Take some time

consider this....if the Beatles had taken strategic breaks throughout their career, would it have extended the life of the band? Most bands these days do so. In fact, George brought this very point up during Anthology interviews. Or perhaps does the ‘die young stay pretty' argument hold more water by keeping them burning in the memory lamps as being at the top of their game?

It is hard to stay in a band. It is the best way to lose your mates. It is like a marriage. It can be a painful set of relationships to maintain. The political manoeuvring inside a band like the Beatles must have been totally draining. The sheer hassle of creating new works can drain the energy of everyone around it, from the epicentre outward. Norman Smith famously quit as full time engineer as the bickering between John and Paul during the Rubber Soul session became more of a regular occurrence. George Martin was no different, during the torturous sessions of 1968 and '69. Closer to the band though, witness George during the Let It Be film. It's quite easy to understand Paul directing George in order to draw out what might be good for the song. Paul quite easily slipped into the producer's chair and I believe did so more often than not. After all, he is a talented producer as well. However, there is a fine fine line between producing and being seen to be bossy, overbearing and dominant. It gets peoples' backs up and raises their hackles. Now if you've already got a bit of beef with how someone works and then they start telling you what to do, the results can be catastrophic for that relationship. George obviously couldn't stand the sight of Paul during this time and their personal and working relationship was on the verge of breakdown. I know they overcame their differences later in life, but their relationship was probably never the same. Paul must have become quite reticent to offer an opinion thereafter, in case it might be construed that he was trying to take over. So, fundamentally, things had changed. Would an extended holiday following the dark, horribly dark Thirty Days sessions at Twickenham been of benefit? I think so. Time is a great healer as they say. I doubt that the building animosity of those sessions would have been relevant to them after say, six months; a year apart. I believe those particular sessions to be the straw that broke the camel's back, directly accelerating the final break up. And there were earlier signs of the relentless juggernaut pounding forward. Witness when Ringo was getting his tonsils out and the totally BIZARRE episode when Jimmy Nicol was put in on drums. What were they thinking? It may be easy to say, especially in retrospect, but perhaps the tour should have been postponed! A break should have been put in place, thereby ensuring that Ringo (who was after all SICK) was given time to recover. It would have eased the pressure on the band, and Mr Nicol in particular. The poor man was not only asked to fill Ringo's shoes - a hard enough task in itself - but step in to do filming, press conferences and interviews for goodness sake!! He had to become a Beatle for this short period! I think that was an amazing decision to have made. They were the biggest band in the world,. Their reputation would have been intact had they postponed the tour. Sure the fans would have been disappointed, but it is not like they would have organised Beatle record burning sessions on that basis! Surely, no one came out on top there, not least of all Jimmy, who quickly scurried under the nearest rock for cover and was basically never heard of again!

I think an extended break would have been great for the band and would most probably have extended their creative life and preserved their personal relationships. Would Paul and George have fallen out in such a spectacular way? Perhaps a more important question arises if you consider that John only went to America following the complete breakdown of the band. So, could a break have changed his course? Is it possible that he would have remained in the UK to continue working with them? If he did there is a possibility that he may still be alive today. There is chit chat going around that John wanted to get the band back together in the mid Seventies. I'm sure Paul would've done that in a heartbeat. George may have been a slightly tougher nut to crack as he probably still hadn't got over the years of what he might have considered to be "George bashing" from Paul. He had also given John short shrift as the legal case for partnership dissolution came to its conclusion. This was recently discussed by May Pang who witnessed John's 'no show' at the crucial meeting! Maybe, just maybe, he was giving it that final extra thought before the legal end of the world's greatest band was made absolute.

All of the petty arguments, all of the pressures, misconceptions, backstabbing, perceived slights and so on which brought the Beatles to their knees and to breaking point in 1969/70 may have been alleviated with some proper breaks during the turbulent years of the mid Sixties. As a result, the band might have gone on for years, still producing further classics. Imagine the Beatles album that could have been released in 1973 for example. Arguably, it may have been their best album to date by that point, given some of the absolute classics from that year, with all four releasing strong product. One senses a bit of a creative recovery following the trauma of break-up and subsequent divorce. More importantly though, the personal costs to the boys themselves may have been drastically reduced, which in turn would've allowed the band to continue.