10 Reasons The Beatles Broke Up PART THREE |
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 дек 2022
- This the final part to The 10 Reasons The Beatles Broke Up. Please fill out the survey at the link below to give your ranking on these 10 reasons and add one of your own if you'd like.
SUPPORT Pop Goes the 60s on PATREON: rb.gy/nhcy3
Survey Link - Rank the Reasons The Beatles Broke Up:
www.surveymonkey.com/r/9FYKGXL 
Видеоклипы
![*SUPER RARE* THE PARADIGM IS BACK?!?!? Fortnite Item Shop [August 6th, 2024] (Fortnite Chapter 5)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ru6xSH1RaPw/mqdefault.jpg)
Brian’s Death in 1967 was the first catalyst. Allen Klien was the final nail.
All of your 10 reasons are valid
Excellent video
Allen Klein creamed in his jeans when he learned about Brian's death. Klein always wanted the Beatles.
Polyester slacks would be more Klein's style. 🙂
@@popgoesthe60s52 maybe but he still creamed none the less🤣
You are spot on about Yoko and Klein not caring about the Beatles.
I disagree. I think Klein cared deeply about the Beatles. However, Paul did not care for Klein. Yoko gave two F's, about the Beatles, but she cared about John and she also used him as a financial patron. She didn't hate the Beatles, she just didn't think about them like anyone else did. But Yoko is just a symptom of John wanting to get out of it all. She is incredibly unlikeable, butto her credit, she really doesn't care too much about what anyone thinks
Sure, agreed. I'd add, though, that neither had any particular reason to care that much. Sure, Klein would seem to have had a reason, but he obviously had his own ulterior motives. The Beatles were a band. It was on them to stay together, or not. If they got taken in by sweet talkers, well, whose fault is that? They were young, but still, adults with responsibilities. If you get taken in by a scam, that's on you. Sure, the scammer may also be culpable, but in the end, you don't have to be taken in like that. John's thinking (because of drugs or fame or anything else) that he was a genius made him ripe for the picking. In the end, they either did it to themselves, or they allowed it to be done, and those amount to the same thing in my opinion.
Around 18:58, I'm paraphrasing, "After Lennon bottomed out from the experience with the Maharishi, Allen Klein and Yoko showed up at roughly the same time, and Lennon got his mommy and his daddy, and they seemed to replace the Beatles for him." Very profound and right on the money. Such good insight. I hope there's a book some day.
I hope there's a book someday too!
That part really struck me also. It's a great insight on Matt's part.
The break was probably the best thing for their mystique. It locked the Beatles in time like a time capsule buried in the ground…and each new Beatle fan goes through the process of digging up the capsule and traveling back in time with the music.
Lennon talked about how it was good that they didn’t play at Woodstock or whatever…because in his mind it wouldn’t have been the same as the earlier concerts.
Yes, in hindsight, them never getting together again is poetic.
The Beatles just grew up and apart. They were together 9 years before they became famous and went from being kids playing for fun to mature adult where music was a job. Consider what they created in their time together and it's amazing !
Well done. I would add George to the mix. HIs dislike of Yoko, the battle (real or not) with Paul/John over his songs, and with Paul over his guitar playing. Add his dislike of touring. He was quoted after the breakup as saying he liked Paul as a friend but would never play with him as a bandmate. He might not have broken up the group, but he certainly helped keep them from getting back together, if that ever would happen.
Brian Epstein was a class act period. The Beatles were fortunate to have him as the team leader.Great analysis as always Matt
It seems like Lennon had no gray area in his personality. You were either in or out in his world. Thanks for the great deep dive!
I used to be much more forgiving of Yoko, but as I learned more about the subject of extreme narcissism I gave her role much more weight. She was determined to increase her own profile by attaching herself to someone very famous. She tried Paul first and when that didn't work she went after John. (Her ego forcing her to lie that she hadn't even heard of The Beatles before she met John.) The fact that Paul turned her down would enrage a narcissist and increase the normal narcissistic need she had to separate her target, John, from every other rival for his interest or affection. In the usual narc way she initially love-bombed John and then undermined his confidence by belittling his previous work. She obsessively stuck by his side, again to ward off any threat to her control and to make him dependent on her. The monumental ego is evident by her forever trying to equate her status as a minor artist (in a conceptual/performance field which often rewards being a lazy pseudo-intellectual show-off and renders craft or dedication largely irrelevant) with that of one of the most admired performers/songwriters on the planet. She couldn't even allow him his musical space, inserting her screeching whenever she could. If she had been able to sing half-decently in any conventional way then I am sure she would have managed more of an intrusion, possibly on released Beatles tracks, even if it was less aurally painful. The only time she seems in any way happy or engaged in Get Back is when it looks like the group might be breaking up and she gets to hog the mic in seeming triumph.
At a certain point in the 1970s I suspect that Ono became bored with John, after she had sucked the life out of him, and "allowed" him his fling with someone she didn't think was much of a threat (don't forget that a narc will often overestimate their own power and be dismissive of anyone else's qualities). When she realised that the only reason that anyone was in the slightest bit interested in her was because of John then she drew him back, eventually contriving a 50/50 album - another act of monumental narcissism. As fate would have it, the timing for this re-welding of disparate talents couldn't have been better for her in the long run and she was confirmed as the keeper of the flame of St. John.
For anyone doubting this characterization then a quick glance at the recent behaviours of Amber Heard or Meghan Markle might be instructive.
I think all the 10 elements played a part, but Yoko's influence made matters much worse by widening fissures opened by other factors.
I don't think that The Beatles would have stayed together much longer as three of them at least would not have been happy with becoming the sort of tribute-act-to-themselves which seems inevitable for very long-running pop groups. To remain at all fresh they needed new elements to bounce off and interact with. Sadly, none of them found other collaborators who could challenge them and be their equal sounding-boards (an almost impossible task).
As I say, all the elements played a part and maybe most elements alone couldn't have pulled them apart if every other hadn't existed - but they did.
Brilliant analysis.
Brilliant indeed. You nailed it. NARCISSISM: The Other Pandemic! I often wonder why they didn't just do "solo" albums and then carry on with Beatles collaborations? The 1970 "Ringo" album had achieved that in some ways. This became the convention after these difficult beginnings with other super groups. John Lennon's mommy issues were also at fault here: his worldwide fame and fortune didn't help him mature emotionally either, why do all that psychological work to uncover and heal childhood trauma if you're already top of the charts at 21? Also, George Harrison did form the "Travelin' Wilbury" supergroup to achieve this masterful collaboration with his other talented friends.
@@JamesMandolare Re "The 1970 'Ringo' album": 1973.
Indeed Yoko was and still is, a world class gaslighter.
doesnt yoko sing normally on war is over?
Well argued and incredibly well structured. This video is top notch. I think Paul was the one who definitely wanted to keep the legacy going and this is evidenced by his subsequent reaction when the band did split. He was devastated unlike the other three, especially John and George. Without Paul, Abbey Road and the Let It Be album and film would probably never have happened. He was a workaholic and has been so for much of his career.
Thank you for the kind words. Paul certainly worked to keep it together in many ways!
You're right. Up until Revolver, John had been the driving force. Paul took over from 1966 till the end (with the possible exception of the White album when both seems to gave the same amount of work)
Yeah it’s sad that the public thought Paul broke up the Beatles because of his solo album when in fact he was the last Beatle to quit. Ringo, George, and John all tried to quit the Beatles at one time or the other.
Excellent 3 part series Matt! Your reasons are solid no matter what order they're in. The Beatles were so good, over 50 years later we're still pissed that they broke up. I'll be rewatching these 3 parts many times. Matt, your work is unsurpassed!
My new album "The One After Abbey Road" is my attempt to re-write some solo songs to present what their next album might have sounded like. I am very pleased with the result.
ruclips.net/video/o_0WURwZ6O4/видео.html
Great series, Matt. Thanks. More convinced than ever that Ono was the major factor in breaking up the group, not the only one , but she was the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time. Every reason that you so well articulated played into the breakup: it was time.
@@terrythekittieful I think so too. There are more important reasons behind the break up, but Klein was the one that turned it into an open war. Yoko was probably f*cking annoying for the rest and alienated John further, but she was more like the Jar Jar Binks of the Beatles. An annoying character to blame or make into a symbolic representation of the more general problems. John would probably be a better representation since most of the problems are connected to him.
Personally I put "drugs" as the number one reason. Both the self-developmental effects and perspectives of LSD and the destructive effects of heroin and cocaine.
I totally disagree. I dislike Yoko as much as anybody else - but I don't blame her for the breakup ( I give my own explanation elsewhere on this thread, which is obviously not an original one). I do credit Lennon for one thing though - as horrible as Yoko's contributions generally were to Lennon's solo career - he did an excellent job of limiting her damage on the "Sometime in New York City" album. Some of her stuff on there was almost listenable.
@@kulturkriget Jar Jar Binks.😂
Really enjoyed this series. I think all of the 10 reasons in these videos played a factor in the breakup. But.....I think Allen Klein was the biggest and most damaging factor.
There is a long-form audio interview with George Harrison from April of 1970 that came to light [at least in it's entirety] around a decade ago. Harrison was in New York at the time ostensibly trying to settle some affairs that Apple had in the United States but also took the time to record a bit with Bob Dylan. Journalist Howard Smith was able to procure an interview with him at a very crucial time in Beatles history as Paul McCartney had already issued his poison pen missive through Derek Taylor but "Let It Be" had not yet been issued. Smith to his credit tries to get Harrison to be candid on the status of The Beatles but Harrison himself perhaps due to the fact that he didn't want to adversely affect Beatles-related affairs [including the impending release of the "Let It Be" album and film] remains coy. He does pay some lip service to an idea brought forth in this video that after each of The Beatles completes work on their solo projects [indeed this interview was conducted on the eve of the "All Things Must Pass" project] then perhaps they could reunite for some group activity. He does however give some insight as to Allen Klein/Eastman debate and McCartney's disillusionment with the rest of the band stating matter-of-factly that The Beatles are a majority driven enterprise and McCartney was outvoted in regards to group management and thus the reason for his unhappiness. Harrison surmises that once McCartney comes to terms with the reality of the situation then relations will improve which in my opinion in indicative of the attitude that Harrison, John Lennon and to a lesser degree Ringo Starr took regarding McCartney throughout 1970. They believed wrongly so, that they could continue to needle him over things such as the release date of his solo LP, the unauthorized overdubs on his music and above everything else the intrusion of Klein into his professional life and he would still accept reality and come to terms. They never banked on him settling upon the nuclear option and dragging them all into High Court by year's end to dissolve the partnership. Once McCartney chose that option he effectively terminated any chance for an amicable separation or potential reconciliation down the line. It's like anything else in life, once you drag your mates or your spouse into court the relationship is rarely ever the same again.
The thing was that the Beatles was never ruled by majority vote - they each vetoed. As Harrison did numerous times himself, like during Get Back. I don't think George or John ever confessed to that double standard they decided to apply when it came to being managed by Klein.
I rather see it the opposite way. Paul had no other option than that and George and John being too hard-headed here, probably as they enjoyed their supposed emancipation from Paul‘s influence.
Later even John admitted, that Paul was right about Klein.
That’s not true. Their long-standing rule had been that something had to have all 4 members’ approval, not majority rule. Well- documented in their own words. George was trying to save face, and once Lennon admitted on TV that Paul was right about Klein, they were bitter Betties.
I agree. I'm convinced that Klein was convinced that Paul would come around once he experienced the "positive" results of his management. Somehow he managed to convince George and the others that this was true too. But they misjudged him. They didn't notice when Paul's limits were reached and were truly shocked when he blew them up. Hence the rancor.
Paul could be very stubborn and Klein didn’t know him well enough. The “bathtub incident” described in Tune In illustrates this perfectly.
I was here within 4 minutes of posting! This has been a great series. Good job!
But don't forget #11: Yoko ate George's cookies.
Hey Doc! Make sure to put #11 on the survey!
Would be great an individual analysis of every member in their post-beatles life.
Agree
@@leeschnoor5560 I'd love to see that too..
Brain's death was the start of their downfall, which I believe John has said before. Klein's managing the 3 and Paul's hatred of Klien was a huge factor. Lastly, they were kids when they started the Beatles and grown men with families at the end..........they themselves outgrew the Beatles.
I'd love to see the quote of Lennon saying Epstein's death was the start of their downfall - but it doesn't exist. HA, HA.Lennon did NOT think very much of "prissy missy" Brian Epstein.
@@91dodgespiritrt “I knew that we were in trouble then. I didn’t really have any misconceptions about our ability to do anything other than play music, and I was scared. I thought, ‘We’ve f#$kin’ had it’.” - John Lennon
These 3 videos about the reasons why the Beatles broke up should be a "bonus feature" on the Anthology DVD.
Is that good and accurate.
Very very well done.
Thanks Winston! Much appreciated.
Great countdown. Paul was the only Beatle aware or cared about the “Beatles” brand and its importance.
Yoko and John were 50% of the problem and the other 50% was multifaceted. There is no one reason or one main reason. Great series!
I've read a LOT of Beatle books. Not all of them, but enough to offer an educated guess as to what led to their breakup most - Brian Epstein's death. He was the one who was able to keep the vultures away and their trust and respect of him was vital to their cohesiveness. Once he was gone the buzzards started circling and eventually they feasted on their weaknesses. Great series, Matt. Well done.
Yes, it seems to me that Brian's death was the start of it. Things snowballed from there. The wrong people were allowed in, and I bet there were people who could have helped them who couldn't get access to talk to them.
The band members lost their code - if one doesn't like it they won't do it. So they should have looked for that 3rd option.
Yes, losing Brian Epstein was probably the worst thing that could have happened to the Beatles at that time. It's hard to overstate the importance of Brian Epstein and George Martin in making the Beatles what they were.
Yeah, Brain was the Lynch pin and gate keeper that held the good ship together.
Agree agree !
@@lyndarosborough869 John was at a point where he found his "Julia" at last and wouldn't have listened to Brian telling him to keep her out of the studio, which he surely would have done. George walked around with a chip on his shoulder over his songs, and that was the brunt of it. It wasn't Yoko's fault (though she surely didn't help)...it was John's for ramming his personal life into his business life. Truthfully, it never seemed like John or George had the devotion to the group that Paul did, and does, to this day.
I’ve always felt the two big reasons they broke up was that John wanted to spend time with Yoko and do his own thing away from Paul. Also I felt like George wanted to leave because he was being stifled in the group and wanted more control over his music.
Funny, but as time goes by, I believe John was afraid to split with Paul and certainly afraid to admit how much he believed Paul meant to his success. I think his threats of breaking up the band were just talk. John was very insecure. Because of mostly the business reasons, Paul called his bluff. We'll never know.
As you can see in Get Back, at least George wanted to see if he could do Beatles AND his solo stuff, like how John & Yoko did their stuff and John & the Beatles did their stuff.
@@mikeymutual5489 John never announced the break up, that's one reason why I feel it was an idle threat. He was the most bitter about the break up. He was more involved finishing up the Let It Be album after Sept '69 than Paul.
@@joeshmoe7789 Sometimes I find myself thinking that too. Why was he so reluctant to sign the papers?
Thank you, great discussion. Lennon got a “mommy and daddy” in Klein and Yoko. Very interesting conclusion I hadn’t thought about. I think they all knew how bad Klein was but John didn’t care, and George and Ringo were following for royalties. Ringo said on Get Back, “A conman on our side for once.” They knew what he was and maybe thought they were too big to be swindled. Not long after, on April 13, 1969, the London Sunday Times published an article, “The Toughest Wheeler-Dealer in the Pop Jungle,” detailing the 40 lawsuits involving Klein and revealing that the SEC was investigating his affairs. I do think the group would have broken up at some point anyway, but it didn’t have to end the way it did. And I believe Klein and Yoko were the reasons, and not because “she sat on an amp.” Great series.
Yeah, you're right, Reina - they knew what Klein was about. It's hard to be in the business as long as the Beatles had and not pick up on people like Klein. Thank you for watching!
It was John's instability that eventually broke them up. The drugs. And his choice of Ono and Klein. But breaking up did help keep their great legacy which nobody knew would happen. And I think it did run its course. Yeah I agree they could've squeezed out another year.
Plus, the facts that they grew apart and that they were in constant fear of death threats dating back to Lennon's STUPID remark about the Beatles being bigger than Christianity.
Paul said something very revealing during his infamous Q Magazine interview in the '80s: He said that John had this strange philosophy that if everyone said someone had a bad reputation (Klein) that meant to him that they can't be all bad. Somehow he needed to go against the prevailing viewpoint despite the evidence. Later, when Paul was vindicated about Klein, John would say to Paul: "...but you're always right, aren't you?....Smarmy".
I'm glad you mentioned Yoko's impact on George. I think you're right that he saw her arrival as a threat to his position in the pecking order.
It is still generally accepted that George's resentment of Paul was the major driver of his dissatisfaction. Despite my really long post in Part 2 about their dynamic, I have never really bought into this.
When I watch Get Back, I see George constantly trying to engage with Paul. George Martin comments to MLH that John and Paul are a team and George is outside of that. As you pointed out, you can see John and Paul supporting each over George. For me, I was really struck by a scene where Paul and George are talking, but Paul is looking at/to John the whole time. Paul sees Yoko as a threat to his relationship with John and he is trying to hold on by placating John as best he can here.
George sees Yoko as a threat to The Beatles and his position in the group. George does not leave after his "fight" with Paul. He leaves after being ignored while John and Paul rehearse together. There are also reports that a fight between John and George had taken place earlier that day over Yoko. The other band members blame Yoko's presence at the weekend meeting for the failure of efforts to bring him back.
While George ultimately sides with John in the breakup, in that band dynamics are considered a factor, Yoko's presence seems to have had a bad effect on George.
I have never really blamed Yoko for the break up, but I might have to reevaluate her impact. It certainly wasn't negligible.
PS While Paul has never blamed Yoko for the break up, he keeps bringing up the bed in the studio incident (even in places where it has no reason to come up -- uhem Wingspan), so that obviously bugged him a lot.
Great series and great analyses. There were many reasons for the breakup but the biggest one IMHO is the fact they grew apart after being together almost 24/7 for 10+ years. Instead of being a close-nit group they gradually turned into 4 individual solo artists, with the possible exception of Ringo.
What George said about Yoko was spot on and I’ll bet Paul and Ringo felt the same way. Great series of videos!👍🏻
Very nice review, Matt.
Reason #10 seems to sum it up the best. They're all valid. It took a while for me to accept that they ended at just the right time, leaving on top.
I always think of the intro to the Anthology video, of this little, tiny group of 4 buddies in a band while above them is a 500 ft tall, 3000 pound carving of "THE BEATLES" hovering above, completely out of their control, ready to crush them all.
An additional reason for John turning so brutally against Paul at the end is the story of John learning (in their bid to buy their publishing) that Paul had been buying extra shares of their music behind John's back, without telling him. Never good to let Lennon see or feel that you may have betrayed him.
As a fan since Feb '64, your Beatle videos (and all the others) have been very enjoyable, very spot-on.
You need to get some framed albums on the wall behind you in your new place which you can swap LP's in and out of for each new presentation! I always enjoyed checking out the LP's displayed behind you at the old place.
Thanks again!
Hey Chris! Thank you for the comments. I must add that I feel Lennon was feigning anger at the purchase of NEMS shares and I will go into my reasons for stating that in an upcoming video that will be a review of Doggett's book You Never Give Me Your Money.
I am very behind in my studio and have been unable to do anything for a month. BUT you will slowly see the space get dolled up in the coming videos.
The big picture is that the band had ten years of creativity and innovation - and intuitively, they realized that it was all spent, and only downhill from there. They broke up at exactly the right time. Perfect instinct. All the other stuff is meaningless in view of the big picture.
Look at the most obvious clue of all. Their last album ended with the magnificent grand finale - "The End". It was a statement that they had done it all and said everything that the band had to say.
In a way I agree, It's a beautiful run. Then again 1970 brought a LOT of good material where at least some would have been even better if performed by the Beatles IMO. I think the saddest fact is that they had to break up on such nasty terms.
@@bjornerikroth Yes, obviously "All Things Must Pass" was the only former-Beatles solo album which was as good as an actual Beatles album. I even knew that as a small kid who listened to it when my dad bought it the day it came out. Because all the material was pre-1970 material. "Plastic Ono Band" was great - yet not as good as a Beatles album, this was clear to me as a small child and my opinion has not changed since. The other solo albums were all downhill from there, gradually.
thank-you for the series matt. the amount of time and investigation you put into your projects clearly shows. you put out a superior product.
That is very kind of you, Don. I spent about a year and a half on carefully putting this together and it took in quite a lot of territory! I learned so much and I'm still learning! Coming soon is a review of Peter Doggett's book _You Never Give Me Your Money_ , which will make some of my points even more clear, now that the dust has settled on my 3 part series.
Matt, just a fabulous set of videos and so pleased you organized the survey. One of my favorite RUclips channels. Thank you!
Thank you for the kind words and support!
Great edit between Let It Be and All Things Must Pass at the beginning!
Thank you! That did work well.
This might be a bit over-simplistic, but I feel that the majority of the *other* reasons you give for their breakup have their origin in the death of Brian Epstein. Brian was the "glue" that kept these guys, their egos, and whatever extracurriculars there were, in check while keeping all parties (or as many parties as necessary) happy. Once he was out of the picture, the whole Beatle thing fell apart like a house of cards. (Though it must be said that the fact they remained together as long as they did while making the great music they did is something of a miracle.)
I like Mick Jaggers answer at the end of The Rutles.
Women!
Great insight Matt. I’ve always wondered why it had to get so bitter between them. Other bands had members do solo projects, but got back together. I know John even said in an interview in I believe 75, that it could be possible for a reunion sometime, but I think egos stopped it from happening. Who was going to be the first to call up the others and say come lads it’s time.
I truly believe if John hadn’t been assassinated, they would have reunited even earlier for their Anthology project and possibly would have created more music together. Just my opinion.
You could argue that it was a miracle they lasted until the Abbey Road album. With all these good points in the 3 videos and not even mention George being very unhapppy. They went from making band records to band solo albums. No tours. Manager change.Other bands came along. So I say last until 1970 offical was quite a very strong effort.
The more I read about how Abbey Road was made, makes it all the more amazing, because it was created at the end of their time as a band, and it certainly feels like it was a miracle that it happened at all, given the group dynamic. One last big ‘hurrah’, I suppose. Thankful we have it nonetheless, great album, one of their finest.
I think George was as much of a factor in the breakup as John & Paul.
In the beginning, George’s role in the band was ostensibly lead guitarist and occasional lead singer. Yet, starting with “Drive My Car,” Paul started overdubbing some solos. This included “Taxman,” one of George’s songs.
Following thar, as Matt talked about in one video, George’s guitar playing took a backseat in the Sgt. Pepper/Magical Mystery Tour era even on his own songs. On those two albums, the guitar was much less of a focal point than it had been previously. Even when there was a solo, it wasn’t necessarily his, like “Good Morning” which was Paul.
This is ironic since, as Matt also mentioned, it was sort-of the birth of the guitar hero. Clapton, Hendrix, Trower, Jeff Beck… the list goes on. Whether or not George cared, there were people in other bands with a similar role to his outshining him.
Then there’s the fact that he did release solo albums in the form of “Wonderwall Music,” and “Electronic Sound.” When he put out “All Things Must Pass,” I think it cemented the idea that he was capable of more than being a sideman.
And that brings us to another aspect of this: how come they never got back together? I think that of all of them, he benefited the most from the breakup. He clearly didn’t like Yoko. He got some songs on there-including great classics-but “All Things Must Pass,” showed us what happened when he wasn’t limited as he was with the Beatles. His first tour was a disaster by many accounts, but it allowed him to do his own thing which wasn’t John & Paul’s and besides, he organized the Concert From Bangladesh.
All of this is to say that George was a factor in the breakup because his unhappiness was palpable.
Another great video analysis of the Beatles. I'm glad you mentioned the 3rd option for securing new management that they unfortunately didn't pursue. I always thought how easy it would have been for them to pursue and hire someone they ALL agreed with. McCartney was never going to be good with Klein nor should he have been. The other three had valid concerns that Eastman would have been representing McCartney's interests more than theirs. If Eastman was truly going to be a good father-in-law to McCartney he should have been willing to assist McCartney pro bono in finding someone that could fairly represent the entire band and be agreeable to all four bandmates. Would the Beatles still have stayed together for the next decade perhaps even doing solo side projects? We will never know!
They gave Stigwood a big heave ho. He had a bunch of success soon after. Might have done ok except that they didn't apparently respect him.
Thanks for giving this subject - still a hot topic 50 years later - the complex multi-chapter treatment it deserves. They did happen at a remarkable moment in pop music and culture and were able to help create it. It was a remarkable thing to live through, an amazing flowering of music completely unexpected and wonderful. I waited until all 3 episodes could be seen at once. Now on to the survey.
Thanks for filling out the survey, John!
Another factor in my opinion was that Paul was going behind Johns back and buying shares of Northern Songs Ltd. When John found out he was furious. There's a scene in Get Back where Dick James is showing Paul a catalog of songs he was buying and he told Paul he would show the others and Paul said don't. Correct me if I am wrong, Great series!!!
This fact of purchasing shares needs context and I will be giving it in a recap video that will dually review Peter Doggett's book You Never Give Me Your Money. Basically, all 4 Beatles should have been purchasing as many NEMS shares as possibly to save their publishing! That was the biggest priority - not one member having more shares (an amount so small as to be laughable) than another. More to come!
They probably would have made it through most anything but they were no match for the two greatest master manipulators of all time. Klein and Ono. Cheers Matt ! Another great series.
I think Klein and Ono were both psychological predators. They found a deep wound in John that they could attach to and use to syphon off his creative energy while striking a death blow to a force that the world loved but that they both hated because it was light vs their darkness- the Beatles.
I think the Beatles not appearing at Woodstock said something about them no longer being on the cutting edge and I think all parts felt it. Lennon appearing at Toronto in September of '69 (likely because it was the next big rock festival Lennon had heard of after Woodstock... also, they allowed Yoko to have a set, which Woodstock did not, prompting Lennon to reject the invitation) and George having his own concert two years later and for a cause and otherwise very cautiously. The Stones, of course, didn't appear either and tried to "fix" their mistake by having their own "Woodstock..." which was a disaster.
If The Beatles kept going into the 70s, they would've stopped being leaders, as you say, within a few years. On the other hand, I think their songwriting wouldn't flag quite as much as it did in their solo material... especially Harrison's stuff. Don't get me wrong, I love Harrisongs more than most people do, but if I were to peg a criticism on "All Things Must Pass" (which is literally one of my favourite albums), it'd be a lack of diverse arrangements (compared to what Paul and John and George Martin might suggest to sweeten the deal) and it only got worse from there. George really loved his Big Beatle Band (bass-guitar-drums+a bunch of horns) and he ran that sound into the ground multiple times. Paul and John both took their best suits from the Beatles, which meant Paul had a wide variety of arrangements (to this day) but lacked focus and while John's stuff can resonate like no one else's... there's not a tremendous diversity of sounds there. Were they together, they'd still bounce off each other a ton.
But I don't think that alone would've kept 'em relevant. Did we really need to see The Beatles degrade into jokes of their former selves trying to cash in on every trend? The Beatles Do Disco, The Beatles Rock Synthpop, The Beatles Go Grunge, BeatleRaps. Much as I'd think that'd be neat to see (really, a new wave album from 1980 would be nice), they would just be another band tarnished by a lengthy career like too many others. They really did know precisely when to quit (with sheer luck).
Another great series of videos. However, I think you've left out George as a motivator for the break-up. I would say his influence was as big as those of John and Paul - and of course it's all under the umbrella of 'band dynamics'. As you noted, George was truly the first to say "I'm not a Beatle anymore", after that last concert in 1966. George, seemingly even far more than John, seems to have had his life utterly transformed by LSD, which led him to Indian religion. Already in 1966, while Paul was on safari with Mal in Africa and John was filming in Spain, George was spending his free time in India. He notes in 'Get Back' that he'd love to spend one month of every two (I think he says) in a place like Maharishi's ashram. George was the most disillusioned with fame, felt it was the biggest imposition, loved his privacy most (much of which seems to be about avoiding "bad press": people leering into his life) and finally just wanted to be done with all that and just pursue enlightenment. This might have been fine, so far as it went, IF he didn't become bitter that the rest of the Beatles did NOT want to stop being themselves and pursue union with God. We see this in 'Get Back' when they are discussing the India trip and George has made it clear in endless other interviews, even though he was never right up front about the offense he clearly took at this. (The Beatles had a communication problem.) In particular, this drove a wedge between he and Paul, it seems, who George seemed to feel was the most worldly, least spiritual of the Beatles (even though Ringo says he "doesn't really like" the Hare Krishnas in 'Get Back' - when George isn't there, of course). George blamed the riff on Paul's bossiness, but I think this is what lay at the foundation of his changing attitude towards Paul, starting with Paul's reluctance to take LSD in 1965-66. In short, each of the Beatles is developing into their own self and each is increasingly unwilling/unable to make concessions to the band and tuck their egos in a bit. John with Yoko (their art, their music, etc.), George with his Indian religion, and Paul with keeping on being The Beatles (which John, as you noted, looked down on artistically compared to working with Yoko and which George quietly condemned as being too worldly/material, even as he bemoaned making less money than Lennon and McCartney). I'd have to say the #1 reason, as with most relationships that go bust, was poor communication. Cheers.
Good insights. I have always been bemused by George's proclaimed focus on spirituality and pursuit of enlightenment while at the same time being so bitter - and jealous- toward Paul and (to a lesser extent) John.
The key work is "motivator." George wasn't a very motivated person and did almost nothing that I can find that 'upset the apple cart' with regard to the break up. In fact, he was the last one to record his solo album AFTER the break up, so he certainly wasn't in the hurry many fans suggest.
Perhaps it was more disappointment in Paul. Perhaps he expected more from him spiritually rather than seeing Paul as too worldly. When George first got interested in Indian music Paul was along for the ride. Paul privately kept up TM and supported the Krisna Temple. Paul was even supportive of George's production of the Hare Krisna Mantra. Perhaps George was frustrated by Paul's unwillingness to embrace them publicly. Maybe he was disappointed that Paul would never fully commit to the reIigion behind the practice. I think you might be right about LSD driving a wedge between them.
🙏🏻 great videos on this subject, thanks.. Lennon wanted out, Yoko was cause and large influencer of this.. Paul leading with a bit too much focus on doing it his way, partly due to others lethargy, and George's emergence as writing the best 2 songs on Abbey Road.. add in drugs, egos and paranoia, it all imploded 😕
Great discussion. They were together for 7 years before they got famous, I think it ran its course. Maybe if they kept doing live shows…or, did what the stones did, hate / love each other & get back together to make a record every few years 🎉
If only George had written the best 2 songs on Abbey Road, it would have taken the load off John & Paul! Please remind everyone where 'Something' reached in the UK charts.
I think you touched on another reason when you mentioned that they thought that anything they touched would turn to gold, and that they were branching outside of their core competency as it were. I think that having achieved so much so quickly, they'd let success go to their heads and their hubris led to a string of gaffes and failures that started shaking their self-confidence. Post-Pepper saw The Beatles starting to flail about, trying anything they could think of to top themselves. They did the Mystery Tour film, they went to India, they started Apple Corps, they threw everything including the kitchen sink into The White Album (but not as a cohesive band), they conceived Get Back as a TV special/documentary film instead of a simple stripped-down back to basics album. While these projects did result in a lot of great music, none of it really helped the band itself. I think they realized that the magic had dissipated, something had gotten lost along the way and they couldn't figure out how to, shall we say, get it back. I think that same hubris led each of them to think they were bigger than The Beatles, that they didn't need the band and that the band was in fact holding them back. How correct they were is debatable but you never know how you'll do on your own unless you try, so kudos for each Beatle for trying. I just think that the band got too big for their britches, ran up against the limits of what they could do together and and it sent them into a tailspin from which they never recovered. Add all the other reasons on your list and you have a perfect storm brewing, every possible thing started to go wrong for The Beatles around mid-1967.
John, despite his acknowledged talent as an excellent songwriter and singer, was always a troubled and angry young man. People who overindulge in drugs and/or liquor usually have dirty demons dancing inside. Years after seeing the damage Klein caused, John admitted Paul had been right about him. Klein seemed like a guy who would slip a snake in your pocket and then ask you for a match. I agree with your # 10 choice. It was a blessing that the foursome left on a high note with Abbey Road. The bottom line was succinctly stated by George Harrison: " The Beatles will exist without us. " A hearty hallelujah and amen to that, George!
Yoko seems like the kind of woman who needed John's total attention. John could have gone on with the Beatles, and as you say, why not? She had to have John all to herself: no one else allowed. This intense obsession does not last, and once John was totally dependent on her-she got bored. In a few years, after the Beatles had been trashed, she kicked him out and told him to go with May Pang. If things don't add up, look for someone interfering for their own twisted, exaggerated, and disturbed emotional needs: not just Yoko's dominating obsession, but John's deeply disturbed emotional need to be loved by "Mother."
Great series Matt, I think the Break Up was due to a combination of attitudes not just one reason . Possibly Brian’s Death triggered things , such a shame Clive didn’t want to step in to manage them.
I really do believe Allen K thought John was the only person he needed to win over. He thought the golden goose was John and The Beatles were just his band. He probably did surface level research and any newspaper would probably say it's John's band. He probably didn't realize McCartney was as much of a band leader as he was. He thought if he won John the rest would follow. He also thought that even if the Beatles split John was still the golden goose and would be prolific. But he wasn't. McCartney was the one with the lots of hits in the 70s and touring the world. John was in bed. Or protesting or being domestic. He should've been doing everything he could to make Paul happy. Paul was the workaholic and money making machine post beatles. No one worked like Paul did post split. Klein was a fool.
I see the divide, as regards to the John and Yoko element, to be more a result of John wanting Yoko to be constantly by his side, like she was one of his addictions. People fault Yoko for being so intrusive and ever present, but that was at John's request. Maybe she didn't cure him of his obsessive nature but, entering into a new relationship, who knows that they have to fix a person?
I have to 100% agree with you about Allen Klein, he single handedly ended The Beatles.
I think it is important to recognize that this is not what Matt is saying. Instead, he is laying out ten possible reasons for the Beatles' demise, Klein being only one of them. I appreciate how Matt (as usual) is recognizing that reality is complicated and often not completely knowable; he is proposing multiple possible reasons for the band's end and recognizing that there are various ways of conceiving of how some--or all--of them might have contributed.
Thank you. Matt, for your most thought-provoking presentation yet. To my mind, there are five pillars to the Beatles breakup:
1.Brian - Although he was a novice, and made more than one glaring mistake as a manager, he truly loved and protected the boys. If they would have gotten involved with a Matthew Katz or Stan Polley type, we might not be having this discussion. Had he lived, I think he could have kept the animosity to a minimum, and Apple would have been a more focused and successful venture. It's difficult to imagine the Fabs making a successful Bee Gees-like transition into the disco era. I don't think they would have broken up, per se. It's likely that they would have just dissolved into solo projects unless and until some catalytic event, such as the Anthology project, brought them together.
2.John - Lennon's initials weren't J.O.L., they were ADHD, which was likely exacerbated by increasing drug use. The partnership worked so well because McCartney kept Lennon grounded and focused, while John allowed Paul to see things though a different lens. John's mercurial temperament meant that he was always looking for an answer he never quite found, and he always seemed to want to be doing something other than what he was doing. Part of him had wanted out of the Beatles since “Help!” and maybe even before. Given that the similarly mercurial Neil Young almost single-handedly kept Buffalo Springfield from being the premier band of the '70's, in a sense it's amazing that the Beatles lasted as long as they did.
3.Paul - It makes sense that Paul tried to assume much of Epstein's role after his death. McCartney was the most Epstein-like of the four, possessing more PR savvy than the other Fabs. It was Paul who was most invested in being a Beatle, and he pushed the others to keep going. From 1967 to 1970, the Beatles weren't John's band, they were Paul's. Quitting the Beatles was a common occurrence, but Paul was the last to do so. The problem was that, once he finally got frustrated enough to do it, he shouted it to the world, costing tons of good will. Ironically, had the“Band on the Run” LP been received by critics as coldly as his previous solo sets had been, I think a Beatles reunion would have been much more likely.
4.George - Harrison had been “the kid” since the age of fourteen,and was treated as such long after he became an adult. For him, being a Beatle was work. It was a job that he became more and more disillusioned with. For him, the breakup was liberating. The problem was, whereas I think Paul likes fame, and John vacillated about it (as he did with most everything), George detested it! He never made another ATMP not because he wasn't capable, but because he didn't want the attention. Better to craft a brace of albums for dedicated fans, and concentrate on other pursuits.
5.Klein - I remember hearing that in one of their first meetings. Lennon asked Klein what the initials on his hat, “FYM”, stood for. Klein replied, “F--- you! Money!”. Lennon bought into that aggressiveness. Once Klein started talking about all he would do for Yoko (which he did, at the expense of Badfinger), John was trapped between two narcissistic opportunists. Once Klein knew Paul wouldn't buy in, it was easy for both he and Ono to tell John, “The Beatles were nothing, you're the star!” Part of John wanted-perhaps needed-to hear that to feel validated. I think Yoko screaming at audiences was Lennon's revenge on audiences who screamed at him, a reaction to all the aspects of Beatlemania that John hated.
Okay, I finally voted in the poll. I can't wait to see the results! I'm loving reading everyone's posts although it's going to take quite awhile to get through them all. I just love hearing the thoughts of people who have lived with and loved The Beatles, many of us since their early days, and other of us in subsequent 'generations' of Beatle fans yet equally fascinated by this question! Thanks so much for bringing us all together, Matt.
You are welcome, Buddy!
Thank you so much for such a thoughtful and well put together 3 part series
Thank you, Shawn!
Hey Matt, have really enjoyed this series. For my money it was the business troubles, specifically with Klein, that were the ultimate reason for the break-up. Everything else - drugs, musical differences, personality clashes, girlfriends etc are (or were destined to be) common issues for many bands, yet I think all of them would have been navigable potentially for the Beatles had the Klein/Eastman wedge and the arguments over money and tax not poisoned the well once and for all. Thanks for putting this one together, Cheers, James
Hey James, thanks for stopping by!
This has been a great series! Thank you. Your last point about timing was especially thought provoking for me. I fell in love with the Beatles in 1964 as a fifth grader when I heard “I Want to Hold Your Hand” for the first time. Sargent Pepper was released the summer before I started high school, and Paul announced the breakup the spring of my junior year while we were all singing “Let it Be.” I grew up with their music in real time. Yet I didn’t grieve when they broke up. Why? Because I sensed exactly as you said - that the band had run its course. I never wanted them NOT to be number one. Abbey Road - what a triumphant swan song ! PLUS with all of their solo albums in 1970 especially, we got 4x the music. It was always about the music. And here we are 60 years after the Beatles’ first single was released, still loving the music - and with most, if not all, of the records they set in just a few incredible years intact. Timing was so critical in the Beatles’ story, and time has proven that they’re still number one on so many levels.
Well said, Cynthia. I, too, experienced the Beatles in real time and you're right- I didn't grieve when they broke up. I accepted that they had "moved on" and bought their solo records.
Yes, Cynthia - they are somewhat preserved like Marilyn Monroe - never to be seen aged and past her prime!
This was an excellent series. I think you saved the most crucial reasons for this last segment.
Well done. It all comes down to John. As early as 1965, he was starting to hate all the hassles of being a Beatle. His interest and productivity dropped as his drug use greatly increased. Paul took over the leadership role Lennon vacated. John simply stayed mostly out habit and nothing better to do. When something found him, he was ready to move on. Although less productive than in the early years, John Lennon was still creating amazing songs during this turbulent time.
Thank you, Tom!
To throw in my two cents, it seems like many of these reasons are like dominoes for the others. If they hadn’t stopped touring, Brian might not have overdosed and died, meaning that business dealings and band dynamics would have been different, and Klein could not have entered the picture, and Ono could not have wielded as much influence. These events are inextricably linked. Beautiful series Matt! BTW, if you would like, I have created a pretty fabulous poster of Beatles iconic moments and would be happy to send it to you if you like. We could connect for me to have a mailing address. If not, no worries. Again, beautiful work! Unparalleled. 👏🏼
Thank you for the comments. I appreciate the offer of the poster but I have way more things to put up than I have room for. You could send me a small file through the Pop Goes the 60s FB page, if that works. Thanks again.
@@popgoesthe60s52 fully understand. Will do. ✅
Very well done, I really enjoyed this series, thanks for doing it. I either read or watched a video (can’t remember) which listed Yoko, Linda, and Klein as the reasons for the end, and I recently watched a video by Michael Noland in which he listed Klein, Spector, and Jann Wenner as reasons. All in all, a fascinating story.
“Crushed under the weight of itself” - brilliant prose!
For me as a BEATLES fan
I really saw the opportunity
for 4 ALBUMS per cycle
as a huge PLUS.
As a Musical Rock Band
they can only make 1 album
per the Group Status.
As solo artists there was
the opportunity per cycle
to receive / create
4 separate albums at a time.
This opportunity
was at its apex 1971 - 75.
John Lennon went on a
familial hiatus until 1980.
George Harrison and
Paul McCartney continued
to publish Album after album.
Ringo Starr also had a
successful solo career.
Yes, there was a plus to
these artists being Solo.
There was a sanguine
quote by John Lennon,
"All Paul McCartney did
was Yesterday".
It took awhile for the wounds
to heal between John & Paul.
I appreciate their
body of work separately
and as a Rock Band.
Thank you for the stroll
down memory lane
and realizing the myriad
of reasons for
The BEATLES
demise.
They will live on forever
as an amazing amalgam
of creative energies and talent.
+ Durasaxon +✝️
Matthew , your 3 part series on this subject has done a great job of breaking down the break-up. I think the main reasons are the lack of disrespect John and Yoko showed the other three Beatles, Allen Klein winning over John, and Brian’s death all played a role. And to a lesser extent, George’s lack of interest in touring………
The perfect storm had to last a long time to final blow things up! Thank you, David!
The Beatles (sort of) started was really was the 1960's and ended the 60's too (in a way) so it's sort of fitting it ended in 1969. End of an era. Perfect timing.
Great analysis - always learn a great deal on your videos. I think reasons #1-9 add up to my vote being for #10 - It Was Time. Klaus Voormann (who had known them since Hamburg and had played with John, Ringo and George) said it best in the one of the "Composing The Beatles Songbook" videos - (paraphrasing) "I'm surprised they stayed together as long as they did - from the very beginning John and Paul were SO different from each other."
I am glad you did not go down the Linda route. For much of the 1970's I recall the breakup being blamed on Yoko and Linda.
Thank you, Scott. I appreciate the feedback!
Before I take the survey I'm going to do some TLDR reasons for some of questions/issues around The Beatles' breakup.
The big thing Yoko did for John is restore his confidence as an artist. John pretty much stopped working with George because he'd told John that he'd heard unflattering things about Yoko from people in the States. This was a sort of pseudo-breakup of the band that happened two years before the actual breakup. It likely can be counted on one hand the number of times John worked on a George song after May of '68.
Allen Klein had a methodology: get the artist some "fast money" they could immediate see, but rob them for the gift-that-keeps-giving publishing, something which a lot of artists still didn't pay much attention to. One of the few who did: Paul McCartney, who quickly learned songs made sense as a long-term investment. This also led him to do something that hurt him when he would suggest the very competent Eastmans to represent The Beatles. Paul had surreptitiously bought more of The Beatles' publicly offered stock of their publishing than John owned. When the other Beatles found this out, it caused the rift that made the Eastmans unpalatable to John, George and Ringo.
The problem with John doing John and Yoko and John and The Beatles as separate concerns is the other Beatles would get frustrated about having to answer for whatever antics of John and Yoko that made headlines. Whether it was being naked on an album cover, or writhing around in canvas bags, or whatever was to come next, the other Beatles would be as stunned and unable to explain those actions as a member of the public would. It's like being asked about Kanye West on a regular basis, and getting the fallout of not being able to talk sense to an adult, and a residue of guilt through association.
All good points, TR!
Good perspectives, thanks for "voicing" them.
Awesome job Matt!
That's a great presentation. All of the reasons you cite are true, and the depth of knowledge and your insight from it is fascinating. How you prioritise these reasons, or whether one or two or three were 'the' reason or reasons..... Well I don't think I really know even after your insights. There is a lot of information and so on, but without being 'in the room', how can you 'really' tell? Overall, if I did have to prioritise, I think what you called.... 'Group dynamic' would be top. Four big ego's, 4 big talents, (some bigger than others) hardly surprising they found it more difficult as time went on. I had forgiven Yoko, but what you say is true. She and John were disrespectful of the group. How much longer could they have gone at the top, as new talents were emerging... Led Zep, Pink Floyd etc... I agree, maybe another year. The band was running its time. I also agree...neither Yoko nor Alan Klein were showing much concern. They are still the best...., it is just about why they broke up.... but it was inevitable. Many thanks for that! Great channel! 👍
You are correct, Zeppelin, Floyd, Steely Dan, Eagles, Bowie, CSNY, etc were all there to displace the Beatles, which is how I believe it would have played out had they been able to keep it together.
Great analysis as always. My one comment I’ll make is that I don’t think they could’ve taken a simple hiatus and then just reconvene to do more Beatles music. I think once they get the taste of solo freedom, meaning full control of their music as artists, they would’ve hesitated to get back to the group format. Certainly once they broke up they didn’t ever agree on when to reform, so I don’t see how that would’ve been any different in a hiatus scenario. If they DID reconvene at least one person would’ve been dragging their feet and the results would’ve been lacking to say the least. It was time to move on
I think at some point, they may have done it for financial reasons, like what happened with the Anthology. Never underestimate the mighty dollar! Thanks, spaghetti!
This was great! Thank you Matt!
Brilliant analysis. Thanks for the great video.
Very interesting stuff Matt, Cheers Tim
Great job, Matt, excellent series, loved every one of them 👍👏
Loved the series...but Allen Klein and his toxicity was the major reason in my opinion. Klein wanted them together (for monetary reasons) but his way of of doing business was crude and nasty. That made Paul so mad he even went after RINGO saying he would finish him for daring to be a mediator in the Apple controversy.
Great work, as always. I've been studying the Beatles for 25 years, sometimes with periods of great intensity, and I appreciate how you break a lot of what I know down and contextualize it.
For me, the big factor is John Lennon's lack of interest in the Beatles at the end. If he remained interested in continuing the Beatles as an artistic force, then that would have been enough. The band would have continued with all four other members for at least a few more years. I know there's that audio of him pitching the "everyone gets 4 songs" scheme to an uninterested Paul, but I'm unconvinced John's heart was in that. When I look at everything he did in 1969-70, the Beatles are clearly not as important to him as those other things.
There are multiple root causes of that lack of interest. Yoko. Klein. Heroin. But one that doesn't get discussed enough is how the Beatles were a bunch of raging 60s hipsters who must have known that the era of the "heavy" riff-rock band was upon them and they were never going to keep bands like Led Zeppelin or Cream subjugated in 2nd or 3rd place for long. I think John, in particular, saw those other bands over his shoulder and felt like the Beatles would never really be "cool" in that way (which is why he says things like "let's get Eric" or tries to get Billy Preston or Yoko in the band. That's him trying to find some new formulation or approach that would add a heavier/cooler edge to The Beatles.) I think it's also why he attacked Sgt Pepper or Paul's Granny Music so vehemently later, as he felt those colorful songs made the band look corny and uncool. On his own, he's writing "She's So Heavy", "Come Together" and "Cold Turkey" trying to find some way to break into that heavy space. And he must have known, as good as those songs were, they weren't "Whole Lotta Love".
It's interesting to me that The Rolling Stones and The Who were able to transition into 70s classic rock bands pretty easily but the Beatles really struggled with it on Get Back and then individually. Only Abbey Road (and All Things Must Pass) really seem to give a picture of what the Beatles might have done successfully as a more conventional 70s rock band. But I just don't think John could really envision it, so that drove a lack of interest in even trying.
Of course, on his own he doesn't go in that direction, either. I've never been able to figure out if that disproves my theory altogether or if it supports it. That is, maybe John never felt he had to compete with bands like Zep with his solo work, so that took that pressure off of him, which he would have felt had he tried to pitch Imagine to the Beatles.
Hi Kristopher. I never felt john was paying much attention to the music scene in 1969-71. Sure he'd go see Dylan or namecheck Zeppelin but he seemed focused on the art world Yoko came from more than the music industry he came from. Thanks for watching and for the support!
Interesting theory.🧐
Great series Matt ! Enjoyed it alot..
Thank you-that was outstanding and super enjoyable!
This was a GREAT, very thoughtful and well thought out series, Matt. Thank you!
Fab finale Matt! I truly enjoyed this series. I'm going with the "Klein, John, Yoko" trilogy as being the final nail in The Beatles coffin. Although all of your 10 reasons had merit. I think the way you described the relationship between those 3 parties was spot on! Cheers Matt
Great series, well done! Thanks!
This has been a great series Matt. Thanks for digging into this topic.
Very interesting perspective. Thanks for doing all the work to produce it.
Really enjoyed this series (and the Pop Goes The '60s channel as well). While I thought I knew a lot about The Beatles' Breakup, I learned some new things from watching the Top Ten Reasons leading to John Lennon "wanting a divorce" from the band.
I learned quite a few new things about this topic as well. As I outlined the reasons and thought hem through, certain things became a bit clearer. Thanks for watching, Edward!
Good perspective, well researched, well done.
Thank Matt for a fine series. Thanks Yoko. Survey done.
Very well done, Matt.
once again, your analysis is right on. In tune with what we noticed back then. Very good work, Matt.
Great mini-series Matt.
Here's a thought. You mentioned that they were always evolving and I agree. Each album was different from the previous album and they evolved right up to the end. What if they had actually added Billy Preston as a 5th member. I know it was "pitched" during the Get Back/Let It Be sessions and discarded, mostly by McCartney. But imagine that they all say yes to that idea. Preston would have added not only fantastic keyboard talent but also a black R&B element and even vocals. Might have been very interesting had it happened.
Very well rounded analysis, Matt. Off to fill out your survey now! Great series 👍
Great series Matt!! Masterful and of the highest quality! Thanks for all your work!!
My pleasure! Thank you.
Great job, can't wait to see the survey results
Thank you Matt for sharing that with us. 👍
Thanks Matt for your efforts on this series (I've already completed the survey) and will look forward to how all the other viewers respond in your later video breakdown of results. Like many, always look forward to a new "Pop Goes the 60s" instalment popping up, so thanks again Matt, take care!
Thank you, Borella309!
Nice work Matt!. Personally I think John's insecurity and him turning to hard drugs to cope was the biggest factor. But you have to remember, I don't think any of them had reached 30 years old by the time of the breakup, so they didn't have the perspective that more life experiences would have given them. I remember a quote from Mick Jagger, saying "I can't imagine me singing Satisfaction when I'm 40 years old" Yet the Stones went on to produce some great music into the 70's and 80's, while still performing Satisfaction in concert. (I've seen them 3 times, and I think they always played the early big hits) Good business men.
Manager: Imagine if Peter Grant took over as the Beatles' new manager! Say what you will about Grant's legendary heavy-handedness, but NO manager looked-out for his client's best interests better than him. Just ask the members of his most famous client - Led Zeppelin, who absolutely loved him.
I really appreciate this series.
Great series of videos. They were very engaging and I can't say you're wrong about any of your points! At the end of the day I believe you're right about them ending at the right time. To go out on Abbey Road, their swan song, is a heck of a way to go.
Thanks for watching, Nolan!
Great series Matt. Super information, and well researched. I have learned a lot from you! Keep it coming dude.
Thank you, Dave - plenty more to come!