Talk:Break-up of the Beatles

Fact-check request: McCartney's 'quitting of The Beatles'

I made a change in this article which has been (mostly) reverted to a prior state and I accept that reasons given (non-RS and brevity) have validity. HOWEVER I wish to open Talk for the substance of the changes I had made, namely: It is NOT a fact that McCartney quit or announced his departure from The Beatles on 10 April 1970. Despite having passed via newspapers into 'biographer' history, McCartney does not give notice or announcement of quit in the press-interview that accompanied his solo album. I invite thorough inspection of this and of the Apple Corps statement of the same date. Neither give a quit notification nor announcement on that date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelk xsx (talk • contribs) 20:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted to an earlier version with some copy editing because that much detail, particularly quotes, doesn't belong in the lead section which is a summary of the article. Some of the content such as the response from Apple was confusing in ways inaccurate, one of the reasons why beatlesbible.com is not considered a reliable source for Beatles-related articles. If the question is did McCartney specifically use the words "quitting" or "leaving" in the questionaire, no he did not use those exact words, but I don't think it has been disputed by anyone then or now that that is what was being communicated in the press release. Piriczki (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguous phrasing

"Coupled with his renewed drug use and a deterioration in his marriage and family life, Lennon's personal identity and artistic role within the Beatles was a source of discontent."

I think this is very poorly phrased and somewhat ambiguous; all comments on my replacement sentence are welcomed, because I may be mistaken over who was discontented (but I don't think so). Harfarhs (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Anti-McCartney Tone of Entry

I was dismayed at the subtle but quite apparent anti-McCartney tone of this post. The entry is replete with example after example of bias against McCartney in which he is portrayed in a negative light. The descriptions, in the main made through the weight and connotation of descriptors, depict McCartney as narcissistic, unreasonable, selfish, arbitrary, imperious, greedy and/or callous and unkind. The same harsh and negative standard is not applied to his bandmates, particularly not to Lennon.

Which brings up the second objection: the favoritism, to a somewhat lesser degree than the boas against McCartney, in favor of Lennon/Ono. The author(s) have apparently "chosen sides" in the matter of the Beatles breakup, and produced an entry which comports with their own desires to paint McCartney as their villain and Lennon as their hero. This is both unfortunate and surprising - one would have thought, particularly in a subject of such interest, that special care would have been taken to have kept this article free of petty prejudices and unfairness. Jum1801 (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I urge a re-reading by prospective editors, not with a goal of protecting the product as-is, but to, as much as possible, scour the article for evidence of any bias or preference. I believe a review by parties with little or no interest in the Beatles would be instructive and enlightening, since I think an objective person will readily find the prejudice of which I write. Jum1801 (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC) jum1801

Thank you for your feedback. I've done a lot of the work on this article, on and off for a few years, although there's a fair bit I don't recognise (the lead section, structure of the main body, and much of the phrasing), so I'm interested in what you say.

Wikipedia articles should reflect coverage given to the subject in third-party reliable sources and present it in a neutral tone (that is, Wikipedia's voice should be neutral). A book that's highly praised, Peter Doggett's You Never Give Me Your Money, is seen as an – if not the – authoritative source on the Beatles' break-up. Although by the author's account, some readers complained at the way McCartney was depicted in the book, I don't think there's any reason to view Doggett's handling of the story as anything but very even-handed; professional reviewers and other Beatles biographers have said as much. Doggett says he approached the story with more sympathy towards McCartney than for all the other parties involved, yet as he worked on his book, the "true" picture revealed something else. But it's not just Doggett's Money that creates this picture, it's several other books. By his own admission, McCartney was floundering emotionally in his attempts to keep the Beatles together, certainly from Ono's arrival onwards, and the more he pushed to keep them together, perhaps fighting the inevitable, the more he pushed the others away. And this is what appears to have been borne out in his actions.

Up until a year ago, I believe, the article had a section titled Difficulties in collaboration. Recently, with the 50th anniversary of the break-up (fast) approaching, I had been thinking that this topic needed to return and be expanded on. But doing so would introduce more of the anti-McCartney slant that you perceive, I'm afraid – simply because, again, in telling the story or reporting events, that is the picture that emerges. But what should we do, not go there at all?

From Rubber Soul onwards, according to Harrison, McCartney began to insist that arrangements follow what he had worked out in advance. This approach contrasts with Lennon, who, partly through indecision, left arrangements open and allowed his bandmates to express themselves musically. Starr has pointed this out too, saying that it became a case of a guitar contribution being right or wrong, whereas previously the approach had been, "Well, what can you give me?" Lennon's caught on tape in January 1969 saying that McCartney had also treated him as a backing musician at times. It was a trait that McCartney has acknowledged and has said he tortured himself over at the time, and one that came to characterise relationships in his group Wings also. After the break-up, Harrison and Starr jumped at the chance to work with Lennon again (and one reads no end of reports from musicians saying that when working with Lennon and Harrison, it was a joy; they had free rein to find themselves in the song) ... I mean, by compiling these items, it's difficult to avoid painting a picture that gets into the territory you're concerned about – but it is the picture that reflects what the majority of reliable sources say. In the article, one would set that description with mention of the completely different music-making approaches of McCartney and Harrison, especially, whereby McCartney had everything well organised in his head, in advance, and thought in terms of song sections, whereas Harrison wanted to work on the whole piece, start to finish, and feel his way into the song, rather than isolate verses from a middle eight. This is handled well in sources like Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head and Doug Sulpy & Ray Schweighardt's book Get Back: The Unauthorized Chronicle of The Beatles' Let It Be Disaster; Mark Hertsgaard's A Day in the Life also, where he makes the point (about drum parts, I think) that it wasn't a case of McCartney being better than Starr or the others, just that McCartney's musical ideas came more quickly. The point as far as it concerns this article is that McCartney appears to have had very definite ideas that left little room for the group to collaborate when recording his songs.

Another point that's not mentioned in the article, and which I think should be, is why it is that Lennon and McCartney failed in their joint bid for Northern Songs in 1969. Ultimately, it's said to have been Lennon insulting the "fat cats" in the City of London, at the eleventh hour, and when the business community's goodwill was undoubtedly still in the Beatles' favour. But just as relevant to their bid was Lennon discovering that for some time McCartney had been buying up Northern shares privately and then McCartney being unable to explain why he'd never mentioned that to Lennon – it got the whole bid off to a bad start where trust between the pair was suddenly an issue.

There are other examples like this where if one expands on a certain point in the text, the facts appear to be that McCartney acted deceptively, perhaps changed his account of events later on, and yes, acted selfishly. Anything Apple-related, for a start, because he's usually recognised as the inspiration and ideas man behind the enterprise, yet with that comes the reality that, chiefly under his guidance, it seems, the business was in a precarious financial situation by the end of 1968. Point I'm trying to make with all this is, the more one introduces detail to topics that sources identify as contributing to the Beatles' break-up, the more it reveals McCartney in a central role. Further details – one might say "blame" – could be added on Lennon's role in Apple, for sure. But there's no concerted attempt to pinpoint Paul McCartney; he simply figures so highly in all the strands. As for whether the article depicts McCartney as "narcissistic, unreasonable, selfish, arbitrary, imperious, greedy and/or callous and unkind", well, it shouldn't say that or offer anything judgmental in Wikipedia's voice. The presentation of facts relating to the break-up might give the reader that impression, of course, but at the same time, it's not for us to airbrush these details. This is an article about the causes of/dysfunction leading to the Beatles disbanding; the break-up itself; and the aftermath.

I've spotted a couple of instances in the article where a point could be rephrased to address part of what you're saying. Other than that, I also welcome some input from, as you put it, "parties with little or no interest in the Beatles". Our voice has to deliver the information in a neutral tone, so that type of scrutiny would be much appreciated. It's actually Beatles fans that I imagine would be the most vocal, because McCartney's so popular and there's always an element of anything that casts a hero in an unfavourable light must be biased, almost by definition. JG66 (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Footnotes without matching references

Like the Beatlemaina article, this topic has several unresolved footnote references. Many of them are the same as the Beatlemania article, in fact, tho a few are different:

• Doggett (2009). There Doggett 2003 and 2011; what's this?
• Womack (2009). No matching reference
• MacDonald. No year given, tho 2005 and 1997 are used elsewhere without definition. There's a definition for MacDonald (1998), but it's never used.
• MacDonald (2005). No matching reference
• MacDonald (1997). No matching reference
• Lewishon (1988). There's Lewishon references from 2002 and 2005, not 1988
• Lewishon (1992). Same as above.
• Gould (2007). No matching reference
• Sutherland (2010). There's Sutherland 2003, but it's never referenced.

Is anyone able to sort these out so the article is properly and verifiably referenced? -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Beatles magical mystery tour.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed title change

The title of this article should be amended to reflect the proper spelling of "breakup."

According to the Cambridge Dictionary [1], the correct spelling is break-up. This article uses British English, not American. WWGB (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Beatles magical mystery tour.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions for the article

Apologies for my earlier edits. I’m new at this, and thought at first that my first edit didn’t take, so I did it again. I see now I should have messaged you beforehand.

First, thank you for maintaining this page. There’s a lot of important information on it.

I think some of it can be revised with more accuracy. For instance, Beatlemania was really finished by 1966 after they stopped touring, and therefore I believe it should be removed from the list of stress factors in paragraph 1. Or are you trying to say they were being stressed by their fans?

Also, following up on the above “anti-McCartney” comment, I think the reference to McCartney’s “domineering” role sounds biased, and could be softened. The other members may have felt he was domineering, but he probably didn’t see it that way. “Self-assertive” might be a less judgmental term.

Let me know if you are open to other suggestions. And if I have made any blunders here, I apologize in advance.

Thank you, Jk Jkjk8989 (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. And on reflection, I appreciate your point about assuming your original edit "didn't take" – it's a while back now, but I remember one of my first edits on Wikipedia and how I wasn't actually aware when (or that) an addition I made was being reverted ...

This article is for everyone to improve, btw. With regard to the McCartney point, I don't think "self-assertive" really covers it – Lennon was self-assertive, after all, but it didn't mean his bandmates regularly felt excluded. However it's phrased there in the lead, the message, I believe, should reflect McCartney's increasing control over all aspects of the band's career. That's not to say the others were powerless, by any means; at the same time, Lennon, Harrison and Starr simply didn't have the careerist approach that McCartney had.

I don't think I've had much to do with those lead paragraphs. If you or any of us think "domineering" is not appropriate in Wikipedia's voice, feel free to go ahead and reword. (Perhaps something like "what his bandmates considered domineering"?)

Mentioning Beatlemania there would only be relevant insofar as B-mania doomed their career as live performers, which in turn limited how they could function once the studio-bound honeymoon was over. And that's where the problems in collaboration, one songwriter insisting that a song be done his way, etc, become an issue. JG66 (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Paul being "domineering", I think that something along the lines of your suggestion would be more appropriate. Whether or not someone is domineering is a matter of perspective after all, and there are plenty of statements from each member complaining about Paul's behaviour, though in recent years I think the scholarship has shown weaknesses in this narrative (cf. Erin Torkelson Weber, The Beatles and the Historians, pp. 82–90, 227n83). Tkbrett (✉) 14:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I think your suggestion works nicely; i.e., "what his bandmates considered domineering.” I'll be happy to look into making an adjustment.

Did Ringo consider Paul domineering? I know he has described Paul as “a workaholic,” which sounds like typical Ringo, not wanting to talk badly of anyone. It’s just that I’ve never heard or read about Ringo expressing that sentiment. My sense is that he had no problem taking direction, from Paul or anyone.

Jkjk8989 (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Starr did consider McCartney domineering, at least he's on record as saying so. That message was in his affidavit in the High Court in early 1971; Starr quit briefly in 1968 because of McCartney's hectoring about his drumming, among other things; he has often used the word "dominates" about McCartney, eg in Athology when referring to atmosphere that led to Harrison's walkout in Jan '69. Those are the examples that come to mind immediately for me.

It's one thing to ensure that Wikipedia presents this and any other point in a neutral tone. But that doesn't give us licence to present history in a more palatable form, depending on one's sensibilities. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

As JG66 alludes to above, Ringo's written testimony calls Paul "the greatest bass player in the world", but also criticizes him for always trying to have things his way (McCabe and Schonfeld, Apple to the Core, 167, quoted in Torkelson Weber, The Beatles and the Historians, 83). In The Anthology, Ringo says "George left because Paul and he were having a heated discussion" and "... George was finding his independence and he wouldn't be dominated as much by Paul – because in the end Paul wanted to point out the solo to George, who would say, 'Look, I'm a guitarist. I'll play the solo'" (The Beatles Anthology, 316). This is somewhat curious though, because as has been pointed out in retrospect, it was not the disagreement depicted in Let It Be between Paul and George that led to George quitting, but actually an argument between John and George (Torkelson Weber, 227n83). It seems that the scene in the film coloured each of the Beatles' memories in retrospect so they have misremembered key details. Tkbrett (✉) 14:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

JG66: Is there a link to Starr’s affidavit? I can't find it online. A specific quote would be helpful, too. As we have discovered here, memories can be faulty. 😉 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkjk8989 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Perceived domineering role

Their break-up was a cumulative process attributed to numerous factors. These include the strain of the Beatlemania phenomenon, the death of manager Brian Epstein in 1967, resentment towards McCartney from his bandmates for his perceived domineering role, Lennon's heroin use and his relationship with Yoko Ono, Harrison's prolific songwriting output, the floundering of Apple Corps and the Get Back project (later Let It Be, 1970), and managerial disputes.

The use of "perceived" here suggests that the other factors were real and McCartney's "domineering role" was only "perceived". It just sounds biased.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the topic being discussed in the section immediately above this one. Tkbrett (✉) 01:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Beatles end date

Although McCartney effectively announced the end of the band on 10 April 1970, Lennon left the Beatles (though not made public at the time) on 20 September 1969, as is stated later on in the article and is widely documented. So please don't keep changing the introduction to say that John, Paul, George and Ringo were in the group until April 1970, as this is incorrect. Thanks Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with the idea that the Beatles were finished as soon as Lennon said he wanted a divorce. Arguably the end date was when they all signed papers to dissolve the partnership and Lennon was the last to sign. Jack Upland (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes,but the opening sentence specifically says these are the dates during which the Beatles consisted of John, Paul, George and Ringo. If you're talking about the Beatles as a legal entity, they were only officially dissolved in December 1974, but clearly had long since ceased to be active as a group by then. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Further thoughts on this - maybe the opening sentence doesn't need to be quite so specific. Instead it could just say something like: "The Beatles were an English rock band, active from 1960 until 1970". Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

But I think you need to mention the members.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

But, thinking about it more, this is complex. In the court case, John, George, and Ringo argued that they had had differences in the past but were willing and able to work with the band. Admittedly, the judge did not agree and appointed a receiver to the partnership. Then there was Apple Corp. This was a corporation, not a partnership. Paul was contractually obliged to continue to produce his albums through Apple and struggled to get out of it. George said no, "Hare Krishna" - which was rude. If the band was still insisting that Paul should still produce his albums through Apple and his mates were insisting that they were willing to work with the band, how logically can you say that the band dissolved in 1970???--Jack Upland (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)