Great idea for a topic. Interesting to hear people’s thoughts on the breakup and possibly continuing while they did individual albums. I was one that believed that they could have gone on and did solo records but I agree with Ken’s analogy with Phil Collins and Genesis where there could be over saturated in the market. The Rolling Stones tried it (Mick’s albums and then Keith’s album) but that led to drama within their band. I believe The Who also had some drama when Pete Townsend was releasing his solo material, their drummer at the time Kenny Jones accused him of using the better material for his own albums. Still it would have been interesting to see then try to carry on especially with the 4 4 4 2 concept of song division. Thanks for sharing!
I very much agreed with Ken that such a situation of The Beatles carrying on with solo and group releases would have been complex and not really possible. But, my reasoning is that if you are Paul, John, or George and have a valid artistic direction you want to pursue and can't be your full selves in a post-1970 Beatles, why would you? By that point, George knew that his spiritual or complex music was not being well received by John and Paul. John knew that George and Paul wouldn't tolerate his most far out material (Cold Turkey), and Paul knew that John and Paul wouldn't tolerate his so-called "Granny music." To carry on as a group with all that would have been a drag for all of them.
I liked Allan's description that Paul led in the latter years of the Beatles not just by writing the most hit singles but by also leading with ideas, project direction, etc. The one tid bit I'd add to that is Paul should get a lot more credit for helping the group stay commercial with his hit singles even as the group shifted in their look and the times changed all around them, etc. A lot of fans might have been turned off if it was only the far out George and John songs. Paul anchored the band with his hits and allowed the group to stay on top through 1970.
Paul came out & said it in Get Back, they really missed Brian's leadership after he died & Paul took it upon himself to take up the reins; as John & George were burned out and/or couldn't be bothered at that stage of the band.
Hey Dennis-Thanks for writing. My observation about Paul vs. John in the group's later years (1967-1970) was that he wasn't as dominating as John was in the earlier years, strictly in terms of songwriting. Of course we know that Paul tried to lead the group with ideas after Brian died. That wasn't the issue here. My comment was really about the songwriting aspect only.
@@kenmichaelsradio748 Greetings from Tampa, Ken! Agreed on the songwriting aspect. Love the show - hoping to be playing The Cavern with my Detroit-based bandmates, The Incurables, at IPO in May.
The telling point in the Get Back doco for me was the conversation between John and Glyn about Allan Klein . Shame John didn't take more notice of what Glyn was trying to tell him.
Thank you for sharing your expertise and. wealth of knowledge. I believe as. a woman. After watching "Get. Back" and reading " Paperback Writer" and now "The Lyrics". The Beatles were unravelling. But, she started pulling that string. John was clearly the leader. Paul knew it and that was visible in so many scenes. George and Ringo. and Lennon McCartney amazing. stll McC and Ringo
I really like the narrative about how much energy John and Paul were putting towards the Beatles. There seems to be a bit of pouting behavior going on from Paul AND John. As in, if it's not like this, then I withdraw my participation to whatever degree. John was certainly putting less energy into the Beatles during and after Revolver. Much has been made about his acid intake, but another factor may have been the hot streak Paul had just entered into with Revolver. In short,I think Paul having such a huge volume of good songs and ideas gave John further motivation to withdraw some of his energy. Moreover, when John does pick it up with the White Album, in some ways it is like he is saying, "if I'm going to participate more, I want it like this (whatever this is in that scenario), then when he doesn't get his way, he wanders off again. Likewise, when Paul is out maneuvered with regard to Klien and Apple, he withdraws . It seems like both are saying, "If I'm going to be all in with the Beatles, it has to be like this". Whatever THIS is at that time and place.
Good discussion. Think the songwriting imbalance between John & Paul shows up more in the hit singles from 66 onwards. Would have had a big impact on the perception of the band, possibly making it harder to balance the egos of the front two.
See the Castleman-Podrazik book ALL TOGETHER NOW chapter "No, You're Wrong" for a fun summary of other Beatles myths. 24:00 In the eleven singles the Beatles issued from 1966 through 1970, John has two A-sides, "All You Need Is Love," and "The Ballad of John and Yoko," and has one apiece on two double A-sides, "Penny Lane"/"Strawberry Fields Forever," and "Something"/"Come Together."
To me, what is happening is redressing the balance. For so long, the "cool kids" of Rolling Stone magazine, (for example) touted John as the genius and Paul as the bubblegum pop man, which was so unfair! Paul himself, for years, has had to contend with that rewritten legacy. As a human being, he has, IMO, handled that with a lot of grace. And if, at times, he has seemed to emphasize his own contributions, defending his legacy, who can blame him? Especially after John's tragic death, the press deified John, which, inevitably led to more slagging off of Paul. Now, people are looking with a more equitable, less judgy approach. To me, it is clear, that they were all four geniuses, that ALL of them contributed. Get Back really drove that home for me. Look at Tomorrow Never Knows, what would it be without Paul's loops? What would Come Together be without Ringo's and Paul's percussion? Just a couple of songs that people use to "prove" that John is the better, more artistic of the two, when in fact, they were equally brilliant.
Carolyn---Thank you for your excellent comments here. In many cases, the Beatles brought a lot to their own songs. However, I also feel that most of the credit for each song should go to the songwriter, without whom you wouldn't have the song in the first place, and in many instances, those were singular efforts. To me, the brilliance of the Beatles, like with any great piece of music is that it stands alone as a great song first. That doesn't diminish the importance of the group, along with George Martin and the various engineers!
Regarding Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, I just listened to an interview with Paul in the late 1990s where he said the songwriting was equally John and him. He went to John’s house; John showed him Julian’s drawing; they both loved Lewis Carroll and the idea of writing a song based on Lucy in the Sky; they went upstairs and wrote it together. He said George Martin wanted him to look over a book he was writing, and in it, George said Lucy in the Sky was John’s. Paul proceeded to clear up that misconception.
Sadly the vitriol for Yoko lives on. When our buddy Joe Mayo did a chat on the All Things Must Pass box set and people were blaming Yoko for the high cost of the George box, just insane and sad
Maybe regulate Ken Michaels to only covering the news. Ken's assertions are awful. Paul Not being the de facto leader of the Beatles post-Sgt. Peppers. Lennon comments on this during the Playboy interview and it's discussed during the Get Back Film. Is Ken purposely purposing this "misconception" only to prove it otherwise? Yes, Yoko contributed to the breakup of the Beatles. Maybe not the sole reason for the breakup, but her relationship with John drove him to become less interested in the group. Again, Ken makes his point null and void. I would hate if he was my lawyer. Lastly, 4 Paul, 4 George, 4 John 2 Ringo songs per album. How is Ken supposedly a Beatles expert when he fails to recall this meeting? Even the co-hosts seem to grow tired of Ken's lackluster forethought.
I think you're missing the point of what I was saying. It is believed that Paul dominated the group in their latter years, and I said that that perception, in terms of the songwriting is a bit overdone. Between John and Paul, and what they released as a band, it is closer to being more balanced if you look at all their material, with Paul having a slight edge, and having more of the a-sides as singles. Allan rightly pointed out that Paul was driving the band for ideas like Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, etc., but my point was going strictly in terms of who was writing the most. As for their breakup, I said the biggest reason was that John wanted to do more with Yoko, but I don't place a blame on Yoko for that, as that was John's decision and his right to do so. And I always bring up that meeting of the 4-4-4-2, which shows that John recognized there was a problem in not giving George more songs on a Beatles album, and yet it was John who told the others he was leaving a week after that.
@@kenmichaelsradio748 Ken, I think you're missing the point as usual. The "misconception" of who was writing more material. How would this be considered a misconception? Bad argument. During The Get Back Sessions Paul and George had tons more material than John. Hence, John was writing less. The issue with the show is the co-hosts don't seem to be able to call out these lapses. This show is effectively Ken and guests. 4-4-4-2 whether you mentioned this in an earlier show doesn't matter, you failed to mention it here in this show. You tried to make the point that The Beatles wouldn't have been able to release both solo and a group project post-1970 because how would they determine which songs would be appropriate for which project. Well, they did release solo projects as well as Beatles material pre-1970 all the same. Point mute.
I’m finding it humorous how much the 3 of you speculate upon the supposed content of upcoming Get Back dvd and related content. At this point i take all your predictions with a healthy grain of salt. I mean, i wanna believe that you all have access to resources that most fans don’t, and from what i understand, Apple has been dangling a rerelease of Let It Be over our heads for decades now, but i’m curious as to specifically where this “understanding” that it would occur upon or near the dvd release of Get Back comes from. Is it merely from Peter Jackson’s ruminations? Same goes for all your continued speculations on the various ways in which the rooftop concert is to be edited, or not.
When it was first reported that Peter Jackson would be working on the Get Back documentary, we heard that there were plans to also reissue Let It Be. It didn't say that they were simultaneous releases. It didn't specify at all when. I'd find it really hard to believe that they could release Get Back on DVD/BluRay, and keep Let It Be out of print. And speculation is just that. We never present it as fact. Let It Be is that rare moment when we actually have a lot of film footage (60 hours) of the group working on an album. Because of its historical value, it's not unreasonable that further on down the line there might be a deluxe edition for Get Back with more footage just to entice the fans.
I don't believe we actually speculated on the content of the immediately upcoming "Get Back," since we already know for a fact that there will be no extras. It has been announced as just the three installments. In previous episodes, we said what we'd like in terms of bonuses, and what we think they should do, but that's not speculation, it's basically a wish list. I did suggest that after Disney's distribution agreement ends, they might reconsider, and yes, that was based largely on Peter Jackson's rumination about having "Let It Be" and "Get Back" in one package, eventually. We have to assume that he's spoken with Apple about the possibility. Granted, it doesn't mean they agreed. Also, when Ken says "we heard, that there were plans," what he means is, it was in the Apple press release.
I am surprised that Jackson didn't know about this DVD. It seems that they simply threw it together and put it out. I am one that isn't interested in seeing more footage. I am sure, like the hosts here have suggested, that the Apple folks are already planning some super set to rip us off with in the future...:)
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & Fuerza Regida) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zjv8TQ0gBkg/mqdefault.jpg)
Great points Alan, especially john’s album debate, very important observation and well thought out and analysed, makes a lot of sense. Thanks.
Instant classic, guys. The time flew. More, more!
Great idea for a topic. Interesting to hear people’s thoughts on the breakup and possibly continuing while they did individual albums. I was one that believed that they could have gone on and did solo records but I agree with Ken’s analogy with Phil Collins and Genesis where there could be over saturated in the market. The Rolling Stones tried it (Mick’s albums and then Keith’s album) but that led to drama within their band. I believe The Who also had some drama when Pete Townsend was releasing his solo material, their drummer at the time Kenny Jones accused him of using the better material for his own albums. Still it would have been interesting to see then try to carry on especially with the 4 4 4 2 concept of song division. Thanks for sharing!
I very much agreed with Ken that such a situation of The Beatles carrying on with solo and group releases would have been complex and not really possible. But, my reasoning is that if you are Paul, John, or George and have a valid artistic direction you want to pursue and can't be your full selves in a post-1970 Beatles, why would you? By that point, George knew that his spiritual or complex music was not being well received by John and Paul. John knew that George and Paul wouldn't tolerate his most far out material (Cold Turkey), and Paul knew that John and Paul wouldn't tolerate his so-called "Granny music." To carry on as a group with all that would have been a drag for all of them.
Great show as always. Thank you.
I liked Allan's description that Paul led in the latter years of the Beatles not just by writing the most hit singles but by also leading with ideas, project direction, etc. The one tid bit I'd add to that is Paul should get a lot more credit for helping the group stay commercial with his hit singles even as the group shifted in their look and the times changed all around them, etc. A lot of fans might have been turned off if it was only the far out George and John songs. Paul anchored the band with his hits and allowed the group to stay on top through 1970.
Paul came out & said it in Get Back, they really missed Brian's leadership after he died & Paul took it upon himself to take up the reins; as John & George were burned out and/or couldn't be bothered at that stage of the band.
Hey Dennis-Thanks for writing. My observation about Paul vs. John in the group's later years (1967-1970) was that he wasn't as dominating as John was in the earlier years, strictly in terms of songwriting. Of course we know that Paul tried to lead the group with ideas after Brian died. That wasn't the issue here. My comment was really about the songwriting aspect only.
@@kenmichaelsradio748 Greetings from Tampa, Ken! Agreed on the songwriting aspect. Love the show - hoping to be playing The Cavern with my Detroit-based bandmates, The Incurables, at IPO in May.
The telling point in the Get Back doco for me was the conversation between John and Glyn about Allan Klein . Shame John didn't take more notice of what Glyn was trying to tell him.
Paul has been quoted as saying John def wrote ' Couldn't get any worse' a number of times...on Stern and many interviews
I think he was being sarcastic when he said Paul hadn't mentioned that much
@@D97Music Yes I was. It's one of the most repeated stories Paul has ever told.
@Topazthecat Howard Stern is a woman
Thanks for such an interesting topic. And thanks for the updates!
Thank you for sharing your expertise and. wealth of knowledge. I believe as. a woman. After watching "Get. Back" and reading " Paperback Writer" and now "The Lyrics". The Beatles were unravelling. But, she started pulling that string. John was clearly the leader. Paul knew it and that was visible in so many scenes. George and Ringo. and Lennon McCartney amazing. stll McC and Ringo
🙌🏻
I really like the narrative about how much energy John and Paul were putting towards the Beatles. There seems to be a bit of pouting behavior going on from Paul AND John. As in, if it's not like this, then I withdraw my participation to whatever degree. John was certainly putting less energy into the Beatles during and after Revolver. Much has been made about his acid intake, but another factor may have been the hot streak Paul had just entered into with Revolver. In short,I think Paul having such a huge volume of good songs and ideas gave John further motivation to withdraw some of his energy. Moreover, when John does pick it up with the White Album, in some ways it is like he is saying, "if I'm going to participate more, I want it like this (whatever this is in that scenario), then when he doesn't get his way, he wanders off again. Likewise, when Paul is out maneuvered with regard to Klien and Apple, he withdraws . It seems like both are saying, "If I'm going to be all in with the Beatles, it has to be like this". Whatever THIS is at that time and place.
Good discussion. Think the songwriting imbalance between John & Paul shows up more in the hit singles from 66 onwards. Would have had a big impact on the perception of the band, possibly making it harder to balance the egos of the front two.
No dvd seems to being released in Uk at time of writing just Blu Ray
See the Castleman-Podrazik book ALL TOGETHER NOW chapter "No, You're Wrong" for a fun summary of other Beatles myths. 24:00 In the eleven singles the Beatles issued from 1966 through 1970, John has two A-sides, "All You Need Is Love," and "The Ballad of John and Yoko," and has one apiece on two double A-sides, "Penny Lane"/"Strawberry Fields Forever," and "Something"/"Come Together."
To me, what is happening is redressing the balance. For so long, the "cool kids" of Rolling Stone magazine, (for example) touted John as the genius and Paul as the bubblegum pop man, which was so unfair! Paul himself, for years, has had to contend with that rewritten legacy. As a human being, he has, IMO, handled that with a lot of grace. And if, at times, he has seemed to emphasize his own contributions, defending his legacy, who can blame him? Especially after John's tragic death, the press deified John, which, inevitably led to more slagging off of Paul. Now, people are looking with a more equitable, less judgy approach. To me, it is clear, that they were all four geniuses, that ALL of them contributed. Get Back really drove that home for me. Look at Tomorrow Never Knows, what would it be without Paul's loops? What would Come Together be without Ringo's and Paul's percussion? Just a couple of songs that people use to "prove" that John is the better, more artistic of the two, when in fact, they were equally brilliant.
Carolyn---Thank you for your excellent comments here. In many cases, the Beatles brought a lot to their own songs. However, I also feel that most of the credit for each song should go to the songwriter, without whom you wouldn't have the song in the first place, and in many instances, those were singular efforts. To me, the brilliance of the Beatles, like with any great piece of music is that it stands alone as a great song first. That doesn't diminish the importance of the group, along with George Martin and the various engineers!
@@kenmichaelsradio748 Agreed! Mostly, I just feel so lucky to have them, their legacy, and their amazing music. :)
Back in Liverpool
Regarding Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, I just listened to an interview with Paul in the late 1990s where he said the songwriting was equally John and him. He went to John’s house; John showed him Julian’s drawing; they both loved Lewis Carroll and the idea of writing a song based on Lucy in the Sky; they went upstairs and wrote it together. He said George Martin wanted him to look over a book he was writing, and in it, George said Lucy in the Sky was John’s. Paul proceeded to clear up that misconception.
Cynthia---Would you be able to find that interview? I'd love to be able to quote Paul and know where it appeared.
Sadly the vitriol for Yoko lives on. When our buddy Joe Mayo did a chat on the All Things Must Pass box set and people were blaming Yoko for the high cost of the George box, just insane and sad
43:06
Maybe regulate Ken Michaels to only covering the news. Ken's assertions are awful. Paul Not being the de facto leader of the Beatles post-Sgt. Peppers. Lennon comments on this during the Playboy interview and it's discussed during the Get Back Film. Is Ken purposely purposing this "misconception" only to prove it otherwise? Yes, Yoko contributed to the breakup of the Beatles. Maybe not the sole reason for the breakup, but her relationship with John drove him to become less interested in the group. Again, Ken makes his point null and void. I would hate if he was my lawyer. Lastly, 4 Paul, 4 George, 4 John 2 Ringo songs per album. How is Ken supposedly a Beatles expert when he fails to recall this meeting? Even the co-hosts seem to grow tired of Ken's lackluster forethought.
I think you're missing the point of what I was saying. It is believed that Paul dominated the group in their latter years, and I said that that perception, in terms of the songwriting is a bit overdone. Between John and Paul, and what they released as a band, it is closer to being more balanced if you look at all their material, with Paul having a slight edge, and having more of the a-sides as singles. Allan rightly pointed out that Paul was driving the band for ideas like Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, etc., but my point was going strictly in terms of who was writing the most. As for their breakup, I said the biggest reason was that John wanted to do more with Yoko, but I don't place a blame on Yoko for that, as that was John's decision and his right to do so. And I always bring up that meeting of the 4-4-4-2, which shows that John recognized there was a problem in not giving George more songs on a Beatles album, and yet it was John who told the others he was leaving a week after that.
@@kenmichaelsradio748 Ken, I think you're missing the point as usual. The "misconception" of who was writing more material. How would this be considered a misconception? Bad argument. During The Get Back Sessions Paul and George had tons more material than John. Hence, John was writing less. The issue with the show is the co-hosts don't seem to be able to call out these lapses. This show is effectively Ken and guests. 4-4-4-2 whether you mentioned this in an earlier show doesn't matter, you failed to mention it here in this show. You tried to make the point that The Beatles wouldn't have been able to release both solo and a group project post-1970 because how would they determine which songs would be appropriate for which project. Well, they did release solo projects as well as Beatles material pre-1970 all the same. Point mute.
I’m finding it humorous how much the 3 of you speculate upon the supposed content of upcoming Get Back dvd and related content. At this point i take all your predictions with a healthy grain of salt. I mean, i wanna believe that you all have access to resources that most fans don’t, and from what i understand, Apple has been dangling a rerelease of Let It Be over our heads for decades now, but i’m curious as to specifically where this “understanding” that it would occur upon or near the dvd release of Get Back comes from. Is it merely from Peter Jackson’s ruminations? Same goes for all your continued speculations on the various ways in which the rooftop concert is to be edited, or not.
When it was first reported that Peter Jackson would be working on the Get Back documentary, we heard that there were plans to also reissue Let It Be. It didn't say that they were simultaneous releases. It didn't specify at all when. I'd find it really hard to believe that they could release Get Back on DVD/BluRay, and keep Let It Be out of print. And speculation is just that. We never present it as fact. Let It Be is that rare moment when we actually have a lot of film footage (60 hours) of the group working on an album. Because of its historical value, it's not unreasonable that further on down the line there might be a deluxe edition for Get Back with more footage just to entice the fans.
I don't believe we actually speculated on the content of the immediately upcoming "Get Back," since we already know for a fact that there will be no extras. It has been announced as just the three installments. In previous episodes, we said what we'd like in terms of bonuses, and what we think they should do, but that's not speculation, it's basically a wish list. I did suggest that after Disney's distribution agreement ends, they might reconsider, and yes, that was based largely on Peter Jackson's rumination about having "Let It Be" and "Get Back" in one package, eventually. We have to assume that he's spoken with Apple about the possibility. Granted, it doesn't mean they agreed. Also, when Ken says "we heard, that there were plans," what he means is, it was in the Apple press release.
I am surprised that Jackson didn't know about this DVD. It seems that they simply threw it together and put it out. I am one that isn't interested in seeing more footage. I am sure, like the hosts here have suggested, that the Apple folks are already planning some super set to rip us off with in the future...:)