Oh Yoko!

Olishi4

Why did Beatles fans take such a dislike for Yoko Ono? Do you think that she really was the main catalyst in breaking up The Beatles or it was going to happen anyway?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2h924m4IE

Junkyard Tom

Yes.

Olishi4

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yes.

"Yes it is"

Robsweezie

Her and Courtney love get an awful time

learn_more

Cause she looked like she couldn't speak.

ClovenHoof

The Beatles are the most over rated band in the world.

I am frankly amazed at this eternal sense of reverence for this quirky pop quartet. Sure they had a few good tunes, but you try to imagine them without George Martin producing them, they would be about as brilliant as the Indians Showband.

Yoko was hardly the reason why they ran out of steam. Drugs, John Lennon's pathological personality and their underlying mediocrity coming to the fore was.

The flying mouse

Let it be op

DEFTLEFTHAND

John and Yoko finished recording this song on the 8th of December 1980. When they left their apartment for the studio that afternoon Lennon signed an autograph for Mark Chapman. On their return that night Chapman put two bullets into the back of Lennon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft7-xEiwvJw

Winterlong

The Beatles had been a clean cut band. Then the summer of love came along. The drugs. Then Yoko. Then divorce from Cynthia.
For a lot of fans this was too messy for their favourite boy band.
Even die hard hippies did not like her as she was just too weird.

And WTF was that protest in amsterdam about? Staying in bed in the amsterdam hilton for a few days? I have stayed in that hotel and it is a dump.

LordSutch

Olishi4 wrote: »

Why did Beatles fans take such a dislike for Yoko Ono? Do you think that she really was the main catalyst in breaking up The Beatles or it was going to happen anyway?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2h924m4IE

She was and she wasn't (the catalyst). Yes she was a total distraction in the studio, and yes the other Beatles must have been totally cheesed off with this crazy Japanese woman, who was now permanantly attached to John, but I think the guys (as a band) had come to a natural end anyway?

After eight years of burning very brightly.

padd b1975

learn_more wrote: »

Cause she looked like she couldn't speak.

Oh she could speak alright.

Singing was a different story entirely...

padd b1975

padd b1975 wrote: »

Oh she could speak alright.

Singing was a different story entirely...

Although in fairness, she never took to the stage with a set of keyboards that weren't plugged in, but nobody really mentions that......

Olishi4

LordSutch wrote: »

She was and she wasn't (the catalyst). Yes she was a total distraction in the studio, and yes the other Beatles must have been totally cheesed off with this crazy Japanese woman, who was now permanantly attached to John,

I think that might partly be it too, permanently attached. She seemed to get in on everything with him and that might have made people feel that she was fame hungry.

Most artists tend to keep their work fairly separate but it probably felt to fans that there was no John without getting Yoko too.

Sir Osis of Liver.

What's yellow and lonely?

Zxclnic

Sir Osis of Liver. wrote: »

What's yellow and lonely?

Your liver!

Olishi4

ClovenHoof wrote: »

The Beatles are the most over rated band in the world.

I am frankly amazed at this eternal sense of reverence for this quirky pop quartet. Sure they had a few good tunes, but you try to imagine them without George Martin producing them, they would be about as brilliant as the Indians Showband.

Yoko was hardly the reason why they ran out of steam. Drugs, John Lennon's pathological personality and their underlying mediocrity coming to the fore was.

I personally don't think they were overrated. I think the band themself recognize George Martin and he is often referred to as the fifth Beatle.

How involved were producers then? Was it pretty much the same for most band's where they had a similar set up where a producer was fairly involved?

For Forks Sake

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7J7ksopTb8

SEPT 23 1989

Berry's reaction at 1.19 says it all

Halloween Jack

Don't think she broke up the beatles, can pretty much blame mccartney trying to take over after the death of epstein for that. She did however ruin john lennon, he never made anything post beatles that rivalled the best of his work with the fab four and his head was either filled with drugs or insincere politics in his latter years.

Discodog

ClovenHoof wrote: »

The Beatles are the most over rated band in the world.

I am frankly amazed at this eternal sense of reverence for this quirky pop quartet. Sure they had a few good tunes, but you try to imagine them without George Martin producing them, they would be about as brilliant as the Indians Showband.

Yoko was hardly the reason why they ran out of steam. Drugs, John Lennon's pathological personality and their underlying mediocrity coming to the fore was.

Well done for saying what can't be said. The Beatles were overrated. They never spoke about life the way that the Stones & the Who did. In those days your really either loved the Stones or the Beatles.

Even now Stones tracks like Streetfighting Man & the Who's Won't get fooled again have incredible resonance. The Beatles never expressed the anger & frustration of young people.

mzungu

Olishi4 wrote: »

I personally don't think they were overrated. I think the band themself recognize George Martin and he is often referred to as the fifth Beatle.

How involved were producers then? Was it pretty much the same for most band's where they had a similar set up where a producer was fairly involved?

Didn't Lennon say at one stage that George Martin contributed nothing to their sound?

Pete Moss

Discodog wrote: »

Well done for saying what can't be said. The Beatles were overrated. They never spoke about life the way that the Stones & the Who did. In those days your really either loved the Stones or the Beatles.

Even now Stones tracks like Streetfighting Man & the Who's Won't get fooled again have incredible resonance. The Beatles never expressed the anger & frustration of young people.

The Beatles were a pop band, they wrote pop songs. Not everything, or anything for that matter, has to be a political statement - What's wrong with having a song about a yellow submarine?

Wibbs

Discodog wrote: »

The Beatles were overrated. They never spoke about life the way that the Stones & the Who did.

Both fine bands, however… oh wait… you're serious? Really not much can be said to that TBH.

Discodog

Wibbs wrote: »

Both fine bands, however… oh wait… you're serious? Really not much can be said to that TBH.

Yes I am serious & I totally stand by my argument. There is nothing wrong with pop bands or pop songs - I have a vast collection of them. Musically the Beatles were clever.

I am probably older than most of you & I grew up in the UK. Sometimes you do want more than bland pop songs as the likes of Dylan, Cohen, Springsteen etc prove.

But also, as a wannabe songwriter, it's a thousand time easier writing a song about nothing. Great writers in music or literature have always reflected what's around them.

Olishi4

mzungu wrote: »

Didn't Lennon say at one stage that George Martin contributed nothing to their sound?

I read that Paul had referred to him as the Fifth Beatle and it seems he also worked with Wings.

I read that John said something like that after George Martin had criticized Power to the People and he said "I don't think Linda is a substitute for John Lennon, any more than Yoko is a substitute for Paul McCartney". Lennon responded by criticizing Martin's later work and comparing to his own.

But John is reported as saying "He taught us a lot and I'm sure we taught him a lot with a primitive musical knowledge." So I'd say they had a normal working relationship with the producer. He had his part but he needed them as much as they needed him.

Discodog

Olishi4 wrote: »

I read that Paul had referred to him as the Fifth Beatle and it seems he also worked with Wings.

I read that John said something like that after George Martin had criticized Power to the People and he said "I don't think Linda is a substitute for John Lennon, any more than Yoko is a substitute for Paul McCartney". Lennon responded by criticizing Martin's later work and comparing to his own.

But John is reported as saying "He taught us a lot and I'm sure we taught him a lot with a primitive musical knowledge." So I'd say they had a normal working relationship with the producer. He had his part but he needed them as much as they needed him.

I dated a girl who's dad worked for EMI. They had signed Beatles albums on the walls. He was good friends with George Martin. Any idea that he wasn't pivotal in their success is madness. Not only was he key to making their ideas into records but they were so lucky to find him. It could of been very different if they had signed to another label & got a traditional "closed mind" producer.

Wibbs

Discodog wrote: »

I am probably older than most of you & I grew up in the UK.

So what? And this gives you musical knowledge gravitas how?

But also, as a wannabe songwriter, it's a thousand time easier writing a song about nothing. Great writers in music or literature have always reflected what's around them.

Which is what they did. Jagger and Richards would have given up major organs to get within sniffing distance off something like Eleanor Rigby, or I am the Walrus, or Strawberry Fields Forever, or any number of Beatles songs. If you think such songs are about "nothing" my original point stands; Really not much can be said to that TBH.

Zxclnic

What about that great Stones song ''I Wanna Be Your Man', Lennon and McCartney could never write anything as good as that!

Bubbaclaus

I always get the impression that people who think the Beatles are "overrated" only know the throwaway pop songs like I Wanna Hold Your Hand or Yellow Submarine and have never bothered to listen to a music changing album like Revolver through.

Discodog

Wibbs wrote: »

So what? And this gives you musical knowledge gravitas how?

Which is what they did. Jagger and Richards would have given up major organs to get within sniffing distance off something like Eleanor Rigby, or I am the Walrus, or Strawberry Fields Forever, or any number of Beatles songs. If you think such songs are about "nothing" my original point stands; Really not much can be said to that TBH.

I don't think that Jagger & Richards ever gave a ****e about writing such songs especially as the vast number of fans who bought them had no idea what they were about. The Stones are a rock & roll band.

I believe that they are overrated & I always will. But I realise that it is sacrilege to dare say such things. I only ever bought one Beatles album & I don't have a single Beatles track in my collection.

My reference to living in the UK is that people don't realise how much young people were looking for music that reflected their lives.

Back on topic I do think that Yoko really damaged John's creativity in that she appeared to govern everything he did. To her credit, not only did Linda encourage Paul, but she, by becoming a member of Wings, allowed the band to tour & have such success especially in the USA.

Zxclnic

Discodog wrote: »

I don't think that Jagger & Richards ever gave a ****e about writing such songs especially as the vast number of fans who bought them had no idea what they were about. The Stones are a rock & roll band.

I believe that they are overrated & I always will. But I realise that it is sacrilege to dare say such things. I only ever bought one Beatles album & I don't have a single Beatles track in my collection.

My reference to living in the UK is that people don't realise how much young people were looking for music that reflected their lives.

Jagger and Richards didn't give a fùck about writing songs, full stop. That's why Andrew Loog Oldham had to stick both of them in a room telling them not to come out until they learned how to write a song, and that's why he (Oldham) pleaded with Lennon and McCartney to write a hit for The Stones as they couldn't write one for themselves at the time....
......'I Wanna Be Your Man'!

Discodog

Zxclnic wrote: »

Jagger and Richards didn't give a fùck about writing songs, full stop. That's why Andrew Loog Oldham had to stick both of them in a room telling them not to come out until they learned how to write a song, and that's why he (Oldham) pleaded with Lennon and McCartney to write a hit for The Stones as they couldn't write one for themselves at the time....
......'I Wanna Be Your Man'!

They seemed to learn pretty quick

Zxclnic

Discodog wrote: »

They seemed to learn pretty quick

Yes they did, I'm a big fan of The Stones, one of the best live bands ever..
...but not a patch on The Beatles when it came to songwriting.

Discodog

Wibbs wrote: »

So what? And this gives you musical knowledge gravitas how?

Which is what they did. Jagger and Richards would have given up major organs to get within sniffing distance off something like Eleanor Rigby, or I am the Walrus, or Strawberry Fields Forever, or any number of Beatles songs. If you think such songs are about "nothing" my original point stands; Really not much can be said to that TBH.

Kieth was probably too sober to write that:

Lennon told Playboy years later that "I can write that crap too,"
"The first line was written on one acid trip one weekend. The second line was written on the next acid trip the next weekend, and it was filled in after I met Yoko.

Discodog

Zxclnic wrote: »

Yes they did, I'm a big fan of The Stones, one of the best live bands ever..
...but not a patch on The Beatles when it came to songwriting.

I would agree in some respects. They are totally different. One is a pop band turned almost orchestral/musical & the other is a three chord rock band.

I just believe that the God status of the Beatles is overkill.

Discodog

Discodog wrote: »

Kieth was probably too sober to write that:

Lennon told Playboy years later that "I can write that crap too,"
"The first line was written on one acid trip one weekend. The second line was written on the next acid trip the next weekend, and it was filled in after I met Yoko.

Looks like she did contribute something :pac:

Zxclnic

Discodog wrote: »

Kieth was probably too sober to write that:

Lennon told Playboy years later that "I can write that crap too,"
"The first line was written on one acid trip one weekend. The second line was written on the next acid trip the next weekend, and it was filled in after I met Yoko.

It's still a great 'nonsense' song with some seriously memorable imagery.....
....Yellow matter custard, dripping from a dead dog's eye...

Zxclnic

Discodog wrote: »

I would agree in some respects. They are totally different. One is a pop band turned almost orchestral/musical & the other is a three chord rock band.

I just believe that the God status of the Beatles is overkill.

In the end it's all about opinions, though it has to be remembered that the God-like status of The Beatles has a lot to do with their cultural impact at the time as well as their indisputable talents as songwriters and singers.

Zxclnic

Discodog wrote: »

Looks like she did contribute something :pac:

All great writers need 'a muse'.:)

Wibbs

Discodog wrote: »

I don't think that Jagger & Richards ever gave a ****e about writing such songs especially as the vast number of fans who bought them had no idea what they were about. The Stones are a rock & roll band.

Better not mention their Satanic Majesties ill advised trip into ripping off Sgt Pepper then… The Stones themselves admit they were behind the Beatles and that they were an inspiration. Indeed it is easily argued that the Stones hit their peak after the Beatles had split up and took away the pressure(for their part the scousers didn't see the Stones as any threat, though they were mates who hung out).

I believe that they are overrated & I always will. But I realise that it is sacrilege to dare say such things.

Only if it's not backed up. So far your entire argument is based on "I don't like them. So there!". Hell I never personally rated Pink Floyd, but would consider myself a thundering dunce to claim that they are overrated.

My reference to living in the UK is that people don't realise how much young people were looking for music that reflected their lives.

Again so what? You seem to have this odd idea that a) only kids of your generation were looking for such music and b) only British kids were.

Back on topic I do think that Yoko really damaged John's creativity in that she appeared to govern everything he did. To her credit, not only did Linda encourage Paul, but she, by becoming a member of Wings, allowed the band to tour & have such success especially in the USA.

Lennon was a spent force by the time the band split, with very little reserve left. And he knew it too, hence was quick to poo poo his Beatles songs, knowing he couldn't get close to that level again. If anything Yoko encouraged him to think a little outside the box(Yoko was a well enough regarded visual artist of the 60's avant garde). Otherwise he'd have just produced 12 bar blues records. That's the joke for me. In many ways Jagger would have loved to have been a Beatle, Lennon would have loved to have been in the Stones. Lennon in the end was pushed by competition to burn bright and fast. Macca had more range and talent and longevity. He never quite reached the heights of his Beatle work, but got much closer. Linda had feck all to do with it, beyond moral support of course.

Lennon told Playboy years later that "I can write that crap too,"

Lennon was well known for being an utter shíte talker. One who changed the story depending on his mood and i was almost never accurate with the truth. He loved to promote the idea that all his stuff came "naturally" with no graft, like the proper genius he was. Nothing could be further from the truth. They grafted hard on their songs. Today when a band take a year to record an album they aren't working for a year. More like a month, maybe two if that. Sgt Pepper took six months of long days into nights, every day but Sunday, working hard polishing the material. This was at a time when many bands finished an album in a week.

Chuchote

The Beatles changed at an unprecedented level, and changed the music world along with them as they changed. They had what, 10 years of being the top band in the world, and by the end of it they were utterly exhausted, and all people wanted to do was turn the handle and see more money squirt out of the grinder.

Lennon seems to have been an unpleasant man, for all his brilliance; I remember seeing a programme about him and Cynthia and he was vicious and spiteful towards her. And he did the worst thing a man can do: he was a devoted, involved and loving father to his son, then ditched him when he ditched the mother.

Would he have come back to songwriting? Maybe. But it's hard to have that desperate drive when you're rich, and harder still when you're living with a resident critic who is what you've always looked up to, an international intellectual and accredited member of the arty set.

Discodog

Let's not forget the reaction of the Beatles when they heard Pet Sounds

LordSutch

Discodog wrote: »

I dated a girl who's dad worked for EMI. They had signed Beatles albums on the walls. He was good friends with George Martin. Any idea that he wasn't pivotal in their success is madness. Not only was he key to making their ideas into records but they were so lucky to find him. It could of been very different if they had signed to another label & got a traditional "closed mind" producer.

Yep indeed, right place right time.

The Beatles were incredibly lucky to fall into Martin's lap.

The music they made will live forever!

Pete Moss

Discodog wrote: »

Let's not forget the reaction of the Beatles when they heard Pet Sounds

They have a name for that reaction - It's called "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heats Club Band"

Discodog

Pete Moss wrote: »

They have a name for that reaction - It's called "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heats Club Band"

Produced by Martin

Pet Sounds produced, composed & arranged by Brian Wilson - now there's real talent.

Just to fan the flames. Oasis did Beatles better than the Beatles & Coldplay are brilliant :pac:

Pete Moss

Discodog wrote: »

I don't think that Jagger & Richards ever gave a ****e about writing such songs especially as the vast number of fans who bought them had no idea what they were about. The Stones are a rock & roll band.

I believe that they are overrated & I always will. But I realise that it is sacrilege to dare say such things. I only ever bought one Beatles album & I don't have a single Beatles track in my collection.

My reference to living in the UK is that people don't realise how much young people were looking for music that reflected their lives.

Back on topic I do think that Yoko really damaged John's creativity in that she appeared to govern everything he did. To her credit, not only did Linda encourage Paul, but she, by becoming a member of Wings, allowed the band to tour & have such success especially in the USA.

I've said this before, "overrated" has become a quick and easy way to completely discredit something a person dislikes, be it a film, song, sportsperson, etc., without actually giving a proper justification as to why the person, place or thing, in question is actually "overrated." Once the subject has been classified as "overrated" by its accuser, the accuser then tends to hide behind the classic defence "well, you know, that's just my opinion and I'm entitled to it."

You're talking about The Beatles being overrated and in the same sentence you admit that you have only one of their albums in your music collection. How do you expect your argument to be taken seriously?

It reminds me of when Alan Partridge brings up The Beatles in conversation and talks as though he listens to them and has some form of educated opinion on them, then when asked what his favourite Beatles album is and he says "Probably, The Best of The Beatles."

Zxclnic

Discodog wrote: »

Produced by Martin

Pet Sounds produced, composed & arranged by Brian Wilson - now there's real talent.

Just to fan the flames. Oasis did Beatles better than the Beatles & Coldplay are brilliant :pac:

No doubting Brian Wilson's genius.
Paul McCartney's favourite song of all time is 'God Only Knows'.

Chuchote

It's very hard for anyone today to hear the Beatles, because they've been such a spinal part of the music of growing up. If you could go back and hear what their records sounded like when they first came out, one after another - it was extraordinary, each one was new - first a remaking of the American rock 'n' roll sound with a European hardness to it when they came back from Hamburg, then the mushy teen love songs, so melodic and simple yet deep, and then as the band changed, the increasingly complex, orchestral, widely-influenced and strange songs.
And their music was transgressive - even Back in the USSR, which sounds so tame now, was daring then, when any hint of communism was enough to get you barred from jobs. (The version below is by Paul McCartney, whose sweet voice doesn't have the edge of Lennon's.)

Yamanoto

Discodog wrote: »

Let's not forget the reaction of the Beatles when they heard Pet Sounds

...or that of Brian Wilson when he first heard Rubber Soul.

For guys who were primarily self taught, both he & the Beatles were blessed with a musical literacy & sensibility that was light years ahead of most all their contemporaries, in terms of compositional structure, chord progression and the use rhythm & harmony. You don't have to actually like the Beatles in the least to recognise that, it's plainly apparent just how far out in front they were for just a few short years in the mid to late 60's.

Zxclnic

Back in the USSR is a great song, with more than a nod to the Beach Boys 'California Girls' though with really smart, 'punny' lyrics, a great driving rhythm, and a fantastic gritty vocal by McCartney - using his 'Elvis voice'.
Again it's him saying to BW, anything you can do...

ziggyman17

Never mind breaking up The Beatles, but if Lennon had never met Yoko Ono then he probably have never moved to New York and being shot dead years later...