Allen Klein is often listed as a key reason why the Beatles fell apart. The irreconcilable differences between Klein and the Eastmans led to the McCartney lawsuit that finally brought a legal end to the band.
Klein exacerbated preexisting tension between John and Paul in his effort to box out the Eastmans-his rivals for the role of manager.
However arguably the key reason why the band split had little to nothing to do with Klein or the Eastmans.
The Beatles effectively concluded their career in late 1969 because John Lennon quit the band. John Lennon had been leaning in the direction of leaving for some time by September 1969.
He had already released a solo single-performed outside the context of the band-and demonstrated an increasing lack of interest in any band work that was not relate to a song he himself had written.
The Beatles could not continue to exist without him. True-"I Me Mine" was recorded after John left-but there's a difference between recording one song to finish an album and recording a whole new album.
If the key moment in the end of the Beatles is John's decision in September to quit-then would the absence of Allen Klein actually push that split forward by more than 6 months?
I don't say this as a defense of Allen Klein as a manager. I'm not arguing that he was a brilliant man who alone had the ability to persuade John not to quit. But he did have one undeniable quality that might make his absence lead to John's earlier departure from the band-and by extension the end of their career.
He wasn't an Eastman. Whatever Klein was guilty of-John could trust not to demonstrate any sort of favoritism towards Paul. Whatever wise decisions the Eastmans made-they would always remain particularly close to Paul for obvious reasons.
In the absence of Allen Klein-the Eastmans would have no serious challengers for the role of Manager.
In most respects this would be a positive development. Whatever else one says about them-the Eastmans were good at managing musical acts.
No management fight alone would have been good for the Beatles finances. Klein and the Eastmans often undermined each other-which had a real opportunity cost.
From a purely financial point of view not having two competing teams of would be Managers fighting each other at every turn could hardly be anything but a net positive.
However-the uncontested success of the Eastmans means that the management of the Beatles will come under the control of what is effectively-and later literally-Paul's family at a time when John resented Paul's increasingly dominant position within the band.
In the absence of Klein how would John Lennon have reacted to the Eastmans given his preexisting resentments towards Paul?
True without Klein no one will be whispering in his ear about what terrible people the Eastmans are-which may mean less overt hostility towards them on John's part.
Without Klein is an significantly earlier departure on John's part inevitable?
Klein exacerbated preexisting tension between John and Paul in his effort to box out the Eastmans-his rivals for the role of manager.
However arguably the key reason why the band split had little to nothing to do with Klein or the Eastmans.
The Beatles effectively concluded their career in late 1969 because John Lennon quit the band. John Lennon had been leaning in the direction of leaving for some time by September 1969.
He had already released a solo single-performed outside the context of the band-and demonstrated an increasing lack of interest in any band work that was not relate to a song he himself had written.
The Beatles could not continue to exist without him. True-"I Me Mine" was recorded after John left-but there's a difference between recording one song to finish an album and recording a whole new album.
If the key moment in the end of the Beatles is John's decision in September to quit-then would the absence of Allen Klein actually push that split forward by more than 6 months?
I don't say this as a defense of Allen Klein as a manager. I'm not arguing that he was a brilliant man who alone had the ability to persuade John not to quit. But he did have one undeniable quality that might make his absence lead to John's earlier departure from the band-and by extension the end of their career.
He wasn't an Eastman. Whatever Klein was guilty of-John could trust not to demonstrate any sort of favoritism towards Paul. Whatever wise decisions the Eastmans made-they would always remain particularly close to Paul for obvious reasons.
In the absence of Allen Klein-the Eastmans would have no serious challengers for the role of Manager.
In most respects this would be a positive development. Whatever else one says about them-the Eastmans were good at managing musical acts.
No management fight alone would have been good for the Beatles finances. Klein and the Eastmans often undermined each other-which had a real opportunity cost.
From a purely financial point of view not having two competing teams of would be Managers fighting each other at every turn could hardly be anything but a net positive.
However-the uncontested success of the Eastmans means that the management of the Beatles will come under the control of what is effectively-and later literally-Paul's family at a time when John resented Paul's increasingly dominant position within the band.
In the absence of Klein how would John Lennon have reacted to the Eastmans given his preexisting resentments towards Paul?
True without Klein no one will be whispering in his ear about what terrible people the Eastmans are-which may mean less overt hostility towards them on John's part.
Without Klein is an significantly earlier departure on John's part inevitable?