etc).
Not that I think that's the key reason for the breakup. I think George said something along the lines of "The Beatles was too small for the four of us". They outgrew being in a band and wanted to try different things. Once they'd completed Pepper and had fulfilled everyone's expectations of them, they had nowhere to go but explore their own separate interests, only some of which dovetailed.
2.32pm
14 April 2010
Offline
When I read or hear most people talking about the breakup I get an image of a growing puddle of gasoline upon which Yoko was the lit match. For many years, until I actually took the time to read and hear more about it, I have to confess I was in that group as well. For that, I apologize to Yoko as I was a bit unfair. The more I learn about her, the less I dislike her. A while back in these very pages, I wrote that I neither liked nor disliked her – she was just there. I'm not quite ready to profess my undying love for her, but I am now more on the "like" side of the line.
Now, instead of the puddle of gasoline analogy, I liken it to a pressure cooker in which Yoko was merely an ingredient. Add a dash of discontent over being Beatles (mostly by John and George), a teaspoon of increasing individuality, a cup of deteriorating Apple Corps, sprinkle in some Allen Klein and BOOM!
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, Let it roll for all its worth.
2295 6972
2.36pm
19 September 2010
Offline
That's a great way to look at it. But you forgot some Maharishi discontent
5.41pm
13 November 2009
Offline
Brian's death too, apart from his role as manager.
6.13pm
14 April 2010
Offline
…and the list goes on and on. That's exactly the point that a lot of us on this Forum are making. It was not all Yoko's fault - if at all.
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, Let it roll for all its worth.
2295 6972
4.55am
1 May 2010
Offline
I just think there were too many differences. I think if they would have continued it might have been like the White Album in the sense that the other three would just be the backing group for whoever the singer would be. It would have been interesting like we've talked about before, especially if some of John and George's songs were put on the same album. But maybe they just didn't really need each other anymore, they were finally seperate and independent musicians all with very unique styles. It sucks that they really couldn't get back together, maybe they would have had John stayed alive longer, but in the 70's there was just too much ego for any reunion to work. Plus there would have been so much pressure, they would have had to make something that would at least rival, if not top, Pepper or Revolver. I do think that John was the most important factor though, if he would have committed to keeping it going, the other three would have probably went along with it, just like if he was willing to reunite, the other three probably would have went along with it.
I like what John said, that if Yoko caused the breakup and gets all of the blame, she at least deserves the credit for the great music they made in their solo careers.
2.50pm
19 September 2010
Offline
GniknuS said:
I like what John said, that if Yoko caused the breakup and gets all of the blame, she at least deserves the credit for the great music they made in their solo careers.
Not At All!!! Would Maybe I'm Amazed, Uncle Albert and the rest of his pre-Band on The Run stuff be better with Ringo on Drums and George and John Playing guitar? Of Course. Would All Things Must Pass be better with Paul's Basslines? Of Course. Would Plastic Ono Band and Imagine be better with George and Paul on Guitar and Bass, respectively? Of Course
5.12pm
13 November 2009
Offline
So are you saying that Yoko wouldn't be involved? Where would she go? I don't see how it would cancel out her contributions to have the four of them working together from time to time. Any more than that, they wouldn't be "solo" would they?
5.26pm
19 September 2010
Offline
What I'm saying is that All those songs/albums would be improved if the Beatles Performed them.
6.36pm
1 May 2010
Offline
That's not really the point. I think John just said that because they were still capable of making great music independently, so if Yoko was capable of breaking up these incredible musicians, she must at least get some credit for the great music they continued to make. And I don't really think the music would have been better with the others because they would have just inhibited each other more, maybe Paul's stuff would have improved, but certainly George wouldn't have been able to release a triple album and John wouldn't have been able to release almost anything from Plastic Ono Band. The three just needed backup bands, they didn't need real "band members."
7.01pm
19 September 2010
Offline
The Jams On ATMP are terrible, so good riddance to them. A lot of The songs on Plastic Ono Band were written off of experiences, most of which would not have been relived without Primal Therapy, which occurred because He wasn't in the group any more and was feeling incomplete.
12.59pm
19 April 2010
Offline
Often in problem solving (this problem being 'what caused the break-up'
it is usual to identify the one thing if removed, would have changed the outcome – to me that one thing was John's herion addiction.
It made him unreasonable and hard to deal with – Paul himself had said that. I think if John were thinking clearly he might have been reachable – instead he was erratic. It's cliche – but drugs were the number one contributing factor.
John's behavior during the 70's can also be tracked and traced to his recurrent bouts with herion. Once he got past that in the late 70's we started to see a more rational John Lennon emerge.
1.01pm
19 April 2010
Offline
And just to amplify – I'm not saying John's herion addiction was the ONLY thing – just the dominant factor which impacted all the other problems they were all having.
3.16pm
14 April 2010
Offline
Do any of you guitar players among us subscribe to "Guitar World" magazine? I do not, but my wife happened to spot this cover on a magazine stand and bought it for me.
It is the Holiday 2010 issue, which was also issued with an alternate cover (if you want both you would have to buy them separately).
My reason for bringing it up in this thread is the fact that there are nice articles about John, Paul and Klaus Voorman and each article talks about (among other things) the breakup. I particularly liked the article about KV becuase I know so little about him and he talked about the end of the Beatles from his point of view. He said that as far back as 1966 John had confided in him many times about how unhappy he was being a Beatle. He really resented all of the attention and hated the fact that he could not go out on his own without being mobbed. Klaus said when Yoko came along, she showed John how to use that to his advantage instead of being suffocated by it.
When I stopped to think about that, something else occurred to me. In a lot of older footage, we see John making what George Harrison refers to as John's "spastic face". Whenever a camera was pointed right in his kisser, John made this face. There are even scenes in "A Hard Day's Night" and "Help!" where you can spot the same thing. To me, I always saw that as a defense mechanism. But, for the life of (Brian?) me, I can not recall seeing that face once in all of the post-Beatles footage of John that I've seen. So, Yoko may not have broken them up but was certainly a catalyst – not just for the breakup but also for John's release and ultimately his happiness. Bittersweet, indeed.
These may be things that you have heard before, but I found them to be a bit more believable coming from someone who has no stake in anyone's reputation and is not trying to sell a book. It also made me want to learn more about Klaus.
Another little tidbit that you may or may not know (I did not) was that Klaus is the one who bought Stu Sutcliffe's oft-mentioned Hoffner bass when Stu decided to leave the Beatles.
Whether you play guitar or not, you may want to look for this magazine. I'm glad my wife bought it for me.
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, Let it roll for all its worth.
2295 6972
5.35pm
1 May 2010
Offline
I've seen a few interviews with Klaus and you can tell that he really loved John. I mean, he loved all of the Beatles, but he was much more a part of John's life than the others. He was part of the trio that made Plastic Ono Band with Ringo, and I saw this documentary about John and Paul's solo stuff, and you can just tell from listening to Klaus that he was an absolutely huge reason why John was able to just basically let his emotions fly in that album. He and Ringo did a good job of loving and supporting John during that album, along with Yoko, and I don't think John would have been able to express those emotions had it not been for the comfort that the others gave him. There's a part in the book Memories of John Lennon, or something like that, where Klaus writes about their time in Hamburg and the pills that they were on. One time after a show, he and John were at a restaurant chatting all excitedly when suddenly John just collapsed face first into his soup or something. After a few seconds, he woke up and began chatting feverishly again as if nothing had happened. Klaus drew a picture of it and it's in the book, it's pretty funny. There definitely needs to be more interviews with Klaus out there because he has a unique perspective in the Beatles story.
9.25pm
19 September 2010
Offline
GniknuS said: There definitely needs to be more interviews with Klaus out there because he has a unique perspective in the Beatles story.
I Think all of his story is out and while his story is interesting, it is a footnote in the annals of Beatles History.
12.24am
1 May 2010
Offline
mr. Sun king coming together said:
GniknuS said: There definitely needs to be more interviews with Klaus out there because he has a unique perspective in the Beatles story.
I Think all of his story is out and while his story is interesting, it is a footnote in the annals of Beatles History.
I'm not talking about his life story or whatever, but he was around the Beatles in Hamburg and this seems to be the least known about time in Beatles history, so clearly he could offer some perspective on what really did and did not happen. It's more than a "footnote" because he was a friend and could offer a real viewpoint, rather than some biographer that wasn't there and is just basing his information on second hand accounts.
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online: Egroeg Evoli
6 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
meanmistermustard: 3440
MeanMrsMustard: 2794
Egroeg Evoli: 1544
vonbontee: 1427
Von Bontee: 1380
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 87
Members: 1687
Moderators: 5
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 33
Topics: 2401
Posts: 73522
Newest Members: gibbonfunky, Jay Riley, BrettB, Ralphrennick, fartoons
Moderators: Joe (2702), skye (2295), Ellie (1), Zig (2752), mithveaen (4675)
Administrators: Joe (2702)
