My guess is the reason Paul was turning down all of John’s suggestions at this point is that he thought they were really Allen Klein’s ideas. He may have been right
@@arnesaknussemm2427 possibly! What I'd love to know is how exactly John 'presented' the tune to them. Did he just pick up an acoustic guitar and run through it?
george evolved into a great lyricist but there wasn't room in the band for a third nor did the other two embrace "all" his contributions even by this point. He outgrew the groups need for him as a "session man". He could never be equal with the others unless they changed but other changes took a precedence, Lennon leaving.
George really could be contrary, I think time proves that he really did not have enough to put on the Beatles albums even after he released all things must Pass which I’m sorry did not impress me as having a whole Lotta material that was Beatle worthy.
@@fourthtunz All Things Must Pass constantly gets lauded as this "masterpiece triple album" and yet 99.9% of the public and even Beatles fans only praise about four songs from it.
In one of John’s final interviews, he actually referenced “Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da” in a positive way. He cited it as an example of their diversity (ska). As Sean pointed out in his recent interviews John was constantly evolving.
@@terrythekittieful so many superior songs on the WHITE ALBUM? Obla di oblada is a great song. Its a matter of taste, John had a nerve saying Paul’s songs weren’t worthy, the only John song (and I love him really) I liked on the White Album is glass onion and revolution (like the single better its the faster one). Warm Gun is good too but didn’t care for anything else of his on that album. Don’t get me wrong, huge John fan, a musical genius.
Hi Matt really interesting video thanks for making it. I was an assistant engineer at air studios which is where we currently recorded many of his solo albums. The studio chairman was George Martin and he was always there. I did several sessions with him which were mainly just listening (although he was almost entirely deaf) to material and playback, but occasionally there was orchestra work like Jose Carreras. More interestingly was his son Giles who was everybody’s buddy and a bit of a terraway. . All the engineers and assistants and runners would hang out with giles and go to George’s house after pubs had shut to continue drinking... because George travelled so much it was usually allowed. I have many stories I could never tell you.
Thanks so much for that great account! Giles always presented himself so prim and proper - great to hear there are "stories that cannot be told." Those are always the best. Thanks again for the comment.
These are the stories I have been waiting for after all these years about the Beatles, with accompanying video and audio. The layout with the members images on the left with the text of the audio is magnificently done, I can tell who said what, and when, instead of guessing who is speaking. Your honest layout and description of the events without the bookselling, movie hoopla is refreshing, looking at it all in a human, logical way. Yep, it was tumultuous, but in the end they made music to last a millennium. We used to say they were the "Eye of the Storm", looking back, they "were" the Storm. The human condition. You have a new subscriber.
Here again, Ringo is not given credit where credit is due. If Ringo had not been on vacation, this recorded conversation would have never been made in the first place. I think John's finger should be credited with an assist for pushing down the record button.
@@juanfelipemv ATMP is as good as any solo LPs. If it wasn't so overly produced by Phil, it had the potential to rival being the best of them all. But really most of the LP was not from a stockpile. Most of it was fresh material. It's too bad he couldn't sustain that level of production.
That would have been wild, with that chorus being sung with her super-high vibrato. the rock band wouldn't have backed her up, it probably would have been a banjo, a ukelele and a trombone.🤣 - like Thingymybub
i appreciate john being diplomatic about paul's attempts to make "maxwell's silver hammer" a hit since all 3 beatles not named paul hated it but i can certainly understand paul, the guy most interested in keeping the band going and writing more than his share of hits saying "i expect you to try harder!" john should have let paul and george be the stars of the next record and stayed. the next record would have been fascinating. i try to envision a way that "sometime in new york city" doesn't get made...for the love of matt!
I've just come across your channel and I'm so glad I did! This video was well thought out and presented as were the ones on The Beatles rehearsing 'All Things Must Pass'. It certainly told me things I was unaware of!
George was always the youngest brother. He had to act out to get recognition. Even at the end when he was writing arguably their best songs! They all grew up together in a pressure cooker like no other-
That's a great point, Larry. The more I delve into George, he is just a negative guy with regard to the band and I don't know if anything would have satisfied him at this point. Thanks, for the comment!
@@popgoesthe60s52 that's something I've discovered too. Always had this impression of him being this enlightened, reflective, ego-less, rational guy. But learning he was actually more of a petulant, self absorbed, 'woe is me' types. Love him and what he created, don't get me wrong. But like you say, they're giving him what he wanted and he couldn't help play the victim still.
I think it's appalling that Apple gets in the way. Mark Lewiaohn Ably House and this channel are important in history as they chronicle a cultural renaisance ~ did I spell that one right
John speaks as a Beatle during the meeting which leads me to believe he didn’t have you-know-who with him. As a result, John wouldn’t be able to deliver on anything he agreed or committed to during this meeting without the approval of Mother. She would have continued to stroke his considerable ego, telling him he don’t need the other three, that he was the genius artist, etc. She wanted him out.
To be honest, I'm glad that 'mother' did help him leave, I can't think of anything more dreadful than picturing The Beatles staying together, which would have inevitably lead to an eventual 'burning out' and deterioration in quality of music. The Beatles ended at their absolute best, thank god for that.
I believe her entire goal was to break up The Beatles. She wasn't the only reason they folded, but looking back its obvious from her actions that that was her intention. I wonder who she really WAS and IS working for...
@@JohnJohn-hr5qf Lennon mentions a story about a Japanese monk who lived in a golden temple that he adored so much that he couldn't bear to see it deteriorate, so he burnt it to the ground. Lennon: "That's what I did to the Beatles."
thanks so much for this because it is important to beatle fans. i still am of the opinion that a beatle album would still not make up for the fact that 71 was a year of ex-beatle masterpieces which we otherwise would not have. ram, all things and plastic ono are treasures and the beatles would or even could not have done it. why? because obviously, they had to be diplomatic with one another, something they shucked off going single. it all pivots around paul. john and george used to need him. by 71, that was no longer the case. the great harmony singing is gone. klaus is playing killer bass. we don't miss paul's song writing because he is putting his own albums out. no, it happened the way it needed to. there's was just too much talent in that band for them to keep going. great vid and thanks again.
I guess that throughout the seventies Paul could have said, "Why did you make us record all those songs of yours, John, that you've now dismissed as 'garbage'?" Paul apparently _did_ see Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da as a potential Beatles single, which is he why he spent so much time trying to get it right. The others weren't having it so it didn't happen. It's worth noting that the Marmalade version of the song was number one in the UK for much of January 1969, while Let It Be was being filmed. Indeed, it's worth considering the run of number one singles leading up to that: Hey Jude (2 wks); Those Were The Days (6 wks, Mary Hopkin, produced by Paul); With A Little Help From My Friends (1 wk, Joe Cocker); The Good, The Bad And The Ugly (4 wks, no McCartney connection that I'm aware of); Lily The Pink (3 wks, The Scaffold, including Mike McGear); Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da (1 wk, Marmalade); Lily The Pink (again, 1 wk); Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da (again, 2 wks). My reading of this meeting goes roughly as follows. (1) John wanted to leave The Beatles. (2) Klein had just got them a better deal with EMI that meant they _had_ to keep delivering new albums in order to qualify for improved royalties on all of their back catalogue. (3) John wasn't going to be contributing any more than four songs to those albums, but Paul isn't either, so get writing George. I think there's a real story to be told about Paul's chart success around those last couple of years with songs given to, or simply covered by, other artists. I think John's antipathy to this material at a time when he was starting to see himself as a "serious" artist was a large factor in his wanting to leave. His idea of dividing up the album is as much about drawing a dividing line between his material and Paul's (no more of this medley nonsense) as it is about a division of labour. It sounds more like someone stating terms for a divorce ("you can see the kids at weekends") than a way forward for a functioning band. I think that's the light in which George was painting it too.
Excellent analysis. If the Beatles had announced a break up just after the signing of the EMI contract, I suppose EMI could have reneged. Yes, John was so enamored with Klein, I can see Klein steering him to carry on as you suggest, as a divorced couple would. I had never thought of it like that but it makes lots of sense with respect to the money and artistic direction. Thanks for the substantial comment.
I think by that time the offer of giving George equal share of album space was too little too late. At that point he had a stockpile of original material, had met and actually written with Bob Dylan (none of the others could have achieved that) and he probably felt like he was ready to do his own thing, and really didn't want to collaborate especially with Paul.
I commented on an earlier video that I wondered if by the time they were finished with Twickenham, George had already decided to go solo, at least on a song or two.
@@rtoddpartridge8737 I definitely think so. George even commented that as far back as late '66 he was wondering if he still wanted to be a Beatle, and that his heart wasn't in Sgt. Pepper. And while I don't hate "Obla di Obla da" or "Maxwell's Silver Hammer", I can see why George would find it galling that he had to fight for space for his compositions, like "Something" and "Here Comes The Sun", and a McCartney song like "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" would be given space with no question. I really think the problem was, and it still persists today, that Paul doesn't realize just how bossy he is and how his bossiness affected the others.
@@stephendoriankutos4429 never really had an issue with Obla di. Catchy melody. But, how the hell they passed on Not Guilty for the two dreadful Honey Pies is beyond comprehension!
@@mjcataneo6369 I so agree with you. and to think he really had to fight to get something like "Long, Long, Long" on the same album, and "Not Guilty" is great, as is "Sour Milk Sea". I know they were young, and and maybe too naive and ignorant to recognize their own follies, but John and especially Paul sh0ould have done more to encourage George and nurture him, like he did for Ringo.Ah, well...
@@stephendoriankutos4429 Obladi is a great song. Yes George had great songs like Here Comes The Sun and Something but he also had songs like Piggies which I think is way worse than Obladi. Also what makes you think John and Paul didn't have to fight for their songs? George has stated himself that he wasn't up for all the hassling it took to get a song on an album. John and Paul were willing to fight for their songs while George wasn't as demanding. It's not entirely their fault.
Thank you Paul! As Lewisohn says, "...to love them and to know them more is to love them more. And to know them with the most honesty as possible will be to know them the best!"
Thank you so much for the great videos. I'm really enjoying them, and you're rekindling my long-held (but recently dormant) love of the Beatles. I'm fascinated by the picture of George Harrison that is emerging in these videos. I strongly suspect that, by late 1969, George was ready to leave the Beatles but was afraid to do so because John and Paul might have successfully continued the Beatles without him, thus showing the world that his presence wasn't integral to the band's success. I just read "The Beatles and the Historians" by Erin Torkelson Weber. It is filled with fascinating info, but I was particularly struck by the fact that John apparently regarded Paul and himself as the core of the band, and viewed George and Ringo as disposable, or at least secondary. That low-grade, pervasive disrespect must have been psychologically corrosive for George. Surely, George was deeply conflicted. He was a member of the world's most celebrated rock band, but Lennon/McCartney were universally regarded as geniuses, they tended not to like his songs, and John, at least, didn't feel that they needed him, so he wasn't - and could never be - accepted as an equal. He wanted more support for his songwriting, but he could not feel supported in that environment, and a guarantee of four songs on the next album could not remedy that. I think this helps to explain why George was always so prickly on the subject of the break-up; he never felt free to discuss his true feelings and motivations.
I agree that cumulatively, the 'Jr. Beatle' treatment got patronizing. But I think it is fair to say that it is tough to go up against the Lennon-McCartney duo when you're by yourself. And miraculously, George did go toe-to-toe with them by Abbey Road. Unfortunately, it was late in the game. Thanks for the comment, Michael.
@@popgoesthe60s52 I just want to make clear that I'm not making any negative value judgment about George Harrison; I love him and his music, and I do think he was integral to creating the Beatles' sound and success. I'm really just speculating about whether his frame of mind in Sept. 1969 was a larger factor in the dissolution of the band than is generally recognized. He seems to have been ready to leave, but if he felt unable to do so, that could have produced these confusing contradictions.
@@watchfylwaiting Good point. Especially when he mentions concerns about money. When his financial future seems to be determined by a fork in the road he was facing at that particular point, he might tend to straddle a fence a bit, causing contradictions. After making his solo debut LP, he seemed more determined to look back on his time with the Beatles in a negative light. He was more indecisive on things while in the band. His immediate solo success inspired him to fulfill a busy start to his career outside the Beatles. It must've been exhilarating for him at that point. But it's a shame he seemed to become disillusioned by the legal issues that plagued that period as well.
It doesn't _necessarily_ "destroy the myth" of "the Beatles knowing that _Abbey Road_ was going to be their last album" - they could've had the perspective that it _was_ the last while they were doing it, but then decided once it was done that "hey, that wasn't so bad after all; we could do this again, all right - no need to pack it in just yet!"
@@SticksAandstonesBozo I was only theorizing. I suppose YOU know what was going through their minds at every stage of _Abbey Road?_ Also, you should do some research on how to spell "you're".
@@alanr4447a You can see Lennon's non Beatle creative interests shaping his future more so than his Abbey Road contributions. 3 LP's in 1969 with Yoko Ono. Bed for Peace performances, Give Peace a Chance single, Toronto concerts. He was moving on but was passive aggressive about it. None of the other Beatles pushed outside projects or created tension in the studio like Lennon. It was his way of letting go. He was done with the group. No matter what was said in the audio recording. He was trying to find a way out. Then he did.
The reality is, at the end of Abbey Road, they all knew a devastating crossroads was ahead. They would have always had to have new ideas for an album up until the point they would just admit they weren’t a unit anymore, so they were essentially just playing the “band” role here, not knowing whether or not they could come together again for another album at all.
As musicians & songwriters, JPG were still productive & capable of recording great music, in spite of the personal & business differences that were pulling them apart in ‘69. But it seems like the band had become a rudder-less ship as far as grand visions for projects went. Concert tours, TV specials, movies…they butted heads on these kinds of things, with each each of them having very different ideas on how such projects should be carried out. The career path that each of them took as solo artists seem to bear this out.
Man, even with all this excellent gumshoeing here it is clear how hard it is to drive to the truth when even the main participants can't even keep their stories straight. This is quite the scoop that they might have done another record, but for all the other pressures. Excellent reporting!
Very interesting and greatly appreciated. as a singer/songwriter for over 40 years and now mentor and teacher of singers and songwriters based in Nashvlle, I’m constantly trying to analize just what makes greatness, lasting power, and all the things that determine effectiveness in music. There is no better examples than The Beatles. Here we are, 60 years later and they still are as fascinating as when they started. Thank you so much for the in depth approach you take, Exhaustive research and very entertaining results. Thank you and always remember, All you need is brains! Lol!
One major point in the 1-2 Ringo tracks favor is that those songs give John/Paul/George the opportunity to provide three-part harmony behind him. "Octopus's Garden" is a great example of this.
I really enjoy your presentations Matt - been a subscriber for a few weeks now and have caught up with them all. Now I am revisiting them. Yes, I also enjoy John Heaton's channel also. It still amazes me how the Beatles still resonate with people across the globe. They really were a paradigm shift for human culture and consciousness. As Mark Lewisohn says - they were always themselves and I believe they set a noble example dor all to follow. I was listening to their performance on Sweedish TV today - (I think they do the best versions of Roll Over Beethoven, Money and I saw her standing there on this show Keep 'em coming Matt.- cheers from Australia.
Thank you! Yes, ol' John Heaton is a fave of mine. I appreciate the kind words. Lewisohn always says it best and understands them better than anyone I've come across. I have another Lewisohn-based video coming out soon and I just finished shooting my two-part series on Marianne Faithfull, so you'll probably see that one released next.
More than 50 years after their end, and they still garner interest. I'd argue there's more interest in them now with this developing story than in the past 25 years since the anthology. The difference between the Beatles and say ... Shakespeare, Mozart ... is that they witnessed their own effect on the world. And in many ways, they remained true to their working-class roots, all the way. Purely amazing. Cheers to Australia. I always loved the song Australia by the Kinks.
I didn't find the recording all that revealing because I have 'One Day At A Time' and read it oh so long ago. It was sad to see the state of the band at this point. There was no focus. Some boredom. We (the fans) always had the impression that guys weren't so compartmentalized, they were one for all and all for one. Brian died. John relied on him to be there. Paul kind of took over. It became regimented, less spontaneous. George isn't allowed to play freely as he apparently was once able to. John lost interest after 'Revolver' anyway, but he might change his mind tomorrow. And everyone, except maybe Ringo, resented Paul's domination.
Right, it's like they were so tight during the touring years, because they had to be, they were living together on the road, that they were able to communicate well without needing to speak to each other. Then once the touring ended, they struggled to communicate with each other even when speaking. Such a drastic contrast, so fast.
@@andrewadams841 Yeah, back in the 70s I was told a story by a regional Beatles expert that when it came to the song 'Come Together', Paul really wanted to sing the harmonies but didn't know how to approach John or was afraid to. Another story has it that when he did finally ask, John said that he would be doing his own background vocals. I feel the answer is somewhere in-between. John did do his own harmonies....but Paul does sound like he is right there in the verses. People tend to have an idealized version of the band. When they turn out to be very human with all of the foibles therein, people stress out and exaggerate, "Wow. They must hate each other" - when, in fact, they are just very normal. For example, my old lead guitarist and I have know each other since he was 4. We are well into our 60s now. We rip into each other all the time but we are the best of friends even if I haven't seen him in years. He is always welcome.
@@hungfao Interesting. Thank you for that. Yes, the Beatles were exactly like your guitarist and yourself, just with the media, lawyers, judges, green cards, biographers, women, and assassins providing too much static for a group of normal guys to just have that additional chance to sit down in one room together for once. Such a shame is fame. I’m always amazed they stayed so true to their small town roots, but it wasn’t enough to overcome the weights of all the other factors buried on top of them, simply because they managed to garner the most sought after image, these other factors wished to tear it to shreds.
It seems to me Ringo was always the buffer to the other three Beatles... A little bit of the secret sauce to hold them together. He wasn't in this meeting, obviously, because he was in hospital. If he had been here... Would he have been able to slow things down for the other three, especially John? Would they have stayed together for another album? Would the Allen Klein situation have doomed them, anyway?
The possibilities of more Beatles material will be discussed for eternity. Meanwhile I really enjoyed all their shows and and music since I first saw them on the Ed Sullivan show and grew up with the Beatles tunes being part of my life from when I was 9 years old seeing them on The Ed Sullivan Show and threw the rest of my life. I remember at 12 years old I broke a portable record player to a friends place and some girls and guy played spin the bottle and kissing each other and the only music we had there was the Beatles and the Rolling Stones and that was in 1966. Since 1960 to today I enjoyed the best music in the world and bought when they came out and collected them over 500 LPs, 100 45, 1,000 cassettes and 2,300 music CDS and 200 music DVD concerts and 100 music VHS and even recorded my own best listening and partying music on 255 cassettes which I still have. Music is the best love of my life then women and photography, etc. I've had a few hundred parties at my place by the time I was 20 years old. Party on Dudes!!!! Lets Dance!
George wanted more songs on albums but he probably thought it was absurd to make it contractual. He wanted more of his songs on the album because they deserved to be there, not because of a quota.
I notice the Critters album on the right above your head. Sam Goody's record stores around early 1970s had copies of it for 99c in cut outs but I never bought one since they were always mono.
I have heard this segment of the tape before, and even with the context, I still find it very condescending oh John about Paul’s music. John was a genius, but so was Paul, and at this point in time, John was too righteous about what art was in music. But... that in-your-face righteousness of John, a la “those of you in the rich seats just rattle your jewelry” is part of what made him so great at times... “What good is a philosopher who doesn’t offend people each once in a while,” :)
To me it sounds like George doesn't want to be granted song space from a fixed qouta, rather being appreciated as an equal and getting his songs onto the album that way. That's what hadn't happened so far, as Paul explained - he, and presumably John, just didn't think they were that good, until 1969. But he only presented two songs for Abbey Road, and that's what he got.
Paul's comment about George's tracks is true but harsh. Up until 69, George's output was sporadic, he had some great to fantastic tracks and some very average numbers. His worst was far below Lennon and McCartney's worst, so he couldn't expect a lot of tracks on the previous albums (the experimental white album excluded). On top of that, how many tracks did he present to the band for each album. Were they the best ones? Did he feel confident enough to present more than two or three? The culling process can be pretty harsh some times. Was George prepared for that rejection? Did he feel he had lost opportunities and blames the others, Paul especially? As for Paul being the leader, the Beatles weren't a socialist collective. If John had fallen back from the roll, then Paul was the only one capable of stepping forward and filling the niche. All groups need a leader of some sort to provide direction, make hard decisions when required. The trouble with Paul as the leader is that he was the most accomplished musically, the bands best multi-instrumentalist and also possibly the best producer in the group. On top of that he was also more comfortable with his skills and abilities. All those attributes tended to ostracise him from the others in the group at times, especially during recordings. All groups have these internal dynamics to deal with, the Beatles included.
@@The1nsane1 I don’t think George’s worst were as bad as wild honey pie, or revolution number 9, however if you make that many songs you are bound to get wrapped up in ideas that don’t really work in practice.
@@ewest14 call them what you will, they are a waste of album space nonetheless, George had already written isn’t it a pity by that time, obviously they should have recorded it over numerous things in the white album.
To me, the whole transcript of the tape reveals how much John, Paul and George had developed by that time: Paul's assumed role of bandleader had gone to his head to where he made no secret of the fact he stilled viewed George as the Junior member of the Beatles, George had learned to deal with rejection of his material in a philosophical manner, and John had learned to express his frustrations with his peers without raising his voice or fists to anyone.
We don't know all the other conversations that could have made George feel the somg share split wasn't likely to happen. John seems to be proposing this idea. I wonder if Paul was agreeing?
True observation. Lennon did use to mention that the members were afraid of what to do if they weren't the Beatles at that point. But whenever they'd socialize with another band, such as Harrison and "the Band" did in '68, they'd become disgruntled with the Beatles immediately upon returning. Lennon performed on the Rock and Roll Circus in '68 as well. But as you mentioned Lennon did perform with the Plastic Ono Band in Toronto, which was such a last-minute thing it seemed. Lennon's performance in Toronto could hardly be described as a hit, but it must've been enough for him to make up his mind. Good point.
i think johns comments had more to do with the bands rejection of cold turkey than anything else. i also disagree with mark lewison that a 4/4/4/2 album would have been great. the idea was that each beatle had complete control of his songs. so we could have gotten an album of four paul songs, four george, 2 ringo and 4 johnandyoko songs. id much rather have maxwell than dont worry kyoko. to be fair we could also have bip bop and thanks for the pepperoni on a beatles album.
Very fascinating. I’ve always wondered what another Beatles album would look like. Would it consist of Baby I’m Amazed, Junk, Teddy Boy, Instant Karma, Give Peace a Chance, Working Class Hero, My Sweet Lord, and All Things Must Pass? If so that would be a great album.
Maybe I’m amazed!... it wouldn’t of had junk,teddy boy,give peace a chance, working class hero, my sweet lord or all things must pass. Some were already rejected as Beatles songs and some would not have been accepted as for the Beatles.
Imagine Paul singing harmony to John’s “I Found Out” or George singing backup to Paul’s “Uncle Albert”. John and Paul on “He’s So Fine” . Believe me, the Beatles gave it everything they had. When it was over, it was over. One sweet dream, came true, today.
George wasn't going to air his dirty laundry about the songs. He covered up to keep from having further controversy. Yeah, he wanted 4 songs but he hadn't earned Paul's respect, which, he should have. Paul's perfectionism and lack of patience with George in playing a part a certain way on Paul's songs was a point of contention. The bigger picture was that there was a new publishing contract that gave the Beatles a higher royalty schedule.. one of the richest ever. The way the contract was written was that the all 4 Beatles would earn money on both GROUP records and product put out INDIVIDUALLY by each member until 1976. That is why the guys sound cavalier about- "John is going to do a Plastic Ono Band record and Paul is going to do an Eddie Cochran thing." They all were contracted to share the wealth. They were trying to "fit in" another Beatles record. But then John announces he was quitting the band, that John, George and Ringo are going to have Alan Klein as their manager. Paul objected and voted "no" on Klein being the manager. This decision was made on the advice of the Eastmans, his in laws. Lee Eastman, a well respected veteran Entertainment lawyer, and Alan Klein, who had stolen money from the Rolling Stones and would steal a great deal of money from the Beatles, had attempted to look after the interests of the group. But Klein had subversive intents that caused Eastman to clash with him. The co-managing attempt was a failure. Paul discovered the only way to protect his own personal revenues and royalties was to sue the Beatles under their original agreement written when they signed up with Brian Epstein. If that agreement was adjudicated "null and void" then the Beatles would be dissolved. That would void the current contract. That brought in the lawyers that would move and countermove for 18 years until 1988 to resolve all issues. These lawsuits prevented a reunion while John was alive and it caused the Anthology Series to be set back until the mid 1990's. Klein was fired by John, the theft of money was discovered and it took years of law suits to recover the money from Klein. Recently, in an interview, Paul said they were able to "get most of it back." My source material is from a book "Northern Songs: The True Story of the Beatles Song Publishing Empire: The True Story of the "Beatles" Publishing Empire" by Rupert Perry that is now out of print , hard to find and very expensive to buy. It is listed on Amazon Books... you can find out more about it there. It's available on Kindle at $9.99. tinyurl.com/northernsongsaboutthebeatles
All good stuff. I am familiar with that book and it is on my list to get. The respect angle is an issue and I believe George finally got it with Abbey Road, but perhaps the respect came too late. But George's best songs came late as well so the timing didn't seem to work for anyone. To understand the business side of the breakup really explains all the reasons why the Beatles ended. It's convoluted but the four individuals were crushed under the weight of the Beatles Empire. It makes sense.
@@SuperGogetem Paul was by far the hardest working thru the 70's and the most lucrative/commercial so you can't blame him for not wanting to share it with the other FOUR (including Klein)
I just watched this intriguing video again, a year after watching it the first time and after watching the "Get Back" miniseries on Disney. Think about this.... John's saying whatever in this tape knowing full well that he and Yoko are going to jump on an airplane in a day and a half and fly to Toronto to appear live at the Toronto Pop Festival (and record "Live Peace In Toronto"). John probably already assembled Eric Clapton & Klaus Voormann to fly there with him, and this MUST have had an impact on his attitude during this meeting. John (perhaps) is already thinking forward to a concept of not being restricted to a band like The Beatles - made up of strictly the same performers - but having a band featuring whoever he wants, be it a crowd in a Montreal hotel room ("Give Peace A Chance") or a guitarist and bassist randomly assembled with one phone call. Think about it. John enjoyed performing with other rock musicians. He enjoyed performing with Yoko. They all enjoyed recording with Eric Clapton in the summer of 1968 on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps." This is openly admitted in "Anthology." Did John request Yoko to become (at least an occasional) member of the Beatles? Did he do so at this meeting? Did John request it earlier, but was shot-down by the other three on the grounds that The Beatles are exclusive and can only include The Beatles? It would explain the rather curious crediting of their recent "Get Back" single to "The Beatles Featuring Billy Preston." I bet, at some point, John wanted Yoko to become a member of the Beatles. Like Clapton had been. Like Billy Preston had been. Was it discussed during this September 9th meeting? This would've changed the 53-year narrative they've been telling the fans. Maybe John did break-up The Beatles because they wouldn't let Yoko join. And this tape may prove it. Why else put the tape on lock-down? The Plastic Ono Band was created at this very time.
Paul broke up The Beatles in kind by his behavior. Nobody wanted to play with him anymore. We all saw the same thing happen again with Wings. Nobody likes playing with Paul, and that's ALL on Paul. Ringo, George, and John all quit the beatles at one point from mid 1968 to 1969. If Paul had other musicians that would play with him, he would've quit too. But we're fed this "narrative" and it's a Paul McCartney narrative that he wanted to keep the group together more than any one else....and that's a lie. He wanted it for himself. Notice how all the other 3 played with other musicians, either brought in to the beatles, or they would join in with the other musicians band....except Paul. Paul wasn't well liked by other musicians outside of the beatles, even to this day. He's respected for his accomplishments by others certainly. But only musicians that you will see Paul McCartney playing with are old enough to be his kids or grandkids. Stevie Wonder, and especially Michael Jackson, that didn't last long did it? Elvis Costello? That didn't last very long either. Long enough to say....See! Paul can play with others!! Naw....they're proof that Paul can't play with others. Imagine how the other Beatles felt playing with Paul. In the end, they hated it so much, they weren't willing to do it anymore.
This is really fascinating. Two things. I wonder how much time had elapsed between this particular get-together and John’s “I want a divorce” meeting. It was probably not long after this. The other: I speculate the reason why Lennon was eventually pushed to the brink was, following his own criticism of Paul’s ‘granny music,' McCartney was then quick to veto “Cold Turkey” as the next Beatles’ single. This, and McCartney’s ongoing pushback against Klein might have been the breaking point for Lennon to say, "Alright, that's it."
@@popgoesthe60s52 you also have to wonder: how did Lennon 'present' Cold Turkey to the Beatles? There's no info on that. Did he just grab an acoustic and belt it out in front of them?
@@sebastianmaharg That's a good point. Paul was pretty open to doing anything with John in the studio, so I don't know the source of the presentation of that song to the Beatles.
@@popgoesthe60s52 I've always read that the Divorce announcement was on 9/20, only 11 days later, but was immediately after his return from Toronto and playing with the Plastic Ono Band. That experience seems to have changed John's mind unless this tape was of a meeting that was a "put-on" by John all along, which has been offered up as a possibility. John later would do something similar the following year at Klein's instruction: he invited Paul to record again in a legal setup maneuver. This tape could be a similar effort to get Paul to disagree on something that he could again be out-voted on. It's interesting that Klein was decidedly out to sabotage Paul instead of garnering his support. It obviously only makes legal sense, but not musical sense.
The worst Pink Floyd album, imo, was split up into equal parts.. I’m sure they’d had made it work because they made everything work basically. Great content, and insight!
I think it would have been fine for The Beatles. Imagine Abbey Road minus one less Lennon track and one less McCartney track, with All Things Must Pass and another Harrison song of the era added and it would have been just as great.
1st- I LOVE your videos; really great work. I listen to them a lot and find your approach interesting, reasonable, and inspiring. Your video on ATMP and the history of the history of the Beatles were especially brilliant. RE: George not being into the 'formula'. I think this is far more nuanced than is presented. Hypothesis; Working as a band is best when it's engaging and fun. Starting a project with a fixed formula is not conducive to this. Because it means it's just product. George knows this. Or thought about it later and came to that conclusion. What George wants is a band that's inspired and working as a team and he want's his songs to be given a chance to be developed and supported. If that results in his song total increasing great. If not, also great, because he's involved in the decision and not being A) overwhelmed by the massive amount of Paul contributions or B) have to deal with Lennon's indifference. They way they dealt with 'All Things Must Pass' is illustrative; that is what George wants. Just participate and support my stuff, then I'll decide if it's going where I want it to go. and whether to include it or not. What your earlier video showed was that George lacks confidence, is often unclear on where he wants his song to go(which can be a good thing or a bad thing) and is a perfectionist , which has to try Lennon's patience. The song 'Get Back' is another great song example of what I'm trying to explain. Nobody cares whose song it is because they are into it. Everyone contributes ideas and off we go. Conversely, as Lennon inferred n some interviews, if the ideas for the song are not well worked out and the band starts to contribute ideas, the song can go in a direction you may regret it going to. It's a band of coequals and they ALL have to be into the song they are working on- that is the best scenario. What this conversation actually shows is WHY they are breaking up, because the 'all for one' spirit is breaking up. They are quickly losing enthusiasm for the team ethic. Everyone's point is basically, if so and so acts right then the band would have a better chance. Which means the band as they knew it is doomed. Which after 10 years- or eight- is quite reasonable. SIDE NOTE: What your videos are showing me is that the Beatles clearly understood they had issues artistically , were discussing them, and trying to find ways to work them out and not coming up with any reasonable long term answers.
Thank you for the insightful comment. Certainly the team ethic wanes when not all are interested in a song. Your mentioning of Get Back vs All Things Must Pass illustrate this. Yes the fun had certainly waned by this point. Author Ian MacDonald suggests a wider view that I find interesting: "Once 'their' sixties, an era of optimism and ambition, started to sour and sicken in 1968, so did The Beatles. Their group-mindedness kept them together another 18 months but as you noted, they had no long term answers. More to come!
Also factor in the additional song writing royalty. The Lennon-McCartney royalty sharing was fraying at the collar by the time they broke up. In the early days it was all for one and one for all. I sense that the guys had enough money to live on and buy a house and maybe a sports car, but during their working period I sense that perhaps EMI was holding out from paying, then you had Brian's death (he also got a slice of Beatles' production) and you had Klein's grubby hands. Also, Capitol USA was late to the party and had their own knives to sharpen when it came to cutting the pie of money. Dick James and Brian Epstein were major stockholders in Northern Songs. James sold out his share in the 60's. John and Paul tried their MacLean Publishing but it was a red headed stepchild. Then when they did get a big payday they started Apple and promptly wasted most of that venture. The extra payments on the Apple label helped them out. It's all about the art until it becomes all about the Benjamins. Paul and John were protective of their production "Quota." That's how they figured their income. Why give George more space on the album if it is not Lennon or McCartney grade product? The thing that is hard to discern is how many of these things did they know about, did it bother them that much or all at once, and did it cause internal strife? We'll never know because the "Beatle product" is still based on the happy-go-lucky lads that entertain. They built that brand, and despite their public squabbling, they maintained the good cheer and loyalty of their fans. George had it right "Back When We Was Fab." We get glimpses darkly when the breeze separates the curtains. But we'll really never know. There are enough bread crumbs to keep us busy weaving through the Beatles mythology. And, when we think about it, fans 50, 75 and 100 years from now will be doing the same thing.
@@gmb858 You're right - follow the money. Yes they were well aware of their contract and they unfortunately flushed their money down the Apple toilet, weakening them. Had Epstein not died we probably would have had a more amicable ending.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Of course they knew and were well aware of their contract. They also knew that Brian Epstein and Dick James cut a fat piece out of the publishing. Paul said sometime back, "Dick earned a great deal of it. In those days it was the publisher who hustled the record with the music store and even radio stations." According to the "Northern Songs" book I originally referenced, the problem with the Northern Songs contract was that it was too long for too many songs. Of course, when the boys signed on, they weren't sure, as John said, "you'd like to last 6 years but you don't know if you'll last 6 weeks." We all know George showed his impatience by writing "It's Only a Northern Song." In retrospect, the guys earned their living in the early years touring. When that turned into a tired nightmare (Philippines) they had to look for other ways to push the product. My own experience around the entertainment biz is that the guy who is holding on to the money holds it so tight you have to squeeze his wrist for him to shake loose of it to pay you. I imagine it was that way in spades the more revenue the Beatles generated. Rumor is that publishers aren't sending weekly checks to songwriters.
I once made a mix tape of what might have been a potential Beatles album after “Abbey Road”. I called it “Early 1970”. Here is the track listing: Side 1 1. Instant Karma (We All Shine On) 2. What Is Life 3. Maybe I’m Amazed 4. Isolation 5. Early 1970 6. Isn’t It A Pity 7. Every Night Side 2 8. Cold Turkey 9. It Don’t Come Easy 10. Junk 11. My Sweet Lord 12. Look At Me 13. Teddy Boy 14. All Things Must Pass
Just found you out here on the RUclips frontier. Looks like I'll be sticking 'round these parts for awhile. I reckon I'll be listenin' to some more of these Beatles vids if it's alright with you partner. Tip my two gallon hat to you.
Having watched Heaton's video, if that transcript was correct, it seems George did not take the offer seriously partly because the man who was proposing it, John, hardly ever participated in recording George's songs. People talk about The Beatles 'rejecting' George's songs but from the sound of it that was not happening by then. There was a lot of indirect, passive aggressive energy around on all sides. Both John and George seem to have felt that their songs were being 'crowded out' by Paul's in a sort of informal way, but George in particular felt his offerings were not treated with enough respect, so why bother. Which is why George also objected to Paul's statement that up to very recently his songs hadn't really been that good anyway, so that was why this was only an issue now.
Yeah the time for making more space for George was probably a year too late. George had opportunities to push his songs and offer some ultimatums but I guess it wasn't his way. Thanks for the substantive comment, Paul.
I think after “Abbey Road” it pretty much was done. Also, Allen Klein was the #1 reason why I think the band broke up. John and George had one foot out the door by then and Paul was trying to keep a death ship afloat. I think Ringo was just pretty much fed up with the BS.
Love these videos! I think John was known to be a little jealous of Pauls 'popular' songs! And I think George was just being flippant about getting his 3 songs which was common for the lads!
The Beatles should have each done solo albums in 1970-71 and released them as Beatle albums and then gotten back together for a new Beatles album. They could have maintained this just like Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young did. Do their own albums but always eventually come back together.
This didnt work for KISS either, when a group starts doing things like solo albums as a way of "saving the band", it's usually only delaying the inevitable split.
Fascinating speculation, though the more I read and hear these days, the more I understand the complex and labrynthian nature of the Beatles relationships which began as young teenagers. In the end, in my view, there are a host of reasons for the breakup and you can see the mounting stress from 1968 through the end in 1969, which leads to the band parting ways. It was a natural breakup as the grew up and become the men they were. It makes bands like the Stones longevity more impressive in some ways, but then, the musical integrity of the Beatles, -- something I believe is what Lennon either consciously of unconsciously insisted upon -- became elusive for them as their tastes blossomed out in different genres, Thus tape of Sept 1969 seems to reflect that, as they try to navigate these new waters led my John who knew the right answer but seemed to lack the energy to convince Paul and George of it, both of whom were trying to understand who they were as Beatles.
My analysis of that snippet from 9/9/69 was that Paul was trying to diplomatically offer an olive branch of understanding and appreciating the others' hatred for "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" by saying he didn't rate it that high himself (throwing in "Ob-La-Di" as well, though John seemed enthusiastic recording it). John seizes on this and makes it into a bone of contention, that Paul was knowingly pushing substandard product on the rest of the band. But Paul wasn't doing a mea culpa; he was trying to commiserate with his bandmates' dissatisfaction and being called out for doing so.
I think you're right. Paul probably believed in the song as they did some very good complete run throughs during Let It Be sessions where George even seemed enthusiastic about it. I would add that Paul seemed to consider Maxwell to be "single material," which in my opinion, it wasn't. I guess John thought that too. John certainly over emphasized the recording of that song as being more contentious than it probably was.
@@popgoesthe60s52 John mentioned in one of his last interviews that Paul was determined to make "Maxwell" a single but that "..it could never have been" said John.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Especially considering after Maxwell, I believe they worked on Here Comes the Sun and spent nearly as much studio time on that. I’m not comparing the two songs in terms of quality, but they both received equal time. It wasn’t like Paul demanded all this time and didn’t devote just as much time to Here Comes the Sun. He helped George with that without John, as I believe he was still hospitalized. George also spent hours working on the Moog parts and re-recording vocals and guitars. I believe the “misery” they were subjected to on Maxwell and Obladi, Oblada has been blown way out of proportions since 1969.
@@SuperGogetem And then John not being the most empathetic guy in the world couldn’t see how Paul would’ve been hesitant to release Revolution 1 as a single. Why is it John is allowed believe Maxwell would never have been a single but Paul can’t even suggest to do Revolution at the tempo they’d done it at during the Esher recordings? I actually almost believe the Esher-adapted studio outtake of Revolution would’ve been a better version to release, as it was a combination of the single version and Revolution 1
@@guyincognito5706 You make a good point. I don't know how John could have thought the slow "Revolution" could have been a single either. Though the sped-up Revolution could have been an 'A' side single on its own instead of being on the flip side of "Hey Jude".
Two bits of information, Lennon - McCartney were to be finished. Paul’s name would be on his tracks and John’s on his. This was dispute that John and Paul were back to writing eyeball to eyeball on Abbey Road. Second bit was John was actually still in his resurgence of Beatles interest when two weeks later he rang Paul and George up to record the new song he came up with to be their next single. Paul and George did not think Lennon’s new song was worth a single and John said that’s it I want a divorce.
Funny, John was anti Maxwell (.”granny songs) but would put Yoko’s “Yes, I’m Your Angel” which is an Eddie Cantor “Makin’ Whoopee” 1930’s pastiche on “Double Fantasy”.
Matt - Would it be possible for you to create a video that describes how songwriter royalties are calculated (in particular how Beatles songwriter royalties on a Beatle album were calculated), how much each Beatle songwriter could expect to earn from each song on both an album and on a single, and thus how much songwriting money John is proposing to allocate to George and Ringo (from himself and Paul) by increasing their share of songs. Is the songwriting royalty calculated on a "by song" basis, so that Lennon and McCartney (or other songwriters) would split their royalties 50-50, if there is a different royalty for words and music, etc. This is a part of the music process that is confusing to me. I understand from anecdotes that the allocation of songwriting royalties can lead to band arguments and breakups, so it is an important topic.
That Lou Courtney LP on the rack above the host's right shoulder is possibly the best '60s soul album no one else has heard. Oddly it was recorded on the Riverside label, most noted for jazz releases.
Yes - I had a Lou Courtney single as a kid and I agree -- he's the best I've heard. I did a video on him on this channel. Check it out if you get the chance.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Thanks! I did, and it's great! Learned a lot. Like, our man Lou went from one big jazz label (Riverside) to the next (Verve). You know what he said? "I got another one, just like the other one...another cold one, just like the old one." lol
George was out after Let It Be fulfilled their contractual obligations for the number of albums and films, he really did leave The Beatles in January 1969, at least in his mind, even though he physically came back, and even John was fed up with Paul micromanaging and bossing everyone around, as we heard from the planted mic in the new Let It Be doc, when John and Paul were discussing what to do after George left, George didn't mind putting finishing touches on the Let It Be album in early 1970, but there's no way he would ever go back into a studio with Paul for an entire album, George did say that he'd always be up for working with John though
I'm not convinced that this meeting dispels the myth that The Beatles were all but finished by September 1969.OK so Lennon is discussing the next move on the one hand, but on the other his criticism of the 2 McCartney songs still gives rise to the feeling he may not be up for doing more, and as we know he was not. We got a lot more than 4 songs from Lennon/McCartney and Harrison from 1970 onwards anyway.
Quite true. It's hard to follow Lennon's actions from this meeting forward with a true feeling that he wanted to continue as a band. But some call his "divorce" announcement a power play. As fans, we certainly did ok. Thanks for the comment!
I disagree. John had checked out. By 1969 he was bored and tired of the Beatles. The only reason John is talking about an album is to entice McCartney into a contract with Klein.
That's an interesting take I hadn't considered. John may have gone through the motions one more time but it does appear the Beatles would have been second to whatever he was creating with Yoko.
All four were interested in a change. After 13 years of Beatlmania, who can blame them? The creativity and boldness that drove their careers was not sustainable. They were never interested in touring with oldie sets or re-cycling their music a la Dylan. They loved the Beatles concept so much that they destroyed it at its apogee.
If you read the remarks of Norman their sound engineer, in 1966 the fights between John and Paul became fierce. At this point John gave up leadership of the group and retreated into a drugged out state of indifference. He produced some fantastic pop songs but was not capable of carrying on as a leader. The non-touring Beatles in semi-retirement gave it all they had and then some, but without the dynamic of live music, they retreated into boredom, drugs and various philosophies. They broke up in San Francisco 1966, and I can make that argument all day long.
When apple (computers etc) was first founded they came to an agreement with apple corps that they wouldn’t be branching out into music etc, obviously that changed and I think they had to get together again and come to some sort of agreement. So funny how the Beatles/apple etc still have all these overhangs all these decades later ...
It takes real balls and moxy for an author to steal an unauthorised private conversation of an Apple Business meeting and play it for profit without approval from the Lennon estate - and except to reap a financial windfall. Sounds like an event destined for a law suit. The fact that Lewisohn hyped it as if it was his own (later he back-pedalled and said it was in Anthony Fawcetts book) and used the journalist Williams to hype and promote his show. Very shady my man He later only played a thirty second excerpt after promising the whole tape - shady - you bet - Too bad - every Beatle community doesn’t hold him accountable instead they fawn over him and give him a pass - CMON MAN
@@opticscolossalandepicvideo4879 He played the 30 second section because that is what he could do legally. A lawsuit would happen if he played more than 30 seconds. Real balls would have been to play the entire tape live, no?
Pop Goes the 60s he had the audacity to play a bootleg stolen tape for personal profit. I’m surprised you didn’t find that offensive I think that’s flat out immoral and illegal that’s the ego of lewisohn who has reaped a fortune due to beatle kindness. He is at times unseemly in his approach to rip off the beatle empire. Track record of playing unauthorised recordings at abbey road for journalists and other vips and friends. George harrison called him a bootlegger in front of the entire production crew at the making of sgt pepper in 1992. So he has a history of doing spotty things
I don’t think this tape disproves the idea that they all knew, on some level, that Abbey Road was going to be the last album. All four have, at various times in various interviews acknowledged that it felt like the end even though no actual decision had been made regarding the future of the group. So in the absence of an expressed agreement to split, they naturally convened after the albums release to discuss what the next project might be. John’s suggestion that they adopt a formula whereby each individual Beatle gets a predetermined number of songs needs to be understood in context. Only a few months prior to this he had suggested that all of Paul’s songs be on one side of Abbey Road, and his songs be on the other. Around the same time, he suggested that the Lennon/ McCartney songwriting credit be discarded so as to clearly identify a song as authored solely by Lennon or McCartney. There’s an obvious pattern here. John is trying to think of ways to “split up” the group without, you know, actually splitting up the group. But a few short weeks after the September meeting, he did summon the courage to come right out and tell the others that he was leaving- effectively ending The Beatles. So I think all of John’s suggestions are really him grappling with an underlying truth that neither he nor his mates were ready to face; that he wanted a divorce. It does seem strange that the final dispute was over something as petty as how many songs each one gets on the next album, something that they had never felt the need to codify in the past. But, in the course of human events, that’s the way it often goes doesn’t it?
I've read that John quit the Beatles at another meeting, on September 20th 1969, which makes it just 11 days after this meeting. Didn't sound like he was about to quit from this limited amount of audio. But obviously something happened.....
@@johnharrison9685 Maybe.... Also, it was on the 11th September that John and Yoko along with George had an in depth discussion with some of their Krishna associates at John's Tittenhurst estate. During that discussion the Krishna's encouraged Lennon to give up drugs. It was also around this time that the song 'Cold Turkey' seems to have emerged. I have read that John offered it to Paul as a potential Beatles single.... Paul was said to have declined. John quits on the 20th, then records 'Cold Turkey' as a solo single, with Ringo drumming, on the 25th to the 28th........
@@johnharrison9685 John knew he didn't want to be a Beatle anymore. Paul was suggesting ideas for them to play live again when John asked for a divorce.
Hi Matt, I’ve got a proposal for a subject matter on a video you could do to follow up this one about the September ‘69 Beatles Meeting Tape. You say after the 9/9/69 meeting John quits the band 4 weeks later at their next meeting. What happened in those intervening 4 weeks that could’ve influenced John to make this decision. Things such as George not interested in recording another one of John’s drug songs like Cold Turkey or John performing at the Peace Fest for example? I’d be interested in an analysis of this. Love your videos, thanks Ellis Clark
I would love to tackle that topic but I need more information. There are several theories out there but I haven't seen anything that really offers anything definitive. Thank you for the request, Ellis.
I think what's missing from the critique of the notion that, by the time of the recording of Abbey Road, the Beatles "knew the game was up", by using the contents of this tape - is our own feelings and attitudes when we're in any kind of relationships, and the nuances related to them. Who among us have been in relationships that, deep down, we knew were over, but made half-hearted efforts to salvage it, despite knowing the fruitlessness of those efforts... This brings me onto Harrison's apparent contradictory attitude to being afforded more tracks per album: could it be that he'd been burned so many times by false promises of more time and attention paid to his songs in the past, that he just didn't believe this latest round of assurances from the others? (mostly McCartney, from what I have heard and read) This seems like the most plausible explanation to me.
With regard to Harrison, and listening to 97.5 hours of the Let It Be sessions, George often times volunteers to 'take a back seat.' This surprised me and when he calls the dividing the songs up as a joke, I not don't know if he actually was comfortable about a perceived 'equal billing' to Lennon & McCartney. More to come!
I don't believe George ever wanted "equal time" with John & Paul. I never heard him say that - and I have never read a quote of him saying that. George knew John & Paul were the cornerstones of the group and that their songs had been proven winners over and over and over again. Harrison didn't see himself as their equal as a song writer. He just wanted his songs to be seriously considered when he brought something good to the table (which I feel the group did a pretty good job of - especially in 1969). I don't think George ever had any desire to have a quota of his songs forced onto the group's future albums.
I feel as you do, and there is no interview that I am aware of where he says anything referring to "equal time, billing, quota" etc. I've seen plenty of writers make this claim, but never George. Unfortunately, George never fully explained this in retrospect. The Anthology would have been the place to do it.
Apple seems to have strong armed Lewisohn on usage, though ownership rests in the hands of a private collector so I don't know the full legal issues surrounding this. I think we'll hear it at some point and even though it is essentially transcribed in in the book I mentioned, the audio would 'tell' so much more.
I think it's fun to speculate but I really don't think this tape is as revelatory as perceived. Even in Anthology Ringo says "we weren't saying, ok last track... last take....", etc. I'm sure subconsciously they could tell it was winding down, but nobody had ripped the band aid off so to speak. And in the midst of their new recording contract negotiations that were on-going at this point they were continuing to discuss it themselves "ok, so if we keep doing this, what's the next one going to look like?" They just knew that they didn't want everything to stop with the Get Back sessions. But none of them had worked out really what the way forward was yet.
Yes, much has been made of this tape; the trajectory of the band was certainly heading in a direction. Lot's of bands break off and do solo stuff and come back to do band efforts. Too bad the Beatles weren't able to do this. Thanks for commenting.... more to come!
I think it's extremely interesting for the following reasons : the fact that John would look at George as an equal to him and Paul which he had never done in the past. John would also quit the group just weeks after this conversation, so it's a bit odd he'd be talking about a new album. Just the fact that none of the Beatles ever mentioned this conversation before
Saying John, Paul, George and RIngo is iconic, not to mention that as Lewisohn pointed out in Tune In, it's the band's order of seniority. Yet its unavoidable associations oversimplify four men more complex, and complicated, than the popular stylized notions of them. A big takeway: If Paul wasn't thrilled with Obladi and Maxwell, then it seems he may not have had full confidence in the commerciality of what any of them, including himself, would really want to write.
hi matt - great video --really loved this and the ATMP video. Have a list of other videos I'd love for you to make :) Do you have an email or website? cheers,
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
My guess is the reason Paul was turning down all of John’s suggestions at this point is that he thought they were really Allen Klein’s ideas. He may have been right
As well as turning down 'Cold Turkey.'
@@sebastianmaharg do you think ‘Cold Turkey’ may have been the Xmas single John had in mind?
@@arnesaknussemm2427 possibly! What I'd love to know is how exactly John 'presented' the tune to them. Did he just pick up an acoustic guitar and run through it?
@@sebastianmaharg George turned down Cold Turkey as well
@@sebastianmaharg I believe that all three of the others turned down Cold Turkey because of the subject matter.
You Tube’s algorithm is not doing justice to this site. Excellent.
To be honest, I think George was at heart, what we would call in John's terminology 'a miserable get' - a glass half full man.
george evolved into a great lyricist but there wasn't room in the band for a third nor did the other two embrace "all" his contributions even by this point. He outgrew the groups need for him as a "session man". He could never be equal with the others unless they changed but other changes took a precedence, Lennon leaving.
you're wrong : the term is "miserable git"
@@drillbag Not in Liverpool it isn't - listen to the Walter Raleigh line on the White Album
George really could be contrary, I think time proves that he really did not have enough to put on the Beatles albums even after he released all things must Pass which I’m sorry did not impress me as having a whole Lotta material that was Beatle worthy.
@@fourthtunz All Things Must Pass constantly gets lauded as this "masterpiece triple album" and yet 99.9% of the public and even Beatles fans only praise about four songs from it.
In one of John’s final interviews, he actually referenced “Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da” in a positive way. He cited it as an example of their diversity (ska). As Sean pointed out in his recent interviews John was constantly evolving.
@@terrythekittieful so many superior songs on the WHITE ALBUM? Obla di oblada is a great song. Its a matter of taste, John had a nerve saying Paul’s songs weren’t worthy, the only John song (and I love him really) I liked on the White Album is glass onion and revolution (like the single better its the faster one). Warm Gun is good too but didn’t care for anything else of his on that album. Don’t get me wrong, huge John fan, a musical genius.
Julia, probably his best on that album. And one of his best songs, actually. I would stack it next to, Across The Universe.@@lindakelly9552
Watched about 10 of your videos. Now, I'll have to binge watch the entire channel. Keep up the good work!
Much thanks - more to come!
Hi Matt really interesting video thanks for making it. I was an assistant engineer at air studios which is where we currently recorded many of his solo albums. The studio chairman was George Martin and he was always there. I did several sessions with him which were mainly just listening (although he was almost entirely deaf) to material and playback, but occasionally there was orchestra work like Jose Carreras. More interestingly was his son Giles who was everybody’s buddy and a bit of a terraway. . All the engineers and assistants and runners would hang out with giles and go to George’s house after pubs had shut to continue drinking... because George travelled so much it was usually allowed. I have many stories I could never tell you.
Thanks so much for that great account! Giles always presented himself so prim and proper - great to hear there are "stories that cannot be told." Those are always the best. Thanks again for the comment.
These are the stories I have been waiting for after all these years about the Beatles, with accompanying video and audio. The layout with the members images on the left with the text of the audio is magnificently done, I can tell who said what, and when, instead of guessing who is speaking. Your honest layout and description of the events without the bookselling, movie hoopla is refreshing, looking at it all in a human, logical way. Yep, it was tumultuous, but in the end they made music to last a millennium. We used to say they were the "Eye of the Storm", looking back, they "were" the Storm. The human condition.
You have a new subscriber.
Here again, Ringo is not given credit where credit is due. If Ringo had not been on vacation, this recorded conversation would have never been made in the first place. I think John's finger should be credited with an assist for pushing down the record button.
Doubt Ringo Starr needs any credits or further accolades then or today
I’ve become obsessed with your channel. I consider myself a Beatles completist, but I learn tons of new things with each one. Nice work!
I look it at this way...If George hadn’t had a stockpile of overlooked songs, then the “All Things Must Pass” LP wouldn’t exist as we know it.
@@juanfelipemv ATMP is as good as any solo LPs. If it wasn't so overly produced by Phil, it had the potential to rival being the best of them all. But really most of the LP was not from a stockpile. Most of it was fresh material. It's too bad he couldn't sustain that level of production.
@@andrewadams841 how could he? He put all his eggs in one basket when ATMP had enough material to fill a few albums.
i can actually picture Mary Hopkin having a hit with "Maxwell's Silver Hammer". Could've come out very 'eurovision' sounding hahaha
That would have been wild, with that chorus being sung with her super-high vibrato. the rock band wouldn't have backed her up, it probably would have been a banjo, a ukelele and a trombone.🤣 - like Thingymybub
i appreciate john being diplomatic about paul's attempts to make "maxwell's silver hammer" a hit since all 3 beatles not named paul hated it but i can certainly understand paul, the guy most interested in keeping the band going and writing more than his share of hits saying "i expect you to try harder!" john should have let paul and george be the stars of the next record and stayed. the next record would have been fascinating. i try to envision a way that "sometime in new york city" doesn't get made...for the love of matt!
How happy I am to learn that you are a fellow John Heaton fan!
I've just come across your channel and I'm so glad I did! This video was well thought out and presented as were the ones on The Beatles rehearsing 'All Things Must Pass'. It certainly told me things I was unaware of!
Glad it was helpful!
George was always the youngest brother. He had to act out to get recognition. Even at the end when he was writing arguably their best songs! They all grew up together in a pressure cooker like no other-
George seems to have been so stuck in the role of vying for attention and trying get his songs on albums that he didn't realize he'd won.
That's a great point, Larry. The more I delve into George, he is just a negative guy with regard to the band and I don't know if anything would have satisfied him at this point. Thanks, for the comment!
@@popgoesthe60s52 that's something I've discovered too. Always had this impression of him being this enlightened, reflective, ego-less, rational guy. But learning he was actually more of a petulant, self absorbed, 'woe is me' types. Love him and what he created, don't get me wrong. But like you say, they're giving him what he wanted and he couldn't help play the victim still.
I think it's appalling that Apple gets in the way. Mark Lewiaohn Ably House and this channel are important in history as they chronicle a cultural renaisance ~ did I spell that one right
Does a nice job clarifying what we know about the tape and the possibility of the band wanting to do another album after ABBEY ROAD.
John speaks as a Beatle during the meeting which leads me to believe he didn’t have you-know-who with him. As a result, John wouldn’t be able to deliver on anything he agreed or committed to during this meeting without the approval of Mother. She would have continued to stroke his considerable ego, telling him he don’t need the other three, that he was the genius artist, etc. She wanted him out.
Mother and Allen Klein.
To be honest, I'm glad that 'mother' did help him leave, I can't think of anything more dreadful than picturing The Beatles staying together, which would have inevitably lead to an eventual 'burning out' and deterioration in quality of music. The Beatles ended at their absolute best, thank god for that.
Say it! SAY IT!
I believe her entire goal was to break up The Beatles. She wasn't the only reason they folded, but looking back its obvious from her actions that that was her intention. I wonder who she really WAS and IS working for...
@@JohnJohn-hr5qf Lennon mentions a story about a Japanese monk who lived in a golden temple that he adored so much that he couldn't bear to see it deteriorate, so he burnt it to the ground. Lennon: "That's what I did to the Beatles."
thanks so much for this because it is important to beatle fans. i still am of the opinion that a beatle album would still not make up for the fact that 71 was a year of ex-beatle masterpieces which we otherwise would not have. ram, all things and plastic ono are treasures and the beatles would or even could not have done it. why? because obviously, they had to be diplomatic with one another, something they shucked off going single.
it all pivots around paul. john and george used to need him. by 71, that was no longer the case. the great harmony singing is gone. klaus is playing killer bass. we don't miss paul's song writing because he is putting his own albums out.
no, it happened the way it needed to. there's was just too much talent in that band for them to keep going.
great vid and thanks again.
I guess that throughout the seventies Paul could have said, "Why did you make us record all those songs of yours, John, that you've now dismissed as 'garbage'?" Paul apparently _did_ see Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da as a potential Beatles single, which is he why he spent so much time trying to get it right. The others weren't having it so it didn't happen.
It's worth noting that the Marmalade version of the song was number one in the UK for much of January 1969, while Let It Be was being filmed. Indeed, it's worth considering the run of number one singles leading up to that: Hey Jude (2 wks); Those Were The Days (6 wks, Mary Hopkin, produced by Paul); With A Little Help From My Friends (1 wk, Joe Cocker); The Good, The Bad And The Ugly (4 wks, no McCartney connection that I'm aware of); Lily The Pink (3 wks, The Scaffold, including Mike McGear); Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da (1 wk, Marmalade); Lily The Pink (again, 1 wk); Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da (again, 2 wks).
My reading of this meeting goes roughly as follows. (1) John wanted to leave The Beatles. (2) Klein had just got them a better deal with EMI that meant they _had_ to keep delivering new albums in order to qualify for improved royalties on all of their back catalogue. (3) John wasn't going to be contributing any more than four songs to those albums, but Paul isn't either, so get writing George.
I think there's a real story to be told about Paul's chart success around those last couple of years with songs given to, or simply covered by, other artists. I think John's antipathy to this material at a time when he was starting to see himself as a "serious" artist was a large factor in his wanting to leave. His idea of dividing up the album is as much about drawing a dividing line between his material and Paul's (no more of this medley nonsense) as it is about a division of labour. It sounds more like someone stating terms for a divorce ("you can see the kids at weekends") than a way forward for a functioning band. I think that's the light in which George was painting it too.
Excellent analysis. If the Beatles had announced a break up just after the signing of the EMI contract, I suppose EMI could have reneged. Yes, John was so enamored with Klein, I can see Klein steering him to carry on as you suggest, as a divorced couple would. I had never thought of it like that but it makes lots of sense with respect to the money and artistic direction. Thanks for the substantial comment.
I think by that time the offer of giving George equal share of album space was too little too late. At that point he had a stockpile of original material, had met and actually written with Bob Dylan (none of the others could have achieved that) and he probably felt like he was ready to do his own thing, and really didn't want to collaborate especially with Paul.
I commented on an earlier video that I wondered if by the time they were finished with Twickenham, George had already decided to go solo, at least on a song or two.
@@rtoddpartridge8737 I definitely think so. George even commented that as far back as late '66 he was wondering if he still wanted to be a Beatle, and that his heart wasn't in Sgt. Pepper. And while I don't hate "Obla di Obla da" or "Maxwell's Silver Hammer", I can see why George would find it galling that he had to fight for space for his compositions, like "Something" and "Here Comes The Sun", and a McCartney song like "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" would be given space with no question. I really think the problem was, and it still persists today, that Paul doesn't realize just how bossy he is and how his bossiness affected the others.
@@stephendoriankutos4429 never really had an issue with Obla di. Catchy melody. But, how the hell they passed on Not Guilty for the two dreadful Honey Pies is beyond comprehension!
@@mjcataneo6369 I so agree with you. and to think he really had to fight to get something like "Long, Long, Long" on the same album, and "Not Guilty" is great, as is "Sour Milk Sea". I know they were young, and and maybe too naive and ignorant to recognize their own follies, but John and especially Paul sh0ould have done more to encourage George and nurture him, like he did for Ringo.Ah, well...
@@stephendoriankutos4429 Obladi is a great song. Yes George had great songs like Here Comes The Sun and Something but he also had songs like Piggies which I think is way worse than Obladi. Also what makes you think John and Paul didn't have to fight for their songs? George has stated himself that he wasn't up for all the hassling it took to get a song on an album. John and Paul were willing to fight for their songs while George wasn't as demanding. It's not entirely their fault.
I am truly enjoying your forensic-based demolition of Beatles myths. Carry on!
Thank you Paul! As Lewisohn says, "...to love them and to know them more is to love them more. And to know them with the most honesty as possible will be to know them the best!"
Thank you so much for the great videos. I'm really enjoying them, and you're rekindling my long-held (but recently dormant) love of the Beatles. I'm fascinated by the picture of George Harrison that is emerging in these videos. I strongly suspect that, by late 1969, George was ready to leave the Beatles but was afraid to do so because John and Paul might have successfully continued the Beatles without him, thus showing the world that his presence wasn't integral to the band's success. I just read "The Beatles and the Historians" by Erin Torkelson Weber. It is filled with fascinating info, but I was particularly struck by the fact that John apparently regarded Paul and himself as the core of the band, and viewed George and Ringo as disposable, or at least secondary. That low-grade, pervasive disrespect must have been psychologically corrosive for George. Surely, George was deeply conflicted. He was a member of the world's most celebrated rock band, but Lennon/McCartney were universally regarded as geniuses, they tended not to like his songs, and John, at least, didn't feel that they needed him, so he wasn't - and could never be - accepted as an equal. He wanted more support for his songwriting, but he could not feel supported in that environment, and a guarantee of four songs on the next album could not remedy that. I think this helps to explain why George was always so prickly on the subject of the break-up; he never felt free to discuss his true feelings and motivations.
I agree that cumulatively, the 'Jr. Beatle' treatment got patronizing. But I think it is fair to say that it is tough to go up against the Lennon-McCartney duo when you're by yourself. And miraculously, George did go toe-to-toe with them by Abbey Road. Unfortunately, it was late in the game. Thanks for the comment, Michael.
@@popgoesthe60s52 I just want to make clear that I'm not making any negative value judgment about George Harrison; I love him and his music, and I do think he was integral to creating the Beatles' sound and success. I'm really just speculating about whether his frame of mind in Sept. 1969 was a larger factor in the dissolution of the band than is generally recognized. He seems to have been ready to leave, but if he felt unable to do so, that could have produced these confusing contradictions.
@@watchfylwaiting Good point. Especially when he mentions concerns about money. When his financial future seems to be determined by a fork in the road he was facing at that particular point, he might tend to straddle a fence a bit, causing contradictions. After making his solo debut LP, he seemed more determined to look back on his time with the Beatles in a negative light. He was more indecisive on things while in the band. His immediate solo success inspired him to fulfill a busy start to his career outside the Beatles. It must've been exhilarating for him at that point. But it's a shame he seemed to become disillusioned by the legal issues that plagued that period as well.
It doesn't _necessarily_ "destroy the myth" of "the Beatles knowing that _Abbey Road_ was going to be their last album" - they could've had the perspective that it _was_ the last while they were doing it, but then decided once it was done that "hey, that wasn't so bad after all; we could do this again, all right - no need to pack it in just yet!"
Your totally incorrect. Do some more research.
@@SticksAandstonesBozo I was only theorizing. I suppose YOU know what was going through their minds at every stage of _Abbey Road?_ Also, you should do some research on how to spell "you're".
@@alanr4447a You can see Lennon's non Beatle creative interests shaping his future more so than his Abbey Road contributions. 3 LP's in 1969 with Yoko Ono. Bed for Peace performances, Give Peace a Chance single, Toronto concerts. He was moving on but was passive aggressive about it. None of the other Beatles pushed outside projects or created tension in the studio like Lennon. It was his way of letting go. He was done with the group. No matter what was said in the audio recording. He was trying to find a way out. Then he did.
The reality is, at the end of Abbey Road, they all knew a devastating crossroads was ahead.
They would have always had to have new ideas for an album up until the point they would just admit they weren’t a unit anymore, so they were essentially just playing the “band” role here, not knowing whether or not they could come together again for another album at all.
As musicians & songwriters, JPG were still productive & capable of recording great music, in spite of the personal & business differences that were pulling them apart in ‘69. But it seems like the band had become a rudder-less ship as far as grand visions for projects went. Concert tours, TV specials, movies…they butted heads on these kinds of things, with each each of them having very different ideas on how such projects should be carried out. The career path that each of them took as solo artists seem to bear this out.
Man! Who knew that there was some much more to learn about the Beatles?
Man, even with all this excellent gumshoeing here it is clear how hard it is to drive to the truth when even the main participants can't even keep their stories straight. This is quite the scoop that they might have done another record, but for all the other pressures. Excellent reporting!
Thank you , Michael!
Very interesting and greatly appreciated. as a singer/songwriter for over 40 years and now mentor and teacher of singers and songwriters based in Nashvlle, I’m constantly trying to analize just what makes greatness, lasting power, and all the things that determine effectiveness in music.
There is no better examples than The Beatles. Here we are, 60 years later and they still are as fascinating as when they started.
Thank you so much for the in depth approach you take, Exhaustive research and very entertaining results. Thank you and always remember, All you need is brains! Lol!
Thank you, Marc-Alan. The Beatles are endlessly fascinating.
I bet the Allen Klein thing overshadowed/put to bed any new album
Absolutely. That was the clincher.
One major point in the 1-2 Ringo tracks favor is that those songs give John/Paul/George the opportunity to provide three-part harmony behind him. "Octopus's Garden" is a great example of this.
I really enjoy your presentations Matt - been a subscriber for a few weeks now and have caught up with them all. Now I am revisiting them. Yes, I also enjoy John Heaton's channel also. It still amazes me how the Beatles still resonate with people across the globe. They really were a paradigm shift for human culture and consciousness. As Mark Lewisohn says - they were always themselves and I believe they set a noble example dor all to follow. I was listening to their performance on Sweedish TV today - (I think they do the best versions of Roll Over Beethoven, Money and I saw her standing there on this show Keep 'em coming Matt.- cheers from Australia.
Thank you! Yes, ol' John Heaton is a fave of mine. I appreciate the kind words. Lewisohn always says it best and understands them better than anyone I've come across. I have another Lewisohn-based video coming out soon and I just finished shooting my two-part series on Marianne Faithfull, so you'll probably see that one released next.
More than 50 years after their end, and they still garner interest. I'd argue there's more interest in them now with this developing story than in the past 25 years since the anthology. The difference between the Beatles and say ... Shakespeare, Mozart ... is that they witnessed their own effect on the world. And in many ways, they remained true to their working-class roots, all the way. Purely amazing. Cheers to Australia. I always loved the song Australia by the Kinks.
I didn't find the recording all that revealing because I have 'One Day At A Time' and read it oh so long ago. It was sad to see the state of the band at this point. There was no focus. Some boredom. We (the fans) always had the impression that guys weren't so compartmentalized, they were one for all and all for one. Brian died. John relied on him to be there. Paul kind of took over. It became regimented, less spontaneous. George isn't allowed to play freely as he apparently was once able to. John lost interest after 'Revolver' anyway, but he might change his mind tomorrow. And everyone, except maybe Ringo, resented Paul's domination.
Right, it's like they were so tight during the touring years, because they had to be, they were living together on the road, that they were able to communicate well without needing to speak to each other. Then once the touring ended, they struggled to communicate with each other even when speaking. Such a drastic contrast, so fast.
@@andrewadams841 Yeah, back in the 70s I was told a story by a regional Beatles expert that when it came to the song 'Come Together', Paul really wanted to sing the harmonies but didn't know how to approach John or was afraid to. Another story has it that when he did finally ask, John said that he would be doing his own background vocals. I feel the answer is somewhere in-between. John did do his own harmonies....but Paul does sound like he is right there in the verses.
People tend to have an idealized version of the band. When they turn out to be very human with all of the foibles therein, people stress out and exaggerate, "Wow. They must hate each other" - when, in fact, they are just very normal. For example, my old lead guitarist and I have know each other since he was 4. We are well into our 60s now. We rip into each other all the time but we are the best of friends even if I haven't seen him in years. He is always welcome.
@@hungfao Interesting. Thank you for that. Yes, the Beatles were exactly like your guitarist and yourself, just with the media, lawyers, judges, green cards, biographers, women, and assassins providing too much static for a group of normal guys to just have that additional chance to sit down in one room together for once. Such a shame is fame. I’m always amazed they stayed so true to their small town roots, but it wasn’t enough to overcome the weights of all the other factors buried on top of them, simply because they managed to garner the most sought after image, these other factors wished to tear it to shreds.
4 Great Lennon songs, Four great McCartney songs, four great Harrison songs and.... Two songs by Ringo.
It seems to me Ringo was always the buffer to the other three Beatles... A little bit of the secret sauce to hold them together. He wasn't in this meeting, obviously, because he was in hospital. If he had been here... Would he have been able to slow things down for the other three, especially John? Would they have stayed together for another album? Would the Allen Klein situation have doomed them, anyway?
The possibilities of more Beatles material will be discussed for eternity. Meanwhile I really enjoyed all their shows and and music since I first saw them on the Ed Sullivan show and grew up with the Beatles tunes being part of my life from when I was 9 years old seeing them on The Ed Sullivan Show and threw the rest of my life. I remember at 12 years old I broke a portable record player to a friends place and some girls and guy played spin the bottle and kissing each other and the only music we had there was the Beatles and the Rolling Stones and that was in 1966. Since 1960 to today I enjoyed the best music in the world and bought when they came out and collected them over 500 LPs, 100 45, 1,000 cassettes and 2,300 music CDS and 200 music DVD concerts and 100 music VHS and even recorded my own best listening and partying music on 255 cassettes which I still have. Music is the best love of my life then women and photography, etc. I've had a few hundred parties at my place by the time I was 20 years old. Party on Dudes!!!! Lets Dance!
Ah, women sometimes occupy the top spot but then they often give way to music. Thanks for the comment!
George wanted more songs on albums but he probably thought it was absurd to make it contractual. He wanted more of his songs on the album because they deserved to be there, not because of a quota.
You are the most interesting discovery I had on RUclips for quite a while!
Thank you, Nimrod!
BTW, great to see a Beatles album cover in the background finally... :)
Thanks for this update. I just ordered the Fawcett book!
I notice the Critters album on the right above your head. Sam Goody's record stores around early 1970s had copies of it for 99c in cut outs but I never bought one since they were always mono.
I have heard this segment of the tape before, and even with the context, I still find it very condescending oh John about Paul’s music. John was a genius, but so was Paul, and at this point in time, John was too righteous about what art was in music. But... that in-your-face righteousness of John, a la “those of you in the rich seats just rattle your jewelry” is part of what made him so great at times... “What good is a philosopher who doesn’t offend people each once in a while,” :)
To me it sounds like George doesn't want to be granted song space from a fixed qouta, rather being appreciated as an equal and getting his songs onto the album that way. That's what hadn't happened so far, as Paul explained - he, and presumably John, just didn't think they were that good, until 1969. But he only presented two songs for Abbey Road, and that's what he got.
Paul's comment about George's tracks is true but harsh. Up until 69, George's output was sporadic, he had some great to fantastic tracks and some very average numbers. His worst was far below Lennon and McCartney's worst, so he couldn't expect a lot of tracks on the previous albums (the experimental white album excluded). On top of that, how many tracks did he present to the band for each album. Were they the best ones? Did he feel confident enough to present more than two or three? The culling process can be pretty harsh some times. Was George prepared for that rejection? Did he feel he had lost opportunities and blames the others, Paul especially?
As for Paul being the leader, the Beatles weren't a socialist collective. If John had fallen back from the roll, then Paul was the only one capable of stepping forward and filling the niche. All groups need a leader of some sort to provide direction, make hard decisions when required. The trouble with Paul as the leader is that he was the most accomplished musically, the bands best multi-instrumentalist and also possibly the best producer in the group. On top of that he was also more comfortable with his skills and abilities. All those attributes tended to ostracise him from the others in the group at times, especially during recordings. All groups have these internal dynamics to deal with, the Beatles included.
@@The1nsane1 I don’t think George’s worst were as bad as wild honey pie, or revolution number 9, however if you make that many songs you are bound to get wrapped up in ideas that don’t really work in practice.
@@sampsonsimpson1040 Wild Honey Pie and Revolution 9 aren't really songs though. WHP is less than a minute and Revolution 9 is a sound collage
@@ewest14 call them what you will, they are a waste of album space nonetheless, George had already written isn’t it a pity by that time, obviously they should have recorded it over numerous things in the white album.
@@sampsonsimpson1040 Yeah and Paul had Junk and John had Child of Nature. They each had songs that didn't make the album for whatever reason.
To me, the whole transcript of the tape reveals how much John, Paul and George had developed by that time: Paul's assumed role of bandleader had gone to his head to where he made no secret of the fact he stilled viewed George as the Junior member of the Beatles, George had learned to deal with rejection of his material in a philosophical manner, and John had learned to express his frustrations with his peers without raising his voice or fists to anyone.
We don't know all the other conversations that could have made George feel the somg share split wasn't likely to happen. John seems to be proposing this idea. I wonder if Paul was agreeing?
Just ask Paul. Period
Cant wait for it Matt
9-9-69. Just before John went to Toronto, Canada and came back a changed man with a changed mind and wanted out....My opinion at least...
True observation. Lennon did use to mention that the members were afraid of what to do if they weren't the Beatles at that point. But whenever they'd socialize with another band, such as Harrison and "the Band" did in '68, they'd become disgruntled with the Beatles immediately upon returning. Lennon performed on the Rock and Roll Circus in '68 as well. But as you mentioned Lennon did perform with the Plastic Ono Band in Toronto, which was such a last-minute thing it seemed. Lennon's performance in Toronto could hardly be described as a hit, but it must've been enough for him to make up his mind. Good point.
i think johns comments had more to do with the bands rejection of cold turkey than anything else. i also disagree with mark lewison that a 4/4/4/2 album would have been great. the idea was that each beatle had complete control of his songs. so we could have gotten an album of four paul songs, four george, 2 ringo and 4 johnandyoko songs. id much rather have maxwell than dont worry kyoko. to be fair we could also have bip bop and thanks for the pepperoni on a beatles album.
Very fascinating. I’ve always wondered what another Beatles album would look like. Would it consist of Baby I’m Amazed, Junk, Teddy Boy, Instant Karma, Give Peace a Chance, Working Class Hero, My Sweet Lord, and All Things Must Pass? If so that would be a great album.
I have been fascinated by the prospect of another album as well. I will explore that topic thoroughly in upcoming videos so stay tuned!
Maybe I’m amazed!... it wouldn’t of had junk,teddy boy,give peace a chance, working class hero, my sweet lord or all things must pass. Some were already rejected as Beatles songs and some would not have been accepted as for the Beatles.
Imagine Paul singing harmony to John’s “I Found Out” or George singing backup to Paul’s “Uncle Albert”. John and Paul on “He’s So Fine” . Believe me, the Beatles gave it everything they had. When it was over, it was over. One sweet dream, came true, today.
@@65TossTrap Well said.
He’s so fine? ...wAit a min...u snuck one a zinger in there 😛
George wasn't going to air his dirty laundry about the songs. He covered up to keep from having further controversy. Yeah, he wanted 4 songs but he hadn't earned Paul's respect, which, he should have. Paul's perfectionism and lack of patience with George in playing a part a certain way on Paul's songs was a point of contention.
The bigger picture was that there was a new publishing contract that gave the Beatles a higher royalty schedule.. one of the richest ever. The way the contract was written was that the all 4 Beatles would earn money on both GROUP records and product put out INDIVIDUALLY by each member until 1976. That is why the guys sound cavalier about- "John is going to do a Plastic Ono Band record and Paul is going to do an Eddie Cochran thing." They all were contracted to share the wealth.
They were trying to "fit in" another Beatles record. But then John announces he was quitting the band, that John, George and Ringo are going to have Alan Klein as their manager. Paul objected and voted "no" on Klein being the manager. This decision was made on the advice of the Eastmans, his in laws. Lee Eastman, a well respected veteran Entertainment lawyer, and Alan Klein, who had stolen money from the Rolling Stones and would steal a great deal of money from the Beatles, had attempted to look after the interests of the group. But Klein had subversive intents that caused Eastman to clash with him. The co-managing attempt was a failure.
Paul discovered the only way to protect his own personal revenues and royalties was to sue the Beatles under their original agreement written when they signed up with Brian Epstein. If that agreement was adjudicated "null and void" then the Beatles would be dissolved. That would void the current contract. That brought in the lawyers that would move and countermove for 18 years until 1988 to resolve all issues. These lawsuits prevented a reunion while John was alive and it caused the Anthology Series to be set back until the mid 1990's.
Klein was fired by John, the theft of money was discovered and it took years of law suits to recover the money from Klein. Recently, in an interview, Paul said they were able to "get most of it back."
My source material is from a book "Northern Songs: The True Story of the Beatles Song Publishing Empire: The True Story of the "Beatles" Publishing Empire" by Rupert Perry that is now out of print , hard to find and very expensive to buy. It is listed on Amazon Books... you can find out more about it there. It's available on Kindle at $9.99. tinyurl.com/northernsongsaboutthebeatles
All good stuff. I am familiar with that book and it is on my list to get. The respect angle is an issue and I believe George finally got it with Abbey Road, but perhaps the respect came too late. But George's best songs came late as well so the timing didn't seem to work for anyone. To understand the business side of the breakup really explains all the reasons why the Beatles ended. It's convoluted but the four individuals were crushed under the weight of the Beatles Empire. It makes sense.
So, in essence, Paul didn't want the others to share in any of his solo revenue?
You can read all about this too in the excellent book "You Never Give Me Your Money"
@@SuperGogetem Paul was by far the hardest working thru the 70's and the most lucrative/commercial so you can't blame him for not wanting to share it with the other FOUR (including Klein)
@@w1lf1ewoo especially while the guys were tied to Klein. The Eastmans saw that situation as quicksand.
I just watched this intriguing video again, a year after watching it the first time and after watching the "Get Back" miniseries on Disney.
Think about this.... John's saying whatever in this tape knowing full well that he and Yoko are going to jump on an airplane in a day and a half and fly to Toronto to appear live at the Toronto Pop Festival (and record "Live Peace In Toronto").
John probably already assembled Eric Clapton & Klaus Voormann to fly there with him, and this MUST have had an impact on his attitude during this meeting. John (perhaps) is already thinking forward to a concept of not being restricted to a band like The Beatles - made up of strictly the same performers - but having a band featuring whoever he wants, be it a crowd in a Montreal hotel room ("Give Peace A Chance") or a guitarist and bassist randomly assembled with one phone call.
Think about it. John enjoyed performing with other rock musicians. He enjoyed performing with Yoko. They all enjoyed recording with Eric Clapton in the summer of 1968 on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps." This is openly admitted in "Anthology."
Did John request Yoko to become (at least an occasional) member of the Beatles? Did he do so at this meeting?
Did John request it earlier, but was shot-down by the other three on the grounds that The Beatles are exclusive and can only include The Beatles? It would explain the rather curious crediting of their recent "Get Back" single to "The Beatles Featuring Billy Preston."
I bet, at some point, John wanted Yoko to become a member of the Beatles. Like Clapton had been. Like Billy Preston had been.
Was it discussed during this September 9th meeting?
This would've changed the 53-year narrative they've been telling the fans.
Maybe John did break-up The Beatles because they wouldn't let Yoko join. And this tape may prove it. Why else put the tape on lock-down?
The Plastic Ono Band was created at this very time.
Paul broke up The Beatles in kind by his behavior. Nobody wanted to play with him anymore. We all saw the same thing happen again with Wings. Nobody likes playing with Paul, and that's ALL on Paul. Ringo, George, and John all quit the beatles at one point from mid 1968 to 1969. If Paul had other musicians that would play with him, he would've quit too. But we're fed this "narrative" and it's a Paul McCartney narrative that he wanted to keep the group together more than any one else....and that's a lie. He wanted it for himself. Notice how all the other 3 played with other musicians, either brought in to the beatles, or they would join in with the other musicians band....except Paul. Paul wasn't well liked by other musicians outside of the beatles, even to this day. He's respected for his accomplishments by others certainly. But only musicians that you will see Paul McCartney playing with are old enough to be his kids or grandkids. Stevie Wonder, and especially Michael Jackson, that didn't last long did it? Elvis Costello? That didn't last very long either. Long enough to say....See! Paul can play with others!! Naw....they're proof that Paul can't play with others. Imagine how the other Beatles felt playing with Paul. In the end, they hated it so much, they weren't willing to do it anymore.
Nice piece, Matt....looking forward to your next one.
Thank you Erik!
John didn't sound 'mad' like some many of his critics suggested he was close to insanity; he was lucid and passionate but he was clearly their leader.
This is really fascinating. Two things. I wonder how much time had elapsed between this particular get-together and John’s “I want a divorce” meeting. It was probably not long after this. The other: I speculate the reason why Lennon was eventually pushed to the brink was, following his own criticism of Paul’s ‘granny music,' McCartney was then quick to veto “Cold Turkey” as the next Beatles’ single. This, and McCartney’s ongoing pushback against Klein might have been the breaking point for Lennon to say, "Alright, that's it."
The "divorce" meeting took place about 3 weeks later. I don't know the timing of Paul's rejection of Cold Turkey but it was very close to this period.
@@popgoesthe60s52 you also have to wonder: how did Lennon 'present' Cold Turkey to the Beatles? There's no info on that. Did he just grab an acoustic and belt it out in front of them?
@@sebastianmaharg That's a good point. Paul was pretty open to doing anything with John in the studio, so I don't know the source of the presentation of that song to the Beatles.
Paul was always right about Klein.
@@popgoesthe60s52 I've always read that the Divorce announcement was on 9/20, only 11 days later, but was immediately after his return from Toronto and playing with the Plastic Ono Band. That experience seems to have changed John's mind unless this tape was of a meeting that was a "put-on" by John all along, which has been offered up as a possibility. John later would do something similar the following year at Klein's instruction: he invited Paul to record again in a legal setup maneuver. This tape could be a similar effort to get Paul to disagree on something that he could again be out-voted on. It's interesting that Klein was decidedly out to sabotage Paul instead of garnering his support. It obviously only makes legal sense, but not musical sense.
i have that book, will have to dig up and read that section!
Thanks. That was great. Very thorough.
Great work Matt. Really enjoying your work. From an old Beatles fan, thank you. I've subscribed.
Thank you, Mike! Plenty more to come.
The worst Pink Floyd album, imo, was split up into equal parts.. I’m sure they’d had made it work because they made everything work basically.
Great content, and insight!
Several bands have tried that sort of thing, and the result is very rarely good.
I think it would have been fine for The Beatles. Imagine Abbey Road minus one less Lennon track and one less McCartney track, with All Things Must Pass and another Harrison song of the era added and it would have been just as great.
1st- I LOVE your videos; really great work. I listen to them a lot and find your approach interesting, reasonable, and inspiring. Your video on ATMP and the history of the history of the Beatles were especially brilliant. RE: George not being into the 'formula'. I think this is far more nuanced than is presented. Hypothesis; Working as a band is best when it's engaging and fun. Starting a project with a fixed formula is not conducive to this. Because it means it's just product. George knows this. Or thought about it later and came to that conclusion. What George wants is a band that's inspired and working as a team and he want's his songs to be given a chance to be developed and supported. If that results in his song total increasing great. If not, also great, because he's involved in the decision and not being A) overwhelmed by the massive amount of Paul contributions or B) have to deal with Lennon's indifference. They way they dealt with 'All Things Must Pass' is illustrative; that is what George wants. Just participate and support my stuff, then I'll decide if it's going where I want it to go. and whether to include it or not. What your earlier video showed was that George lacks confidence, is often unclear on where he wants his song to go(which can be a good thing or a bad thing) and is a perfectionist , which has to try Lennon's patience. The song 'Get Back' is another great song example of what I'm trying to explain. Nobody cares whose song it is because they are into it. Everyone contributes ideas and off we go. Conversely, as Lennon inferred n some interviews, if the ideas for the song are not well worked out and the band starts to contribute ideas, the song can go in a direction you may regret it going to. It's a band of coequals and they ALL have to be into the song they are working on- that is the best scenario. What this conversation actually shows is WHY they are breaking up, because the 'all for one' spirit is breaking up. They are quickly losing enthusiasm for the team ethic. Everyone's point is basically, if so and so acts right then the band would have a better chance. Which means the band as they knew it is doomed. Which after 10 years- or eight- is quite reasonable. SIDE NOTE: What your videos are showing me is that the Beatles clearly understood they had issues artistically , were discussing them, and trying to find ways to work them out and not coming up with any reasonable long term answers.
Thank you for the insightful comment. Certainly the team ethic wanes when not all are interested in a song. Your mentioning of Get Back vs All Things Must Pass illustrate this. Yes the fun had certainly waned by this point. Author Ian MacDonald suggests a wider view that I find interesting: "Once 'their' sixties, an era of optimism and ambition, started to sour and sicken in 1968, so did The Beatles. Their group-mindedness kept them together another 18 months but as you noted, they had no long term answers. More to come!
Also factor in the additional song writing royalty. The Lennon-McCartney royalty sharing was fraying at the collar by the time they broke up. In the early days it was all for one and one for all. I sense that the guys had enough money to live on and buy a house and maybe a sports car, but during their working period I sense that perhaps EMI was holding out from paying, then you had Brian's death (he also got a slice of Beatles' production) and you had Klein's grubby hands.
Also, Capitol USA was late to the party and had their own knives to sharpen when it came to cutting the pie of money. Dick James and Brian Epstein were major stockholders in Northern Songs. James sold out his share in the 60's. John and Paul tried their MacLean Publishing but it was a red headed stepchild. Then when they did get a big payday they started Apple and promptly wasted most of that venture. The extra payments on the Apple label helped them out.
It's all about the art until it becomes all about the Benjamins. Paul and John were protective of their production "Quota." That's how they figured their income. Why give George more space on the album if it is not Lennon or McCartney grade product?
The thing that is hard to discern is how many of these things did they know about, did it bother them that much or all at once, and did it cause internal strife? We'll never know because the "Beatle product" is still based on the happy-go-lucky lads that entertain. They built that brand, and despite their public squabbling, they maintained the good cheer and loyalty of their fans. George had it right "Back When We Was Fab."
We get glimpses darkly when the breeze separates the curtains. But we'll really never know. There are enough bread crumbs to keep us busy weaving through the Beatles mythology. And, when we think about it, fans 50, 75 and 100 years from now will be doing the same thing.
@@gmb858 You're right - follow the money. Yes they were well aware of their contract and they unfortunately flushed their money down the Apple toilet, weakening them. Had Epstein not died we probably would have had a more amicable ending.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Of course they knew and were well aware of their contract. They also knew that Brian Epstein and Dick James cut a fat piece out of the publishing. Paul said sometime back, "Dick earned a great deal of it. In those days it was the publisher who hustled the record with the music store and even radio stations." According to the "Northern Songs" book I originally referenced, the problem with the Northern Songs contract was that it was too long for too many songs.
Of course, when the boys signed on, they weren't sure, as John said, "you'd like to last 6 years but you don't know if you'll last 6 weeks." We all know George showed his impatience by writing "It's Only a Northern Song." In retrospect, the guys earned their living in the early years touring. When that turned into a tired nightmare (Philippines) they had to look for other ways to push the product.
My own experience around the entertainment biz is that the guy who is holding on to the money holds it so tight you have to squeeze his wrist for him to shake loose of it to pay you. I imagine it was that way in spades the more revenue the Beatles generated. Rumor is that publishers aren't sending weekly checks to songwriters.
I once made a mix tape of what might have been a potential Beatles album after “Abbey Road”. I called it “Early 1970”. Here is the track listing:
Side 1
1. Instant Karma (We All Shine On)
2. What Is Life
3. Maybe I’m Amazed
4. Isolation
5. Early 1970
6. Isn’t It A Pity
7. Every Night
Side 2
8. Cold Turkey
9. It Don’t Come Easy
10. Junk
11. My Sweet Lord
12. Look At Me
13. Teddy Boy
14. All Things Must Pass
Great track listing! Thanks for offering it, Jay.
Just found you out here on the RUclips frontier. Looks like I'll be sticking 'round these parts for awhile. I reckon I'll be listenin' to some more of these Beatles vids if it's alright with you partner. Tip my two gallon hat to you.
Thanks for your great work !
Stumbled across your channel today at work - when I should be doing work - great stuff!
Do your work later! Thanks for watching, Dan.
Having watched Heaton's video, if that transcript was correct, it seems George did not take the offer seriously partly because the man who was proposing it, John, hardly ever participated in recording George's songs. People talk about The Beatles 'rejecting' George's songs but from the sound of it that was not happening by then. There was a lot of indirect, passive aggressive energy around on all sides. Both John and George seem to have felt that their songs were being 'crowded out' by Paul's in a sort of informal way, but George in particular felt his offerings were not treated with enough respect, so why bother. Which is why George also objected to Paul's statement that up to very recently his songs hadn't really been that good anyway, so that was why this was only an issue now.
Yeah the time for making more space for George was probably a year too late. George had opportunities to push his songs and offer some ultimatums but I guess it wasn't his way. Thanks for the substantive comment, Paul.
It's amazing how an iconic band, such as the Beatles were so frustrated with each other
I think after “Abbey Road” it pretty much was done. Also, Allen Klein was the #1 reason why I think the band broke up. John and George had one foot out the door by then and Paul was trying to keep a death ship afloat. I think Ringo was just pretty much fed up with the BS.
Love these videos! I think John was known to be a little jealous of Pauls 'popular' songs! And I think George was just being flippant about getting his 3 songs which was common for the lads!
The Beatles should have each done solo albums in 1970-71 and released them as Beatle albums and then gotten back together for a new Beatles album. They could have maintained this just like Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young did. Do their own albums but always eventually come back together.
This didnt work for KISS either, when a group starts doing things like solo albums as a way of "saving the band", it's usually only delaying the inevitable split.
Just found your channel and can't stop watching. Great stuff.
Welcome, Lewis. Plenty more to come!
Great stuff!! Thank you
Fascinating speculation, though the more I read and hear these days, the more I understand the complex and labrynthian nature of the Beatles relationships which began as young teenagers. In the end, in my view, there are a host of reasons for the breakup and you can see the mounting stress from 1968 through the end in 1969, which leads to the band parting ways. It was a natural breakup as the grew up and become the men they were. It makes bands like the Stones longevity more impressive in some ways, but then, the musical integrity of the Beatles, -- something I believe is what Lennon either consciously of unconsciously insisted upon -- became elusive for them as their tastes blossomed out in different genres, Thus tape of Sept 1969 seems to reflect that, as they try to navigate these new waters led my John who knew the right answer but seemed to lack the energy to convince Paul and George of it, both of whom were trying to understand who they were as Beatles.
It was in a Beatles book in the 70s..
My analysis of that snippet from 9/9/69 was that Paul was trying to diplomatically offer an olive branch of understanding and appreciating the others' hatred for "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" by saying he didn't rate it that high himself (throwing in "Ob-La-Di" as well, though John seemed enthusiastic recording it). John seizes on this and makes it into a bone of contention, that Paul was knowingly pushing substandard product on the rest of the band. But Paul wasn't doing a mea culpa; he was trying to commiserate with his bandmates' dissatisfaction and being called out for doing so.
I think you're right. Paul probably believed in the song as they did some very good complete run throughs during Let It Be sessions where George even seemed enthusiastic about it. I would add that Paul seemed to consider Maxwell to be "single material," which in my opinion, it wasn't. I guess John thought that too. John certainly over emphasized the recording of that song as being more contentious than it probably was.
@@popgoesthe60s52 John mentioned in one of his last interviews that Paul was determined to make "Maxwell" a single but that "..it could never have been" said John.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Especially considering after Maxwell, I believe they worked on Here Comes the Sun and spent nearly as much studio time on that. I’m not comparing the two songs in terms of quality, but they both received equal time.
It wasn’t like Paul demanded all this time and didn’t devote just as much time to Here Comes the Sun. He helped George with that without John, as I believe he was still hospitalized. George also spent hours working on the Moog parts and re-recording vocals and guitars.
I believe the “misery” they were subjected to on Maxwell and Obladi, Oblada has been blown way out of proportions since 1969.
@@SuperGogetem And then John not being the most empathetic guy in the world couldn’t see how Paul would’ve been hesitant to release Revolution 1 as a single. Why is it John is allowed believe Maxwell would never have been a single but Paul can’t even suggest to do Revolution at the tempo they’d done it at during the Esher recordings? I actually almost believe the Esher-adapted studio outtake of Revolution would’ve been a better version to release, as it was a combination of the single version and Revolution 1
@@guyincognito5706 You make a good point. I don't know how John could have thought the slow "Revolution" could have been a single either. Though the sped-up Revolution could have been an 'A' side single on its own instead of being on the flip side of "Hey Jude".
Fascinating. Thank you!
When is volume 2 coming out?
I think early 2023
Love all your Beatles content!
Wow, Thanks for this! Oh, where is loving spoonful 3?
Two bits of information, Lennon - McCartney were to be finished. Paul’s name would be on his tracks and John’s on his. This was dispute that John and Paul were back to writing eyeball to eyeball on Abbey Road. Second bit was John was actually still in his resurgence of Beatles interest when two weeks later he rang Paul and George up to record the new song he came up with to be their next single. Paul and George did not think Lennon’s new song was worth a single and John said that’s it I want a divorce.
Funny, John was anti Maxwell (.”granny songs) but would put Yoko’s “Yes, I’m Your Angel” which is an Eddie Cantor “Makin’ Whoopee” 1930’s pastiche on “Double Fantasy”.
Matt - Would it be possible for you to create a video that describes how songwriter royalties are calculated (in particular how Beatles songwriter royalties on a Beatle album were calculated), how much each Beatle songwriter could expect to earn from each song on both an album and on a single, and thus how much songwriting money John is proposing to allocate to George and Ringo (from himself and Paul) by increasing their share of songs. Is the songwriting royalty calculated on a "by song" basis, so that Lennon and McCartney (or other songwriters) would split their royalties 50-50, if there is a different royalty for words and music, etc. This is a part of the music process that is confusing to me. I understand from anecdotes that the allocation of songwriting royalties can lead to band arguments and breakups, so it is an important topic.
Capital viewing & hearing. Great stuff exposed in a great sober & analytic manner. More to come I hope...
That Lou Courtney LP on the rack above the host's right shoulder is possibly the best '60s soul album no one else has heard. Oddly it was recorded on the Riverside label, most noted for jazz releases.
Yes - I had a Lou Courtney single as a kid and I agree -- he's the best I've heard. I did a video on him on this channel. Check it out if you get the chance.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Thanks! I did, and it's great! Learned a lot. Like, our man Lou went from one big jazz label (Riverside) to the next (Verve). You know what he said? "I got another one, just like the other one...another cold one, just like the old one." lol
George was out after Let It Be fulfilled their contractual obligations for the number of albums and films, he really did leave The Beatles in January 1969, at least in his mind, even though he physically came back, and even John was fed up with Paul micromanaging and bossing everyone around, as we heard from the planted mic in the new Let It Be doc, when John and Paul were discussing what to do after George left, George didn't mind putting finishing touches on the Let It Be album in early 1970, but there's no way he would ever go back into a studio with Paul for an entire album, George did say that he'd always be up for working with John though
I'm not convinced that this meeting dispels the myth that The Beatles were all but finished by September 1969.OK so Lennon is discussing the next move on the one hand, but on the other his criticism of the 2 McCartney songs still gives rise to the feeling he may not be up for doing more, and as we know he was not. We got a lot more than 4 songs from Lennon/McCartney and Harrison from 1970 onwards anyway.
Quite true. It's hard to follow Lennon's actions from this meeting forward with a true feeling that he wanted to continue as a band. But some call his "divorce" announcement a power play. As fans, we certainly did ok. Thanks for the comment!
How about a video on what are effectively "Threetle" songs, like Maxwell.
I may go into the "Maxwell" saga. I like your suggestion!
I disagree. John had checked out. By 1969 he was bored and tired of the Beatles. The only reason John is talking about an album is to entice McCartney into a contract with Klein.
That's an interesting take I hadn't considered. John may have gone through the motions one more time but it does appear the Beatles would have been second to whatever he was creating with Yoko.
All four were interested in a change. After 13 years of Beatlmania, who can blame them? The creativity and boldness that drove their careers was not sustainable. They were never interested in touring with oldie sets or re-cycling their music a la Dylan. They loved the Beatles concept so much that they destroyed it at its apogee.
@@65TossTrap Yes, and I think they destroyed it without realizing why they were doing it. At any rate, the ended it at the right time.
If you read the remarks of Norman their sound engineer, in 1966 the fights between John and Paul became fierce. At this point John gave up leadership of the group and retreated into a drugged out state of indifference. He produced some fantastic pop songs but was not capable of carrying on as a leader. The non-touring Beatles in semi-retirement gave it all they had and then some, but without the dynamic of live music, they retreated into boredom, drugs and various philosophies. They broke up in San Francisco 1966, and I can make that argument all day long.
@@65TossTrap That's the argument John often made too. His drugged out state came and went so much - one of the most fickle humans ever.
The Video title should refer to Apple Corp. I wondered why Apple computers would be interested Or if iTunes was claiming copyright.
When apple (computers etc) was first founded they came to an agreement with apple corps that they wouldn’t be branching out into music etc, obviously that changed and I think they had to get together again and come to some sort of agreement. So funny how the Beatles/apple etc still have all these overhangs all these decades later ...
I went to the Hornsey Road talk in Cambridge (uk) very interesting and well put together
I would have love to have seen it. Hopefully Mark will do others in the future.
It takes real balls and moxy for an author to steal an unauthorised private conversation of an Apple Business meeting and play it for profit without approval from the Lennon estate - and except to reap a financial windfall. Sounds like an event destined for a law suit. The fact that Lewisohn hyped it as if it was his own (later he back-pedalled and said it was in Anthony Fawcetts book) and used the journalist Williams to hype and promote his show. Very shady my man He later only played a thirty second excerpt after promising the whole tape - shady - you bet - Too bad - every Beatle community doesn’t hold him accountable instead they fawn over him and give him a pass - CMON MAN
@@opticscolossalandepicvideo4879 He played the 30 second section because that is what he could do legally. A lawsuit would happen if he played more than 30 seconds. Real balls would have been to play the entire tape live, no?
Pop Goes the 60s he had the audacity to play a bootleg stolen tape for personal profit. I’m surprised you didn’t find that offensive I think that’s flat out immoral and illegal that’s the ego of lewisohn who has reaped a fortune due to beatle kindness. He is at times unseemly in his approach to rip off the beatle empire. Track record of playing unauthorised recordings at abbey road for journalists and other vips and friends. George harrison called him a bootlegger in front of the entire production crew at the making of sgt pepper in 1992. So he has a history of doing spotty things
Steor acquiring a private meeting and playing it
I don’t think this tape disproves the idea that they all knew, on some level, that Abbey Road was going to be the last album. All four have, at various times in various interviews acknowledged that it felt like the end even though no actual decision had been made regarding the future of the group.
So in the absence of an expressed agreement to split, they naturally convened after the albums release to discuss what the next project might be.
John’s suggestion that they adopt a formula whereby each individual Beatle gets a predetermined number of songs needs to be understood in context. Only a few months prior to this he had suggested that all of Paul’s songs be on one side of Abbey Road, and his songs be on the other. Around the same time, he suggested that the Lennon/ McCartney songwriting credit be discarded so as to clearly identify a song as authored solely by Lennon or McCartney. There’s an obvious pattern here. John is trying to think of ways to “split up” the group without, you know, actually splitting up the group. But a few short weeks after the September meeting, he did summon the courage to come right out and tell the others that he was leaving- effectively ending The Beatles.
So I think all of John’s suggestions are really him grappling with an underlying truth that neither he nor his mates were ready to face; that he wanted a divorce.
It does seem strange that the final dispute was over something as petty as how many songs each one gets on the next album, something that they had never felt the need to codify in the past. But, in the course of human events, that’s the way it often goes doesn’t it?
I believe they simply followed John's lead but in early 1970 the other three thought John may come back (Anthology book) but obviously he didn't
Love it. Thanks!
I've read that John quit the Beatles at another meeting, on September 20th 1969, which makes it just 11 days after this meeting. Didn't sound like he was about to quit from this limited amount of audio. But obviously something happened.....
Probably he quit because he saw that Paul wasn’t going to go along with his proposal.
@@johnharrison9685 Maybe.... Also, it was on the 11th September that John and Yoko along with George had an in depth discussion with some of their Krishna associates at John's Tittenhurst estate. During that discussion the Krishna's encouraged Lennon to give up drugs. It was also around this time that the song 'Cold Turkey' seems to have emerged. I have read that John offered it to Paul as a potential Beatles single.... Paul was said to have declined. John quits on the 20th, then records 'Cold Turkey' as a solo single, with Ringo drumming, on the 25th to the 28th........
Heroin?
@@carlfisher3924 I have read this, yes.
@@johnharrison9685 John knew he didn't want to be a Beatle anymore. Paul was suggesting ideas for them to play live again when John asked for a divorce.
Hi Matt, I’ve got a proposal for a subject matter on a video you could do to follow up this one about the September ‘69 Beatles Meeting Tape. You say after the 9/9/69 meeting John quits the band 4 weeks later at their next meeting. What happened in those intervening 4 weeks that could’ve influenced John to make this decision. Things such as George not interested in recording another one of John’s drug songs like Cold Turkey or John performing at the Peace Fest for example? I’d be interested in an analysis of this. Love your videos, thanks Ellis Clark
I would love to tackle that topic but I need more information. There are several theories out there but I haven't seen anything that really offers anything definitive. Thank you for the request, Ellis.
I think what's missing from the critique of the notion that, by the time of the recording of Abbey Road, the Beatles "knew the game was up", by using the contents of this tape - is our own feelings and attitudes when we're in any kind of relationships, and the nuances related to them.
Who among us have been in relationships that, deep down, we knew were over, but made half-hearted efforts to salvage it, despite knowing the fruitlessness of those efforts...
This brings me onto Harrison's apparent contradictory attitude to being afforded more tracks per album: could it be that he'd been burned so many times by false promises of more time and attention paid to his songs in the past, that he just didn't believe this latest round of assurances from the others? (mostly McCartney, from what I have heard and read)
This seems like the most plausible explanation to me.
With regard to Harrison, and listening to 97.5 hours of the Let It Be sessions, George often times volunteers to 'take a back seat.' This surprised me and when he calls the dividing the songs up as a joke, I not don't know if he actually was comfortable about a perceived 'equal billing' to Lennon & McCartney. More to come!
I don't believe George ever wanted "equal time" with John & Paul. I never heard him say that - and I have never read a quote of him saying that. George knew John & Paul were the cornerstones of the group and that their songs had been proven winners over and over and over again. Harrison didn't see himself as their equal as a song writer. He just wanted his songs to be seriously considered when he brought something good to the table (which I feel the group did a pretty good job of - especially in 1969). I don't think George ever had any desire to have a quota of his songs forced onto the group's future albums.
I feel as you do, and there is no interview that I am aware of where he says anything referring to "equal time, billing, quota" etc. I've seen plenty of writers make this claim, but never George. Unfortunately, George never fully explained this in retrospect. The Anthology would have been the place to do it.
I almost wondered if the joke was saying 3 + 3 + 3 instead of saying 4 + 4 + 4.
They said they were going to reunite ten years later..
Will we ever hear this full recording? Why is it being concealed? If I had a piece of history I'd feel duty to make it public, not hoard it privately.
Apple seems to have strong armed Lewisohn on usage, though ownership rests in the hands of a private collector so I don't know the full legal issues surrounding this. I think we'll hear it at some point and even though it is essentially transcribed in in the book I mentioned, the audio would 'tell' so much more.
I think it's fun to speculate but I really don't think this tape is as revelatory as perceived. Even in Anthology Ringo says "we weren't saying, ok last track... last take....", etc. I'm sure subconsciously they could tell it was winding down, but nobody had ripped the band aid off so to speak. And in the midst of their new recording contract negotiations that were on-going at this point they were continuing to discuss it themselves "ok, so if we keep doing this, what's the next one going to look like?" They just knew that they didn't want everything to stop with the Get Back sessions. But none of them had worked out really what the way forward was yet.
Yes, much has been made of this tape; the trajectory of the band was certainly heading in a direction. Lot's of bands break off and do solo stuff and come back to do band efforts. Too bad the Beatles weren't able to do this. Thanks for commenting.... more to come!
I think it's extremely interesting for the following reasons : the fact that John would look at George as an equal to him and Paul which he had never done in the past. John would also quit the group just weeks after this conversation, so it's a bit odd he'd be talking about a new album. Just the fact that none of the Beatles ever mentioned this conversation before
Hi! Enjoy your podcast. Just subscribed and look fwd to more.
Thank you! More to come!
Saying John, Paul, George and RIngo is iconic, not to mention that as Lewisohn pointed out in Tune In, it's the band's order of seniority. Yet its unavoidable associations oversimplify four men more complex, and complicated, than the popular stylized notions of them. A big takeway: If Paul wasn't thrilled with Obladi and Maxwell, then it seems he may not have had full confidence in the commerciality of what any of them, including himself, would really want to write.
hi matt - great video --really loved this and the ATMP video. Have a list of other videos I'd love for you to make :) Do you have an email or website? cheers,
You can message me through my Pop Goes the 60s Facebook page. My list is pretty long, but send me your requests..