Looking back on anger: famously bitter splits.
How does infamy contribute to longevity?
artwork by Greta Serniute.
Music is an outlet. It’s an expression of the inner workings of an artist’s mind, a combination of percolating emotions, ideas, thoughts. Sometimes the emotions boil over into the creative process, leading to tensions between band members. Music can spark cultural shits, as with The Beatles, The Smiths, Oasis, or Simon and Garfunkel. Genre-defining, iconic, and pioneering artists, all with famously heated breaks, each of these groups have a lasting impact, and a legendary glow about them. The idea that two people could create such amazing music only to bitterly resent each other is unbelievable, and leaves fans to wonder why.
Fans can blame a third party or choose a favorite in the feud. No matter what, the bands’ internal battles are perhaps as well-known as the band’s music, and contribute to the longevity of their legacies.
The Beatles’ end came as a surprise to many, even though tensions had been building. Ater manager Brian Epstein passed, Paul McCartney took over managing The Beatles. This was the beginning of the end, as egos and drug issues threatened the band. George Harisson claimed “Paul couldn’t see beyond himself,” and John Lennon similarly stated that “Paul took over and supposedly led us,” these two quotes illustrating the rising envy and trouble. The band started to crumble under the weight of creative differences, mourning their beloved manager as well as the stress of Paul’s management, and the pressure of being The Beatles. The Beatles were iconic, having already redefined rock, and the expectation to continue their success was overwhelming. In the end, the band went their separate ways. When the news broke, fans were left reeling. Paul Weller, guitarist and lead singer of British band The Jam, reflected on the day, calling The Beatles his guides and saying their split “shattered…[his] entire universe.” He also wondered what would have happened if the band stuck together. Would they still be as relevant?
The sharp end to The Beatles adds an air of mystery to an already legendary band. There were so many complicated factors in the breakup of The Beatles that keep their status preserved, even all these years later. The sudden end left fans holding on to the legacy and musicians determined to continue it.
The Beatles have a mysterious, complex timeline, while Oasis is much more clear—and somewhat comical. The famous feud between the Gallagher brothers has continued into the digital age, which Noel claims is Liam’s attempt to stay relevant. The slapstick spats range from smacking each other with tambourines, heckling each other live, gaslighting, and hurling insults on X (formerly known as Twitter). There was a clash between party antics and music that ate away the band’s integrity. Noel frowned upon Liam’s childish behavior, such as urinating on a new amp, getting thrown off a boat, quitting tours midway through, and questioning the legitimacy of Noel’s daughter.
Noel has admitted to “pranking” the superstitious Liam, convincing him that ghosts were haunting the studio. Liam took to X in the early 2000’s, calling Noel a “potato” and “beige.” Noel responded later with his own insult, calling his brother “a man with a fork in a world of soup.” The online continuation of the feud preserved the band’s infamy. Oasis’s breakup is not shrouded in complexity like The Beatles: it was open, ugly, and ridiculous. This also contributes to Oasis’s long-lasting popularity, as such a public feud draws attention—both positive and negative—to the band.
Only releasing four studio albums, The Smiths have a remarkable impact for a band with such a short lifespan. The Smiths pioneered “indie.” Singer and co-songwriter Morrissey was one of the first to introduce the classic “indie music” fit, consisting of baggy jeans and T-shirts paired with large glasses. It became cool to quote Oscar Wilde, and the quartet introduced a sort of freedom to break from the norm. The band’s humorous, clever lyrics shot them to fame, and the “what if” of their abrupt split preserves their legacy.
However, even from the start, there were tensions. Morrissey and Johnny Marr, The Smiths’ guitarist and co-songwriter respectively, did not inform rhythm section Mike Joyce and Andy Rourke that they were getting significantly smaller portions of the band’s royalties. Joyce and Rourke only got 10%, while Morrissey and Marr each got 40%. Ater the band’s split, Joyce and Rourke both sued for an equal share of royalties. Towards the end of The Smiths, Marr was saddled with the responsibility of managing the band, which was too much pressure for the young guitarist. Morrissey was jealous that Marr performed with other groups. Tensions boiled over, and the band broke up shortly after Marr announced he quit. Having lasted only five years together, their discography is relatively short. This stirs up questions of what could they have created, had they stayed together. Would their next album have been their best one? Where would they have gone musically? Lyrically? Like with The Beatles, fans could only wonder, and mourn the end of a short, but influential, era.
Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel also didn’t have long together. Their end started at the very beginning—the early days of their career—when Simon released a song as a solo project. This hurt and offended Garfunkel, who held it against Simon throughout their collaboration.
Garfunkel felt like he was just a voice, and Simon felt Garfunkel was taking advantage of him. The partnership was uneven, with Garfunkel taking his bitterness out on Simon and playing on his insecurities. Simon recounts Garfunkel turning to him before a photo session, saying “no matter what happens, I’ll always be taller than you.”
This accumulation of slights spilled over when Garfunkel was cast in Catch-22. He told Simon to write the songs, and he would write the harmonies himself. Both men felt unnecessary and scorned. Garfunkel was worried Simon could easily function without him, and Simon felt cut out and invisible, just the man in the background. Even Simon’s mother praised Garfunkel’s voice over his. Fed up with being behind-the-scenes while Garfunkel was in the spotlight, Simon ended the partnership. The duo famously reunited for a Central Park concert in 1981, teasing a new album which ultimately fell through. This slow fade of Simon and Garfunkel contrasts the abrupt, short life of The Smiths or the sharp, bitter end of The Beatles. The tumultuous career of Simon and Garfunkel preserves their legacy, as a sort of sadness hovers over the falling-out. The two were friends since elementary school, and then their bond fell apart. It was a sad and disappointing end to a wonderful career.
An acrimonious split tinges a band’s legacy in sadness, wistfulness, and nostalgia. No matter how it ended, sharply or gradually, the break of a friendship and collaboration helps preserve the music’s fame, long after the band split up. It’s almost like an encasement in amber, where a beautiful thing is preserved but made inaccessible. The impact of a band’s creativity lives on through the equal fame of their bitter end.
edited by Alexander Malm.
artwork by Greta Serniute.