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 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.
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 shit, 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
Also on this day...
- 2010: Paul McCartney live at the Hollywood Bowl, Los Angeles
- 1970: Radio: Ringo Starr on Open House
- 1969: George and Pattie Harrison are fined for drugs possession
- 1969: John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s lightning trip to Vienna
- 1967: Recording, mixing: With A Little Help From My Friends, Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite!
- 1965: Filming: Help!
- 1964: Radio: Saturday Club
- 1964: Filming: A Hard Day’s Night
- 1963: Live: De Montfort Hall, Leicester
- 1962: Live: Subscription Rooms, Stroud
Want more? Visit the Beatles history section.
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.
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.
Your nick makes you partial to Paul from the first minute. After all, you´re his dear old friend & confident!
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 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.
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.
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?”.
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.