It's a Good Thing The BEATLES Broke Up

[liberalpragmatist]

Seriously.

A bit of background to this: I'm a HUGE Beatles fan, and of course there are things that I wish had gone differently. I really do wish they had released one more album after Abbey Road or maybe between a properly done Get Back/Let it Be and Abbey Road. And, of course, I've contemplated what solo songs should have been Beatles songs. Among them, George's All Things Must Pass, Isn't it a Pity, Apple Scruffs, and What is Life; John's Gimme Some Truth, Jealous Guy, Love; and Paul's Back Seat of My Car, Maybe I'm Amazed, Junk, and Come and Get it (Okay, actually a Badfinger song, but Paul wrote it).

Still, in hindsight, it's a very good thing they broke up. Sure, I wish it could have happened more smoothly - my fantasy album from the preceding paragraph + a nice farewell concert. And it's not too farfetched to believe that if Brian Epstein hadn't died, maybe they would have endured another year or two.

But a prolonged Beatles' life would have been painful. The Beatles were incredible, but they were inevitably growing apart. By the end of it, John, Paul, and George hated each other's guts and all were pursuing totally different musical styles. The music would have deteriorated badly overtime. Sure, Paul's stuff from the mid-70s on and John's last album before his death are perfectly competent - but does anybody really want to see the Beatles, as a group, singing domestic songs like Woman, or Beautiful Boy (both good songs, but NOT Beatles songs). And thank God for sparing us a Beatles version of Silly Love Songs.

By short-circuiting in 1970, the Beatles forestalled any possible decline. Every album was good (some were bad relative to the others, but objectively, each was quite strong). And that makes a difference. It preserves the image of a pure, perfect Beatles, not a rocky, inconsistent one that would have emerged had they endured. Can you imagine how horrible it would have been if the Beatles had been like the Stones, releasing bad, ignored albums, without much popularity?

Furthermore, the Beatles were a SIXTIES phenom. Their music wasn't really suited to the 70s, and I don't think any '70s Beatles music would have fit coherently with the rest of their career.

I do wish that John Lennon hadn't been killed, of course, and a reunion in the '90s may have been good, but I think the Beatles were wise to breakup. Doing so has helped contribute to their greatness.

[AngryYoungMan]

1. Some have speculated...

...about the album that would have followed "Get Back" and "Abbey Road." (Meaning, in the parallel universe where "Let it Be" turned out the way it was intended, sans Phil Spector etc.)

Anthology 3 allows us to hear demos of "All Things Must Pass" and of "Junk." I am quite sure that the next album would have included these songs as well as "Imagine" (but presumably not "How Do You Sleep At Night").

There's a website somewhere that goes into this, and some people have made mixes that are attempts to create the sound of that mythical next album. It probably would have had a texture like "White Album" but with a harsher sound.

[bobthedrummer]

2. When they did break-up, George was writing the best Beatles tunes

IMO.

[AngryYoungMan]

3. "Let it Be"? "Long And Winding Road"? "Across the Universe"?

"Golden Slumbers"? "I've Got A Feeling"?

I agree George was brilliant then, but even Lennon admitted (in the 1980 David Scheff Playboy interviews) that McCartney had a burst of incredible creativity at the end. And his stuff wasn't too shabby either despite his heroin/Yoko problems.

[bobthedrummer]

4. "Something"

eom

[AngryYoungMan]

5. touché

eom

[liberalpragmatist]

13. Yeah, exc.

"Across the Universe" was John. Great song. The best version by far is the new mix on "Let it be naked" and I know many people who didn't like the album as a whole but loved that track (personally, I loved the whole album - much better IMO than the original, but that's just my opinion)

[CanuckAmok]

6. It's really amazing...

If you look at te Beatles' collective body of work in a vacuum. Their entire recording career, including all the evolution, innovation and influence they gave music, spanned a mere six years. When you think of another pop sensation, say "Madonna", for example, sustaining a career of 20+ years, and really not offering anything creative to music (and yes, I know tha't comparing apples and bowling balls, but it was just to illustrate how relatively short the Beatles' lifespan was, and the amount they contributed to pop music in that time).

I think it's arguable, considering the influence the Beatles did have, that "...Their music wasn't really suited to the 70s...". I think it's likely that the evolution of music in the 70s had just as much to do with the disintegration of the Beatles as it had to do with the formation of the bands which defined the decade. What I mean to say is that had the Beatles lasted another half decade or more, they would still have been an awesome influence on music, and the music of the 70s would have evolved as a reaction to the Beatles' influence, in the same way much of the pop of the 60s was. Who knows what they 70s would have sounded like had the Beatles lasted...

[bobthedrummer]

7. Sir George Martin was the fifth Beatle.

We have the proof in the production of their best stuff with him.
It was highly creative for awhile.

[AngryYoungMan]

8. The Beatles couldn't survive the death of Brian Epstein.

Of course they always were controlling their careers, but Epstein gave them a psychological "father figure" crutch. Once he was gone and the band tried to fill the vacuum themselves (notably McCartney trying to "take control" in the "Get Back" period) the whole thing fell apart.

Yoko didn't help either. I am very anti-Yoko from this period. Later she matured into the respectable public figure she is now. But at that time she was just awful. I think she's the reason they conspicuously haven't released the "Let It Be" movie on any format for decades.

[bobthedrummer]

10. I think it was more the Eastman vs. Klein thing

it was also the dynamic between John and Paul as well as their mates.
The sad ending of Apple stores and projects.
But the Eastman/Klein dispute was a bad one.

[charliebrown]

9. The Beatles as an enity was done.

There was so much musical genious in that one band that it was inevitable that eventually the inherent differences would drive them apart.

John was the rebel, Paul the lover, George the opened minded, and Ringo the, well Ringo..lol.

I agree that they becided to break up at the right time but I am still sad that it ever had to happen.

[bobthedrummer]

11. Welcome to DU, charliebrown!

:hi:

[charliebrown]

12. Thank you bobthedrummer

Nice to be here!

[Nevernose]

14. Didn't they do a version of "Come and Get It?"

On the third anthology album? And where the hell is mine? Which one of you thieving bastards stole it? And...heyyy...where in the hell did my Abbey Road album go?

[bobthedrummer]

16. No, that was Badfinger

it was used as the theme from the movie "The Magic Christian" too.

[liberalpragmatist]

17. Yeah,

That was Paul's demo. He did the whole thing and overdubbed everything, doubletracking his vocals, doing the piano and other instrumentation parts, including the drums. Funny, b/c it sounds like a full-band effort.

[Rabrrrrrr]

15. Yep, Like Blom County, Calvin & Hobbes, etc.

It's good to end when one is still doing really, really well and before one becomes a parody of oneself.

Had the Beatles gone on, especially given how much they didn't like working together and were doing different things, they would have ended up doing a couple really bad albums, and ended their careers being looked at as sad.