Would George have quit the Beatles if John didnt?
-
Most of the accounts of the Sept. 1969 fateful day was that George was just as shocked as Paul. My guess would be that George would continue to release solo albums, but never be the one that broke up the band no matter how miserable he was. Thoughts?
-
I have always thought that Harrison was the one who wanted the most to leave the group. By 1968-69 he was becoming a songwritter on par with Lennon and McCartney but the format of a Beatles release became narrowing for so much productive talent. there was little room for another songwriter to evolve, therefore the monstrous "All Things Must Pass". I think the material on "John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band" was too personal for the band. It's the most obvious non-Beatles release. But he could have made this record while he continued writing songs for The Beatles. "Imagine" has Beatles material, well, except "How Do You Sleep? maybe, and "Oh Yoko". Harrison still seemed like the most unhappy Beatle to me, in the end... he was being held back in a period of growing and blooming as an individual songwriter.
-
Hendrix Ibsen:
I have always thought that Harrison was the one who wanted the most to leave the group. By 1968-69 he was becoming a songwritter on par with Lennon and McCartney but the format of a Beatles release became narrowing for so much productive talent. there was little room for another songwriter to evolve, therefore the monstrous "All Things Must Pass". I think the material on "John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band" was too personal for the band. It's the most obvious non-Beatles release. But he could have made this record while he continued writing songs for The Beatles. "Imagine" has Beatles material, well, except "How Do You Sleep? maybe, and "Oh Yoko". Harrison still seemed like the most unhappy Beatle to me, in the end... he was being held back in a period of growing and blooming as an individual songwriter.
I'll agree with this and add that he had already quit once during the making of Let It Be when they were filming, and that he even played on the roof reluctantly. They could not have stayed together without every album being like "The White Album." The break was inevitable. And from everything I've read it was hardest on Paul, then Ringo. But John and George were both happy it was over.
-
Personally, I think George probably breathed a sigh of relief when it was over, but never would've been the one to make the call.... And John wanted it over, but as we know, wanted it on his terms...... I also think that both would've thought the band (and that immense brotherhood) was never over, but could be called back at any time.... and maybe the "breakup" was merely a "hiatus".... now, I have no idea, but I think they all felt that way.... but like most "divorces" it seemed to be announced as a complete dissolution..... I think if they all had their time again, they should have called a press conference and announced they were taking a year off to do solo ventures.... but would be back..... "we're taking a year, or more, to do our own bits, but we will or might be back". (and whilst I will never equate KISS to the Beatles, the former did just that.... each put out separate solo albums at roughly the same time ... now, I will never equate the two.... ever... but that was an interesting decision. And a clever one. It worked. They then regathered to produce arguably their most successful album, the one that catapulted them. I am sure that at some time in those early 70's, every single one of those brilliant Beatles wished they were all still together. The major players, however, just each put too much wood on the fire to make that a reality. The only thing that didn't get burnt was egos. I guess my major issue is they didn't need a "break up" or a "divorce".... they just needed "time out"...... a year or two off, solo albums, and then..... "We will be back".
-
The hard realities of losing ownership of the Lennon/McCartney songs, the other three siding against Paul to have Allen Klein as their manager, and general business problems with Apple were enough to make them break up. A year or two time off was not going to fix those problems. As history showed, it took until the '90's to get them together again, though without John.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
The hard realities of losing ownership of the Lennon/McCartney songs, the other three siding against Paul to have Allen Klein as their manager, and general business problems with Apple were enough to make them break up. A year or two time off was not going to fix those problems. As history showed, it took until the '90's to get them together again, though without John.
It took George being broke & needing the money to get him involved. Remember his business manager had ripped him off?
-
Nancy R:
beatlesfanrandy:
The hard realities of losing ownership of the Lennon/McCartney songs, the other three siding against Paul to have Allen Klein as their manager, and general business problems with Apple were enough to make them break up. A year or two time off was not going to fix those problems. As history showed, it took until the '90's to get them together again, though without John.
It took George being broke & needing the money to get him involved. Remember his business manager had ripped him off?
George was far from broke and definitely didn't need the money.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
The hard realities of losing ownership of the Lennon/McCartney songs, the other three siding against Paul to have Allen Klein as their manager, and general business problems with Apple were enough to make them break up. A year or two time off was not going to fix those problems. As history showed, it took until the '90's to get them together again, though without John.
I agree. The "time off" option would never had worked if Klein was still in the picture.
-
DavidP:
Nancy R:
beatlesfanrandy:
The hard realities of losing ownership of the Lennon/McCartney songs, the other three siding against Paul to have Allen Klein as their manager, and general business problems with Apple were enough to make them break up. A year or two time off was not going to fix those problems. As history showed, it took until the '90's to get them together again, though without John.
It took George being broke & needing the money to get him involved. Remember his business manager had ripped him off?
George was far from broke and definitely didn't need the money.
That isn't what I read.
-
In my opinion, I truly believe that George would have quit even if John stayed. The reason is because George was really blossoming as a songwriter and becoming a threat to the Lennon/McCartney songwriting partnership. By 1968-69, his songs were rivaling the Lennon McCartney songs. "Something," "Here Comes The Sun," "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Its All Too Much" just to name a few, were about as good as any of the Lennon/McCartney songs during the 1968-70 period. George was also complaining to John and Paul about putting more of his songs on Beatles albums which John and Paul said no. George's composition "Not Guilty" was about how George felt about getting in between the Lennon/McCartney songwriting team. When you think about it, George emulated John as far as his songwriting abilities are concerned, listen to the ALL THINGS MUST PASS album, George's lyrics are practically identical to John's writing not to mention that most of the songs on the ALL THINGS MUST PASS album were written during THE BEATLES years. I'd like to hear all of your opinions on this.
-
George was more than ready to split the Beatles scene, having already taken his turn at quitting in January 1969. He said it was "painful." The time he'd spent in Woodstock, NY, with Dylan and The Band was like a relief valve, and he enjoyed being valued for who he was with them - not being pigeonholed by his role within The Beatles construct and stuck between the massive Lennon-McCartney egos. John was ready to replace him with Clapton anyway - a typical Lennon insult, but it had to have hurt.
-
Soft-Hearted Hana:
George was more than ready to split the Beatles scene, having already taken his turn at quitting in January 1969. He said it was "painful." The time he'd spent in Woodstock, NY, with Dylan and The Band was like a relief valve, and he enjoyed being valued for who he was with them - not being pigeonholed by his role within The Beatles construct and stuck between the massive Lennon-McCartney egos. John was ready to replace him with Clapton anyway - a typical Lennon insult, but it had to have hurt.
Good point Soft-Hearted Hana!
-
If John would have begged George to stay, he probably would have. (like that would have ever happened!)
-
beatlesfanrandy:
The hard realities of losing ownership of the Lennon/McCartney songs, the other three siding against Paul to have Allen Klein as their manager, and general business problems with Apple were enough to make them break up. A year or two time off was not going to fix those problems. As history showed, it took until the '90's to get them together again, though without John.
But a couple years DID fix those problems(well, 3 years ), as far as John and Paul were concerned anyway. They were hanging out by 73, and John indicated clearly at least twice around that period that I can think of (in that interview on the beach in 73 and in an interview right after he had gotten back together with Yoko in 76) that he wanted the band back together. I wonder how come it didn't happen. Why didn't Paul give him a call hen he heard him say that?, he didn't hear those interviews or what?, was he more interested in continuing his Wings project at the time?.
JoeySmith:
I agree. The "time off" option would never had worked if Klein was still in the picture.
But Klein was no longer in the picture by 73.
-
As for George, we all know he was unhappy with the situation, but he had come back despite momentarily quitting. And remember that interview he gave in I think 1970?, he says The Beatles will probably get back together, that it'd be selfish for them not to, etc. He doesn't seem at all bitter about the band, at all. That somehow seemed to change later on though. Odd. But considering the above, I tend to think he wouln't have actually quit. He could always release a solo album or more. Not sure why he didn't when he had so many great songs laying around.
-
crisstti:
beatlesfanrandy:
The hard realities of losing ownership of the Lennon/McCartney songs, the other three siding against Paul to have Allen Klein as their manager, and general business problems with Apple were enough to make them break up. A year or two time off was not going to fix those problems. As history showed, it took until the '90's to get them together again, though without John.
But a couple years DID fix those problems(well, 3 years ), as far as John and Paul were concerned anyway. They were hanging out by 73, and John indicated clearly at least twice around that period that I can think of (in that interview on the beach in 73 and in an interview right after he had gotten back together with Yoko in 76) that he wanted the band back together. I wonder how come it didn't happen. Why didn't Paul give him a call when he heard him say that?, he didn't hear those interviews or what?, was he more interested in continuing his Wings project at the time?.
JoeySmith:
I agree. The "time off" option would never had worked if Klein was still in the picture.
But Klein was no longer in the picture by 73.
-
crisstti:
beatlesfanrandy:
The hard realities of losing ownership of the Lennon/McCartney songs, the other three siding against Paul to have Allen Klein as their manager, and general business problems with Apple were enough to make them break up. A year or two time off was not going to fix those problems. As history showed, it took until the '90's to get them together again, though without John.
But a couple years DID fix those problems(well, 3 years ), as far as John and Paul were concerned anyway. They were hanging out by 73, and John indicated clearly at least twice around that period that I can think of (in that interview on the beach in 73 and in an interview right after he had gotten back together with Yoko in 76) that he wanted the band back together. I wonder how come it didn't happen. Why didn't Paul give him a call hen he heard him say that?, he didn't hear those interviews or what?, was he more interested in continuing his Wings project at the time?.
JoeySmith:
I agree. The "time off" option would never had worked if Klein was still in the picture.
But Klein was no longer in the picture by 73.
Well John getting back together with Yoko and having Sean changed everything for John. He wanted to look after Sean and music wasn't on the agenda. Paul was very successful with Wings by 74/75 until 79. Even if John had lived the Beatles might not have gotten back together until the mid-eighties. John would have wanted to comeback as solo artist first. He had plans for a tour and a second album.
-
dcshark:
Well John getting back together with Yoko and having Sean changed everything for John. He wanted to look after Sean and music wasn't on the agenda. Paul was very successful with Wings by 74/75 until 79. Even if John had lived the Beatles might not have gotten back together until the mid-eighties. John would have wanted to comeback as solo artist first. He had plans for a tour and a second album.
But this interview from John where he says basically he's open to the Beatles getting back together and that the others should "give him a call" is from when he had gotten back together with Yoko. And the beach interview was from 73. So how come nothing happened in all that time?. Paul was criptic as usual and never indicated he wated the bacn back together nor otherwise, but one would tend to think he'd have wanted it. Anyhow, if John changed his mind later in 76 it was to other reasons (the baby and all, as you said), not because of the issues which had caused the band to break up in the first place. What business problems remained between them (which would be settled in the 90's) I'm not sure, but they at least didn't seem to be a problem around those years.
-
crisstti:
dcshark:
Well John getting back together with Yoko and having Sean changed everything for John. He wanted to look after Sean and music wasn't on the agenda. Paul was very successful with Wings by 74/75 until 79. Even if John had lived the Beatles might not have gotten back together until the mid-eighties. John would have wanted to comeback as solo artist first. He had plans for a tour and a second album.
But this interview from John where he says basically he's open to the Beatles getting back together and that the others should "give him a call" is from when he had gotten back together with Yoko. And the beach interview was from 73. So how come nothing happened in all that time?. Paul was criptic as usual and never indicated he wated the bacn back together nor otherwise, but one would tend to think he'd have wanted it. Anyhow, if John changed his mind later in 76 it was to other reasons (the baby and all, as you said), not because of the issues which had caused the band to break up in the first place. What business problems remained between them (which would be settled in the 90's) I'm not sure, but they at least didn't seem to be a problem around those years.
John signed the papers breaking up The Beatles on 29 December 1974 at Disneyworld in Florida until that point they were suing each other. Would it have made any sense to get together at that point or even just after. I think John said as much in an interview somewhere. I think they were enjoying their freedom, musically, from each other at this point. And they were all successfully carving out solo careers. I think the fans and media were constantly asking when would the Beatles reunite, but I don't think that they wanted that in the 70s. It was too soon. And they were tired of being asked this question repeatedly, which maybe why Lennon answers they can call me. In 79/80 John signed an affidavit blocking the Beatlemania Broadway show for copyright infringement, in which he said he had plans to reunite the Beatles.
-
dcshark:
John signed the papers breaking up The Beatles on 29 December 1974 at Disneyworld in Florida until that point they were suing each other. Would it have made any sense to get together at that point or even just after. I think John said as much in an interview somewhere. I think they were enjoying their freedom, musically, from each other at this point. And they were all successfully carving out solo careers. I think the fans and media were constantly asking when would the Beatles reunite, but I don't think that they wanted that in the 70s. It was too soon. And they were tired of being asked this question repeatedly, which maybe why Lennon answers they can call me. In 79/80 John signed an affidavit blocking the Beatlemania Broadway show for copyright infringement, in which he said he had plans to reunite the Beatles.
The paper break up was just a bussiness thing, I don't think it could have been something which could have stopped them from recording as The Beatles if they wanted to. When the Klein issue was solved (as in, they all hated him now), this stopped being a problem AFAIK. The change in John's attitude towards The Beatles is stark, from 10-71 to 73-76, and then again (though not quite so much). IMO it's clear the change in his asnwers isn't because he had gotten tired of answering the question (he's negative - positive - negative). I don't know if you're heard/read the two interviews with John I'm talking about, but he's clearly not displeased with the idea at all, to say the least. He was also, interestingly, the only one I think to openly express a certain desire for them to reunite in the 70's.