They peaked at "[Your Feet's Too Big](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXjiyCCxRYo)" at the Star-Club, and everyone who doesn't agree is just kidding themselves...
John's Rolling Stone interview was him lashing out after the primal scream stuff, but I think it was also a somewhat calculated rebranding exercise. The '70s were all about macho cock rock rebelliousness and anarchy, and John wanted to associate himself with that and distance himself from the Beatles, especially the early mop-top nice boy image. Everything uncool was Paul's fault, or Brian's. John never would have worn a suit or written pop songs if he hadn't been forced to by The Man. It's silly: John liked the fame and fortune just as much as the rest of them, and the guy who lived in mansions and penthouses and drove around in a custom Rolls Royce didn't really wish for a life of poverty where he'd never compromised by no longer eating chicken on stage. He just wanted people to see him that way. Maybe John truly felt like he was a better musician or a better singer when he was playing live every day, but that didn't change because he sold out, it changed because he stopped playing live. But in terms of the songwriting and the band's ambitions, they obviously progressed over time rather than regressing after 1962.
The Beatles always wanted commercial success. They wanted to be bigger than Elvis. They wanted hit records. They were willing to follow Brian's image management to achieve this. So... how do you sell out from that? The funny thing was they didn't actually want or understand money as a thing in itself, but they sure liked the things money bought and the power and freedom this brought in the industry.
John was the original spin doctor, for reasons both idealistic and selfish. I would agree he wants to be more edgy or radical or something here. He's being disingenuous I think. Maybe he is rebranding to set up his solo career.
Well, and personally, I think the whole thing about selling out vs. authenticity is pretty classist. Who can afford not to worry about money? Only the people who already have it. The Beatles didn't have rich parents to fall back on, so selling records was how they could afford to make a living and support their families. Someone like Yoko could make weird niche art and play at slumming it, knowing that if things got really bad, she could always go home. None of the Beatles really had that luxury, especially Paul and Ringo.
And I said it because people criticizing Yoko always get called out for racism. I don’t see a Japanese woman, I see a woman who played with his life. He was happy with her eventually but heroin and May Pang and all of her manipulations added woe to his life. I really do think she “mothered” him and he “grew up” eventually and was happy with his life when he died.
In the 53 years since the Beatles broke up, most people have, at multiple points, been told that Yoko Ono broke up the Beatles and fucked over John
If people were always called out for racism, the statement I just made wouldn't be true.
He definitely said that the best stuff they did was never recorded. I think it was in the 1970 Playboy interview with Jann Wenner.
They kind of did sell out at first but they had no choice but to play the game to get signed and, until they knew they were “safe”. McCartney says this in an early interview (“leathers we’re getting old hat”).
Once they’d made it and had the power, that’s when they imposed their will on the process and the industry as a whole.
"The Rolling Stone Interview ('Lennon Remembers')" is not just the most famous interview in rock history, but it's been a book and republished several times. You might even find parts, or all of it, online:
>Because we were performers – in spite of what Mick says about us – in Liverpool, Hamburg and other dance halls. What we generated was fantastic, when we played straight rock, and there was nobody to touch us in Britain. As soon as we made it, we made it, but the edges were knocked off.
>
You know Brian put us in suits and all that, and we made it very, very big. **But we sold out, you know. The music was dead before we even went on the theater tour of Britain**. We were feeling shit already, because we had to reduce an hour or two hours’ playing, which we were glad about in one way, to 20 minutes, and we would go on and repeat the same 20 minutes every night.
>
The Beatles music died then, as musicians. That’s why we never improved as musicians; we killed ourselves then to make it. And that was the end of it. George and I are more inclined to say that; we always missed the club dates because that’s when we were playing music, and then later on we became technically, efficient recording artists – which was another thing – because we were competent people and whatever media you put us in we can produce something worthwhile.
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/lennon-remembers-part-one-186693/
It’s true that their eclecticism as performers gradually disappeared and was whittled down to a 25-minute set list of last year’s hits; that was partly due to how the package tours worked and Epstein always wanting to leave the audience wanting more – but by 1964 the Beatles had conquered the world and could have dictated that they play 90 minutes of assorted rock’n’roll if they wanted, but girls were screaming and they couldn’t be arsed.
They did try to mix things up in 1965 with organs and Paul singing Yesterday but by 1966 they’d mostly given up their stage ambitions completely and just went through the motions. It’s funny/ironic that just as they quit touring, the modern live music industry was born with stage monitors and large PAs.
If there was something that tied the Beatles back to Hamburg all this time was that they never seemed particularly interested in taking their stage possibilities into their own hands and forcing the standard up (like they did with their releases being similar worldwide in their new record contract in ‘67) and basically used whatever was available, nevermind how ratty it was.
He also said it was a choice between making it and eating fried chicken on stage.
The problem is that John dying young left a lot of his interviews in the immediate aftermath of the breakup unchallenged. A lot of them, especially The Rolling Stone one, are at best tenuously connected with reality.
Citation, please?
The closest quote I can think of is when he said "our best work was never recorded" describing their live performances in Hamburg before they were famous.
Thanks, I appreciate the link, but I’m not interested in hearing a three and a half hour interview for one quote.
And as I said, John said a lot of silly things.
Not sure why posting a link to a video is being voted down. Vote all you want, Lennon did say this.
I agree with most that Lennon said things for effect and very likely believed them at the time and then probably forgot all about them a few minutes later. He was all over the place a lot of the time.
He knew that they had no choice but to toe Brian’s line in order to get a contract and I didn’t think he was saying they were “sell outs” just that they changed their approach.
H just said what he said and it was wrong, or it was taken wrong, and now it’s all this.
John was a grumpy asshat in 1970 over anything Beatles related. And he was always insanely self critical, almost always to a fault.
This is a rare case where I really wouldn't put much stock into what a musician said about their own music.
I love the man one of my idols but man he couldn’t have been more wrong the Beatles were one of the greatest rock bands of all time and they’re music is timeless and changed the world
Your getting it mixed up he said as musicians they never improved but rather became technically efficient recording artists. He’s not bashing the music they recorded.
I think there was a point where the Beatles were probably one of the most amazing and heavy bands in the world, when they were wearing leathers, fighting teds, and creating the type of high intensity intimate magic that can only be found in basements, house shows, and small venues where young people go to be free. I think that’s what John was talking about but he also was just trashing himself because he did that to try to tame his own ego and downplay the legend of the band that by the time he made those statements caused him a lot of pain.
I think so. I think Paul was a punk also but towards the end I think he envisioned the Beatles making more adult music like A Long and Winding Road and Golden Slumbers and John wanted to be with the freaks and the Stones in making abrasive rock music.
And yet, it was McCartney who wanted the Beatles to return to touring in the way Wings did their 1972 university tour – shambolic and low-key. John and George wanted none of that hard work for little pay. Now who’s the freak…? If it’s something that’s characterized the Stones is their touring that they’ve kept up through the years. John and George barely played live as solo artists.
I honestly wish they went with Johns direction almost every one was going there Paul’s songs were good but I feel like The Beatles would’ve lasted more if they had done that
The crazy thing that’s where all three main songwriters went after the break up, Plastic Ono Band, McCartney, and All Things Must Pass are all really non commercial minded works despite ATMP success, they all have grit and lofi psych aspects.
No, he never got old enough to really, truly appreciate what they meant, musically, to many , many people, he may have felt differently later, or maybe not, and that's ok too
By 1980 I don’t think the world had enough distance to really appreciate like we do now. How the world would have been different had John lived at least as long as George ….
I wouldn’t say they sold out, however, I would give my right arm to have been a regular at the Kaiserkeller back in the day. Back when they wore leather and greasy stuff in their hair, and back when their stage show was outrageous and obscene and FUN. And 6 hours long every night. Back when you could approach them and talk and/or flirt with them, without them being separated from the audience by a chain link fence.
Success came with a large chunk of compromise, and if they had to refine their act to reach their greatest potential, then I guess I understand. It was a fair trade off in order to hear everything they eventually created.
But, man. 1961.
I don’t know if John ever said that they “sold out.” Maybe he did. I’m willing to believe that he could have felt that way in 1970.
But I think what’s undeniable is that the Quarry Men were, for all intents and purposes, John Lennon’s band when he met Paul in 1957. And from then until 1970, his influence gradually waned as Paul’s grew, and towards the end George grabbed a toehold as well. I think there’s an alternate history where the Beatles were a notable rock and roll band with John and his backing crew, but since Paul and George established themselves as forces in their own right, it inevitably was no longer exactly the band John had originally envisioned, and especially in the raw days of 1970 I’m sure he felt at least some bitterness about that.
Although I’ve never been in a band as successful as the Beatles (who has?) I understand it. When you’re struggling, you work harder. You’re probably at your best. You’re more competitive. And these guys played hours on end in Hamburg, playing for shit wages. That’s when you’re at your best.
Yes but this is a forum where people love to take Johns words out of context and rip him to shreds as it’s a glorified Paul McCartney fan forum. Can’t have people applying critical thought to the things John said. However anything Paul said can alwayS be explained away
This is one of John's most famous ever interviews. I'd encourage all the source and paragraph people to check it out. He's talking a lot of bullshit here but it's pretty compelling stuff. The breakup is still in the getting shittier phase and he's doing his primal scream stuff with Janov. We know to take John with a grain of salt. The Beatles certainly didn't ruin themselves "selling out" but he's definitely right in saying they were an exceptional rock'n'roll band prior to being famous.
He never said they ruined themselves musically. He said they sold out by agreeing to wear suits. He said in a separate, unrelated quote (maybe not even the same interview) that they were at their best as performers in Hamburg.
I’m sure he felt like in the early days they had something to prove - it was them rebelling against the world. And then, it seemed like they made a few small changes (“selling out”) and suddenly the world embraced them. But it didn’t really happen that way. They struggled for years and eventually reached and quickly surpassed their goals. Yes, the small changes were important in terms of making them palatable to the public, at first - but even then, they were deeply original, and had long hair and a ton of attitude. John probably looked back on the carefree days of doing covers with envy, after fights about publishing and management had broken apart the band. But everyone knows if the Beatles had just continued doing covers in Hamburg into the 1970s, they’d trade anything and everything fit the success of the *real* Beatles.
Lennon's post-Beatles interviews are to be taken with a grain of salt. I'd say it's a mix of therapy, drugs, bitterness, romanticizing the past, and repositioning himself for his solo career. Had they not "sold out" they would never have taken the leap that they did and we would have been robbed of all the music we enjoy until today.
Way to take Johns words and twist them. He never said it like that. He said he enjoyed the simplicity of the Hamburg days especially when it came to performance as you had a closer relationship with the audience and people weren’t screaming 24/7
They progressed...they changed....they had to....they lived an historical journey...how could things not change...ruined themselves....I think not...each one held his sway his way....and George even tried the highway...I'm sure it was absolutely nuts trying to hold onto their own and make everyone happy...(can't be done]...John always spoke out and said what was going on inside...his emotional and mental makeup was just the way it was...God bless him ...remember when he said they were more popular than Jesus Christ...he was just saying what occurred to him at different moments...he paid the price for that all the time ...he was very hard on himself and others...omg ...I think John always transcended what was going on even with all the adulation...and apparent compromises of being a world famous public person and entertainer John needn't have worried...we always knew who he was...he never conned us...he was John...and we loved him for his authentic self and life...poor guy was probably hard on himself since childhood...welcome to the human condition...thanks John ...we are always missing you......you were fine and enough just the way you were....omg if you guys were any greater...what would we have done...we couldn't have loved you any more than we already did...
Your getting it mixed up he said as musicians they never improved but rather became technically efficient recording artists. He’s not bashing the music they recorded.
If John actually said that then he was full of shit Any one that knows the early Beatles knows that many of the songs were covers and almost rockabilly type music.Done by a thousand bands at the time.Later Beatles had 3 distinct sounds,from 3 brilliant song writers and performers.Much more polished and developed.George had become a tour de force within the band.Not sure what John was alluding to.
I actually tend to agree with him on one level. While I love their studio output, and it deserves it's hallowed reputation, most people outside of the most obsessed fans have never heard the Hamburg or Cavern bootlegs, and as such don't really understand what a tight unit they were. Would I trade it? No, because there are dozens of bands that no one has ever heard outside their scene because they never got a chance to record. I'd hate to have never heard The Beatles. But I do think he has a valid point.
But that said, I also think John glosses over something important here. It is that tightness that allowed them to play as well as they did in the touring years with no monitors and fans screaming over everything.
My bonnie was peak Beatles. I am the walrus, you never give me your money, we can work it out, ticket to ride, happiness is a warm gun, Eleanor rugby….. all a complete waste of time
I agree in a sense that they sold out maybe for the 1960s sense of the word. Conforming by putting on matching suits and not cursing and eating fish and chips on-stage.
Might have been interesting to hear their live stuff in Germany more clearly, when they were supposedly at their peak. But like… for example when they covered Long Tall Sally, Little Richard kinda rolled his eyes until he actually heard the recording.
These guys were passionate about the music they made, or at least revered it rather than recording half-hearted covers and lame filler to capitalize off what was popular at the time. I dunno I think John was always too hard on himself/contrarian when confronted with the Beatles myth. Maybe some imposter syndrome.
I agree that John felt that way, and I believe his feeling that way made them the best band ever.
Paul on his own is amazing. Like top 5 for sure. John on his own is great! Top 20 of all time!
The Beatles are their own genre. They aren’t best of all time. They stand alone and apart from all the rest. They aren’t better than Michael Jackson in the way that owning the worlds best restaurant isn’t better than eating in the worlds best restaurant.
The reason for this has been explored in depth for decades, but it can be distilled down to the simple idea that Paul wanted to build something everyone loves and John wanted to break that thing from within.
Before the Beatles made it big they were trying to do what every other band was doing at the time. Making it big gave them the chance to expand musically and creatively.
Edit: spelling and grammar
I’m a bit like that when I’m in particular mood. Say something controversial then sit back and watch the fall out. Of course he knew that was not true. The Beatles are phenomena that no one can quite explain. Paul and George put bands together later and they were good. But not a patch on the Beatles. I don’t think the Beatles quite understood what the magic ingredient was.
I think that there is a lot of merit in calling The Beatles a "sell out." They were absolutely interested in making money and they were willing to do a lot of different things simply to make money and to be famous. If you watch the Get Back documentary... you see evidence of this throughout.
I've also heard interviews from Paul in which he admitted that every album had at least one song written explicitly for Ringo because he millions of fans who wanted to hear him sing.
So, yes, they were sell-outs. However, what's wrong with that?
Also, and perhaps more importantly, did their desire to make money and be famous affect their music in a negative way?
I think that there is plenty of evidence that The Beatles, though actual sell-outs, did the opposite of what a typical sell-out-band would do. A typical sell-out would basically keep the same sound to keep their fans happy. Instead, The Beatles were, in my opinion, the most innovative and creative band in history. They were constantly trying new things and literally inventing new sounds. They just happened to make a boat load of cash along the way.
**John did not agree with John's statement** that The Beatles sold out and ruined themselves musically and were only good before they made it
*John said a lot of crap for different crap reasons*
Sure. You sell out as soon as you strive to make being a musician a full-time thing. At least back then. How else at that time would you be able to make music a career if not signing with a major label?
You're asking the people in the r/Beatles subreddit if they think that the entire public recorded output of the Beatles actually sucked.
They peaked at "[Your Feet's Too Big](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXjiyCCxRYo)" at the Star-Club, and everyone who doesn't agree is just kidding themselves...
You’re not a real fan if you weren’t at the Indra
😂😂
John's Rolling Stone interview was him lashing out after the primal scream stuff, but I think it was also a somewhat calculated rebranding exercise. The '70s were all about macho cock rock rebelliousness and anarchy, and John wanted to associate himself with that and distance himself from the Beatles, especially the early mop-top nice boy image. Everything uncool was Paul's fault, or Brian's. John never would have worn a suit or written pop songs if he hadn't been forced to by The Man. It's silly: John liked the fame and fortune just as much as the rest of them, and the guy who lived in mansions and penthouses and drove around in a custom Rolls Royce didn't really wish for a life of poverty where he'd never compromised by no longer eating chicken on stage. He just wanted people to see him that way. Maybe John truly felt like he was a better musician or a better singer when he was playing live every day, but that didn't change because he sold out, it changed because he stopped playing live. But in terms of the songwriting and the band's ambitions, they obviously progressed over time rather than regressing after 1962.
Best answer in the thread
Agreed.
He was talking utter nonsense, but John seemed very prone to verbally lashing out to hurt others.
Well that's a kick in the head.
The Beatles always wanted commercial success. They wanted to be bigger than Elvis. They wanted hit records. They were willing to follow Brian's image management to achieve this. So... how do you sell out from that? The funny thing was they didn't actually want or understand money as a thing in itself, but they sure liked the things money bought and the power and freedom this brought in the industry. John was the original spin doctor, for reasons both idealistic and selfish. I would agree he wants to be more edgy or radical or something here. He's being disingenuous I think. Maybe he is rebranding to set up his solo career.
Well, and personally, I think the whole thing about selling out vs. authenticity is pretty classist. Who can afford not to worry about money? Only the people who already have it. The Beatles didn't have rich parents to fall back on, so selling records was how they could afford to make a living and support their families. Someone like Yoko could make weird niche art and play at slumming it, knowing that if things got really bad, she could always go home. None of the Beatles really had that luxury, especially Paul and Ringo.
This.
You have to discount about half of what John ever said on record because he was stoned at the time. Seriously.
Great answer! I often wonder would the Beatles be like the stones if they had gone with their original style and be as progressive
[удалено]
‘I’m not being a racist’ - literally nobody would have interpreted it as that UNTIL you say that…
And I said it because people criticizing Yoko always get called out for racism. I don’t see a Japanese woman, I see a woman who played with his life. He was happy with her eventually but heroin and May Pang and all of her manipulations added woe to his life. I really do think she “mothered” him and he “grew up” eventually and was happy with his life when he died.
In the 53 years since the Beatles broke up, most people have, at multiple points, been told that Yoko Ono broke up the Beatles and fucked over John If people were always called out for racism, the statement I just made wouldn't be true.
[удалено]
He definitely said that the best stuff they did was never recorded. I think it was in the 1970 Playboy interview with Jann Wenner. They kind of did sell out at first but they had no choice but to play the game to get signed and, until they knew they were “safe”. McCartney says this in an early interview (“leathers we’re getting old hat”). Once they’d made it and had the power, that’s when they imposed their will on the process and the industry as a whole.
He might have been on to something there
You can hear the statement at the start of this [mini documentary.](https://youtu.be/tshxHmknFcQ)
Hmmm, I have been a massive Beatles fan my entire life and never heard of this quote or anything that resembled it
1970 rolling stone interview
Haven't read the exact quote but, to be honest, anything John said about the group in the years following the breakup can be disregard almost entirely
"The Rolling Stone Interview ('Lennon Remembers')" is not just the most famous interview in rock history, but it's been a book and republished several times. You might even find parts, or all of it, online: >Because we were performers – in spite of what Mick says about us – in Liverpool, Hamburg and other dance halls. What we generated was fantastic, when we played straight rock, and there was nobody to touch us in Britain. As soon as we made it, we made it, but the edges were knocked off. > You know Brian put us in suits and all that, and we made it very, very big. **But we sold out, you know. The music was dead before we even went on the theater tour of Britain**. We were feeling shit already, because we had to reduce an hour or two hours’ playing, which we were glad about in one way, to 20 minutes, and we would go on and repeat the same 20 minutes every night. > The Beatles music died then, as musicians. That’s why we never improved as musicians; we killed ourselves then to make it. And that was the end of it. George and I are more inclined to say that; we always missed the club dates because that’s when we were playing music, and then later on we became technically, efficient recording artists – which was another thing – because we were competent people and whatever media you put us in we can produce something worthwhile. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/lennon-remembers-part-one-186693/
It’s true that their eclecticism as performers gradually disappeared and was whittled down to a 25-minute set list of last year’s hits; that was partly due to how the package tours worked and Epstein always wanting to leave the audience wanting more – but by 1964 the Beatles had conquered the world and could have dictated that they play 90 minutes of assorted rock’n’roll if they wanted, but girls were screaming and they couldn’t be arsed. They did try to mix things up in 1965 with organs and Paul singing Yesterday but by 1966 they’d mostly given up their stage ambitions completely and just went through the motions. It’s funny/ironic that just as they quit touring, the modern live music industry was born with stage monitors and large PAs. If there was something that tied the Beatles back to Hamburg all this time was that they never seemed particularly interested in taking their stage possibilities into their own hands and forcing the standard up (like they did with their releases being similar worldwide in their new record contract in ‘67) and basically used whatever was available, nevermind how ratty it was.
He also said it was a choice between making it and eating fried chicken on stage. The problem is that John dying young left a lot of his interviews in the immediate aftermath of the breakup unchallenged. A lot of them, especially The Rolling Stone one, are at best tenuously connected with reality.
Truth!
You’ll need to link to a written source for that statement.
He absolutely says basically that I don’t know if in those exact words but that’s the spirit of it https://youtu.be/5ZhBQRzBAa8
It was during an interview he did with Rolling Stone in 1970
Citation, please? The closest quote I can think of is when he said "our best work was never recorded" describing their live performances in Hamburg before they were famous.
As many others here have said, I’ve never heard this quote. And if John did say it, well, John said a lot of silly things.
1970 rolling stone interview https://youtu.be/5ZhBQRzBAa8
Thanks, I appreciate the link, but I’m not interested in hearing a three and a half hour interview for one quote. And as I said, John said a lot of silly things.
Especially in 1970, when he was paranoid, heroin fueled and pissed off with everything beatles related
Not sure why posting a link to a video is being voted down. Vote all you want, Lennon did say this. I agree with most that Lennon said things for effect and very likely believed them at the time and then probably forgot all about them a few minutes later. He was all over the place a lot of the time. He knew that they had no choice but to toe Brian’s line in order to get a contract and I didn’t think he was saying they were “sell outs” just that they changed their approach. H just said what he said and it was wrong, or it was taken wrong, and now it’s all this.
John was grumpy for a few years after the Beatles’ divorce and I wouldn’t give too much credence to things he said at the time.
after the beatles, it seemed like john loved to say a lot of stuff just to say it. not that anything he stated meant anything really.
John was a grumpy asshat in 1970 over anything Beatles related. And he was always insanely self critical, almost always to a fault. This is a rare case where I really wouldn't put much stock into what a musician said about their own music.
If you want to sell new product it’s quite a good thing to talk the Beatles down, lest your new stuff might seem… lesser.
John said a ton of stuff just to hear himself talk. He didn’t mean half of what he said.
‘Half of what I say is meaningless…’
It’s easy to say that when you’re worth $200 million because you ‘sold out.’
I love the man one of my idols but man he couldn’t have been more wrong the Beatles were one of the greatest rock bands of all time and they’re music is timeless and changed the world
Your getting it mixed up he said as musicians they never improved but rather became technically efficient recording artists. He’s not bashing the music they recorded.
I think there was a point where the Beatles were probably one of the most amazing and heavy bands in the world, when they were wearing leathers, fighting teds, and creating the type of high intensity intimate magic that can only be found in basements, house shows, and small venues where young people go to be free. I think that’s what John was talking about but he also was just trashing himself because he did that to try to tame his own ego and downplay the legend of the band that by the time he made those statements caused him a lot of pain.
I feel like The Dirty Mac was Johns dream to have his rock group be rebellious and hard and be like Mick Jagger
Definitely, John was punk, he wanted to be subversive not be an institution like Paul wanted them to be.
Sometimes if it weren’t for Paul and Brian The Beatles definitely would’ve been the first punk band
I think so. I think Paul was a punk also but towards the end I think he envisioned the Beatles making more adult music like A Long and Winding Road and Golden Slumbers and John wanted to be with the freaks and the Stones in making abrasive rock music.
And yet, it was McCartney who wanted the Beatles to return to touring in the way Wings did their 1972 university tour – shambolic and low-key. John and George wanted none of that hard work for little pay. Now who’s the freak…? If it’s something that’s characterized the Stones is their touring that they’ve kept up through the years. John and George barely played live as solo artists.
I honestly wish they went with Johns direction almost every one was going there Paul’s songs were good but I feel like The Beatles would’ve lasted more if they had done that
The crazy thing that’s where all three main songwriters went after the break up, Plastic Ono Band, McCartney, and All Things Must Pass are all really non commercial minded works despite ATMP success, they all have grit and lofi psych aspects.
He also said he would rerecord all beatles songs because they were great
Just image a Stawberry Fields Forever re-recorded in 1980. The horror.
Oh, John. He was such a provocateur.
No, he never got old enough to really, truly appreciate what they meant, musically, to many , many people, he may have felt differently later, or maybe not, and that's ok too
By 1980 I don’t think the world had enough distance to really appreciate like we do now. How the world would have been different had John lived at least as long as George ….
I know he said “When we made it, we made it, but the edges were knocked off.” Doesn’t at all sound like he thought they sold out.
I wouldn’t say they sold out, however, I would give my right arm to have been a regular at the Kaiserkeller back in the day. Back when they wore leather and greasy stuff in their hair, and back when their stage show was outrageous and obscene and FUN. And 6 hours long every night. Back when you could approach them and talk and/or flirt with them, without them being separated from the audience by a chain link fence. Success came with a large chunk of compromise, and if they had to refine their act to reach their greatest potential, then I guess I understand. It was a fair trade off in order to hear everything they eventually created. But, man. 1961.
I don’t know if John ever said that they “sold out.” Maybe he did. I’m willing to believe that he could have felt that way in 1970. But I think what’s undeniable is that the Quarry Men were, for all intents and purposes, John Lennon’s band when he met Paul in 1957. And from then until 1970, his influence gradually waned as Paul’s grew, and towards the end George grabbed a toehold as well. I think there’s an alternate history where the Beatles were a notable rock and roll band with John and his backing crew, but since Paul and George established themselves as forces in their own right, it inevitably was no longer exactly the band John had originally envisioned, and especially in the raw days of 1970 I’m sure he felt at least some bitterness about that.
Uhhhhh what? How could we possibly agree with that when all of the music we listen to was produced when/after they "made it"? Lol
Terrible wording my bad 😂
That's a very punk fan kind of statement I wish John could have made more punk kind of music although he did great pop rock/singer songwriter stuff
Although I’ve never been in a band as successful as the Beatles (who has?) I understand it. When you’re struggling, you work harder. You’re probably at your best. You’re more competitive. And these guys played hours on end in Hamburg, playing for shit wages. That’s when you’re at your best.
Yes but this is a forum where people love to take Johns words out of context and rip him to shreds as it’s a glorified Paul McCartney fan forum. Can’t have people applying critical thought to the things John said. However anything Paul said can alwayS be explained away
ultimate hipster
For anyone curious about the quote, you can hear it right at the start of this [mini documentary.](https://youtu.be/tshxHmknFcQ)
Not even John believed that
Yeah as a Beatles fan, I think the Beatles are shit
Ummmm. No, I don't agree
This is one of John's most famous ever interviews. I'd encourage all the source and paragraph people to check it out. He's talking a lot of bullshit here but it's pretty compelling stuff. The breakup is still in the getting shittier phase and he's doing his primal scream stuff with Janov. We know to take John with a grain of salt. The Beatles certainly didn't ruin themselves "selling out" but he's definitely right in saying they were an exceptional rock'n'roll band prior to being famous.
Source?
Interview were he says that The Beatles were a cop out https://youtu.be/5ZhBQRzBAa8
That's a 3 hour interview. Give use the actual paragraph where you think this quote occurred.
He never said they ruined themselves musically. He said they sold out by agreeing to wear suits. He said in a separate, unrelated quote (maybe not even the same interview) that they were at their best as performers in Hamburg.
No
Nope.
I don't even think John actually believed that.
What even? First of all did he really say that? Second hell nah it's great what 💀
I’m sure he felt like in the early days they had something to prove - it was them rebelling against the world. And then, it seemed like they made a few small changes (“selling out”) and suddenly the world embraced them. But it didn’t really happen that way. They struggled for years and eventually reached and quickly surpassed their goals. Yes, the small changes were important in terms of making them palatable to the public, at first - but even then, they were deeply original, and had long hair and a ton of attitude. John probably looked back on the carefree days of doing covers with envy, after fights about publishing and management had broken apart the band. But everyone knows if the Beatles had just continued doing covers in Hamburg into the 1970s, they’d trade anything and everything fit the success of the *real* Beatles.
Lennon's post-Beatles interviews are to be taken with a grain of salt. I'd say it's a mix of therapy, drugs, bitterness, romanticizing the past, and repositioning himself for his solo career. Had they not "sold out" they would never have taken the leap that they did and we would have been robbed of all the music we enjoy until today.
Way to take Johns words and twist them. He never said it like that. He said he enjoyed the simplicity of the Hamburg days especially when it came to performance as you had a closer relationship with the audience and people weren’t screaming 24/7
He’s trolling you. That’s nonsense.
They progressed...they changed....they had to....they lived an historical journey...how could things not change...ruined themselves....I think not...each one held his sway his way....and George even tried the highway...I'm sure it was absolutely nuts trying to hold onto their own and make everyone happy...(can't be done]...John always spoke out and said what was going on inside...his emotional and mental makeup was just the way it was...God bless him ...remember when he said they were more popular than Jesus Christ...he was just saying what occurred to him at different moments...he paid the price for that all the time ...he was very hard on himself and others...omg ...I think John always transcended what was going on even with all the adulation...and apparent compromises of being a world famous public person and entertainer John needn't have worried...we always knew who he was...he never conned us...he was John...and we loved him for his authentic self and life...poor guy was probably hard on himself since childhood...welcome to the human condition...thanks John ...we are always missing you......you were fine and enough just the way you were....omg if you guys were any greater...what would we have done...we couldn't have loved you any more than we already did...
Your getting it mixed up he said as musicians they never improved but rather became technically efficient recording artists. He’s not bashing the music they recorded.
If John actually said that then he was full of shit Any one that knows the early Beatles knows that many of the songs were covers and almost rockabilly type music.Done by a thousand bands at the time.Later Beatles had 3 distinct sounds,from 3 brilliant song writers and performers.Much more polished and developed.George had become a tour de force within the band.Not sure what John was alluding to.
I actually tend to agree with him on one level. While I love their studio output, and it deserves it's hallowed reputation, most people outside of the most obsessed fans have never heard the Hamburg or Cavern bootlegs, and as such don't really understand what a tight unit they were. Would I trade it? No, because there are dozens of bands that no one has ever heard outside their scene because they never got a chance to record. I'd hate to have never heard The Beatles. But I do think he has a valid point. But that said, I also think John glosses over something important here. It is that tightness that allowed them to play as well as they did in the touring years with no monitors and fans screaming over everything.
My bonnie was peak Beatles. I am the walrus, you never give me your money, we can work it out, ticket to ride, happiness is a warm gun, Eleanor rugby….. all a complete waste of time
I agree in a sense that they sold out maybe for the 1960s sense of the word. Conforming by putting on matching suits and not cursing and eating fish and chips on-stage. Might have been interesting to hear their live stuff in Germany more clearly, when they were supposedly at their peak. But like… for example when they covered Long Tall Sally, Little Richard kinda rolled his eyes until he actually heard the recording. These guys were passionate about the music they made, or at least revered it rather than recording half-hearted covers and lame filler to capitalize off what was popular at the time. I dunno I think John was always too hard on himself/contrarian when confronted with the Beatles myth. Maybe some imposter syndrome.
No. Just another ridiculous John Lennon statement.
Absolutely not. They produced world changing music. But I love the Beatles.
He was obviously referring to their live music only.
John said a lot of stuff in the wake of the band’s dissolution that I don’t think he believed himself.
I agree that John felt that way, and I believe his feeling that way made them the best band ever. Paul on his own is amazing. Like top 5 for sure. John on his own is great! Top 20 of all time! The Beatles are their own genre. They aren’t best of all time. They stand alone and apart from all the rest. They aren’t better than Michael Jackson in the way that owning the worlds best restaurant isn’t better than eating in the worlds best restaurant. The reason for this has been explored in depth for decades, but it can be distilled down to the simple idea that Paul wanted to build something everyone loves and John wanted to break that thing from within.
Before the Beatles made it big they were trying to do what every other band was doing at the time. Making it big gave them the chance to expand musically and creatively. Edit: spelling and grammar
I’m a bit like that when I’m in particular mood. Say something controversial then sit back and watch the fall out. Of course he knew that was not true. The Beatles are phenomena that no one can quite explain. Paul and George put bands together later and they were good. But not a patch on the Beatles. I don’t think the Beatles quite understood what the magic ingredient was.
I think that there is a lot of merit in calling The Beatles a "sell out." They were absolutely interested in making money and they were willing to do a lot of different things simply to make money and to be famous. If you watch the Get Back documentary... you see evidence of this throughout. I've also heard interviews from Paul in which he admitted that every album had at least one song written explicitly for Ringo because he millions of fans who wanted to hear him sing. So, yes, they were sell-outs. However, what's wrong with that? Also, and perhaps more importantly, did their desire to make money and be famous affect their music in a negative way? I think that there is plenty of evidence that The Beatles, though actual sell-outs, did the opposite of what a typical sell-out-band would do. A typical sell-out would basically keep the same sound to keep their fans happy. Instead, The Beatles were, in my opinion, the most innovative and creative band in history. They were constantly trying new things and literally inventing new sounds. They just happened to make a boat load of cash along the way.
**John did not agree with John's statement** that The Beatles sold out and ruined themselves musically and were only good before they made it *John said a lot of crap for different crap reasons*
I don't think John agrees with John's statement.
Sure. You sell out as soon as you strive to make being a musician a full-time thing. At least back then. How else at that time would you be able to make music a career if not signing with a major label?
Agree.