John Lennon reveals 'torture' of Beatles' final album - interview coming up for auction (Part 2) 

They lived up to it in 07.

I don't think so. Robert is loyal to Bonzo, and had said many times that Zep was the four of them. Without Bonzo, there is no Zeppelin. Plant does not want to perform as "Zeppelin" out of respect for his friend, and his friend's importance to the band's legacy. Plant still performs Zep material on the road, but he won't do it with the full group of four (Jason included) because he doesn't want people calling it "Zeppelin."

The Beatles would have exceeded expectations if they toured together say in 1973.

@@radar0412 They could by that time, used the now common high power amplifiers and be heard and John could shut up about not being heard. He probably still would have complained about something, like how he couldn't hear the audience now.

@@boataxe4605 That depends on whom you ask. Mick Marrs who wrote the book "When Giants Waled The Earth" disagrees with you. They played well, no doubt. But that was not Led Zeppelin. Without Bonzo, there is no Led Zeppelin. And, I'm not criticizing you by any means. I would've welcomed that tour as the greatest gift of my life! But, I can understand where Plant is coming from as well.

+Major Rugburn Some might say they have been topped by Abba or Michael Jackson for instance, but I mean, it's in the eye of the beholder.

+Leo B some but not many!

+Alex Yamach I still feel that they would have been great live in the 70's. Even on the rooftop they were really good and that was outside in cold January weather. It's a shame when you think of how it would have been. They would have been on top for many years to come. But so many things broke it apart, mainly Brian's death, and forming Apple.

+Leo B No one is saying the Beatles have been topped by Abba or Michael Jackson, unless they are wearing a helmet and a drool cup. You qualify.

+Yeah Right Elvis Presley aswell possibly.

Wes 76 What’s the source for this? I’m interested now.

Wes 76 - I’ve seen the cover of “Two Virgins”...I don’t see why he was worried.

I think the other Beatles didn't want Yoko around in the studio, but they were afraid to speak up against John coz John was kinda the boss.

John Lennon - I was very disappointed as there was no music on it except them whistling in the shower, and I was a child and spent all my money on it. My sister was excited to see John naked, but I was not at seeing Yoko. It came in a plain brown wrapper at the record store.

skykiss12 they definitely weren’t afraid to say it. George had insulted Yoko on occasion and even fought John over her constant presence. Crazy to think that the “quiet Beatle” had the biggest backbone.

He was always honest. If you knew anything about Lennon you would realise he always spoke his mind.

I think he spoke Yoko's mind a lot in those days, whether he knew it or not.

@@poppablue59kent75 Oh stop it.

Revolver except he was full of crap (and drugs) for much of the late 60’s.

Once a few years was removed from the breakup he became less bitter

John was expressing probability odds wrong. Yoko's correction increased the odds they would be swarmed by fans.

That was in part one!

Don’t you say this about John Lennon He made a few mestakes like any human but he was the graitest person on Earth I have said many times It really hurts me when people dislike him or say bad things about him so please stop

Yes well they both had issues he grew up without a Mother raised by an Aunt and her daughter was abducted so she had maternal love and nurturing she needed to give and he needed to have they filled a void in one another's life that way. I find it odd too when men want to be my "daddy" but I don't have daddy issues like some women do I don't much like to play mommy to grown men either but not everyone is as emotionally stable or mature. If I love a man and care for him I don't want to treat him like a child or be treated like a child I grew up fast and young.

go away yuko/

Ringo too probably. I think mainly John and George wanted to break off and work on their solo career

Larry Abecid John and George had also grown close through their connection as the LSD takers in the group prior to Yoko, and whether rightly or wrongly, George definitely felt like Yoko was a drain on that relationship. As well as being an unwanted spectator to Beatles events, practice and recordings. He just didn’t like her. George realised that, regardless of his love for all the other members, he was capable of being happy outside of the band and incapable of being happy inside it. John wished to follow his own path with his solo career, and was deeply in love with Yoko and God bless him.

Maca has always been the business man of the group. He sure wanted to ride the gravy train. But.. Wasn't he the one who first said publicly that Beatles were over (while promoting his solo record ?). NB, I am not criticizing Maca. The Beatles were just over. Time to move on.

Who wouldn't?

+David Sumeray Agreed. I love John Lennon and his music and if he wanted to marry a donkey then so be it but what he ever saw in Yoko Ono was ANYONE'S guess! She's not attractive at all; I've seen pretty Asian women before but Yoko is a dog. How she virtually controlled every aspect of John's life and was so opinionated and vocal irritates the hell out of me.....hearing her "sing" makes me want to vomit and at the same time shit myself!! Whoever said she could sing (this includes John) needs a good hard kick in the ass.

+Snuffy Smith Yoko could see a pile of dog shit, bronze it and call it art!

I mean that was a very hypocritical thing to say

She couldn't help herself. It was just Noise

john would probably disagree with you. are denying him love?

Pianoman 70s style I don't know about that. they sounded pretty good on the roof top and they weren't playing their best songs.they would have had an orchestra and billy preston with them.They would have been great

+Pianoman 70s style You may think so, but in fact John had this idea that he around 70- 71actually become the saviour of the wörld. At least that what I read in some biograpy. Even thu; he's forgotten. All this fame could turn anyone go omnipotence ---

Actually, Pauls concerts these days are religious experiences so a Beatles reunion tour would have been the same, except more so. I think John is right though about leaving the Beatles as a myth which is what happened of course.

None of what John says makes that much sense except he didn't want to do it. They could have performed live and it would have been a big deal and they could have asked the crowds to stop screaming. Seeing them perform live with Billy Preston and an orchestra would have been fantastic. There didn't even need to be a tour , they could just have done a few live giant performances in a city. There is no giant myth that gets shattered. They can sing live, they can play their instruments live, they write great songs. They can ask Clapton to come down and play on while my guitar gently weeps or John could do a concert with Yoko and have her scream her head off and sing badly which is what he chose to do because he felt like it.

lmao..

None would like to be exposed to Yoko screams if only knew about it ! Saw once beautiful duet Lennon/Chuck Berry performance got almost entirely destroyed by her screams ! Well luckily they switched off her mic for next song after initial schock !

I agree completely Zoran

***** He was probably thinking, "I hope rock 'n roll didn't inspire or evolve into this shit."

I would subject him to just that. Have him sit on Yoko's knee for a bit. Elvis could give her a pedicure and a deep tissue massage. Clapton could just gently weep with his guitar all the while.

been there..done it..watched it all go away...went from truly unique originals and killer covers we made our own (Dead and Zeppelin) to 80s top forty pop hits..It CAN happen

Not only chicks do this; bringing the wrong buddy in, or more often, another band member brings a buddy in, and soon enough... Things can start changing. With producers too, then can get in there and get up one guys butt and screw the other fellers and boom... fuckin' stepped on the magic and kilt 'er.

Dead on

it was merely one factor.

Uh, no. The band was deteriorating before she came into the studio. It's well documented in interviews. John wanted to quit the band after Brian Epstein died. Ringo left the White Album sessions. George threatened to quit on and off.

I would add Paul as a brilliant tunesmith/musician/vocalist with no equal.

Don't forget Johns voice. It was sublime.

OK, sublime it is!

txeire greater than the sum of its parts

txeire Paul was ahead of his time.

If you listen to WCH he's not claiming either to be one or that it's a great thing to be; he says "you're still f*** crazy/peasants as far as I can see". Where's the merit in celebrating drudgery? I'm no lennonomane, far from it, but he's just saying how he feels, good for him! I agree with him too - that's why I'm an office penpusher rather than an internationally adored rockstar: touring's a drag.

I see what you did there

So true. When Yoko sat next to him, he bashed The Beatles, Paul, George, George Martin, and everybody that didn't bow down to her. When he was away from her influence, and could be himself, no need to slag off everybody, he admired Paul, The Beatles, the old gang, etc. As soon as he was back with Yoko, all the negativity started again.

+Water Falls yoko said that he told her that he missed the Beatles lol

"...yoko said that he told her that he missed the Beatles lol" He also told her he wanted to reunite with Paul but she said "Hell no!" Nowadays she says "John would think this...John would want you to buy this globe to color to continue his message of world peace. (and keep me rich.)..John would like that"

Ed Collins __Well now MDC couldn't have done that. She was too busy NOT being glued to John's side like usual. She ran faster than speeding bullets making sure that she was not by John's side...besides, MDC was not programmed to shoot anyone BUT John Lennon...then calmly wait for the police to show up, arrest him, and declare that he "...acted alone"...so as not to cast any inconvenient "undue suspicion" on "anyone else.

Geno K Well, I would say if it were down to stating drugs gave him a mental "gray zone" so to speak, it was probably more in his dabbles with herion. And I'm not saying he didn't use LSD or anything like that. He probably did more often than the other band members. But saying 'hundreds' may be a bit of an exaggeration. He was very unsure of how to express himself since he was just a boy. Getting Better was written for the most part about that personal issue. LSD wasn't great for their personal communications when they used it, but probably not what left the most long term effects on John.

littlemissmello Maybe he was a time traveller..haha

true

The audio quality is good too.

I believe it's Geraldo Rivera.

Tells us that nothing changes, just the way it's packaged

Oh, you mean the brief, barely audible few words spoken by the woman? That's right, keep doing this. Dig that hole for yourself. We don't need you.

John was actually the one who quit shortly after the Plastic Ono Band concert at the Toronto Rock Revival Festival in '69, but it wasn't made public due to other business the Beatles had. But even before that, Ringo quit for roughly two weeks during the White Album (Paul drummed on "Back in the USSR" and "Dear Prudence" because of this), and George quit for a short time during the making of Let It Be. Paul was technically the last one to quit, but the first one to quit publicly.

Interesting concept. I assume we're talking movie cinemas? Hmmmm..... I'm wondering if the technology would have existed back in the day? Assuming John had lived, I'm thinking the ideal time for a one off like that would have been the late 1990's.

thank you

3 years doing eight hour sets in Hamburg Germany clubs would tighten up any band.

Mozart1220 They Loved popping those Preludin amphetamine pills in the Hamburg days. They were used to great effect I have to admit! Lol

Their trousers certainly were tight...

Being a "super tight band" is what the Get Back project was all about. Live performances with zero overdubs. That's why the take which was finally chosen as the official studio release for Get Back is as good as it is. So punchy and so dead accurate. Listen to the version of Get Back on Let It Be - Naked to get an idea of just how tight and punchy they really were.

That's as sad as the old guy i seen years ago, his house was full of Errol Flynn pictures, you did not even know John Lennon, he never heard of you or knows you ever lived, hero worship is allways sad, its a false thing, we are all the same with our clothes off

Michelle Rose all correct

Brian Epstein had something to do also

If the Stones were better than the beatles, why did Lennon and McCartney have to write a hit song for them? How many Stones songs did the Beatles do?

The Stones have had 50+ years to reach the Beatles' status they established in just 8. They still haven't.

Saying Jaggers lyrics are better Lennons is a very funny thought. Actually its so funny it does not make me laugh at all.

Rolling Ormond mounted arguments why The Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan's lyrics could be considered better than the Beatles, not me. I Wanna Hold Your Hand, and She Loves You(yeah,yeah,yeah) are hardly on the summit of lyrical achievements, but the melody and beat that goes with them was the real substance of the Beatles explosion.... Yes, it is funny to try to claim that Jagger Richards actually were a better song writing team than Lennon McCartney......., however I think the claim (there are 1000's of words) was that JR's lyrics had more substance than LM's...

History will show The Beatles as the 'Mozart' of our cultural time. Not so much The Stones but thats just by the book historical hulabaloo. If YOU like the Rolling Stones better or like their body of music, then Love them and as such they ARE Greater than The Beatles. That said, you look at how The Beatles evolved and influenced and took in social change and morphed again and COMMUNICATED much more than what was played about with in one particular song by Paul or whatever. The Stones were coat tail artisans, okay. Later their sound matured and have some GREAT songs. But anyone can turn on a documentary on greatest bands or music changing growing evolving etc and most ALL legends of music in their own right says it was when they saw The Beatles on Ed Sullivan and then they knew. The Beatles were an amazing event sociological-like a Mozart ushering in a new chapter of classical composition theory and expression. Their combined and aligned consciousness/awareness/heart was greater than the parts, hence how powerfully influential they were, in ways seldom if ever understood by people who wish to debate phenomenon with subjective convictions assumed to be "right" or "True" in an overall sense. Silly. The Rolling Stones had nothing of a culturally perceived depth or insight on spiritual concerns or morality issues which then created positive change in anything in our society, really. In the Beatles, their essence is literally embedded in their melodic choices, their intention of playing for the song, the content of Love as the undercurrent and so on. I Love The Stones but any deep thinker artisan or shaman can intuitively point to energies powerful and universal of interest on many levels for so many reasons that have such a permanent lasting effect on people and perspective...and they point to what? The Beatles in the top 5. Rolling Stones aren't on any list like that. That's just what IS. For a BAND to have that quality of influential positioning is Incredible and of a deeper Divinely ordained metaphysics where circumstance and synchronicity speak globally, cosmically and with ease. Kids don't dine at the Beggars Banquet.

because she had to soak up as much publicity as she could because she knew she couldn't make good art.

It's called love...duh

themiscellaneousman How can you not know, from Lennon's lyrics and public statements, that it was HE who wanted her around him every moment of every day? He was the lover and she was the beloved -- strange as that may seem to you! _"In the middle of a shave / In the middle of a shave I call your name / Oh, Yoko!"_ Can't even get through his basic morning ablutions without checking to make sure Yoko is hanging on his every word. And before the Beatles broke up, he wanted her IN the band. That's why, every time he _left_ the studio, she followed him -- she couldn't just sit there with Paul, George, and Ringo staring at her!

Ben Culture why wasn't she looking for her daughter? That was why, she said she needed a visa. Poor John, she is a leech

Marie Trebilcock If you read anything about the situation, She and John spent years and tons of money trying to get Kyoko from Tony Cox.

Lennon has stated side B of Abbey Road is "junk"

@@spoopyghost815 And it turned out to be an unintentional masterpiece.

@@radar0412 Definitely Abbey Road wouldn't be my favorite Beatle's album if it wasn't for side B.

@@spoopyghost815 I love that Abbey Road starts with the Traditional Beatles song "Here comes the Sun" with a Phenomenal beginning and a Phenomenal End. And then it takes off with no particular direction in mind. Brilliant.

@@radar0412 It starts the B side with the medley. "Come Together" starts the A Side.

@sabbracadabra Yoko, born in 1933, was from a completely different generation and she never really "got" rock music, especially not the type the Beatles, who were a decade younger, were making. She hit her teens in the 1940's so think about what was happening musically then. We're talking pre-Elvis even. By the 50's she was in her twenties. And by the 60's she was in her thirties. She screamed because she had no talent and it's all she could do was make weird sounds with gusto. Or sing badly. She had no rhythm. it was visibly hard for her to keep the beat with those bongos John provided her with on his stage. But she was desperate for fame so, emboldened by heroin, she just went out there beside John, using his fame, and did what she could.

@sabbracadabra It was all she could do. If anybody today listens to her music, it is for pretense, not pleasure.

I'm sure their split would have been a lot less bitter, and they probably would have collaborated on projects together.

I agree, she put a spell.

You're a delusional. hateful misinformed idiot. Where do morons like you get this fantasy bullshit from? Jeez, it's like you make it up whole cloth from inside your empty deprived rattling craniums. What a pile of shit. Paul, George and Ringo have said since the early 70s that Yoko had nothing to do with the breakup of the band. They all just grew up and were exhausted from all the constant madness which is basically what you heard John say hear. A CIA handler? Are you for real? You're a confused twerp.

+1 The primary reason for the dissolution of the Beatles was money and management. After Brian Epstein died, Lennon later admitted, "we were fucked". The band fought over who should be their new manager. Paul wanted his father-in-law and the rest of the group adamently disagreed, preferring Rolling Stones manager Allen Klein. They fought over everything, beginning with Paul's idea of a "Magical Mystery Tour" to those "Let It Be" sessions in that cold studio (minus George Martin) with Paul practically dictating the album note by note. Both George and Ringo walked out of these session--the Beatles were more or less finished.

One last thing--Let It Be was actually NOT their final album. Abbey Road was the last studio album they recorded, but was released before Let It Be.

That and Faul, Mr. Son Of The Magickian facilitated the whole thing. Incica Art Gallery. Ladder spell. Though she claims she didn't know who the Beatles were lol.

+Leo B That's right, women should know their place.

+Greg Benson That's not what I meant, but you shouldn't speak if you ain't got nothing to say, John Lennon wrote those songs, not Yoko Ono.

That should apply to typing as well.

+Leo B That's because she was pushy.....she was an interloper from the first time they met. That her screeching could ever have been considered music is a stretch.

+Leo B So, she's got something to interject, big deal! Not as if there aren't other people whose interjections you wouldn't want to hear.

Lennon created the "Beatles tension" himself. Drugs and his own psychological problems gave him a delusion of persecution. What he really needed at that time was the Betty Ford Clinic (non-existant at that time) and a good therapist.

no it's not

Okay, then what is it? You tell me. How old are you? Have you ever even hear of a Fender Six before?

And for the record, do a quick reference on "Wikipedia, Let It Be, song" and read the personnel and instrumentation for yourself. The picture above with him holding the instrument should be enough to prove it but the Wikipedia reference seals it. Case closed.

Looks like a fender jaguar. Those tunders wouldn't be able to hold the tension of bass strings. cheers

Yes, looks like but isn't. I'm a musician and have owned Fender basses and guitars since the early '70s, including the Fender Six. John's guitar of choice at the time the above photo was taken was his hollow body Epiphone. So if he was playing guitar at the time, he'd be holding the Epiphone. The Fender Six is the same guitar Joe Perry used to record Aerosmith's Back In The Saddle. It's referred to as a bass but is actually a baritone guitar. "Tunders"? You must have meant "tuners". Well, the string gauges are lighter than a regular bass guitar and are specially designed for the Fender Six, for instance the low E measures .084 rather than .110 for a regular bass.

Andrew Russell I think Lennon envied Paul, that's why he trashed him every chance he got. Lennon nailed some stuff but Paul was always the more capable singer and instrumentalist. As lyricists and composers they were always more or less at the same level, although I personally prefer Paul's songs.

D Rinkydoodle Paul DID NOT trash John during the Beatles years, only after. John started trashing and condescending Paul some time they were making Pepper.

I hate to say it but sometimes Paul's stuff can just be annoying. I don't why but there it is. It's hummable but Christ ...

Andrew Russell Like which songs?

+John Smith Just about anything he did after the Beatles but I have never been impressed by the mini suite he did on side 2 of Abbey Road or really even parts of Pepper or White Album. I suspect that once he took over control of the Beatles post Brian's death he allowed his interest in crafting this sort of Cabaretesque Broadway Sing Song Sing Along BS to overwhelm his artisitic sense. As he matured he struck me as a sort of slightly less obnoxious Billy Joel. Someone who rarely writes a great song but for the most part writes very hummable and very forgettable horse crap that says absolutely nothing. As I like to say there is "no ART in the Artist".

It was exactly as you are perceiving. Its like everyone hating Obama when its Zbigniew Brzezinski and cabinet who supervise and inform our chocolate puppet-in-chiefs-briefs.

It wasn't love, it was dependence. He regressed and became a child, she became his mother. Besides herself, I doubt that Yoko Ono has ever been capable of loving anything.

They were only together about a decade, the same amount of time he was with Cynthia. Except Yoko had to stalk him for a year while he resisted, and finally invade his marital home just to push him to leave his marriage to Cynthia. Actually he never did -- it was Cynthia who left him. And John and Yoko split a bunch of times, the longest for a year and a half, only two years into their marriage. Doesn't sound like love to me. At all. It sounds like a messy stalking situation that got out of hand.

Indeed, toxic love

Yoko ono No! No!

all girls in japan , are named yoko

CrankCase08 you can’t invalidate someones struggles just because you “have it worse”. That’s not how it works

I think by “torture” he meant that it felt meaningless to perform with a bunch of screaming people expecting you to show up as God and Buddha and Jesus all at the same time and you couldn’t hear yourself or each other nor could they improve. But I hear ya about the torture of every day life. It’s just that nobody comes and interviews us about that. What we do and produce in every day life matters too.

@@ARichardP Try reading his interview with Rolling Stone magazine. It's a constant narcissistic whinge about how hard done by he's been in the music industry.

@@lukepepper3949 Oh poor rich-boy John Lennon! If life was so bad for him he could have easily given it all up for a quiet one, but chose not to so that he could continue to tell us all what a hard life he had while raking in all that money.

@@CrankCase08 I agree with you - albeit reluctantly because I truly do admire Lennon the musician and songwriter. But geezus his post Beatle interviews were hard work. I always felt drained when I listened to them, and I've been listening to them in real time for a long time now. Paul is very charming, and Ringo is super funny, and George was deliciously dry. But John was just plain hard work in most of his interviews I find.

Jeez...

John died in 1980

If that's true (and no reason not to think it is) well that does point to what many have always suspected - namely, there was something inherently unhealthy about their relationship from beginning to end. Kudos to Paul for being so discreet and magnanimous all these years.

@@ivanjulian2532 Paul has said that before they broke up. John was trying to get the other three. To make Yoko the fifth Beatle. With a equal share in the corporation.

@Michael H. No, there is no evidence of that. I mean , let's be realistic, Elvis was "Buzzed" when he traveled to the White House, and was telling the President every thing "Nixon " wanted to hear.

agreed

+Selwyn Katz The Beatles + Billy Preston = a match made in heaven.

+Selwyn Katz Paul didn't dissolve the band. John had known for months he was leaving but Alan Klein told him to keep it quiet until they had signed a new record deal. John blurted it out at a meeting that he wanted a divorce from the group . Paul happened to be the one who said they were not recording, but NOWHERE is it documented that he broke up the band. In his statement he left the door open to reunite and record again, but the papers focused only on the fact that the Beatles were presently not together. He got blamed for something he didn't do or want. He was the one who was devastated when they split. John was his best friend/brother, and they weren't communicating in that time after Abbey Road was released. Billy Preston was brought in on the Let It Be sessions to keep the Beatles from killing each other. They wouldn't play out their animosities in front of an "outsider", and they kept him on keyboard on Abbey Road.

...wishfull thinking on my part...?????

+Selwyn Katz For all of us... :) I just googled Billy Preston, and it was George that brought him in. George had temporarily left the group because of all the fighting, saw Billy and asked him to record with them. Billy didn't want to because nobody performed with the Beatles. As it turned out Billy Preston got credit on Get Back - the only performer ever to get credit on a single. At one point John wanted him in the group, but Paul had said that 4 of them couldn't agree, and how could they bring in someone else. Interesting.....

After George brought Billy in John soon made another decision to make the group stronger by having Billy join. Interesting that John made a similar decision when deciding to bring in Paul, then George. That Paul somehow forgets this, dismisses John's proposal outright, and John doesn't assert himself over his own group is revealing.

+Powertuber1000 and???

kwenzini Did you have a question?

+Powertuber1000 yep......and with their depends on .....rather sad

JustineLaLoba Why is it nobody is making any sense on this thread.

I guess they Win !

I pretty much agree with you on the best. Not my favorite band, actually don't listen to them too much. But they had such a huge influence on rock, unlike any other band before them, or since. And you can listen to them today, and their stuff doesn't seem dated.

Not only were they the best. They invented it all. Things that everyone takes for granted nowadays, didn't exist when they started playing. A band with a drummer, bass player and two guitars, who also sang and wrote their songs just didn't exist . And that's not getting into what they did music-wise, lyrics-wise, fashion-wise... They were revolutionary.

You speak from a completely different perspective. The myth is what you, and the rest of the billions, heard and saw. The reality, from being a part of the band, is what you hear from John here. They will probably never be eclipsed in terms of their songwriting and impact, but basically they were four regular young lads from Liverpool. The myth is created by the media, the hype, the endless analysis of the songs, their meaning and the band's personal life, the endless questions and interviews, etc. etc. etc. But they were simply four human beings thrown into the craziest whirlwind for a very brief period in time. The touring years is really what Lennon's talking about here, and if you've ever been in a band, you can only begin to imagine the level of intensity they experienced. Tragically, what wasn't a myth is the fact that Lennon, the founder and most interesting, creative and peace-loving humanitarian member was taken from this earth first. And I mean no disrespect to any of the other band members by that, especially not the wonderful George Harrison.

No they didn't invent it all; that's just hype. They took Buddy Holly's guitar-bass-drums band set-up and his original songwriting model as their template, including his use of strings and double-tracking on pop records. Then they took Dylan's deeper songwriting to go beyond the simplistic boyband lyrics they were writing. San Fran brought the psychedelic scene which inspired Pepper, the heavier rock of Hendrix and the Who made them go heavier on the White Album, the Band went back to roots-rock on Big Pink, inspiring the Get Back sessions, etc. About the only things they actually innovated was backwards tape loops and sampling. Those were big innovations, but the rest were things that had already been done. The rest is handed-down overhype.

Wrong. They didn't take Buddy Holly's set up as template, even if they said they did. Had the Crickets been on the same level as performers as Buddy Holly that would be true, but it wasn't The Crickets. It was "Buddy Holly AND The Crickets", who were just a backing band. In the Beatles everyone sang, including Ringo. A band like The Beatles, with everyone singing at least one song, and three of them songwriting just didn't exist before, no matter how hard you try to find one. Songwriting wise, it's true that (as everyone does) they based their initial songs on Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, etc. The key is that they took the basic rock and roll songwriting somewhere else. "Please Please Me", "She Loves You", "From Me to You", "I Want to Hold your hand"...in those initial songs they had already broken the rock and roll Buddy Holly Chuck Berry mould to create something unique and original. Their harmonies are completely different from the 12 bar blues, they used minor chords, distinctive intros and cadences. Yes, they were influenced by everything and everyone, and transforming those influences into something new and original. Take psychedelia. You mention San Francisco bands. Well, actually The Byrds from Los Angeles , were heavylly influenced by the Beatles, including Roger McGuinn's Rickenbacker 12 string, which he heard on A Hard day's Night. You can argue "If I Neeeded Someone" is George Harrison influenced by the Byrds, when but it's the other way round. Dylan influenced Lennnon's songwriting ("You've got to Hide your Love Away") and in turn The Beatles influenced Dylan to abandon acoustic folk and go electric, but again by "Rubber Soul", John Lennon created something new with "Norwegian Wood". To say that they just invented tape loops is ridiculous. That they totally took from Stockhausen.

poetsonthesidewalk One simple reason you are a moron. You were born. Nothing more, nothing less. If everyone around the Beatles, including the four themselves say Yoko had nothing to do with the breakup, why do YOU know more?

Mozart1220 Well said Mozart1220. And as if The Beatles gave a fuck what people thought. The Beatles owed the world NOTHING.

joseph raccuia But for 4 years they gave their all, and still the world wanted more and more and more...

Mikal gastright "The kids gave their money, their devotion, and their screams, but WE gave up our nervous systems" ---George Harrison

Mozart1220 I'm SURE about that. GREAT QUOTE! TY! Imagine in going from playing every night in relative anonymity and 9 months later going to where the WHOLE WORLD wanted a piece of them, while they went from airport to hotel room, to the stage and back and repeat for almost 4 years, while churning out that GREAT ROCK and ROLL MUSIC! To me, no 2 songs EVER sounded the same. They were and are the only band to achieve that non-sound sound!

Finally...somebody else knows this. TY Also like to add that the material on "Abbey Road" (John's in particular) would have been on his solo album,(had they split then) but Paul talked him into keeping The Beatles together and the material got used on "Abbey Road" instead. Also the change in management/with and to Eastman(which ALL were not happy with or about except Paul, which was his idea or Linda's?). And when "Let it Be" (the Spector mess) was reproduced, mixed released is when Paul announced he was leaving the band...and that caused a lot of friction between the two (John and Paul) and then Paul released his solo album...which in turn pissed John off for wasting his material on what would have been on his solo album. That's just my understanding of the ending of The Beatles. Correct me if i am wrong.

Isn't let it be the last recorded album? Abby road was just the last released.

AnalTacoBell Abbey Road was the last recorded and Let it Be was the last released. The numbering of the albums was according to release date, so Let it Be was #12 and Abbey Road was #11, even though Abbey Road was recorded last.

Many thanks, Adrian - I've been searching everywhere to find what model of Fender that is

moggiee1 Well, now you know! It's a six string bass that looks a lot like a guitar.

It is based on the Fender Jaguar body...and, it even has a vibrato bar. The strings aren't as heavy gauge as most bass guitars. BTW, I think that one was George's, later pinched by John. LOL

ShikataGaNai100 Also a fun fact: it is said that John sabotaged 'The long and winding road', which was recorded with that very Fender VI.

I'd be surprised if that's actually true Adrian - there had to be many songs one of them wrote that the other didn't like, but to 'sabotage' the recording? I'd like to look into this further........

Yeah, it's not like Yesterday is the most covered song of all time, or Hey Jude ALWAYS ranks either first or second in polls for greatest song of all time (alternating with Stairway to heaven).

Mozart1220 Hey I didn't say McCartney sucked. He was a great song writer but he tended to right catchier moon and june type stuff. I just think Lennon wrote deeper music that to my older and now more sophisticated (I hope) ears holds up to repeated listenings whereas McCartney now comes across as sort of a muscular Barry Manilow. I feel the same way about Brian Wilson who I think was also better than McCartney. There is just something more going on with Lennon's and Wilson's stuff. McCartney is more linear and thus, after awhile, less listenable to me. As an aside how does someone using "Mozart" not see this?

Andrew Russell Because I chose the name back in the old "AOL" days when I was looking for a handle and the movie "Amedeus" came on. But fair enough, I understand your thinking. Besides, you complemented my musical hero (and McCartney's ) Brian Wilson. For that you get added consideration. Did you know that McCartney's favorite song is "God Only Knows"? He also gives copies of "Pet Sounds" to anyone he meets who hasn't got one. Like "required listening"

Ha! Paul let John, George and Ringo be side men in his band for years........until they all started whining about Paul wanting to arrange the music, something he had actually been doing for years anyway. As far as talent I see no comparison between Paul and the other Beatles. The other Beatles needed Paul more than he needed them.