Did Yoko...?


Did Yoko brainwash John as to Paul, influencing the animosity that John had towards Paul from '69 onwards? For those Beatles fans who aren't fond of Yoko, this has always been suspected or believed; but I've never seen this topic discussed on a message board, and I would like your opinions. Let's look at some evidence...

For one thing, while John's resentment of Paul and his role in the group went back to the time of recording Sgt. Pepper, it was not at all long-lasting and likely had more to do with John's mood swings because he was taking so much acid and his moods were swinging from high to depressed for months on end. I've read a couple of books on John and Paul, and they all say that John was actually at his happiest in the second half of 1967, starting right around the time that Sgt. Pepper was released. He was still taking a lot of acid, but he was happier.

Yoko herself had resentment towards Paul, coming from her experiences with the band during the recording of the White Album and in early '69. Paul, George, and Ringo were irritated with her sticking her nose in the Beatles' music, you know offering suggestions and bringing her bed into the studio. She was a conniving and manipulating personality anyway, so after the Beatles broke up and she had John all to herself, she probably coupled her own resentment of Paul with the inklings that she got from John and his resentments and fed John a distorted picture of Paul's 'intentions' which he was only too willing to accept.

There also seems to be a clear connection between the timing of John's resenting of Paul and his increasing drug use. And, behold, that increasing drug use (moving on from acid to heroin) began right around the time that John and Yoko hooked up. Certain types of drugs will poison your mind and it seems improbable that, had John not become heavy into harder drugs, John's minor resentments of Paul from the Sgt. Pepper era would just blossom into full-blown animosity in barely two years' time. When they were in their drug fogs, holed up in the house, John and Yoko had plenty of time to stew over all of the perceived slights that they had gotten from people over the years, not the least of which from Paul, and that bond that John and Yoko had, influenced by drugs, served to insulate them from others, even people who were very very close to them (Paul, to name one). Now I am not knocking John and saying that he didn't think for himself, I love John, I am just offering what I know to be true regarding the influence of heavy drug use on a person's mind and the fact that Yoko was a conniving manipulator of the first order.

So folks, what are your thoughts on this?

reply

In Cynthia's book Yoko is said to have been on to Lennon since 1966, first she sent just letters and finally Cyn found her from their bed. Yoko had decided to make John her own.

That John dragged Yoko into studio as his equal artist partner is similar trick as what he had done with Stuart Sutcliffe. John was well aware of Paul's talent and he knew that Paul could deprive from him his status of being the leader of the group. Paul had proven to be John's equal already in the Quarry Men but when Stuart appeared Paul had give way for John's new friend.

The Apple Scruffs Corps, 05
Children, don't do what I have done

reply

Yoko did not break up the Beatles.But she was a big factor in it.
The Beatle members themselves should carry the blame.In the White Album,
everyone was for himself in terms of making new songs and songwriting;ego among bandmembers; and lastly,there was no longer unity among the group.

reply

"That John dragged Yoko into studio as his equal artist partner is similar trick as what he had done with Stuart Sutcliffe. John was well aware of Paul's talent and he knew that Paul could deprive from him his status of being the leader of the group. Paul had proven to be John's equal already in the Quarry Men but when Stuart appeared Paul had give way for John's new friend."

Wow...I just don't see the comparison at all. With Stuart, they were very little more than some boys having fun with guitars...by Yoko, they were the biggest group ever and already had well established routines and norms. Stuart never tried to assert himself or run the band...Yoko tried to dominate the group. Didn't the other Beatles more or less LIKE Stuart? Also, Stuart was a real artist.

"In the White Album, everyone was for himself in terms of making new songs and songwriting;ego among bandmembers; and lastly,there was no longer unity among the group. "

This is true, but I wonder if this couldn't have been a healthy thing in the longrun if things had been a little different. The White Album did release a lot of tension and bad energy...unfortunately, with the Let It Be project and Yoko's increasing presence, it only got more tense.

You can't blame it all on Yoko, but she was by far the biggest factor. This includes things like her introducing John to heroin (which, according to people like Peter Brown, was the biggest factor in the break-up) and isolating him from the Beatles and all his other friends. Yoko's horribly obnoxious and unstoppable BRAYING when she would order the Beatles what to do "Beatles do this...Beatles do that" that began around the Let It Be period absolutely destroyed the studio chemistry, and resulted in a situation where they could be productive only in Johnandyoko were not present.

But the Beatles allowed this to happen and not just John. I wonder what they would have done the very first day if Yoko showed up for the sessions and they just politely told her to please go away. Would John have quit on the spot? He would have thrown a tantrum, but at that time he was still committed to the Beatles and less attached to Yoko.

Yoko WAS a huge factor in the Beatle not getting back together at least occasionally after the break-up, although perhaps not as big as their continued litigation.

reply

"You can't blame it all on Yoko, but she was by far the biggest factor"

I don't agree that she was the biggest factor deep down, maybe on the surface. The Beatles were in a lot of trouble after Brian died. That I think deep down had more to do with them breaking up than Yoko did. I think the biggest factor is not Yoko, but another person with 4 letters...PAUL.

Yoko didn't try to dominate the band though, she threw in her advice and suggestions, and they were taken wrong. the "Beatles do this.." she was being sarcastic, she was commenting on how the public looks at them, that they were trapped in being certain way, which is true.

John might have had heroin, but Paul was also doing coke and becoming a complete bastard.

reply

>>> I think the biggest factor is not Yoko, but another person with 4 letters...PAUL. >>>

Paul was the only one trying to keep the Beatles together.

>>> John might have had heroin, but Paul was also doing coke and becoming a complete bastard. >>>

Heroin addiction and occasional recreational cocaine usage are two very different things.

If you think Paul had become a "complete bastard" you seem to maybe not have a great grasp of Beatles history.

reply

"Paul was the only one trying to keep the Beatles together."

I understand this, you understand this, but to John, George and Ringo, they have admitted and felt that the was trying to take over the Beatles and continue to live in a dream world like nothing happened. Yes he was trying to keep it going, and more power to him, but it caused a lot of friction between the other three Beatles, that deep down was the root cause of the break up.

"Heroin addiction and occasional recreational cocaine usage are two very different things."

yes it is, but depending on what you have read, his usage wasn't always recreational, but who's to say. Herion makes you a complete lazy, lying person, cocaine can make you an jerk.

"If you think Paul had become a "complete bastard" you seem to maybe not have a great grasp of Beatles history."

sorry pal, I have a pretty good grasp of the Beatles history. Again I am talking about how the others felt about him. Have you read any interviews from John and George talking about how much of a controling jerk he was? He had good intentions, but they were all growing apart anyway. Yoko was really nothing more than an imediate target to blame the break up on.

Just watch LET IT BE, and you can get a taste of how Paul had become. It's one reason he won't let it be released.

reply

>>> Just watch LET IT BE, and you can get a taste of how Paul had become >>>

As with any documentary, you're only seeing what the filmmakers have chosen to show.

I actually think the whole "Paul is bossy and controlling" isn't really evident in "Let It Be". It's been claimed so many times, that it's sort of become accepted. But besides that fairly tense exchange between Paul and George over how to play a particular guitar riff, there really isn't any example of Paul being difficult. If anything, he comes across as the most consistently enthusiastic about the whole project.

>>> Yes he was trying to keep it going, and more power to him, but it caused a lot of friction between the other three Beatles, that deep down was the root cause of the break up. >>>

Regardless of the other three's perception of his attitude and intentions, the others just didn't want to keep the Beatles going. That's the main reason it fell apart. If Paul had been more complacent and not tried to assume a role of leadership, it's not like that would have kept them together.

>>> depending on what you have read, his usage wasn't always recreational, but who's to say >>>

John had admitted his struggles with heroin addiction, but have you actually heard any evidence from a credible source that Paul was simultaneously dealing with a cocaine addiction?

>>> He had good intentions, but they were all growing apart anyway >>>

That's exactly my point - it doesn't matter how they all may have perceived him, they were by and large ready to stop being The Beatles. Paul's intentions were good, they were largely misinterpreted by the public for years, and in the end Paul can hardly be blamed for working hard to keep the group going. No matter what Paul's attitude had been - even if he had been nothing but diplomatic - it wouldn't have saved them.

>>> Have you read any interviews from John and George talking about how much of a controling jerk he was? >>>

I've read the interviews - and had John lived, by 1990 he probably would've had a very different way of looking at it than he did in 1980. Because in 1980 he had a very different view than he did in 1970. The bitterness amongst the four of them greatly colored how each viewed the Beatles experience, and the Beatles break-up.

There were many contributing factors to why the group broke up, but what you were saying is far too easy - that Paul was becoming a complete bastard. Sure, their perceptions of each other at that time contributed to the break-up but it isn't fair to hang that blame on Paul.

reply

nor is it fair to hang the blame on Yoko.

reply

Well, that was someone elses argument, not mine. I've just been responding to your comments about Paul.

reply

I know, I am just talking in general terms.

but it kinda does matter what the other three felt about Paul, because even if we can see it objectivally, we were never THE BEATLES. The other three were, and if they felt that way, then that is more of a cause to them.

but over all, they all grew apart, it was bound to happen. it's actually a really good thing that it happened. Now, what they have 14 albums (the number might not be right, and I'm going with original british albums), but, apart from Let It Be, they don't have a bad album. Let It Be is ok, but not the greatest. At least the didn't carry on like The Who, Stones or Kinks and put out some really crappy albums in the 70's...(no they saved that for their solo careers!) but now we have a fantastic group of solid albums from a band.

reply

it's amazing that an album with "let it be", "across the universe", "the long and winding road", and "get back" can be qualified as bad or even merely "ok". i like the naked version of the album a bit better, as i think it would have been truer to what were going for, but this is still excellent material.

it's a shame they couldn't have just agreed to put the beatles aside for a few years and taken a much-deserved vacation, instead of going all the way to full breakup. but maybe for their legacy it was better this way - better to die (as a band) prematurely than linger on.

still... you don't think the "next" beatles album with "maybe i'm amazed", "it don't come easy", "back off boogaloo", "imagine", "instant karma", "cold turkey", "what is life", and "my sweet lord" would have been worth adding to your collection?

reply

I've never really liked the long and winding road on the let it be, but the naked version is better.

I just think out of all their post "Help" albums, "Let It Be" is the weakest. its still good, but,,,,

no, if you would take the best songs off of the first few solo albums and have it be a Beatles album, yeah it would be great, but they got to the point where they were just writing good songs, past any ground breaking point.




reply

[deleted]

Did Yoko brainwash John as to Paul, influencing the animosity that John had towards Paul from '69 onwards?


I wouldn't be surprised at all if she did so.

reply

LMAO! 40yrs later and people are still blaming Yoko. The Beatles broke themselves up; many people say things started going down hill after Brian died and I agree with that. Paul tried to take his place and keep things together but that couldnt have come across very well to his bandmates. And I find it funny that people blame John for being into heroin like he hadn't tried numerous other drugs before that. So if it had been cocaine, LSD etc. during the time of the last album would you blame whoever introduced him to that particular drug?

RingRing hooka RingRing

reply

I've always thought Yoko's role in the breakup was blown way out of proportion. Certainly her intrusion into recording sessions caused some tension, but to my mind enforcing the "no girlfriends rule" comes down to the band, not the girlfriends. The biggest contributions to the Beatles' breakup were made by, who else, the Beatles -- specifically John's negativity and meanness, and Paul's ever-ballooning ego (which alienated not just John, but George and probably to some degree Ringo as well). It's easy to forget that every single other member quit at one point before Paul decided the Beatles were truly no more, and in no case was it due to Yoko.

Like any human interaction, especially among people as smart as the Beatles, it's complex. Without question things started falling apart when Brian Epstein died. That is when Paul began taking the reins of where the band was headed, and as to whether he was helpfully filling the void or staging a hostile takeover, the answer seems to be complicated. Certainly Epstein's death and the resulting power vaccuum coincided with John's increasing drug abuse, insecurity, and laziness, and Paul probably felt he needed to steer the band because no one else would or could. But it's also apparent that he was a control freak, not just dictating other people's instrumental parts, but steering the band toward projects no one else was interested in (Magical Mystery Tour, the Sgt. Pepper concept), and doing whole songs on his own without involving the other members (which apparently drove Lennon up a wall), and refusing to work on the others' songs, particularly George's. I suspect that one fed the other -- John's multiple dysfunctions and crappy attitude fed Paul's egomania, and vice versa. And then there's poor George, who just wants them to all play together as a band again. (Ringo, I think, was just happy to be there, as usual.)

Back to Yoko and John, it's hard to say how much influence she had on John. Certainly he was hateful, resentful, prone to addiction, and kind of generally crazy without any help from her or anyone else. And of course any recovering addict will tell you it's meaningless to blame addiction on another person or really any other outside influence. But on the other hand, he was insecure and damaged, and clearly latched onto such a strong-willed woman to fill the void left by his mother abandoning him, as he himself clearly understood, and I think he was all too happy to let Yoko steer him around in his later years. But as far as her breaking up the band... ehhhh. There were at least two guys already well on their way to doing that anyway. Yoko was a catalyst at worst, and probably more like a convenient scapegoat.


Interesting thoughts from everybody in this thread, btw.

This is my new sig. Do you like it?

reply

Late late but YOU never got the credit of summing up this debatable subject in such a, as I see it, best and wisest way! Thanks MrBook. Heroin, Yoko, Pauls ego, the other Beatles´s lazyness, Epsteins death. There you are! Its complex, how much we even want to color it black and white to simplify the whole thing. I just know a thing. Paul and John initially truly loved eachother. When they broke up, Paul had the severest depression of his life, despite Linda´s comfort.

reply

Many factors contributed to the Beatles' breakup, Yoko Ono being one of them. Here are the others, in detail.

1) Paul McCartney trying to unofficially manage the band after Brian Epstein's death. The others (and for good reason) took this move to mean that Paul was trying to be the leader, when they always thought of it as four equal parts.

2) Competition. By 1967, John Lennon and Paul McCartney (and to a lesser extent, George Harrison) were trying to write the next hit single, and everybody believed that theirs would be the one.

3) Self-interests. As Ringo Starr said, "It broke up because we weren't willing to put in the time and energy for each other anymore". George had converted to Hinduism, and was interested in Indian classical music, John wanted to write material that he felt wasn't suited for the band, Paul, more or less, the same thing, and Ringo wanted to get into acting more.

4) Paul's wife at the time, Linda. I don't know why she's blamed as a lesser an extent than Yoko, because she's just as much to blame. She had no respect for John Lennon whatsoever, and told Paul, "You don't need John".

5) Business disagreements. John, George and Ringo wanted Allen Klein to not only manage Apple Corps Ltd., but also to be the group's personal manager, replacing the deceased Brian Epstein. Paul wanted his father-in-law, Lee Eastman, because he saw Klein as someone who viewed the Beatles as nothing more than dollar signs.

6) Brian Epstein's death. He was the glue that held the group together.

7) By 1966, George had begun to grow tired of living under John and Paul's shadow.

Both John and George admitted that they both wanted to leave the group as early as 1966, each for his own reasons. To that effect, John said, "I was always waiting for a reason to get out of the Beatles from the day I filmed 'How I Won The War'. I just didn't have the guts to do it. The seed was planted when the Beatles stopped touring, and I couldn't deal with not being onstage. But I was too frightened to step outside of the palace". George at the time, had recently returned from a trip to Rishikesh, India, and simply stated his reason as, "My mind was still in India at the time".

reply

Dont forget the heroin man. Its very difficult to have a relationship and communicating with someone who uses heroin repetitiously.

reply

I'm curious, could you possibly direct me to a book or another source that speaks about Linda's attitude towards Lennon, as well as the source for her "You don't need John". I believe that is' been reported somewhere; I'm just interested in where. I read the fairly recent book of John's letters, including a memorable one addressed to Linda circa either 1970 or '71. It was clear there were tensions between them. I got the sense that Linda was making all the wrong moves to handle a John Lennon, not that she'd be the only to find him difficult.

I am sure that Yoko was trying to be supportive of John while Linda did the same for Paul. What stock did either of the wives have in the continued existence of the Beatles? Not that either of them were actively trying to destroy the group, but I'm sure for each of them, the person they loved was the number one priority. I don't fault them for that, and it isn't even untrue that Paul could be successful without John and vice versa. My sense is that Paul had a hard time letting go of the Beatles, perhaps harder than the others in some regards because he was not ready for it to end and, ever the optimist, wanted to salvage it. I would imagine that part of Linda's motivation was to get him to see that there was a way forward without the Beatles and that he need not be dependent on Lennon, as Lennon was clearly not dependent on him. I would imagine Paul felt like he was losing a band and his longtime creative partner. That's got to hurt. John was so far along on his own trip, and had been for sometime, that he might've seemed like he simple didn't care or the disintegration of old partnerships didn't bother him, although I'm sure the emotional and psychological dynamics on his end were more complicated than that.

Essentially, both Lennon and McCartney were feeling awful at the time for different reasons and their respective partners were trying to help them through. In that regard, it's hard to fault anyone's basic motivations here. My overall impression is that John, Paul, and George were each flexing their respective wings and growing somewhat apart. They needed not to be constricted by the group any longer. (I don't mention Ringo here mainly because I suspect he'd be happy to play with any of them any time he was wanted.)

As far as why Linda doesn't get as much criticism, one superficial reason may be that we don't like to speak ill of the dead. Beyond that, I do think Yoko was more visible in the public image of the Beatles, and her and John's late '60s career, when he really left the Beatles behind, was highly publicized, while Paul never did anything with Linda publicly (other than marrying her) during the time of the Beatles that I know of. Yoko also has a strong personality and, although I have nothing against her whatsoever, it's easier for a lot of people to find things to dislike about her, from her looks to her avant guard art that many people don't understand, even to her Japanese ethnicity. There were multiple reasons, none of them fair, behind Yoko being effectively tarred and feathered in the perception of the Beatles-loving public. Linda would have been seen as "relatively" normal, not alarming or confusing as Yoko was in some ways to many people, and as far as I I can tell, had a much lower profile in general at the time. Ultimately, I think many people don't understand Yoko and don't wish to understand her. Linda doesn't have the same problems.

As a final note, I probably come across as being quite sympathetic to McCartney here. Generally, I'm actually more of a fan of John and George in many regards (many of which come down to personal tastes), but I do feel equally sorry for Paul as for the rest of them as far as the painful experiences of the break-up. In pointing out that Lennon could be difficult, that's not an attack at all. Everyone, including Lennon himself, has said as much. I have admiration for him as an artist. I'm just saying he was complicated and I can understand why not everyone would react well to him.


Om Shanti

reply

If you're interested in a personal and honest depiction of Yoko's personality in the late 60s and her influence on Lennon and the demise of The Beatles then I would recommend Tony Bramwell's book "Magical Mystery Tours". Bramwell grew up with Harrison, was a friend to Lennon & McCartney pre-Beatles and worked for them through their entire career, being Epstein's right hand man at NEMS then carrying on working for them at Apple after Brian's death. He was also one of the people wearing one of the peace "notice boards" in the All You Need Is Love video.

Bramwell comes across as a laid back and likeable chap with hardly a bad word to say about anyone, but his opinions on Yoko are totally negative. There are countless stories of her 18 month relentless persuit of a disinterested Lennon, practically stalking him, turning up at his home uninvited, sending myriad letters and gifts to his house and attempting to jump into his car whenever she caught him coming out of Apple. It's interesting to read of how Lennon was embarrassed by her in this period, and on a few occasions had her physically removed from the Apple offices.

Once Lennon became emotionally embroiled with her Bramwell makes a good job of describing how Lennon's personality changed, and his habits. Heroin being one of them, and Yoko's attempts at actually joining the band as a 5th member, caterwalling over rehearsals at Twickenham during the Get Back sessions. He even quotes Lennon saying "the band don't understand Tone, she just wants to be part of The Beatles". Bramwell puts a lot of this behaviour from Lennon down to drug abuse and mental illness, which is certainly believable when you read of how Lennon was acting behind the scenes in those days.

It's interesting to hear the insights of people who were actually there at the time, Bramwell cringing at Lennon bringing his "wife" into work with him. He also writes damningly about Yoko's attitude to the staff at Apple when she became "Mrs Lennon", demanding £500 pots of caviar to be delivered to the office everyday and shouting "fetch me a chair etc.." to staff who had been around since the NEMS days of the early 60s.

Anyway, I'm waffling, read the book and marvel at the madness and excesses of the late 60s rock establishment.

--------------------
Duty Now For The Future

reply