I was watching a documentary about Syd Barret, and it occurred to me of what if the same thing happened with the Beatles; if one of the members (say John or Paul) just lost their mind, wouldn't play, kinda drifted off from reality, and eventually had to be thrown out?
WI: One of the Beatles went Schizophrenic?
- Thread starter Emperor Norton I
- Start date
"I am the Walrus! No, I'm really a Walrus! Where the f*ck did my feet go? Can you breath the color of my dreams? I'm a genius! What, no you're a poorer artist Stu Sutcliffe! Leave me alone, Pete Best, you can't do scales! Mother!!!"
Is your point that they were doped up enough not to go crazy or so doped up that any effect of schizophrenia wouldn't be different? 'cause, in either case, it wasn't like an opium den where they were stoned 24/7 and stoned while they were writing, stoned while they were singing, stoned while they were peeing, whatever; they took drugs recreationally while they took them. And mental illness is far different than being high.
No. I'm just saying that the squares saw the Beatles as doped-up anyway. Wouldn't it be more shocking to Middle America if Pat Boone went schizo?
Syd Barrett, being the principal songwriter, the guy who came up with the band's image, the band's sound and even came up with the name "Pink Floyd" was absolutely THE leader of the band. Perhaps he always had problems underneath, but the psychedelic drugs he did certainly helped his creativity and exasperated his mental problems. It is really remarkable that the band even survived Barrett's breakdown at all and made it out of the late 60s London underground music scene. They depended upon him so much, but Roger Waters stepped up and took over the band - for better or for worse, depending on whom you talk to!
Carrying over to the Beatles, this proposed breakdown would have to happen just as the band was getting big. If John Lennon went off the deep end in lets say, 1968, I'm sure the band would just break up and call it a day. They've done what they've wanted to do beyond their wildest dreams anyway, so why carry on? However, if this breakdown happened in lets say, April of 1964, the Beatles might have to take on a new member to fill in for John. At this point in their career they were just hitting it huge in America and elsewhere, and the "machine" was too big to just stop, and too much was riding on it. David Gilmour slowly began to replace Barrett as a direct result of Syd's increasing erratic performances and attendance to gigs, and the disastrous tour of the U.S. in the spring of '68 eventually replacing him as the guitarist. Another example of this could be seen with Bruce Johnson filling in for Brian Wilson on the road with the Beach Boys after a series of mental breakdowns. Sometimes bands are bigger than one of the members.
Two things could happen here. One, the Beatles could outright kick John out of the band (which I can't see happening), or two, they could retain him as a song writer and have someone fill in for him on the road - leaving John at home with nothing to do but write and deal with his problems the best he can. One thing can be sure, the entire concept for the album Help! would never have been written, since it was all about the pressures of fame, having to live your life in the public eye and their brutal and horrific touring schedule. Paul would then be free to take the mantle as "leader", something he had wanted since they were the Quarrymen and the Silver Beetles anyway. John would be looked at as some reclusive genius and a mysterious artist, which is how Syd Barrett and Brian Wilson are both looked upon today by many people...
Interesting thread topic.
Carrying over to the Beatles, this proposed breakdown would have to happen just as the band was getting big. If John Lennon went off the deep end in lets say, 1968, I'm sure the band would just break up and call it a day. They've done what they've wanted to do beyond their wildest dreams anyway, so why carry on? However, if this breakdown happened in lets say, April of 1964, the Beatles might have to take on a new member to fill in for John. At this point in their career they were just hitting it huge in America and elsewhere, and the "machine" was too big to just stop, and too much was riding on it. David Gilmour slowly began to replace Barrett as a direct result of Syd's increasing erratic performances and attendance to gigs, and the disastrous tour of the U.S. in the spring of '68 eventually replacing him as the guitarist. Another example of this could be seen with Bruce Johnson filling in for Brian Wilson on the road with the Beach Boys after a series of mental breakdowns. Sometimes bands are bigger than one of the members.
Two things could happen here. One, the Beatles could outright kick John out of the band (which I can't see happening), or two, they could retain him as a song writer and have someone fill in for him on the road - leaving John at home with nothing to do but write and deal with his problems the best he can. One thing can be sure, the entire concept for the album Help! would never have been written, since it was all about the pressures of fame, having to live your life in the public eye and their brutal and horrific touring schedule. Paul would then be free to take the mantle as "leader", something he had wanted since they were the Quarrymen and the Silver Beetles anyway. John would be looked at as some reclusive genius and a mysterious artist, which is how Syd Barrett and Brian Wilson are both looked upon today by many people...
Interesting thread topic.
you are my hero sir. well no. emperor norton is my hero, but you are my heroes P.R. agent?
I think for this scenario to work, like others have mentioned it would probably have to be Lennon and McCartney. As wonderful as some of Harrison's songs were, if he were to go schizophrenic my guess is that the Beatles would just get another guitarist. As long as Lennon and McCartney are functioning, so is the group. And I don't mean to completely discount Harrison when I say that.
In terms of pressure, perhaps the best moment for such a breakdown would be around the summer of 1966. In terms of negative pressure, it was one of the worst periods in the groups history. You had the "bigger than Jesus" thing in the United States, and all the danger that generated. You had the Philippines incident. And by then the group was generally exhausted. If John Lennon's mental health begins to break down in the summer of 1966 he's much more likely to remain a songwriter and performer for the Beatles than Syd Barrett was. For the simple reason that the Beatles are no longer touring, and the group can afford to spend the time to get Lennon's songs recorded. Though McCartney would probably have a lot more impact on how the songs actually ended up sounding. The circumstances here would be tough, and it's entirely possible that the band is broken up by 1968.
I think the best options for timing are somewhere between 1965-1967 because that's when John Lennon started doing acid, and 1965 is when Lennon was at his most miserable. It was his "fat Elvis" period, at least in his own head.
In terms of pressure, perhaps the best moment for such a breakdown would be around the summer of 1966. In terms of negative pressure, it was one of the worst periods in the groups history. You had the "bigger than Jesus" thing in the United States, and all the danger that generated. You had the Philippines incident. And by then the group was generally exhausted. If John Lennon's mental health begins to break down in the summer of 1966 he's much more likely to remain a songwriter and performer for the Beatles than Syd Barrett was. For the simple reason that the Beatles are no longer touring, and the group can afford to spend the time to get Lennon's songs recorded. Though McCartney would probably have a lot more impact on how the songs actually ended up sounding. The circumstances here would be tough, and it's entirely possible that the band is broken up by 1968.
I think the best options for timing are somewhere between 1965-1967 because that's when John Lennon started doing acid, and 1965 is when Lennon was at his most miserable. It was his "fat Elvis" period, at least in his own head.
If John goes schizo and is eventually kicked out of the Beatles, what becomes of him, I wonder?
Does he take a Syd Barret, go back to Aunt Mimi in Liverpool to be taken care of, and spend the rest of his life revered as a genius by some but away from the public eye?
Or maybe a Brian Wilson route, derail the band and cause a less than quality output while his band was on the threshold of glory, but eventually recover and get back into things?
Does he take a Syd Barret, go back to Aunt Mimi in Liverpool to be taken care of, and spend the rest of his life revered as a genius by some but away from the public eye?
Or maybe a Brian Wilson route, derail the band and cause a less than quality output while his band was on the threshold of glory, but eventually recover and get back into things?
There's a compelling argument that meeting Yoko may have saved John from such a fate.. He was rather drug-addled in 1967, and the Beatles two big projects that year were Paul's ideas.
Meeting Yoko gave him a burst of inspiration, and a task-master who had similar motivations to what he had.
Without her, in the face of Paul's pop ambition and George's mystical hymns, I think John would well have descended into laziness and madness even further than he did in OTL.
I can't believe I forgot about this. It fits so well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM7-iHrOPoA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM7-iHrOPoA
WestVirginiaRebel
Banned
John Lennon reportedly thought that he was Jesus Christ at one point during his solo career when his heroin addiction was at its worst. So I wonder if he might have gotten religion and renounced rock music after he got treatment for his mental illness?
That would have been ironic-the atheist Lennon becoming a born-again Christian (a la Bob Dylan, perhaps?)
That would have been ironic-the atheist Lennon becoming a born-again Christian (a la Bob Dylan, perhaps?)