8 ms·

I saw Get Back as a complete vindication of Yoko Ono. Yoko wasn’t the wedge that drove the Beatles apart, it was George.

prof-dr-ir 4y ago
On that subject I enjoyed https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/arts/music/yoko-ono-beatles-get-back.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/arts/music/yoko-ono-beatl... .
- least 4y ago
  I find myself just really annoyed with the author here. Yoko may not have been the catalyst for breaking up the Beatles, but let's not pretend like she was advancing feminism just by being present in the studio, much to the dismay of the other members of the Beatles [1]. She's just being rude in the same way it'd be rude for someone to be standing next to me while I'm on the toilet. She might not be doing anything but her presence is certainly disruptive. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Na7ZY7W3pk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Na7ZY7W3pk
  - freejazz 4y ago
    Have you been in a band? You wouldn't be annoyed at Yoko, you'd be annoyed at John for bringing her into practice like that and insisting that she belongs...
    - least 4y ago
      > Have you been in a band? Yes, I have. > You wouldn't be annoyed at Yoko, you'd be annoyed at John for bringing her into practice like that and insisting that she belongs... I'd be annoyed with both for different reasons.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        Well John brought her in and insisted that she be there because she was part of him and he couldn't do it without her there, so I don't know why you'd be annoyed at her tbh. John was being incredibly obnoxious and obviously trying to get his bandmates riled up about it.
        least 4y ago
        > Well John brought her in and insisted that she be there because she was part of him and he couldn't do it without her there, so I don't know why you'd be annoyed at her tbh. This is basically saying that she has no agency over her own actions, when clearly that is not the case.
        freejazz 4y ago
        I'm not sure how you got to that, I don't think so at all. In fact, I'm positive, any reasonable reading of what I said leaves highways of space between a lack of agency and what she did.
        least 4y ago
        You're absolving her of all blame because John wanted to be there. As if her own personal responsibility for whether or not she should be in the studio with The Beatles starts and ends with what John says, not with her own ability to read the room, to understand that she's not welcome. That is, by reasonable standards, implying that she lacks personal agency. That she cannot make the decision for herself and thus is not responsible or deserving of the ire she earned while at the studio. Except she is her own self, she was serving her own purpose by being there, even if it was at least in part in reverence of John's desires. We know for a fact that at least one Beatle was annoyed because Paul has plainly said her presence was unwelcome. I'm certain he was also quite annoyed with John, but he was independently annoyed by her being there. In fact I think most people would get quickly annoyed with Yoko being around them. Her "performances" are obnoxious and narcissistic.
        freejazz 4y ago
hbn 4y ago
I don't know about a /complete/ vindication. She was still a weirdo that occasionally got to wedge her shitty attempts at art into stuff created by people more talented than her, just because she was in a relationship with one of the Beatles. Can't forget Bill Burr's rant about Yoko Ono appearing alongside a performance by Lennon and Chuck Berry, screaming into the mic like an idiot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4K07Kz7M8Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4K07Kz7M8Q
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  The point is that “Yoko Ono is freakishly weird” — true or not — is not why the Beatles broke up.
- beepbooptheory 4y ago
  Like it or not, there is a whole world of art and music outside of your pop world that doesn't rest on naive ideas of talent==good, of which Yoko is a highly regarded individual. She was an original member of Fluxus for god sakes! She studied under John Cage! Her art is displayed at MoMA and surely countless other place. You may think it's idiotic, but all that shows is your somewhat narrow idea of what art and music can be. I wonder what you'd think of some of George's solo ventures, something like "Wonderwall Music" is probably just as idiotic to you.
  - FalconSensei 4y ago
    > She was an original member of Fluxus for god sakes! > Although she didn't actually join the Fluxus group, she collaborated over many years with him [1] So... she was not. Also, Fluxus, MoMA, these are visual arts. That doesn't mean she has training or talent to be playing music on live television with Lennon and Berry [1]: https://fluxusmuseum.org/holding-page-for-yoko-ono/#:~:text=Yoko%20Ono%20was%20admired%20by,others%20associated%20with%20the%20group https://fluxusmuseum.org/holding-page-for-yoko-ono/#:~:text=....
    - freejazz 4y ago
      > That doesn't mean she has training or talent to be playing music on live television with Lennon and Berry Gosh, what an imposition on society. How will we get over it, even decades later now? For what it's worth, John thought she belonged.
KerrAvon 4y ago
George would have been happy to continue as part of the group if given a bit more leeway. He made it clear that he’d have been willing to solider on, at least for recording. John was the leader of the group to the end, despite McCartney’s creative leadership in the latter days. If he’d said “yo, let’s get back together once a year and do an album” the others would have done it. If he’d said “let’s not break up,” they would not have broken up. It wasn’t Yoko or George. It was John. And what John seems to have actually wanted was more creative and personal freedom. Paul’s perfectionism made both him and George unhappy. There is an incredibly in-depth fan analysis of the audiotapes that provide the backstory for Get Back here: https://theymaybeparted.com/ https://theymaybeparted.com/. The upshot is that it’s very clear Paul and John were aware of the issues with the group dynamic — Paul understood that the others perceived him as overbearing — but they just didn’t know how or didn’t want to resolve it in a way that kept them together.
- tambourine_man 4y ago
  This blog is a rabbit hole on its own right. Thanks for the link.
  - djkjejjejjegs 4y ago
    [flagged]
- vlunkr 4y ago
  I'm not a Beatles scholar, but trying to point the finger at a specific person seems really silly. They broke up for the same reason most bands break up: they grew up. They got together when they were young, and after 10 years, their artistic and personal lives were no longer compatible.
  - 1123581321 4y ago
    The Beatles can be discussed more specifically because there’s so much material and footage of them, and groups of fans and scholars are numerous have a lot of shared knowledge so on-depth conversations are more likely to be possible in an off-topic/general environment like this one. Engaging at the level of broad similarities between typical pop bands is fine, too, but knowing more about one band than that is not silly.
tambourine_man 4y ago
To me, it felt like Paul tried/had to became “the boss” after Brian Epstein‘s death and that shook the whole dynamic.
- tiahura 4y ago
  It did, but John and Ringo were big boys and didn’t get hung up on it. George was whiny and pouty.
  - yCombLinks 4y ago
    George was brilliant but was treated like he wasn't. John and Paul treated each other with respect, but George as lesser. Your argument amounts to he should have shut up and dealt with it. Someone not putting up with poor treatment doesn't make them the problem.
pubby 4y ago
From what I've heard, they couldn't include negative Yoko scenes because she's still alive and has legal power.
beepbooptheory 4y ago
The Yoko thing was always just an unfounded, arguably misogynistic, meme in the world. At the very least, it always struck me as rather insulting to John! As if he was an easily swayed child struck by summertime limerence or something, it never made sense.
rurban 4y ago
It was Paul, definitely. George was the genius composer, Paul the pedestrian, who demanded everything for himself. In the end they kicked him out, well done.
ben7799 4y ago
Harrison had a completely different arc than John and Paul. He was ascendant when the Beatles broke up and Paul and especially John had kind of already gone past their peak. You can watch "Get Back" and think George was being annoying butting into John and Paul's writing. Or you can notice John is an annoying addict/drunk in almost every scene where work is happening. It was their failure not to realize how much of an asset George had developed into. I find it odd sometimes how penning the lyrics for a song is considered so much more important (artistically & legally) than everything else. There are plenty of songs where the guitar part or piano/keys part is what made the song a success and which would not have been hits just based on the lyrics. Likewise for beats and drums in genres in which the beats/production makes or breaks the song. Even if you could have replaced Harrison with someone as good as Clapton or Beck the Beatles would not have been the same.

prof-dr-ir 4y ago

On that subject I enjoyed https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/arts/music/yoko-ono-beatles-get-back.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/arts/music/yoko-ono-beatl... .

least 4y ago
I find myself just really annoyed with the author here. Yoko may not have been the catalyst for breaking up the Beatles, but let's not pretend like she was advancing feminism just by being present in the studio, much to the dismay of the other members of the Beatles [1]. She's just being rude in the same way it'd be rude for someone to be standing next to me while I'm on the toilet. She might not be doing anything but her presence is certainly disruptive. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Na7ZY7W3pk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Na7ZY7W3pk
- freejazz 4y ago
  Have you been in a band? You wouldn't be annoyed at Yoko, you'd be annoyed at John for bringing her into practice like that and insisting that she belongs...
  - least 4y ago
    > Have you been in a band? Yes, I have. > You wouldn't be annoyed at Yoko, you'd be annoyed at John for bringing her into practice like that and insisting that she belongs... I'd be annoyed with both for different reasons.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      Well John brought her in and insisted that she be there because she was part of him and he couldn't do it without her there, so I don't know why you'd be annoyed at her tbh. John was being incredibly obnoxious and obviously trying to get his bandmates riled up about it.
      - least 4y ago
        > Well John brought her in and insisted that she be there because she was part of him and he couldn't do it without her there, so I don't know why you'd be annoyed at her tbh. This is basically saying that she has no agency over her own actions, when clearly that is not the case.
        freejazz 4y ago
        I'm not sure how you got to that, I don't think so at all. In fact, I'm positive, any reasonable reading of what I said leaves highways of space between a lack of agency and what she did.
        least 4y ago
        You're absolving her of all blame because John wanted to be there. As if her own personal responsibility for whether or not she should be in the studio with The Beatles starts and ends with what John says, not with her own ability to read the room, to understand that she's not welcome. That is, by reasonable standards, implying that she lacks personal agency. That she cannot make the decision for herself and thus is not responsible or deserving of the ire she earned while at the studio. Except she is her own self, she was serving her own purpose by being there, even if it was at least in part in reverence of John's desires. We know for a fact that at least one Beatle was annoyed because Paul has plainly said her presence was unwelcome. I'm certain he was also quite annoyed with John, but he was independently annoyed by her being there. In fact I think most people would get quickly annoyed with Yoko being around them. Her "performances" are obnoxious and narcissistic.
        freejazz 4y ago

hbn 4y ago

I don't know about a /complete/ vindication. She was still a weirdo that occasionally got to wedge her shitty attempts at art into stuff created by people more talented than her, just because she was in a relationship with one of the Beatles. Can't forget Bill Burr's rant about Yoko Ono appearing alongside a performance by Lennon and Chuck Berry, screaming into the mic like an idiot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4K07Kz7M8Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4K07Kz7M8Q

KerrAvon 4y ago
The point is that “Yoko Ono is freakishly weird” — true or not — is not why the Beatles broke up.
beepbooptheory 4y ago
Like it or not, there is a whole world of art and music outside of your pop world that doesn't rest on naive ideas of talent==good, of which Yoko is a highly regarded individual. She was an original member of Fluxus for god sakes! She studied under John Cage! Her art is displayed at MoMA and surely countless other place. You may think it's idiotic, but all that shows is your somewhat narrow idea of what art and music can be. I wonder what you'd think of some of George's solo ventures, something like "Wonderwall Music" is probably just as idiotic to you.
- FalconSensei 4y ago
  > She was an original member of Fluxus for god sakes! > Although she didn't actually join the Fluxus group, she collaborated over many years with him [1] So... she was not. Also, Fluxus, MoMA, these are visual arts. That doesn't mean she has training or talent to be playing music on live television with Lennon and Berry [1]: https://fluxusmuseum.org/holding-page-for-yoko-ono/#:~:text=Yoko%20Ono%20was%20admired%20by,others%20associated%20with%20the%20group https://fluxusmuseum.org/holding-page-for-yoko-ono/#:~:text=....
  - freejazz 4y ago
    > That doesn't mean she has training or talent to be playing music on live television with Lennon and Berry Gosh, what an imposition on society. How will we get over it, even decades later now? For what it's worth, John thought she belonged.

KerrAvon 4y ago

George would have been happy to continue as part of the group if given a bit more leeway. He made it clear that he’d have been willing to solider on, at least for recording. John was the leader of the group to the end, despite McCartney’s creative leadership in the latter days. If he’d said “yo, let’s get back together once a year and do an album” the others would have done it. If he’d said “let’s not break up,” they would not have broken up. It wasn’t Yoko or George. It was John. And what John seems to have actually wanted was more creative and personal freedom. Paul’s perfectionism made both him and George unhappy. There is an incredibly in-depth fan analysis of the audiotapes that provide the backstory for Get Back here: https://theymaybeparted.com/ https://theymaybeparted.com/. The upshot is that it’s very clear Paul and John were aware of the issues with the group dynamic — Paul understood that the others perceived him as overbearing — but they just didn’t know how or didn’t want to resolve it in a way that kept them together.

tambourine_man 4y ago
This blog is a rabbit hole on its own right. Thanks for the link.
- djkjejjejjegs 4y ago
  [flagged]
vlunkr 4y ago
I'm not a Beatles scholar, but trying to point the finger at a specific person seems really silly. They broke up for the same reason most bands break up: they grew up. They got together when they were young, and after 10 years, their artistic and personal lives were no longer compatible.
- 1123581321 4y ago
  The Beatles can be discussed more specifically because there’s so much material and footage of them, and groups of fans and scholars are numerous have a lot of shared knowledge so on-depth conversations are more likely to be possible in an off-topic/general environment like this one. Engaging at the level of broad similarities between typical pop bands is fine, too, but knowing more about one band than that is not silly.

tambourine_man 4y ago

To me, it felt like Paul tried/had to became “the boss” after Brian Epstein‘s death and that shook the whole dynamic.

tiahura 4y ago
It did, but John and Ringo were big boys and didn’t get hung up on it. George was whiny and pouty.
- yCombLinks 4y ago
  George was brilliant but was treated like he wasn't. John and Paul treated each other with respect, but George as lesser. Your argument amounts to he should have shut up and dealt with it. Someone not putting up with poor treatment doesn't make them the problem.

pubby 4y ago

From what I've heard, they couldn't include negative Yoko scenes because she's still alive and has legal power.

beepbooptheory 4y ago

The Yoko thing was always just an unfounded, arguably misogynistic, meme in the world. At the very least, it always struck me as rather insulting to John! As if he was an easily swayed child struck by summertime limerence or something, it never made sense.

rurban 4y ago

It was Paul, definitely. George was the genius composer, Paul the pedestrian, who demanded everything for himself. In the end they kicked him out, well done.

ben7799 4y ago

Harrison had a completely different arc than John and Paul. He was ascendant when the Beatles broke up and Paul and especially John had kind of already gone past their peak. You can watch "Get Back" and think George was being annoying butting into John and Paul's writing. Or you can notice John is an annoying addict/drunk in almost every scene where work is happening. It was their failure not to realize how much of an asset George had developed into. I find it odd sometimes how penning the lyrics for a song is considered so much more important (artistically & legally) than everything else. There are plenty of songs where the guitar part or piano/keys part is what made the song a success and which would not have been hits just based on the lyrics. Likewise for beats and drums in genres in which the beats/production makes or breaks the song. Even if you could have replaced Harrison with someone as good as Clapton or Beck the Beatles would not have been the same.