3 ms·
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 f
by KerrAvon 3y 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 3y agoThis blog is a rabbit hole on its own right. Thanks for the link.
- djkjejjejjegs 3y ago[flagged]
- vlunkr 3y agoI'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 3y agoThe 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.
- vlunkr 3y agoI'm not saying it's silly to be knowledgeable about the Beatles. I think it's silly to point to something specific like "Yoko/John/George broke the Beatles up!". Group dynamics are always more complex than that. But the thing that seems clear with the Beatles, and many many other groups, is that their tastes, interests, and personal lives evolved and they didn't or couldn't work together anymore.
- 1123581321 3y agoSorry to misunderstand you. But, among knowledgeable people, I think you find the discussions of the individuals are more complex than you’re representing, especially if you have an opportunity to listen to a complete conversation in person. With exceptions, of course.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y agoIt's worth pointing out that near the root of this comment thread is a comment that reads, "Yoko wasn’t the wedge that drove the Beatles apart, it was George." Not to take away from either point; yours that there's plenty of room for nuance and theirs that the nuance isn't always given room. Just that they seem to be responding more to this sort of comment than Beatles commentary as a whole.
- 1123581321 3y agoThat is good to point out. I’d gotten lost. :) Thank you.
- freejazz 3y agoIf you familiarize yourself with their group dynamics, it's pretty clear that John broke the band up. You can just keep repeating group dynamics all you want but it's a cop-out that doesn't address what actually happened. There are bands that stay together despite or because of "group dynamics"