"When of course it should have been "Yoko Ono's Beatles."
Shut up, Yoko. Just shut up.
John Lennon was drawn to Yoko Ono by immaturity--a type of immaturity the members of OD will not reach for a long time. Luckily for OD fans, Taylor Swift will have moved on to several new flavors of the day before she can have any effect on the "band."
Beatles Split: 'They Were Starting To Feel Like Paul's Band'
Sounds like what Paul Westerberg did to The Replacements.
The people who worked with the Beatles after Yoko showed up would all say she was "weird as shit." Shit respectfully disagrees.
OMG, the Beatles broke up???!!!!!
Jesus Christ how are you deranged fucks comparing The Beatles with that shitty pr project one direction? Are you 12 yo?
R4, Paul was the only songwriter, except for one tune by Tommy on an EP, so it essentially was his band. This was more akin to Jagger trying to boss Richards around.
I agree, One Direction is not, and never will be, in the same league as the Beatles.
r10, but they give better rim jobs.
[quote]Jesus Christ how are you deranged fucks comparing The Beatles with that shitty pr project one direction? Are you 12 yo?
Have you been listening? Taylor is helping Harry to get solo gigs!!
Really going out on a limb there, r10.
And that's about as significant, r12, as if an outside influence had led to Bananarama disbanding.
In other words, Paul was the only one behaving like a professional! Lennon would have been better off listening to him than Yoko, who really brought out the worst in him.
Although it was so easy to bring out the worst in Lennon, that if she hadn't done it, someone else would have.
She really needs to shut the fuck up. She's STILL explaining that SHE wasn't the reason the Beatles broke up, heavens no! It was PAUL'S fault! She's still the self-serving cunt.
Who is Louis if one were to compare 1D members to the Beatles (not that 1D are anything near the Beatles)?
The Osmonds make 1D look like 9 year olds..
R18, Stuart Sutcliffe.
Paul may have been smoking a lot of dope and tripping on acid, but he was the one who kept showing up in the studio while the others were out partying, fucking, chanting Hari Krishna, and getting involved in American political dissent.
So yeah, Paul was having the most say about the music because he and George Martin were fulfilling the recording contracts.
r17, she may be an enabler, but she's right. That band was starting to implode in all directions, creatively and financially, before she was on the scene.
R15, the actual quote is:
If any recording act had earned the right to record albums on their own schedule, it was the Beatles by the late 60s. If their recording contract stipulated that they put out albums constantly so the record company could rake in more money, fuck that. They had earned the right to put out albums when they wanted to. So I don't give a shit if Paul was the only one "fulfilling the recording contracts." They never should've been pushed to record if they weren't in the mood in the first place.
R24, if you tell four spoiled divas t's okay to only work when they like, no work will ever be done because someone is always in a mood. Even if they all come in and do their own work seperately, they will all hate the finished product because the absent band members didn't do what they wanted.
So I do feel some sympathy for McCartney's attempts to hold the band together, if even if his efforts were doomed.
What was spoiled about the Beatles? They recorded and toured constantly, and made their record company rich beyond their wildest dreams. You only push creative types if you want to exploit them for money, and their record company had already struck gold with them a million times over. Who wouldn't resent being told "Create, damn you, now! I want to get even more rich off you."
Weren't they already falling apart before Yoko?
Reminds me of marriage, it can't break unless it was already starting to crumble.
[quote]What was spoiled about the Beatles? They recorded and toured constantly, and made their record company rich beyond their wildest dreams.
And some of that money helped give the world the CAT scan.
[quote]You only push creative types if you want to exploit them for money, and their record company had already struck gold with them a million times over. Who wouldn't resent being told "Create, damn you, now! I want to get even more rich off you."
Like that poor goose with the eggs...
[quote] What was spoiled about the Beatles? They recorded and toured constantly
They stopped touring In 1966.
I was aware of that, r29. It's like everyone has to put an asterisk next to everything they write here.
*they toured constantly until they quit because the crowds just screamed constantly and the music couldn't be heard. The didn't stop because they were spoiled, lazy divas.
[quote]I agree, One Direction is not, and never will be, in the same league as the Beatles.
Yep, 1D has been more successful than The Beatles, especially in America where they made history.