John Lennon Split The Beatles Up

[Keith Jordan]

I think we kind of knew that already, but Paul has been getting some things off his chest about the history of the Beatles and legal action against the rest of the band.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58868557

[Jimi Dean Barrett]

Even then, with two managers Eastman and Klien for the rest. The Beatles were destined to split. I am at least glad they made Abbey Road. Because Let It Be would have been a heartbreakingly poor showing to go out on.
I'm not getting Disney+. If it was filming any other album than what ended up being Let It Be, I would reconsider!
Recently McCartney said something about an eye exercise which has meant he didn't need glasses.
So I like to imagine him and Lennon having a "But I wear me glasses 'cos they make me look intelligent!" shouting match.

[Kerry King]

50 plus years after the split and Sir Paul is setting the record straight? How is that not absurd? Who cares anyway? Ancient history. McCartney included a press release in his first solo album. That was the moment the world knew it was over. 51 years later and now it's all supposed to be on Lennon? Whatever.

[ZiggyZipgun]

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but it's apparent that Paul's not quite happy with his audience, and he's fighting to stay relevant. Lennon and Harrison have both been widely embraced by younger generations, but while McCartney has outlived both of them by decades and remained active, nothing he's put out in the past forty years has caught on. He said something very telling in the early '80s, pointing out that people would always regard John's work as being better because he was dead. In the past few years, Paul's been getting pretty weird, changing his stories, and making a number of odd claims.

Reminds me a little of Roger "Why Don't More People Follow My Facebook Page" Waters.

[ZiggyZipgun]

Also, both John and George had said they were tired of being Paul's "sidemen". George, John, and Ringo had all briefly quit at different times in the late '60s and did not want to work with Paul, but all three continued working together for several years following the split. That should tell you who broke up the band.

[Eclipse]

if they entered the 70's, I could only dream of how amazing prog rock they could have made.
I believe they would follow this direction, along other prog giants, though of course with not so much virtuosism.
It could have been something like pink floyd: very epic, a lot of creative power in studio, not so much technical playing - though very creative, with better production, longer songs, experimentation.
But, well, didn't happen.

[Annoying Twit]

Paul needs to be writing better songs than those on McCartney III if he wants to stay relevant.

[ZiggyZipgun]

Come on, we got four christmases. They didn't write together when they were in the band, despite the "Lennon/McCartney" brand, so staying together would mean compromising on their better material, and the weaker stuff being relegated to solo albums. Their '70s output still featured top notch production, and they did exactly what they wanted, so continuing as The Beatles would likely mean significantly less output.

I listen to George Harrison's solo work all the time, but only occasionally break out Lennon or even Beatles albums, which are consistently littered with nonsensical songs - some of which you can hear how little they care, knowing it would be salvaged and polished by George Martin. (Is This the Life... has a similar vibe.)

[GilmourGirl]

Meehh, just like a lot of marriages. You just grow apart and find other interests. They can't all be like the Stones' marriage lol.

[ZiggyZipgun]

The Rolling Stones have been a jukebox for the last 40 years. They're about as creative as Brit Floyd.

[Eclipse]

The Rolling Stones have been a jukebox for the last 40 years. They're about as creative as Brit Floyd.

I would increase that time span to around 60 years.

[snifferdog]

So, has anybody sat through Peter Jackson's Get Back?

[ZiggyZipgun]

So, has anybody sat through Peter Jackson's Get Back?

I have, I thought it was great.

if they entered the 70's, I could only dream of how amazing prog rock they could have made.

Being progressive and playing "prog rock" are two different things - most prog leans heavily on either jazz or classical, but the Beatles and Floyd are primarily blues. Gilmour strongly dislikes "prog" bands. McCartney has said that he considered Pink Floyd to be their successors in terms of recording techniques.

Side note: Harrison once said that the nice thing about The Beatles was that there were only four of them, and after McCartney quit or after Lennon died, they never considered "getting Roger Waters...or Dave Gilmour" and going on tour as The Beatles. He did suggest starting a new group with himself, John, Ringo, and Klaus Voorman, since they were all playing together on multiple projects anyway, but Lennon turned it down.

[Eclipse]

Being progressive and playing "prog rock" are two different things - most prog leans heavily on either jazz or classical, but the Beatles and Floyd are primarily blues. Gilmour strongly dislikes "prog" bands. McCartney has said that he considered Pink Floyd to be their successors in terms of recording techniques.

That's a very good point.

[flashback]

For me at least I don't really care who split up the Beatles. I have never been their greatest fan. Zippy is right there is so big a difference between being progressive and playing prog rock.