Eldergays - Who Broke Up The Beatles? Yoko Ono or Linda Eastman McCartney

That screeching:

Eta: Shrew. I remember the horrible second hand embarrassment JL allowed her to play with Keith Richard. Cringe just doesn't come close to describing it. You really just wanted to lock her in a room with Ed Kemper.

John Lennon broke up the Beatles. He announced he was leaving, at which George, who had long been uncomfortable with all the palaver that went around the music, immediately said he'd go too.

John also signed a new manager for the group without consulting any of the others, which was the last straw.

Trying to blame it on the wives is pathetic. People twist themselves into the most amazing knots to excuse John for being a selfish narcissist with no sense of responsibility to anyone.

[quote] John Lennon broke up the Beatles

So it was Yoko?

Ono I didn’t!

Such talent!

Thank you, r3. The Beatles broke-up the Beatles.

[quote] The Beatles broke-up the Beatles.

With Yoko lurking in the backgrounds pitting the Beatles against one another

Is the Bandwreckers Troll thread a spin-off of the Homewreckers Troll threads?

[quote]So it was Yoko?

You're walking on thin ice.

r8 if that were true and they were stupid enough to fall for it, they should have broken-up.

What a frau attitude to believe a 3rd party breaks up a relationship or a band.

Ringo Starr wedding where George Harrison, Paul McCartney and their wives are present

and Yoko Ono is pointedly NOT invited - six months before John was assassinated

May Pang!

You mean where John is pointedly not invited, R12?

[quote] You mean where John is pointedly not invited

If you only get ONE invitation, WITHOUT your spouses name on it - would you want to go?

ALL OF THEM BROKE-UP THE BEATLES

Thread Closed

Yoko Ono was ENABLING Lennon Heroin habit - because of that, Ono does share some responsibility

Ono went wherever Lennon went, including recording sessions and band meetings, and would leave with Lennon for extended periods when his interest in the group waned.

The dependency of Lennon on Ono wasn't simply based on infatuation, however: Since around the time of the White Album sessions, the pair had begun using heroin, according to Salon. "This was a fairly big shocker for us," Paul McCartney later said, "because we all thought we were far-out boys, but we kind of understood that we'd never get quite that far-out."

The drug made Lennon more erratic and confrontational, hindered his performances, and further added to the sense that, along with Ono, he was retreating from his bandmates into his own private world. The strain was particularly felt in his relationship with George Harrison, with whom he'd had a long and creatively productive experimentation with psychedelics throughout the mid-stage of the band's career. Lennon and Ono would later go through rehab and record the song "Cold Turkey" about their experiences.

And Lennon didn't have the ability to say NO to Yoko Ono???

Another apologist.

I see that people are going to just keep on thinking up excuses for Lennon, so I'm out. My take is that he was an adult man, but clearly that is not the way his fans see him.

[quote] My take is that he was an adult man

He was on Heroin and was easily manipulated by Yoko, who was pulling the strings by being his Heroin supplier

The Beatles breakup was inevitable. If groups like Journey and Van Halen can't stay together, it makes sense that there were too many internal conflicts with the four Beatles to stay together.

R21 - Look at the Rolling Stones

They are still together.

*Love* the caps on "Heroin," R20, like you're a 1968 middle schooler.

No matter what drugs he was on, no matter who was his enabler, Lennon was not forced to - 1. Hook up with Yoko, 2. Stay on heroin

Another problem was that Lennon couldn't to be apart from Yoko even for a second (Yoko holding the Heroin will do that to an addict)

Hence, any meeting the Beatles had, Yoko was at the table like a fifth Beatle, giving her opinion and feedback. It was like the other 3 Beatles looking at her and think "Who are you" - that definitely led to the break-up. John & Yoko being one unit within the Beatles.

^ R20 again with the "Heroin" stories, uppercase H for HEROIN, like Yoko Ono was the only one in New York with access to heroin (lower case).

Maybe your little rant would have more impact R25 if you could get the name of the city right.

I always understood — from reading many books on the topic of the Beatles — that John broke up the Beatles, with his relationship with Yoko being a significant influence on his attitude toward the band. I don’t think this is a controversial reading of the events.

But OP, where on earth did you get the idea that LINDA had anything to do with it? I don’t mean to be rude, but I’ve never heard anyone suggest that before.

I was John's HEROINE.

Linda was lovely. (But seriously, she had nothing to do with it)

And what about Brian Epstein!!!!

Well?

[quote] where on earth did you get the idea that LINDA had anything to do with it?

Later letters and interviews reveal that both Lennon and McCartney were frustrated by the influence exerted by each other's wives.

When manager Brian Epstein died in 1967, all the band members except McCartney wanted to hire Allen Klein. McCartney wanted to hire Linda's brother and father, Lee and John Eastman, but was overruled.

An angry letter from Lennon replying to a previous missive from his bandmate is filled with furious attacks on Linda and her family, who he believed had too much influence over McCartney and is also behind teh latest letter: "Linda – if you don’t care what I say – shut up! – let Paul write."

He is also enraged that Paul and Linda continue to refuse to acknowledge Yoko, ending the letter "P.S. about addressing your letter just to me – STILL….!!!"

Yoko and Linda may not have fought directly but they had both pulled their husbands in new directions.

As Lennon said in the 1971 interview: "It’s like a rugby team. Sometimes you just have to get married and leave the boys on a Saturday night. That’s just how it is."

iquote]Yoko and Linda may not have fought directly but they had both pulled their husbands in new directions.

Except that Paul made no resulting move to break up the Beatles, which was the question.

The Beatles broke up because most bands either break up (even the Go-Go's broke up, see that documentary on them to find out why) or continue to play together but end up hating each (The Rolling Stones, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac). A band is just an unnatural situation. The Beatles got together when they were kids and it's normal for young guys (and maybe young girls, for all I know) to pack together when young (a band, a sports team, a gang). It's how you learn to be a guy, by watching how other guys behave. It also gives you an identity; you're assigned a position in the group (in sports it's a literal position) which is great when you're young and trying to figure out who you are. You belong, you serve a role and you can feel comfortable with that. But as you get older and more confident, you don't want to be assigned a position. You want determine your own place and identity in the world and a band starts to feel constricting, even if you're "the leader" of the band.

I'll wager that was Harrison's beef. He was tired of always only getting two songs on the album after 10 years and not being given equal respect as an artist to Lennon and McCartney. McCartney evidently continued to talk to him like a kid brother instead of the pushing 30 grown man that was. And Lennon clearly felt he was ready to go off on his own to say and do things he couldn't within the Beatles; he was fed up with being called a Beatle, instead of John Lennon. And, yes, Yoko probably encouraged that but so what, she was his wife; that's what wives do. The only thing that was wrongly handled regarding Yoko was Lennon's selfishness in bringing her into the recording studio and putting her in their band photos without even discussing it with his bandmates. He complained about the way they treated her but he's responsible for it because I think he did it, consciously or unconsciously, on purpose to piss them off enough so that he could say "I quit because you disrespected the woman I love!" Instead of just taking all the responsibility for the break up he clearly wanted.

Finally, what I'm trying to say is The Beatles broke up because they all grew up. They started as kids with only each other in their lives and eventually became grown men with wives, kids and lives outside the band.

*continue to play together but end up hating each OTHER

*McCartney evidently continued to talk to him like a kid brother instead of the pushing 30 grown man that HE was

*you want TO determine your own place and identity in the world and a band starts to feel constricting, even if you're "the leader" of the band.

Sorry about the typos

It's stupid to suggest that Yoko had this incredible power over John because she was supplying his smack. Drugs are easy to come by if you have the money. If she had power over him it was because John willingly handed it over. Wasn't she managing his finances towards the end of his life?

They were clearly all exhausted, getting on each others nerves and needed a long vacation or short break. But their finances were getting precarious with Apple being a bust and Lennon bringing in Allen Klein to oversee that was a big mistake. McCartney had been in essence managing the band since Epstein died and was in the best position to counter Klein with a more acceptable business manager candidate who Harrison and Starr could be ok with, then Lennon, although erratic, would have eventually come over to. But instead McCartney pushes for his father-in-law, which clearly no one was going to sign on to. And for some reason he decides to counter the Yoko siege in the studio with bringing in Linda Eastman and acting equally clingy (I never understood the McCartney going full-on co-dependent with Linda, which was not his personality). McCartney probably could have saved the whole thing by promoting a more acceptable business manager and suggesting a short break instead of relentlessly pushing them all back into the studio.

Of course McCartney doesn't deserve blame for the break-up (Yoko's deconstruction of Lennon with heroin bears a lot of that blame), but he could have prevented it. They were all still in their 20s and it's not surprising it was so combustible.

[quote] six months before John was assassinated

The wedding was in 1981, AFTER John was murdered.

Yoko's deconstruction of Lennon with heroin bears a lot of that blame

FYI Linda McCartney was only "in" McCartney's band because he insisted, and she had no influence or interest in breaking up The Beatles. Jeez, everyone need a scapegoat so badly.

I’m sick of this debate, the only person who lost out here was Yoko Ono, unless you count material wealth. Yoko was one of the leading international conceptual artists at the time she met Lennon. She would have been to conceptual art what Picasso was to Cubism. And also an important Feminist icon in Art History with pieces like “Cute Piece.” Instead she was demonized and degraded and all but abandoned her art career in the wake of becoming Lenin’s partner. Now she just a footnote to Art History, hardly known beyond those who study post WWII art.

[quote]John Lennon broke up the Beatles. He announced he was leaving, at which George, who had long been uncomfortable with all the palaver that went around the music, immediately said he'd go too.

George was always my favorite.

And Woko Ono is trying to break up the British Royal Family but failing miserably.

John and Paul's disagreements over music (and John's drug problems) is what broke up the Beatles.

R41 The kids like Harrison too. "Here Comes the Sun" is the most streamed Beatles song. Lennon is popular with kids too. McCartney's songs sound saccharine.

Neither. The Beatles got sick of each other and were splitting up regardless. George wanted more creative freedom and was the first to leave. Also, Yoko did not force John Lennon to do anything, he hated his first wife and he was a narcissist, Yoko gave him the attention and adoration he craved. I don't get what Linda had to do with anything.

[quote]The kids like Harrison too

What's this kids shit?

R3 is correct. Lennon and McCartney were already squabbling.

R44, I assume your statistic comes from the Daily Express, which listed the Beatles's most streamed songs IN THE UK in 2020. And good on George. But the next two are both McCartney (Let it Be and Hey Jude), then Lennon's Come Together, so you're not correct about "the kids" rejecting McCartney.

R44 really showed his ARSE with that post.

I'm kinda tired of the Beatles fans who treat Lennon like a saint and blame Yoko. Yes, Yoko is a mega bitch who originally stalked Paul and then slept with John while he was still married to his first wife, fed John's massive ego, forced her untalented self into his musical projects and was nasty to his son Julian. But John was a grown man who made his own decisions, he was a selfish prick with a huge ego. His ego broke up The Beatles as he alienated his bandmates, he wanted Yoko around him all the time because she worshipped him and he was nasty to his ex-wife and first son. Linda was a nice girl from what I've read.

What was up with Linda and all that tambourine playing, that just seemed bizarre?

Makes sense that the band member (any band) with the most prospects for a solo career would be the first to jump ship.

I definitely prefer George Harrison's solo work the most. I liked John Lennon's albums too. Even though Paul is very talented, his music is mostly boring. He works very hard and tries new sounds though, certainly respect him for that.

I don't think The Beatles appeals to "kids" anymore. They're actually divisive now. Because of how hard Boomers glorified them to death and overexposed their music. The Beatles have gotten hype backlash in recent decades. So you got people who are diehard Beatles fans who foam at the mouth at any insults or you got people who hate the Beatles with a passion and call them an overrated "boy band". A very small minority will say they appreciate the impact The Beatles had on popular music and culture but they aren't their cup of tea. While another will genuinely like them but won't overpraise them and understand that there were other bands just as important and influential.

It's not often remembered now, but Paul was actually first out of the gate with a post-Beatles solo album. Since John hadn't publicly announced his departure, and Paul's album came with a press-release "interview" talking about how much he was over the Beatles, it was thought that Paul was the one who broke up the band. The others wanted him to at least postpone his album's release until after "Let It Be," but he refused.

R50 NAILED IT

I did. What of it?

[quote]Because of how hard Boomers glorified them to death and overexposed their music...

Right after the first solo work came out, the RECORD LABEL started promoting the Beatles ad nauseum with repackaged comp LPs, the "Red" album and the "Blue" album, posters, books, magazine specials, radio shows. This promotion was not started by Boomers, but continued by the powers that could make money off them, especially with the post-Boomers. I was a Beatles fan in the 1960s, and was done with them by the 70s.

[quote]Paul was actually first out of the gate with a post-Beatles solo album

The "McCartney" album was released the same week as the Let it Be album, SAME WEEK.

[quote]Linda was a nice girl

Linda was a woman - a divorcee - who already had a child, she could reproduce. That was major for McCartney since he wanted children.

Lennon broke up the Beatles.

Yes, people like to blame Yoko and not him, but Lennon chose Yoko, and kept her around because she put up with his devouring neediness and encouraged all his worst impulses. But the impulses came from Lennon himself, and really, while Yoko may have seemed to dominate their relationship, I think the relationship between the two of them was entirely based on HIS needs. His need for caretaking, his need for a mother/lover figure, his creative output, his unhappiness and his attempts to feel better, his mental illnesses, etc.

The older I get, the more I'm convinced that Lennon had one of the nastier Cluster B personality disorders, I'm not just sure which one. Histrionic? Narcissistic? That rara avis, the male Borderline?

He was functioning, wasn't entirely unhappy and wasn't needy until ultimately he fried his brain with all the acid. I think the change in him was somewhat chemical rather than a personality disorder (or acid exacerbated the personality disorder). Starting heroin with Yoko then took him over the edge.

"Yoko was one of the leading international conceptual artists at the time she met Lennon. She would have been to conceptual art what Picasso was to Cubism. And also an important Feminist icon in Art History with pieces like “Cute Piece.” Instead she was demonized and degraded and all but abandoned her art career in the wake of becoming Lenin’s partner."

I think R40 rather overstates Yoko's place in the history of art, but the fact is that she was a celebrity in her own right and completely chucked her own career to devote herself to Lennon's devouring neediness. Yes, she gained fame and money and notoriety from that relationship, but she also lost everything she'd built on her own. Well, it was her choice to accept Lennon and everything that came with him, even the eternal loathing of his fans, she's stuck with it all for fifty years, so I suppose it must have been the right choice for her.

Lennon really was unstable at his best, like I said, I think there was a major personality disorder there. For all his ego McCartney seems to be a sane and functional person, IMHO it's surprising that his partnership with Lennon lasted as long as it did, because in the end... Lennon didn't really want a partner who was sane and stable and who would put their own needs first. No, he wanted a world-class enabler, and he found one.

Yoko and Lennon complemented each other. Too many people just want to blame one person in a toxic relationships but that ignores the nuance of human relationships. John was the one who made the break, but McCartney was rigid in the direction he wanted The Beatles to sound while John wanted to experiment. They both pushed each other away.

The older I get, the more I'm convinced that Lennon was a nasty guy fueled by drugs and drink. No other excuses apply.

McCartney isn't exactly a bouquet of roses. I once heard him on Howard Stern crapping on George years after his death. He's extremely self centered and arrogant.

I don't believe you R64. Provide a link or a quote. I'll wait.

Where is Ringo Starr in all of this? Was he just along for the ride?

He was nasty and very violent. He killed the first drummer by throwing him down some stairs and the guy ultimately died of a brain injury. He also beat some guy up and almost killed him. He beat up women, both Cynthia and Yoko. He was a horrible person and it goes way back to when he was young. He may have been borderline. That condition happens when people lose their mothers at a vulnerable age. Look at Diana and then Harry. They are all borderlines. Apparently losing your mother at a young age is a big contributing factor.

George Harrison was far from perfect but I always felt he was the most sincere. His biggest fault was his sex addiction and his occasional pettiness. But he felt the most human and was aware of his own faults. His own music had this sense of self-awareness and striving for improvement. I really like his son Dhani's music too.

[quote] He killed the first drummer by throwing him down some stairs and the guy ultimately died of a brain injury. He also beat some guy up and almost killed him. He beat up women, both Cynthia and Yoko.

Total bullshit.

The Beatles "first drummer" was Pete Best, who is still alive. Before Pete, when the group was in its infancy, they worked with a series of drummers when they could find somebody willing and able, but they never had an actual full-time drummer until Pete. And John didn't throw any of those guys down any stairs.

The original bassist, Stu Sutcliffe, was a close friend of John's. He left the group to be with his German girlfriend and study painting, and died of a brain hemorrhage or aneurysm of some kind...while he was in Germany and the rest of the group was back in Liverpool. His sister, who hated the Beatles because they refused to give her money after they became rich and famous, decades later claimed that Lennon had kicked him in the head during a fight, which caused his death months or years later. In reality, the only Beatle who is known (not rumored, but known) to have gotten into a physical fight with Stu was Paul. Paul treated Stu like shit because he couldn't play very well, and because of his close friendship with John. There are no actual witnesses to this supposed kick in the head from John that "killed" Stu. That's because it never happened. (Also, a kick in the head doesn't kill you months later.)

He did beat up Liverpool DJ Bob Wooler very badly. Reports vary as to how bad the beating was, but the guy wasn't hospitalized or anything. This happened at Paul McCartney's 21st birthday party, when they were on the verge of making it very big. It actually made the local papers, but their manager Brian Epstein managed to keep it from becoming a bigger story.

According to Cynthia, he slapped her once, while they were still dating. She dumped him because of it, but eventually she took him back. She said he never laid a hand on her again.

There is no evidence that John ever beat, hit, slapped, or physically abused Yoko in any way.

Now, John Lennon himself did say in an interview one time in the 70's that he was a "hitter" (of women) when he was young. Interestingly, though, no woman has ever come forward to claim that she was beaten or hit by John...nor has anybody ever stated that they witnessed such a beating. John was prone to exaggeration in interviews (he famously claimed that the Beatles smoked a joint in the bathroom at Buckingham Palace when they went to receive their MBEs. The other Beatles all said they just smoked a cigarette to calm their nerves. His interviews over the years are full of stuff like this). So, whether or not he actually beat up or hit some unknown girls...maybe yes, but the evidence suggests probably no.

If you want to criticize the guy, there's plenty there. No need to rely on half-truths and outright lies, though.

The book about John Lennon said he beat up Yoko and Yoko said of the book that it was mean to john but did not deny that he hit her.

Wow, somebody wrote something in a book about John Lennon. It must be true, then, if somebody wrote it in a book.

John could have been bisexual. Yoko even said so in an interview. I really don't see what she could possibly gain from lying about something like that. Bisexual men tend to have issues especially back then. I think John and Yoko was a mutually emotionally abusive, toxic relationship. Just two narcissists feeding off each other. They also cheated on each other.

The one thing that I didn't like about Yoko was her cruelty to John's first son, Julian. It seemed really unnecessary. Julian wanted to spend time with his father but Yoko felt jealous of Julian and kept John away from him. John was also an asshole for refusing to spend time with his first son. To add insult to injury, when Sean was born. John kept bragging about his newborn second son. Showering him with affection and even writing songs about him. I can't imagine how much that hurt Julian and made him feel unwanted. It's funny when John and Yoko separated, John actually spent more time with teenage Julian and seemed interested in getting Julian to know Sean too. Unlike Yoko, I don't think John hated Julian. More he resented how Julian was the product of a fling which lead to a shotgun wedding with Cynthia. Still not an excuse to blame a child for those circumstances.

When John died, he actually left Julian money in a trust fund. Yoko, the beneficiary of John's will, for whatever reason was a complete bitch. She refused to give Julian the money he was entitled to. Julian had to sue Yoko to get not only the money he was owed but also the letters he had written to his father. Yoko eventually settled with Julian, giving him 20 million after a decade of legal battles. Julian also had to bid for the letters he wrote to his father that Yoko auctioned off.

The way John and Yoko treated Julian was absolutely disgusting to me. It really sours both of them in my mouth. Julian is a good man though, he forgave both of them and he has a strong, loving relationship with Sean.

Thank you, R69. The top of my head nearly came off when I read “John Lennon killed their first drummer.” WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK.

And TWO PEOPLE gave it “W&W”!

Fucking morons. If you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, shut up!

That’s fucked up about Yoko and Julian, R72. What a cunt. I’ve never cared for her, but now I’ll actively despise her.

George was unhappy, walked and came back, the John left for good. They all broke up the band.

[quote]He may have been borderline.

He may have been DRUNK

Honestly, John and Yoko deserved each other. I agree Yoko does have talent as a visual artist. Her work is detailed and impressive. That of a visionary. She's still a fucked-up narcissistic bitch.

I'm surprised how well-adjusted Julian and Sean are given their parents. Julian has trauma of course and he's very open about his complicated relationship to his father and how frustrating it is seeing John Lennon be idolized as this perfect saint. He's very smart, down-to-earth and grounded. A far better man than his father. Sean is adorable and fey hipster. They're both talented musicians.

Sean is an insufferable Bernie Bro.

Julian has almost the exact same voice when he sings as john. I have never heard sean sing.

Julian really does sound like John, naturally so. Sean actually sounds like he's doing a John impression. Sean was raised in New York City, so he doesn't have his father's accent.

[quote]Julian has almost the exact same voice when he sings as john

But he looks more like his mother

"George was unhappy, walked and came back, the[n] John left for good."

It's possible the Beatles could have survived George's departure, if John, Paul, and Ringo were determined to carry on. They could have fit Clapton into the band, at least until his ego clashed with McCartney's, maybe another guitar player. Maybe that'd have been the end of the magic, maybe it'd have worked, but who knows because Lennon was out of there and the band couldn't have survived the departure of Lennon.

Not just because that'd have been the end of the Lennon-McCartney songwriting money train, but because McCartney would have assumed he was in charge then and Harrison would have left before letting that happen. So really, even if Harrison left first, it was Lennon's departure that killed the Beatles, and it was Lennon's choice and not Yoko's.

George would have come back on board if the Beatles continued or just paused for a bit to do solo albums. He bought Friar Park in 1970 so he needed the money most and never achieved much album success after All Things Must Pass. John also would have eventually come back as he was all over the place and emotionally he ultimately needed a safe landing spot. I think both regretted blowing it up (Lennon didn't show up to sign the dissolution papers) but there were too many hurt feelings and McCartney by that point, after long keeping it all together for so long while they moaned and flaked (and which they mischaracterized as PM being bossy), was done.

Yoko wants people to know - they are all one big happy family

R69 John Lennon admitted that he used to hit women. He put it in the song It's Getting Better and in his Playboy interview he said: "All that 'I used to be cruel to my woman, I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved' was me. I used to be cruel to my woman, and physically - any woman. I was a hitter. I couldn't express myself and I hit. I fought men and I hit women. That is why I am always on about peace, you see. It is the most violent people who go for love and peace. Everything's the opposite. But I sincerely believe in love and peace. I am a violent man who has learned not to be violent and regrets his violence. I will have to be a lot older before I can face in public how I treated women as a youngster."

R85 yes, that was the interview I was talking about. He might have been telling the truth, he might have been exaggerating, as he often did. As I said, there has never been any actual woman come forth to say that John hit her (other than the one time he slapped Cynthia when they were dating). Nor has anybody ever said that they witnessed him hitting any women.

R86, even if you've read everything ever published or put on the internet about Lennon, not everything in a person's life is recorded for posterity, and some things are actively kept from the public. For instance, if Lennon had hit Cynthia in addition to treating her like dirt in numerous other ways, what would she have to gain by telling the world about it? Antagonism with Lennon and/or Yoko, and making Julian's relationship with his father that much more difficult? What would any jumpoff of his have to gain if she told the world about him hitting her - being called a slut by the whole Lennon fandom? Because yes, fandoms do that, look at what the Michael Jackson fandom says about the men who've told the truth about what happened to them as boys.

As for me, I wasn't there, I don't know what Lennon did in private, but if he says he hit women and fought with men his word is good enough for me. You know the old saying, "If someone tells you who they are, believe them".

Domestic abuse was a taboo subject in the 20th century and women had very little to gain in accusing a man of abuse. She would get the blame in fact and told to be nicer to her husband. Women were just expected to put with men because divorce was still off-the-table for many. Cynthia kept quiet because she had nothing to gain. Plus, many abused people rather just walk away and move on. She was more focused on raising Julian. If Cynthia was honest about went on and said John was physically abusive, she definitely would have gotten attacked by Lennon's obsessive fans. Yoko would have went after her too because Yoko makes money off of John's image.

[quote]For instance, if Lennon had hit Cynthia in addition to treating her like dirt in numerous other ways, what would she have to gain by telling the world about it? Antagonism with Lennon and/or Yoko, and making Julian's relationship with his father that much more difficult?

Uh, John was long dead by the time Cynthia told her tale of The Slap. There was no relationship with John to be made more difficult at that point.

[quote]What would any jumpoff of his have to gain if she told the world about him hitting her - being called a slut by the whole Lennon fandom?

Money, notoriety and attention.

[quote]As for me, I wasn't there, I don't know what Lennon did in private, but if he says he hit women and fought with men his word is good enough for me. You know the old saying, "If someone tells you who they are, believe them".

Yet you're convinced that Cynthia wasn't telling the full truth. OK.

[quote] If Cynthia was honest about went on and said John was physically abusive, she definitely would have gotten attacked by Lennon's obsessive fans. Yoko would have went after her too because Yoko makes money off of John's image.

Lennon's obsessive fans mostly hate Yoko, think Cynthia and Julian walk on water, and are pretty aware of John's flaws as a husband and father. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many of them who would go after the sainted Cynthia. Plus, she DID say John was physically abusive...on one occasion. Was she attacked by crazed Lennonistas over it?

When Cynthia and John divorced, their housekeeper gave a deposition that gave a lot of insight into their home life. She even mentioned John smacking Julian when he misbehaved (now considered horrific abuse, but no big deal in the 60's), John's adultery, his drug use, the arguments, everything. She pretty much saw it all. And she made no mention of any physical abuse of Cynthia by John.

Yoko broke up John Lennon.

[quote]Look at the Rolling Stones

[quote]They are still together.

Mick and Keith are the only original members still in the band.

Yoko identified John's weaknesses and exploited them. It wasn't just about the heroin. He needed a controlling mother-like figure.

"There was no relationship with John to be made more difficult at that point."

There were just Yoko's army of lawyers and publicists to deal with. And Julian's feelings towards his father, and his ongoing legal struggle to claim his inheritance.

Again, I wasn't there, I never met Lennon, but if he says he hit women and fought with men then my inclination is to believe him and not some anonymous fan on the internet. Because while I've found that believing who people tell me they are usually works, I've also found that anonymous fans on the internet are... massively unreliable, to put it politely.

Ed Sullivan broke up The Beatles.

If John Lennon had never met Yoko Ono the Beatles definitely would have gone on longer. She led him by the nose. She was always the one in control. John, although he could have violent outbursts and temper tantrums, was at heart a weakling who wanted a forceful person in his life to take charge of him. Yoko fit the bill. It took some doing (she literally "laid siege" to him, as Peter Brown said) but she eventually got her hooks in him and never let go.

John's denials that she was dominant were ridiculous. If he never had met her would he have done any of the crazy things he did (posing nude, "bagism", "bed-ins" for peace)? Hell, no! He never gave a shit about politics. But to be a political activist certainly got them a lot of attention, which was the whole point, drawing attention to themselves. After the 60s their political activism went out the window and John holed up in his room, stoned and inert, while Yoko bought up real estate and other valuable assets. "Working Class Hero", my ass! ' John Lennon and Yoko Ono's relationship was not "love." It was sick, pathological co-dependence.

[quote]There were just Yoko's army of lawyers and publicists to deal with. And Julian's feelings towards his father, and his ongoing legal struggle to claim his inheritance.

Cynthia's book came out in 2005. Julian's inheritance issue was settled in 1996. There was no "ongoing legal struggle" at that point.

[quote] Again, I wasn't there, I never met Lennon, but if he says he hit women and fought with men then my inclination is to believe him.

And again, you take John at his word, based on one statement he made in an interview, yet you seem to bend over backwards to not believe Cynthia.

That's cool. We're all free to pick and choose what evidence we accept and what evidence we reject. I don't discount the possibility that John Lennon might have been this massive woman-beater. I've just read enough about him over the years to not take every statement he made at face value, and I would expect there to be more corroborating evidence.

"And again, you take John at his word, based on one statement he made in an interview, yet you seem to bend over backwards to not believe Cynthia."

I'll take Lennon's word over yours, fanboy! Yeah, he was unstable, but at times he was honest to a fault.

Who knows about Cynthia, maybe she got lucky, but there were only a few million other women in his life. And many mind-altering and inhibition-removing substances.

R97, You're wasting your breath arguing with that idiot who thinks he has some special familiarity with John Lennon and can tell when he is "exaggerating" and when he's truthful and what went on in his personal life based on "things he's read." I just shake my head when I see deluded morons like R95 talking about what John would've done and what he was like and what his relationships were really like and how he felt as if they have ANY kind of actual knowledge or insight -- which they DO NOT. These people are the worst kind of pathetic losers who desperately want to feel important by claiming some imagined intimate understanding of a famous person they never met or have any clue about. There's that ridiculous feud going on between Lennon fans and McCartney fans as to who was better/more talented. I've noticed that only the Lennon fans tend to be a**holes.

Background story

"More he resented how Julian was the product of a fling which lead to a shotgun wedding with Cynthia. Still not an excuse to blame a child for those circumstances."

Cynthia was not a fling or a groupie with whom John hooked up with briefly and knocked up. She had been his steady girlfriend since art school--however, the pregnancy was not planned. And in those days, when you knocked up your girlfriend, you married her. (The exception is Brian Jones, who had a bunch of illegitimate children by the time he was 20--but that's another thread).

I remember Julian Lennon during an interview expressing his dismay at his father's comment that most children are "born out of a bottle on Saturday night." Of course Julian understood that he was referring to the birth of his first son. Of course John Lennon always gushed that his second son Sean was a "love child", his "beautiful boy", the product of his and Yoko's great love for each other. He was photographed holding and cuddling the infant Sean and he blathered in interviews about being a 'house husband" who stayed home and spent his time "looking after the baby." Of course that was bullshit; nannies looked after the baby. But he would go on and on about his precious younger son. Can you imagine how Julian must have felt? Julian was mostly ignored by his father while growing up and after his parent's divorce he and his mother lived in modest circumstances while his baby brother lived in luxury and was denied nothing. Julian (and his mother), in short, were treated like shit.

After going through a dissolute period in his youth, Julian Lennon seems to have turned out very well. In interviews he comes across as intelligent, articulate and well adjusted. Good for him. His brother Sean, on the other hand, seems like kind of a kook. At one point he was of the belief that some kind of government conspiracy was responsible for the death of his father. Sean Lennon seems like of well, weird. But I guess that's to be expected. Look at who his parents were. Julian at least had one normal, caring parent.

[quote] Cynthia was not a fling or a groupie with whom John hooked up with briefly and knocked up. She had been his steady girlfriend since art school

Wow. Then that makes John look even worse as a human being.

I love the references to Yoko's "Cute Piece" (meaning, "Cut Piece"). Yoko never did anything cute in her life.

"She had been his steady girlfriend since art school--however, the pregnancy was not planned. And in those days, when you knocked up your girlfriend, you married her."

According to various biographies, they'd been having sex without any form of birth control for two or more years before Julian was conceived, if a pregnancy didn't happen earlier that was just a matter of luck. Well, in mid-20th-century Liverpool if you knocked up your girlfriend you married her, even if you had to keep the marriage secret for ages because your manager thought marriage was bad for her career... or he was just jealous.

By all accounts when the relationship started she was more into him that he was into her, and she was the one who went after him in art school. Her pursuit of Lennon and what happened after she got him was a perfect illustration of the old proverb "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it".

R101, that's how ALL men, famous and not famous, talk about their second family.

Then there are celebrities like BING CROSBY.

[quote] By all accounts when the relationship started she was more into him that he was into her, and she was the one who went after him in art school. Her pursuit of Lennon and what happened after she got him was a perfect illustration of the old proverb "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it".

He must have been "into her" because they were together a long time before she got pregnant. And all she did to "go after him" was try to look like Bridgette Bardot (John thought she was hot) by dyeing her hair and dressing more provocatively. And it wasn't exactly "pursuit"; Cynthia Lennon genuinely cared about John Lennon. She loved him and wanted to please him, unlike Yoko Ono, who glommed onto John because he was a pipeline to wealth and fame and attention.

Actually Ringo was the first to 'leave'. They practically had to beg him to come back to finish the White Album. There are a few songs that Paul ended up having to play drums.

Fuck off with your misogynistic trolling, OP. Sorry your dick is so small, but it's no reason to carry on like this.

R107, anyone could have taken over for Ringo, odd that they cared that he left.

R107- That isn't true! Whenever Ringo would write a song the other three made sure to hang it on the refrigerator. It is very difficult for me to find anything about John Lennon admirable because of his, imo, cold, cruel treatment of his son. Yako is a talentless cunt. She also became addicted to heroin, both of them were straight up junkies. George by far is my favorite Beatle. I also enjoyed some of Ringo's songs. Their popularity was astronomical. That had to have an impact on their personalities. George seemed to want to get away from it. Imo, John just jumped on the ongoing issues of the day. It is difficult to separate his habit of doing that with whatever his real beliefs, concerns actually were. I thought he was very much a hypocrite about some things, such as: " Imagine no possessions." Ok, sure rich man living in the mansion, being driven everywhere by limousines, hanging around with only other rich musicians. OT but his Bob Dylan imitation was brilliant and brutal. Bob could not have been very happy about it. 🙂

Yes, I broke up the Beatles, and I broke up John's career, and I broke up John's family, and I broke up John himself, and I am breaking up Datalounge. What of it?

It's still odd how much hero worship John Lennon gets. He's still treated as a martyr who fought for world peace and social causes. Despite all the evidence showing he was greedy, mean, materialistic, a druggie, emotionally stunted and all-around awful person. It would be one thing to respect him for his musical genius and vision because he was talented but the deification of him is disturbing. He was an extremely flawed man. Just like with Elvis and Michael Jackson, fans cannot fathom all of these men were fuckups in their personal lives despite their musical giftedness.

John Lennon and Yoko Ono did not give a shit about peace or the war in Vietnam. Their stupid anti-war efforts, like being all dressed in white and lying around in bad saying "peace", were nothing but publicity ploys.

[quote] After going through a dissolute period in his youth, Julian Lennon seems to have turned out very well. In interviews he comes across as intelligent, articulate and well adjusted. Good for him. His brother Sean, on the other hand, seems like kind of a kook. At one point he was of the belief that some kind of government conspiracy was responsible for the death of his father. Sean Lennon seems like of well, weird. But I guess that's to be expected. Look at who his parents were. Julian at least had one normal, caring parent.

Sean was fucked up by his mother, Yoko. Yoko basically raised Sean to be a miniature version of his father. Sean worships his mother and father. Never got a chance to form his own identity. Typical narcissistic parent behavior to micromanage everything about their child and have them worship them too. Julian was raised by Cynthia, had a mostly normal childhood (despite being the son of John Lennon) and he learned to work hard to get what he wanted. He got into music out of genuine passion and tried to stand out in the 80s. Now he is doing photography. He was never handed anything either. He had to fight Yoko to get his inheritance which he had every right to do. Julian always had love for Sean too, he never resented him for being the favorite of John. I believe major reason Julian even will go out in public with Yoko is for Sean's sake because he is aware Sean adores her.

It's not odd at all, R112. That was the image Lennon was selling in his last twelve years - peace activist, happy spouse and father, then house husband (I'll omit the May Pang interlude). I think he really believed this was real, that he'd changed into this person.

But why wouldn't there be an ugly truth or dark underside to Lennon that was mostly kept from view? It's like that with almost everyone. Of course dying the way he did help propel more hero worship. I remember the crying faces gathering around in the Park after his death, and I thought: these people are too young to have been Beatles fans and I doubt they listen to Lennon records. They're worshiping an image, a "name." Some people just like to worship.

The tide is turning and more people are agreeing that Yoko Ono is the sole person who broke up the Beatles

R115 True. Michael Jackson had a similar humanitarian image and believed himself to be a protector of children. After his death, the Jackson family and estate kept this innocent "boy trapped in a man's body" image alive because it makes so much money. I enjoy a lot of MJ's music but I do think he was a pedophile and needed help and also was a victim of abuse himself. Doesn't excuse his actions. Elvis was also a manchild with an unhealthy obsession with young girls and also probably a victim himself from an unstable mother. Though he was a joke in his later years with his death reviving his popularity and a lot of historical revisionism came with that. A lot of mentally ill people don't think they're sick especially when surrounded by enablers and sycophantic fans.

OK Linda should not even be in this poll. She was nice and quiet. The poll should be John Lennon, Yoko Ono, Paul McCartney and George Harrison. It was a tug of war between those four over the direction of the band, all were prideful people who butted heads.

Everyone needs a Yoko!

I remember seeing Albert Goldman - Elvis' biographer - on a TV show defending a biography of John Lennon that he was preparing. He said that in contrast to Presley, Lennon was a real person and true to his art. WELL...we all know how his Lennon book turned out!

[quote]OK Linda should not even be in this poll. She was nice and quiet.

The DL has hated Linda for a decade because she was "ugly." Or uglier that pretty Paul. Linda was a star chaser with a camera, a rich Jewish girl from the NYC burbs who had a trust fund. I have no problem with that. McCartney's third wife has a similar background.

If there are guests you'd like to have leave early, just put on a Yoko album,

Fans hate any woman that is linked to their idols. Just misogyny in general. They see these women as some type of temptress that brought their perfect idols to fall. I've seen Guns N Roses fans bash all of the women Axl was with, despite him being abusive and also a violent psycho at time. We all know Nirvana fans hate Courtney Love with the passions of a thousand white hot suns despite the fact Kurt had mental issues and suicidal thoughts prior to her. Prince's gfs and wives get hate all the time, but P could be an asshole and he was emotionally abusive to his bandmates and lovers alike. It's so easy to find a scapegoat

Linda Eastman wanted whatever Paul wanted and Paul did not want to Beatles to break up. She did influence him, though. After he took up with her he got slovenly like she was (she didn't even shave her legs) and became a vegetarian. Both were lifelong potheads. I think she even smoked pot while pregnant, thinking it would do no harm to a developing fetus. Linda was pretty dumb in a lot of ways. But she worshipped Paul and he adored being worshipped. So their marriage worked.

[quote] Fans hate any woman that is linked to their idols.

Actually, Beatles fans liked Jane Asher, Paul McCartney's beautiful, talented, red haired girlfriend. The fans liked Cynthia Lennon, too. But Yoko Ono and Linda Eastman? They could never fathom what their idols saw in THEM.

R124 That's sounds like a relatively normal marriage. Influence and compromise. They both got what they wanted. Hence they were together for so long.

Yoko was ambitious and narcissistic, I mean she was older, an artist and educated with a career, she was manipulative towards John though she pretended to be submissive. She knew he was weak and cowardly. Still, he chose to go with what she wanted and he buttered up his ego to get him to do so. She only had power over John because he let her. So ultimately John was at fault for breaking up the band.

[quote] Actually, Beatles fans liked Jane Asher, Paul McCartney's beautiful, talented, red haired girlfriend. The fans liked Cynthia Lennon, too. But Yoko Ono and Linda Eastman? They could never fathom what their idols saw in THEM.

I guess because Cynthia and Jane were also rather pretty and stylish. Neither Yoko or Linda were attractive. John and Paul were narcissists, so they liked women who worshipped them and they felt less attractive women would be more faithful. It's about power. It's why you see good-looking men with fug girlfriends.

R124 = born in 1999!

Neither-

Pretty crystal clear that Yoko broke up the Beatles

The issue is Yoko was not actually in the band itself. So she didn't break them up. John broke them up with the influence of Yoko. John chose Yoko over the band. And George was on his way out anyway. George could have been replaced but he would still prospered as a solo artist.

[quote] John broke them up with the influence of Yoko. John chose Yoko over the band.

That's true. He didn't want to work with McCartney and the others anymore. He wanted to work with her (what an idiot he was). So yes, it can firmly be stated that John Lennon's involvement with Yoko Ono brought up the Beatles.

Yoko would comin into the studio with John and just hang out there (when she was pregnant I think a bed was brought in for her to lie in). I'm sure her presence was unsettling. She would give the other Beatles her opinions on on how they should make their album. Considering that Yoko had not one scrap of musical talent, that must have been infuriating. No wonder they (and everybody else in the studio except John) hated her.

"The tide is turning and more people are agreeing that Yoko Ono is the sole person who broke up the Beatles"

So, we've established that three out of the four Beatles wanted to leave for reasons of their own, but sure! It's all Yoko! She's the reason that Harrison wanted out and Ringo left for a while after McCartney started recording over his drum tracks!

Seriously, R123 is right, all the wives and girlfriends of famous men get hated by the fans, mostly out of jealous bitchery. But blaming them is also a convenient way to project their idol's faults onto another person, and maintain that perfect mental image that can be loved without cognitive distance. Lennon and Curt Kobain took heroin, the fans would *much* rather blame Yoko and Courtney Love for "getting" their beloved idol on heroin, that admit their beloved idol took drugs because he liked drugs.

I meant cognitive *dissonance", not "cognitive distance"!

Fucking autocorrect.

Yoko Ono is trending today because

In the decades since the Beatles’ breakup, controversy has surrounded Yoko Ono’s role in the band’s dissolution. But in his new documentary “Get Back,” director Peter Jackson says he found her to be “a very benign presence in the studio.”

In this picture they are jamming, as Yoko reads the newspaper

Has anyone seen "Get Back"? I won't be able to start until Sunday.

And that's a very odd picture. She's sitting in the jam circle, like a member of the group, but she's ostentatiously ignoring the music and reading her newspaper. Which looks at first sight like she's being annoying, but maybe Lennon just wanted her sitting next to him at all times, even if there was nothing for her to do and nothing but him that she was interested in. He was so needy that's a strong possibility.

Listen, we all know The Beatles would have started sucking if they'd stuck around much longer anyway. This way they left behind a solid body of work and saved the really questionable material for their solo albums.

[quote] In the decades since the Beatles’ breakup, controversy has surrounded Yoko Ono’s role in the band’s dissolution. But in his new documentary “Get Back,” director Peter Jackson says he found her to be “a very benign presence in the studio.”

She wasn't "benign?" She would offer them suggestions on how they should do their work, she who knew nothing about making music. What the hell business did she have doing that? And I'm sure her constant presence in the studio made the other Beatles uncomfortable. Anybody would have been uncomfortable in the presence of the stone faced, forbidding Yoko Ono except for John Lennon who had a pathological dependence on her.

Yes, R137, they'd be an oldies act. Face it, the break-up of The Beatles was the best thing that happened to the group and the music that was released under their name.

Yep. Them breaking up was for the best and it added to their lore and mystique.

Like Led Zepplin and the Beach Boys, the fact that they exploded while they were still at or close to the top has made them legendary.

Dying young has always been a great career move for entertainers, and that holds true for bands as well as individuals.

The Doors really benefited too from Jim Morrison dying while he did. I'm convinced they would have either broken up (Robby and John were sick of Jim) or they would have fired Jim (they performed a lot of times without Jim because was MIA) or Jim would have quit to focus on his poetry.

I've watched the first part of GET BACK so far R136

Yoko spends practically every moment sitting in the midst of the group next to John. She is not shown really doing anything other than sitting there stone-faced; not talking or interacting with him or the rest of the band. John will occasionally fawn over her -- and, frankly, it's hard to see why. She briefly comes to life when Linda shows up on the 5th or 6th day. She appears almost human as she chats with her. I think she even cracks a smile. And then, on the 7th day, we are *treated* to Yoko repeatedly screeching into a mic while the 3 guys (sans George) jam. Bring your earplugs.

I really admire Paul, George, and Ringo's tolerance. How were they able to work with Yoko's dark presence hanging over them? It must have been terrible for them.

[quote]And then, on the 7th day, we are *treated* to Yoko repeatedly screeching into a mic while the 3 guys (sans George) jam. Bring your earplugs.

I am envisaging Morticia Addams singing, "Haroo!" as she strummed her shamisen.

R71 Biographies are mostly garbage. I have read so many biographies where the author obviously had an agenda.

[quote] Biographies are mostly garbage.

Not all of them are. But you definitely shouldn't believe everything you read. I liked Philip Norman's biography of the Beatles called "Shout!: The Beatles In Their Generation." And I liked Peter Brown's take on them "The Love You Make: An Insider's Story of the Beatles." Brown was Brian Epstein's personal assistant and an executive at Apple Corps. He was mentioned in John's song "The Ballad of John and Yoko." So I guess he was a good source of information on what went on. He was criticized for revealing the "seamy" details of his subject's lives but I think he telling the truth. And then there's Albert Goldman's "The Lives of John Lennon." I will say this for Goldman; his books are very entertaining to read. I guess he's not 100% factual, but he does get it right a lot of the time, such as how he totally exposes the truly ghastly relationship between John Lennon and Yoko One and Lennon's cruelty to his first wife Cynthia. So biographies are a mixed bag. But there ARE good ones out there.

Yoko broke up the Beatles

Well after the 1st episode of "Get Back", what I'm seeing is Yoko being as quiet as a mouse except for the one time they let her sing, and George being sick to death of McCartney's bossiness.

Yes, Yoko was "quiet as a mouse." But seeing her sitting there stone faced, glued to John the entire time they were trying to work must have been She gave off a very bad vibe? And why was she there in the first place? Because she and John couldn't stand to be separated for any amount of time? Eww, that is pathological codependence.

The theory of the “One Sweet Dream” podcast, which seems plausible to me, is that the dissolution of the personal relationship between Paul and John is what broke up the Beatles. Everything else, especially Yoko, was fallout from that. At some point around the India trip, John became deeply unhappy and depressed and seemed to be extremely reactive to Paul. WHY this was isn’t known—less controversially, because Paul was replacing John as “the leader” of the band and John couldn’t handle the role reversal, or because Paul wanted to mature and get serious with a life partner and move on from his youth; more controversially, because John wanted something from Paul that Paul was unable to give him (admiration? love? sex?). John got together with Yoko days after he witnessed Paul being serious about Linda in NY and then married Yoko days after Paul married Linda; on the flip side, Paul put Linda in his band after John and Yoko started making music together. John acted out constantly during this period, playing sex tapes of himself and Yoko in band meetings, bringing her into the studio and into Paul’s face, etc, and finally, quitting the band internally. But it was Paul who made the end of the Beatles public, rather than going begging after John, which might have been what he wanted.

Yoko didn’t help things, but John in some ways used her as a human shield here and a taunt. Linda is totally without fault here. Paul is maybe at fault here, like John, but I think he was just tired of John’s neediness and needed some space. And John was fucked up from his childhood being the boy nobody wanted, and was likely just acting out that pattern.

Nonsense. John and Paul began to move in different directions and had a lot more options once they had achieved world fame as the Beatles. To the extent that the women were involved, they were encouraging the men to push their own artistic directions. Listen to the work each of them released after Abby Road. Very different styles.

If John Lennon had never met Yoko Ono the Beatles definitely would have gone on for at least a few more years. He rejected them in favor of her, and started doing all kinds of awful projects with her.

Amazing how many people on DL are protecting Yoko

r153 wasn't there another asian chick before Yoko? and before her a white chick? If I recall the rest of his bandmates didn't have as much of an issue with the cheating but rather how he treated his son. Made worse after the birth of Sean. which describes how big of a prick john was.

though one benefit of Yoko was her investment were more sound than his ideas and dealing with his temperament. but she was cutthroat in trying to protect it. And they both brought out the awful in each other. Did you know she was actually capable of singing? Had a descent album too. The going story from those that worked with her then was she discovered drugs and john and it was all about experimental after that except neither one appreciated synth. so doomed cause.

Linda as obnoxious as she was saw the music as a stronger investment. So, not much of a contest there.

Yoko was an enabler but she did not hold a gun to John's head. John was a grown man who made his decisions and he most likely wanted to leave and go his own way. Yoko was the one who pushed him to do so. But again, the choice was ultimately his.

[quote]If John Lennon had never met Yoko Ono the Beatles definitely would have gone on for at least a few more years

Not without Brian Epstein they wouldn't.

[quote] wasn't there another asian chick before Yoko? and before her a white chick?

I never heard of one. But before he hooked up with Yoko John cheated on Cynthia with impunity. One woman he lusted after was Ronnie Spector. He was really hot for her and came on really strong, but knowing how insane her husband was she rejected his advances, reportedly telling him "John, I CAN'T?"

There was an "asian chick" who was John's lover while he was separated from Yoko. Knowing John would need a woman during their hiatus she chose for his mistress a young record company employee named May Pang. She suggested to Pang that she be his "girlfriend"; at first Pang was appalled. She, after all, worked for the Lennons and thought it would be unethical for her to become involved with John. But Yoko said she would "take care of everything" and after that John really put the moves on the younger, pliable Pang. They became lovers and during his time with Pang John was quite productive musically and Pang encouraged him to spend more time with his son Julian. She was a positive influence on him. She believed they were in love and they talked about getting a house to live in together. Then one day John went over to Yoko's for some reason; when he got back he told Pang "Yoko has allowed me to come home" and then started packing his bags to leave." That's the only explanation he gave her "Yoko has allowed me to come home."

It's too bad John didn't leave Yoko for May Pang. Pang really loved him and encouraged him. She was good for him.

r158 Yeah, that sounds like the lass I was thinking of. And despite getting that one wrong, well, i know there were a couple before Yoko and one or two he disappeared with. The rest of the members have spoken about that more frequently, him meeting a chick and then holing up with them (and likely drugs) making him unreliable and volatile. In hindsight, they thought in addition to addiction that he was manic but in both cases, they were too young and self involved to be aware especially as they were all partaking of something and the industry being full of headcases. Others trumped up John & Yoko to Sid & Nancy (the public's love of doomed love stories.) or Michael Jackson (too much publicity (and fans) to ever be normal)

Yoko Ono was a home wrecker

John was a domestic abuser. He and Yoko deserved each other.

If John came out as a bisexual and found a boyfriend, maybe he would have been happier because he clearly was a misogynist who hated women.

Vivian Vance broke up the Beatles. They wouldn’t let her join the group so she destroyed them.

It's good 'The Beatles' ended when it did so threads like this can exist. If they had gone on and on and on, we'd be making fun of the geezers writing and playing DRECK for 45 years. This way, they're legends (as the Beatles).

"The theory of the “One Sweet Dream” podcast, which seems plausible to me, is that the dissolution of the personal relationship between Paul and John is what broke up the Beatles."

Except that in "Get Back", R150, John and Paul still seem close and confiding, either totally at ease with each other or delighted to be working together - and they were less than a year away from the final breakup. There's no tension between them, and John is still obviously the alpha... he's doing what he wants to do without caring what the others think, while Paul is bossy and worrying about everyone. Lennon comes across as the dominant personality, so much so that he never has to try to impress anyone or get his way, while Paul is trying to become the subsidiary alpha and having a rough time of it.

Although as I've previously noted, I think the band and Yoko were in a state of truce at that point, there had a been a lot of tension earlier but they'd all learned which lines couldn't be crossed - the band doesn't try to get rid of Yoko and she doesn't interfere with the music. Perhaps the same was true of relationships between John and Paul, perhaps they were also in a state of truce and there were tensions in the relationship that doesn't show... but really. They were going to blow up in less than a year, and I still see zero tension between them.

I just finished reading "The Beatles: The Biography" by Bob Spitz. It seems to me that no one person or thing was responsible for the breakup; rather it was a perfect storm of various factors. And, yes, Yoko was definitely one of them.

One area that Spitz highlights is the chaotic state of their management in the wake of Brian Epstein's death, and the disaster that was Apple Corps. The signing of Allen Klein as their manager, over Paul's strenuous objections, was one of the straws that would eventually break the camel's back, as was the hiring of Phil Spector to mix "Let It Be". John -- under the influence of both Yoko and heroin -- was the motivating force behind these decisions, which caused irreparable damage to whatever scraps of harmony remained.

Girls! Girls! Girls! They were both cunts.

Neither.

They were growing apart and growing up. I’m one of the few fans who might be glad they broke up when they did because they created a pristine capsule of incredible, culture-changing music. What if they had stayed together and started producing crap?

[quote] Except that in "Get Back", John and Paul still seem close and confiding, either totally at ease with each other or delighted to be working together - and they were less than a year away from the final breakup. There's no tension between them, and John is still obviously the alpha

That’s interesting - it looked a little different to me. The main thing that came through was just how much they loved and knew each other, like brothers. It makes sense that John believed they could read each other’s minds, they could pick up on something with just a glance. Get Back was so meaningful to me because of that. But I also saw some stress and anxiousness there—Paul being a bit tentative with Yoko so as not to offend her, John knowing when he was irritating Paul, and the amount of reminiscing they were doing through not just words but music, like “remember the good old days”—maybe that was normal for them in rehearsal! But it had the flavor of people who’d been together for a long time, and knew how meaningful their relationship was, but who were feeling discomfort and wanting something new.

John was not the peace loving, laid back person he presented to the world. I’m so sorry that he was murdered, but what a motherfucker he was…

Linda and Paul are not better than John and Yoko. Linda’s family were lawyers and got too involved in the management aspect. Paul was pushing for his father-in-law to take over which would have been an obvious conflict of interest.

"John was not the peace loving, laid back person he presented to the world. I’m so sorry that he was murdered, but what a motherfucker he was…"

IMHO he would have aged into someone like Roseann Barr, someone unstable and totally up their own ass, in a position where nobody could tell them "no" or "That's crazy, don't post that or you'll make a complete ass of yourself". If he were alive today, he'd be spewing conspiracy theories all over his social media, who knows which ones.

Yes, R178, you'd have thought McCartney would have been smarter than that. Yes, Epstein would have been a better manager than Klein, but how stupid was McCartney to push him to the group? John had just spent the last two years foisting mega-girlfriend-drama onto the band, and McCartney wants to do something that would sure as hell seem like he was pushing girlfriend drama into the band!

He should have asked Mr. Epstein to help him look at 3rd parties. That would have been the sensible thing to do, and McCartney was and is smart, it's surprising he wasn't smart enough for that.

John had a terrible temper and definitely was bitter toward Paul, but a lot of his statements that come off as humorless were partially facetious and his very dry humor. That probably wouldn’t have translated well to Twitter either, but he wouldn’t have been mentally ill like Roseanne, he would have gotten into celebrity feuds like Elton, or a lefty version of Trump’s pre-Presidential tweets where he commented on inane things like Kirsten Steward and people being “fired like a dog.”

John and Yoko hosted The Mike Douglas Show for a week.

WE KNOW, dear R182.

I wonder if he would have restored his relationship with Julian. It seemed when he and Yoko were separated, John sought out Julian to spend time with him and Sean. It really shows how John had no spine when it came to Yoko because Yoko hated Julian to such a sociopathic degree. The way she treated him after John's death definitely shows she probably had more a say in John cutting off contact than John himself. Julian even mentioned John was nicer to him and gave him music lessons prior to his death.

I remember Julian saying that if he ever saw John he had to go to where John was; John would never go to see HIM. Of course that was Yoko's decision. She didn't want him to see any of his family in England. After he left England to go live in NY with Yoko he never returned to England again. He did go to Japan to spend time with Yoko's family, though. Boy, John was a asswipe, to let Yoko control him to the point where he couldn't even seen his own relatives.

R27, it was said in a lot of writings about the Beatles back in the 80s that Linda was more responsible for the break up than Yoko.

Eastman's father was a high-level entertainment lawyer. He was trying to get involved in the group's business affairs which Paul was all for but John and the others did not trust him. Paul dug in his heels and John was the most vocal against Daddy Eastman's involvement. That is when Paul went vocal against Yoko.

[quote]Of course that was Yoko's decision. She didn't want him to see any of his family in England

Why couldn't John make his own decisions? If HE wanted to go back to England, especially to visit his own son, he could have. Don't blame anyone else.

And with Paul and the Eastmans, PAUL was responsible for doing business with them, not Linda. Why isn't Paul responsible for this?

Julian can fuck off. He got a song written about him. What more does he want?

John had been bossing people around his whole life, he was like the Pied Piper of juvenile delinquents in Liverpool. He likely enjoyed meeting someone who for once would boss him around. If he was servile to Yoko, it was his choice.

John and Paul both had good points about their management - Allen Klein was a creep and a liar, and it’s a bad idea to do business with family.

[quote] Why couldn't John make his own decisions?

Because he was weak and let Yoko be in control of everything. That's why. It was "his own decision" to always do what Yoko wanted him to do. She made the decisions, and he went along with them.

But Yoko DID break up The Beatles.

When they got older, serious relationships came between them, in part because they were probably somewhat in love with each other (not saying they necessarily acted on it or even realized it, we’ll never know). Not that unusual, really.

Which Beatle had the largest cock?

I took Johnny aside- that's what I called him, 'Johnny'- I says Johnny, you better than this. Take yo wife, yo keedz, yo guitar and LEAVE.

It's long past and doesn't matter anymore.

Probably Ringo.

Neither- it was their own egos.

[quote] It's long past and doesn't matter anymore.

Then why Yoko still hated

I don't think Ringo had anything to do with the breakup and was probably disappointed when it happened. John was very fond of him and continued their friendship until his death.

R198 Hey Yoko, you still need to work on English syntax.

Besides, it wasn’t Yoko. It was the pre-birth spirit of that halfrican bitch in Montecito. That cunt ruins everything.

the world knows it was that odious yoko oh no. wtf with her bozo son??

Kiss Kiss Kiss Kiss Me love

Yoko Ono BANNED John Lennon first wife (Cynthia Lennon) from the funeral

Saying Julian can come, but Cynthia is no longer part of the Lennon family So why should she be there.

Helen Lawson, silly!