?

Log in

Apr. 4th, 2007 @ 11:32 am Rant Post #12
The Beatles Break-Up the Fault of More Than Just One Person

When a young kid falls in love with The Beatles, the first common thing to do is to make a little research, and as the time passes, they start making their own opinions about the sad break up of the most famous band in the world.

Imagine a 13 year old kid (let’s say it’s a girl, so the “jealousy” fact can be used in my example) that one day she opened her eyes (or should I say ears?) to the wonderful music of a sixties band called The Beatles. She goes to her mom and asked her ‘Mummy? Why did the Beatles break up?’ and a diehard Paul McCartney’s fan mum says ‘Because Yoko broke them up’ and there it goes a small kid totally believing that Yoko broke up The Beatles.

Even with her mom’s advice to fall for Paul she fell in love with John, and then she hates Yoko a) because she thinks Yoko broke up her brand new favourite band b) because she’s jealous d) because she’s annoyed by Yoko’s voice already.

The year goes by, she’s fourteen now, she read in a website dedicated to his almighty John that Paul sued the band and then released a solo album not even a week after The Beatles’ break up. ‘Mum, I hate your bloody Paul ‘cause he broke up The Beatles’ and she forgets about Yoko for a while because now she hates Paul a) maybe because he’s actually prettier than her b) she was in johnheartpaul and read that John was in love with him and was jealous too c) because he broke up The Beatles.

Another year is over and she’s fifteen now, she read a book that said that George was tired of being a Beatle and was annoyed by all the fans and the hysteria that The Beatles provoked everywhere they went AND he was complaining of not having enough songs released in The Beatles’ albums, he wanted to end up that long nightmare. ‘That bloody Harrison, he broke up The Beatles’ and now, she hates George a) because she preferred John’s rhythm guitar than his lead guitar b) because she didn’t understand all the religious preaching c) he broke up The Beatles.

When she was sixteen she loved “You’re 16” of Ringo Starr and fell in love with him, she was tired of John singing “Oh Yoko” after Yoko breaking up The Beatles, it was ironic in front of her sixteen years old eyes. So she takes a bunch of courage to read that John was the one that wanted to break up The Beatles in first place and now she hated John a) because he loved Yoko b) because she read “John” by Cynthia Lennon (her new hero) c) he broke up The Beatles.

Now can you see how much damage are we causing to the poor kids of the new generations that are starting to love The Beatles?. They end up hating everyone ‘cause everyone broke up The Beatles. We could end up a sad story full of hate by stop looking for someone to blame, The Beatles broke up because they had to break up, call it destiny or a punishment, but it had to happen, even if it hurts, it’s the truth, it happened way before some of us was even born. The Beatles forgave themselves for all the shit they did through their young days and loved each other until the end (and still loving each other ‘til today), why can’t we just love them ALL and accept that it was EVERYONE’S fault in a way or another and we’re not going to win anything by finding the real cause of their break up.

Let’s just make a happy story… “Once upon a time, four handsome boys got together to shake the world at the rhythm of Rock n’ Roll”. And an “And they lived happily ever after”

The End.
About this Entry
macca
abromeds:
[User Picture Icon]
From:padawansguide
Date:April 4th, 2007 05:43 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
That was so much fun to read! Well-done!

The Beatles break-up was inevitable. Being essentially imprisoned together in hotels or the studio for the better part of 10 years - that couldn't go on forever. I'm just sorry the end was so ugly, and that people who had obviously loved each other so much had their relationships damaged that in some cases it took years to mend. Plus, you know, there was Yoko. ;-)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:padawansguide
Date:April 4th, 2007 10:35 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
You're just trying to suck up to safelybeds! :-)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:abromeds
Date:April 4th, 2007 10:36 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Agreed. I'd throw the fans and the press and Allen Klein in there, too.
(Deleted comment)
From:(Anonymous)
Date:April 4th, 2007 11:42 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I think I made it obvious by not saying anything about Ringo hahaha Ringo is love ^^ hahahaha....
[User Picture Icon]
From:zyzzybalubah
Date:April 4th, 2007 06:53 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I have a long theory about why the Beatles broke up but I'm exhausted from writing my long theory from the last rant so I'll keep it short. LOL

Essentially, I believe the Beatles broke up because Brian Epstein died. Brian took care of all the business and all the boring stuff that goes with the entertainment business. After he died, the Fabs tried to manage themselves and had absolutely no idea what they were doing. All those outside pressures took their toll on their working relationship. So while it's true that they were beginning to drift into different directions regardless, I don't their break up would have been as soon or filled with acrimony and lawsuits if either Brian had lived or if they would have replaced him with a suitable manager.
[User Picture Icon]
From:gloigloi
Date:April 4th, 2007 07:32 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Amen to that. That is basically what my friend and I were discussing a couple of days ago.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:adaveen
Date:April 4th, 2007 08:40 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
What he said.
[User Picture Icon]
From:zyzzybalubah
Date:April 4th, 2007 08:57 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
LOL, thanks.
[User Picture Icon]
From:queenpeladon
Date:April 4th, 2007 09:32 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
"So while it's true that they were beginning to drift into different directions regardless, I don't their break up would have been as soon or filled with acrimony and lawsuits if either Brian had lived or if they would have replaced him with a suitable manager."

I agree. I still think that they would have run creatively dry at around the same time, and their failing personal relationships would still have created unbearable tension, but the whole thing could have been handled with a lot more dignity and professionalism with a competant manager at the helm. Or, like, any manager.
[User Picture Icon]
From:padawansguide
Date:April 4th, 2007 10:37 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I think that definitely didn't help, because obviously the Beatles fought over who should manage them. If you read the Emerick book though, it seems like Brian might have been losing his hold over them, and may not have been able to retain it. The Beatles were really looking to be their own bosses, something I don't think they had the business smarts for. I'm not sure even Brian could have prevented the breakup, though he might have delayed it.
[User Picture Icon]
From:abromeds
Date:April 4th, 2007 10:46 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I disagree. Don't get me wrong, it was a factor, but not the main one, IMO.

First off, Brian's role in the band was severely diminished by the time of his death, though as you say, there were all those sticky little business details which suddenly became an issue. But I've never gotten the feeling that that was such a huge deal. But artistically, the Beatles were fairly autonomous by that time. They decided what sorts of songs to write, how they would be arranged, what the cover art would be, what they would wear in public, how long they would spend working on albums, if and how they would make public appearances, etc. etc. In fact, it is speculated that that was a major cause of Brian's depression at the time of his death; he really wasn't involved with The Beatles anymore.

Now, I DO think a HUGE bone of contention was the choosing of a replacement manager, absolutely, no doubt about it. Klein vs. Eastman vs. Someone Else Entirely. But I see that conflict as having much more to do with the already existing tensions, personal and artistic, between the Beatles themselves.
[User Picture Icon]
From:minds_opaque
Date:April 5th, 2007 02:24 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I don't their break up would have been as soon or filled with acrimony and lawsuits if either Brian had lived or if they would have replaced him with a suitable manager.

True!

Well, I think George's issues at the time of the breakup would have been the same (as annoyed as he was about the lawsuit, I don't think that was what he was really mad about). On the other hand, without the lawsuit, he would never have thrown a brick through Paul's window.

But if Brian had lived, that would have made a real difference with John and Paul. As I understand it, by the 70's, they were largely able to work out their personal differences, but business was the sticking point. They probably would have worked things out a lot sooner, and never gotten so mad in the first place, if they hadn't fought over business. The issue of manager became a focus for personal issues, because it became "Paul's girlfriend's relative vs. someone impartial." So if George and John were fed up with Paul's seemingly taking over the band, they could point to concrete evidence that he was doing so. If John was jealous of Linda, well, here was some evidence that Linda was a bad influence.
[User Picture Icon]
From:geminigirl58
Date:April 4th, 2007 08:20 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Let’s just make a happy story… “Once upon a time, four handsome boys got together to shake the world at the rhythm of Rock n’ Roll”. And an “And they lived happily ever after”

Except it isn't and they didn't. Two are dead way before their time, one through tragic, horrible means. And even before that, it was one dysfunctional family/group that loved each other to bits. And yes, they still do, after all these years. There is nothing to sugar-coat, it is what it is. Later groups--isn't GreenDay one of them?--who learned the lesson of not letting personal resentments fester and using a mental health professional to try and iron out problems before they explode? The Beatles' breakup was a lesson in "what not to do".

Until I got to your second to last paragraph, I almost thought you were taking a tongue-in-cheek approach. New fans can get dizzy trying to figure out the different angles, factors, and relationships that contributed to the group breaking up and it seemed as if you were outlining that convoluted path we all take when we first start trying to analyze what these guys were about. But then I realized you were more serious about it (at least that’s how I interpreted it). One of the things is the public attitudes about who or what is to blame have changed over the years, depending on the zeitgeist. When it first happened, it was Yoko, Linda, and Paul. Time changes everything if enough time has passed. Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly agree with you that nothing is to be won by playing the blame game. It was more than one factor/person--it was a combination of issues that led to the group's demise. When people try to simplify it and distill it down to one thing, they are missing the rest of the picture. People are complex beings and these four even more so (especially the relationship between two of them), so the reasons for the breakup are complex as well.
[User Picture Icon]
From:gloigloi
Date:April 4th, 2007 09:28 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Rather than playing the blame game we play the 'what should they have done', 'what could they have done' game. White album time, Ringo doing his 'You three are so close' off on holiday thing, Yoko causing ructions by being in the studio, John taking too many drugs.. in a saner world where should they have gone from there?
[User Picture Icon]
From:geminigirl58
Date:April 5th, 2007 04:00 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I see what you're getting at, but in how many situations do we review history and think "if only this had been different", etc. There are many points in the Beatles' breakup that if one could change history, the outcome would likely have been different. Take your pick--that Yoko was not possessive of John and threatened by his previous life, especially his relationship with Paul; that John had not discarded Paul in favor of just Yoko; that Paul had not gotten controlling and bossy during his depression over John leaving him; that they had been more receptive about George's growing songwriting and given him more "air time"; that if they all could not agree on one manager, they throw out both Eastman and Klein to look for a third alternative, etc., etc. IF, IF, IF...
[User Picture Icon]
From:pauls_left_hand
Date:April 6th, 2007 12:37 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
it was a combination of issues that led to the group's demise.
Too true. There was so much going on in these, relatively young, fellows' lives, I'm surprised they lasted as long as they did. Most people do a lot of growing up between 16 and 25 and the ideologies you explore in your teens may be very different than those you grow into later on. I don't think for one moment that they could have been anything other than close, because of all they had been through together, but their extraordinary experience must have become terribly claustrophobic, possibly resulting in their need to break away from each other, much like most of us break from our parents.

It seems more likely to me that all the 'reasons' are just symptoms, rather than causes, of what was an inevitability.
[User Picture Icon]
From:geminigirl58
Date:April 6th, 2007 02:35 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
You make a very valid point. I've always held to the belief that if they agreed to have an "open" marriage, like the Stones did, in that they allowed both solo and group activities, they would have had the staying power. Instead, their thinking was rather dichotomous--black or white. Either you're in a group or you're solo. Even though there was some itching to do things with other people (I'm speaking more about John and George here), at least for John, I don't think he really completely got over the loss of Paul (and vice-versa). So, although that separation and individuation was needed (because their existence had been claustrophic and symbiotic), it was a rocky road to independence and never completely severed. I guess like grown children, one must find a way to assume your own identity separate from parents but maintain a connection as well. J&P just didn't succeed at that task into the 70s. It was only with John's death that it ended for him and as we all know, it's never ended for Paul.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:pauls_left_hand
Date:April 6th, 2007 12:37 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
me too. A good tip for reading Beatles books, is to start at the end and work your way to the beginning. It's much nicer. :)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:minds_opaque
Date:April 5th, 2007 02:42 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
If only they really did live happily ever after!

why can’t we just love them ALL and accept that it was EVERYONE’S fault in a way or another and we’re not going to win anything by finding the real cause of their break up.
Well, yes and no. Of course we should love all the Beatles! And of course it was everyone's fault!

But I don't see a problem with finding the real cause of their breakup, especially since it'll be something complex like "John being passive aggressive + Paul being a bossy git + Yoko ordering around the Apple staff, sitting on amps, stealing George's food, and generally making a nuisance of herself + George finally getting a role in the band and then losing it to Yoko + Ringo just feeling left out + Brian being dead + Allen Klein being an asshole..." If we want to understand the Beatles, we have to understand their breakup, and what role they all played, and maybe what if anything they could have done differently. That doesn't mean we should hate them. We're pretty good at forgiving the Beatles for doing ugly things, so why would we suddenly stop being able to do that when it comes to the breakup?

(By the way, I didn't mention Linda above not because I think she was entirely blameless--she played some sort of a role--but because I haven't made up my mind yet how I think she was involved.)
[User Picture Icon]
From:padawansguide
Date:April 5th, 2007 03:54 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
LOL! Nicely said!
[User Picture Icon]
From:pauls_left_hand
Date:April 6th, 2007 12:39 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
stealing George's food,
Huh? Can this woman get any worse ;)