Log In
Register
7.50pm
8 November 2012
Offline
thisbirdhasflown said
Yes, I see your point. They did lack some character. And you can't call "strength" abusive behavior. It's just that they weren't the only weak ones. There were several other weak members and Yoko fixed it. Even when you're addicted, you can still be strong with strong people, and Yoko was strong.
But part of my point is that I don't see Cynthia or May as weak. I think given what was thrown into their laps, they are incredibly strong women. You can't throw a hurricane at someone and then blame them when they barely keep their heads above water.
Also, I don't think we know enough or John lived long enough to determine that anything about him was "fixed." Addiction is a lifetime struggle. And there are conflicting reports of how late in the 70s John might have cleaned up, and there are rumors that Yoko herself was addicted and that she may have even worsened his addiction. For all we know, Yoko may have less to do with his cleaning up than the fact that Sean came into his life.
I just think we need to question the conventional narrative. Cynthia and May and other people who've survived abuse deserve better.
parlance
7.50pm
8 November 2012
Offline Expert Textpert said
She said this at the beginning of their trip to LA, before he did anything.
She was their assistant and had some idea of what he was like before the trip to LA, so it's natural she'd have some misgivings. That's not the same as saying she was weak, though.
parlance
8.00pm
28 May 2014
Offline thisbirdhasflown said
Yes, I see your point. They did lack some character. And you can't call "strength" abusive behavior. It's just that they weren't the only weak ones. There were several other weak members and Yoko fixed it. Even when you're addicted, you can still be strong with strong people, and Yoko was strong.
But part of my point is that I don't see Cynthia or May as weak. I think for what was thrown into their laps, they are incredibly strong women. You can't throw a hurricane at someone and then blame them when they barely keep their heads above water. Also, I don't think we know enough or John lived long enough to determine that anything about him was "fixed." Addiction is a lifetime struggle. And there are conflicting reports of how late in the 70s John might have cleaned up, and there are rumors that Yoko herself was addicted and that she may have even worsened his addiction. For all we know, Yoko may have less to do with his cleaning up than the fact than Sean coming into his life. I just think we need to question the conventional narrative. Cynthia and May and other people who've survived abuse deserve better. parlance
@parlance I think, yes, they were very strong for what happened. It just wasn't enough. And yes, the truth about his addiction will be unsolved because we don't know how it ended.
thisbirdhasflown
By hook or by crook, I'll be last in this book.
4.37am
4 February 2014
Offline
It was forty years ago today
when John Lennon put his pen in play
signing documents that legally say
The Beatles officially end today
The following people thank C.R.A. for this post:
DrBeatle2.55am
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline
C.R.A. said
It was forty years ago todaywhen John Lennon put his pen in play
signing documents that legally say
The Beatles officially end today
At Disney, no less!
"I know you, you know me; one thing I can tell you is you got to be free!"
Please Visit My Website, The Rock and Roll Chemist
Twitter: @rocknrollchem
Facebook: rnrchemist
3.30am
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline Lennon was the first to say "hello" to the band that became The Beatles, and he was the last to say "goodbye" officially.
No, I must not dwell on the second part. It is bedtime, and I don't want to have nightmares.
All the fairy dust in the Magic Kingdom couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:
BeatlebugCan buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. 
(2017) 
(2018)
10.44am
18 December 2012
Offline parlance said
thisbirdhasflown said
Yes, I see your point. They did lack some character. And you can't call "strength" abusive behavior. It's just that they weren't the only weak ones. There were several other weak members and Yoko fixed it. Even when you're addicted, you can still be strong with strong people, and Yoko was strong.
But part of my point is that I don't see Cynthia or May as weak. I think given what was thrown into their laps, they are incredibly strong women. You can't throw a hurricane at someone and then blame them when they barely keep their heads above water.
Also, I don't think we know enough or John lived long enough to determine that anything about him was "fixed." Addiction is a lifetime struggle. And there are conflicting reports of how late in the 70s John might have cleaned up, and there are rumors that Yoko herself was addicted and that she may have even worsened his addiction. For all we know, Yoko may have less to do with his cleaning up than the fact that Sean came into his life.
I just think we need to question the conventional narrative. Cynthia and May and other people who've survived abuse deserve better.
parlance
Having a brother with an addiction problem has shown me that there really is nothing you can do for someone like that if they aren't willing to help themselves. How Cynthia managed to put up with John for as long as she did AND have a child AND go through Beatlemania, I will never know.
Maybe this is naive, but the way I see it, Yoko helped John escape his problems while Cynthia and May gave him the kind of support he needed to actually deal with his problems and grow up - they showed him it was ok to be vulnerable and helped him to embrace his most sensitive loving side. That's extremely important.
Does anyone have quotes about John's addiction problems in the later 70's? I hear about it a lot, but where is this information coming from?
1.13am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Too lazy to write it out in my own words. From Wogblog
Today's Daily Mail has the story and photos of a 19 year old fan who turned up uninvited on John’s doorstep in 1968 and was invited in for breakfast with John and Yoko. The fan, Michael Herring, later shared a car ride with John to George Harrison ’s house to see the Beatles recording – and he witnessed the opening of a letter said to announce McCartney’s resignation.
Call me sceptical but i dont see George and John sitting down in George's home with a stranger they'd just met and commenting about Paul leaving in front of him.
For someone with more authority Mark Lewisohn is quoted in the Daily Mail article.
Last night, Mark Lewisohn, a leading authority on the Beatles, said Mr Herring’s photographs were ‘fantastic because they capture a moment in history’.
But he cast doubt on the revelations about Paul’s resignation letter, saying: ‘There’s no way that can be accurate because the Eastmans had no part in Paul’s life until his relationship with Linda began in October 1968, and there was no way Paul was quitting at this point. They had a number of sessions at George’s house and Paul was certainly at most of them – maybe not this one – because we have the recordings.’
But he added: ‘This does not undermine the general story, which I do believe.
Hunter Davies is included too but his section is too long to add here.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
6.38am
Reviewers
29 August 2013
Offline Oddly, the more I listen to the solo albums again (after having had them before on release) the more I am comfortable with the timing of the breakup. The 70s really had some great efforts from all four and it's unlikely they would have gone much past that as a group.
The following people thank trcanberra for this post:
Beatlebug==> trcanberra and hongkonglady - Together even when not (married for those not in the know!) <==
7.24am
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline My dad reminded me that 49 years ago, Paul announced the breakup...
Honestly I think it came not a moment too soon - it could have come a year earlier, it may have prevented relationships from going bad. What do we think? Did it come at the right time?
The following people thank The Hole Got Fixed for this post:
Beatlebug#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 
2017 awards: 
2018 awards:
2019 awards: 
2020 awards:
8.51am
26 January 2017
Offline I really like I Me Mine so I wouldn't want to remove that from existence, but ideally for me (if it was inevitable that they broke up at some point) they would have done Let It Be in January, released it as an album soon thereafter, then gone back into the studio for Abbey Road , announcing the breakup after its release in September.
That way, there wouldn't have been all the bitterness surrounding the drawn out Let It Be sessions, they could have left off on a relative high from the comparatively sunny Abbey Road sessions, had it truly be their last album, and kept their career as The Beatles within the decade they defined.
The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:
Beatlebug, The Hole Got Fixed¡No pasarán!
9.35am
15 November 2018
Offline I think that they made the right decision, breaking up while they still had some semblance of friendship, before they all hated each other. I think after ten years of being constantly together, they just needed a break to be themselves, try new things, and make new music.
The following people thank 50yearslate for this post:
QuarryManLove one another.
- - -
(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)
- - -
2018:
2019: 
2020:
10.18am
19 December 2018
Offline A day that is worth some rememberance...
Honestly speaking I often have mixed emotions about their breakup. It is certainly depressing, especially when you realize that they lasted no more than eight years (if count from Love Me Do ). Some bands from the same era, like the Stones, have remained on stage for half a century, while we never have the chance to see a formal reunion of all four Beatles. But thinking about their sensational success and the following pressure (I remember they thought they could last a few months at most), their intense timetable, also all of the subtle relationships and conflicts, breakup seems to be a reasonable choice.
I have this feeling that The Beatles were like a supernova explosion, shining too brightly in the 60s–but after that, the remains became too tense to handle the boys' power. Sometimes it is sentimental to think about this, but other times, I just feel grateful to have them and their music.
The following people thank ScarlettFieldsForever for this post:
50yearslate, Beatlebug, Getbackintheussr, SgtPeppersBulldogA girl with kaleidoscope eyes...
1.20pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline 
ScarlettFieldsForever said
[snip] when you realize that they lasted no more than eight years (if count from Love Me Do ). [snip]
They only lasted eight years as a recording band in the public eye, sure, but you must remember that from the boys' perspective, they'd been together since they were teenagers. That's a long, eventful time to be stuck so closely with the same people in a group.
it verges from the sublime to the ridiculote
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
2.33pm
26 January 2017
Offline I'm very glad they didn't end up like the Stones. We remember The Beatles as they were - four young, extremely talented and charismatic personalities in their musical prime. They never made a bad album, and that's very important to me. As much as I'm happy for the Stones that they're still going after all these years, I get the feeling our collective memory of them isn't going to be so pure.
¡No pasarán!
9.52am
17 December 2017
Offline I think they broke up at the right time. It could've been earlier, probably, and that would've prevented some of the arguing. If they stayed together longer, they might have made some great music, but they made great solo music, which makes up for it.
QuarryMan said
I'm very glad they didn't end up like the Stones. We remember The Beatles as they were - four young, extremely talented and charismatic personalities in their musical prime. They never made a bad album, and that's very important to me. As much as I'm happy for the Stones that they're still going after all these years, I get the feeling our collective memory of them isn't going to be so pure.
I see your point, but I'm glad the Stones are still together, because I don't think their solo music would be very good if they weren't a band. They've had their bad moments, but i still really love their recent stuff. They're not the Beatles and their not perfect, but they're still a really great band.
|
~~~
The Concert for Bageldesh
~~~
Walrian here! Not Fiddy, or anyone else, actually.
12.00pm
26 January 2017
Offline I guess The Beatles were just really lucky that John George and Paul were all such great songwriters, an advantage other bands didn't have. I can't think of any other band where every single member went on to have a hugely successful solo career after the band broke up.
¡No pasarán!
1 Guest(s)
