UMFan83 wrote:CubinNY wrote:I've really gotten into some of the psychology of the Beatles breakup, most of it is hypothesizing on various aspects of John and Yoko's relationship or the death of Epstein as precipitating factors. But I think there is a lot of truth to the fact that the breakup had more to do with them not touring. Because they stopped touring (with good reasons), they only really interacted during the drudgery and difficult work of creating music. It caused a lot of conflicts, especially between George and Paul. It created a situation where they put out a lot of music in a short time, but the toll was steep.
They couldn't tour because the technology of the time hadn't caught up with their popularity. A lot of their new music was created using pretty sophisticated recording techniques that couldn't be reproduced live. Ringo said during their last tour he couldn't hear them playing due to the screaming fans and had to keep time by their gyrations on stage. There were also lots of death threats due to a misunderstanding of John's "bigger than Jesus" quip. In the Philippines, they got surrounded by the military after Imelda Marcos was insulted and had to give all the money from the concert to Marcos. So the reasons they stopped are pretty good ones.
I think if they continued to tour, Paul and John would have had more time to collaborate on the road and they would have enjoyed being the Beatles more than being four guys in the Beatles. In the end, their success doomed them.
I don't know if George would have stayed in the band if they continued to tour. He was done with touring and did not seem to soften on it in the later years of the Beatles. I don't disagree with the idea that the band may have stayed together more if they were on the road touring in theory, that was why they (Paul) conceived of the idea for Let It Be, as a way to save the band.
My belief is that all of them talked about leaving but none of them actually wanted to leave as there was a certain amount of safety and familiarity with being in the group. Yes John said he was leaving the band, but he also asked them to keep it quiet and it stayed that way for months. They even negotiated and signed a new recording contract during that time. I think he would have eventually returned to the group if they just laid low. But Paul had a mental breakdown and felt alienated from the other Beatles due to Klein and various other reasons and felt powerless. The only way he could think to regain that power was to release the questionnaire with his solo record. Once that hit the news it widened the rift between Paul and the other 3. But even then they still talked publicly about eventually getting back together soon. The death blow was when Paul sued the other 3 to dissolve the Beatles.
Paul says he didn't break up the Beatles and he's right in some regards, but his actions directly led to the 2 biggest daggers that made it impossible for them to get back together IMO.
Edit: Also I mentioned this a few posts ago but given that you said you are into the psychology of the breakup, if you haven't already read "You Never Give Me Your Money" as it covers this whole era in great detail specifically relating to what caused them to break up, and then all the issues in the 70s that prevented them from getting back together.
Good answer UM. Paul's actions in the spring 1970 were definitely what "killed" the Beatles. As I mentioned earlier, the other 3 never had any issues working together. There's audio out there from an interview George did in early 1970 talking about his hopes for another Beatles album that year. I think he, John, and Ringo had hopes that the band could continue and that future Beatles albums would be concurrent with any individual solo albums i.e. they would each be doing their own things but would come together once a year or two to make an album.
Ultimately though, it was the death of Brian that set the inevitable into motion. All 4 of them looked up to Brian completely and always had faith in him, despite some of the errors he had made in the past such as the disastrous deal with Dick James Publishing. Brian was feeling a bit out of the loop in 1967 due to them no longer touring, but I think he'd have been reinvigorated by running Apple (assuming they still did that). I think he certainly would have done a better job than a sycophant like Neil Aspinall. Brian was genuinely like a father to them all and had always done a remarkable job reigning in their respective egos. We can never say for certain, but I'd wager that the Beatles would have lasted longer if Brian had lived.