The Beatles' Break-Up: How'd It Make You Feel?

Watching The History Channel’s documentary right now, and yes, I know they didn’t break up - really at the time they stopped touring, but I felt…deserted.

I just felt that they had so much more to offer (even in the studio!), and at 14, I was Ringo. I had the first Beatles haircut in my high school, knew all the words, played all the drum parts (on my Dad’s set, which pissed him off mightily, till he bought me own set of Gretsch’s ;)).

Watching this documentary makes me miss those days.

You?

(Those of you who were there, I mean - even though they seem to get “re-discovered” by every generation!)

Thanks

Quasi

I was too small, hadn’t learned to use my parents’ turntable yet. But once I did, Mom’s copy of Strawberry Fields soon became one of my favorites. The best things about my host family in Ireland were one of the cats (the other one behaved like a dog) and - the complete freaking Beatles! Those records got more mileage that month than they’d gotten in years.

It made me feel as if something were starting to unravel - never could put my finger on just what it was.

All I know is that watching “Let It Be” when it came out was one of the most depressing things of my teenage years.

In 1970, I was 9 years old. I can’t remember having any specific reaction, despite being a Beatles fan.

Their break-up didn’t bother me. By that time their music was veering into the lame and weird, and I figured they had run their course. I loved a lot of the Beatles’ music, but other than a song here or there didn’t really care for any of their solo (i.e., after break-up) stuff. The whole was greater than the sum of its parts.

Yes. I’ve loved their music since 1963 (I was 13), and to my pleasant surprise I still love almost all of it.

But their solo output: two or three great songs by John, one by Ringo. Paul has done nothing of any interest for me since the Beatles.

George did one great song (“My Sweet Lord”), and his “Wonderwall” is still the only great non-Beatles album by any of the four of them.

.

I was only 13. I had no feelings one way or the other. For me, the Beatles were for teen-age girls. Now I wish I were 10 years older, so I could have appreciated them then as much as I do now. Their breakup would have had more of an influence on me. But honestly, they were all still making music, and there was always a chance, no matter how small, that they might reunite. I can truthfully say I gained more appreciation of them as I grew older and was shocked and shaken when John Lennon was killed as much as any fan. And I’m not ashamed to say I cried when George passed away, too. When Paul and Ringo pass, as all things must, I will also mourn.

Just wondering… (I do that a lot:))

Did any of you feel we had we had some kind of a new way to go with some new BEATLES?

Now we just have Paul and Ringo, but I have a real hope that the kids are working on it!

Please Let It Be!

There are enough of them and I sure would enjoy hearing The Beatles’
kids work on it!

And plus…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQwwqajZXD8

Thanks

Quasi

<mod>

Let’s see what luck we can have with this over in Cafe Society.

Moved IMHO > CS.

</mod>

I think we know about a million times more about what was going on inside the Beatles now than we did then. Rock music was still outside the pale. Rolling Stone existed and I got my first subscription around 1970 but virtually nothing real about rock groups was ever in the mainstream news.

Biographies have since revealed the depth of John’s heroin addiction, something that was completely suppressed in the 60s. We’ve learned about the group dynamics and how each of them had quit the group at some point. Kids and teenagers don’t really understand viscerally what that means. We knew that they stopped touring in 1966 because they couldn’t hear themselves play but we didn’t understand what they meant since all the other groups were out there still touring. The Beatles had pressures on them that nobody at the time could imagine, even though we’ve seen lots of examples since. Sure we knew some of this sort of vaguely, but the Beatles were first on the curve.

Their not touring didn’t bother me. The breakup was a big deal, though. The breakup came after Abbey Road and while everybody “knew” it was the last album they’d done it was also obvious they still had something to say. And 1970 was sheer confusion. Both Ringo’s and Paul’s first solo albums appeared before the official release of Let It Be so they were together and not together. The only thing obvious was that Yoko was to blame. :wink:

Simon and Garfunkel broke up around the same time. Top 40 radio died in 1970, too, and nobody today can imagine how wonderful and important top 40 was in the 60s. Kent State happened two weeks before Let It Be. Lots of important things seemed to be dying, which is why in retrospect I think that the concept of revolution seemed real. Better to create our own new future than the one being imposed on us.

Yeah, I’m rambling, because that whole era seems so big and meaningful and totally lost that it’s hard to put the details together, especially since we keep talking about it with more detail today than we knew then. The Beatles breaking up? That was big. But so was everything else on a daily basis.

I was in college at the time, and a lot of people were totally devastated. I was a fan of theirs then, and even more so now, and yes, “betrayed” is an apt word. I hadn’t kept up with what was going on for them personally, caring only for the music, so it seemed like they were letting their fans down.

And it was pretty much the end of an era. When I think of “the sixties,” it began with the Beatles on Ed Sullivan, and ended with their breakup.

I wasn’t all that upset. For me, they had pretty much fizzled in the song-writing department by then. In fact, after the White Album I pretty much quit listening to them. I was more upset by the demise of the Doobies.

I was 14 when they first came to the US. Loved all the early stuff–Hard Days Night, etc.–but when they went psychedelic they lost me because head music wasn’t my deal. Liked My Sweet Lord, some of John Lennon’s stuff on his own, Wings. Upon reflection, wish time could have allowed for them to get together again. To hear Paul sing the old ones now alone is just sad to me. Let It Be–good advice.

I was 14 when they first came to the US. Loved all the early stuff–Hard Days Night, etc.–but when they went psychedelic they lost me because head music wasn’t my deal. Liked My Sweet Lord, some of John Lennon’s stuff on his own, Wings. Upon reflection, wish time could have allowed for them to get together again. To hear Paul sing the old ones now alone is just sad to me. Let It Be–good advice.

I was a fan, of course, but I was a fan of the Rolling Stones, the Dave Clark Five, Hermans Hermits, (insert 60’s British band name here) and OMG, The Kinks! - so at the time I didn’t really care. Looking back, now I find it kind of sad they were together for such a short time!

I was more into the Monkees. Hey, I was a kid and they had a TV show!

I do think back then it wasn’t shocking for a pop/rock band to break up after a few years. Yeah, it may have been unusual that they did while still immensely popular, but wasn’t pop music assumed to be ephemeral by nature? It’s only 40 years that we see The Kinks, The Who, and The Rolling Stones still performing together and ask WTF, Beatles?

I was a fan ,but I did not care if they broke up. Almost every band does. I am more surprised when they hang together like the Stones.

I was one, so probably cranky.

I remember some girls in high school having tears when it was announced (the school PA would have news headlines in the morning along with school announcements).

If I remember right, Paul actually announced he was leaving first and a week later the other three said they wouldn’t go on. So there was a brief moment when you wondered if they would disband or continue with a new bassist.