"EARLY 1970"

AN EXAMINATION INTO WHY THE BEATLES REALLY BROKE UP

(c) 1999, BY DAVID W. REYNOLDS

"IN THE END, IT JUST WASN'T AS MUCH FUN FOR US AS IT WAS FOR ALL OF YOU"---GEORGE HARRISON

APRIL 10, 1970. Newspapers around the world report the story that shocked a generation: the most loved group of the 60's, the Beatles, had split up. Over the years, several popular theories emerged about the break-up. One was that Yoko Ono's influence over John Lennon caused the rift. Theory number two named the culprit as one James Paul McCartney. Supposedly his bossiness infuriated the group to the point of meltdown. Either way, the music was over.

Fast forward 30 years, and the answers are no clearer today. This article, the product of extensive research, will attempt to rectify that. As you will see, neither of the afore-mentioned theories are entirely correct. In fact the real reasons, as with much Beatle history, are much more complex.

"Band On the Run"

The break begins here: January 1, 1969. The Beatles begin their ill-fated "Get Back" sessions at Twickenham film studios. The band, used to working the way they wanted, had to start sessions around 8 A.M. as opposed to their usual late night recording. They then had to work with producers, directors, soundmen, and other assorted hangers-on watching their every move. John Lennon complained that it was no atmosphere conducive to creating music. Lennon had another problem that contributed to the disarray: Heroin. He and then-girlfriend Yoko Ono had fallen into the drugs clutches, which led John to withdraw. This left the Beatles without a leader, a role Paul McCartney reluctantly took on.

Several other things contributed to Paul's de-facto leadership. John was going through a musical drought, while Paul (and George) had an abundance of new material. The songs John did have, he was reluctant to introduce to the band. Paul was also reluctant to allow Yoko to take any kind of lead, since she had become John's mouthpiece as of late. Never lacking an opinion, she often voiced her thoughts on the bands performances, even though she claimed to know little about rock music. The other Beatles were at a loss as to what to say or do about Yokes involvement, as it was John himself that came up with the dictum that barred girlfriends (or visitors in general) from attending Beatles recording sessions.

Paul, when in leadership mode, tends to get a little bossy. This bossiness would come up against 3 unstoppable forces: Beatle egos. Much has been made about Paul & George's argument during the "Let It Be" filming. (You know, whatever it is that'll please you, I'll DO it.') For one, Paul was right. George has proven over the years ("Real Love", anyone?) that he likes to double a songs vocal melody on guitar. Now in some cases, fine. But in the arguments case of "Hey Jude", it wouldn't have. Second; the fight, taken in context, sounds more like two loving brothers trying desperately to understand each other. A further blow to the theory that 'Paul and George's fighting broke up the band' is the fact that it was George and John doing most of the arguing. For George's part in this, his infamous stubbornness came into play, as he often refused to do anything John or Paul suggested. And Ringo? He claimed to have no opinion at all.

"Give Me Peace on Earth"/"Give Me Some Truth"

Somehow the Beatles remained intact after the "Get Back" debacle, making their own solo albums while remaining Beatles in the worlds eyes. According to author Doug Sulpy, this was also what John and George had in mind for the Beatles future modus operandi. In a discussion during ''Let It Be" filming, they agreed that letting out your personal stuff on solo projects would be a great way to, in George's words," preserve the Beatles bit of it longer?" They seemed willing to work along these lines, until the bomb dropped. In November of '69, John announced he was leaving the group. The catch was, he couldn't publicly announce it due to contract negotiations with Capitol Records. It's interesting then how John continued to identify himself as a Beatle to the press. Things had been going well enough, what with the successes of "Abbey Road" and the "Yellow Submarine" film. Why not continue to have his solo 'cake' and the Beatles too? Well, that was when the other old brown shoe dropped. Along with press copies of Paul's first solo album, "McCartney", came a self Q&A session. In it, Paul admits he doesn't see the Beatles working together again, but "time will tell". Indeed, the other Beatles also seemed to take this attitude for a year or so after the split. But on April 10, 1970,the newspapers put a slightly different spin on Paul's interview: that the Beatles had broken up. Now, I've never seen anyone extrapolate on why, since the band had not really announced a split---they said nothing and split anyway. Apple press officer Derek Taylor even issued a press release that day, and it said nothing about the band splitting! All right, this is only a deductive leap, but I feel it's a safe one: The Beatles didn't break up, the press did it for them. It appears they figured, "hey, let's let the media do the dirty work for us and thereby do what no one really wants to do". Indeed, reading '70 & '71 interviews, it seems they thought a reunion was only a matter of time. George believed they simply needed to learn to compromise. (Of course, he also said they'd never get back together. John's reply? "He'll change his mind by Friday.") The problem was, the final nail in the Fab coffin was yet to come.

"Sue Me, Sue You Blues"

Allen Klein had been the thorn in Paul's side for some time; chosen over his objections as Beatles manager by John, George & Ringo (and probably Yoko, Klein promised to get her money.) The problem was this: Mr. Deklein?no, wait, that was the Rutles manager? Anyway, Paul wanted to get out of Klein's grip, since 3 Beatle votes were as good as 4. (democratic, you see). The catch was, Paul had to sue not Klein for this, but the other Beatles. Paul had been outraged after the release of the "Let It Be" album, since he had asked Allen for some changes in it and was ignored. This pretty much cemented his hatred for the manager. Paul's lawyer later explained that 3 things had really made Paul's decision to sue for him. One, Klein tried to delay release of "McCartney" on false grounds. ABKCO, Klein's company, had altered "The Long and Winding Road" without Paul's permission; and third, that ABKCO had transferred rights to the "Let It Be" film from Apple to United Artists without Apples' knowledge. It took 6 years for it all to end, but the real result was that Paul, by taking on Klein, had saves the Beatles fortune, wrestling it away from Klein's control. The judge for the case called Allen a "second-class salesman", and shed doubt about his ability to effectively untangle their finances and administer their affairs correctly. Paul has since said: " It certainly did not make me the most popular man in Britain. It was very traumatic and there was no great joy in winning?"

"All Those Years Ago"

April 10, 1970. The dream was over. Although the four would never play together again (see elsewhere on this site for more), tensions cooled, Apple continued (if in name only) and the now ex-Beatles continued their lives and careers. But the Beatles never really left. Their legacy has grown and thrived, even with the tragic death of John Lennon. So why did they really break-up? I believe the biggest culprit was their own talent. Each album had to be different, new, exciting, the 'next big thing', this is why John wanted "Let It Be" released as it was. He said he wanted to "end the game now, please", and I believe the 'game' was the one-upmanship the Beatles had to play with themselves each time they recorded an album. How long could it last? The 'bubble' would have to burst, eventually. And this theory calls to mind John's comment about " burning down the temple". He related a story about Chinese monks that so loved their temple of prayer, they burned it down rather than see it deteriorate over time. So maybe the Beatles ultimate message is also contained in the reason they broke up: Love. Love of the Fabs and love of their unforgettable legacy.

"Cold Turkey" possibly also played a small role in things. John had begun doing straight rock 'n roll with the Beatles, saving ( most ) of his avant garde stuff for his and Yoko's albums. Rock was really John's main love, and he knew his band rocked better than anyone. When he wrote "Cold Turkey", the song was first offered to the Beatles. They, in turn, were duly horrified at the caustic track about heroin withdrawal. So John took Eric Clapton and Klaus Voorman and recorded it anyway. Could this have shown him that he didn't even need the Beatles for his rock 'n roll?

`-----------------------

Sources

Ray Coleman : "Lennon"; "McCartney, Yesterday & Today"

Hunter Davies : "The Beatles"

Mark Hertzgarrd : "A Day in the Life"

Barry Miles : "Many Years from Now"

Allen J. Wiener : "The Beatles Ultimate Recording Guide"

George Harrison: "I Me Mine"

David Scheff: " The Playboy Interviews: John & Yoko"

Nicholas Schaffner: " The Beatles Forever"