I, for one, think the Beatles split at the exact right time, and I am really glad they never got back together. The way they did it, going out on a high, and never trying to rehash something later, was the classiest way to do it. It was pure. You make your artistic statement, and then let it be.
I never cared much about a re-union. as Lennon himself said "you've got the records to listen to." but w/ George's songwriting getting stronger, they would not have embarrassed themselves.if they had wanted to keep making records together, they surely would have.but they all wanted solo careers. I listened to 'Just gimme some truth', as it's JL's birthday. 10/9/19.
If John hadn't been assassinated The Beatles would have gotten together at least for live shows. He and Paul had been hanging out together through the last half of the seventies.
They were having terrible financial disagreements over Allen Klein. Also, John left for New York in late ‘71 so it was hard to get them all in one studio again.
That's more or less what the other three beatles had in mind before paul announced the break-up. John was already saying in interviews before the band was disbanded but as he'd already unofficially left, that at the time he wasn't really interested anymore but that they'd probably play again (live excluded) or just vaguely get together and do something ; that he'd already be interested if they opened up the band to other people. He was doing his own thing, playing in Toronto, putting out Cold Turkey and Give peace a chance, Ringo was doing film, George doing whatever, it was an indefinite sabbatical more than a sharp end. But as the guy above me says, the three vs one situation with Klein was impossible to deal with and Paul had had enough of being on stand-by after being probably the beatle who had wanted to keep going the most.
@@letosvet1 Paul was proved right about Alan Klein. If I am not mistaken, John and or George said so themselves. I think you’re assertion is spot on.. The 3-1 thing was a problem as they’d always had the rule that all 4 must agree.. Perhaps Paul should have given a bit more by not digging his heels in about Lee Eastman managing the band. while I think that would have been good, I think the other three had every right to feel that that arrangement would have been too Paul-centric...
@@brucestewart7371 "I" don't think that they needed or wanted to just simply get away from each other, but Fed up with being"THE BEATLES"!! Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeaaaah!!!!
Sept 1969, as the Beatles discussed the end of the Lennon/Mccartney songwriting partnership, truly signaled the end of the 60's. As another commenter stated, they were the light of their generation. We all loved the thrill of being their fans, just to share in their brilliance 🌞
Ironically, the "Let It Be" album features a contemporary Lennon/McCartney composition, "I've Got A Feeling". Just goes to show, things rarely are as black and white as people sometimes think. Things were a lot more fluid than that. And even when assembling the medley for the B-side of the "Abbey Road" album, at one point a John-song segways into a Paul song: "Polythene Pam" into "She Came In Through The Bathroom Window". So they were still collaborating and working as a group at that album.
The reasons the Beatles broke up are simple. They were now adults, they had families, they had succeeded in becoming the most famous band in the world, they didn't want to tour and they had developed into strong individuals who each wanted things their way. It was natural that tension and stress built up between them. They'd had enough of compromise and the obvious thing to do was to wind down the Beatles and go their separate ways. I'm glad they lasted as long as they did.
The real honest-to-god reason for the Beatles breaking up was this one simple fact nobody Doug Billy I mean when Billy came into the band he shook things up to the point where he pissed everybody off and they resented it if Paul was still in the band they would have all kept the love olive And continue to create good music don't get me wrong Billy kicked it right in the ass and came up with some beautiful stuff no doubt about it but they never liked the f****** blowk
@@zorroonmilkavitch1840 Nobody believes that nonsense anymore,. complete idiocy. Do you actually know anything about the Beatles, listen to the studio conversations, interviews ... besides, considering the hundreds of people who knew Paul in 1966 : friends, family, reporters, neighbors, barbers, doctors, shop owners, people he saw every day ... many of whom had absolutely no reason to keep a "secret" - in fact, many of whom could have profited from just one interview? It is a lunatic myth that has been discredited long ago. don't be so gullible.
@@jeannadysart5243 Paul McCartney just wrote over a thousand pages of the story of how he entered the Beatles his name is Paul McCartney for now but his real name is Billy Campbell he was given this job as a psyop true Tavistock an agency connected to the throne of England in order to keep the money coming in that the Beatles produced for the country it was a staggering amount of money dig into the story and read the book The Memoirs of Billy shears and you will hear the whole story it sad to see the whole world duped and people wallowing in the muck of Lies!
Thank you for your investigation into this. I for one, appreciate the clarity around this time in history. Any true fan really appreciates the full story.
Love your reviews John, interesting, finely balanced, informative & respectful. It's obviously a labour of love for you to review all of these great albums, keep up the good work!
In the Get Back documentary, George said that he and the others had so many songs and that they should do their own albums so they can comeback and do Beatle albums afterwards.
Tony Ward is absolutely right. This so called newly-discovered tape has been known for decades. Nicholas Schaffner on page 131 of his 1977 book The Beatles Forever describes the tape recording of that Sep. 1969 meeting, in which John proposes allotting Paul, George, and himself exactly four tracks per album, with Ringo getting one or two tracks if he so desired.
What you are missing is that Lennon had been getting back into the Beatles. Lennon is often seen as no longer caring about the Beatles but he had been fighting for single A sides since 1967 and losing every battle except the Ballad of John and Yoko. He fought for I am the Walrus, Hey Bulldog, Revolution, Don’t Let Me Down and lost all of them. In late September he Went to Apple and said he just wrote their new single, Cold Turkey. George and Paul said no. Ringo plays drums on the song.
WOW! This is really something new to hear and it all seems to fit. BTW, I totally agree the Audio tape should be out there free for all to take a listen.
Thankyoou for this!! I have been a fan since the beginning as a schoolgirl!! Poor George, G. Martin said, after George died, they should have given him more time, he was left out
The Beatles new formula LP Spring, 1971: Early 1970 (R) My Sweet Lord (G) Junk (P) Instant Karma! (J) Every Night (P) Power To The People (J) Isn't It A Pity (G) Another Day (P) Working Class Hero (J) It Don't Come Easy (R) Love (J) What Is Life? (G) Maybe I'm Amazed (P) All Things Must Pass (G)
Эй! Палыч How about this: Maybe I'm Amazed I've Got A Feeling Run of the Mill Instant Karma It Don't Come Easy Two of Us What is Life Cold Turkey Every Night Beware of Darkness Look at Me Isn't it a Pity?
Эй! Палыч"isn’t it a pity" would have to have been re-written with different lyrics. It’s about their breakup and to me, it kind of pokes fun at "Hey Jude".
Thank you! The lengthy comment below says it all. As good ol Freda says in her documentary and I'm just paraphrasing of course. They grew up and wanted to have families and a separate life outside of the band. Now this is just my thoughts they were friends that became a family Brothers if you will. Great video!
I attended a Beatlefest in New York in the late 70's, and they played this tape then. I don't remember who presented it, it was in a ballroom with at least a hundred people. I do remember you could hear a pin drop when they played it. Why it's not been available since then, I obviously don't know. I'm sure there are others out there who were present when they played it. Maybe contact Mark Lapidos, who ran the Beatlesfests, he probably will remember it.
@@lazyartiste_2357 I don't remember exactly, it was a long time ago, but I do remember some of what Mr. Heaton was reading, but not all of it. Back then it was just so amazing to hear them talking at all, and even more bizarre that they were talking about breaking up. I think they might have played a couple minutes of them talking. I attended two Beatlefests, so I'm not sure what year it was, I think late 70's. Mark Lapidos started and ran the Beatlesfests, he might remember the playing of these tapes.
I would love to be able to hear the music they would have made if they would have stayed together. And can you imagine how great they would be live, with todays sound technology.
It seemed to me John Lennon was doing everything he could to push Paul McCartney’s buttons up to and including signing with Alan Klein because Yoko pushed for it, John went along with her but Mick Jagger advised against it for good reasons, and Paul wouldn’t allow for him to be manipulated into it. The best thing Paul ever did for the group was to not sign up with Klein, the beatles would have lost a lot more if he had.
@@candelise nobody is saying they had to go with Lee Eastman either, they should have kept looking for another alternative is what I am saying, someone all four could agree on. In the end a few years later John admitted on television that Paul was right about Klein as Yoko rolled her eyes. Check it out.
@@lindakelly9552 Yes, all very good, but when confronted with egos, where is there any chance of people in this position looking for an alternative? Especially with people used to getting their way. This situation would never have occurred if Brian Epstein had not overdosed, but there you go. It was what it was.
@slip satch It's Paul singing to the love of his life, Linda: a DEEPLY personal lyric. If it was my wife, I wouldn't want anyone else singing with me either. But thank you for your prompt response. Happy listening too. Robert Allen
@@MyRobertallen Have to disagree. The Beatles would have taken it to another level. John would have been right behind it the way he was with 'Hey Jude'.
When I was 11 years old I was convinced that it was all of the Beatles secretly playing on it, because to me it sounded like them. Of course later on I realized it was because Paul was playing all of the instruments.
It would have been a great Beatles track. Every Night, too. John's Cold Turkey (would have sounded like Yer Blues) and Instant Karma would have been perfect for the Fabs even though Paul had reservations about Turkey and Karma was basically a re-write of All You Need Is Love. And George had All Things Must Pass and tons more stuff plus Ringo's It Don't Come Easy (okay George wrote it but so what?). Give the front three another song each and you've got the next album!
Great read! This is from the same source tape without a doubt. I saw a shorter transcript on a news site and it reads verbatim. Down to the details of John mentioning Maxwell and Ob-La-DI and George pointing out that most of the songs he had written a couple years earlier. Same tape. It's quite possible Lewisohn had this and sat on it til the week of the Abbey Road 50 Anniversary release along with his tour. I'm sure it'll appear on the internet soon.
Crazy to think a Group that rose to Interenational fame. 1963/64. US big time 1964 and played there last tour date in 1966. And broke in 1970. Yet songs and stories still of interest. Much like Buddy Holly, Hank Williams, Very sort Stars yet the shine contiues to inspire musicians and thier music still can be relateable.
Abbey Road, at the time was Incredible. I was 19, stationed At lindsay air station, formerly a German military hospital in Wiesbaden. I have heard what Paul has said about some of The songs, how some of the Riffs were chuck berry material. Maybe so, but it was amazing. Wish they could've done more But the winds of time had Blown a separate course for John. They were the light Of a generation.
The Beatle did what they were meant to do. It lasted the time they were allowed to grow up and grow apart. Life changes for all of us drastically between the ages of 17 and 29. A lot of people don't reslize John and Paul were together for 15 years writing and playing. That's a long time at such a early age. I think they are so revered because they actually did what they were meant to do , no more or less !
Thanks for this tidbit. As a music lover one can't help but speculate about their career, how they talked to one another what could or might have been. I think as you said they were becoming individuals and were tired and it seems had become more difficult to cooperate with one another. Just do songs we "dug". I could have listened to ten more years of Beatles albums if they did only songs they dug.
This tape points out exactly why the Beatles HAD to break up. John is telling Paul that they don't need to record songs that they don't dig or aren't really into and then he lists songs like "Obladi Oblada" and "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and I can just imagine Paul kind of hurt thinking to himself, "I kind of do dig those songs". LOL. They were just all going in different directions. In the beginning their differences worked well together and gave them diversity and they were each willing to explore types of music that weren't in their comfort zone but by the end they didn't have the patience to put up with working on stuff they weren't interested in.
@@zorroonmilkavitch1840 George just didn't like it and also Paul was such a perfectionist he made them rehearse it over and over and over and so many takes trying to get the anvil to sound "just right" while George had to fight to get Paul to record one of his songs.
Charles Philip Adams no, they didn’t have to break up. They needed a “break” from each other to do some solo work and then come back together. The death knell of any band is not playing live and the Beatles needed to get back to concerts after spending some time apart.
Charles Philip Adams As John experimented with drugs probably the pressures of beatlemania etc John was less leading so Paul stepped in and lead them, kept them working with White Album, Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, but of course then he meets Yoko too, further division. I believe John Lennon was EXTREMELY TALENTED GENIOUS really, but something in him made him jealous and insecure and when he knocks commercial hits, hell I say isn’t that what they are supposed to do is sell records, Obladi obladi was a very catchy tune, I loved it!!! And Maxwell’s Silver Hammer is no worse than Polythene Pam and Mean Mr Mustard and Sun King was just here comes the sun slowed down, it was lazy. I loved all the Beatles really I did I don’t like when one is getting beat up.
Every rock band peaked and split for better or worse as young rockers grew up and changed. We care only for the few best...so their stories get blown up.
It was just impossible for them collectively to be this perfect song writing machine for ever and ever. SOmething had to fall off and not be repaired. I suppose we should be grateful for what we received. They were only human beings after all.
Yes and also a temporal piece where people are expressing incompletely processed feelings in the middle of reacting to other's musing on their own baggage. Most bands are the same, the Eagles spring to mind, where Frey and Henley basically see themselves as the Eagles and every one else as sometimes esteemed collaborators. Throw Yoko, heroin and Klein into the mix and you have an ununravelable mess of knots.
I bought that book at a shopping mall in Ontario Canada I think in the fall of '75...or it could have been '76. I remember that that was my favourite chapter. It's been years since I've seen that book...I might still have it.
A WELL KNOWN MEETING TO ALL BEATLES RESEARCHERS AND FANS. I think that this meeting was well known in the Beatles entourage because what happened has been told in some Beatle's books. I read in Philip Norman's "Shout!", issued in 1981, about this meeting John, Paul and George had on september 1969. What Philip Norman wrote is more or less what Lewisohn talked about. Lewisohn gave more details but it's pretty sure he is talking about the same meeting. As a great Beatle fan, I think that as Lewisohn claims they made an attempt to go on as a band, but, sadly, the group was going to break up in any way. John was very involved in avantgarde thing and said to Paul in a phone call that he was going to leave the band. George was, probably, thinking to follow his own way in a solo career. Paul was probably the one who cared the most to keep the group together even why he was in a way the leader during the last years they spent together as a band. They had an argument trying to find a way to keep the group together more or less as Lewisohn described. According to Philip Norman, they stopped arguing when Paul tried to make peace telling the others: "When we are in studio, even in a bad day, I'm still on bass, Ringo is still on drums and we all are still there."
That’s a nice way to try to paint Paul as the leader, but when the Beatles had to choose sides, George and Ringo BOTH went with John. That tells you who the real natural leader was from the start to the end
@@hw343434 First, I reported what I read in books as Shout by Philip Norman one of the major Beatle expert as each Beatle fan knows. It's a fact that Paul was the leader in that time as John was the leader from Quarrymen to Beatlemania. Have a look at the video: "Ringo Starr says Paul was the motivating force behind The Beatles". Isn't this the description of the way Paul leaded the band at that time? They chose John because Paul, in that time, was the leader just as John was the leader from the early times to Beatlemania. George thought that Paul was overwhelming just as he thought John was overwhelming years before. John was very disappointed the way George didn't talk about him in his "I me mine". John himself had to admit that Paul was right about Klein that was the main reason why John, George and Ringo joined together. Anyway, John and Paul loved each other and I don't like John vs Paul or Paul vs John argument because love them all. All we need is love.
Zeusdattilo I think they chose John because they Ringo and George almost always enjoyed John’s songs more than Paul’s. They all said “Happiness is a Warm Gun” was their favorite song off White Album, “Something” by George was their favorite off “Abbey Road”, “A Day in the Life” was the favorite off Sgt Peppers. I don’t see an album where a Paul song was the favorite of the other Beatles. They all loved “Rain”, “Strawberry Fields Forever”, etc... I’ve never heard them talking about enjoying working on a Paul song like that or chosing a Paul song as their favorite. Paul was right about Allen Klein and he was the workaholic but John was the one they admired most from the start to the end. That’s why they played on John’s solo albums after the Beatles
@@hw343434 That's true. George claimed that he would have made a band with John anyday but not with Paul because of musical preferences. We were talkin about leaders. It's my opinion that John and Paul were the leaders and George had to deal with that. Ringo, with all due respect, didn't write songs, is a great drummer but we can't compare Ringo to the other three. John and Paul loved working together, wrote lots of songs together or helped each other to complete a song. John admired Paul as a singer and as a writer and said in an interview "Hey Jude was one of Paul's masterpieces". And, of course, Paul said he was the first of John's fan. We all know quite well that Paul could be overwhelming but is a diplomat but John could be rude at times. No point that John and Paul loved each other and liked each other work. George found his own way when The Beatles career was going to end. Don't forget that after George joined John on his firts solo albums George refused to have Yoko on stage at the Concert for Bangladesh and after that John broke up with him. As I wrote I don't like these arguments. They were great but always human beings. Thank you very much for your replies and enjoy The Beatles. All we need is love.
Exactly … Alan Klein rubbing his grubby little hands together looking to run off with all that Beatle money. Paul wanted nothing to do with Klein who he rightly saw as a grifter. Glad they did not do such a record … They all did their own so it would have only been to use that Beatles brand … Klein's fingerprints are all over that idea.
I’m going to play devils advocate here as I see two potential problems with this theory. First, I think it may be a bit of an insult to insinuate that John would serve as Alan’s (or anyone’s, for that matter) puppet. He was strong willed and very much his own man with his own ideas. Second, while I completely agree that Klein was a heavy handed, predatory businessman, he still had managed to secure a better royalties deal for them than Brian Epstein ever had. People tend to forget that Epstein was no saint either. He secured some very bad deals early on that were lucrative only for him and The Beatles were arguably being royally screwed under his tenure more so than they were with Klein. Was he greedy? Absolutely, but I think an the argument could be made that he may have been less so than Brian who would have seen them continue to tour until they burned out if he’d had his way. Just my two cents.
@@krazykat64 You are factually incorrect. Only Paul understood business well enough to see Klein for what he was. 20% of all Beatles revenue would have gone to Klein. John, George and Ringo were completely sold on Klein. Paul found himself in the position of having to sue Klein but by doing so he had to sue The Beatles. Paul was trying to rescue all four from being taken advantage of. John didn't get it at all. He was all in with Klein. Doesn't make John bad or wrong as a person but he was very naïve about money. There is no better example of John (who I have loved for 50+ years) being financially irresponsible was the fact that at 40 years of age he never wrote a will. Thus, Julian was odd man out and never got any money until something like 10 or 15 years ago.
@@briandonovan1584 What, in your estimation, made Paul any more business savvy than John? Neither had a business degree nor any experience conducting business beyond what they'd had in the previous 8 years or so. It would appear to me that Paul's only real interest lay in getting his in laws involved.
@@krazykat64 When Brian Epstein died Paul took over the basic management of the group. He was the grown up. Paul was and still is eminently practical and responsible. John, not so much. Those are the facts.
John Lennon said that "Something" and "Here Comes The Sun" were the best songs on "Abbey Road". He also pushed for "Sonething" to be the A side and his song "Come Together" to be the B side of the single, so it was released as a double A sided single instead. John finally respected George's songwriting by the time they recorded "Abbey Road".
Exit Strategy John pinched "Come Together" from Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me" and was sued. It was basically another John Lennon throwaway. It did not warrant the status of an "A" side! Man, I love George and empathized with him. "Something" should have been an "A" Side!!! John and Paul gave short shrift to his wonderful compositions. Can you believe George offered "All Things Must Pass" and it was never recorded as a Beatles track!!! They were too busy rehearsing to death and recording Paul McCartney's songs during the Get Back/Let It Be sessions!!! Can you believe there are "FIVE" versions of "Let It Be"!!! The Beatles only rehearsed "All Things Must Pass" on January 29,1969 whilst recording tracks that ended up on the unreleased Get Back and the released Let It Be, Anthology 3 & Let It Be...Naked releases!!!
Something was George making a Yesterday, Here Comes The Sun was George making a Good Day Sunshine, I'd say. George's most original and inventive period was actually 1964-1968 imo. e.g. If I Needed Someone, Think for Yourself, Love You To, Blue Jay Way, While my Guitar.., Long Long Long. Except that Taxman was George making a Drive my Car, I'd say.
Sounds like we got a bunch of Macca fans here. Something blows away Yesterday. Here comes the sun kicks Good Day in the nuts. And Come Together is the only song with balls. If it were up to Paul...the whole album would be filled with Maxwell Silver Hammers. Paul was the King of Granny Muzak. Period The End
I agree that George's songs definitely beat those. But George certainly benefitted from and digested upon John and Paul's work. I've never been a big fan of Yesterday. Vinnie, you clearly can't have listened to The White Album (e.g. Why Don't We Do It In The Road?, Helter Skelter) or Abbey Road (e.g. Oh Darling!, The End) much. Yes John has written a greater number of 'cool' songs - he is, overall, more of a unique talent whereas McCartney owes his maturation as a songwriter partly to Brian Wilson's influence- but leave the granny muzak insults to John. It's crude and rude of relative noneties to so blanketly derride Paul. Some of Paul's songs are more 'growers' e.g. Mother Nature's Son. The sappy lyrics are eventuality just background noise of the beautiful guitar plucking and orchestration. Paul did orchestration massively well. Music hall maybe but Victoriana/Edwardian was in vogue in mid to late 60s.
The tape sounds as if things would have gone back to the way things were on the White Album where each Beatle would only be intrested in their own tracks. They had definitely outgrown each other.
I sensed stress/anger/change of direction within the group after Revolver. Society as a whole was exploding as well. I ignored Yellow Submarine and the White Album and Let It Be both seem unhappy/angry albums -and I was just a child who sensed this.
Lennon's idea to break the Lennon-McCartney composer credits seems to have been acted upon immediately after the release of the 'Abbey Road' album. 'Cold Turkey' in October 1969 credited to 'Lennon' and 'Come And Get It' in December 1969 credited to 'McCartney' were the first two releases to carry just the one name composer credit. Earlier releases in 1969 such as 'Goodbye' and 'Give Peace A Chance' were both credited as 'Lennon-McCartney'.
It's interesting. John said he knew he was leaving the group on the way to the Toronto Live Peace concert, that was on 13 Sept. 1969. I sympathize with George, I noticed John wasn't playing on a lot of George's songs. It's no wonder he was writing songs like 'Not Guilty,' 'Run of the Mill' and 'Wah Wah.'
As you point out, this tape has been around. Lewison was selling his book tour. Two weeks later Lennon quit...he was quite a mercurial guy and the Klein choice was insane. That was the nail in the coffin...
Paul gets a lot of criticism for being the "domineering" one in the Beatles' later years, especially towards George. And yes, he certainly could be, but George's attitudes at the time also tend to come across as very sensitive, to the point of whininess and playing the victim. Paul says that George's songs previously weren't as good as theirs, but in the last year they are equalling, even surpassing, Paul's and John's. That's a hell of a compliment. The criticism that irks George - that he previously wasn't as good as them - isn't really a criticism at all. Surely no one, even George himself if he's being honest, would claim that he could write equal material to John and Paul between 1962-1967? It was Lennon/McCartney material that had fired the Beatles to the top, and I really doubt that George at the time could have done better, hardly anyone could. The likes of Don't Bother Me and You Like Me Too Much weren't on par with what Lennon/McCartney were doing. His talent was emerging but he needed to prove it first, and by 1969 clearly he had - John and Paul both acknowledged that. The second half of Paul's sentence shows real respect for George's growing talent, putting George at least now on their level. Instead George takes it as a negative and fires back that he wrote those songs a year ago. Ok, so he wrote the songs maybe 6 or 12 months before Paul said he did, that really wasn't the point; the point was that Lennon/McCartney were the lead writers, which is why they had the singles, but that George had now developed into a great songwriter in his own right. George says that he doesn't care what the others think anymore, his sensitivity suggests otherwise. Paul was just stating a fact and then added significant praise, yet George still found a way of twisting it and taking it as negative. What's Paul supposed to say, that since Please Please Me, George was always as good as - or better than - them? 1) He wasn't. 2) Paul is already giving him significant praise, why does he need more? George had more of an ego than he's given credit for.
Well put. Harrison said the songs be recorded “recently” were written in the last two years (1967-1969), but that’s semantics. McCartney meant that only recently were his songs as good as the ones he and Lennon were turning out, which was 100 percent true.
I think the 1965 vocal overdub session for the song Think for Yourself was quite revealing of how good George was even then. He was trying to get John and to a lesser extent Paul to sing the harmonies in tune, and it took quite awhile for them to get there. George knew what he wanted and was patient until they got it right. They could have started giving him more credit right about that time, both for songwriting and execution.
Well put. Yes we all know about the George masterpieces on abbey road but what stands out to me is that Paul was there for George on all his recordings: the bass on something is absolutely sublime and the organ on Long Long Long is a serious contribution. What the F did John ever contribute to a George song ?
fueradeljuego John actually refused to play on the George songs on the White Album. I believe his only participation was he helped make the oinking noises on "Piggies."
This is true, they would have never left Britain singing Don’t Bother Me, which is alright but George would go on to write better songs. George would have gone insane trying to keep up with filling up albums, eps, singles, etc.
lewisohn comes accross as a money grabber to me. I remember him being interviewed on uk radio 1, at the time of the beatles handbook came out and the dj, nicky Campbell if memory serves, wanted to give a copy of the book away as a prize. He really had to convince lweisohn it was a good idea as a promotion, as he was protesting, THIS WAS LIVE ON AIR!!!!! Never really liked the guy after that, and this just confirms my opinion
I don't know, but he himself said of the tour that it was to keep the bill collectors at bay. Being a full time Beatles researcher doesn't come with a paycheck. And if all he did was work full time on the next two books, royalties of his previous books might not be enough to live on, so . . . perhaps he doing what he must to survive?
I have to say something in response to this, Mark has a youtube channel and he is completely straight about everything. He gets paid on delivery of a manuscript so inbetween he needs to make money. He is a full time researcher and needs to make a living I have listened to hours of his interviews and he is honest as the day is long. I for one am very pleased about all his writings and we all benefit from his research which completely puts ALL other writers to shame.
I actually had the pleasure of emailing with him recently. I asked him about the recording and whether it would be released to the public at any point. He told me he will not be releasing it because he does not own the rights to it. So I guess its in Apple's hands...
If I remember correctly it was Anthony Fawcett who actually had the tape originally because he was the one that made the tape as John had asked him to tape the meeting. I remember reading about this in Nicholas Schafner's book The Beatles Forever back in the 1970s.
Hi John, Mark was only allowed read out what was in Anthony Fawcett's book. He was told by Apple that he, Mark, could not use the Tape legally, so he didn't. Mark has a lot reverence towards the Beatles, he didnt want to upset his heroes. It was a fantastic show by Mark. By the way, Pete and Roag Best are doing a PR tour here, Dublin, at the end of this week for Pete's appearance here in Dublin in March.
It was great that The Beatles have ended by end of the decade. They were very honest with themselves, instead of going on by inertia, and they discography was impecable from 1963 to 1970. That is why was also great that they didin't get back together during the seventies, cause it was wasn't the same vibe and energy anymore, although the love and friendship were still there between them, above all the animosities they had after the breakup.
My senior high school English teacher in 1974 would have us study lyrics of pop/rock songs in addition to regular poems to make the class more interesting. One of them was Maxwell Silver Hammer. I was indifferent to the Beatles then. Thought it was interesting but odd. I was surprised it was from them. Contrast sinister lyrics with soft tune was a little clever.
That's because Paul was switched out. George wasn't talking to the same "Paul", he was talking to William. So my guess is he didn't like William/Billy.
All of them seemed not to be themselves in that period. All of them made lots of mistakes. And they suddenly were surrounded by the most terrifying people possible and all of them influencing the Beatles. I prefer not to mention their names but let me say only one: Allen Klein. Time showed he was indeed not to be trusted. But John, George and Ringo believed on him. Now, I never saw anything bad in the way Paul treated George. I never saw anything wrong. Yes, I saw Let it Be dozens of time. Nothing wrong in that moment he asked George to repeat that riff in I got a Feeling. It was his song and George just could not play it the way Paul wanted. Nothing more natural than asking him to play again. He was not rude for a single moment. George took offense and that is also natural, by the way. He was Geoerge Harrison after all. George pretended to be humble saying he would do whatever Paul asked but he just refused to do. We know that he left the group soon after that. But the one who really got rude was John saying he could be replaced by Eric Clapton. What a mistake. Nobody could replace George. In the new tape that they found I don't think Paul meant what people understand. I decided to edit it because that was only what I think. I have no means to be sure about Paul's feelings. It could be lots of things including a simple joke. We could not listen to that tape, ( Does it really exist?), we could not see his face while speaking. So, it was normal between them possibly since day one, since early days. John used to say some of Paul's song were Grannys songs. They were close friends that felt free, exactly for this reason, to criticize themselves. That didn't mean no harm to each other. And what is the problem with grannies? How come people think saying granny song is bad? It means only it is from old times. . Remember these Beatles boys were not ordinary people. We have to get inside them a bit to sort of understand them. Most judge everything they say taking only ordinary people as examples. But they were extraordinaries.
First off, thank you for the excerpt from the 1975 book. I never heard it and it’s heartbreaking to hear. The fact they lasted for a decade from the early days before they were the Beatles and living and performing through the insanity that was their career up through 66 without going mad is amazing on its own. John had taken a back seat to Paul the final 2 years and supposedly because of his drug use and the fact that George evidently had many songs in his cannon as evident on All things Pass shows how much Paul underestimated him and didn’t see him as an equal and is the lone thing that upsets me hearing about all of this. It’s not unexpected that they would break up with egos and exhaustion I think the two determining factors as well as Johns drug use and Paul who became a minor dictator because of Johns involvement with heroin and turning up with less and less songs and more so from that standpoint then Yoko’s involvement. After Brian Epstein’s death they were a ship without a sail so to speak. Once 1 member took more control in the studio as task master it was sure to fail. I always thought naively that it was John and Yoko that caused the breakup but hearing the news recently it shows that it was a combination of things including management/ representation of the Allen Klein / Eastman fiasco and the emergence of George having superior material that coupled with Johns comment that it should be 4-4-4-2 on songs sung on the next album and Paul’s very coy remark that George wasn’t on par that really made walking away much easier for George who like I said had many a song at his disposal. Disappointing to hear Paul say that and I hope they release the tapes to the public soon. They all had satisfying careers with peaks and valleys but together they were gold. We are lucky they stayed together for as long as they did. Groups like the Eagles with multiple members contributing initially lasted just 8 years as well. A lot of egos to feed I fear. I’m also glad that the Beatles never stayed on and put out sub par music so to go out with Abby Road on a song called the End seems fitting. Apologies to my Majesty. 😉. Thank you for the video and news John. You never disappoint.
That is a myth and totally wrong that John took a beat seat to Paul in their last 2 years. He had 15 songs on the Esher demos compared to 7 of Paul's and 5 for George for God's sake! His contributions on the White Album and Abbey Road were roughly equal to Paul's - if not greater on the WA - and would've been so as well on Let It Be too if Don't Let Me Down had been included - which idiot made the decision to leave it off? - Get Back got on there so DLMD should have been there too. Don't forget he had a piece of I've Got A Feeling also. One After 909 and Across The Universe hadn't been released to that point so he was quite entitled to bring them back for consideration. Not to mention BOJ&Y and Hey Bulldog recorded in'68 was a darn good song. While he could withdraw at times, John was generally not a back seat type person. More the opposite
Paul's comment needs to be seen in the context of the discussion. John is covertly complaining that he isn't getting enough A-sides anymore and he is championing George to make it look like Paul is trying to keep them down. He's aligning himself with George to score points against Paul. He's saying that they [read John AND Paul] have been greedy keeping George off the B-sides. This isn't even true. George had had 2 B-sides. John and Paul do not get to decide which songs become singles or which ones gets to be the A-side. They compete for this privilege and George is of secondary consideration. Paul takes offense at being called an A-side hog and points out that [read the reason Something is George's first A-side is that] his songs just weren't good [read commercial] enough to be singles before. Now George is having none of this. He sees through John's game and calls him out for being even less supportive of his songs than Paul and points out that Paul's contention is false too. Paul's remark is not coy (though he is often coy), it is passive-aggressive. BUT it is also a backhanded compliment. He is arguing that going forward George should get more singles, though what he actually said was that before 1969 he didn't deserve any. And yes, I am disappointed in him too. Cuz George remembered this and felt unsupported by Paul, even though when you go back and listen to George's songs with The Beatles, it is clear that Paul was very supportive in the studio. And John really took offense to that charge as well [the quote about how hard they worked on Don't Bother Me].
SPOILER ALERT: Just a follow up from my previous comment, after seeing Mark's show last night it was very interesting to hear that after the reveal about the tape in The Guardian a few weeks ago he has been warned (Apparently quite seriously) not to include it in the show. The only bits he was able to include are the bits from Anthony Fawcett's book because they are in the public domain. Not sure how the rest of the tape will come out. One imagines that it would be ok in the context of a book but not presented publicly on stage.
It tickles the mind, doesn't it - the Beatles staying together and putting out more albums after Abby Road. They would have continued to put out phenomenal albums, as only they could. With the possible exception of Instant Karma, the lads with George Martin, Geoff Emerick, etc. would have exponentially improved on what we heard in their solo work, in ways we can only ponder. I suppose a case could be made that some of the stuff on All Things Must Pass would be hard to top - but it's not a case I'd make. It hurts, almost - like I don't really want to think about it too much. I love McCartney, Wild Life, Ram... but who can listen to those and not dream about what The Beatles could do with at least some of those songs. Ditto for the rest of them. Ah well, we got what we got, and it's a hell of a lot. It's everything, almost.
It actually hurts to know that they could’ve gone on, that John and even George were willing to compromise but not Paul. They could’ve just done Double A sides from then on and that would make John happy.
@@beatlecristian I think Paul as much as anyone would have been for them going that route... if he thought John and George would want to do it. Ringo of course would have been in. But the hole in that theory is John's insistence on bringing Allen Klein on as their manager. Paul would never (and didn't) agree to that and it would have likely fractured the group regardless with all the lawsuits. In 1973 or thereabouts Lennon conceded that McCartney was "probably right" in opposing Klein - that was when Lennon decided to not re-up Klein's contract. Too late at that point.
@@beatlecristian You do realize you're taking issue with what Lennon said, not me - right? And yes, among the multitude of reasons why the Beatles broke up, how the three Beatles brought Klein on board against the wishes of McCartney certainly contributed to their breakdown and demise as a band . How is it even possible to draw any other conclusion?
Thanks for mentioning that Anthony Fawcett way back then also quotes from this supposed tape. I think it’s a tape since his quotes are very precise and not as if he was in the room recollecting something that happened 6 years earlier. So I think the tape definitely exists. Since Fawcett was a friend of John maybe John owned the tape and gave access to Fawcett. But then again since the tape was intended for Ringo so he could be the owner or it could be owned by Apple or a private collector. Regardless I think it’s time to release it into the public domain.
This came out on the “McCartney” first solo album, it was never with Wings. Of course because of Paul taking the blame for breaking up The Beatles and God I find that so incredible, even more so now that I saw “Get Back” his solo album got panned so many never even listened to it. John said it was rubbish, well John it wasn’t rubbish at all!!!
I believe that they were such pros that they would have put issues aside and surpassed themselves once again regardless of their reasons for being on their own for the sake of themselves ie., Abbey Road, when they were actually apart already...they were the only group who kept surpassing themselves without songs that sounded alike..hence a legacy
they are discussing the idea of making an album, not making an album. you can hear they clearly dont want to as a group. just solidifies the fact they were done rather than adds a twist to the beatle story or shows signs of a faint glimmering hope of staying together
I've seen thousands of Beatle photos and every day on youtube I see new ones..and more. How many photos were taken of those guys? It's like everyday of their life in public,every minute,behind the scenes also, photos were being taken with all that noise and flash of film cameras. Many years ago I thought I had seen them all. I wasn't even close.
Great analysis of the events around the time. I suspect Mark is keeping this one a little close to his chest as he has two more books to sell. Obviously this would be used in the third one of the trilogy. What he has said more than once is that he is looking for a home for his archive In able for researchers and the general public to get access to it all. So watch this space I suppose. Luckily I'm going to the show on Saturday.
John Heaton speculates about whether Lennon's 'Cold Turkey' song could have been seen as a Beatles' song... If he's referring to its drug reference, that is hardly new in Beatles' music. If he means the sound of the song, The White Album song 'Yer Blues', to my ears, is very close in its rawness and guitar sound, and was even played live by John in his Plastic Ono Band period, in 1969. Also, his comment about 'My Sweet Lord' doesn't stand up as The Beatles did 'Across the Universe' which has Yogic chanting and there are other songs in the band's catalogue with Indian influences.
I'm seeing Mark Lewisohn at the Theatre Royal in Margate on 2nd November and I'm sure he'll go into this in much more depth and we'll get to hear some of it.
Paul mentioned the the meeting and the proposed 4/4/4 split at least 30 years ago. Everyone also seems to forget that the band reconvened, minus John, in January of 1970 to record "I Me Mine" and complete "Let it Be". I think even then they still were of the opinion that John was bluffing about leaving the band and things would eventually return to normal.
I feel like the tape exposed John, Paul and George's true colors at the time: Paul definitely lived up to his reputation as a domineering jerk, both brazenly disparaging George's songs, and sheepishly admitting he didn't dig Maxwell much after putting George and Ringo through the ringer working on it; John was super jaded and self-contradicting, proposing the new formula, then opposing it, coming to George's defense, then griping about being left out of his songs; George was surprisingly civil against Paul's blatant insensitivity while going again John for not contributing to his songs. One thing comes clear from what little we hear of it: they couldn't take anymore. Clearly John and George couldn't survive as Beatles any longer, while Paul really wanted to keep them going, but was really mad at them both for choosing Allen Klein as their manager. And well he should have been. But did he really think such rude remarks towards George and John would have earned him any favor? To be honest, I'm glad they didn't try to make another album instead of resurrecting Let It Be. It would have turned EMI into a war zone. Enough was enough then and they all knew it.
All Paul said was that he didn't think that up to a certain time Georges' songs were as good as his and Johns. How is that particularly rude? In my mind it is just stating the obvious.
@@amandas.6745 I feel that for George, hearing Paul say that was mildly perturbing for him, seeing how hard he worked on songs like "All Things Must Pass" during "Get Back", without success, then walking out. And although at that point, he was resolved on finding a new outlet for his output, hearing Paul's comments was probably confirmation to him of what he felt all along, that both Paul and John saw him as the junior member of the group. You have to admit, he handled it well when he could have been pounding the desk and yelling.
@@elirosen1391 I agree with all you say except for the "rudeness". Paul conceded in the same sentence that in 1969, Georges' songs were equal or even better than LennonMcCartney's. And in an interview a earlier that year he praised "Something" as a song he particularly liked on Abbey Road. If anything, the scene shows how toxic the atmosphere between them had gotten in the course of a view months. And for that to happen, George isn't blameless either. None of them is (maybe with the exception of Ringo)
Paul's comment needs to be seen in the context of the discussion. John is covertly complaining that he isn't getting enough A-sides anymore and he is championing George to make it look like Paul is trying to keep them down. He's aligning himself with George to score points against Paul. He's saying that they [read John AND Paul] have been greedy keeping George off the B-sides. This isn't even true. George had had 2 B-sides. John and Paul do not get to decide which songs become singles or which ones gets to be the A-side. They compete for this privilege and George is of secondary consideration. Paul takes offense at this [read being called an A-side hog] and points out that [read the reason Something is George's first A-side is that] his songs just weren't good [read commercial] enough to be singles before. He is arguing that going forward George should get more singles, though what he actually said was that before 1969 he didn't deserve any. So it's kind of a backhanded compliment. And yes, it does sound rude, since George is right there. He remembered this and felt unsupported by Paul, even though when you go back and listen to George's songs with The Beatles, it is clear that Paul was very supportive in the studio. Notice that George only attacks John on that front. And John really took offense to that charge as well [the quote about how hard they worked on Don't Bother Me].
@@FiremanSam60 no, Lewisohn was evidently told that he'd be infringing copyright if he played more than a few seconds of the tape, so we only heard a snippet.
They left us a whole lot of great music... and fans still wanted more. THAT is the way to end a band and keep a legacy. If they got back together just for the fans or money and/or any of them felt forced the music could have suffered and tarnished the legacy. As John said "The dream is over" and if anyone wants to reminisce there are all the records. And I for one looked forward to the solo stuff.
They broke up at the right time. Another album would never have worked out in the way it was proposed. They werent four lads anymore trying to make it. It was time to move on to their own personal projects and families. They left on a high and with poetry. Let It be
It seems that John and George were already contemplating doing solo albums, and after Abbey Road, I don't think they could have topped that record. Also, if George Martin wasn't part of it, it probably wouldn't even get finished, a la Let It Be.
Enjoyed your piece there John. One year on ...and obviously Covid may have scuppered Lewisham original plans, but are we any further forward on getting this tape into the public domain?
I wonder if this is the interview where John offered "Cold Turkey" as the next Beatles single. He may have discussed this at this meeting because for him to suggest such a thing would have mean't that they were still together at this point. He was perhaps referring to how the Let it be album should be structured as this would have been the next album whether they completed it themselves or not. With Johns idea the album may have turned out like this. 1 Two of us 2 Dig a pony 3 I Me mine 4 Sentimental journey 5 Across the universe 6 All things Must Pass 7 Let It be Side 2 8 I've got a feeling 9 One After 909 10 Not Guilty 11 Long and winding road 12 For You Blue 13 If You got trouble [Ringo] 14 Get Back The Christmas single could have been "Let it Be"
Used to have a copy of Fawcett's book - a rather depressing read, as I recall . Junked it, along with most of the detritus of that period (Oxfam's gain).The whole thing I feel is best is summed by Lennon: "What we were is what we were; what we are is something different". Amen to that. The whole was always greater than the sum of the parts; nothing any of them have done separately has matched their Beatle days - Paul being the most disappointing because so much was expected - where was the promised C20 Schubert, Mozart? Lost in puerility and crass populism - Fremdschämen. As for Lennon, a sour puss, a bitter pill - but not unexpected. Harrison soon fizzled out (his so-called backlog was not so great - not if you compare with what Paul had done in the same period - remember, George claimed his songs had been rejected back in '68 or '69, meaning All Things Must Pass has some pretty old stuff on it). As for poor old Ringo, never got off the starting blocks ..
Allen Klein, had gotten them to earn more money from royalties. He knew they were already parting ways and that's why they made "Abbey Road". The same happened with "United artist" they signed for 4 movies which "A hard day's night, Help, Magical Mystery Tour" They already had them. To complete the one that was missing was "Let It Be" It was not the intention that it was a movie but they put it in because they had to complete the 4 films. If they hadn't been sued by "United Artist".
I can imagine their future albums would have been just as good, My Seet Lord, Cold Turkey and Baby I'm Amazed on the same album seems just as cohesive as their previous albums given their previous albums didn't seem cohesive. You could recognize who wrote the song usually by just listening to it.
My imaginary 1971 Beatles album: side 1: 1- Beware of Darkness , 2- Maybe I'm amazed, 3- Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, 4- Instant Karma, 5- Give Peace a Chance..... side 2: 1- Monkberry Moon Delight, 2- If Not for You, 3- Photograph, 4- Imagine, 5- All Things Must Pass (4 Harrison songs, counting Photograph, 3 McCartney, 3 Lennon)
Interesting to wonder what might have been, and where the unreleased Let it be album would have fitted in with this plan. It would seem weird to record and release YET more material such as a new single before that album finally came out. I can't see Lennon allowing another McCartney Beatles single though, even if Maybe I'm Amazed was the obvious single choice...
What the follow-up album might have included: From John "Instant Karma"; "Cold Turkey" "Mother"; "God". From George: "All Things Must Pass"; "My Sweet Lord"; "What Is Life"; "Isn't It a Pity". From Paul: "Maybe I'm Amazed"; "Another Day"; "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey". From Ringo: "Beaucoups of Blues". Obviously, they might have written different songs prior to recording. Maybe Ringo would've been given a song by the others (?) To be honest, I think it's best that they went their separate ways. Through 1974, they all released really decent solo stuff. "Abbey Road" isn't my favorite Beatles album but it was definitely a high-level swan song - and I always notice that George has the two best songs of the album, then John with the next two, and then Paul . . . doesn't have much. The suite is OK but it's not only him. Paul's bass playing is stellar, though, as always.
John Shannon I love Johns solo stuff but honestly I think Johns selection that you mention would have been denied by Paul and John himself, Lennon had so much material such as Jealous Guy, gimme some truth, Love, and oh my love would have been accepted.
Could not disagree with you more I think the whole second side, confirmed by George Martin was almost all Paul’s doing, and its bloody brilliant in fact, just like Sgt Pepper brilliant idea. And I can’t help thinking this was the problem, jealousy. Of course they are not going to come out and call it jealousy, it will be called, oh Paul took over, played stuff we didn’t like, well hell it was critically acclaimed, was that not good enough for you? John and George had just as big of an ego as Paul had, and they wanted to say they weren’t being appreciated as brilliant til they get out on their own, yes I think they believed that.
@@lindakelly9552 Not sure where The Beatles would have gone after Revolver if they didn't have the Type A super-driven Paul. If Paul had the same work ethic as John and George, the band could have fizzled out. And of course there never would have been Sgt. Pepper.
I, for one, think the Beatles split at the exact right time, and I am really glad they never got back together. The way they did it, going out on a high, and never trying to rehash something later, was the classiest way to do it. It was pure. You make your artistic statement, and then let it be.
peggy olson well said!!
Yes...I have come to that conclusion. Part of their magic. Paul has said as much.
I never cared much about a re-union. as Lennon himself said "you've got the records to listen to." but w/ George's songwriting getting stronger, they would not have embarrassed themselves.if they had wanted to keep making records together, they surely would have.but they all wanted solo careers. I listened to 'Just gimme some truth', as it's JL's birthday. 10/9/19.
If John hadn't been assassinated The Beatles would have gotten together at least for live shows. He and Paul had been hanging out together through the last half of the seventies.
Ekkie101 only when John wasn’t with yoko
It’s too bad that no one suggested to them to take a break, maybe do a solo album, and come back in a couple of years..
Exactly. Take a year off like the Stones do, or whatever. Where they don’t have to see or deal with each other.
They were having terrible financial disagreements over Allen Klein. Also, John left for New York in late ‘71 so it was hard to get them all in one studio again.
That's more or less what the other three beatles had in mind before paul announced the break-up. John was already saying in interviews before the band was disbanded but as he'd already unofficially left, that at the time he wasn't really interested anymore but that they'd probably play again (live excluded) or just vaguely get together and do something ; that he'd already be interested if they opened up the band to other people. He was doing his own thing, playing in Toronto, putting out Cold Turkey and Give peace a chance, Ringo was doing film, George doing whatever, it was an indefinite sabbatical more than a sharp end. But as the guy above me says, the three vs one situation with Klein was impossible to deal with and Paul had had enough of being on stand-by after being probably the beatle who had wanted to keep going the most.
@@letosvet1 Paul was proved right about Alan Klein. If I am not mistaken, John and or George said so themselves. I think you’re assertion is spot on.. The 3-1 thing was a problem as they’d always had the rule that all 4 must agree.. Perhaps Paul should have given a bit more by not digging his heels in about Lee Eastman managing the band. while I think that would have been good, I think the other three had every right to feel that that arrangement would have been too Paul-centric...
@@brucestewart7371 "I" don't think that they needed or wanted to just simply get away from each other, but Fed up with being"THE BEATLES"!! Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeaaaah!!!!
Facisnating, I think we can never get enough about the Beatles.
Sept 1969, as the Beatles discussed the end of the Lennon/Mccartney songwriting partnership, truly signaled the end of the 60's.
As another commenter stated, they were the light of their generation.
We all loved the thrill of being their fans, just to share in their brilliance 🌞
Ironically, the "Let It Be" album features a contemporary Lennon/McCartney composition, "I've Got A Feeling". Just goes to show, things rarely are as black and white as people sometimes think. Things were a lot more fluid than that.
And even when assembling the medley for the B-side of the "Abbey Road" album, at one point a John-song segways into a Paul song: "Polythene Pam" into "She Came In Through The Bathroom Window". So they were still collaborating and working as a group at that album.
The reasons the Beatles broke up are simple. They were now adults, they had families, they had succeeded in becoming the most famous band in the world, they didn't want to tour and they had developed into strong individuals who each wanted things their way. It was natural that tension and stress built up between them. They'd had enough of compromise and the obvious thing to do was to wind down the Beatles and go their separate ways. I'm glad they lasted as long as they did.
The real honest-to-god reason for the Beatles breaking up was this one simple fact nobody Doug Billy I mean when Billy came into the band he shook things up to the point where he pissed everybody off and they resented it if Paul was still in the band they would have all kept the love olive And continue to create good music don't get me wrong Billy kicked it right in the ass and came up with some beautiful stuff no doubt about it but they never liked the f****** blowk
@xxx xxx Billy Campbell come on man let's get with the program
@@zorroonmilkavitch1840 Nobody believes that nonsense anymore,. complete idiocy. Do you actually know anything about the Beatles, listen to the studio conversations, interviews ... besides, considering the hundreds of people who knew Paul in 1966 : friends, family, reporters, neighbors, barbers, doctors, shop owners, people he saw every day ... many of whom had absolutely no reason to keep a "secret" - in fact, many of whom could have profited from just one interview? It is a lunatic myth that has been discredited long ago. don't be so gullible.
@@jeannadysart5243 Paul McCartney just wrote over a thousand pages of the story of how he entered the Beatles his name is Paul McCartney for now but his real name is Billy Campbell he was given this job as a psyop true Tavistock an agency connected to the throne of England in order to keep the money coming in that the Beatles produced for the country it was a staggering amount of money dig into the story and read the book The Memoirs of Billy shears and you will hear the whole story it sad to see the whole world duped and people wallowing in the muck of Lies!
Troll. That Mark David Chapman thinking (“I’m the real John Lennon - he’s a fake”) is disgusting.
Thank you for your investigation into this. I for one, appreciate the clarity around this time in history. Any true fan really appreciates the full story.
The guy who wrote the book not only sounds like he was in the room but also recorded it .
Love your reviews John, interesting, finely balanced, informative & respectful. It's obviously a labour of love for you to review all of these great albums, keep up the good work!
In the Get Back documentary, George said that he and the others had so many songs and that they should do their own albums so they can comeback and do Beatle albums afterwards.
that would had been amazing, same with what that other comment said about them doing 4 songs each for an album
Tony Ward is absolutely right. This so called newly-discovered tape has been known for decades. Nicholas Schaffner on page 131 of his 1977 book The Beatles Forever describes the tape recording of that Sep. 1969 meeting, in which John proposes allotting Paul, George, and himself exactly four tracks per album, with Ringo getting one or two tracks if he so desired.
yup, while i was watching the video, that part of what nicolas schaffner wrote in "The Beatles Forever" is exactly what i was thinking about.
oh, and to think it was later that month that John told Paul he was quitting the group. he'd decided after appearing at that festival in Toronto.
What you are missing is that Lennon had been getting back into the Beatles. Lennon is often seen as no longer caring about the Beatles but he had been fighting for single A sides since 1967 and losing every battle except the Ballad of John and Yoko. He fought for I am the Walrus, Hey Bulldog, Revolution, Don’t Let Me Down and lost all of them. In late September he Went to Apple and said he just wrote their new single, Cold Turkey. George and Paul said no. Ringo plays drums on the song.
WOW! This is really something new to hear and it all seems to fit. BTW, I totally agree the Audio tape should be out there free for all to take a listen.
Thank you for taking the time to make this.
Thankyoou for this!! I have been a fan since the beginning as a schoolgirl!! Poor George, G. Martin said, after George died, they should have given him more time, he was left out
The Beatles new formula LP
Spring, 1971:
Early 1970 (R)
My Sweet Lord (G)
Junk (P)
Instant Karma! (J)
Every Night (P)
Power To The People (J)
Isn't It A Pity (G)
Another Day (P)
Working Class Hero (J)
It Don't Come Easy (R)
Love (J)
What Is Life? (G)
Maybe I'm Amazed (P)
All Things Must Pass (G)
Эй! Палыч How about this:
Maybe I'm Amazed
I've Got A Feeling
Run of the Mill
Instant Karma
It Don't Come Easy
Two of Us
What is Life
Cold Turkey
Every Night
Beware of Darkness
Look at Me
Isn't it a Pity?
@@fantasticmr.fox77 great! 😉👍
WHAT AN LP!! so marvelous!
Эй! Палыч"isn’t it a pity" would have to have been re-written with different lyrics. It’s about their breakup and to me, it kind of pokes fun at "Hey Jude".
@@THectOrtiz you're right
Thank you! The lengthy comment below says it all. As good ol Freda says in her documentary and I'm just paraphrasing of course. They grew up and wanted to have families and a separate life outside of the band. Now this is just my thoughts they were friends that became a family Brothers if you will. Great video!
“Paul, I’ll play whatever you want me to play, or I won’t play anything at all”
~George Harrison
Great discussion, John. Looking forward to viewing the tape.
I attended a Beatlefest in New York in the late 70's, and they played this tape then. I don't remember who presented it, it was in a ballroom with at least a hundred people. I do remember you could hear a pin drop when they played it. Why it's not been available since then, I obviously don't know. I'm sure there are others out there who were present when they played it. Maybe contact Mark Lapidos, who ran the Beatlesfests, he probably will remember it.
How long was it?
@@lazyartiste_2357 I don't remember exactly, it was a long time ago, but I do remember some of what Mr. Heaton was reading, but not all of it. Back then it was just so amazing to hear them talking at all, and even more bizarre that they were talking about breaking up. I think they might have played a couple minutes of them talking. I attended two Beatlefests, so I'm not sure what year it was, I think late 70's. Mark Lapidos started and ran the Beatlesfests, he might remember the playing of these tapes.
@@NVprods Thanks
I want to cry to their conversation its hurting😥😥😥😥 it's a heartbreaking
I would love to be able to hear the music they would have made if they would have stayed together. And can you imagine how great they would be live, with todays sound technology.
It seemed to me John Lennon was doing everything he could to push Paul McCartney’s buttons up to and including signing with Alan Klein because Yoko pushed for it, John went along with her but Mick Jagger advised against it for good reasons, and Paul wouldn’t allow for him to be manipulated into it. The best thing Paul ever did for the group was to not sign up with Klein, the beatles would have lost a lot more if he had.
Paul saved them a fortune....Smart guy.
@@potterwalker4823 Was there resentment from the rest of the group knowing that Paul was right in the end and they were wrong?
Then again, how would you feel if the alternative to Klein would be your friends' father in-law instead.
@@candelise nobody is saying they had to go with Lee Eastman either, they should have kept looking for another alternative is what I am saying, someone all four could agree on. In the end a few years later John admitted on television that Paul was right about Klein as Yoko rolled her eyes. Check it out.
@@lindakelly9552 Yes, all very good, but when confronted with egos, where is there any chance of people in this position looking for an alternative? Especially with people used to getting their way. This situation would never have occurred if Brian Epstein had not overdosed, but there you go. It was what it was.
Maybe I'm amazed would have been a #1 Beatles song guaranteed.
slip satch No way. MIA is an absolute masterpiece performance and recording. Not even Beatles could have improved upon it.
@slip satch It's Paul singing to the love of his life, Linda: a DEEPLY personal lyric. If it was my wife, I wouldn't want anyone else singing with me either. But thank you for your prompt response. Happy listening too. Robert Allen
@@MyRobertallen Have to disagree. The Beatles would have taken it to another level. John would have been right behind it the way he was with 'Hey Jude'.
When I was 11 years old I was convinced that it was all of the Beatles secretly playing on it, because to me it sounded like them. Of course later on I realized it was because Paul was playing all of the instruments.
It would have been a great Beatles track. Every Night, too. John's Cold Turkey (would have sounded like Yer Blues) and Instant Karma would have been perfect for the Fabs even though Paul had reservations about Turkey and Karma was basically a re-write of All You Need Is Love. And George had All Things Must Pass and tons more stuff plus Ringo's It Don't Come Easy (okay George wrote it but so what?). Give the front three another song each and you've got the next album!
Great read! This is from the same source tape without a doubt. I saw a shorter transcript on a news site and it reads verbatim. Down to the details of John mentioning Maxwell and Ob-La-DI and George pointing out that most of the songs he had written a couple years earlier. Same tape. It's quite possible Lewisohn had this and sat on it til the week of the Abbey Road 50 Anniversary release along with his tour. I'm sure it'll appear on the internet soon.
this is awesome! Wow! I'm blown away. Thanks for sharing!
Crazy to think a Group that rose to Interenational fame. 1963/64. US big time 1964 and played there last tour date in 1966. And broke in 1970. Yet songs and stories still of interest. Much like Buddy Holly, Hank Williams, Very sort Stars yet the shine contiues to inspire musicians and thier music still can be relateable.
Abbey Road, at the time was
Incredible. I was 19, stationed
At lindsay air station, formerly
a German military hospital in
Wiesbaden. I have heard what
Paul has said about some of
The songs, how some of the
Riffs were chuck berry material.
Maybe so, but it was amazing.
Wish they could've done more
But the winds of time had
Blown a separate course for
John. They were the light
Of a generation.
The Beatle did what they were meant to do. It lasted the time they were allowed to grow up and grow apart. Life changes for all of us drastically between the ages of 17 and 29. A lot of people don't reslize John and Paul were together for 15 years writing and playing. That's a long time at such a early age. I think they are so revered because they actually did what they were meant to do , no more or less !
Well said and it's the way I've felt for over 50 years!
Thanks for this tidbit. As a music lover one can't help but speculate about their career, how they talked to one another what could or might have been. I think as you said they were becoming individuals and were tired and it seems had become more difficult to cooperate with one another. Just do songs we "dug". I could have listened to ten more years of Beatles albums if they did only songs they dug.
This tape points out exactly why the Beatles HAD to break up. John is telling Paul that they don't need to record songs that they don't dig or aren't really into and then he lists songs like "Obladi Oblada" and "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and I can just imagine Paul kind of hurt thinking to himself, "I kind of do dig those songs". LOL. They were just all going in different directions. In the beginning their differences worked well together and gave them diversity and they were each willing to explore types of music that weren't in their comfort zone but by the end they didn't have the patience to put up with working on stuff they weren't interested in.
What was so bad about Maxwell's Silver hammer I mean I thought it was a good thing
@@zorroonmilkavitch1840 George just didn't like it and also Paul was such a perfectionist he made them rehearse it over and over and over and so many takes trying to get the anvil to sound "just right" while George had to fight to get Paul to record one of his songs.
@@zorroonmilkavitch1840 its shit
Charles Philip Adams no, they didn’t have to break up.
They needed a “break” from each other to do some solo work and then come back together. The death knell of any band is not playing live and the Beatles needed to get back to concerts after spending some time apart.
Charles Philip Adams As John experimented with drugs probably the pressures of beatlemania etc John was less leading so Paul stepped in and lead them, kept them working with White Album, Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, but of course then he meets Yoko too, further division. I believe John Lennon was EXTREMELY TALENTED GENIOUS really, but something in him made him jealous and insecure and when he knocks commercial hits, hell I say isn’t that what they are supposed to do is sell records, Obladi obladi was a very catchy tune, I loved it!!! And Maxwell’s Silver Hammer is no worse than Polythene Pam and Mean Mr Mustard and Sun King was just here comes the sun slowed down, it was lazy. I loved all the Beatles really I did I don’t like when one is getting beat up.
Just discovered your channel. Good one for any true fan of The Beatles.
Every rock band peaked and split for better or worse as young rockers grew up and changed. We care only for the few best...so their stories get blown up.
It was just impossible for them collectively to be this perfect song writing machine for ever and ever. SOmething had to fall off and not be repaired. I suppose we should be grateful for what we received. They were only human beings after all.
Tavistock
@@jillsmcfarland2001come on
The alleged Beatles meeting reminds me of a family therapy session right before the divorce.
Yes and also a temporal piece where people are expressing incompletely processed feelings in the middle of reacting to other's musing on their own baggage. Most bands are the same, the Eagles spring to mind, where Frey and Henley basically see themselves as the Eagles and every one else as sometimes esteemed collaborators. Throw Yoko, heroin and Klein into the mix and you have an ununravelable mess of knots.
Great clip there John, This discussion is all very fascinating. I wonder when Paul & Ringo will comment on all this new info ?.
I bought that book at a shopping mall in Ontario Canada I think in the fall of '75...or it could have been '76. I remember that that was my favourite chapter. It's been years since I've seen that book...I might still have it.
A WELL KNOWN MEETING TO ALL BEATLES RESEARCHERS AND FANS.
I think that this meeting was well known in the Beatles entourage because what happened has been told in some Beatle's books.
I read in Philip Norman's "Shout!", issued in 1981, about this meeting John, Paul and George had on september 1969.
What Philip Norman wrote is more or less what Lewisohn talked about.
Lewisohn gave more details but it's pretty sure he is talking about the same meeting.
As a great Beatle fan, I think that as Lewisohn claims they made an attempt to go on as a band, but, sadly, the group was going to break up in any way.
John was very involved in avantgarde thing and said to Paul in a phone call that he was going to leave the band.
George was, probably, thinking to follow his own way in a solo career.
Paul was probably the one who cared the most to keep the group together even why he was in a way the leader during the last years they spent together as a band.
They had an argument trying to find a way to keep the group together more or less as Lewisohn described.
According to Philip Norman, they stopped arguing when Paul tried to make peace telling the others:
"When we are in studio, even in a bad day, I'm still on bass, Ringo is still on drums and we all are still there."
That’s a nice way to try to paint Paul as the leader, but when the Beatles had to choose sides, George and Ringo BOTH went with John. That tells you who the real natural leader was from the start to the end
@@hw343434
First, I reported what I read in books as Shout by Philip Norman one of the major Beatle expert as each Beatle fan knows.
It's a fact that Paul was the leader in that time as John was the leader from Quarrymen to Beatlemania.
Have a look at the video:
"Ringo Starr says Paul was the motivating force behind The Beatles". Isn't this the description of the way Paul leaded the band at that time?
They chose John because Paul, in that time, was the leader just as John was the leader from the early times to Beatlemania. George thought that Paul was overwhelming just as he thought John was overwhelming years before.
John was very disappointed the way George didn't talk about him in his "I me mine".
John himself had to admit that Paul was right about Klein that was the main reason why John, George and Ringo joined together.
Anyway, John and Paul loved each other and I don't like John vs Paul or Paul vs John argument because love them all.
All we need is love.
Zeusdattilo I think they chose John because they Ringo and George almost always enjoyed John’s songs more than Paul’s. They all said “Happiness is a Warm Gun” was their favorite song off White Album, “Something” by George was their favorite off “Abbey Road”, “A Day in the Life” was the favorite off Sgt Peppers. I don’t see an album where a Paul song was the favorite of the other Beatles. They all loved “Rain”, “Strawberry Fields Forever”, etc... I’ve never heard them talking about enjoying working on a Paul song like that or chosing a Paul song as their favorite. Paul was right about Allen Klein and he was the workaholic but John was the one they admired most from the start to the end. That’s why they played on John’s solo albums after the Beatles
@@hw343434
That's true. George claimed that he would have made a band with John anyday but not with Paul because of musical preferences.
We were talkin about leaders.
It's my opinion that John and Paul were the leaders and George had to deal with that.
Ringo, with all due respect, didn't write songs, is a great drummer but we can't compare Ringo to the other three.
John and Paul loved working together, wrote lots of songs together or helped each other to complete a song.
John admired Paul as a singer and as a writer and said in an interview "Hey Jude was one of Paul's masterpieces".
And, of course, Paul said he was the first of John's fan.
We all know quite well that Paul could be overwhelming but is a diplomat but John could be rude at times. No point that John and Paul loved each other and liked each other work. George found his own way when The Beatles career was going to end. Don't forget that after George joined John on his firts solo albums George refused to have Yoko on stage at the Concert for Bangladesh and after that John broke up with him. As I wrote I don't like these arguments. They were great but always human beings.
Thank you very much for your replies
and enjoy The Beatles.
All we need is love.
@@hw343434 You say everything as if they are facts when they are really just your opinions. You hate Paul and make it know everywhere you go
The Beatles wrapped it up at the right time: still on top and making great music. The End.
WOW. I've never ever heard these stories, I need this book.
This "new formula" sounds to me like a concoction Alan Klein proposed in order to keep the Beatles together and get them to sign with him.
Exactly … Alan Klein rubbing his grubby little hands together looking to run off with all that Beatle money. Paul wanted nothing to do with Klein who he rightly saw as a grifter. Glad they did not do such a record … They all did their own so it would have only been to use that Beatles brand … Klein's fingerprints are all over that idea.
I’m going to play devils advocate here as I see two potential problems with this theory. First, I think it may be a bit of an insult to insinuate that John would serve as Alan’s (or anyone’s, for that matter) puppet. He was strong willed and very much his own man with his own ideas. Second, while I completely agree that Klein was a heavy handed, predatory businessman, he still had managed to secure a better royalties deal for them than Brian Epstein ever had. People tend to forget that Epstein was no saint either. He secured some very bad deals early on that were lucrative only for him and The Beatles were arguably being royally screwed under his tenure more so than they were with Klein. Was he greedy? Absolutely, but I think an the argument could be made that he may have been less so than Brian who would have seen them continue to tour until they burned out if he’d had his way. Just my two cents.
@@krazykat64 You are factually incorrect. Only Paul understood business well enough to see Klein for what he was. 20% of all Beatles revenue would have gone to Klein. John, George and Ringo were completely sold on Klein. Paul found himself in the position of having to sue Klein but by doing so he had to sue The Beatles. Paul was trying to rescue all four from being taken advantage of. John didn't get it at all. He was all in with Klein. Doesn't make John bad or wrong as a person but he was very naïve about money. There is no better example of John (who I have loved for 50+ years) being financially irresponsible was the fact that at 40 years of age he never wrote a will. Thus, Julian was odd man out and never got any money until something like 10 or 15 years ago.
@@briandonovan1584 What, in your estimation, made Paul any more business savvy than John? Neither had a business degree nor any experience conducting business beyond what they'd had in the previous 8 years or so. It would appear to me that Paul's only real interest lay in getting his in laws involved.
@@krazykat64 When Brian Epstein died Paul took over the basic management of the group. He was the grown up. Paul was and still is eminently practical and responsible. John, not so much. Those are the facts.
John Lennon said that "Something" and "Here Comes The Sun" were the best songs on "Abbey Road". He also pushed for "Sonething" to be the A side and his song "Come Together" to be the B side of the single, so it was released as a double A sided single instead. John finally respected George's songwriting by the time they recorded "Abbey Road".
Exit Strategy John pinched "Come Together" from Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me" and was sued. It was basically another John Lennon throwaway. It did not warrant the status of an "A" side! Man, I love George and empathized with him. "Something" should have been an "A" Side!!! John and Paul gave short shrift to his wonderful compositions. Can you believe George offered "All Things Must Pass" and it was never recorded as a Beatles track!!! They were too busy rehearsing to death and recording Paul McCartney's songs during the Get Back/Let It Be sessions!!! Can you believe there are "FIVE" versions of "Let It Be"!!! The Beatles only rehearsed "All Things Must Pass" on January 29,1969 whilst recording tracks that ended up on the unreleased Get Back and the released Let It Be, Anthology 3 & Let It Be...Naked releases!!!
Something was George making a Yesterday, Here Comes The Sun was George making a Good Day Sunshine, I'd say. George's most original and inventive period was actually 1964-1968 imo. e.g. If I Needed Someone, Think for Yourself, Love You To, Blue Jay Way, While my Guitar.., Long Long Long. Except that Taxman was George making a Drive my Car, I'd say.
Sounds like we got a bunch of Macca fans here. Something blows away Yesterday. Here comes the sun kicks Good Day in the nuts. And Come Together is the only song with balls. If it were up to Paul...the whole album would be filled with Maxwell Silver Hammers. Paul was the King of Granny Muzak. Period
The End
I agree that George's songs definitely beat those. But George certainly benefitted from and digested upon John and Paul's work. I've never been a big fan of Yesterday. Vinnie, you clearly can't have listened to The White Album (e.g. Why Don't We Do It In The Road?, Helter Skelter) or Abbey Road (e.g. Oh Darling!, The End) much. Yes John has written a greater number of 'cool' songs - he is, overall, more of a unique talent whereas McCartney owes his maturation as a songwriter partly to Brian Wilson's influence- but leave the granny muzak insults to John. It's crude and rude of relative noneties to so blanketly derride Paul. Some of Paul's songs are more 'growers' e.g. Mother Nature's Son. The sappy lyrics are eventuality just background noise of the beautiful guitar plucking and orchestration. Paul did orchestration massively well. Music hall maybe but Victoriana/Edwardian was in vogue in mid to late 60s.
@@brucelee9528 Including I want You (She's so Heavy)?
The tape sounds as if things would have gone back to the way things were on the White Album where each Beatle would only be intrested in their own tracks. They had definitely outgrown each other.
I sensed stress/anger/change of direction within the group after Revolver. Society as a whole was exploding as well. I ignored Yellow Submarine and the White Album and Let It Be both seem unhappy/angry albums -and I was just a child who sensed this.
Lennon's idea to break the Lennon-McCartney composer credits seems to have been acted upon immediately after the release of the 'Abbey Road' album. 'Cold Turkey' in October 1969 credited to 'Lennon' and 'Come And Get It' in December 1969 credited to 'McCartney' were the first two releases to carry just the one name composer credit. Earlier releases in 1969 such as 'Goodbye' and 'Give Peace A Chance' were both credited as 'Lennon-McCartney'.
I bet it was Yoko's idea. Not John's.
I have the book you held up. It gives a lot of information about Lennon and the Beatles.
Keep rocking Beatles brothers and sisters ✌️🤘
Brother Gary
Remember, that even if the four Beatles stayed together under any arrangement, in 1980 a “jerk of all jerks” would end The Beatles for everyone.
I've got to wait until 27th October to hear the tape Mark is playing at his shows, but expecting it to be absolutely worth the wait!
Thank you John for such a well thought out analysis!
It's interesting. John said he knew he was leaving the group on the way to the Toronto Live Peace concert, that was on 13 Sept. 1969. I sympathize with George, I noticed John wasn't playing on a lot of George's songs. It's no wonder he was writing songs like 'Not Guilty,' 'Run of the Mill' and 'Wah Wah.'
I heard John in an interview in 1974 say that George's "Something" was the best track on Abbey Road.
SpockBoy and Paul McCartney said the two best tracks were come together and something, so you point is?
r I me mine is on Let it Be, which was recorded before Abbey Road.
As you point out, this tape has been around. Lewison was selling his book tour. Two weeks later Lennon quit...he was quite a mercurial guy and the Klein choice was insane. That was the nail in the coffin...
Paul gets a lot of criticism for being the "domineering" one in the Beatles' later years, especially towards George. And yes, he certainly could be, but George's attitudes at the time also tend to come across as very sensitive, to the point of whininess and playing the victim. Paul says that George's songs previously weren't as good as theirs, but in the last year they are equalling, even surpassing, Paul's and John's. That's a hell of a compliment. The criticism that irks George - that he previously wasn't as good as them - isn't really a criticism at all. Surely no one, even George himself if he's being honest, would claim that he could write equal material to John and Paul between 1962-1967? It was Lennon/McCartney material that had fired the Beatles to the top, and I really doubt that George at the time could have done better, hardly anyone could. The likes of Don't Bother Me and You Like Me Too Much weren't on par with what Lennon/McCartney were doing. His talent was emerging but he needed to prove it first, and by 1969 clearly he had - John and Paul both acknowledged that. The second half of Paul's sentence shows real respect for George's growing talent, putting George at least now on their level. Instead George takes it as a negative and fires back that he wrote those songs a year ago. Ok, so he wrote the songs maybe 6 or 12 months before Paul said he did, that really wasn't the point; the point was that Lennon/McCartney were the lead writers, which is why they had the singles, but that George had now developed into a great songwriter in his own right. George says that he doesn't care what the others think anymore, his sensitivity suggests otherwise. Paul was just stating a fact and then added significant praise, yet George still found a way of twisting it and taking it as negative. What's Paul supposed to say, that since Please Please Me, George was always as good as - or better than - them? 1) He wasn't. 2) Paul is already giving him significant praise, why does he need more? George had more of an ego than he's given credit for.
Well put. Harrison said the songs be recorded “recently” were written in the last two years (1967-1969), but that’s semantics. McCartney meant that only recently were his songs as good as the ones he and Lennon were turning out, which was 100 percent true.
I think the 1965 vocal overdub session for the song Think for Yourself was quite revealing of how good George was even then. He was trying to get John and to a lesser extent Paul to sing the harmonies in tune, and it took quite awhile for them to get there. George knew what he wanted and was patient until they got it right. They could have started giving him more credit right about that time, both for songwriting and execution.
Well put. Yes we all know about the George masterpieces on abbey road but what stands out to me is that Paul was there for George on all his recordings: the bass on something is absolutely sublime and the organ on Long Long Long is a serious contribution. What the F did John ever contribute to a George song ?
fueradeljuego John actually refused to play on the George songs on the White Album. I believe his only participation was he helped make the oinking noises on "Piggies."
This is true, they would have never left Britain singing Don’t Bother Me, which is alright but George would go on to write better songs.
George would have gone insane trying to keep up with filling up albums, eps, singles, etc.
lewisohn comes accross as a money grabber to me. I remember him being interviewed on uk radio 1, at the time of the beatles handbook came out and the dj, nicky Campbell if memory serves, wanted to give a copy of the book away as a prize. He really had to convince lweisohn it was a good idea as a promotion, as he was protesting, THIS WAS LIVE ON AIR!!!!!
Never really liked the guy after that, and this just confirms my opinion
I don't know, but he himself said of the tour that it was to keep the bill collectors at bay. Being a full time Beatles researcher doesn't come with a paycheck. And if all he did was work full time on the next two books, royalties of his previous books might not be enough to live on, so . . . perhaps he doing what he must to survive?
@@tagoldich Spot on.
Well he is a small hat.
I have to say something in response to this, Mark has a youtube channel and he is completely straight about everything. He gets paid on delivery of a manuscript so inbetween he needs to make money. He is a full time researcher and needs to make a living I have listened to hours of his interviews and he is honest as the day is long. I for one am very pleased about all his writings and we all benefit from his research which completely puts ALL other writers to shame.
I actually had the pleasure of emailing with him recently. I asked him about the recording and whether it would be released to the public at any point. He told me he will not be releasing it because he does not own the rights to it. So I guess its in Apple's hands...
Very good commercial value for the Abbey Road 50 Years anniversary
If I remember correctly it was Anthony Fawcett who actually had the tape originally because he was the one that made the tape as John had asked him to tape the meeting. I remember reading about this in Nicholas Schafner's book The Beatles Forever back in the 1970s.
Hi John, Mark was only allowed read out what was in Anthony Fawcett's book. He was told by Apple that he, Mark, could not use the Tape legally, so he didn't.
Mark has a lot reverence towards the Beatles, he didnt want to upset his heroes.
It was a fantastic show by Mark.
By the way, Pete and Roag Best are doing a PR tour here, Dublin, at the end of this week for Pete's appearance here in Dublin in March.
It was great that The Beatles have ended by end of the decade. They were very honest with themselves, instead of going on by inertia, and they discography was impecable from 1963 to 1970. That is why was also great that they didin't get back together during the seventies, cause it was wasn't the same vibe and energy anymore, although the love and friendship were still there between them, above all the animosities they had after the breakup.
My senior high school English teacher in 1974 would have us study lyrics of pop/rock songs in addition to regular poems to make the class more interesting. One of them was Maxwell Silver Hammer. I was indifferent to the Beatles then. Thought it was interesting but odd. I was surprised it was from them. Contrast sinister lyrics with soft tune was a little clever.
Makes a serial killer's antics musical
Paul has taken a lot of guff for the way he treated George. But the rift between George and John seemed to be every bit as wide as George and Paul.
That's because Paul was switched out. George wasn't talking to the same "Paul", he was talking to William. So my guess is he didn't like William/Billy.
@@ForeverConsciousResearch - Don't you mean Beatle Ed?
All of them seemed not to be themselves in that period. All of them made lots of mistakes. And they suddenly were surrounded by the most terrifying people possible and all of them influencing the Beatles. I prefer not to mention their names but let me say only one: Allen Klein. Time showed he was indeed not to be trusted. But John, George and Ringo believed on him. Now, I never saw anything bad in the way Paul treated George. I never saw anything wrong. Yes, I saw Let it Be dozens of time. Nothing wrong in that moment he asked George to repeat that riff in I got a Feeling. It was his song and George just could not play it the way Paul wanted. Nothing more natural than asking him to play again. He was not rude for a single moment. George took offense and that is also natural, by the way. He was Geoerge Harrison after all. George pretended to be humble saying he would do whatever Paul asked but he just refused to do. We know that he left the group soon after that. But the one who really got rude was John saying he could be replaced by Eric Clapton. What a mistake. Nobody could replace George. In the new tape that they found I don't think Paul meant what people understand. I decided to edit it because that was only what I think. I have no means to be sure about Paul's feelings. It could be lots of things including a simple joke. We could not listen to that tape, ( Does it really exist?), we could not see his face while speaking.
So, it was normal between them possibly since day one, since early days. John used to say some of Paul's song were Grannys songs. They were close friends that felt free, exactly for this reason, to criticize themselves. That didn't mean no harm to each other. And what is the problem with grannies? How come people think saying granny song is bad? It means only it is from old times.
. Remember these Beatles boys were not ordinary people. We have to get inside them a bit to sort of understand them. Most judge everything they say taking only ordinary people as examples. But they were extraordinaries.
@@jake105 nice one lol...or perhaps Beatle Bill
@Craig Braelow no , he only played on imagine , Ringo played on plastic ono band .
thanks John
Thank you for this articulate video.
First off, thank you for the excerpt from the 1975 book. I never heard it and it’s heartbreaking to hear. The fact they lasted for a decade from the early days before they were the Beatles and living and performing through the insanity that was their career up through 66 without going mad is amazing on its own. John had taken a back seat to Paul the final 2 years and supposedly because of his drug use and the fact that George evidently had many songs in his cannon as evident on All things Pass shows how much Paul underestimated him and didn’t see him as an equal and is the lone thing that upsets me hearing about all of this. It’s not unexpected that they would break up with egos and exhaustion I think the two determining factors as well as Johns drug use and Paul who became a minor dictator because of Johns involvement with heroin and turning up with less and less songs and more so from that standpoint then Yoko’s involvement. After Brian Epstein’s death they were a ship without a sail so to speak. Once 1 member took more control in the studio as task master it was sure to fail. I always thought naively that it was John and Yoko that caused the breakup but hearing the news recently it shows that it was a combination of things including management/ representation of the Allen Klein / Eastman fiasco and the emergence of George having superior material that coupled with Johns comment that it should be 4-4-4-2 on songs sung on the next album and Paul’s very coy remark that George wasn’t on par that really made walking away much easier for George who like I said had many a song at his disposal. Disappointing to hear Paul say that and I hope they release the tapes to the public soon. They all had satisfying careers with peaks and valleys but together they were gold. We are lucky they stayed together for as long as they did. Groups like the Eagles with multiple members contributing initially lasted just 8 years as well. A lot of egos to feed I fear. I’m also glad that the Beatles never stayed on and put out sub par music so to go out with Abby Road on a song called the End seems fitting. Apologies to my Majesty. 😉. Thank you for the video and news John. You never disappoint.
That is a myth and totally wrong that John took a beat seat to Paul in their last 2 years. He had 15 songs on the Esher demos compared to 7 of Paul's and 5 for George for God's sake! His contributions on the White Album and Abbey Road were roughly equal to Paul's - if not greater on the WA - and would've been so as well on Let It Be too if Don't Let Me Down had been included - which idiot made the decision to leave it off? - Get Back got on there so DLMD should have been there too. Don't forget he had a piece of I've Got A Feeling also. One After 909 and Across The Universe hadn't been released to that point so he was quite entitled to bring them back for consideration. Not to mention BOJ&Y and Hey Bulldog recorded in'68 was a darn good song. While he could withdraw at times, John was generally not a back seat type person. More the opposite
Tim Sydlowski separate into paragraphs, pls.
Paul's comment needs to be seen in the context of the discussion. John is covertly complaining that he isn't getting enough A-sides anymore and he is championing George to make it look like Paul is trying to keep them down. He's aligning himself with George to score points against Paul. He's saying that they [read John AND Paul] have been greedy keeping George off the B-sides. This isn't even true. George had had 2 B-sides. John and Paul do not get to decide which songs become singles or which ones gets to be the A-side. They compete for this privilege and George is of secondary consideration. Paul takes offense at being called an A-side hog and points out that [read the reason Something is George's first A-side is that] his songs just weren't good [read commercial] enough to be singles before. Now George is having none of this. He sees through John's game and calls him out for being even less supportive of his songs than Paul and points out that Paul's contention is false too. Paul's remark is not coy (though he is often coy), it is passive-aggressive. BUT it is also a backhanded compliment. He is arguing that going forward George should get more singles, though what he actually said was that before 1969 he didn't deserve any. And yes, I am disappointed in him too. Cuz George remembered this and felt unsupported by Paul, even though when you go back and listen to George's songs with The Beatles, it is clear that Paul was very supportive in the studio. And John really took offense to that charge as well [the quote about how hard they worked on Don't Bother Me].
SPOILER ALERT: Just a follow up from my previous comment, after seeing Mark's show last night it was very interesting to hear that after the reveal about the tape in The Guardian a few weeks ago he has been warned (Apparently quite seriously) not to include it in the show. The only bits he was able to include are the bits from Anthony Fawcett's book because they are in the public domain. Not sure how the rest of the tape will come out. One imagines that it would be ok in the context of a book but not presented publicly on stage.
It tickles the mind, doesn't it - the Beatles staying together and putting out more albums after Abby Road. They would have continued to put out phenomenal albums, as only they could. With the possible exception of Instant Karma, the lads with George Martin, Geoff Emerick, etc. would have exponentially improved on what we heard in their solo work, in ways we can only ponder. I suppose a case could be made that some of the stuff on All Things Must Pass would be hard to top - but it's not a case I'd make. It hurts, almost - like I don't really want to think about it too much. I love McCartney, Wild Life, Ram... but who can listen to those and not dream about what The Beatles could do with at least some of those songs. Ditto for the rest of them. Ah well, we got what we got, and it's a hell of a lot. It's everything, almost.
It actually hurts to know that they could’ve gone on, that John and even George were willing to compromise but not Paul.
They could’ve just done Double A sides from then on and that would make John happy.
@@beatlecristian I think Paul as much as anyone would have been for them going that route... if he thought John and George would want to do it. Ringo of course would have been in. But the hole in that theory is John's insistence on bringing Allen Klein on as their manager. Paul would never (and didn't) agree to that and it would have likely fractured the group regardless with all the lawsuits. In 1973 or thereabouts Lennon conceded that McCartney was "probably right" in opposing Klein - that was when Lennon decided to not re-up Klein's contract. Too late at that point.
@@sappo504 “Probably right”
Of course he was right. Do you think that was it? Fighting over who was to manage them?
@@beatlecristian You do realize you're taking issue with what Lennon said, not me - right? And yes, among the multitude of reasons why the Beatles broke up, how the three Beatles brought Klein on board against the wishes of McCartney certainly contributed to their breakdown and demise as a band . How is it even possible to draw any other conclusion?
@@sappo504 Forgive me. I meant no ill will.
Thanks for mentioning that Anthony Fawcett way back then also quotes from this supposed tape. I think it’s a tape since his quotes are very precise and not as if he was in the room recollecting something that happened 6 years earlier. So I think the tape definitely exists. Since Fawcett was a friend of John maybe John owned the tape and gave access to Fawcett. But then again since the tape was intended for Ringo so he could be the owner or it could be owned by Apple or a private collector. Regardless I think it’s time to release it into the public domain.
Insightful as always John! Have to re look at that Anthony Fawcett book 😉
Oh, I got my ticket for Mark Lewishon here in Dublin on October 5th. 2019
I have that book One Day At aTime. Very good read. It was the meeting after this one, September 20th, that John told Paul he wanted a divorce.
Maybe I'm Amazed, my all time fabbist tune, wish they had recorded it...would have been a No 1, which is more than it achieved as a single under Wings
This came out on the “McCartney” first solo album, it was never with Wings. Of course because of Paul taking the blame for breaking up The Beatles and God I find that so incredible, even more so now that I saw “Get Back” his solo album got panned so many never even listened to it. John said it was rubbish, well John it wasn’t rubbish at all!!!
The details of the alleged tape have been generally known since the 70s (including the Fawcett book).
Hi John. When I first heard this I thought it was some kind of April Fool, before I remembered it was September.
I believe that they were such pros that they would have put issues aside and surpassed themselves once again regardless of their reasons for being on their own for the sake of themselves ie., Abbey Road, when they were actually apart already...they were the only group who kept surpassing themselves without songs that sounded alike..hence a legacy
I see it like this could you spend 5 years in the same room with your teenage friends?
Now, yeah, but I haven't seen them in 40 years.
they are discussing the idea of making an album, not making an album. you can hear they clearly dont want to as a group. just solidifies the fact they were done rather than adds a twist to the beatle story or shows signs of a faint glimmering hope of staying together
I've seen thousands of Beatle photos and every day on youtube I see new ones..and more.
How many photos were taken of those guys? It's like everyday of their life in public,every minute,behind the scenes also, photos were being taken with all that noise and flash of film cameras.
Many years ago I thought I had seen them all. I wasn't even close.
Great analysis of the events around the time. I suspect Mark is keeping this one a little close to his chest as he has two more books to sell. Obviously this would be used in the third one of the trilogy. What he has said more than once is that he is looking for a home for his archive In able for researchers and the general public to get access to it all. So watch this space I suppose. Luckily I'm going to the show on Saturday.
Interesting John, I wasn't aware of this tape. I'm going to see Mark Lewisohn on Monday so will look forward to hearing it!
Tim shearn
It disgusts me tat Lewisohn is profiting off these due to access to John. John was a fool to get close enough to this pos
Mark has explained the situation about the tape in one of his interviews on his youtube channel. His reasons are clear and he explains it fully.
This tape will eventually come out. Mark isn't the lone individual who has access to it. (I don't, but wish I did!) lol
John Heaton speculates about whether Lennon's 'Cold Turkey' song could have been seen as a Beatles' song... If he's referring to its drug reference, that is hardly new in Beatles' music. If he means the sound of the song, The White Album song 'Yer Blues', to my ears, is very close in its rawness and guitar sound, and was even played live by John in his Plastic Ono Band period, in 1969. Also, his comment about 'My Sweet Lord' doesn't stand up as The Beatles did 'Across the Universe' which has Yogic chanting and there are other songs in the band's catalogue with Indian influences.
I'm seeing Mark Lewisohn at the Theatre Royal in Margate on 2nd November and I'm sure he'll go into this in much more depth and we'll get to hear some of it.
Paul mentioned the the meeting and the proposed 4/4/4 split at least 30 years ago. Everyone also seems to forget that the band reconvened, minus John, in January of 1970 to record "I Me Mine" and complete "Let it Be". I think even then they still were of the opinion that John was bluffing about leaving the band and things would eventually return to normal.
Paul didn’t want to compromise so John made the decision to leave.
This proposal would have been amazing, had it come to fruition
John I enjoy your channel..I believe you are a fan boy but critical…I like it thanks
I feel like the tape exposed John, Paul and George's true colors at the time: Paul definitely lived up to his reputation as a domineering jerk, both brazenly disparaging George's songs, and sheepishly admitting he didn't dig Maxwell much after putting George and Ringo through the ringer working on it; John was super jaded and self-contradicting, proposing the new formula, then opposing it, coming to George's defense, then griping about being left out of his songs; George was surprisingly civil against Paul's blatant insensitivity while going again John for not contributing to his songs. One thing comes clear from what little we hear of it: they couldn't take anymore. Clearly John and George couldn't survive as Beatles any longer, while Paul really wanted to keep them going, but was really mad at them both for choosing Allen Klein as their manager. And well he should have been. But did he really think such rude remarks towards George and John would have earned him any favor? To be honest, I'm glad they didn't try to make another album instead of resurrecting Let It Be. It would have turned EMI into a war zone. Enough was enough then and they all knew it.
All Paul said was that he didn't think that up to a certain time Georges' songs were as good as his and Johns. How is that particularly rude? In my mind it is just stating the obvious.
@@amandas.6745 I feel that for George, hearing Paul say that was mildly perturbing for him, seeing how hard he worked on songs like "All Things Must Pass" during "Get Back", without success, then walking out. And although at that point, he was resolved on finding a new outlet for his output, hearing Paul's comments was probably confirmation to him of what he felt all along, that both Paul and John saw him as the junior member of the group. You have to admit, he handled it well when he could have been pounding the desk and yelling.
@@elirosen1391 I agree with all you say except for the "rudeness". Paul conceded in the same sentence that in 1969, Georges' songs were equal or even better than LennonMcCartney's. And in an interview a earlier that year he praised "Something" as a song he particularly liked on Abbey Road. If anything, the scene shows how toxic the atmosphere between them had gotten in the course of a view months. And for that to happen, George isn't blameless either. None of them is (maybe with the exception of Ringo)
Paul's comment needs to be seen in the context of the discussion.
John is covertly complaining that he isn't getting enough A-sides anymore and he is championing George to make it look like Paul is trying to keep them down. He's aligning himself with George to score points against Paul. He's saying that they [read John AND Paul] have been greedy keeping George off the B-sides. This isn't even true. George had had 2 B-sides. John and Paul do not get to decide which songs become singles or which ones gets to be the A-side. They compete for this privilege and George is of secondary consideration.
Paul takes offense at this [read being called an A-side hog] and points out that [read the reason Something is George's first A-side is that] his songs just weren't good [read commercial] enough to be singles before. He is arguing that going forward George should get more singles, though what he actually said was that before 1969 he didn't deserve any. So it's kind of a backhanded compliment. And yes, it does sound rude, since George is right there. He remembered this and felt unsupported by Paul, even though when you go back and listen to George's songs with The Beatles, it is clear that Paul was very supportive in the studio. Notice that George only attacks John on that front. And John really took offense to that charge as well [the quote about how hard they worked on Don't Bother Me].
Mike and I are going to the Lewisohn 'Hornsey Road' talk next Monday, John. Will try to record it!
can i rip it !!!
Did you do it?
@@FiremanSam60 no, Lewisohn was evidently told that he'd be infringing copyright if he played more than a few seconds of the tape, so we only heard a snippet.
@@davecostello560 Who owns the copyright anyway?
@@isaacbruner65 I'm not sure. Apple I presume.
Great presentation, felt like I was having a personal conversation with you on the subject, "Engaging"
Sept 8, 69 my one year birthday!
Cool !
They left us a whole lot of great music... and fans still wanted more. THAT is the way to end a band and keep a legacy. If they got back together just for the fans or money and/or any of them felt forced the music could have suffered and tarnished the legacy. As John said "The dream is over" and if anyone wants to reminisce there are all the records. And I for one looked forward to the solo stuff.
They broke up at the right time. Another album would never have worked out in the way it was proposed. They werent four lads anymore trying to make it. It was time to move on to their own personal projects and families. They left on a high and with poetry. Let It be
It seems that John and George were already contemplating doing solo albums, and after Abbey Road, I don't think they could have topped that record. Also, if George Martin wasn't part of it, it probably wouldn't even get finished, a la Let It Be.
Then Paul shocks them all by releasing the first solo album (McCartney) and John was livid
Wow fascinating insight man!
great vid, john.
Going to see the show in October, cannot wait to hear it. Someone going to record it on their phone, no doubt. Love your videos John, thank you.
Enjoyed your piece there John. One year on ...and obviously Covid may have scuppered Lewisham original plans, but are we any further forward on getting this tape into the public domain?
I wonder if this is the interview where John offered "Cold Turkey" as the next Beatles single. He may have discussed this at this meeting because for him to suggest such a thing would have mean't that they were still together at this point. He was perhaps referring to how the Let it be album should be structured as this would have been the next album whether they completed it themselves or not. With Johns idea the album may have turned out like this.
1 Two of us
2 Dig a pony
3 I Me mine
4 Sentimental journey
5 Across the universe
6 All things Must Pass
7 Let It be
Side 2
8 I've got a feeling
9 One After 909
10 Not Guilty
11 Long and winding road
12 For You Blue
13 If You got trouble [Ringo]
14 Get Back
The Christmas single could have been "Let it Be"
Used to have a copy of Fawcett's book - a rather depressing read, as I recall . Junked it, along with most of the detritus of that period (Oxfam's gain).The whole thing I feel is best is summed by Lennon: "What we were is what we were; what we are is something different". Amen to that. The whole was always greater than the sum of the parts; nothing any of them have done separately has matched their Beatle days - Paul being the most disappointing because so much was expected - where was the promised C20 Schubert, Mozart? Lost in puerility and crass populism - Fremdschämen. As for Lennon, a sour puss, a bitter pill - but not unexpected. Harrison soon fizzled out (his so-called backlog was not so great - not if you compare with what Paul had done in the same period - remember, George claimed his songs had been rejected back in '68 or '69, meaning All Things Must Pass has some pretty old stuff on it). As for poor old Ringo, never got off the starting blocks ..
Awesome inside insight!
Allen Klein, had gotten them to earn more money from royalties. He knew they were already parting ways and that's why they made "Abbey Road". The same happened with "United artist" they signed for 4 movies which "A hard day's night, Help, Magical Mystery Tour" They already had them. To complete the one that was missing was "Let It Be" It was not the intention that it was a movie but they put it in because they had to complete the 4 films. If they hadn't been sued by "United Artist".
He would've pressed play and record simultaneously.
I think, back in the day, the old tape recorders were like that.
I can imagine their future albums would have been just as good, My Seet Lord, Cold Turkey and Baby I'm Amazed on the same album seems just as cohesive as their previous albums given their previous albums didn't seem cohesive. You could recognize who wrote the song usually by just listening to it.
My imaginary 1971 Beatles album: side 1: 1- Beware of Darkness , 2- Maybe I'm amazed, 3- Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, 4- Instant Karma, 5- Give Peace a Chance..... side 2: 1- Monkberry Moon Delight, 2- If Not for You, 3- Photograph, 4- Imagine, 5- All Things Must Pass (4 Harrison songs, counting Photograph, 3 McCartney, 3 Lennon)
Interesting to wonder what might have been, and where the unreleased Let it be album would have fitted in with this plan. It would seem weird to record and release YET more material such as a new single before that album finally came out. I can't see Lennon allowing another McCartney Beatles single though, even if Maybe I'm Amazed was the obvious single choice...
I don't know which songs GH had written at the time because he's got 3 or 4 contenders on ATMP for a single
@@victorarena23 I can see Art of Dying having been a B side.
What the follow-up album might have included: From John "Instant Karma"; "Cold Turkey" "Mother"; "God". From George: "All Things Must Pass"; "My Sweet Lord"; "What Is Life"; "Isn't It a Pity". From Paul: "Maybe I'm Amazed"; "Another Day"; "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey". From Ringo: "Beaucoups of Blues". Obviously, they might have written different songs prior to recording. Maybe Ringo would've been given a song by the others (?) To be honest, I think it's best that they went their separate ways. Through 1974, they all released really decent solo stuff. "Abbey Road" isn't my favorite Beatles album but it was definitely a high-level swan song - and I always notice that George has the two best songs of the album, then John with the next two, and then Paul . . . doesn't have much. The suite is OK but it's not only him. Paul's bass playing is stellar, though, as always.
John Shannon I love Johns solo stuff but honestly I think Johns selection that you mention would have been denied by Paul and John himself, Lennon had so much material such as Jealous Guy, gimme some truth, Love, and oh my love would have been accepted.
Could not disagree with you more I think the whole second side, confirmed by George Martin was almost all Paul’s doing, and its bloody brilliant in fact, just like Sgt Pepper brilliant idea. And I can’t help thinking this was the problem, jealousy. Of course they are not going to come out and call it jealousy, it will be called, oh Paul took over, played stuff we didn’t like, well hell it was critically acclaimed, was that not good enough for you? John and George had just as big of an ego as Paul had, and they wanted to say they weren’t being appreciated as brilliant til they get out on their own, yes I think they believed that.
@@lindakelly9552 Not sure where The Beatles would have gone after Revolver if they didn't have the Type A super-driven Paul. If Paul had the same work ethic as John and George, the band could have fizzled out. And of course there never would have been Sgt. Pepper.