Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Greg]

Paul's somewhat domineering attitude was responsible for keeping them together and breaking them up.

I have been thinking about the relevance of this theory lately.

[Mervap]

It's a true statement....it is often said that one's biggest strength is also one's biggest weakness. Paul loves to work at his job and when others around him do not share that enthusiasm, I'm sure it can be grating...for both.

[Greg]

I agree Mervap.  Do you think Paul could have done anything to have stopped the Beatles from disbanding?

I think, had he allowed some more breathing room for everyone, that they could have gone on longer.

The thing is it wouldn't have been much longer.  ...and going on longer would have, eventually, only tarnished their legacy.

Would The Beatles have recorded the song Wildlife?

[Mervap]

Would The Beatles have recorded the song Wildlife?

I'd have to doubt it....as  Beatle, I think Paul always tried to bring his best to the table.
I think if, around 1968, the Lads had done a kind of "solo year", they might have lasted a while longer, but their brand of fame isolation was unique. The trap of being a Beatle would have haunted even a low-key solo record. As much as it pains me to say it, they broke up at the perfect time.

[kylenz]

Come to think of it, I would really like to hear The Beatles do 'Wild Life'! I can imagine it on Side 2 of Abbey Road, amongst the likes of You Never Give Me Your Money etc. I can hear John and George doing the "whatever happened to.." backing vocals with Macca's 'Oh Darling' lead vocal shred in full force!

[Keri]

John was the leader of the band in the early days & he lead them to the top, I think for John things had to always be developing/changing and attaining primacy and conquering the world (so to speak) created the problem of having nowhere else to go, so he started to let go. Paul didn't have that kind of restlessness and wasn't easily bored as John was, he continued to push, but I don't think he was ever regarded implicitly by the other members as the leader of the Beatles as John had been. Eventually the next big change for John was breaking up the Beatles, to me Paul is the one who most wanted them to continue, I think he did things that annoyed the others, but I don't think he could have done anything to keep them together. I think if John had wanted them to stay together they would have.

[Greg]

John was the leader of the band in the early days & he lead them to the top, I think for John things had to always be developing/changing and attaining primacy and conquering the world (so to speak) created the problem of having nowhere else to go, so he started to let go. Paul didn't have that kind of restlessness and wasn't easily bored as John was, he continued to push, but I don't think he was ever regarded implicitly by the other members as the leader of the Beatles as John had been. Eventually the next big change for John was breaking up the Beatles, to me Paul is the one who most wanted them to continue, I think he did things that annoyed the others, but I don't think he could have done anything to keep them together. I think if John had wanted them to stay together they would have.

Paul definitely also wanted things to be developing and changing.  It was he who had the concept for Pepper and wanted an album of all live songs after a film documenting the development of those songs.   It was more likely the case that Paul thought The Beatles were a vehicle for new ideas and John didn't.  John had a new partner in art...and that was Yoko.  She excited and inspired him artistically more than The Beatles as a group.

One of the great unanswered questions is whether John would have separated from Yoko either personally and/or artistically at some point after '80.  Or at least allowed himself enough separation to work with his old group. 

[Keri]

Yes, I don't want to come across as saying Paul wasn't an innovator, but he wasn't restless and easily bored like John was. John's first major solo album in a lot of ways is an about face with its raging "I don't believe in Beatles" statement.

But I think Paul never had all the Beatles behind him like John did on their way to the top, I think John wanted to get to the top but i don't think he had a strategy for the Beatles beyond that. Paul had ideas after they had got to the top & with Sgt Pepper they were still a pretty cohesive group. There is quite a bit of co writing still going on with Pepper. After that I think Paul kept making plans as the others didn't have any and the others just went along with them but I think there was also a certain amount of resentment.

I would have liked to see them all doing some projects together and it's kind of cool that they did anthology together and finished off a couple of extra tracks. They gave us so much music in the time they were together and then they all went on to do solo albums. Looking now it all feels kind of inevitable the way it turned out.

[kylenz]

Yeah it comes down to that basic human trait - nobody likes someone who is coming across as too pushy - and I don't think Paul wanted to come across this way - he was just doing what he thought was the best way to push the group forward.

It's a bit like watching the reality show Survivor. What happens to a tribe member once they start 'taking over' and trying to dictate every little thing? That's right, they get voted out pronto. Every time a coconut.

[Greg]

Yes, I don't want to come across as saying Paul wasn't an innovator, but he wasn't restless and easily bored like John was. John's first major solo album in a lot of ways is an about face with its raging "I don't believe in Beatles" statement.

But I think Paul never had all the Beatles behind him like John did on their way to the top, I think John wanted to get to the top but i don't think he had a strategy for the Beatles beyond that. Paul had ideas after they had got to the top & with Sgt Pepper they were still a pretty cohesive group. There is quite a bit of co writing still going on with Pepper. After that I think Paul kept making plans as the others didn't have any and the others just went along with them but I think there was also a certain amount of resentment.

I would have liked to see them all doing some projects together and it's kind of cool that they did anthology together and finished off a couple of extra tracks. They gave us so much music in the time they were together and then they all went on to do solo albums. Looking now it all feels kind of inevitable the way it turned out.

That was a great summation of a topic that probably could/should be a 300-page book.

[2 of 3]

The time was right for them to break up. With all the, it was John, or it was Paul theories....we should probably just accept that George was out the door(mentally) before anyone else. As already mentioned, it's too bad the break up wasn't friendly. We missed out on some epic backing vocals(at the very least) on the solo albums...not to mention the odd surprise walk on's at solo concerts.

[Greg]

True.  And what is overlooked much of the time is that they all left the door open at one time or another in the early 70's.  Even George mentioned in 70-71 that he was sure they would record again.  He even said that it would be ashamed or selfish (I forgot which one) for them not to record again.  He was talking about taking a little time out of each year to record some stuff together, but it sounded like he felt they would remain solo artists who rejoined every so often to create something.