SURVEY RESULTS 10 Reasons The Beatles Broke Up |

[@SparkyNarwhal]

I think the hardest part about this is that, to me, it seems like almost every one of these reasons were in play but were more like dominoes in the bands eventual demise.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Yes, that is a good way to put it.

[@Octavian7771]

It comes down to John. John was a deeply insecure person who needed to be continuously encouraged by underlings in order to feel good about himself. Alan Lein and Yolo Ono were his emotional lackey's. He was insecure that Paul was more consistent, energetic and prolific. He didn't want to further empower Paul with Paul's choice for management. And John was also on hard drugs, and deeply subservient to his need for his surrogate mother Yolo. It didn't help that George, with his need to be as highly regarded as John and Paul, was continuously poisoning the well with his sour attitude.

[@Give-a-foot]

Don’t you mean, “Yawn Oh-No here she goes again?”

[@luisleija]

Wow, you read my mind 100% agree

[@joegordon2915]

The fact that The Beatles were talking about breaking up in the Get Back series, before John met with Allen Klein, leads me to believe Allen Klein was much less a factor than people think. However, John did sign with him knowing Paul had reservations, so to me, that is more in the John category. Also, it was John who used Yoko as a wedge between him and Paul and him and the band, so again I put that more in the John category.

[@gaoldias]

There are a number of reasons among the 10 that only happen if Brian dies (which, of course, he did). That's why I put the loss of Brian in first place because that was the catalyst for a few of the other reasons which don't even happen if he lives. It was huge when he passed away. John lost a big brother/father figure. Paul stepped up in the void to be the organizer, which grated on everyone's nerves. Klein appeared and filled the management void. Yoko was allowed to do things that Brian would likely have not approved of. To me, a lot of what happened in 1968 and 1969 is directly attributable to Brian's death.

[@mickola1]

Sounds like the domino effect, seems about right

[@MrDaiseymay]

@@mickola1 iF Paul ''Hadn't stepped up'' etc---then -who? .The other three had already been conned by that crook Klein; when paul was shown the 'deal,' he immediately recognised it ,for what it was proven to be, a hoist of the beatles total music output. THIS alone caused the greatest breakup. Yoko was also a major factor in the animosity. I think John fealt he was no longer a major contributer to the groups output. Paul was far more at home in the Studio, creating new ideas musically and technically. John wondered off into Yokos world. George aired his greivances , and fealt less involved, and looked for new trails to tread, Ringo was torn between it all. As for Brians death, maybe he thought his job was done, and no longer had a role to play, The Beatles had stopped touring, and appearing, so his main job was gone. Advice and direction came more from George Martin. in the studio.

[@mickola1]

@@MrDaiseymay agreed

[@91dodgespiritrt]

Brian Epstein was a limp-wristed irrelevant "trick". Nothing more. The Beatles didn't need him at all. He needed them.

[@mikedl1105]

Brian died, Paul became a control freak, and John rebelled. Once John and Paul stopped collaborating, The Beatles were done

[@itsthemurph6008]

The Get Back doc made me feel like John started the breakup but was indecisive about whether he really wanted out or not. And George made it clear that it’d be impossible to keep on long term.

[@alexhatfield2987]

I really do love the way you combine a certain presentation style and engage with your audience, whilst using a very thoughtful approach to try to screen out any unconscious bias when examining what were significant cultural events many decades ago. I lived in London in the swinging-sixties and this channel reignites my passion for that era. Cheers mate!

[@popgoesthe60s52]

That is a very nice thing to hear, Alex - thank you! More to come.

[@bobcattom5997]

I've always felt Brian was pivotal to both the success and the eventual breakup of the band, and glad the survey reflects that. While he didn't have the same level of influence after the touring years, you could still tell things were never quite the same with the band after his passing

[@91dodgespiritrt]

And you would be wrong. Brian Epstein was a limp-wristed irrelevant "trick". Nothing more. The Beatles didn't need him at all. He needed them.

[@chirickt1401]

As anyone who has ever been in a band can tell you, you just get sick of each others egos, and this band wrote the book on egos. It was inevitable. The fact that they were so enormous, it made the possibilities of any full reunion nearly impossible. I look forward to your review of solo material. I would urge you to reconsider Chaos and Creation and Memory Almost Full. I challenge anyone to compare any of Pauls contemporaries, Dylan, Bowie, The Stones, The Who whomever, that has managed to stay as fresh and relevant as he has throughout they years.

[@nuwavedave]

That's very true. I was leader and principle songwriter of a band that ran our course years ago. Recently, I proposed remastering our recordings. Next thing I know, two members released a finshed album without my final input. This power play became a very heated argument - and I was kicked off my own project. Hopefully, we can work it out and reconcile, but every band has variations of the same Battle of Bruised Egos.

[@DAVYMAC]

Good comments but I disagree that they wrote the book on egos. People seem to forget that about a year (approximately) before Yoko met John she had approached Paul for the same reason she approached John. She did not like Paul's rejection for whatever the reason. I believe the way she treated Julian and the way she brutality ripped him off says a lot about her true VENGEFUL SPIRIT AND PERSONALITY. We all know how much influence she had on John - very manipulative that woman. If my comments step on anyones women's rights flag.......

[@chirickt1401]

@@DAVYMAC Im no Ono fan, and it bugs me to no end that Pauls solo work gets trashed while Johns Two Virgins, et al, are given a pass. That being said, John chose her, Georges snobbery regarding enlightenment, and Pauls ambition, and assertiveness, all had factors in their split. Thats my reference to ego. Not that its bad....its really the norm. The Stones and the Who are really the only two groups that stayed together sort of, but thats only because thats really because none of them had the goods to keep relevant as solo artists, or they probably would've.

[@DAVYMAC]

@@chirickt1401 Great response brother, and you are so right about how Paul's solo and Wings music has been downplayed. I have heard people (hardcore political leftists all of them) say Paul's music is just silly tunes and "silly love songs". In fact an interviewer directly asked Paul --"how do you feel about people saying John writes serious songs about social and American injustice and you Paul just write silly love songs?" This prompted Paul to write"Silly Love Songs." That song went straight to number 1 on the music charts . Also if had to choose between George's SOLO songs vs Ringo's SOLO songs I would choose Ringo's SOLO songs. George did have great albums no doubt. You have great comments ChiRickT!

[@DocDoccus]

I'm surprised no one mentioned the loss of Leggy Mountbatten as the cause for the breakup.

[@SurferJoe1]

I think it was bits of everything in your ten, and I would concur on number eleven as well: George is a surprisingly consistent source on tension in "Get Back", to me he provides more tension than Yoko. And Klein would go on to be the murder weapon, of course. But Ringo had the best summing-up comment I've ever heard: "We just weren't willing to work that hard for each other any more."

[@Sp33gan]

A great subject, Matt, and I'm glad to see you've gotten a good number of responses. In reality, no divorce can be attributed to any one single problem. All of these example reasons are valid and all are, in their own way, contributors to the breakup.

[@mozart9991]

Cheers on another great video - I was one of those who suggested George as another reason among many, so thanks for including us. I hadn't commented on "taking a break", but I think that is another huge reason. Imagine if The Beatles had done a kind of "Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young" approach during the 70's, with each of them making solo albums but coming together as well to make band albums! Of course, 'Get Back' revealed George suggesting to John and Yoko that HE make a solo album but also "preserve the Beatles' thing" and Paul, apparently when he saw that footage for the first time circa 2020, commented that if HE'd known George had proposed that, things might have been different. The failure to "take a break", however, I kind of lay at Paul's feet, so for me I'd file that under Paul as a reason. I mean, they were The Beatles, there was no need to continue to make two albums a year and no one was going to forget The Beatles if they took a year off, no need to give audiences "a visual thing" to stay in their minds, etc - consider how bands today release albums once every few years (Radiohead, etc.). Ringo even mentions in Anthology how he and John would be relaxing in the garden and the phone would go and they'd know it was Paul trying to get them in the studio. That's another thing to consider as John is on record more than once saying that by the late 60's he couldn't keep up with Paul's writing pace and got sick of trying. Of course, we see this is 'Get Back', as well. Do we place that as a reason for Paul or for John having led to the break-up? John's jealousy? Or Paul's refusal to edit what he brought to the band (again, Paul having a solo album output could've helped here)? All the best.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you for taking part, Moz!

[@bjornerikroth]

For being so close, their lack of actual communication seems baffling sometimes.

[@Tom-el5cq]

Some very interesting results here, Matt. I think most of the additional reasons suggested would fall under band or group dynamics, nevertheless a very interesting topic. You seem to have no shortage of them! Getting the viewers involved is also a great idea. Would enjoy seeing more collaborations with Heaton too. Thanks for giving all of us a chance to “weigh in”!

[@popgoesthe60s52]

My pleasure, Tom. John and I will probably do something in the next couple of months, so stay tuned!

[@MrJeffers06]

Everything got so complicated after Brian died . I always look forward to your videos.

[@malcolmharing3744]

Great survey. Thanks for the insight. I don't think the other guys were happy , or perhaps they weren't letting it show when John broke the pact they had to not allow girlfriends into the studio while they worked. Therefore, I'm saying Yoko was , in my opinion, instrumental (no pun) in the break-up. Yes, I know that the guys have all said otherwise, but I believe they were being gentlemen by not admitting it publicly. This may have given them a good reason to seek other ways to disband without blaming John or her . I personally never liked her presence when the boys were shown together. Anyway, there she was , everywhere John went, including the studio. And please don't call her a musician , not even an avant-garde one.

[@kabiam]

Breaking up was the best thing they could of done.The fact they have a legacy that epitomises the 1960's and no one came close to them. The fact they had done as a foursome pretty much all the could do without sacrificing integrity. The bands that kept going are no better off than The Beatles. Better to go out at the top than to burn out slowly.

[@elirosen1391]

One other person who might have had a hand in their breakup was Magic Alex. He told lies to John about the Maharishi and made him decry the whole meditation excursion as nonsense. I imagine that caused a rift between him and George. And don't get me started about his monstrous excuse of a mixing desk he "designed" for EMI.

[@drummer78]

Judging by the poll, 3 of the top 4 reasons revolve around John (John himself, Klein and Yoko). As you indicated, I think it’s true that “As John goes;so do The Beatles”. Also, no matter what miserable/contentious business divides the group had in 1969, I do think Paul genuinely still believed in the band and he still loved being in a band. However, there is evidence John and George may have lost a bit of faith in The Beatles and were more than willing to envision life without The Beatles. In other words, I can’t picture Paul telling John he was “daft” if somehow in September of 1969, John proposed The Beatles play live again. I think Paul was always willing to keep the band going despite the business issues and even the personal ones as Paul did try to accommodate Yoko even if he was conflicted.

[@Kieop]

Yeah, except that Paul's plan of doing small clubs and starting from scratch to "rebuild" the essence of the band WAS daft (and was proposed mainly for his own psychological reasons -- though he probably believed it could also "heal" the band). You can't go backwards. John knew that if the Beatles were to tour again they would have to go bigger, not smaller. John was not against performing live. The Toronto Rock and Roll festival PROVED that. Also, he very clearly states in Get Back that the only reason he agreed to THAT project was the opportunity to play live. However, I don't think John was prepared to tour on the scale that he believed The Beatles would have to play in order to stay relevant in the 70s. It's unfortunate, that being John, he merely mocked Paul rather than discussing the issue. But there you go, poor communication strikes again.

[@Wolf-Spirit_Alpha-Sigma]

Wow. I didn't expect the survey to be almost exactly the same as what I picked, including #11 (which surprised me the most). I guess Beatles fans think alike. I've been a Beatle maniac for the last 25 years, so I'd like to imagine I know a thing or three about them, but I would never claim to be objective about their careers. But, in the end, the music is what matters the most. That was fun, Matt. Thanks.

[@mozart9991]

'Maxwell's Silver Hammer' came down upon their heads?! 🤣

[@egrono1]

Reason 11: They responded to a survey suggesting that they break up. True fact!

[@cygnusx-1318]

I just took the survey back on that page and a couple months late, and then came here. I agree with the top four more-or-less in that order. Good job, people!

[@alesi257]

Wow, this was fascinating. The best and most interesting answer outside of the top 10 is the one saying that John didn’t mean to break up the Beatles but made a power play and things went too far; this reason lines up with making Paul the principal culprit, because the moment things went too far is when Paul put out his departure statement in April 70 and then sued the Beatles in December 1970 to literally break up the band (legally). Before either of those things, there wasn’t much stopping the Beatles getting back together anytime they wanted after putting out their solo albums.

[@prettyshinyspaghetti8332]

I agree. That would explain very well why John suddenly was very vocally open to The Beatles putting out more work in 1970 before Paul released his album. Maybe that was his way of telling Paul that he didn't mean to make his divorce announcement, given that Paul was unreachable at the time. And then John's comment that Paul isn't getting his way so he's causing havoc, pretty much dismissing The Beatles break up

[@AC-gw4qu]

John had already left the band, six months before Paul's announcement. And Klein and not even telling Paul about Phil Spector were the last straws. The Beatles left Paul, Paul didn't leave the Beatles.

[@wendiwonderly1419]

Without Allen Klein they would have parted on much better terms, leaving the door open for future projects

[@bjornerikroth]

Paul makes the case that the decision in May 1969 to overrule him 3-to-1 making Klein their de-facto manager was the crack that never healed again. And I'm inclined to believe him. For all Paul's bossiness, this was a power move of the first order that could only have been instigated by John.

[@bjornerikroth]

@@AC-gw4qu I guess the question is if John was ready to backtrack on that in 1970. Paul claims he called John telling him he was finished too, John commenting "that makes two of us", or something to that effect. I don't think there's any written or tangible evidence of what John really thought about "re-forming" the Beatles in spring 1970.

[@ramblingsadrift6477]

When the 60's ended the revolution was over.The music reflected such. It was simply time. Besides Klein and The Eastmans, The four were about to embark on their personal lives

[@michael.in.taiwan]

it was fun to hear all the feedback. The only bone I'll pick with your list, Matt, is that I don't think it was legit to consider Brian's death or the cessation of touring as factors leading to the break-up. The band stayed together for three or four years after those events, during which they produced a great deal of work --- three or four albums, a number of singles, two films, and started a business. One could just as easily argue that the events cited prompted the band to stay together and work harder (not that I'm making that case either). Regardless, I enjoyed all your commentary over the video series.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you for the feedback. I was attempting to cover all the bases. The Beatles themselves really put a lot of emphasis on the touring ending and death of Brian. To omit them would have caught the wrath of the Beatles throng!

[@zachespinoza1794]

The moment we've been waiting for! Thank you for all you do!!!

[@juliatutor8099]

Terry Tutor here....I agree ...John Lennon...If John wanted the band to continue, they would have....

[@dhpbear2]

9:28 - One of my first Beatles 'misheard' lyrics: " 'cause I couldn't stand the PAINT." :)

[@LSU01]

Matt, interesting take with survey . the Beatles were very a very complicated entity and there were many , many circumstances that occurred that moved them into splitting up. Your survey questions are a great starting point as to why they spit.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thanks for the feedback :)

[@IrTehDrOddball]

In his more recent interviews, Paul has gone on record saying that it was John who broke up the Beatles. Which was different than the answers he and the others had given post-break up like (the band had come full circle, leaving the army analogy, going out on top, etc). Those were more general reasons given perhaps to save face for PR purposes, but at the end of the day it was John who had said that he wanted a ‘divorce’ in that last meeting of September 1969. All these other ancillary reasons aren’t necessarily wrong and helped contribute, but I believe the nitty and gritty of it boils down to John leaving the band to do his own thing with Yoko. Thanks for the great video Matt

[@vicbertfartingclack4559]

I’ve never thought there was any one, specific reason. … like Yoko. Although the death of Brian was like pulling the pin from the grenade. The rot set in as George once put it. The fact that there are even as many as 10 valid, and mostly related factors suggests to me - it was just finally the time. Unless all four wanted to be there what’s the point? John and George had enough. Paul was pushing. Ringo maybe didn’t care either way. Not the recipe for success in a group like The Beatles.

[@MrGman2804]

Matt, fascinating to hear these results. The channel is excellent. You do it very well. 👍

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you, MrGman!

[@thomasschiller404]

From a "meta" standpoint, much of this really comes down to Group Dynamics. The surveyed "causes" (John, Paul, Yoko, End of Touring, Allen Klein, etc.) are all subsumed into how they related to each other as the Beatles evolved over time.

[@barbbowen3572]

Very interesting results, Matt...bit surprised that Mr Macca was so low on the Survey tho...John called Paul the "People Pleaser", their PR Spokesman...It's part of the "Magical Mystery"!...Put on the Albums, CDs or any UTube Channel, ('specially Matt's! 👍) & there THEY Are!!!...So, quoting "Uncle Albert"...The Kettles on the Boil & I'm so easily drawn Away!...Take Good Care Matt!...😀🤗👍...

[@NDFlyFisher]

I think it is most certainly a combination of these many factors. Life changed immensely for all four in many ways including musically. Society also changed. They moved away from being young and friends, maybe not by choice but because that’s his life works. We see this with other bands and friendships and relationships in our own lives. I also think egos played a fairly significant role. As their music matured and times changed,their senses of self vs. group increased. The initial cohesiveness of the group was not as embedded in their behaviors.

[@nomehdrider]

Great job Matt, I can't remember how I voted, but the top three listed seem solid

[@68024]

I laughed at the Maxwell's Silver Hammer / Cold Turkey suggestion 😂

[@juanmarte3298]

MATT ,GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD VIDEO .I THOUGHT THAT YOU WAS SUPPOSED TO MAKE A VIDEO OF TWO UNRELEASED BEATLES ALBUM , THE DECCA TAPES AND THE 1985 SESSIONS ALBUM ?.

[@NorsePJ]

I think George Harrison was far from the reason being that he spoke to John Lennon during the Get Back sessions saying how he wanted to record an album of his songs, just to get them done but continue doing Beatles' stuff as well. John and Yoko both thought it was a good idea. Paul didn't hear this but has said that he wished he had. Maybe things would have then been different.

[@richbailey8174]

Another great podcast and great work!

[@whathappenedtothem_]

I loved this series! I like how you think out of the box for some of your videos! I can’t wait to see what’s in store!

[@johnyacovazzi8873]

Interesting that people suggest George Harrison. I think his emergence as a songwriter definitely created some animosity, particularly from Paul. John always seemed receptive to George's songs in the Get Back documentary footage, whereas Paul seemed more reluctant to recognize George as an equal songwriter and share the spotlight. Your prior video about the Beatles NOT rejecting All Things Must Pass was eye opening for me, as I was always under the impression that George's songs were swept aside and not given equal consideration. Great video as always Matt!

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you, John!

[@HarryTakagi]

Hello. That's a wonderful consideration! I have been a Beatles fan in Japan, for 40 years since I was born. I think the main reason is the power balance between the three of them. A band full of talented people wears out quickly like Cream and early Byrds. They were exceptionally talented (not passive talent.). The second reason is huge success. It entangles each other. If there was a band like The Beatles today, they would have been smarter. For example they could work with their side projects. Thanks.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Hi Harry, thank you for the comment!

[@70PaulK]

Glad that you shared the answers with us. A follow up topic could focus on how they might have been able to reform in the 1980s had John survived. Would they have toured, would the songs have been Lennon/McCartney and would they have achieved commercial & critical success?

[@kulturkriget]

Yeah, not taking a break could be number one even. As the Glass Onion guy said, "a Beatles year is like five normal years" or something like that. Such an extremely intensive period in every way. I would have broken down already back in Hamburg tbh. I guess the pills helped a bit, but that might also be the reason for them not taking a break.

[@halwiseman9420]

Although I agree with all (expect the last one) of the reasons that you'd listed, I think that truly reason the Beatles truly broke up was the meeting that John, Paul and George had in early September 1969 and they couldn't agree on following up Abbey Road.

[@robertmarley8321]

Hey Matt, thanks for this video. I, too, was surprised that Brian's death was the most popular choice. When I think about it, I think that John and George Harrison both outgrew the whole Beatle's thing. By the way, I really liked your last house's aura more than the new one. Anyway, I hope you're settling in well. Rob from Melbourne, Australia.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you, Rob - more to come!

[@GonzoDuke]

I love the idea of revisiting the survey and hope to see others over the years.

[@MarkK-hs1xc]

The myriad of reasons for the breakup are often stated. But clearly Lennon was always looking for something else to do. The Maureen Cleeve article (March 1966) that brought "we're more popular than Jesus," also contained a somewhat inflammatory hit on immigrants at Julian's school ("I feel sorry for him (Julian). I couldn't stand ugly people even when I was five. Lots of the ugly ones are foreign, aren't they?") but ended with Lennon at that stage saying he was searching for something else beyond the Beatles and music: "You see, there's something else I'm going to do, something I must do -- only I don't know what it is. That's why I go round painting and taping and drawing and writing and that, because it may be one of them. All I know is, this isn't it for me."

[@joeshmoe7789]

Stress, which is related to taking a break. It amazes me the amount of pictures of them that seem to come out all the time. Recording sessions, photo sessions, promoting, other solo projects, new marriages and families, pressure to put out the highest quality product... all adds up. But if they did take a break, they would've only got back together with so much new material, they'd start fight over what to use.

[@john_milner]

As I reflect on the survey analysis Matt ... 'Taking a break' indefinitely, may have kept the band together ... contractually I'm sure The Beatles had to deliver a certain amount of albums. I would argue that The White Album could have given them at least a two year hiatus ... it (The White Album) was at the very least two albums. Two years would have allowed John to pursue his art and infatuation with Yoko & the others pursuing interests, musically and other away from the Beatle bubble ... Having said all that it appears to me Paul wanted, more than anyone to keep the Beatle juggernaut rolling ... I just could not see Paul taking a break from the band and others ... even though it would have been beneficial, in my opinion ... As always ... enjoying your channel Matt and looking forward to your work in 2023 ✌

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thanks New Jack!

[@NotMe...126]

Thanks, Matt, for taking this deep dive into The Beatles breakup. I agree that all the suggested reasons have varying levels of merit, but I think they are essentially fault lines, if you will, that eventually gave way when the underlying powder keg went off. To me, the explosive that blew the band apart was that there was just too much talent in the room. If none of those other problems (the "fault lines") existed, perhaps they would have found a way to keep going in some fashion, like The Rolling Stones or KISS. Speaking of which, I don't know if they have ever come out and said it, but it seems that Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are well aware that they are better off with each other than not. And Paul Stanley has often stated that he didn't really like Gene Simmons when they first met, but he realized very quickly that he was better off with Gene and all his personality "quirks" than without him. Basically, however, by the end of the 60's none of the Beatles really needed the band any more. Paul and John had proven that they were more than capable of standing on their own two feet and with the emergence of George, arguably on par with John & Paul as a songwriter, there just wasn't enough room for all three in one band. With "All Things Must Pass", George proved that he had a ton of great music in him that never would have seen the light of day if The Beatles had stuck together as they were. Arguably, Ringo could have benefited the most from the Beatles staying together, but even he has enjoyed a long and successful solo career, so ultimately he didn't really "need" the band either. It might have been nice if The Beatles could have found a way to go off and do solo things and then come back together for more Beatles stuff, but it seems that the bands with multiple driving forces within them that have done that (Fleetwood Mac, Eagles, CSNY) saw their main artistic thrust go into their solo work and the reunited bands did little more than get together to play their old hits for a big payday. Those bands' output post-solo just doesn't compare with their magnificence "pre-solo". So maybe it's better that all four Beatles moved on and didn't really look back, although no one can deny how great it would have been just to see the four lads on stage at any point in the '70's playing their old hits. I suppose you could distill these thoughts into "Band Dynamics" to apply it to the choices in your survey. Thanks again, for this, and all your excellent work!

[@greggildersleeve5010]

My number one and two reasons were John and Paul. It's clear from the "Get Back" film that John had checked out mentally and had more important priorities (Yoko and drugs). When he was engaged, he was brilliant. When he was not engaged, it showed. Paul wanted desperately to keep the Beatles together but displayed a singular lack of empathy for his teammates. He seemed to regard George as an inferior contributor and even admitted that he thought George's songs were not good enough. As for my reason that is not mentioned in the poll, I chose, somewhat with tongue in cheek, Ringo so he doesn't feel left out. :). In "Get Back," Ringo clearly takes a back seat to whatever the others are doing. I get the feeling that he doesn't want to rock the boat. Since he got on with everyone, I wonder if they would have listened if he had asserted himself more.

[@dimitreze]

no easy answer it was a bunch of reasons that's why the survey was divided if Allen Klein or Yoko didn't enter the picture, the band would've had 2 or 3 more years but would split up eventually

[@markwestervelt9708]

Great job Matt. 👍

[@kulturkriget]

I think I understand why people picked the loss of Brian as number one: it was the first in order (except for stop touring). The first domino to fall and cause some of the other problems, like the effect it had on John, the business problem, change in band dynamics, and of course Klein.

[@williambill5172]

Great stuff, Matt! Always! I think we have too strong of an impulse as humans to find cause and reason for things. It is our nature. The Beatles like everything else just suffered from the process of entropy...things fall apart...the hotter you burn...the faster you burn out!

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Well said, Bill.

[@scottanthonyweidner8692]

Gave you a like for those lovely a cappella harmonies at the end. Almost made me cry.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you. I love putting those together!

[@et2petty]

Imagine being with the same 3 or 4 people in the eye of a hurricane, from age 16 or so until age 28 or so. And generating art, and millions of dollars, with a tax rate at 95%. It's a wonder that it lasted as long as it did.

[@pelaronson4086]

Great, as usual, best wishes R

[@frankm496]

After the breakup I wish that there was more collaboration or playing with former members on their solo projects. I know that there was some it. Ringo seems to be the most active. This kind of makes you think. Maybe this is telling on their relationships with one another through the years. Future reveals the past... Matt, thank you for taking the time with survey. Interesting results.

[@Thomasmemoryscentral]

All the members got to be in super groups. 1. John Lennon has the one off supergroup The Dirty Mac for a different version of Yer Blues with Eric Clapton, Mitch Mitchells and Keith Richard's 2. George Harrison becomes a part of the Travelling Wilburys that includes, Bob Dylan, Roy Orbison, Tom Petty and Jeff Lyne 3. Ringo Starr goes on to form Ringo's Allstar Band with a rotating lineup and Paul is a part of one version

[@frankm496]

@@Thomasmemoryscentral Yes that is true. Good point. I really enjoyed all of their solo careers as well as the super groups that they were in. The point that I was trying to make is that the Beatles members really didn't do much with one another except mainly. Ringo. He played on Lennon solo stuff and other Beatles solo stuff etc. I wonder about the others and why not? issues...I don't know? Goes back to breakup? Take care

[@arnesaknussemm2427]

I think a factor , though not the main reason, was the arrival of the guitar supergroups which I think George felt intimidated by and may have been a major reason he was opposed to the live concert.

[@Gardosunron]

Not buying that one. Harrison put out a triple album in 1970 and organized the massive Concert for Bangladesh that's not the act of someone who is intimidated.

[@arnesaknussemm2427]

@@Gardosunron that was a few years later, I think it’s clear that around the time of ‘Get Back’ he was suffering from a crisis of confidence. He even talks about it and blames Paul.

[@allenf.5907]

I would venture "Because they HAD to!" You can put many associations to this and one of these, of course, is that of business and probably for their own sanity. It was just time to live and move forward for each.

[@leighhammill2607]

Matt, I'm really enjoying your series on The Beatles. I'm a relative newcomer to your podcast (webcast?), so I'm catching up. I've also read a couple of the books you recommended (Doggett book and Geoff Emerick's)... part of my months-long Beatles binge. Your survey was a cool idea... fun to hear the Other responses. That said, I'm here under false pretenses. I want to make a plea for a podcast on the 2002 Concert for George at the Royal Albert Hall. The 20th anniversary of that show was last November, the 21st I think, when the Harrison estate (?) released a film version of the concert to commemorate it and George's passing. The double DVD version includes the entire concert plus clips from rehearsals and interviews with the organizer (Eric Clapton) as well as Ravi Shankar, Jeff Lynn, Tom Petty, Dhani Harrison, Ray Cooper, etc. Ringo and Paul play some very sweet tributes to George. It was a seminal event that your subscribers would probably appreciate.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you for the suggestion, Leigh. I hadn't thought of that!

[@RodrigoAlves-bc8qq]

Interesting how reasons 11, 12 and 13 are mixed together, according to Peter Dogget's book (You Never...) - that you just covered. According to Dogget', George Harrison believed the whole "I want a divorce" was something temporary and that Lennon would eventually change his mind. Lennon used to change his mind: Maharishi/Magic Alex/Primal Scream therapy/Klein. Maybe if Macca wasn't so pissed off about the "3 against one/Klein situation" he could "let it be". But, Macca had plenty of reasons to be pissed off.

[@squorly]

I think George understood John very well, so did Paul of course, but Paul must have felt very betrayed, like the kids chose the other parent. Because the other parent didn't boss them around.

[@SwanEntertainment1]

Instant Karma “broke up the Beatles!” After the “I want a divorce” meeting there were months of uncertainty. When Lennon appeared on Top of Pops (a British TV show) performing Instant Karma., McCartney was then sure he meant it. Or, did the Daily Mirror break up the Beatles……

[@alexandrebenois7962]

I've been thinking about this for almost 50 years. I personally think it was mostly because of John.

[@robertlandrum1971]

I guess when you think about it, The Beatles broke up for a wide variety of reasons. Many of them make pretty good sense. Personally, I think once their old manager Brian Epstein died, there was “nobody who could tell them no” (a quote from one of their earlier documentaries). Their fevered egos (especially John & Paul’s) pushed themselves apart and drove both George & Ringo to quit at points. But sadly, I honestly believe that they could’ve salvaged their relationship had they simply taken a Beatle Break and did some solo stuff for a while. By the 1970s, the band could’ve easily gotten away with producing an album every few years between solo releases.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Yes, an album once in a while would have made sense. Thanks Robert!

[@msmegs93]

For me, at least, this answer comes the closest to the truth. I'm sure some other factors may have influenced the break-up, like, GF's or wives/ friends opinions, but in any band, after awhile, egos & growth of the individual musician's, etc, always comes into play. I know this personally, my brother has been a professional musician for about 48 years, in many bands. Also, one only needs to look to the other multitude of bands over the past 60 years or so, to see this is true. The need for artistic growth, plus artistic temperment, always seems to gravitate towards this inevitable end, and few seem to escape it. The Stones being the rare exception.

[@vayabroder729]

I love that a cappella ending!

[@dabreu]

Watching too. I shall return later to comment about it.

[@slaydesaid8741]

Great video as always, but I find it weird that the clear reason for the break-up wasn't included in the poll, i.e. Paul's death in 1966. 😎

[@drummerjohnforyou]

In the words John Lennon , they just stopped turning each other on. This is another reason why they might have gotten back together again, if they like each other and what they could do together. Has nothing to do with the press or anybody else it has to do with the 4 individuals getting along with each other.

[@Martin_Siegel]

It was said in Get Back :"The Beatles broke up because Yoko sat on an amp" ;-) But this shows nobody has a clue and there is no single reason.

[@jean-marcevans1439]

Years ago I knew someone who had worked at the Apple office who told me that he thought the Beatles broke up was because of John’s terrible temper. That he would regularly blow up and upset the others. Who knows?

[@strose2002]

The response to you survey was fantastic Matt. Enjoyed you going over the results. One of your best overall set of videos yet. I would have liked to see the Beatles do a 4 part Album series featuring one of them on each. The Beatles Featuring Lennon and so on. Would have kept it interesting. Great job as usual Matt. Any update on your merchandise? No pressure!

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you, st.rose. I do have a Patreon set up and will promote that soon. Merch to follow soon I hope!

[@jws058]

I really enjoyed this series Matt. IMO the loss of Brian was the major catalyst and Allen Klein/bad business decisions are really directly due to his loss.

[@LearnMusclescom]

Three of the top four… John, Allen, and Yoko. Hmm… that says something!

[@donkeyboy585]

George is my favorite Beatle and All Things Must Pass is my favorite solo album but he was definitely coming off as a diva by Let it Be. As for the competition from other bands thing I used to piss of my brother by saying they heard Tommy by The Who and said “we’re done” lol

[@squorly]

I think George was justified in feeling peed off

[@michaeljacobs2954]

Nobody ever looks at how the White Album sessions set the stage for the tensions during the Let it Be sessions between George and the others. By then George was fed up and was coming off working with Jackie Lomax which he enjoyed. Working with John and Paul was a step backward. He didnt hide his displeasure on camera.

[@robertzastrow4648]

Think the break up was a combination of many things, but agree that Epstein's death was an important reason. The power play between John, Paul and George (as far as songwriting, whose songs to focus on, which direction the band should go in, etc.) were a factor. Matt, have you considered doing a show talking about how both the fans and the music world reacted to the Beatles break up?

[@christianstough6337]

One choice not offered for the breakup was John Eastman. From the moment McCartney informally hired him in late fall of 1968, John Eastman operated in the interests of McCartney (and himself) at the expense of the other three. You can see this in McCartney buying shares in Northern songs on the sly and in his setting up of his own company in Feb of 1969 (both happening long before the Klein management issue was settled). This behavior continuously drove a wedge between Paul and the other three, not to mention the stressful impact Eastman's consistent sabotage had on the various deals the Beatles were trying to sort out. John Eastman was still very young and had only one large client to date. Besides setting up an individual company for McCartney, Eastman's advice for McCartney to buy shares of Northern songs and McCartney/Eastman's decision to not inform Lennon that he was doing so , was devastating to Lennon when he found out and was a huge nail in the coffin for Lennon and McCartney's relationship. Surprisingly, Eastman did not advise McCartney and Lennon to just buy Dick James out directly. As can be seen in the Peter Jackson videos, James was looking to sell in early 1969. It was Eastman's letter to Clive Epstein, accusing him and Brian of "impropriety" that sabotaged any chance of Epstein selling NEMS to the Beatles and directly led Epstein to selling NEMS to Triumph AND locked up the Beatles cash from EMI for 6 moths in 1969 when the Beatles desperately needed that cash to do the deals needed to consolidate their business affairs (EMI did this to play 'neutral' while the Beatles and Triumph sorted out their affairs). This caused a great deal of stress for the Beatles in 1969 as they were trying to consolidate their business interests and NEMS had a huge finger in all of the Beatles revenue streams. After James sold Northern Songs to Lew Grade and the Beatles were trying to raise cash in order to make an offer to the City (and independent group of investors who held the remaining shares), Eastman refused to let McCartney's money be added to the cash needed to make this offer (Klien made up the $ difference) . Moreover, McCartney and Eastman's well publicized animosity towards Klein assisted the City in deeming Lew Grade to be a safer choice and they sold their shares to Grade, despite Grade having a lower offer. Of course, Klein's reputation added to to this perception as well, amplified by a well timed article in London. As to Apple, by late summer 1969, Eastman was openly lobbying for McCartney to have 3 votes on the board of Apple (a big nail for Ringo at the time who was astonished by this idea) to offset the votes of John, George and Ringo. I have no doubt that John Eastman was a great advocate for his clients- history proves as much. However, Eastman's client was Paul and not the Beatles and his ham handed sabotage behaviors in 1969 helped to drive an enormous wedge between Paul and the other three. Regardless of the behavior of the other 3, Klein, Yoko, I'm not sure the Beatles would have survived having one Beatle being represented in this manner.

[@chrisclarke4665]

I would also add that the different characters entering and leaving the Beatles inner circle kind of disrupted their creative process and overstayed trust. Lack of security in that part was an issue. Magic Alex, Yoko, Maharishi Yogi Phil Spector and Klein etc.

[@scottanthonyweidner8692]

McCartney very happy with this video!!

[@dansmusic5749]

I think Brian gone was a huge factor. He was a significant cohesive/adhesive element to the Beatles internal relationships. Not that Epstein was such a brilliant manager but due to his relationship to the band (they loved and trusted him) and how they perceived him as an authoritative influence and organizer, if only subliminally.

[@I_Am_The_Paulrus]

Food for thought there Matt! I myself put Allen Klein at No1. I think of the multitude of problems that assailed the band by 1969, I believe all of them could have been overcome had it not been for the presence of Klein. They could have continued with Yoko present, they could even have overcome John's heroin problem I believe, not to mention the business and publishing issues. But the entrance stage right of the demon king meant none of it was possible. He drove a wedge between John and Paul that was never truly healed. Anyway, it's for the historians to decide now 😄 Excellent work as usual Matt, Pop Goes The 60s definitely has the best Beatle discussions on YT 👍

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you, Sean - I really appreciate it!

[@PhilJS67]

I didn’t do the survey, was there an ‘All of the above’ option? Seems the most logical to me.

[@frugalseverin2282]

It was certainly a combination of issues, they started a well-intentioned business but didn't want to be businessmen. They should have settled on 1 manager, gotten their business and finances under control then gone on hiatus. Issue "McCartney", "Plastic Ono Band", "Sentimental Journey" and half of "All Things Must Pass" then reconvene in 1971. George would have been in a stronger position and they could have released double albums after that leaving plenty of room for all 4.

[@jblassio]

That’s for the update Matt. I don’t think George would of broken up with the Beatles because he knew they were his main source of income, but he was ready to do solo albums. Just look at how he berated McCartney when he was releasing solo stuff. Taking in consideration I would change my answer from John Lennon, to the Death of Brian Epstein. His death welcomed so many problems like John Lennon’s addictions, money being misused, pettiness amongst the band, Allen Klein, etc. Thanks for this! Your channel is in a different level Matt.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

Thank you for the warm compliment, Jblassio - much appreciated!

[@bjornerikroth]

Yeah, there really are two breakups, right? Breakup 1) is the halt of band activities because Lennon "wanted out". That might have been true in 1969 and 1970 but could have changed later. Breakup 2) is Paul suing to dissolve the partnership, which soured things for a long time, which was ultimately due to Allen Klein and the 3-vs-1 decision in May '69. Maybe having the loss of Epstein on top isn't such a bad thing, because an Epstein alive and active in their business would likely have mitigated 1) and 2) would be moot.

[@popgoesthe60s52]

@@bjornerikroth The 3rd breakup would be the actual signing of the dissolution papers in late December 1974-January 1975.

[@bjornerikroth]

@@popgoesthe60s52 Yes, that's right!

[@LapsangTe]

There were many reasons why they broke up, but I think that George had a big part in it. He grew tired of being left in the shadow of John and Paul and needed to break free. As he put it himself in "Anthology": "It had to self destruct."

[@kulturkriget]

It really is a web of reasons that interconnect. I can absolutely understand why people put John so high because he seems to be so central for many of the problems.

[@mariespirale1182]

The roots of the band succes are John and Paul relationships/partnerships and huge creativity. Even if they don't write together, they listen to the work of each other carefully. By their songs, it inspire each other work (like the connected songs Band on the run / Bless you for exemple). So, something happened beetween that relationship. There are the videos in the youtube channel breathless 345, that shows a turning point in India. It feels something wrong happened there, plus magic Alex beeing close to John. All John behaviour after India (beeing weird and bringing Yoko in the circle) looks like revenge to Paul in some way. In the song Jealous guy (at first Child of nature written in India as well), the lyrics talk about what could have happened, and Paul said in 86 that the song was for him.

[@Transterra55]

Best case scenario: take a break and make solo albums--- reunite and make a Beatles' album--- more solo albums, another Beatles' album...this may have worked until about 1975.

[@aureliande2659]

Very interesting. I'm not sure that Brian could have prevented the Beatles from dabbling in business matters but he would certainly have given them the feeling that it was not essential for them to take business decisions. They had no choice, however, after Brian's death. Still, I feel that reasons 2, 3, and 4 (John, Allan Klein, Yoko) are all interrelated and interdependent, and combined would certainly be the number ONE cause for the breakup.

[@edwardcapobianco2975]

Two words.... Yoko Ono. She hated that she couldn't control John with the Beatles around,so she made sure they weren't. Tony Bramwell was a Beatle friend and Apple insider,he pulls no punches,it was Yoko. Her arrogance and entitlement was appalling, they hated her at Apple. She is a calculating,ruthless,beast, always was.

[@paulsurelynotsmith8179]

Interesting results Matt and one or two hit the nail on the head for me like the one about the Beatles turning down cold turkey I’m aware John offered it and it was frown on I think that went some way in johns thinking if they don’t want to know I’ll put this out myself which he did I also liked take a break yes after the white album that would been a very good idea with a view returning maybe at the end of 69 and trying to convince George to tour take abbey road out on tour pipe dream perhaps but wouldn’t that be something I think the Beatles should been brave and released cold turkey however amazing results Matt look forward to further videos

[@franciscucinotta1439]

A Catch-22 anti-reason is Lennon says he is leaving, many months later McCartney announces he is leaving, but Lennon flip-flops a lot. If no Paul announcement breakup may have never happened as John may have flipped back.

[@airbloomamplifiers]

Paul told us why. John was done. He is the one that could make that decision alone and make it final.

[@stamatiskon3049]

I think that George couldn't break up the band. He could leave, as he did, and then he would come back simply because he lacked the confidence to work on his own. This is the reason why he wanted to get The Beatles back together without Paul, mostly because he believed that John wasn't like Paul and could see him as equal. Of course, we all know that this wasn't the case, John never saw George as an equal partner and this is one of the reasons he declined.

[@timsinnott386]

Excellent set of programmes, I think the constant demand to produce is a major factor, plus age, plus expectations ? I will offer George Martin ? He really didn’t support George and always from the start saw Paul as the main man ? He is brought in to let it be and suddenly songs like all things must pass are stopped. All the rest of course played apart ! George H never really worked with Paul as he did with Ringo and John even on Anthology he needed coaxing ? Liverpool people do love to procrastinate !! Paul is loved by many who love the showman ? But many also find him just annoying, i think john George and Ringo just reached a point where a group dynamic was perhaps like school ? I think there was a ‘family love’ between them and families fall apart over daft things often unexplained ! Its no more or less than that with much of what you presented ! Thanks for a great series !

[@popgoesthe60s52]

I appreciate the comments, Tim!

[@charlesbronson4282]

Paul is a concept by which we measure pain

[@gerrysongs4170]

The question of Brian is a huge what if when you look at his standing with the band at the time. A different way to ask the same question is did they break up because George and John just plain didn’t want to be there anymore. I can’t think of any other bands that stopped touring but stayed together. Certainly none that were successful. John described Abbey Road as competent and in terms of guitar playing that’s about the best you can say. To continue they would have needed to evolve but the collective interest wasn’t there and the collective musical tastes weren’t there. George was not improving as a guitar player and had walked away from it for a while and coupled with his sour attitude he probably needed to go.

[@7JANEWAY]

If you look at the overall history of The Beatles, you can clearly see that the real core reason the band broke up is because they had grown up. John Lennon and Paul McCartney met and became band mates while they were teenagers. And The Beatles were just an outgrowth of their first band. In other words, The Quarrymen grew and became The Silver Beatles, which also grew and became The Beatles. Each incarnation of the band was at its core an extension of the prior band. It just boiled down to the fact that they started as teenagers, and then over the years they grew up and became their own individuals. They no longer needed the others as much (in particular when they got married), and besides, how many things that people start to do in high school do they continue to do in adulthood, much less middle age? So there you have it. All the other things mentioned certainly added to the break up. But the core reason was that they grew beyond the high school/college (of hard knocks) phase of their lives and simply wanted to be adults.