I have this theory about the Beatles. Ringo was the first to quit, but in my opinion was just a cry for attention and he came back quickly when the others showed him some love. George was next to quit but within days came back. John had lost a lot of power within the Beatles as his drug habit and Yoko's intrusion left him isolated. So HE quits the Beatles but continues working with George and Ringo, hardly a breakup. Again, I believe he wasn't planning on completely leaving just wanted to wrest some power back from Paul. I think history shows John, George and Ringo would have come back to it all, but by then PAUL had had enough after the Alan Klein debacle. I think it shocked the other three that Paul had NO intention of returning.
The issue of BIAS in journalism way beyond the BEATLES is of course a very pertinent one in NEWS everywhere this is true for at least the last 10 years. They are using BIAS as the starting point instead of facts. Ms Weber is fantastic!
Also, anyone who has seen the Peter Jackson "Get Back" can clearly see the division of talent within the Beatles and witness how much Paul was doing to make the group productive.
Jann absolutely is responsible thank you! Rolling stone crapped on Paul for years. They counted him out but he believed in himself. I love them both and they are indeed equals but I just love Paul so much. I don’t read Rolling Stone as it’s crap but Paul has more than proved himself and this new generation adores him. Thank you Peter Jackson.
To me it's never been a problem. John Lennon and Paul McCartney we're equals, simple as that. What they did together is outstanding, and you can't have one without the other in a partnership like that. They could sing and they could write on par with each other. You can pick your favorite if you want, but they were equals in every sense of the word.
Klein knew from the get go that he'd never 'sweet talk and over-promise' Paul's ties to Eastman so his strategy was to try and shame him, bully him, separate him from the rest, to even make his preference for the Eastmans immoral! And Yoko loved it, even contributed some "HDYS" lines. To Paul, that all 3 of his mates were gleefully coldly resentfully doing this to him was such a shock and betrayal, that not only DID he realize it at the time, but never EVER forgot it. And while he still loved The Beatles as brothers afterwards, he never particularly trusted them again either personally or in a business sense. That the others would DO this to him was such a shock to the system! He invited none of them to his wedding to Linda a month later. But immediately when John heard Paul had married Linda, he went CRAZY into a tizzy trying to marry Yoko asap, flying here and there and boats and sea captains, and finally a mere TWO DAYS later John defiantly marries as well and splashes his honeymoon for two weeks on all the front pages of two continents. Invited the media right into his bedroom for two weeks straight. Bizarre. Oh, "for peace". Mkay, right. JAN 27, 1969 - JOHN AND YOKO SECRETLY MEET WITH ALLEN KLEIN AT DORCHESTER HOTEL FEB 3, 1969 - THREE BEATLES SIGN WITH ALLEN KLEIN MARCH 12, 1969 -- PAUL MARRIES LINDA, invites no Beatles to attend. MARCH 14, 1969 -- JOHN SCRAMBLES FRANTICALLY TO MARRY YOKO 2 DAYS AFTER MCCARTNEY, AND INVITES MEDIA ON TWO CONTINENTS FOR 2 WEEKS INTO THEIR BEDROOM Something was definitely going on there. All these landmark events occur in a few winter weeks in 1969.
The way I see it, the real problem was that The Beatles had always had a UNANIMITY agreement. If one objected to anything, the others would respect that. But suddenly with Yoko, John was disregarding that, and disregarding Paul's wishes, and treating Paul as a child who couldn't even think for himself!! Oh. My. God. If anything, it was John who suddenly couldn't think for himself. All his thoughts "just happened" to be Yoko's.
The way I see it, John wanted to be in the biggest band in the world and he drove the Beatles to realize that dream. He achieved this by the age of 25. From that time really till the end of his life he fished around for something else to devote himself to, from political causes to the Maharishi to family life. But by as early as 1965 he wasn't much interested in leading the Beatles anymore. Paul tried to fill the void, because he thought the Beatles needed a leader and especially after the death of Brian no one else was stepping up. In "Get Back" was hear Paul tell John that John is really "the big boss" who everyone would listen to if he'd just do it, but John is no longer interested in being the leader. At the same time John doesn't want Paul doing it either, perhaps as much because he doesn't want anyone telling him what to do as anything else. And ultimately that's why he quits: he wants to do what he wants to do -- musically, monetarily, maritally -- without Paul or anyone else telling him otherwise. Paul, in the meantime, desperately wants the Beatles to stay together and does everything he can to keep them an ongoing entity -- sometimes misguidedly, with predictably poor results (MMT, LIB). George's growing discontent as being treated as a junior partner doesn't help -- Paul continues to be condescending toward him really till the present day. Unfortunately none of them seemed to be able to come to the happy conclusion that they could remain a band and also have solo projects, sort of on the CSNY model.
That could and should have been the conclusion, that it's possible to make music as the Beatles while also putting out solo albums with their less collective songs; certainly Paul doesn't need the Beatles to make a song like Maxwell, since he has all the parts figured out and has no use for the other three's input. And John had certainly (and deliberately, IMO) left the door open for future Beatles albums after September 69 by not telling anyone he had departed, and by coming to the studio in early 1970 along with the other three to work on Let It Be (at separate times); he is quite vague in the interviews at the time about the status of the Beatles. This possibility was effectively destroyed by the events of 1970 (the McCartney press release, John's solo album with "God", and Paul's December lawsuit), although John put the nail in the coffin in 1971 by moving to New York.
One of the most disappointing things in the Liverpool exhibits, was John Lennon's "childhood" home at his Aunt Mimi's completely cutting out that John dated Cynthia there, and began his marriage there with her, and they lived there with their son Julian. There's no reference to these formative influences, which rooms were designated theirs by Aunt Mimi. They are completely cut out as if they did not exist. As I understand it, John met Cynthia a few months after he met Paul, and they basically grew up together, fixed up the Casbah together, she supported him emotionally for almost a decade from The Quarrymen to The Beatles at the top of the world.
Regarding the debate about whether or not John was better off as an artist without Paul/ whether or not John and Paul’s solo work was on par with their Beatles work: the elements I always want people to acknowledge here are GROWTH and CONSISTENCY. Like, we can say that Imagine and Maybe I’m Amazed are just as good of compositions as any Lennon/ McCartney ones. But neither John nor Paul had the same consistency in their output or, more important in my opinion, experienced the same level of growth as songwriters. They were both great, but neither was improving. I mean, when they worked together, they went from Help to Rubber Soul to Revolver within ONE YEAR. Even if you think their solo songs are just as good, they both hit a plateau without the other one there to constantly spur him into creation. Edit: This is especially because the most beloved solo albums, especially from John, are the ones he came out with directly in the aftermath of the Beatles breakup. It wasn’t like greater distance from the Beatles improved his work.
They both needed each other's vetoing and editing of their work to avoid putting out their lesser stuff, plus they spurred each other on in a way that couldn't be achieved whilst apart, no matter how competitive they were in the 1970s. If only they had realised that in 1969/70, but there again, maybe it was for the best that they broke up then anyway.
No one seems to think with the fact that as solo artists they had to come up with 8-10 songs per album, where as as a band member they only needed half as much. So that impacted the quality and adventurism after the break up greatly.
@@mark9058 But they were also releasing way less albums as solo artists! As Beatles, they were releasing essentially two albums a year, plus all those non-album singles which amounted to even more than two albums a year in the US. I take your point that having to come up with all the songs on the album was also a factor in the quality drop, but I don’t think it’s as simple as suddenly they had to come up with double the songs they used to. Because this time, they had double the time.
@@mayag224 Good point. But even with double the spare time Paul and John were not coming up with double the quality. John wasn't touring like Paul either and still he had very uneven quality in output though he had plenty of time to work on his music.😀
@@mark9058 Yes, that’s my point! The fact that they were writing all the songs on their respective albums didn’t mean they were being made to write more songs than before because they were making less albums. Nevertheless, there was still a drop-off in consistency and a lack of growth.
Lennon took some time off from chasing hits when he did the LP 'Plastic Ono Band' that I think will stand as an artistic statement. scream therapy and all ,he gives us an autobiographical work of art.
I don't see how anyone could be made to believe that John Lennon was the only Beatle that mattered or that he was the only talent in the group from reading Rolling Stone articles. I was born after the Beatles broke up though...maybe that's why. Just looking at the Beatles output and history together you can see clearly that all four of them together as a unit gave them the overall power they had. John and Paul obviously with the songwriting for the band but George Harrison also became a great songwriter. If you just look at some of the best work from their solo careers you can tell that they all had greatness to offer. Song writing and the music was the main thing but to me the personalities of all four of the Beatles expressed when they were all together drew people in towards them as well. John Lennon was definitely the leader of the group by starting his band the Quarrymen and then asking Paul to join and then Paul bringing in George to audition for John. All three loved Ringos drumming and wanted him in the band but the chemistry also played apart with Ringo fitting in when they met him in Hamburg. Also the Beatles harmonies as well as them never really staying stagnant with their music and style was a big thing. As far as the break up of the Beatles ? The reason? It's clear!! The women!!! They stole the men away and ruined the greatest band of all time!!!! The woman ate the apple darn it!!! We had The Garden of Eden and warned not to touch that tree!!! It's always a woman. 😆🤣 Ok....I'm just kidding! 😆🤣 They Beatles just grew up that's all. It was a combination of various things but just like most things from their Beatle career their Breakup was a natural thing. All great things come to an end in life. Nothing lasts forever. We'll always have their music and their story of changing music forever.
Lennon never said he was greater or better than McCartney. He always praised his talent even when he was taking shots at him. Both of them seemed to be insecure when the other was being complimented.
ok...on a chinese horroscopic view of same...John was the year of the Dragon...Paul was the year of the horse...it sayeth that tho this combination can work for a while, eventually the dragon gets fed up with the selfishness of the horse and ends it...is this not exactly what happened?
The musical style of the Beatles was created mainly by John Lennon. John also had an original style of clothing and hairstyles changing every year, lyrics, smart thoughts, independent statements, most inventive songs. And Paul tuned in and wrote good tunes.
You mean the hair/style he got from Stu Sutcliffe who got it from Astrid? Don't get me wrong, I'm a "John fan" but there is no denying that when it comes to the Beatles, the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. Especially when you are talking about John and Paul, both creatively and vocally.
@@DimitrisDr3am Lennon usually changed his hairstyle two or three times every Beatle year and each time it was an evolution of the Beatle style. None of the other Beatles did this. The same applied to his clothing style.
John became jealous of Paul and insecure as early as 1965 - “Yesterday.” According to his assistant Fred Seaman who listened to John talk every day and also had access to John ‘s diaries - John was obsessed with Paul and Paul’s success for the rest of his life. John admits his jealousy to Paul in the lunchtime conversation in the Get Back sessions. And speaking of Get Back, Paul’s creativity was mind-boggling while John made only a few contributions.
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
I have this theory about the Beatles. Ringo was the first to quit, but in my opinion was just a cry for attention and he came back quickly when the others showed him some love. George was next to quit but within days came back. John had lost a lot of power within the Beatles as his drug habit and Yoko's intrusion left him isolated. So HE quits the Beatles but continues working with George and Ringo, hardly a breakup. Again, I believe he wasn't planning on completely leaving just wanted to wrest some power back from Paul. I think history shows John, George and Ringo would have come back to it all, but by then PAUL had had enough after the Alan Klein debacle. I think it shocked the other three that Paul had NO intention of returning.
I disagree. I think they were all tired of working with Paul.
The issue of BIAS in journalism way beyond the BEATLES is of course a very pertinent one in NEWS everywhere this is true for at least the last 10 years. They are using BIAS as the starting point instead of facts. Ms Weber is fantastic!
Terrific and informative discussion, as usual. Thanks, Robert!
Also, anyone who has seen the Peter Jackson "Get Back" can clearly see the division of talent within the Beatles and witness how much Paul was doing to make the group productive.
As far as the Beatles go the whole was always greater than the parts.
100%
Jann absolutely is responsible thank you! Rolling stone crapped on Paul for years. They counted him out but he believed in himself. I love them both and they are indeed equals but I just love Paul so much. I don’t read Rolling Stone as it’s crap but Paul has more than proved himself and this new generation adores him. Thank you Peter Jackson.
To me it's never been a problem. John Lennon and Paul McCartney we're equals, simple as that. What they did together is outstanding, and you can't have one without the other in a partnership like that. They could sing and they could write on par with each other. You can pick your favorite if you want, but they were equals in every sense of the word.
just found your channel. Bit of a jackpot. Subscribed
Klein knew from the get go that he'd never 'sweet talk and over-promise' Paul's ties to Eastman so his strategy was to try and shame him, bully him, separate him from the rest, to even make his preference for the Eastmans immoral! And Yoko loved it, even contributed some "HDYS" lines. To Paul, that all 3 of his mates were gleefully coldly resentfully doing this to him was such a shock and betrayal, that not only DID he realize it at the time, but never EVER forgot it. And while he still loved The Beatles as brothers afterwards, he never particularly trusted them again either personally or in a business sense. That the others would DO this to him was such a shock to the system! He invited none of them to his wedding to Linda a month later. But immediately when John heard Paul had married Linda, he went CRAZY into a tizzy trying to marry Yoko asap, flying here and there and boats and sea captains, and finally a mere TWO DAYS later John defiantly marries as well and splashes his honeymoon for two weeks on all the front pages of two continents. Invited the media right into his bedroom for two weeks straight. Bizarre.
Oh, "for peace". Mkay, right.
JAN 27, 1969 - JOHN AND YOKO SECRETLY MEET WITH ALLEN KLEIN AT DORCHESTER HOTEL
FEB 3, 1969 - THREE BEATLES SIGN WITH ALLEN KLEIN
MARCH 12, 1969 -- PAUL MARRIES LINDA, invites no Beatles to attend.
MARCH 14, 1969 -- JOHN SCRAMBLES FRANTICALLY TO MARRY YOKO 2 DAYS AFTER MCCARTNEY, AND INVITES MEDIA ON TWO CONTINENTS FOR 2 WEEKS INTO THEIR BEDROOM
Something was definitely going on there. All these landmark events occur in a few winter weeks in 1969.
Good show. Awesome content. You are always objective with John and paul takes.
The way I see it, the real problem was that The Beatles had always had a UNANIMITY agreement. If one objected to anything, the others would respect that. But suddenly with Yoko, John was disregarding that, and disregarding Paul's wishes, and treating Paul as a child who couldn't even think for himself!! Oh. My. God. If anything, it was John who suddenly couldn't think for himself. All his thoughts "just happened" to be Yoko's.
The way I see it, John wanted to be in the biggest band in the world and he drove the Beatles to realize that dream. He achieved this by the age of 25. From that time really till the end of his life he fished around for something else to devote himself to, from political causes to the Maharishi to family life. But by as early as 1965 he wasn't much interested in leading the Beatles anymore.
Paul tried to fill the void, because he thought the Beatles needed a leader and especially after the death of Brian no one else was stepping up. In "Get Back" was hear Paul tell John that John is really "the big boss" who everyone would listen to if he'd just do it, but John is no longer interested in being the leader. At the same time John doesn't want Paul doing it either, perhaps as much because he doesn't want anyone telling him what to do as anything else. And ultimately that's why he quits: he wants to do what he wants to do -- musically, monetarily, maritally -- without Paul or anyone else telling him otherwise.
Paul, in the meantime, desperately wants the Beatles to stay together and does everything he can to keep them an ongoing entity -- sometimes misguidedly, with predictably poor results (MMT, LIB). George's growing discontent as being treated as a junior partner doesn't help -- Paul continues to be condescending toward him really till the present day. Unfortunately none of them seemed to be able to come to the happy conclusion that they could remain a band and also have solo projects, sort of on the CSNY model.
That could and should have been the conclusion, that it's possible to make music as the Beatles while also putting out solo albums with their less collective songs; certainly Paul doesn't need the Beatles to make a song like Maxwell, since he has all the parts figured out and has no use for the other three's input. And John had certainly (and deliberately, IMO) left the door open for future Beatles albums after September 69 by not telling anyone he had departed, and by coming to the studio in early 1970 along with the other three to work on Let It Be (at separate times); he is quite vague in the interviews at the time about the status of the Beatles. This possibility was effectively destroyed by the events of 1970 (the McCartney press release, John's solo album with "God", and Paul's December lawsuit), although John put the nail in the coffin in 1971 by moving to New York.
best discussion of the subject yet heard...refreshingly lacking in the usual drivel...well done!
Fantastic listen !!!
One of the most disappointing things in the Liverpool exhibits, was John Lennon's "childhood" home at his Aunt Mimi's completely cutting out that John dated Cynthia there, and began his marriage there with her, and they lived there with their son Julian. There's no reference to these formative influences, which rooms were designated theirs by Aunt Mimi. They are completely cut out as if they did not exist. As I understand it, John met Cynthia a few months after he met Paul, and they basically grew up together, fixed up the Casbah together, she supported him emotionally for almost a decade from The Quarrymen to The Beatles at the top of the world.
Regarding the debate about whether or not John was better off as an artist without Paul/ whether or not John and Paul’s solo work was on par with their Beatles work: the elements I always want people to acknowledge here are GROWTH and CONSISTENCY. Like, we can say that Imagine and Maybe I’m Amazed are just as good of compositions as any Lennon/ McCartney ones. But neither John nor Paul had the same consistency in their output or, more important in my opinion, experienced the same level of growth as songwriters. They were both great, but neither was improving. I mean, when they worked together, they went from Help to Rubber Soul to Revolver within ONE YEAR. Even if you think their solo songs are just as good, they both hit a plateau without the other one there to constantly spur him into creation.
Edit: This is especially because the most beloved solo albums, especially from John, are the ones he came out with directly in the aftermath of the Beatles breakup. It wasn’t like greater distance from the Beatles improved his work.
They both needed each other's vetoing and editing of their work to avoid putting out their lesser stuff, plus they spurred each other on in a way that couldn't be achieved whilst apart, no matter how competitive they were in the 1970s. If only they had realised that in 1969/70, but there again, maybe it was for the best that they broke up then anyway.
No one seems to think with the fact that as solo artists they had to come up with 8-10 songs per album, where as as a band member they only needed half as much. So that impacted the quality and adventurism after the break up greatly.
@@mark9058 But they were also releasing way less albums as solo artists! As Beatles, they were releasing essentially two albums a year, plus all those non-album singles which amounted to even more than two albums a year in the US. I take your point that having to come up with all the songs on the album was also a factor in the quality drop, but I don’t think it’s as simple as suddenly they had to come up with double the songs they used to. Because this time, they had double the time.
@@mayag224 Good point. But even with double the spare time Paul and John were not coming up with double the quality. John wasn't touring like Paul either and still he had very uneven quality in output though he had plenty of time to work on his music.😀
@@mark9058 Yes, that’s my point! The fact that they were writing all the songs on their respective albums didn’t mean they were being made to write more songs than before because they were making less albums. Nevertheless, there was still a drop-off in consistency and a lack of growth.
Lennon took some time off from chasing hits when he did the LP 'Plastic Ono Band' that I think will stand as an artistic statement. scream therapy and all ,he gives us an autobiographical work of art.
I don't see how anyone could be made to believe that John Lennon was the only Beatle that mattered or that he was the only talent in the group from reading Rolling Stone articles. I was born after the Beatles broke up though...maybe that's why. Just looking at the Beatles output and history together you can see clearly that all four of them together as a unit gave them the overall power they had. John and Paul obviously with the songwriting for the band but George Harrison also became a great songwriter. If you just look at some of the best work from their solo careers you can tell that they all had greatness to offer. Song writing and the music was the main thing but to me the personalities of all four of the Beatles expressed when they were all together drew people in towards them as well. John Lennon was definitely the leader of the group by starting his band the Quarrymen and then asking Paul to join and then Paul bringing in George to audition for John. All three loved Ringos drumming and wanted him in the band but the chemistry also played apart with Ringo fitting in when they met him in Hamburg. Also the Beatles harmonies as well as them never really staying stagnant with their music and style was a big thing.
As far as the break up of the Beatles ? The reason? It's clear!! The women!!! They stole the men away and ruined the greatest band of all time!!!! The woman ate the apple darn it!!! We had The Garden of Eden and warned not to touch that tree!!! It's always a woman. 😆🤣
Ok....I'm just kidding! 😆🤣 They Beatles just grew up that's all. It was a combination of various things but just like most things from their Beatle career their Breakup was a natural thing. All great things come to an end in life. Nothing lasts forever. We'll always have their music and their story of changing music forever.
On the back of MEET THE BEATLES it says "group leader Lennon". John was the leader, ask Paul.
Lennon never said he was greater or better than McCartney. He always praised his talent even when he was taking shots at him. Both of them seemed to be insecure when the other was being complimented.
The "which is better?" question is pointless and tiresome. There would have been no Beatles without all of them.
ok...on a chinese horroscopic view of same...John was the year of the Dragon...Paul was the year of the horse...it sayeth that tho this combination can work for a while, eventually the dragon gets fed up with the selfishness of the horse and ends it...is this not exactly what happened?
Good summary, this could have stood instead of the two hour bore-fest that is this video.
The musical style of the Beatles was created mainly by John Lennon. John also had an original style of clothing and hairstyles changing every year, lyrics, smart thoughts, independent statements, most inventive songs. And Paul tuned in and wrote good tunes.
Are you a troll or just uninformed?
You mean the hair/style he got from Stu Sutcliffe who got it from Astrid?
Don't get me wrong, I'm a "John fan" but there is no denying that when it comes to the Beatles, the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. Especially when you are talking about John and Paul, both creatively and vocally.
@@DimitrisDr3am Lennon usually changed his hairstyle two or three times every Beatle year and each time it was an evolution of the Beatle style. None of the other Beatles did this. The same applied to his clothing style.
@@robertrodriguez1891 Neither one nor the other. Do you have any other guesses?
@@robertrodriguez1891 Why the hostility? It is just an opinion.
John became jealous of Paul and insecure as early as 1965 - “Yesterday.” According to his assistant Fred Seaman who listened to John talk every day and also had access to John ‘s diaries - John was obsessed with Paul and Paul’s success for the rest of his life. John admits his jealousy to Paul in the lunchtime conversation in the Get Back sessions. And speaking of Get Back, Paul’s creativity was mind-boggling while John made only a few contributions.