Although stories about The Beatles’ split had been reported almost since they became famous, by early 1970 they had become hard to ignore. All the members were working on solo projects, and although they remained in the public eye, they were rarely seen as a group.
In interviews all four members spoke about reconvening for recordings, although it was generally acknowledged that they were taking a temporary break from each other. Earlier on 31 March, Ringo Starr had given an interview to BBC Radio 2 in which he had insisted the group was likely to work together again once their solo projects were complete.
A problem remained over release schedules. Apple was planning to release Let It Be on 24 April, and push back Paul McCartney’s debut album McCartney from 10 April to 4 June. Let It Be had been brought forward by Allen Klein to coincide with the premiere of the film, and they knew that having two Beatles-related albums in quick succession would hurt sales.
Since Let It Be was a group project with various multimedia elements, and McCartney was a relatively straightforward album release, the Beatles album took precedent. John Lennon wrote to EMI, saying: “We have arrived at the conclusion that it would not be in the best interests of this company for the record to be released on that date.”
Lennon and George Harrison then wrote to McCartney informing him of their decision.
Dear Paul, We thought a lot about yours and the Beatles LPs – and decided it’s stupid for Apple to put out two big albums within 7 days of each other (also there’s Ringo’s and Hey Jude) – so we sent a letter to EMI telling them to hold your release date til June 4th (there’s a big Apple-Capitol convention in Hawaii then). We thought you’d come round when you realized that the Beatles album was coming out on April 24th. We’re sorry it turned out like this – it’s nothing personal. Love John & George. Hare Krishna. A Mantra a Day Keeps MAYA! Away.
The letter was sealed in an envelope marked “From Us, To You”, and left at Apple’s reception for a messenger to deliver to McCartney’s home at 7 Cavendish Avenue. However, Starr agreed to take it round in person. “I didn’t think it fair some office lad should take something like that round,” he reasoned.
By this time McCartney had long tired of arguing over Apple’s future, and the various parties were more likely to communicate by letter or through their managers rather than face-to-face interviews. McCartney had recorded his album in secret, under the pseudonym Billy Martin, choosing to keep the news from the press and his former bandmates for as long as possible.
McCartney might once have agreed with the logic behind the decision to postpone his album, but after months of acrimony he was in no mood for conciliatory agreements. The contents of the letter left him furious, and Starr received the full brunt of his anger.
Ringo came to see me. He was sent, I believe – being mild mannered, the nice guy – by the others, because of the dispute. So Ringo arrived at the house, and I must say I gave him a bit of verbal. I said: ‘You guys are just messing me around.’ He said: ‘No, well, on behalf of the board and on behalf of The Beatles and so and so, we think you should do this,’ etc. And I was just fed up with that. It was the only time I ever told anyone to GET OUT! It was fairly hostile. But things had got like that by this time. It hadn’t actually come to blows, but it was near enough.Unfortunately it was Ringo. I mean, he was probably the least to blame of any of them, but he was the fall guy who got sent round to ask me to change the date – and he probably thought: ‘Well, Paul will do it,’ but he met a different character, because now I was definitely boycotting Apple.
Anthology
Starr described the situation in an affidavit read out in court during the February 1971 hearings to end the Beatles partnership.
I went to see Paul. To my dismay, he went completely out of control, shouting at me, prodding his fingers towards my face, saying: ‘I’ll finish you now’ and ‘You’ll pay.’ He told me to put my coat on and get out. I did so.
He also recounted the incident during an interview published in July 1971.
They didn’t send me round, it’s a misquote. The letters were ready there. They, as directors of that company – we’re all directors of different companies – wrote a letter to him, and I didn’t think it fair that some office lad should take something like that round. I was in the office at the time and said give it to me… no, I was talking to the office, that’s right, and they were telling me what was going on, and I said, ‘Send it up, I’ll take it round.’ I couldn’t fear him then. But he got angry, because we were asking him to hold his album back and the album was very important to him. After I’d left the house – I mean, it’s all been said in court, as it were. He told me to. get out of his house. He was crazy; he went crazy, I thought. I got brought down because I couldn’t believe it was happening to me. I’d just brought the letter. I said, I agree with everything that’s in the letter, because we tried to work it like a company then, not as individuals. I put my album out two weeks before, which makes me seem like a good guy but it wasn’t really, because I needed to put it out before else it would’ve slayed me, Pauls album. And it did.
Melody Maker, 31 July 1971
Starr was immensely upset by the exchange, and reported back to Apple. Lennon and Harrison agreed to let McCartney’s album come out as planned, and delayed the release of Let It Be. While McCartney had scored a superficial victory, his relations with the drummer took a number of years to fully recover.
They eventually sent Ringo round to my house at Cavendish with a message: ‘We want you to put your release date back, it’s for the good of the group’ and all of this sort of s**t, and he was giving me the party line, they just made him come round, so I did something I’d never done before, or since: I told him to get out. I had to do something like that in order to assert myself because I was just sinking. Linda was very helpful, she was saying, ‘Look, you don’t have to take this crap, you’re a grown man, you have every bit as much right…’ I was getting pummelled about the head, in my mind anyway.
Many Years From Now, Barry Miles
The McCartney album was issued in the UK on 17 April 1970, while Let It Be was eventually released on 8 May. On 10 April a press release for the solo album caused a sensation by seemingly confirming that The Beatles had finally split up.
The world reaction was like ‘The Beatles Have Broken Up – It’s Official’ – we’d known it for months. So that was that, really. I think it was the press who misunderstood. The record had come with this weird explanation on a questionnaire of what I was doing. It was actually only for them. I think a few people thought it was some weird move of me to get publicity, but it was really to avoid having to do the press.
Anthology
All of them were living dark times. As we say “the dark night of the soul”. Paul’s reaction was understandable, though not acceptable. Ringo was used to do the dirty job. I have already reacted like that with a close friend of miine once. “get out”. So I can see how he felt.Apple was right not wanting to release both in the same time, but they could not decide it without talking to him first. What I think rather strange are Linda’s words. Maybe she meant something else but sounded as if she wanted to put more fire in the logs. If I was his wife ( what a dream!) I would have reacted in a very different way, trying to calm him down though supporting him. I would have tried to bring back the love flame.
nothing wrong with a show of real-anger now and again,…
But it had to be; they had been very strong friends for 10 years! It was inevitable…
As one gets older, one can see all sides to this. This is helped greatly, by the factor that, for me, one of the great things about these four unique and particular human-beings -aside from their amazing ‘musicality’, was their character: fame didn’t really go to their ego too much or really; they remained down-to-earth, and genuinely very likable and interesting people too.
How Loved they are
In this instance , McCartney was being unreasonable.
Agreed. Paul was just being a spoiled, egotistical prick and threw a tantrum because he didn’t get his way.
He wasn’t unreasonable at all. His release date was set before Let It Be was finished, so he had every right to stand his ground, especially considering the way he’d been repeatedly stabbed in the back by the others. This was just another example. he wasn’t *asked* to release his record on a different date, he was *told* by John and George because *their* manager decided to release let It Be on that date. No, Paul wasn’t unreasonable at all. If I were him, I wouldn’t have merely kicked Ringo out of my house. I would’ve gone over to 3 Savile Row and knocked John and George’s teeth out for trying to f*ck him over yet another time. But hey, that’s just me.
Nonsense, the release date tied in with the movie release which had been McCartney’s idea in the first place . Apart from that, wanting your father in law to manage the band? Give me a break.
When John Lennon releases Cold Turkey while Something/Come Together has just entered the charts, and when John Lennon releases Instant Karma a couple of weeks before the Let It Be single, no one seems to mind. Funny that.
Spot on Lars! Nobody complained when Lennon would spontaneously release solo singles whenever he felt like it. Yet, he and George saw no problem trying to strongarm Paul into changing a release date that he had already set in advance. So, while Paul probably overreacted, and obviously felt bad about it later in retrospect, he was, after dealing with John’s drama and George’s constant bitchiness, tired of putting up with their s**t.
And certainly Linda was not a bad guy in all of this. After all, she had spent many months watching her husband fall apart mentally as he tries to hold the band together by being diplomatic, and gave him the good ol’ swift kick in the ass that he desperately needed. She did what a good wife is supposed to do.
S.o.t.Y: The Eastmans basically helped make Paul the wealthiest man in show-business. In April 1973 John Lennon even admitted – just as he, George and Ringo decided to rid themselves of Allen Klein as *their* manager – that “possibly Paul’s suspicions were right” concerning Mr. Klein. That must have hurt!
George was having legal problems with Allen Klein even into the 80s and 90s. Paul wasn’t…
As for your other point: when John Lennon releases Cold Turkey just as Something is charting as a single, and then releases Instant Karma two weeks before the Let It Be single, no one seems to view it as an act of sabotage.
You’re absolutely right, Lars
Billy Martin , billy pepper , George Martin ,
Slipper, Paul cleared the release date with Apple’s person in charge of the dates months before. Klein pushed the album release up to go with the movie release, letting John and george handle paul, and they let ringo do the dirty deed.
Since the Eastmans would have done there best for Paul and linda, and the 4 beatles shared profits equally John made a HUGE mistake going with Klein who ripped off the Stones and would have done the same to the Beatles if Paul had NOT sued to break them up.
Paul possibly helped to set a precedent, in exposing Klein for who he was. And it’s obvious that others were paying attention. Some time in the early 70s, Klein tried to acquire Pete Townshend’s publishing. Pete fought back hard, and spent a ton of money to chase him away. He wanted nothing to do with Klein.
Interesting to note, aside from Phil Spector, I don’t recall Klein signing any new major clients after the whole Beatles thing. He was radioactive. Klein spent the last several decades of his life milking money from the ABKCO catalog that he owned, which included every Stones record prior to Sticky Fingers. All of which he stole from the Stones.
Except, Paul knew that Klein was scum, but couldn’t convince the others to avoid him… Then, to make it even worse, they cite Klein as a decision maker. That had to blow Mc out of the water!
Your nick makes you partial to Paul from the first minute. After all, you´re his dear old friend & confident!
Thank you, at least you see exactly the way it was. These days we now know sending a letter like that is passive aggressive. Instead of working things out like adults, John and George sent Ringo to do the dirty work. If I had been him I would’ve told the two of them no, tell Paul yourselves in person. As for the commentor who believed Linda’s words as “strange” she needs to pay attention because Linda was very supportive of Paul. She never liked anyone criticizing him and would be defensive on his behalf. All 3 were actually were messing with Paul, Ringo may have been the least involved but he had a part to play too. Later on both he and George backed John on that mean song about Paul. So Ringo was no innocent lamb.
Which came after Paul’s mean song. The difference was that Paul was more subtle and John was much more direct. Even if Paul was right about Allen Klein, making his family the managers was not a good idea, particularly after he tried to dominate them in the studio. I think if Brian had still been alive he would have been able to make things a lot better, i.e., take a break, work on solo projects, come together from time to time. Other groups have done that.
Did “Paul” act like the REAL”Billy Shears” he once was ??….Only Linda, his wife, could have attested to that…
Well who knows really what happened? The whole true story is never fully released to the public and the pieces that do come out are usually more or less manipulated.
It made good business sense NOT to flood the market simultaneously with 2 album releases BUT to be told without consultation would have (and did) add fuel to the fire!
My view is that it’s not what is said. It’s how it’s heard.
It is also clear that the infamous self interview McCartney produced with his solo release DID NOT contain any statements announcing he was leaving the Beatles or that the band were splitting up. The press decided to interpret it that way and nobody could be bothered to correct them.
“Do you contemplate any foreseeable future in which The Beatles may play together again?”
“No”.
If that is not a “statement” of the kind you mention, I don´t know what is….
Actually, that’s not in there. He does answer “no” on whether he sees Lennon-McCartney being an active songwriting partnership.
Which had really gone away sometime around 1965ish? with the boys only assisting each other on a line here and there, and sometimes, to plug in a middle eight.
Poor Ringo. I can see both sides to be honest.
If anything, they seem to have recovered their relations soon enough, thankfully.
McCartney played on and wrote a song for his 1973 Ringo album.
Ringo, George and Linda knew the WHOLE story about Paul and the History behind him…
I think all of their temperaments and the need to branch out with solo projects was really the root of the problem. The management disagreements and the wrangling over release dates probably could have been resolved in a better way, but they appear to me to be a result of their individual need to be free.
I think in this instance McCartney was unreasonable although I understand he was also very depressed and unhappy. With that dark mindset, not a good time for the Eastmans to meddle and helping him become the wealthiest man in show business didn’t do him any favours. The others may have had their trials with Klein but they still ended up with plenty of dosh. For McCartney to record his album in secret was so strange, as was that unfortunate self-interview. I can’t help but think that if McCartney had reluctantly and anxiously agreed to sign with Allen Klein the others would have got cold feet and pulled out – they knew full well that Paul was the one with the business savvy, as Lennon later admitted. Business differences over money, royalties and managers took precedence over their friendship. McCartney, for all of his justifications and endless talk about Lennon being “nice” to him before his death, never really recovered from this. Psychologically he was hit the hardest. Was it worth it?
The Eastmans WERE NOT meddling, they were representing Paul’s interests as they were hired and contracted to do. George and Ringo following John’s lead (who had no business savvy whatsoever) turned out to be extremely foolish on their part, as history has shown. However much “dosh” John, George, and Ringo got because of Klein, even they felt it was NOT worth it, when Klein turned the tables on them and became the thorn in their sides as he had been in Paul’s, for the duration of the 70s and into the 80s.
All that “dosh” Klein negotiated for them, was pretty much eaten up with the final $4.2 million settlement John, George and Ringo agreed to pay Klein in 1977. One of the smartest things Paul did for himself was to NOT sign with Klein. And yes Paul did go through depression, and all the pain, his partner John and bandmates, George and Ringo threw at him. “Was it worth it?” you ask. Well, since Paul suffered the slings and arrows from John, who hurt him the most, endured the bashing and trashing of his music from the 1970s and 80s pro-Lennon, anti-McCartney rock press, is STILL standing, making music, rocking out, filling venues, still gaining generations of fans from Beatles, to Wings, to the Macca eras, as well as being the richest musician in the industry, and the most successful songwriter in history, with a brand new #1 album, I suspect that only Paul can answer that question, “was it worth it?”.
Water Falls: Representing Paul’s interests? But Paul was still a Beatle and while he was still with the the other three the Eastmans presented a conflict of interest, alongside possible accusations of nepotism by the others. It was fine for them to represent Paul as a solo artist, a different matter altogether.
I agree with you regarding the vilification of Paul over the breakup. It was shocking and it should never have happened. Which is why I said what I said. None of them behaved at all well during all of this so there is no point in taking sides. They hurt each other terribly, and for all Paul’s huge success, I do believe his Beatle years mean everything to him. Sorry, but money was the price of their extraordinary friendship.
Too Many People was not that mean of a song. As a diss track, it was rather mild. But John had a very fragile ego, and, at the time, thought that everything was about him.
I do think that Paul [although i loove him] did react wrong, but we’ve prob all done the same before. I also think we shouldnt be the ones judging b’cause we dont know all that was happening behind the scenes. Despite all that happened, i think the Beatles were and will be the best band ever. RIP John and George!
Billy Joel worked as a lounge singer in Los Angeles under the pseudonym Bill Martin during a dispute with his record label. The song Piano Man was written about that experience.
When I think of the name Billy Martin, I associate it with the notorious baseball player and manager of the Yankees, A’s, Twins and other teams.
But I doubt McCartney was a big follower of American baseball.
I think Paul had every reason to react the way he did. Here was Paul, at probably one of his lowest points in life, with all his best friends now working against him and with no support from almost anybody bar Linda. Not to mention, he was likely going to lose everything he’d earned over the last ten years. He’d galdly fixed a date for his own album and then here comes Ringo on behalf of the band with a letter requesting to change the date. I’ll probably react the same way to be honest.
All he had to do was say no. In the end, they let him have his way anyway.
I didn’t see any comments about the actual MUSIC. No doubt, this isn’t the only song where Paul or other musicians play beats WITHIN beats and unpredictably skips other beats, but I don’t recall hearing it done so subtly and deftly, magnifying the personal impact of the music AND lyrics by implying–suggesting, one might say–that listeners need to likewise capture the moments within their moments, to make the most of their life and themselves, and encouraging them to do so.
Too many people seemingly wishing to defend Paul at all costs. The simple fact is that whether or not his album was released first (regardless of whether or not he had scheduled it first) was a totally pointless issue, but his ego took over and he reacted inexcusably. “I’ll finish you” is going pretty far over the line over something so petty. That he still doesn’t really apologize for how he treated Ringo even after getting his way and thus rendering such treatment as even more unnecessary is somewhat telling.
He just chose this minor issue as an excuse to fight the battles he felt he was fighting against the others over much more significant matters, when he should have just kept it together.
Nice of you Vibrolux to be so judgemental as armchair critics tend to be. From going behind McCartney’s back in changing the name order in his favour to changing the release date of McCartney’s solo album without his consent, Lennon was always in control from beginning to end. With his two cohorts Harrison and Starr falling in behind. But I expect you will find something to defend their actions at all costs. Perhaps if people stopped demonizing Paul then people would stop defending him. It’s simple enough logic to conclude that none of them were without flaws.
Paul overreacted. Ringo was merely the messenger. Paul had a control issue as noted at his home in an interview with Linda. Paul was always present looking things over. The reporter noticed Paul was there listening to the interview with Linda. the reporter came away with Linda seeming depressed and Paul the one in control. No doubt Paul was the same way with the Beatles.
Why was Linda being interviewed in the first place? It couldn’t be the fact that she was married to a certain Paul McCartney, you know the one that actually was a Beatle, could it? Presumably it was Peter Cox to whom Linda stupidly blabbed about her husband. At least the other wives waited until their husbands were dead to avoid ‘control issues’.
Wow the way people react to this 50+ years later knowing what we know now is just insane! Paul McCartney was back-stabbed by his brothers. Simple as that! George was a serial womanizer who couldn’t keep off of any woman who breathed near him, John was on Heroin and obsessed with Yoko, even Ringo quit at one point because he wasn’t “appreciated”enough. Wah Wah Wah!!! The Beatles, as it turns out, were a bunch of sorry lazy, obnoxious sods!
If not for Paul, there would be NO White Album, NO Let It Be and NO Abbey Road. Paul was the workhorse of that group and was the glue, especially toward the end 66-70. Paul had to bribe, beg and steal to get his lazy group of band mates to even show up to work on time, if they even showed up!! They in turn resented him for it and acted like a bunch of butt hurt sorry old drugged up men. However, as the years went on they acknowledged that Paul was right about the slimy Allen Klein. If not for Paul they might of all ended up broke! His name never signed that paper to give Klein 100% control and because of Paul, they had more money than they knew what to do with! Not to mention the amount of money gained from their work from 66-70 that Paul had to push for. As it turns out, Paul McCartney WAS The Beatles!
I totally agree Holly. Paul McCartney was/is the genius behind the Beatles. John wondered why no one wanted to cover his songs and if the Let It Be film is to be correctly understood, John had already checked out and was responding passively aggressively to a lot of what Paul was suggesting, constantly exchanging looks with George with Yoko lurking in the background.
Felt really sorry for Paul. They were ganging up even then because they were jealous.
I doubt that which album came out first would have made any difference to sales, even if they’d come out on the exact same day. Beatles fans would have bought both in any case, in fact would have swept up most anything Beatles-related.
Ringo’s album was coming out too. The date change on the Macca album was also to give the Ringo album a chance to sell before being buried by the other releases. I don’t think there was any backstabbing in the decision. All those releases would profit them all. I think Paul used this moment to regain the control Klein took away from him. I don’t believe there was malicious backstabbing by any of the Beatles. Klein hustled Lennon and Lennon innocently bought into him. Listen to Lennon explain this to George in the Get Back documentary.
It’s more than rumour that Paul punched Ringo in the face that day on the steps at Cavendish Ave. as was widely reported AT THE TIME; more than Paul just shoving fingers in Ringo’s face and shouting. The boys / Derek change(d) history as needed to protect one another but I love that about them.
“Let his foibles pass….” Still, tempers do flare….