Posted on 05/24/2016 1:32:39 PM PDT by EveningStar
Sir Paul McCartney has talked candidly about the depression he suffered after The Beatles broke up, confessing he considered giving up music altogether.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Mastertapes, he said he had been at a loss when the band fell apart in acrimony in 1970.
"It was difficult to know what to do after The Beatles. How do you follow that?" ...
The Beatles officially split in 1970 with the release of Let It Be, but the seeds of their demise were sown a year earlier, when the band appointed Allen Klein as their manager, against Sir Paul's wishes ...
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
Sir Paul needed to find a warm gun.
I was going to say something similar. Each of the Beatles were successful as individual performers but the magic of the Beatles probably had to do with the synergy of the four of them and George Martin's ability to manage their egos and take their brilliant raw ideas and refine them. IMO if the Beatles had remained together, they would have been more successful than the individual components were. When you consider what each of the four accomplished in the 1970s, the combined band with its synergy would have continued to dominate popular music through that decade.
I think that Ringo benefited the most from the breakup when people realized that he was pretty talented in his own right. In the Beatles, his talent was overshadowed by the other three. John Lennon was the one most hurt by the breakup IMO. He really needed Paul McCartney to tune down some of his songwriting excesses (instead he turned to Yoko who only amplified them). McCartney needed Lennon, too, but probably not so much. McCartney had the tendency to create songs that needed the edgy input of John Lennon but were still good.
That being said John, like Paul and George, occasionally showed flashes of brilliance as solo artists. When they were together, no group was better.
There was a time when I thought Paul was going to hook up with Elvis Costello to write songs, which I thought would have been a fantastic collaboration, since I thought Elvis could have provided that “edge”. “Veronica” was a fantastic song.
I can’t get no satisfaction from the Beatles.
It’s a difficult thing to explain. With Lennon-McCartney the whole was greater than the sum of the parts.
I’d imagine if they had done another album or two, they would have contained a lot of the songs they ended up doing solo afterwards for the next few years, with or without some tweaks. Some of their later albums were less collaborative anyway. You could start telling the difference between a Lennon and McCartney song by the last few albums. And then you had songs like Day in the Life which just became a medley of the Lennon and McCartney parts, because their styles had grown so different.
John was a product of the 60s, where Macca’s stuff is more timeless.
She was instrumental in making some horrible music as well.
I don’t think she was the main reason they broke up but Paul has definitely indicated there was some tension there. John would insist on bringing her to recording sessions (and got her vocals on one song) while the rest of the band still wanted the rule that no outside people would get to listen in. Of course John chose to bring her so that’s on him.
I”m still depressed.
Most portentous meeting since Anakin met Obi-Wan.
I was involved in radio when Lennon’s Double Fantasy album came out in 1980. The critics all panned it for a couple of weeks, and then John got shot... and suddenly the critics couldn’t praise it enough.
According to McCartney he had very little money after the Beatle breakup and for a few years they lived on Linda’s money. Of course she was loaded so I guess it was bearable. :-)
Which is another good reason they broke up because today they make many times as much money now as they did in their heyday. If they stayed together I think they wouldn’t have nearly the appeal they have now.
Maybe the band will get back together . . .
Really though, I found it interesting during the Beatles Anthology how they corroborated with old tapes to produce ‘Real Love’ and ‘Free As A Bird.’
I was just beginning middle school when he came on the scene, and I got totally lost in his 4 albums from 1999 to Parade. Then in high school I discovered "new music" i.e. classic alternative, new wave, post-punk - whatever you want to call it - and moved on. Now with his passing, going back to all those songs, I realize that he paved my whole emotional landscape! All those fantasies he planted in me made me ripe for disillusionment, lol.
Anyway, it gives me hope for the human race that a black man could speak right to the heart of a little blonde white girl, like he did with me. People aren't always all so different after all.
I always felt like Paul played the bass like a lead guitar.
I agree with you 100%.
There were several other Beatles related articles at the link for this story, and I found one, excerpted below where it explains what happened with their music publishing rights.
It also explains the meaning behind “It’s only a northern song.”
“In the very early days of their career, The Beatles’ manager, Brian Epstein, persuaded Lennon and McCartney to form a publishing company with music impresario Dick James - explaining it would be the smartest way for them to make money from their songs.
Within a few years, the band had become bigger than anyone expected and the publishing company - Northern Songs - was floated on the stock market.
Lennon and McCartney ended up with a 15% share, while James and his partner Charles Silver took 37.5% between them as the company’s chairmen.
George Harrison and Ringo Starr were given just 0.8% - prompting the former to write the bitter Only A Northern Song, expressing his dissatisfaction at being considered a junior songwriter within the company.
Read the rest at http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-35860868
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.