Log In
Register
7.50pm
8 November 2012
Offline
thisbirdhasflown said
Yes, I see your point. They did lack some character. And you can’t call “strength” abusive behavior. It’s just that they weren’t the only weak ones. There were several other weak members and Yoko fixed it. Even when you’re addicted, you can still be strong with strong people, and Yoko was strong.
But part of my point is that I don’t see Cynthia or May as weak. I think given what was thrown into their laps, they are incredibly strong women. You can’t throw a hurricane at someone and then blame them when they barely keep their heads above water.
Also, I don’t think we know enough or John lived long enough to determine that anything about him was “fixed.” Addiction is a lifetime struggle. And there are conflicting reports of how late in the 70s John might have cleaned up, and there are rumors that Yoko herself was addicted and that she may have even worsened his addiction. For all we know, Yoko may have less to do with his cleaning up than the fact that Sean came into his life.
I just think we need to question the conventional narrative. Cynthia and May and other people who’ve survived abuse deserve better.
parlance
7.50pm
8 November 2012
Offline Expert Textpert said
She said this at the beginning of their trip to LA, before he did anything.
She was their assistant and had some idea of what he was like before the trip to LA, so it’s natural she’d have some misgivings. That’s not the same as saying she was weak, though.
parlance
8.00pm
28 May 2014
Offline thisbirdhasflown said
Yes, I see your point. They did lack some character. And you can’t call “strength” abusive behavior. It’s just that they weren’t the only weak ones. There were several other weak members and Yoko fixed it. Even when you’re addicted, you can still be strong with strong people, and Yoko was strong.
But part of my point is that I don’t see Cynthia or May as weak. I think for what was thrown into their laps, they are incredibly strong women. You can’t throw a hurricane at someone and then blame them when they barely keep their heads above water. Also, I don’t think we know enough or John lived long enough to determine that anything about him was “fixed.” Addiction is a lifetime struggle. And there are conflicting reports of how late in the 70s John might have cleaned up, and there are rumors that Yoko herself was addicted and that she may have even worsened his addiction. For all we know, Yoko may have less to do with his cleaning up than the fact than Sean coming into his life. I just think we need to question the conventional narrative. Cynthia and May and other people who’ve survived abuse deserve better. parlance
@parlance I think, yes, they were very strong for what happened. It just wasn’t enough. And yes, the truth about his addiction will be unsolved because we don’t know how it ended.
thisbirdhasflown
By hook or by crook, I'll be last in this book.
4.37am
5 February 2014
Offline
It was forty years ago today
when John Lennon put his pen in play
signing documents that legally say
The Beatles officially end today
The following people thank C.R.A. for this post:
DrBeatle2.55am
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline
C.R.A. said
It was forty years ago todaywhen John Lennon put his pen in play
signing documents that legally say
The Beatles officially end today
At Disney, no less!
"I know you, you know me; one thing I can tell you is you got to be free!"
Please Visit My Website, The Rock and Roll Chemist
Twitter: @rocknrollchem
Facebook: rnrchemist
3.30am
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline Lennon was the first to say “hello” to the band that became The Beatles, and he was the last to say “goodbye” officially.
No, I must not dwell on the second part. It is bedtime, and I don’t want to have nightmares.
All the fairy dust in the Magic Kingdom couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:
BeatlebugCan buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. 
(2017) 
(2018)
10.44am
18 December 2012
Offline parlance said
thisbirdhasflown said
Yes, I see your point. They did lack some character. And you can’t call “strength” abusive behavior. It’s just that they weren’t the only weak ones. There were several other weak members and Yoko fixed it. Even when you’re addicted, you can still be strong with strong people, and Yoko was strong.
But part of my point is that I don’t see Cynthia or May as weak. I think given what was thrown into their laps, they are incredibly strong women. You can’t throw a hurricane at someone and then blame them when they barely keep their heads above water.
Also, I don’t think we know enough or John lived long enough to determine that anything about him was “fixed.” Addiction is a lifetime struggle. And there are conflicting reports of how late in the 70s John might have cleaned up, and there are rumors that Yoko herself was addicted and that she may have even worsened his addiction. For all we know, Yoko may have less to do with his cleaning up than the fact that Sean came into his life.
I just think we need to question the conventional narrative. Cynthia and May and other people who’ve survived abuse deserve better.
parlance
Having a brother with an addiction problem has shown me that there really is nothing you can do for someone like that if they aren’t willing to help themselves. How Cynthia managed to put up with John for as long as she did AND have a child AND go through Beatlemania, I will never know.
Maybe this is naive, but the way I see it, Yoko helped John escape his problems while Cynthia and May gave him the kind of support he needed to actually deal with his problems and grow up – they showed him it was ok to be vulnerable and helped him to embrace his most sensitive loving side. That’s extremely important.
Does anyone have quotes about John’s addiction problems in the later 70’s? I hear about it a lot, but where is this information coming from?
1.13am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Too lazy to write it out in my own words. From Wogblog
Today’s Daily Mail has the story and photos of a 19 year old fan who turned up uninvited on John’s doorstep in 1968 and was invited in for breakfast with John and Yoko. The fan, Michael Herring, later shared a car ride with John to George Harrison ’s house to see the Beatles recording – and he witnessed the opening of a letter said to announce McCartney’s resignation.
Call me sceptical but i dont see George and John sitting down in George’s home with a stranger they’d just met and commenting about Paul leaving in front of him.
For someone with more authority Mark Lewisohn is quoted in the Daily Mail article.
Last night, Mark Lewisohn, a leading authority on the Beatles, said Mr Herring’s photographs were ‘fantastic because they capture a moment in history’.
But he cast doubt on the revelations about Paul’s resignation letter, saying: ‘There’s no way that can be accurate because the Eastmans had no part in Paul’s life until his relationship with Linda began in October 1968, and there was no way Paul was quitting at this point. They had a number of sessions at George’s house and Paul was certainly at most of them – maybe not this one – because we have the recordings.’
But he added: ‘This does not undermine the general story, which I do believe.
Hunter Davies is included too but his section is too long to add here.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
6.38am
Reviewers
29 August 2013
Offline Oddly, the more I listen to the solo albums again (after having had them before on release) the more I am comfortable with the timing of the breakup. The 70s really had some great efforts from all four and it’s unlikely they would have gone much past that as a group.
The following people thank trcanberra for this post:
Beatlebug==> trcanberra and hongkonglady - Together even when not (married for those not in the know!) <==
7.24am
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline My dad reminded me that 49 years ago, Paul announced the breakup…
Honestly I think it came not a moment too soon – it could have come a year earlier, it may have prevented relationships from going bad. What do we think? Did it come at the right time?
The following people thank The Hole Got Fixed for this post:
Beatlebug#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 
2017 awards: 
2018 awards:
2019 awards: 
2020 awards:
2021 awards:
8.51am
26 January 2017
Offline I really like I Me Mine so I wouldn’t want to remove that from existence, but ideally for me (if it was inevitable that they broke up at some point) they would have done Let It Be in January, released it as an album soon thereafter, then gone back into the studio for Abbey Road , announcing the breakup after its release in September.
That way, there wouldn’t have been all the bitterness surrounding the drawn out Let It Be sessions, they could have left off on a relative high from the comparatively sunny Abbey Road sessions, had it truly be their last album, and kept their career as The Beatles within the decade they defined.
The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:
Beatlebug, The Hole Got FixedI've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
9.35am
15 November 2018
Offline I think that they made the right decision, breaking up while they still had some semblance of friendship, before they all hated each other. I think after ten years of being constantly together, they just needed a break to be themselves, try new things, and make new music.
The following people thank 50yearslate for this post:
QuarryManLove one another.
- - -
(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)
- - -
2018:
2019: 
2020:
10.18am
19 December 2018
Offline A day that is worth some rememberance…
Honestly speaking I often have mixed emotions about their breakup. It is certainly depressing, especially when you realize that they lasted no more than eight years (if count from Love Me Do ). Some bands from the same era, like the Stones, have remained on stage for half a century, while we never have the chance to see a formal reunion of all four Beatles. But thinking about their sensational success and the following pressure (I remember they thought they could last a few months at most), their intense timetable, also all of the subtle relationships and conflicts, breakup seems to be a reasonable choice.
I have this feeling that The Beatles were like a supernova explosion, shining too brightly in the 60s–but after that, the remains became too tense to handle the boys’ power. Sometimes it is sentimental to think about this, but other times, I just feel grateful to have them and their music.
The following people thank ScarlettFieldsForever for this post:
50yearslate, Beatlebug, Getbackintheussr, SgtPeppersBulldogA girl with kaleidoscope eyes...
1.20pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline 
ScarlettFieldsForever said
[snip] when you realize that they lasted no more than eight years (if count from Love Me Do ). [snip]
They only lasted eight years as a recording band in the public eye, sure, but you must remember that from the boys’ perspective, they’d been together since they were teenagers. That’s a long, eventful time to be stuck so closely with the same people in a group.
([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
2.33pm
26 January 2017
Offline I’m very glad they didn’t end up like the Stones. We remember The Beatles as they were – four young, extremely talented and charismatic personalities in their musical prime. They never made a bad album, and that’s very important to me. As much as I’m happy for the Stones that they’re still going after all these years, I get the feeling our collective memory of them isn’t going to be so pure.
I've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
9.52am
18 December 2017
Offline I think they broke up at the right time. It could’ve been earlier, probably, and that would’ve prevented some of the arguing. If they stayed together longer, they might have made some great music, but they made great solo music, which makes up for it.
QuarryMan said
I’m very glad they didn’t end up like the Stones. We remember The Beatles as they were – four young, extremely talented and charismatic personalities in their musical prime. They never made a bad album, and that’s very important to me. As much as I’m happy for the Stones that they’re still going after all these years, I get the feeling our collective memory of them isn’t going to be so pure.
I see your point, but I’m glad the Stones are still together, because I don’t think their solo music would be very good if they weren’t a band. They’ve had their bad moments, but i still really love their recent stuff. They’re not the Beatles and their not perfect, but they’re still a really great band.
|
| I don’t know how to put it here. hello for the love of god hello
~~~
The Concert for Bageldesh
~~~
Walrian here! Not Fiddy, or anyone else, actually.
12.00pm
26 January 2017
Offline I guess The Beatles were just really lucky that John George and Paul were all such great songwriters, an advantage other bands didn’t have. I can’t think of any other band where every single member went on to have a hugely successful solo career after the band broke up.
I've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
5.35am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline There are and will be lots of interviews with Paul, Ringo and others connected to the release of ‘LIB ‘ and the ‘GB’ documentary. One currently doing the rounds (tho the full interview is not released until the 23rd October) is Paul speaking to John Wilson on the BBC Radio programme, ‘This Cultural Life’ on the break-up where he says that John is the one who split the band up. A BBC article on this is here.
…in a new BBC interview, he has said the split was prompted by John Lennon .
“I didn’t instigate the split. That was our Johnny,” he told interviewer John Wilson. “I am not the person who instigated the split.
“Oh no, no, no. John walked into a room one day and said I am leaving the Beatles. And he said, ‘It’s quite thrilling, it’s rather like a divorce.’ And then we were left to pick up the pieces.”
Wilson asked whether the band would have continued if Lennon hadn’t walked away.
“It could have,” Sir Paul replied.
“The point of it really was that John was making a new life with Yoko and he wanted… to lie in bed for a week in Amsterdam for peace. You couldn’t argue with that. It was the most difficult period of my life.”
“This was my band, this was my job, this was my life,” he added. “I wanted it to continue. I thought we were doing some pretty good stuff – Abbey Road , Let It Be , not bad – and I thought we could continue.”
None of this is new to anyone who knows the full story and not rough details
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Richard, Rube, Mr. Moonlight"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
8.42am
6 May 2018
Offline meanmistermustard said
There are and will be lots of interviews with Paul, Ringo and others connected to the release of ‘LIB ‘ and the ‘GB’ documentary. One currently doing the rounds (tho the full interview is not released until the 23rd October) is Paul speaking to John Wilson on the BBC Radio programme, ‘This Cultural Life’ on the break-up where he says that John is the one who split the band up. A BBC article on this is here.…in a new BBC interview, he has said the split was prompted by John Lennon .
“I didn’t instigate the split. That was our Johnny,” he told interviewer John Wilson. “I am not the person who instigated the split.
“Oh no, no, no. John walked into a room one day and said I am leaving the Beatles. And he said, ‘It’s quite thrilling, it’s rather like a divorce.’ And then we were left to pick up the pieces.”
Wilson asked whether the band would have continued if Lennon hadn’t walked away.
“It could have,” Sir Paul replied.
“The point of it really was that John was making a new life with Yoko and he wanted… to lie in bed for a week in Amsterdam for peace. You couldn’t argue with that. It was the most difficult period of my life.”
“This was my band, this was my job, this was my life,” he added. “I wanted it to continue. I thought we were doing some pretty good stuff – Abbey Road , Let It Be , not bad – and I thought we could continue.”
None of this is new to anyone who knows the full story and not rough details
Yes, this is on the front page of the BBC news website – supposedly as an item of new news. Yet all of this has been known for many years, and it’s been repeated time and time again over the years, including:
How much research does the BBC do beforehand?
The following people thank Richard for this post:
RubeAnd in the end
The love you take is equal to the love you make
8.57am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline It was featured on the One O’Clock News, where it was preceded by the comment that prompts the response, which is “You were the one who brought the lawyers in.”
The newsreaders lead-in script to the feature was laughable, along the lines of “For decades fans and scholars have believed Paul McCartney broke up The Beatles.”
Yeah, right! Fans and scholars are shocked and stunned by the revelation. Mark Lewisohn is sitting right now with his head in hands wondering how much this means he’ll have to change when he gets to Volume 3.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
2 Guest(s)