?

Log in

Apr. 4th, 2007 @ 11:32 am Rant Post #12
About this Entry
macca
abromeds:
[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:minds_opaque
Date:April 5th, 2007 02:29 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Surely no one thinks Brian could have prevented the breakup? Yes, he probably helped them communicate better, but as several people pointed out already, he wasn't interacting with the Beatles as much any more and he wasn't so involved in their day-to-day lives.

As I understand it, the issue is when the breakup would have happened, how bad it would have been, and whether the Beatles could have patched things up afterward.
[User Picture Icon]
From:padawansguide
Date:April 5th, 2007 03:46 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I totally agree!
[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:zyzzybalubah
Date:April 4th, 2007 11:27 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Well, I have to disagree with you also. Brain's role had diminished in that he didn't have tours and TV appearances to arrange anymore since the band stopped touring. That is given as a reason why Brian was so depressed around the time he died but his duties that remained were just as vital as ever. He never had anything to do with the music. That was always George Martin's thing.

Brian taking care of the business details was indeed a huge thing because it controlled their money and songwriting royalties and all that. If Brian had been around, he would have never let the Magical Mystery Tour film be so amaturish. He would have not allowed the Apple fiasco to take place and he would have never let the Lennon/McCartney publishing rights be sold. Those things would have saved the band tons of money and unwanted stress.

Also, if Brian's job was not a huge deal they would not have fought so hard in the Klein/Eastman battle. They knew they had to get the best person for the job becuase it was so important.

I know they had personality conflicts going on but I still believe they could have and would have worked through that if they hadn't taken on all the crazy business chores and let someone qualified do it.

[User Picture Icon]
From:abromeds
Date:April 7th, 2007 01:10 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
If Brian had been around, he would have never let the Magical Mystery Tour film be so amaturish. He would have not allowed the Apple fiasco to take place and he would have never let the Lennon/McCartney publishing rights be sold. Those things would have saved the band tons of money and unwanted stress.

I agree with everything, except I'm not sure what you mean about the L/M publishing rights. When were they sold, by whom, to whom? I honestly don't know. But anyway, yes, I already said I thought Brian's death was a factor, I just think other factors outweighed it -- artistic and personal differences, the effects of their insane fame, natural aging, drugs, etc.

if Brian's job was not a huge deal they would not have fought so hard in the Klein/Eastman battle. They knew they had to get the best person for the job becuase it was so important.

True, but why didn't they band together (forgive the pun) to find a suitable manager, as they had always done in the past over major decisions? Why did John and Yoko suddenly decide they wanted Klein and no one else, regardless of what anyone else had to say? Why did George and Ringo side with him? I think all that was because of already existing tensions unrelated to Brian's death.
[User Picture Icon]
From:zyzzybalubah
Date:April 7th, 2007 05:08 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Well, all the "already existing tensions" were mostly concerning the business deals and such that they were failing horribly at. But blah, blah, blah...LOL.

John & Paul's publishing rights were sold in 1968 or 69 without their consent because they only held like 49% stock in Northern Songs (which was the company that handled their songs) or something like that. It's another one of those complicated business headaches they got themselves involved in in the late 60's.
[User Picture Icon]
From:abromeds
Date:April 7th, 2007 05:24 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
all the "already existing tensions" were mostly concerning the business deals and such that they were failing horribly at.

No, they were personal and artistic! ;P Yep, I think that's the root of our disagreement right there. Ah well, ATD. ^_^

Right, but Brian was the one who negotiated that 40% deal in the first place, right? Paul describes in his Howard Stern interview how in the early days Brian took him and John aside with a lawyer and asked them to sign the Northern Songs contract, which they did.
[User Picture Icon]
From:abromeds
Date:April 7th, 2007 05:25 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
*49%
[User Picture Icon]
From:zyzzybalubah
Date:April 7th, 2007 02:03 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Well, if you've ever had to do business that involved money with family or friends, you would realize that the stresses from said activities add a great deal of strain to your normal relationship. For instance, say you have a friend who has a habit of picking their teeth and you think it's gross. Well, normally you would just think "That's gross but he/she is my friend so I'll deal with it". However, if you are in a business with that friend and you're losing thousands upon thousands of dollars everyday with no clear idea how to deal with it, the next time they pick their teeth you're more likely to go "STOP PICKING YOU FREAKIN' TEETH YOU DISGUSTING PIECE OF HUMAN CRUD! I CAN'T FREAKIN' STAND YOU ANYMORE"! So that's how their horrible business deals were adding to whatever personality differences they had. Because these differences just didn't arrive in 1968 or 69. When they were free to just make music and enjoy the benefits of being Beatles, they always managed to deal with their differences but after two years of managing themselves (badly) they were pushed to the point of no return. I mean, look at the Rolling Stones. Do you think there haven't been major personal conflicts in that band? For better or worse, they have managed to stay together for like 4 decades. I'm sure if Mick & Keith had ever decided to manage the band, they would've split up the next day. LOL.

As for the Northern Songs thing, Brian would've kept up with what was going on with the company and done his best to make it work for John & Paul because he had a big stake in that as well. As it happened, John & Paul didn't even know the company was for sale until after it had been sold.

I'm not saying that if Brian had lived The Beatles would have stayed together forever but I do think they would've dealt with their differences in a diplomatic way and maybe agreed to take breaks to go do solo projects and then reconvene for Beatles projects. Obviously, we'll never know but that's my theory. :-)
[User Picture Icon]
From:abromeds
Date:April 7th, 2007 03:57 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I remain unconvinced. :)
[User Picture Icon]
From:zyzzybalubah
Date:April 7th, 2007 07:41 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Well then why did they break up, Miss Wisenheimer? Because Paul made them play "Two of Us" a hundred times in a row? ;-P
[User Picture Icon]
From:padawansguide
Date:April 5th, 2007 03:53 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I think the Beatles had been managed and had decisions taken out of their hands for so long that they just weren't having it any more. I do think Brian had less sway over the Beatles. The Emerick book talks about the live TV gig Brian got them (the one where they did All You Need Is Love) and how they (particularly John) were really displeased that he had booked it without consulting them, and none of them wanted to do it initially. It looked like there was a ton of tension over it, and it just seemed like the Beatles were feeling their power and increasingly both Brian AND George Martin were losing their hold or control over them. The Emerick book talks about one particularly nasty fight Paul had with George Martin, during the White Album. It made an impression on me, anyway..
[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:hb_princess
Date:April 5th, 2007 03:37 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Um...it was John who threw the brick through Paul's window. Or are you saying that and I just misunderstood?

*is confused*
[User Picture Icon]
From:abromeds
Date:April 5th, 2007 04:42 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
And I'm pretty sure it was long before the lawsuit, anyway. IF the story is true, that is, heh. The pics of him climbing Paul's fence are pre-lawsuit, anyway.
[User Picture Icon]
From:minds_opaque
Date:April 5th, 2007 04:44 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
IIRC, John took George and Ringo along and they threw the brick with him. (Which kind of makes sense for George, but seems very unlike Ringo.)
[User Picture Icon]
From:geminigirl58
Date:April 6th, 2007 03:49 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I hadn't heard that George & Ringo were along for the ride. Only John shows up in those pics at Paul's gate. Out of curiosity, where did you hear/read otherwise?