I recently saw the 1965 TV show you mentioned, "The Music of Lennon and McCartney," and was amazed first of all that a retrospective was thought appropriate for two songwriters who had been publicly active for just three years! That's how meteoric their success was. Secondly, Henry Mancini was one of the guests, and played a piano arrangement of "If I Fell." Talk about getting a seal of approval from another giant of the current music scene!
It was quite interesting. One thing I noted was that the songs John wrote for others sounded like Beatle parodies and the ones that Paul wrote didn't sound like The Beatles at all. It was also kinda surreal seeing Paul play Gracie Allen to John's George Burns.
I always thought some tension started in their middle period and later, when McCartney asserted himself. John in this 1966-67 period fell into an ego-killing state with his heavy LSD use. Once John got away from LSD, during the White Album, he wanted to reassert himself again, at least on one level but didn’t really on another. He was conflicted. He resented Paul filling the void; also his getting most of the A sides on later singles, but he didn’t really want to lead the band again either. Yoko became his means of escape from this band dynamic. He could pretend The Beatles didn’t matter to him and he could walk away.
Interesting idea. John left the Beatles because it was easier than competing with Paul. You could extrapolate that to John going into retirement in 1975 at the point that McCartney and Wings were dominating the charts and live music concerts.
I definitely agree with you about Yoko, Matt. She was complicit in leading John away from the other three, knowing full well the power she had over him. I have always thought of her as a calculating woman, an opportunist, and i think Lennon fell for it, hook, line and sinker. .
I also suspect that if John didn’t start to think he was bigger than the Beatles, she would never have been able to steer him in that direction. I see her as being the megaphone for John’s actual feelings.
Yeah it’s no coincidence that the “No one can equal my genius” version of John Lennon coincided when he was with Yoko. I think Yoko went too far in stroking John’s ego. For those unaware, this was the time of Ranting John when he was ranting about how 99% of Beatles songs were crap and he was embarrassed being in the Beatles and no one is on his level and he’s on the level of Beethoven and Mozart.
The Beatles broke up over 50 years ago, two members are no longer living and yet their history keeps being discussed almost as much as their music. A testament to their towering stature.
Your videos are always well thought out and have plenty of context, this was a good one. I didn't know that Paul was doing Cocaine during Pepper, I alway just thought Paul mainly did pot (apart from alcohol, uppers and obligatory LSD). Each using different drugs was an interesting point, shared LSD trips or pot experiences would be bonding, but different even contradictory in effect drugs would be alienating. I am glad you talked about going from the dynamic of rotating Lead singers between John Paul & George to John and Paul dominating as soon as they started recording. George had become the third wheel, he did get passive aggressive but that was probably better than being simply aggressive. He started to get validation outside of the Beatles. Your discussion of Yoko was good too, there seems to a real divide with some people saying Yoko wasn't a problem at all and others just seeing her as an evil witch who is the root of all their problems. But it is clear that she was a contributing factor to the break up for exactly the reasons you give. The rise of the idea of genius John, which to me actually marks the beginning of his decline as an artist and that sense of dependency that I don't think he ever resolved and I can't see as entirely healthy. I think John and George were the most psychologically damaged by the Beatle phenomena. I have never heard Yoko make any really perceptive comments relating to the Beatles music and many times the level of her ignorance is stunning for someone that was so close to them.
Thank you, Keri. Yes, Yoko's dismissiveness of the Beatles while she was invited into the inner circle needs calling out. John's girl or not, she was a guest and not yet family.
she made no perceptive comments because she had no interest in them. her interest was self advancement. John needed to be dominated, yet he was always the dominator prior to Y.O.. he was the perfect foil for Y.O. .. there & again we have a pecking order & culture that was most likely established very soon after they met & it would be difficiult to argue that she didnt take advantage of the situation for self advancement.. theres a lot of evidence that supports the love between them was heavily biased in one direction..
I had no idea that Brian Epstein instituted the "three lead singer" policy. That was a great idea! Even as a kid in the late 60s early 70s, I remember really enjoying the variety of hearing three separate lead singers on Beatles songs.
Great research Matt! Also: George went to New York Christmas 1968 and hung out with Dylan and the Band. These were real musicians and they just scoffed at the thought of Yoko in the studio. Secondly (but more importantly) it was fashionable to "break up" in the late sixties. Get Back could have been titled, "The most Un/Beatific Album Ever" with no sing alongs like Obla di on the album. Everyone was "coming off their rookie contract" and breaking up: Eric and the Animals; Van Morrison and Them; the Yardbirds; the Velvet Underground lost Cale and Nico; the Hollies lost Nash and the Byrds broke up every six months. I mention this because George brought back a new asthetic from New York plus a very strong rebuke to Yoko's claim that she was an "artist": Dylan told George that Andy Warhol was familiar with her work and considered it "corny". When George leaked this information to Paul and Ringo, John became enraged.
Good comments, thanks for informed info. The Band and Dylan and many other great groups would not put up with someone like Yoko meddling in the rehearsals, or input in songwriting. The Beatles songwriting crushes The Bands "musicianship" and The Beatles were not inferior musicians. I understand you did not call The Beatles inferior musicians. Keep educating the rest of us my friend.
It was once popular to oversimplify and cite Yoko as the one and only reason the Beatles broke up. Now the pendulum has swung the other way and people try to act like she is the great red herring and not to blame at all. The reality is that, with John under her influence, the band broke up likely years earlier than it would have otherwise. It seemed she was always in a power struggle versus the other guys, never tried to connect with them in any meaningful way (despite John being close to them) and diminished the music they did as a lesser art form. Sorry, I still view Yoko as one of the great villains of Beatles history. Would have loved to see an alternate timeline in which John never met her. I was really looking forward to this video and you delivered again, Matt. Can’t wait for Part 3.
Hey David, thank you for the support. The Yoko aspect must be understood to really access damage to the group at that time. Klein used the Yoko aspect to further the wedge, which was not in Klein's best interest but he did it anyway. More on that in part 3!
Any thing you do on the Beatles is great my friend, keep up the good work.. PS. Like your new stage, I'm 68 years old and remember them from Ed Sullivan , I lived in the BRONX back then.. Thank you Frank from montana.........
Really fascinating dynamics. Great job you're doing on this. Like in many families, members move on the do 'their own thing' while eventually come back together for special occasions. The Beatles were most likely headed in this direction anyway. Yoko showing up and inserting herself into situation changed the paradigm of the band. In my opinion, she knew what she was doing and did nothing to stop it. As long as the boys were together she would always be the fifth wheel. Very short sighted of her, one can only imagine the wonderful music they would have made had they united every so often to work together.
Thank you, film maker. The break up got toxic enough to ruin it for the 10 years that followed, which is not unlike divorces. I do think had Lennon not been murdered that there would have been an "anthology" type of project which would have been good enough for me. Yoko added to the toxcitiy.
Very well researched! It is interesting that in 1966 that in many ways Paul was the avant-garde one, meeting other artists and experimenting with electronic music in London, while John was withdrawing inward with LSD. They were still friends, but the Fabs weren't leading parallel lives as in the early days. I wonder if John may have had some jealousy of Paul as he was leading a freer artistic life and taking more a leadership role.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Yeah, as you mentioned Matt, John's marriage with Cynthia wasn't good at that point. Starting in 1968, John & Yoko together would be more active in both the artistic and later the political movements going on then.
The one thing that I find significant is the breakdown of the group dynamic and it being the main feature throughout. For a group of guys who have been what they've been through and by all appearances were bestest of buddies. And yet, when push came to shove, they couldn't communicate properly. George couldn't do much or, at least, resigned himself with dry quips and mopey passive aggressiveness. Everyone's afraid to take John aside and request he leave Yoko home. No one wanted to tell Paul they didn't want to do another film. They seemed to be entirely unable to reach each other. Even in that little secretly recorded conversation, John and Paul kind of talk passed each other. They dance around a subject but never really come to a resolution.
I often wonder if breaking up wasn’t actually the best thing they could have done at the time, no matter the motivations. They never stuck around long enough to make an awful album. And it seems likely the 70s wouldn’t have been as kind to them as the 60s were. I could see perhaps one or two more quality albums coming out before a real downward slide set in. They sealed their legacy by breaking up when they did. Nobody can match the body of work they released in seven short years in the recording studio.
You have a good point there. How heartbreaking would it be for the Beatles to have dwindled to having LPs ending up in the clearance bin? Very unlikely that we'd have been seeing all these 50th anniversary deluxe box sets if they had trailed off into mediocrity or even worse.
Solid research as well - So enjoyable when someone is not shooting from the lip - PLUS assembling those great photos - some I'd never seen! Part 3 - Bring it on!
I'm glad you brought up Ms. Yoko Ono and her role in this, you make fair and compelling arguments for all of your points. I am looking forward to the third installment and I will try to stay objective when I make my post on my conclusion, based on your excellent research. I am also going to tell you Matt, something I think you already know, you now have enough research to do a book on the subject(s) and the time has come.
Same comment as Part 1, but same sentiment...I truly love your channel Matt! "Got up early today, grabbed my coffee, and watched Part 1 and Part 2!! Loved them Matt! You really did an outstanding job researching and putting this together! Loved the VERY rare photos too! You're the man! Cheers Matt Street"
Good video Matt. Over the years there has been a trend to "not blame Yoko" at all. It's understandable because she and John had a great love for one another (though with a lot of problems), and she was the widow of a great musician who was assassinated out of the blue. But, first and foremost, she was not a Beatles fan, and she was a selfish spouse when it came to her husband's relations with his bandmates and others. She had little interest in his friends and past life.
@@BenjaminNavillus thats definitely obvious. i look for the clues that are less obvious but often tell so much. for instance, late '80 J&Y were all over the media platforms of the day, & to go off-rail for a second, was there ever a better interviewee than John?.& for so many reasons.. ok back on track, in these interviews, find me one where John doesnt profess his need & love for yono. find me one where yoko does for john. particularly if hes not present. ill wait. i think she realized within their first few encounters, the power she had to manipulate his vulnerability. by most accounts he basically dumped it in her lap. she ran with it. watch let it be. he looks at her. she looks back at him. they're not the same.
Some good points about Yoko that you're spot on with, especially that she's now 'above criticism'. It would be interesting to find out where that notion evolved from, possibly from Paul who seems to have completely absolved her of any wrong doing in the last twenty years.
that notion has evolved from us. the people & fans who are fascinated with all beatle related stuffs. because they've always been relevant (more now than ever since split?). revered, etc.. John's tragic death, the timing of it, the circumstances & irony surrounding it etc, turned John into a mythical figure whose solo & beatle fanbase have had 40+yrs of romanticism biased in his favor. John started the Beatles, John ended the Beatles. his death also meant the Beatles died with him. no wonder the story gets romanticized. no matter what anybody else thought of the J&Y unity, apparently it was John's lifeblood. we've grown to accept & maybe even appreciate her with the passage of time. in her defense, she hasnt don anything to tarnish or disrespect John's public image & most importantly for her, she did nothing to disrespect Johns love for her. she didnt marry again, no reality shows no sex change operations, no kardashianism, etc. she just remained yoko. never even moved from where she lived w John. We hold her in regard because we loved John.. & so does Sir Paul.
@@Toobzilla I get it...Nicely put. Hindsight is always 20/20 however. I recently watched the "Get Back' film and I have to say Yoko was very well behaved.
A lot to take in there- great perspective, and some information that's new to me for sure, but I just want to say that the opening and closing montages are glorious. Absolute magic.
As I mentioned before, Apple Records even kept up the premise that the Beatles were still an active group and recording together. Their press release in January in 1970 read “and the Beatles go on and on and on…” and their secretary Freda was told when asked about rumors of the band splitting up, “they have a whole new decade to make music!!” So my belief has been that until Paul took legal action against the Beatles it was thought to be possibly a temporary rift in the group that would fix itself after a few solo albums got released.
I agree with this. I really feel that The Beatles would have still existed had that press release from paul's album not gotten out. I think they really just needed a break, do their own albums, then come together a few years down the line (maybe 1973 or so) and come up with a new album.
i believe they were also in negotiations w capitol records for a new deal/more $$ in their recording contract.. news of breakup would have been disastrous to that. although one could argue that withholding that info from capitol at that time could be viewed as legally wrongful..
My main concern is that George was quoted a few years before his untimely passing as saying that it WAS NOT Yoko that broke up The Beatles, but the fact that they were together nonstop from 1959/1960 until their official split (when the paperwork was signed) in 1970…no vacations away from each other or anything like that.
There are many, many quotes including court documents where George says otherwise. He probably realizes that she is not the ONLY reason for the break up, but he blamed her more than Paul and Ringo did.
As with your previous Beatles related videos I thoroughly enjoyed this, thank you. It was great to see a calm, level thoughtful evaluation of the events based on good research. To sum up the video, quality work 👍
I love this channel and truly appreciate how detailed you are. You offer your opinion, but you get your information from primary sources and present facts. You leave emotion out of it and you’re not afraid to be critical of The Beatles or anyone. I think Yoko was one of many factors that led to The Beatles breaking up, but I also think the hate she gets from many fans is unnecessary. There are many things Yoko has said and done that I do not agree with, but she watched her husband get murdered in cold blood. I’ll never forget the photograph of Yoko in the hospital and the look on her face. I never want to see anyone have that look after watching someone they love be murdered. She had to raise a child on her own without a father. No, she’s not the only person who has done this. Nor does this make her immune to criticism. Believe me, I could list several things about Yoko that drive me nuts, but I don’t hate her nor do I hold her solely responsible for the break up of The Beatles. I am in the minority of most Beatles fans as I get why they had to break up. It was inevitable and I’m just grateful we got to enjoy them for as long as we did. As George said in the “Anthology” series, “it had to self-destruct”. And it did. I also get why John fell so hard for Yoko. I know I’m in the minority here, too, but I found her to be very attractive and there was something very enchanting about her. All the same, I agree with you, Matt, about her not being a Beatles fan and I think her and John could have handled things much better with regards to the band dynamic. Had Brian lived, he might have been able to take John aside and talk to him about Yoko. John might have listened to Brian. Then again, he might have told Brian to sod off. As much as I get why John fell for Yoko, I also see their relationship as toxic. It was two people so heavily into each other that it became an obsession and addiction as you stated. They were always around each other and I think that every couple needs space sometimes. And John once said, “when we weren’t in the studio, we were in bed” and they weren’t in bed playing cards. Matt, you go above and beyond with your music journalism. Keep up the great work.
Great part 2!!! The old joke was “When Yoko walked in”….George, Paul, and Ringo said “O No”! Nothing against Yoko, but it was a huge shift in John’s attention.
Matt, i saw heading and thought " not another beatles break up video", i had underestimated you, young man. Your delivery, your vocal tone, your looking over your glasses as you may a point, even your mouth sounds as you take a sip of i think whiskey and soda, could be anything, tickles my ASMR receptors.. you do a great job. Probably been mentioned but why did you leave out pot ? Pot makes one initially lively but then lethargic, can produce paranoia, more than any other drug, pot and hash seemed the boys tipple.. Anyhow loving these videos, thanks Matt
Thank you for the kind words, Cherry. I usually have whiskey-coke when I do a video. I left out pot because that seemed to be a constant that they all did, so there was no 'not being on the same wavelength" issue.
I’ve heard for years that The Beatles would have broken up with or without Yoko Ono. But, I’ve seen in my own family how a spouse with an agenda that isn’t compatible with the established order can destroy the overall dynamic in a group that formerly functioned well. I’ve always felt that Yoko was the catalyst that hastened the end of the group much earlier than it would have occurred organically. Yoko filled the void that John would have felt if he had distanced himself from his bandmates without her. Yoko also filled the vacuum created by Brian’s death. With Yoko supporting him, John didn’t need anyone else, probably for the first time in his life. This situation could have been wonderful for John if his partner had been supportive of his work. Yoko wanted to control John personally and professionally, which led to the early demise of The Beatles.
You got that right! And her insistence on being on the Double fantasy album was another manipulation. After John agreed he wanted to have her on one side and he on the other but she knew people would not listen to her side so again she influenced him to alternate songs so people had to hear her. She's a witch, and any one of John's relatives will tell you so.
So true. Yoko took the place of Brian when she “managed” John the rest of his life even if she had to use astrology to do it. She took the place of Paul McCartney as his creative partner. She took the place of John’s mother Julia who was also a nonconformist , artistic woman. She took the place of his aunt Mimi who raised him and kept him “in line.” I believe “Mother” Yoko knew exactly what she was doing. She’s a mastermind, I have to give her credit for that. And fearless. She wasn’t the least bit intimidated by The Beatles.
@@terrythekittieful i don’t know Yoko personally. I don’t have to know Putin personally to know that he’s an evil man. Some things are well-documented enough that they have become self-evident. Excuse me if you’re a fan of hers. I’m not.
I agree. I think they would've separated to do their own projects but more than likely would've worked together on and off if not for Yoko. It's said that John wanted to collaborate with Paul again in some capacity (late 70s I believe) and she put the kibosh on that straight away. John's unhealthy obsession with her and Yoko's unwillingness to give him any agency kept the band apart.
As a side note: most younger people don't realize how little the audience knew or cared about artists writing their own songs. In the early 1960s no one cared that Elvis or Cliff Richard weren't songwriters or cared that Buddy Holly or Billy Fury were - in fact those that wrote often did so under pen names. When Brian encouraged John and Paul to write their own songs that was very, very unusual. Record companies usually rolled their eyes when artists said that they wanted to release one of their own songs and if they couldn't appease them any other way would shove a self-penned song onto a B-Side where, at the time, no one would notice. Record companies were much happier with the professional writers' generic (although often great) songs. It occurs to me that Brian might have been more open to John and Paul writing because he wasn't much of a pop fan, he appreciated musical theatre more where song writing teams were the norm. Because half of a band writing the group's songs was so unusual it's also likely that no one imagined that this might cause a rift further down the line.
Just another great part to the Beatles story! Oh....there's been a bunch of reasons so far that you've brought up, I'm not choosing which I feel is the leading reason they broke up.....but, I have this sneaking feeling that Yoko is not getting away unscathed. Deservedly so. Great video sir again. And good comments as well by your fans!
Completely agree about Yoko Ono. The Unfinished Music trilogy was related to that particular nail in the coffin-especially the Two Virgins. Pissed off everyone. It's like John was under a spell. I still wonder to this day about that long gap after Walls and Bridges in the late 1970s where John Lennon was basically a recluse from the music business. Five years is an eternity to not produce any new material. I was surprised to find out his last stage appearance was with Elton John and the "Whatever Gets You Thru the Night" challenge. I feel pretty certain, had he lived, he would have divorced Yoko in the 1980s. Really enjoy your videos about this subject and I also recommend another video to your subscribers another one that takes a hard critical look at the Beatles biographical books.
Thank you for the discussion on Yoko. I just read some of Tony Bramwell’s book. By all accounts, she was extremely manipulative and John was easy prey. But that doesn’t let him off the hook for me. I’ve lost a lot of respect for John during my recent studies of The Beatles (as somebody not alive at the time, I’ve had to play catch-up.) His tortured soul routine who lashed out at everybody grows tiresome for me. Will you explore Yoko rallying for king demon (Klein) to be The Beatles manager? I’d like to know more…
I've read Tony's book and he has a raging hate-on for Yoko. I wouldn't put too much stock in what he says; he is probably projecting his own feelings onto others. But if he felt that way, it is probable that others did too. Just take it with a grain of salt.
@@Kieop Well I said, by “all” accounts. His was just the latest I read. Her (and her ex husband’s) plan is well-documented by many and the fact that she claims now that she didn’t know who The Beatles were before she “met” John is either laughable or deranged. But I’ve said many times, it’s ultimately John’s fault. He fell for her and Allen’s game. Imagine if neither had come into the picture…
From my understanding, the key thing about the new contract is that it committed the band to delivering more new material in order to receive the increased royalties. There can't be any doubt that John wanted to leave, because he did leave. Paul's contributions to Abbey Road suggest that he knew they were making their last album - and discussions in the Nagra tapes make it clear that that idea was very much in the air well before they started work on Abbey Road. I think I'm right in saying that under the old deal they would have been able to stop after Abbey Road (and Let It Be). But the new contract - negotiated by John's own man Klein - suddenly put a block on (I'm sure) his planned departure from the band, and probably the orderly dissolution of the band. (Do please correct me if I'm wrong about this - no one ever discusses the contract thing properly.) My reading of that August meeting is that Paul and George are just sitting there listening to John trying to convince himself that it's going to be possible for him to meet the requirements of the new contract whilst barely being a Beatle anymore. I really don't think he was interested in trying to give more room to George; his interest was in having the minimum possible involvement with the band. He would deliver only four songs; so Paul wouldn't be _allowed_ any more than four songs; so, hey, George, I've always been a big fan of your work, and you're going to have to write four songs too. Oh and Ringo can help himself to biscuits. Hello Ringo. An interesting thing is John's behaviour towards Paul in that meeting. I don't quite get how he thought Maxwell's Silver Hammer was suitable for Mary Hopkin, but he seems openly contemptuous of both. He's clear that in future there will be total separation between his songs and Paul's songs - no more medleys or any of that nonsense. This was never going to work; it was never going to happen; and both Paul and George know it. I figure John felt frustrated and constrained being in the band. He felt that he couldn't get what he wanted to say and do past the others (both Paul and George) and out to the public. And I think he felt a little embarrassed to be involved in music and songs that some of his new friends probably didn't regard too highly. In that respect, I think Paul had become representative (in John's mind) of everything from which he desperately wanted to disassociate himself. That's just my guess as to where that attitude towards Paul in the meeting is coming from. When I first read Ian Macdonald's piece on Step Inside Love / Los Paranoias in Revolution In The Head, I figured it was a little fanciful. But then I realised that this was five or six months after Step Inside Love had been a hit for Cilla Black in the UK, and getting on for a year after Paul had written it for her - it was already an old song, and an odd choice to sing in front of John. In my opinion it's one of Paul's best, but I imagine it represented everything that Lennon wanted to get away from - not just the song itself, but that whole idea of writing songs for other artists, which didn't fit with John's new-ish and misguided idea that songs should be a direct expression of one's own actual beliefs and emotions. I'm sure these things were discussed. I still believe Paul's addressing John in Martha My Dear regarding both their personal and professional relationship (I can do fanciful too). But I suppose what I'm saying is that a significant factor here in John's desire to quit is, erm, artistic differences. Hmmm, that came out sounding less original than I thought.
For the record, Yoko Ono did wear miniskirts and hot pants (there’s a famous photo of her having her skirt and other clothes cut to bits with a scissor in some type of conceptual art in 1967), she just did not do it as often as the other women in the 60s. There’s even a photo of her wedding to John Lennon where she’s wearing a white miniskirt
The scissor stuff was not really a fashion statement as it was a conceptual piece of art. It's interesting that we see wearing far more hot clothes after the Beatles broke up.
I love you, man, and I'm giving you a big Beatle Bear Hug! Usually, when I listen to people talking about the fabs, I hear more myth than truth; but not you brother. Your videos are well researched and deeply insightful. Thx. "John and Yoko demanded the respect of the other three Beatles, but (they) did not reciprocate that respect for the band that made John Lennon famous." Brilliant conclusion. I think the final reason was summed up by both Sir Paul, "We all grew up and got married and had to leave our old war buddies behind." And Lord Lennon's acerbic "Go back to High School!" and "WE all grew up and became lawyers." Time marched on and left the fab four, and the heady idealism of the 60's, behind.
I don't think there's any way the Beatles could've went on much longer than they did. They all had developed their own lives as individuals, John wanted to be in New York, Paul wanted to be in the country etc. The only way it could've worked is if they came up with material on their own and then brought it in when it was time to make an album. But John, Paul and George were all musically mature enough by this point that they could've ended up finishing their own songs alone before even bringing to the album recording sessions. If they are all 3 going to bring in finished songs then what is the point of recording together when you could just be a solo artist? Looking forward to the next video!
@@Kieop I figured Paul did but I suppose I dont really have any evidence to back that up other than the music he wrote about the country life style on McCartney and Ram. Plus whether it was him or Linda was irrelevant, its still what he did. John was unavailable in a lot of ways because of Yoko's influence, that doesn't make him any more or less available just because it was her idea instead of his.
on a more general, slightly less opinionated rant, i do think you offer the most realistic, unbiased analysis of all things beatle & you seem to excel @ applying critical thinking to filter a lot of the BS that surrounds all the beatle related lore. i havent found much content or analysis that i would disagree with. for me, thats extremely rare, lol. Great Job!.
As you have shown, it took many inputs to break up something as strong as the Beatles. I agree with all your points as they all had some impact on the Beatles demise. Certainly, the co-dependence of John and Yoko became the final nail. Two damaged personalities coming together can be a humbling experience, to paraphrase an alternate perspective. Another point would be George's leadership of the Beatles from 1966. On the positive side, George lead and influenced the band with Indian music and senseabilities. All the Writer's adopted Indian approaches into their music. This was one of George's influences that united the band for a period of time. I am sure that George felt that this elevated his stature in the band, even though he may of have been frustrated with the others shallower emersion into the religious side of Indian culture. The negative side of George's leadership was his refusal to be a public Beatle. George did not want to perform live and was reluctant to do films. He really became disenchanted with being a Beatle pre 1966. This caused the direction of the Beatles to change to accommodate what George did not want to do. In my mind, I tidy up the demise of the Beatles with the loss of compromise. The weight each of them carried to consider the others views and desires, in the context of the Beatles, as the grew apart was an increasing burden. As individuals, their ability to 'carry that weight' gave out at different times. The last one, and the most reluctant to collapse under this weight was Paul. His love of being a Beatle was the strongest. The Beatles broke up because their ability to compromise enough for each of them to sustain the Beatles was gone.
I agree with your assessment of George leading with the Indian music and spirituality. I think Lennon and McCartney really followed his lead with regard to the trip to Wales to see Maharishi and the India trip.
@@popgoesthe60s52 According to Patty the trip to Wales was Paul's suggestion. Though probably in the way of "I saw this and thought you might be interested".
George is (rightly) labeled as being passive-aggressive, but John was passive-aggressive in the extreme. He used Yoko to make Paul and George feel uncomfortable. He was clearly angry that Paul had taken over "his" band as de-facto leader. With Yoko by his side I believe he was trying to reassert himself as bandleader again.The Allen Klein fiasco was clearly his way of taking control. He pitted himself and his choice of manager against Paul and his choice of the Eastmans, and Klein convinced George and Ringo to go along with John, promising all of them higher royalties (while also promising Yoko that her art exhibitions would be financed by the Beatles, giving John and Yoko more combined earnings than the other three). George was already feeling overlooked and likely saw the Eastmans as giving Paul all control, which is understandable. Didn't their new contract also promise that all Beatles would share equally in profits even when they produced work independently? If so, I imagine that didn't sit well with Paul, the workaholic and lead hitmaker of the group.
Yes, think about that for a second. So after Clive got his 25%, Klein got his 20%, the UK got their 95%, then each Beatle would get 25% of what was left. This may have seemed great for the other 3 Beatles, especially if your records weren't selling as well. However, in a situation where you might form a new band, like Wings, suddenly that 25% is only 5% (10% when including Linda), since band members are typically paid out of record royalties. I may be wrong but I think Paul got around that by treating them as salaried employees instead. But still, in principle, the situation could have been the other Beatles getting 25% of his record sales while Paul only got 5%.
@POPGOESTHE60S I sadly know ALL TOO WELL about drugs and their destructive side. I was and addict and saw others who were as well. Drugs and addiction destroy anything good. Even John Lennon found how dangerous they were. I'm glad I'm 1 year and a half sober because life maybe difficult but it will be way WAY worse with an addiction.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Thank you. Means a lot coming from your great self. I discovered the true meaning of the song "Cold Turkey" and "Yer Blues" when trying to kick it. Although, it could've been worse. I could've been recording "Ob-la-di ob-la-da"... Recovery is like "Here comes the sun" and "All too much". Life is never easy or perfect. But I am now embracing life as a real person and growing stronger. You're one amazing person. Keep rocking and keep spinning those vinyl. David
I think that ultimately it all comes down to Yoko. All of the other issues would have been worked through, especially with George earning his right to more space and both John and Paul being very happy about that. Pretty much all of the things pulling John away from the others were driven by her.
Really thoughtful and insightful analysis. I think there is some evidence that the end of the Beatles was due largely to the basic personality of John. John was the kid that our parents called, rather disapprovingly, "a ringleader". From his earliest days, he always gathered around him an "entourage" and that characteristic goes very deep into his psyche. When Yoko came along, I believe he thought "Well, the Beatles are MY band, and I can invite in whomever I want to. And if the others don't like it, too bad." After all, it was only a dozen years since Pete Shotten and the Quarrymen, and less time since Stu Sutcliffe. Those essential personality traits can be leashed, but they never completely disappear. I'm pretty sure that, at bottom, John viewed the Beatles as his gang. And he may have decided it was finally time to reassert his dominance.
Very good discussion of Yoko. Yoko didn't break up the Beatles, but John did. John had his issues, and she led him away from the Beatles. A controlling personality, she could not have anything or anyone with that kind of pull in a different direction than her. Yoko ain't the first person who has had those issues, and same with John. I think people who talk about this as though it is Twilight of the Gods should remember these were 4 very human fellows. Paul took advantage of John's withdrawal and Brian's and kind of took over the band. As you point out, this took things outside of the framework that had always existed. George, who was resentful, wasn't ready for Paul to be a bossing him.
good points you make. & as abrasive as it feels to admit, you have to consider that the Beatle machine had to have someone take the wheel. brians passing & johns indifference kinda by rank, meant his concerns needed to be dealt with.. we may very well all ( beatles included) all owe Sir Paul a thank you & apology for his efforts & our criticisms. it may well have morphed into an irreperable mess by early '68.. gotta be fair.
I'm kind of amazed at the lenght of the India trip regarding Lennon and Harrison. They really tried to find the truth and peace of mind and the answer. And hopped from the hectic wheel of life for a while.
I wonder if Brian Epstein had been around whether the band dynamics and Yoko issues could have been overcome. I've also noticed that once John is fully on board with Yoko his song production becomes quite sparse which doesn't help the band dynamic. Look at his lack if songs in the Get Back project. Great videos Matt. Thanks.
All great points, Matt. Certainly not just one thing, as you articulate. Surprised to hear about PM doing coke during Pepper. Thought that didn't become a thing till the late 60's. I still think Ono had a lot to do with the Beatles breakup, for all the reasons you mentioned. I still can't stand her, and her "art" , even after all these years .
I seldom comment. But I enjoy your videos. Well researched and well presented. You handled the whole Yoko thing very diplomatically, but yet it was still addressed.
Yoko pulled John away in order to use his fame to help her get more attention. One thing about Yoko...she LOVES attention. So much so she will bleat and scream in the middle of a performance by John just to pull the eyes and ears in her direction. Anyone who has ever been in a band knows the poison a wife or girlfriend can bring into the harmony of a band situation. To have her show up, ask for a microphone, try to suggest ideas during the construction of songs in rehearsal, and a myriad of other things makes me believe her presence killed the joy of that band.
the last point about John & Yoko not reciprocating the hard-earned respect was brilliant! and generally - as always - great insight and a fun listen, despite the dark subject matter; I kind of knew all that before, but you presented this all with such clarity that it felt like a revelation; and yes, Yoko seems to have got away with her Beatles-belittling agenda recently, true
You said everything about Yoko in a very clear way...and based on things that really happened and things they really said. It is not speculation. George also compared her with a wedge separating them. I saw him saying it in a video but this video vanished. It was supposed to be part of Anthology, but, of course, it was not included. He even said she never liked The Beatles as you said. Anyway, I want not only to congratulate you for this idea, because you know how to touch in these subjects with the respect it deserves...You are high class. If I disagreed in parts it doesn't mean I disliked. I liked it very much also because it gave me a chance to say what I think. And I simply love talking about the Beatles! I only dislike when people lacks with respect and tend to give not proven stories as facts. And concentrate only in the negative. You recognizes they were true friends. What a good time I had watching it...thinking about it...loving them even more! All of them with all their problems. Not being perfect at all...but being perfect in their imperfection. So, yes, Yoko was part important in their break up because they themselves told us so. Including John. I She was not a avant garde artist. She said she was...But if so, she was a no talented avant garde artist. I confess I like some of her ideas for her lyrics, though. Example. We are all water in this vast vast ocean someday will evaporate together...Or that we were born in a prison and sent to a prison called school. LOL. That is true! But i have seen people praising her as a true Artist. Not you, sure. I have seen people saying she was piano classical trained...Recently i read a person saying she was also an opera singer...trained! I have to think in that tale of an Emperor that contracted taylors for his new clothes. I know it in Portuguese, but i think it is an international story. Only very smart people could see the outfit. The taylor informed that. In fact there was no clothes at all, and the emperor was naked! But people could not say that or they would be considered idiots.. Until a kid was brave enough to scream..."The Emperor is Naked". Too bad no kid showed up to tell Yoko was naked and maybe open John's eyes. But...she told us she was naked. She posed naked with John for the cover of Two Virgins record. But people didn't notice. As a matter of fact, a kid did something similar. Heather. Her face listening to Yoko screaming is amazing. But only her expression. She had to scream! LOL Anyway, I am sure so many people praise her because they believe she is avant garde...and only bright people can appreciate it. Avant garde of high quality is what the Beatles did in Tomorrow Never Know. Without Yoko.
Thank you for that analogy to "The Emperor's New Clothes" - perfect! Yoko's art is up for criticism and we must remember that the only reason any of us know the name "yoko Ono" is because she married a Beatle.
John and Ringo were on holiday at that time. Who's to say that had either John, Ringo, or both, been around for George's wedding that one of them wouldn't have been George's best man...
I'm not sure how much weight to accord dynamics, but it certainly seems to be the reason most given by the Beatles themselves. Characterizing the breakup as growing up and growing apart. That they came together so young would have ossified their interdynamics or "birth/pecking order" and left no opportunity for adapting to changing circumstances. As you rightly point out, when it comes to family these things are static and when you go home, you find yourself falling into old patterns. This, of course, is especially true for Paul and George, who knew each other the longest. Paul still refers to George as his baby brother. George and Paul are only 8 mos apart in age and about an inch apart in height. SO THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME AGE AND THE SAME HEIGHT. If they had met as adults, this older/younger brother dynamic/resentment would never have occurred. (Though if they'd met as adults, they may not have had anything in common with which to get together in the first place. Who knows?) But they met as children when Paul lived briefly in George's neighbourhood and then later again at high school. Paul was a year ahead in school. When we're kids we think of people in our grade/form as being our age and people ahead of us as older and behind us as younger, whether or not that is the case. We don't make allowances for people being advanced or held back, being born in Dec or Jan. Paul was significantly taller than George at the time. You can most clearly see this in the photo taken with Ivan Vaughan (1:23). This would also have been true when they first met. Paul had been chubby at 14 but thinner at 15, perhaps demarking a major growth spurt. George may have grown more gradually or had his spurt at a later age. People mature at vastly different rates. John remarked that he thought Paul looked 12 and George even younger when he met them. And speaking of maturing at different rates, George is reported to have lost his virginity at 17. Paul claims to have been 15. That is a 3 year period in their relationship in which Paul was sexually active and George was not. It's quite natural for Paul to see George as a kid in this situation and himself as a "man". I'm not making excuses for Paul's inability to change his perception of George as "baby brother", despite the fact that he should've "outgrown" it and George obviously resented it. I'm just trying to help explain it.
From what I saw in your printed comments, I'm pretty sure Allen Klein was among the last three reasons the Beatles broke up; so far, at least two of the reasons you mentioned were individual people. I'm certainly eager to see the final part in this .
You hit the nail on the head with the fact that Yoko never seemed to understand or acknowledge how important the Beatles’ work was. John had the type of all or nothing personality that was susceptible to her flattery. He appears to switch all his attention from Paul (the band, but mostly Paul) to Yoko. He wanted everything in one person, hence conflating Yoko and Paul to an “equal level” of artistic capability. Clearly, he was wrong. I don’t believe he ever really wanted the Beatles to break up with the divorce statement, it was more throwing down a gauntlet. He needed the Beatles to feel normal as he said late 66. He was suicidal after Paul left India, something that happened there made him see that his utopian vision of them all living on a Greek island with interconnecting houses was never going to happen (!)
@@mikahattunen4502 playboy interview, Lennon says “"In ‘Yer Blues’, when I wrote, ‘I’m so lonely I want to die,’ I’m not kidding. That’s how I felt." He wrote Yer Blues in India. Also Pete Shotton wrote that on direct return from India John was “the most fucked up id ever seen him”. That’s off the top of my head, there’s a whole podcast called One Sweet Dream that does a massive deep dive into the break up.
@@annakermode6646 from the things ive read, it appears that John, when he latched on to a direction, influence, philosophy, material things etc. etc. it was always 110%. so making the commitment to Maharishi wouldve been the same. living there for 4mos probably (1) made him realize that Maharishi was just another way of life & not the new direction & it probly warped his head a bit. (2) 4 mos. even if the india thing didnt get sour, that was probably all the focus you were going to get outta John anyway. the whole thing w maharishi making a move w mia's sister by all accounts except johns was blown out of proportion. John probably didnt wanna take responsibility for discovering maharishi was just, meh.. so he keeps searching. and that leads us into....
Hi Matt, really enjoying these series of videos. I hope I’m not jumping the gun here but for me when considering what caused the break up we should recognise that there are issues which although clearly caused strife or problems within the band, they were not the cause of the split. In other words they could live with these. So this leaves us with the issue/s which made the split unavoidable. For me there was only really one and when that occurred it was over. Im curious to see if you will cover it in your final take. I’m pretty sure you will.
McCartney really tried to keep it all going while the others wanted to quit and yet he got blamed for the breakup which was only him finally admitting that it was all overl
Very though provoking take on why the broke-up. The fact that the Beatles later made the Anthology, finished some of John’s songs etc. said a lot about their willingness to re-connect and put their differences behind them. They had matured . While we never would have know what the Anthology would have been like if John had been alive, I would be shocked that the Lennon we say in the making of Double Fantasy and who commented on his appreciation for McCartney II/Coming Up would have not gotten in the way of history, their kinship, and human condition for leaving behind something that reflected on their lives together,
For years, I've wondered why the other three Beatles seemed to think they just had to have a manager with a much higher fee-percentage, when Paul wanted a manager who would have taken the standard percentage. He said, in what is surely an under-statement, "We're kind-of a big act," (he'll take (the lower percentage))....
Wow! That could just be titled the Yoko episode. I thoroughly agree with your thesis, although she certainly joined in the mini skirt trend in the late 60s & early 70s. A key question isn't why they broke up, but why they did it in such acrimonious circumstances, making it impossible for them to work together in the 70s. My key culprit for that is Allen Klein.
Very insightful comments around 21.00, Matt, regarding Yoko and her influence on John and her part in breaking up the band. I've never heard it articulated so well. As you state, it's not fashionable to blame Yoko for anything, and I'm with you that this kind of gender-based revisionism is not healthy. You make great arguments that support an obvious truth. Thanks!
I liked your objective analysis of Yoko's role. Initially she copped heavy criticism and there was more than a hint of racism. In later years she's almost been above criticism. The truth is probably somewhere in between, as you seem to suggest.
Wow, I like your take on the different drugs they were each into - and how it affected the inter-band dynamics. I can see how Cocaine could make Paul (who was already driven) unbearable.
I don't believe coke was a such big thing for macca; he stopped because of the effect on his voice as it clogs up your throat. Paul was more Pot, not coke.
Love this analysis. I like to apply systems theory to thinking about the break-up. That's very dorky but I think The Beatles are worthy of some academic thought! What were the systemic causes which interacted and led to the high-level unacceptable loss (the break up). This posits there is no one 'root cause' but a complex series of interactions leading to the loss. They could even be ranked if you like to quantify contribution. Then come up a systemic recommendation package, get a time machine and hey presto!
Thank you, Phil. I think there is always room more a more academic approach to the Beatles, which over time will displace the tired and erroneous narratives.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
I recently saw the 1965 TV show you mentioned, "The Music of Lennon and McCartney," and was amazed first of all that a retrospective was thought appropriate for two songwriters who had been publicly active for just three years! That's how meteoric their success was. Secondly, Henry Mancini was one of the guests, and played a piano arrangement of "If I Fell." Talk about getting a seal of approval from another giant of the current music scene!
Yes, I just watched that too and was very impressed at the production and particularly Mancini. The interaction of John and Paul were funny as well.
I think the beatles done all the could and it was time to go there own way ' at least they left us with 'the sublime Abbey road'dont blame anyone
Great vid!
It was quite interesting. One thing I noted was that the songs John wrote for others sounded like Beatle parodies and the ones that Paul wrote didn't sound like The Beatles at all. It was also kinda surreal seeing Paul play Gracie Allen to John's George Burns.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Thank you for your analysis. I have consider all of these reasons before, but you have articulated them very well.
I always thought some tension started in their middle period and later, when McCartney asserted himself. John in this 1966-67 period fell into an ego-killing state with his heavy LSD use. Once John got away from LSD, during the White Album, he wanted to reassert himself again, at least on one level but didn’t really on another. He was conflicted. He resented Paul filling the void; also his getting most of the A sides on later singles, but he didn’t really want to lead the band again either. Yoko became his means of escape from this band dynamic. He could pretend The Beatles didn’t matter to him and he could walk away.
Interesting idea. John left the Beatles because it was easier than competing with Paul. You could extrapolate that to John going into retirement in 1975 at the point that McCartney and Wings were dominating the charts and live music concerts.
I definitely agree with you about Yoko, Matt. She was complicit in leading John away from the other three, knowing full well the power she had over him. I have always thought of her as a calculating woman, an opportunist, and i think Lennon fell for it, hook, line and sinker. .
Absolutely
I also suspect that if John didn’t start to think he was bigger than the Beatles, she would never have been able to steer him in that direction. I see her as being the megaphone for John’s actual feelings.
Yeah it’s no coincidence that the “No one can equal my genius” version of John Lennon coincided when he was with Yoko. I think Yoko went too far in stroking John’s ego.
For those unaware, this was the time of Ranting John when he was ranting about how 99% of Beatles songs were crap and he was embarrassed being in the Beatles and no one is on his level and he’s on the level of Beethoven and Mozart.
The Beatles broke up over 50 years ago, two members are no longer living and yet their history keeps being discussed almost as much as their music. A testament to their towering stature.
Your videos are always well thought out and have plenty of context, this was a good one. I didn't know that Paul was doing Cocaine during Pepper, I alway just thought Paul mainly did pot (apart from alcohol, uppers and obligatory LSD). Each using different drugs was an interesting point, shared LSD trips or pot experiences would be bonding, but different even contradictory in effect drugs would be alienating.
I am glad you talked about going from the dynamic of rotating Lead singers between John Paul & George to John and Paul dominating as soon as they started recording. George had become the third wheel, he did get passive aggressive but that was probably better than being simply aggressive. He started to get validation outside of the Beatles.
Your discussion of Yoko was good too, there seems to a real divide with some people saying Yoko wasn't a problem at all and others just seeing her as an evil witch who is the root of all their problems. But it is clear that she was a contributing factor to the break up for exactly the reasons you give. The rise of the idea of genius John, which to me actually marks the beginning of his decline as an artist and that sense of dependency that I don't think he ever resolved and I can't see as entirely healthy. I think John and George were the most psychologically damaged by the Beatle phenomena. I have never heard Yoko make any really perceptive comments relating to the Beatles music and many times the level of her ignorance is stunning for someone that was so close to them.
Paul's solo on "Good Morning, Good Morning sounds like he's pretty coked up: ruclips.net/video/x5OAaOa1ZrA/видео.html
Thank you, Keri. Yes, Yoko's dismissiveness of the Beatles while she was invited into the inner circle needs calling out. John's girl or not, she was a guest and not yet family.
she made no perceptive comments because she had no interest in them. her interest was self advancement. John needed to be dominated, yet he was always the dominator prior to Y.O.. he was the perfect foil for Y.O. .. there & again we have a pecking order & culture that was most likely established very soon after they met & it would be difficiult to argue that she didnt take advantage of the situation for self advancement.. theres a lot of evidence that supports the love between them was heavily biased in one direction..
@@Galantski every solo Paul ever did on guitar in his beatlelife was frenzied.. but, for those songs, at that time, it worked..
By far my favorite RUclips haunt. Thanks so much for the time and effort you put into your Work, Matt. 🍎
Hey Rich! That is very kind of you to say. Look for part 3 in a couple of days.
I had no idea that Brian Epstein instituted the "three lead singer" policy. That was a great idea! Even as a kid in the late 60s early 70s, I remember really enjoying the variety of hearing three separate lead singers on Beatles songs.
Great research Matt! Also: George went to New York Christmas 1968 and hung out with Dylan and the Band. These were real musicians and they just scoffed at the thought of Yoko in the studio. Secondly (but more importantly) it was fashionable to "break up" in the late sixties. Get Back could have been titled, "The most Un/Beatific Album Ever" with no sing alongs like Obla di on the album. Everyone was "coming off their rookie contract" and breaking up: Eric and the Animals; Van Morrison and Them; the Yardbirds; the Velvet Underground lost Cale and Nico; the Hollies lost Nash and the Byrds broke up every six months. I mention this because George brought back a new asthetic from New York plus a very strong rebuke to Yoko's claim that she was an "artist": Dylan told George that Andy Warhol was familiar with her work and considered it "corny". When George leaked this information to Paul and Ringo, John became enraged.
Good comments, thanks for informed info. The Band and Dylan and many other great groups would not put up with someone like Yoko meddling in the rehearsals, or input in songwriting. The Beatles songwriting crushes The Bands "musicianship" and The Beatles were not inferior musicians. I understand you did not call The Beatles inferior musicians. Keep educating the rest of us my friend.
"Corny", from a man famous for paintings of soup cans? 😂
You are right about Yoko, she has contributed to the break-up but not solely because of her.
It was once popular to oversimplify and cite Yoko as the one and only reason the Beatles broke up. Now the pendulum has swung the other way and people try to act like she is the great red herring and not to blame at all. The reality is that, with John under her influence, the band broke up likely years earlier than it would have otherwise. It seemed she was always in a power struggle versus the other guys, never tried to connect with them in any meaningful way (despite John being close to them) and diminished the music they did as a lesser art form. Sorry, I still view Yoko as one of the great villains of Beatles history. Would have loved to see an alternate timeline in which John never met her.
I was really looking forward to this video and you delivered again, Matt. Can’t wait for Part 3.
Hey David, thank you for the support. The Yoko aspect must be understood to really access damage to the group at that time. Klein used the Yoko aspect to further the wedge, which was not in Klein's best interest but he did it anyway. More on that in part 3!
Any thing you do on the Beatles is great my friend, keep up the good work.. PS. Like your new stage, I'm 68 years old and remember them from Ed Sullivan , I lived in the BRONX back then.. Thank you Frank from montana.........
Hello, Frank! I appreciate the support. Thank you.
I was waiting for part 2...like crazy.... Thank you so much
You're welcome! Part three in a few more days!
Another very interesting video, you are making strong cases for all reasons. I guess it is a combination of all of them.
Really fascinating dynamics. Great job you're doing on this. Like in many families, members move on the do 'their own thing' while eventually come back together for special occasions. The Beatles were most likely headed in this direction anyway. Yoko showing up and inserting herself into situation changed the paradigm of the band. In my opinion, she knew what she was doing and did nothing to stop it. As long as the boys were together she would always be the fifth wheel. Very short sighted of her, one can only imagine the wonderful music they would have made had they united every so often to work together.
Thank you, film maker. The break up got toxic enough to ruin it for the 10 years that followed, which is not unlike divorces. I do think had Lennon not been murdered that there would have been an "anthology" type of project which would have been good enough for me. Yoko added to the toxcitiy.
Very well researched! It is interesting that in 1966 that in many ways Paul was the avant-garde one, meeting other artists and experimenting with electronic music in London, while John was withdrawing inward with LSD. They were still friends, but the Fabs weren't leading parallel lives as in the early days. I wonder if John may have had some jealousy of Paul as he was leading a freer artistic life and taking more a leadership role.
I believe John envied the bachelor lifestyle Paul was leading in 1966-67 and John would visit his London house frequently.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Yeah, as you mentioned Matt, John's marriage with Cynthia wasn't good at that point. Starting in 1968, John & Yoko together would be more active in both the artistic and later the political movements going on then.
The one thing that I find significant is the breakdown of the group dynamic and it being the main feature throughout. For a group of guys who have been what they've been through and by all appearances were bestest of buddies. And yet, when push came to shove, they couldn't communicate properly. George couldn't do much or, at least, resigned himself with dry quips and mopey passive aggressiveness. Everyone's afraid to take John aside and request he leave Yoko home. No one wanted to tell Paul they didn't want to do another film. They seemed to be entirely unable to reach each other. Even in that little secretly recorded conversation, John and Paul kind of talk passed each other. They dance around a subject but never really come to a resolution.
Very good points. There was certainly a communication breakdown that needed some work. These outside forces certainly didn't help.
I often wonder if breaking up wasn’t actually the best thing they could have done at the time, no matter the motivations. They never stuck around long enough to make an awful album. And it seems likely the 70s wouldn’t have been as kind to them as the 60s were. I could see perhaps one or two more quality albums coming out before a real downward slide set in.
They sealed their legacy by breaking up when they did. Nobody can match the body of work they released in seven short years in the recording studio.
You have a good point there. How heartbreaking would it be for the Beatles to have dwindled to having LPs ending up in the clearance bin? Very unlikely that we'd have been seeing all these 50th anniversary deluxe box sets if they had trailed off into mediocrity or even worse.
Fantastic, insightful work - I really like your deep analysis - so interesting.
I only stop at this channel on occasion, but each time I do I am hooked. Now I will probably watch several episodes in succession.
Thanks for stopping by Dan!
This is the best analysis of the Beatles breakup I've ever seen and part three is yet to come. I firmly believe you can't go wrong about that either.
Hey Winston, thank you for the confidence in part 3! It should be up in a couple days.
Solid analysis Matt , as always. Looking forward to Part 3. Cheers, RNB
Solid research as well - So enjoyable when someone is not shooting from the lip - PLUS assembling those great photos - some I'd never seen! Part 3 - Bring it on!
Thank you, I'm glad I can finally use some of the photos I've been collecting for decades!
Matt you are a legend buddy and care deeply about the Beatles true legacy!! Thanks ❤
I'm glad you brought up Ms. Yoko Ono and her role in this, you make fair and compelling arguments for all of your points. I am looking forward to the third installment and I will try to stay objective when I make my post on my conclusion, based on your excellent research. I am also going to tell you Matt, something I think you already know, you now have enough research to do a book on the subject(s) and the time has come.
Hello James! I do have some future plans so we'll see where this channel takes me - thank you for the support.
You are a class act. Great channel.
Thank you for the warm comment.
Matt, I think this particular series is my favorite thing you’ve done so far. Looking fwd to Part III.
Thank you Dodge. Part 3 should be out in a few days.
Wow, best one yet! I learned a lot and I thought I knew all about the Beatles. Looking forward to #3.
Same comment as Part 1, but same sentiment...I truly love your channel Matt! "Got up early today, grabbed my coffee, and watched Part 1 and Part 2!! Loved them Matt! You really did an outstanding job researching and putting this together! Loved the VERY rare photos too! You're the man! Cheers Matt Street"
Good video Matt. Over the years there has been a trend to "not blame Yoko" at all. It's understandable because she and John had a great love for one another (though with a lot of problems), and she was the widow of a great musician who was assassinated out of the blue. But, first and foremost, she was not a Beatles fan, and she was a selfish spouse when it came to her husband's relations with his bandmates and others. She had little interest in his friends and past life.
Thanks for commenting, Stu!
"she & john had a great love for one another".. not so convincing to me unfortunately.
@@Toobzilla yes, 'The Lost Weekend' stands testimony to the fragility of their relationship.
@@BenjaminNavillus thats definitely obvious. i look for the clues that are less obvious but often tell so much. for instance, late '80 J&Y were all over the media platforms of the day, & to go off-rail for a second, was there ever a better interviewee than John?.& for so many reasons.. ok back on track, in these interviews, find me one where John doesnt profess his need & love for yono. find me one where yoko does for john. particularly if hes not present. ill wait.
i think she realized within their first few encounters, the power she had to manipulate his vulnerability. by most accounts he basically dumped it in her lap. she ran with it. watch let it be. he looks at her. she looks back at him. they're not the same.
Some good points about Yoko that you're spot on with, especially that she's now 'above criticism'. It would be interesting to find out where that notion evolved from, possibly from Paul who seems to have completely absolved her of any wrong doing in the last twenty years.
that notion has evolved from us. the people & fans who are fascinated with all beatle related stuffs. because they've always been relevant (more now than ever since split?). revered, etc.. John's tragic death, the timing of it, the circumstances & irony surrounding it etc, turned John into a mythical figure whose solo & beatle fanbase have had 40+yrs of romanticism biased in his favor. John started the Beatles, John ended the Beatles. his death also meant the Beatles died with him. no wonder the story gets romanticized. no matter what anybody else thought of the J&Y unity, apparently it was John's lifeblood. we've grown to accept & maybe even appreciate her with the passage of time. in her defense, she hasnt don anything to tarnish or disrespect John's public image & most importantly for her, she did nothing to disrespect Johns love for her. she didnt marry again, no reality shows no sex change operations, no kardashianism, etc. she just remained yoko. never even moved from where she lived w John. We hold her in regard because we loved John.. & so does Sir Paul.
@@Toobzilla I get it...Nicely put. Hindsight is always 20/20 however. I recently watched the "Get Back' film and I have to say Yoko was very well behaved.
This is the simp generation, women are above criticism in general.
A lot to take in there- great perspective, and some information that's new to me for sure, but I just want to say that the opening and closing montages are glorious. Absolute magic.
Thank you, Joe - I really enjoy creating the music montages.
George visited us while we were rehearsing with our band, very friendly fella and loved our music…
As I mentioned before, Apple Records even kept up the premise that the Beatles were still an active group and recording together. Their press release in January in 1970 read “and the Beatles go on and on and on…” and their secretary Freda was told when asked about rumors of the band splitting up, “they have a whole new decade to make music!!” So my belief has been that until Paul took legal action against the Beatles it was thought to be possibly a temporary rift in the group that would fix itself after a few solo albums got released.
They also were in negotiation with EMI for a new royalty rate. A breakup prior to a deal would have lost them some bargaining power.
I agree with this. I really feel that The Beatles would have still existed had that press release from paul's album not gotten out. I think they really just needed a break, do their own albums, then come together a few years down the line (maybe 1973 or so) and come up with a new album.
i believe they were also in negotiations w capitol records for a new deal/more $$ in their recording contract.. news of breakup would have been disastrous to that. although one could argue that withholding that info from capitol at that time could be viewed as legally wrongful..
@@mickola1 absolutely!
Matt. Your words were so true. Thanks for posting!
My main concern is that George was quoted a few years before his untimely passing as saying that it WAS NOT Yoko that broke up The Beatles, but the fact that they were together nonstop from 1959/1960 until their official split (when the paperwork was signed) in 1970…no vacations away from each other or anything like that.
There are many, many quotes including court documents where George says otherwise. He probably realizes that she is not the ONLY reason for the break up, but he blamed her more than Paul and Ringo did.
Thank you so much for your thorough and trenchant analysis (Part 1 & 2) on the contributing factors that resulted to the Beatles break-up.
As with your previous Beatles related videos I thoroughly enjoyed this, thank you.
It was great to see a calm, level thoughtful evaluation of the events based on good research.
To sum up the video, quality work 👍
Hello, Nige. Thank you for the kind words. I spend about a year and a half preparing for this one!
I love this channel and truly appreciate how detailed you are. You offer your opinion, but you get your information from primary sources and present facts. You leave emotion out of it and you’re not afraid to be critical of The Beatles or anyone.
I think Yoko was one of many factors that led to The Beatles breaking up, but I also think the hate she gets from many fans is unnecessary. There are many things Yoko has said and done that I do not agree with, but she watched her husband get murdered in cold blood. I’ll never forget the photograph of Yoko in the hospital and the look on her face. I never want to see anyone have that look after watching someone they love be murdered. She had to raise a child on her own without a father. No, she’s not the only person who has done this. Nor does this make her immune to criticism. Believe me, I could list several things about Yoko that drive me nuts, but I don’t hate her nor do I hold her solely responsible for the break up of The Beatles.
I am in the minority of most Beatles fans as I get why they had to break up. It was inevitable and I’m just grateful we got to enjoy them for as long as we did. As George said in the “Anthology” series, “it had to self-destruct”. And it did.
I also get why John fell so hard for Yoko. I know I’m in the minority here, too, but I found her to be very attractive and there was something very enchanting about her. All the same, I agree with you, Matt, about her not being a Beatles fan and I think her and John could have handled things much better with regards to the band dynamic.
Had Brian lived, he might have been able to take John aside and talk to him about Yoko. John might have listened to Brian. Then again, he might have told Brian to sod off. As much as I get why John fell for Yoko, I also see their relationship as toxic. It was two people so heavily into each other that it became an obsession and addiction as you stated. They were always around each other and I think that every couple needs space sometimes. And John once said, “when we weren’t in the studio, we were in bed” and they weren’t in bed playing cards.
Matt, you go above and beyond with your music journalism. Keep up the great work.
Thank you for the kind words, Jeff - much appreciated!
The puzzle is building. Thanks Matt.
Great part 2!!! The old joke was “When Yoko walked in”….George, Paul, and Ringo said “O No”! Nothing against Yoko, but it was a huge shift in John’s attention.
Nothing against her? Why not?
Matt, i saw heading and thought " not another beatles break up video", i had underestimated you, young man.
Your delivery, your vocal tone, your looking over your glasses as you may a point, even your mouth sounds as you take a sip of i think whiskey and soda, could be anything, tickles my ASMR receptors.. you do a great job.
Probably been mentioned but why did you leave out pot ?
Pot makes one initially lively but then lethargic, can produce paranoia, more than any other drug, pot and hash seemed the boys tipple..
Anyhow loving these videos, thanks Matt
Thank you for the kind words, Cherry. I usually have whiskey-coke when I do a video. I left out pot because that seemed to be a constant that they all did, so there was no 'not being on the same wavelength" issue.
I’ve heard for years that The Beatles would have broken up with or without Yoko Ono. But, I’ve seen in my own family how a spouse with an agenda that isn’t compatible with the established order can destroy the overall dynamic in a group that formerly functioned well. I’ve always felt that Yoko was the catalyst that hastened the end of the group much earlier than it would have occurred organically. Yoko filled the void that John would have felt if he had distanced himself from his bandmates without her. Yoko also filled the vacuum created by Brian’s death. With Yoko supporting him, John didn’t need anyone else, probably for the first time in his life. This situation could have been wonderful for John if his partner had been supportive of his work. Yoko wanted to control John personally and professionally, which led to the early demise of The Beatles.
You got that right! And her insistence on being on the Double fantasy album was another manipulation. After John agreed he wanted to have her on one side and he on the other but she knew people would not listen to her side so again she influenced him to alternate songs so people had to hear her. She's a witch, and any one of John's relatives will tell you so.
So true. Yoko took the place of Brian when she “managed” John the rest of his life even if she had to use astrology to do it. She took the place of Paul McCartney as his creative partner. She took the place of John’s mother Julia who was also a nonconformist , artistic woman. She took the place of his aunt Mimi who raised him and kept him “in line.” I believe “Mother” Yoko knew exactly what she was doing. She’s a mastermind, I have to give her credit for that. And fearless. She wasn’t the least bit intimidated by The Beatles.
@@terrythekittieful You don't need to know her personally.
@@terrythekittieful i don’t know Yoko personally. I don’t have to know Putin personally to know that he’s an evil man. Some things are well-documented enough that they have become self-evident. Excuse me if you’re a fan of hers. I’m not.
I agree. I think they would've separated to do their own projects but more than likely would've worked together on and off if not for Yoko. It's said that John wanted to collaborate with Paul again in some capacity (late 70s I believe) and she put the kibosh on that straight away. John's unhealthy obsession with her and Yoko's unwillingness to give him any agency kept the band apart.
Thank you so much for the thoughtful analysis - your 3 part series is excellent and pretty accurate
GREAT episode and oddly fascinating. So much to the "recipe". You're knocking this out of the park, Matt. Wonderful job.
Thank you, Tabby. I'm working on part 3 now!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Fantastic... I'm sure you're having more with this with your new set up.
The beatles quit when they were still on top this keeps their legacy going
This 3 part mini series analysis is fantastic … once again Matt and always …great, great work ! Thank you so much … you are THE very best at this ! 🌟
Hey Lynda - thanks for watching. Part 3 will be up in a couple of days.
Very informative multipart work thank you
As a side note: most younger people don't realize how little the audience knew or cared about artists writing their own songs. In the early 1960s no one cared that Elvis or Cliff Richard weren't songwriters or cared that Buddy Holly or Billy Fury were - in fact those that wrote often did so under pen names.
When Brian encouraged John and Paul to write their own songs that was very, very unusual. Record companies usually rolled their eyes when artists said that they wanted to release one of their own songs and if they couldn't appease them any other way would shove a self-penned song onto a B-Side where, at the time, no one would notice. Record companies were much happier with the professional writers' generic (although often great) songs.
It occurs to me that Brian might have been more open to John and Paul writing because he wasn't much of a pop fan, he appreciated musical theatre more where song writing teams were the norm.
Because half of a band writing the group's songs was so unusual it's also likely that no one imagined that this might cause a rift further down the line.
I agree with you points. Brian wasn't saddled with the old industry standards and just encouraged them to write so long as it worked.
Matt, These commentaries are great! Would love to see you do an in depth interview with Paul and Ringo.
Yoko would seem then to have been an "accelerant" for all the challenges the fab four were already facing. Great part 2!
Just another great part to the Beatles story! Oh....there's been a bunch of reasons so far that you've brought up, I'm not choosing which I feel is the leading reason they broke up.....but, I have this sneaking feeling that Yoko is not getting away unscathed. Deservedly so. Great video sir again. And good comments as well by your fans!
Thank you, Michael, and yes the comment are top-notch!
Completely agree about Yoko Ono. The Unfinished Music trilogy was related to that particular nail in the coffin-especially the Two Virgins. Pissed off everyone. It's like John was under a spell. I still wonder to this day about that long gap after Walls and Bridges in the late 1970s where John Lennon was basically a recluse from the music business. Five years is an eternity to not produce any new material. I was surprised to find out his last stage appearance was with Elton John and the "Whatever Gets You Thru the Night" challenge. I feel pretty certain, had he lived, he would have divorced Yoko in the 1980s. Really enjoy your videos about this subject and I also recommend another video to your subscribers another one that takes a hard critical look at the Beatles biographical books.
I appreciate the comments and suggestions. More to come!
I think about that from time to time. If John had lived and divorced her, if the band would've gotten together for another album(s).
5 years is nothing these days. It's funny how standards change.
Thank you for the discussion on Yoko. I just read some of Tony Bramwell’s book. By all accounts, she was extremely manipulative and John was easy prey. But that doesn’t let him off the hook for me. I’ve lost a lot of respect for John during my recent studies of The Beatles (as somebody not alive at the time, I’ve had to play catch-up.) His tortured soul routine who lashed out at everybody grows tiresome for me. Will you explore Yoko rallying for king demon (Klein) to be The Beatles manager? I’d like to know more…
Hey Reina. I will explore the deadly combo of Klein-Ono in part 3, which should be up in a few days. Thanks for the substantive comment.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Thank you!
I've read Tony's book and he has a raging hate-on for Yoko. I wouldn't put too much stock in what he says; he is probably projecting his own feelings onto others. But if he felt that way, it is probable that others did too. Just take it with a grain of salt.
@@Kieop Well I said, by “all” accounts. His was just the latest I read. Her (and her ex husband’s) plan is well-documented by many and the fact that she claims now that she didn’t know who The Beatles were before she “met” John is either laughable or deranged. But I’ve said many times, it’s ultimately John’s fault. He fell for her and Allen’s game. Imagine if neither had come into the picture…
From my understanding, the key thing about the new contract is that it committed the band to delivering more new material in order to receive the increased royalties. There can't be any doubt that John wanted to leave, because he did leave. Paul's contributions to Abbey Road suggest that he knew they were making their last album - and discussions in the Nagra tapes make it clear that that idea was very much in the air well before they started work on Abbey Road. I think I'm right in saying that under the old deal they would have been able to stop after Abbey Road (and Let It Be). But the new contract - negotiated by John's own man Klein - suddenly put a block on (I'm sure) his planned departure from the band, and probably the orderly dissolution of the band. (Do please correct me if I'm wrong about this - no one ever discusses the contract thing properly.)
My reading of that August meeting is that Paul and George are just sitting there listening to John trying to convince himself that it's going to be possible for him to meet the requirements of the new contract whilst barely being a Beatle anymore. I really don't think he was interested in trying to give more room to George; his interest was in having the minimum possible involvement with the band. He would deliver only four songs; so Paul wouldn't be _allowed_ any more than four songs; so, hey, George, I've always been a big fan of your work, and you're going to have to write four songs too. Oh and Ringo can help himself to biscuits. Hello Ringo.
An interesting thing is John's behaviour towards Paul in that meeting. I don't quite get how he thought Maxwell's Silver Hammer was suitable for Mary Hopkin, but he seems openly contemptuous of both. He's clear that in future there will be total separation between his songs and Paul's songs - no more medleys or any of that nonsense. This was never going to work; it was never going to happen; and both Paul and George know it.
I figure John felt frustrated and constrained being in the band. He felt that he couldn't get what he wanted to say and do past the others (both Paul and George) and out to the public. And I think he felt a little embarrassed to be involved in music and songs that some of his new friends probably didn't regard too highly. In that respect, I think Paul had become representative (in John's mind) of everything from which he desperately wanted to disassociate himself. That's just my guess as to where that attitude towards Paul in the meeting is coming from.
When I first read Ian Macdonald's piece on Step Inside Love / Los Paranoias in Revolution In The Head, I figured it was a little fanciful. But then I realised that this was five or six months after Step Inside Love had been a hit for Cilla Black in the UK, and getting on for a year after Paul had written it for her - it was already an old song, and an odd choice to sing in front of John. In my opinion it's one of Paul's best, but I imagine it represented everything that Lennon wanted to get away from - not just the song itself, but that whole idea of writing songs for other artists, which didn't fit with John's new-ish and misguided idea that songs should be a direct expression of one's own actual beliefs and emotions. I'm sure these things were discussed. I still believe Paul's addressing John in Martha My Dear regarding both their personal and professional relationship (I can do fanciful too). But I suppose what I'm saying is that a significant factor here in John's desire to quit is, erm, artistic differences. Hmmm, that came out sounding less original than I thought.
Hmm. It was really interesting to read your alternative interpretation of that meeting. cool insights.🤔
For the record, Yoko Ono did wear miniskirts and hot pants (there’s a famous photo of her having her skirt and other clothes cut to bits with a scissor in some type of conceptual art in 1967), she just did not do it as often as the other women in the 60s. There’s even a photo of her wedding to John Lennon where she’s wearing a white miniskirt
The scissor stuff was not really a fashion statement as it was a conceptual piece of art. It's interesting that we see wearing far more hot clothes after the Beatles broke up.
I love you, man, and I'm giving you a big Beatle Bear Hug! Usually, when I listen to people talking about the fabs, I hear more myth than truth; but not you brother. Your videos are well researched and deeply insightful. Thx. "John and Yoko demanded the respect of the other three Beatles, but (they) did not reciprocate that respect for the band that made John Lennon famous." Brilliant conclusion. I think the final reason was summed up by both Sir Paul, "We all grew up and got married and had to leave our old war buddies behind." And Lord Lennon's acerbic "Go back to High School!" and "WE all grew up and became lawyers." Time marched on and left the fab four, and the heady idealism of the 60's, behind.
Hey James! Thank you so much for the kind words. I accept Beatle Bear hugs!
I don't think there's any way the Beatles could've went on much longer than they did. They all had developed their own lives as individuals, John wanted to be in New York, Paul wanted to be in the country etc. The only way it could've worked is if they came up with material on their own and then brought it in when it was time to make an album. But John, Paul and George were all musically mature enough by this point that they could've ended up finishing their own songs alone before even bringing to the album recording sessions. If they are all 3 going to bring in finished songs then what is the point of recording together when you could just be a solo artist? Looking forward to the next video!
Did Paul really want to be in the country? Or did Linda want to be in the country?
@@Kieop I figured Paul did but I suppose I dont really have any evidence to back that up other than the music he wrote about the country life style on McCartney and Ram. Plus whether it was him or Linda was irrelevant, its still what he did. John was unavailable in a lot of ways because of Yoko's influence, that doesn't make him any more or less available just because it was her idea instead of his.
I really love part one, Matt. I’m really looking forward to listening to part two. I also really love the audio collages that you do at the beginning.
I have so much fun with the audio montages. I didn't know they would be used for this series but I'm glad I used them.
on a more general, slightly less opinionated rant, i do think you offer the most realistic, unbiased analysis of all things beatle & you seem to excel @ applying critical thinking to filter a lot of the BS that surrounds all the beatle related lore. i havent found much content or analysis that i would disagree with. for me, thats extremely rare, lol.
Great Job!.
As you have shown, it took many inputs to break up something as strong as the Beatles. I agree with all your points as they all had some impact on the Beatles demise. Certainly, the co-dependence of John and Yoko became the final nail. Two damaged personalities coming together can be a humbling experience, to paraphrase an alternate perspective.
Another point would be George's leadership of the Beatles from 1966. On the positive side, George lead and influenced the band with Indian music and senseabilities. All the Writer's adopted Indian approaches into their music. This was one of George's influences that united the band for a period of time. I am sure that George felt that this elevated his stature in the band, even though he may of have been frustrated with the others shallower emersion into the religious side of Indian culture.
The negative side of George's leadership was his refusal to be a public Beatle. George did not want to perform live and was reluctant to do films. He really became disenchanted with being a Beatle pre 1966. This caused the direction of the Beatles to change to accommodate what George did not want to do.
In my mind, I tidy up the demise of the Beatles with the loss of compromise. The weight each of them carried to consider the others views and desires, in the context of the Beatles, as the grew apart was an increasing burden. As individuals, their ability to 'carry that weight' gave out at different times. The last one, and the most reluctant to collapse under this weight was Paul. His love of being a Beatle was the strongest.
The Beatles broke up because their ability to compromise enough for each of them to sustain the Beatles was gone.
I agree with your assessment of George leading with the Indian music and spirituality. I think Lennon and McCartney really followed his lead with regard to the trip to Wales to see Maharishi and the India trip.
@@popgoesthe60s52 According to Patty the trip to Wales was Paul's suggestion. Though probably in the way of "I saw this and thought you might be interested".
Quality content as always 👌
George is (rightly) labeled as being passive-aggressive, but John was passive-aggressive in the extreme. He used Yoko to make Paul and George feel uncomfortable. He was clearly angry that Paul had taken over "his" band as de-facto leader. With Yoko by his side I believe he was trying to reassert himself as bandleader again.The Allen Klein fiasco was clearly his way of taking control. He pitted himself and his choice of manager against Paul and his choice of the Eastmans, and Klein convinced George and Ringo to go along with John, promising all of them higher royalties (while also promising Yoko that her art exhibitions would be financed by the Beatles, giving John and Yoko more combined earnings than the other three). George was already feeling overlooked and likely saw the Eastmans as giving Paul all control, which is understandable. Didn't their new contract also promise that all Beatles would share equally in profits even when they produced work independently? If so, I imagine that didn't sit well with Paul, the workaholic and lead hitmaker of the group.
Yes, think about that for a second. So after Clive got his 25%, Klein got his 20%, the UK got their 95%, then each Beatle would get 25% of what was left. This may have seemed great for the other 3 Beatles, especially if your records weren't selling as well. However, in a situation where you might form a new band, like Wings, suddenly that 25% is only 5% (10% when including Linda), since band members are typically paid out of record royalties. I may be wrong but I think Paul got around that by treating them as salaried employees instead. But still, in principle, the situation could have been the other Beatles getting 25% of his record sales while Paul only got 5%.
@POPGOESTHE60S I sadly know ALL TOO WELL about drugs and their destructive side. I was and addict and saw others who were as well. Drugs and addiction destroy anything good.
Even John Lennon found how dangerous they were. I'm glad I'm 1 year and a half sober because life maybe difficult but it will be way WAY worse with an addiction.
Glad to hear of your recovery, David. Keep it up!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Thank you. Means a lot coming from your great self.
I discovered the true meaning of the song "Cold Turkey" and "Yer Blues" when trying to kick it.
Although, it could've been worse. I could've been recording "Ob-la-di ob-la-da"...
Recovery is like "Here comes the sun" and "All too much".
Life is never easy or perfect. But I am now embracing life as a real person and growing stronger.
You're one amazing person. Keep rocking and keep spinning those vinyl.
David
I think that ultimately it all comes down to Yoko. All of the other issues would have been worked through, especially with George earning his right to more space and both John and Paul being very happy about that. Pretty much all of the things pulling John away from the others were driven by her.
Like your observation of “ birth order”. Hadn’t thought of that. Right to the end Lennon in Playboy referred to George…” that boy learned a lot”.
Really thoughtful and insightful analysis. I think there is some evidence that the end of the Beatles was due largely to the basic personality of John. John was the kid that our parents called, rather disapprovingly, "a ringleader". From his earliest days, he always gathered around him an "entourage" and that characteristic goes very deep into his psyche. When Yoko came along, I believe he thought "Well, the Beatles are MY band, and I can invite in whomever I want to. And if the others don't like it, too bad." After all, it was only a dozen years since Pete Shotten and the Quarrymen, and less time since Stu Sutcliffe. Those essential personality traits can be leashed, but they never completely disappear. I'm pretty sure that, at bottom, John viewed the Beatles as his gang. And he may have decided it was finally time to reassert his dominance.
I guess he was finally ready to dispense with the "gang" he always had around him. Thanks for the comments, Mike!
I so much enjoy your analytical approach to all things beatles. Really well done.
Hey Steve, thank you for the warm comment. Part 3 should be up in a few days.
Very good discussion of Yoko. Yoko didn't break up the Beatles, but John did. John had his issues, and she led him away from the Beatles. A controlling personality, she could not have anything or anyone with that kind of pull in a different direction than her. Yoko ain't the first person who has had those issues, and same with John. I think people who talk about this as though it is Twilight of the Gods should remember these were 4 very human fellows. Paul took advantage of John's withdrawal and Brian's and kind of took over the band. As you point out, this took things outside of the framework that had always existed. George, who was resentful, wasn't ready for Paul to be a bossing him.
good points you make. & as abrasive as it feels to admit, you have to consider that the Beatle machine had to have someone take the wheel. brians passing & johns indifference kinda by rank, meant his concerns needed to be dealt with.. we may very well all ( beatles included) all owe Sir Paul a thank you & apology for his efforts & our criticisms. it may well have morphed into an irreperable mess by early '68.. gotta be fair.
Kind regards from Scott Rowland in Tx. Great job.
Thank you, Scott!
I'm kind of amazed at the lenght of the India trip regarding Lennon and Harrison. They really tried to find the truth and peace of mind and the answer. And hopped from the hectic wheel of life for a while.
I wonder if Brian Epstein had been around whether the band dynamics and Yoko issues could have been overcome. I've also noticed that once John is fully on board with Yoko his song production becomes quite sparse which doesn't help the band dynamic. Look at his lack if songs in the Get Back project. Great videos Matt. Thanks.
All great points, Matt. Certainly not just one thing, as you articulate. Surprised to hear about PM doing coke during Pepper. Thought that didn't become a thing till the late 60's. I still think Ono had a lot to do with the Beatles breakup, for all the reasons you mentioned. I still can't stand her, and her "art" , even after all these years .
I seldom comment. But I enjoy your videos. Well researched and well presented. You handled the whole Yoko thing very diplomatically, but yet it was still addressed.
Thank you, bassball67 - I appreciate the support.
I love these videos so much that I struggle to actually watch them because I'm afraid I will run out of content. 😂
My list of videos to do will last another 7 years at least!
@@popgoesthe60s52 🙏
Run out of content? I struggle to keep up!🥺
excellent from all viewpoints, matt!
Love your videos always... Love your new cozy space
Thank you, Buttercup. I have a lot to do in this space and I will give a tour when I'm done.
Yoko pulled John away in order to use his fame to help her get more attention. One thing about Yoko...she LOVES attention. So much so she will bleat and scream in the middle of a performance by John just to pull the eyes and ears in her direction. Anyone who has ever been in a band knows the poison a wife or girlfriend can bring into the harmony of a band situation. To have her show up, ask for a microphone, try to suggest ideas during the construction of songs in rehearsal, and a myriad of other things makes me believe her presence killed the joy of that band.
Absolutely. Well said
Yoko was like the Meghan Markle of the English celebrity world. 🙂
@@cynthiaforsythe8989 I think John was better off with May Pang.
Right on Jesse2d you are well informed! Thank you for educating us on important details - keep on keeping on.
The bitch had some nerve for sure...
the last point about John & Yoko not reciprocating the hard-earned respect was brilliant! and generally - as always - great insight and a fun listen, despite the dark subject matter; I kind of knew all that before, but you presented this all with such clarity that it felt like a revelation; and yes, Yoko seems to have got away with her Beatles-belittling agenda recently, true
I appreciate the warm comment. More to come!
Enjoyed first 2 episodes. Looking forward to part three.
You said everything about Yoko in a very clear way...and based on things that really happened and things they really said. It is not speculation. George also compared her with a wedge separating them. I saw him saying it in a video but this video vanished. It was supposed to be part of Anthology, but, of course, it was not included. He even said she never liked The Beatles as you said.
Anyway, I want not only to congratulate you for this idea, because you know how to touch in these subjects with the respect it deserves...You are high class. If I disagreed in parts it doesn't mean I disliked. I liked it very much also because it gave me a chance to say what I think. And I simply love talking about the Beatles! I only dislike when people lacks with respect and tend to give not proven stories as facts. And concentrate only in the negative. You recognizes they were true friends. What a good time I had watching it...thinking about it...loving them even more! All of them with all their problems. Not being perfect at all...but being perfect in their imperfection.
So, yes, Yoko was part important in their break up because they themselves told us so. Including John.
I She was not a avant garde artist. She said she was...But if so, she was a no talented avant garde artist. I confess I like some of her ideas for her lyrics, though.
Example. We are all water in this vast vast ocean someday will evaporate together...Or that we were born in a prison and sent to a prison called school. LOL. That is true!
But i have seen people praising her as a true Artist. Not you, sure. I have seen people saying she was piano classical trained...Recently i read a person saying she was also an opera singer...trained!
I have to think in that tale of an Emperor that contracted taylors for his new clothes. I know it in Portuguese, but i think it is an international story. Only very smart people could see the outfit. The taylor informed that. In fact there was no clothes at all, and the emperor was naked! But people could not say that or they would be considered idiots.. Until a kid was brave enough to scream..."The Emperor is Naked". Too bad no kid showed up to tell Yoko was naked and maybe open John's eyes.
But...she told us she was naked. She posed naked with John for the cover of Two Virgins record. But people didn't notice.
As a matter of fact, a kid did something similar. Heather. Her face listening to Yoko screaming is amazing. But only her expression. She had to scream! LOL
Anyway, I am sure so many people praise her because they believe she is avant garde...and only bright people can appreciate it. Avant garde of high quality is what the Beatles did in Tomorrow Never Know. Without Yoko.
Thank you for that analogy to "The Emperor's New Clothes" - perfect! Yoko's art is up for criticism and we must remember that the only reason any of us know the name "yoko Ono" is because she married a Beatle.
Paul being George’s best man isn’t mentioned enough and shows George was closest to his original mate in the band up until that point.
John and Ringo were on holiday at that time. Who's to say that had either John, Ringo, or both, been around for George's wedding that one of them wouldn't have been George's best man...
@@marcusthompson5390 likely Paul still would have been, he knew Paul longer..but fair point
I'm not sure how much weight to accord dynamics, but it certainly seems to be the reason most given by the Beatles themselves. Characterizing the breakup as growing up and growing apart.
That they came together so young would have ossified their interdynamics or "birth/pecking order" and left no opportunity for adapting to changing circumstances. As you rightly point out, when it comes to family these things are static and when you go home, you find yourself falling into old patterns.
This, of course, is especially true for Paul and George, who knew each other the longest. Paul still refers to George as his baby brother. George and Paul are only 8 mos apart in age and about an inch apart in height. SO THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME AGE AND THE SAME HEIGHT. If they had met as adults, this older/younger brother dynamic/resentment would never have occurred. (Though if they'd met as adults, they may not have had anything in common with which to get together in the first place. Who knows?) But they met as children when Paul lived briefly in George's neighbourhood and then later again at high school.
Paul was a year ahead in school. When we're kids we think of people in our grade/form as being our age and people ahead of us as older and behind us as younger, whether or not that is the case. We don't make allowances for people being advanced or held back, being born in Dec or Jan.
Paul was significantly taller than George at the time. You can most clearly see this in the photo taken with Ivan Vaughan (1:23). This would also have been true when they first met. Paul had been chubby at 14 but thinner at 15, perhaps demarking a major growth spurt. George may have grown more gradually or had his spurt at a later age. People mature at vastly different rates. John remarked that he thought Paul looked 12 and George even younger when he met them.
And speaking of maturing at different rates, George is reported to have lost his virginity at 17. Paul claims to have been 15. That is a 3 year period in their relationship in which Paul was sexually active and George was not. It's quite natural for Paul to see George as a kid in this situation and himself as a "man".
I'm not making excuses for Paul's inability to change his perception of George as "baby brother", despite the fact that he should've "outgrown" it and George obviously resented it. I'm just trying to help explain it.
From what I saw in your printed comments, I'm pretty sure Allen Klein was among the last three reasons the Beatles broke up; so far, at least two of the reasons you mentioned were individual people. I'm certainly eager to see the final part in this .
You hit the nail on the head with the fact that Yoko never seemed to understand or acknowledge how important the Beatles’ work was. John had the type of all or nothing personality that was susceptible to her flattery. He appears to switch all his attention from Paul (the band, but mostly Paul) to Yoko. He wanted everything in one person, hence conflating Yoko and Paul to an “equal level” of artistic capability. Clearly, he was wrong. I don’t believe he ever really wanted the Beatles to break up with the divorce statement, it was more throwing down a gauntlet. He needed the Beatles to feel normal as he said late 66. He was suicidal after Paul left India, something that happened there made him see that his utopian vision of them all living on a Greek island with interconnecting houses was never going to happen (!)
I have not known he was suicidal because of Paul leaving India. Where have you read that?
@@mikahattunen4502 playboy interview, Lennon says “"In ‘Yer Blues’, when I wrote, ‘I’m so lonely I want to die,’ I’m not kidding. That’s how I felt." He wrote Yer Blues in India. Also Pete Shotton wrote that on direct return from India John was “the most fucked up id ever seen him”. That’s off the top of my head, there’s a whole podcast called One Sweet Dream that does a massive deep dive into the break up.
Yes, I will address some of these points in part 3. Thank you, Anna!
@@annakermode6646 from the things ive read, it appears that John, when he latched on to a direction, influence, philosophy, material things etc. etc. it was always 110%. so making the commitment to Maharishi wouldve been the same. living there for 4mos probably (1) made him realize that Maharishi was just another way of life & not the new direction & it probly warped his head a bit. (2) 4 mos. even if the india thing didnt get sour, that was probably all the focus you were going to get outta John anyway. the whole thing w maharishi making a move w mia's sister by all accounts except johns was blown out of proportion. John probably didnt wanna take responsibility for discovering maharishi was just, meh.. so he keeps searching. and that leads us into....
Excellent. Thanks.
Another fascinating video, thanks.👍🏻
Hi Matt, really enjoying these series of videos. I hope I’m not jumping the gun here but for me when considering what caused the break up we should recognise that there are issues which although clearly caused strife or problems within the band, they were not the cause of the split. In other words they could live with these. So this leaves us with the issue/s which made the split unavoidable. For me there was only really one and when that occurred it was over. Im curious to see if you will cover it in your final take. I’m pretty sure you will.
Very cool. Thanks for the information.
McCartney really tried to keep it all going while the others wanted to quit and yet he got blamed for the breakup which was only him finally admitting that it was all overl
Very though provoking take on why the broke-up. The fact that the Beatles later made the Anthology, finished some of John’s songs etc. said a lot about their willingness to re-connect and put their differences behind them. They had matured . While we never would have know what the Anthology would have been like if John had been alive, I would be shocked that the Lennon we say in the making of Double Fantasy and who commented on his appreciation for McCartney II/Coming Up would have not gotten in the way of history, their kinship, and human condition for leaving behind something that reflected on their lives together,
“Willful delusion” great line!
Excellent Matt ! Bravo ! 🙂👍
🎶 All you need is love
....
All you need is love, love
Love is all you need 🎵
Try making a living off it 😛
Keith Richards!
@@popgoesthe60s52 yes! Lol
For years, I've wondered why the other three Beatles seemed to think they just had to have a manager with a much higher fee-percentage, when Paul wanted a manager who would have taken the standard percentage. He said, in what is surely an under-statement, "We're kind-of a big act," (he'll take (the lower percentage))....
Wow! That could just be titled the Yoko episode. I thoroughly agree with your thesis, although she certainly joined in the mini skirt trend in the late 60s & early 70s.
A key question isn't why they broke up, but why they did it in such acrimonious circumstances, making it impossible for them to work together in the 70s. My key culprit for that is Allen Klein.
I met Yoko and she gave me a big hug, she’s tiny and loving
Very insightful comments around 21.00, Matt, regarding Yoko and her influence on John and her part in breaking up the band. I've never heard it articulated so well. As you state, it's not fashionable to blame Yoko for anything, and I'm with you that this kind of gender-based revisionism is not healthy. You make great arguments that support an obvious truth. Thanks!
Thank you, M S - I'm working on part 3 now!
I liked your objective analysis of Yoko's role. Initially she copped heavy criticism and there was more than a hint of racism. In later years she's almost been above criticism. The truth is probably somewhere in between, as you seem to suggest.
Thank you, Adrian.
Well done ,Matt! Yoko was a major issue , the drugs were never the answer for any of them. Yoko was catalyst a very damaged John Lennon ( mentally).
Wow, I like your take on the different drugs they were each into - and how it affected the inter-band dynamics. I can see how Cocaine could make Paul (who was already driven) unbearable.
I don't believe coke was a such big thing for macca; he stopped because of the effect on his voice as it clogs up your throat. Paul was more Pot, not coke.
Love this analysis. I like to apply systems theory to thinking about the break-up. That's very dorky but I think The Beatles are worthy of some academic thought! What were the systemic causes which interacted and led to the high-level unacceptable loss (the break up). This posits there is no one 'root cause' but a complex series of interactions leading to the loss. They could even be ranked if you like to quantify contribution. Then come up a systemic recommendation package, get a time machine and hey presto!
Thank you, Phil. I think there is always room more a more academic approach to the Beatles, which over time will displace the tired and erroneous narratives.