Of the contributing causes to the Beatles break-up, the most psychologically unerring cause is simply the social class factor that Lennon-McCartney had settled on women, very different ones at that, and this substitution in the boys' primary erotic attachment (which had been to each other) allowed all the other divisive factors to come to the fore.* Around the time of the Sgt. Pepper's launch party in May, 1967, McCartney met (again?) the photographer who had been backstage at their Shea Stadium concert in August 1965, Linda Eastman. By the Fall, Brian Epstein was dead, and the Beatles, cutting singles in the aftermath of their February 1968 India trip, were getting ready to launch Apple Records out of Apple Corps, in NYC and London. In the spring 1968 McCartney and Eastman hooked up again. That Apple Corps became McCartney's way of dealing with his own depression, bereft in response to Epstein's death, might have had the de-facto effect of his convincing his bandmates, more alarmed than was McCartney at Apple's having become a hippy crash-pad, that McCartney's drift toward the Eastman family was not a strain on the business-end of the band's partnership. There are only two ways to explain McCartney's recalcitrance toward the recording of the next Beatles record (The Beatles recorded in late '68), as well as the socio-cultural phenomenon of Apple Corp becoming a financial sink-hole, necessitating a renewal in the band's financial planning, but now, so McCartney hoped, on his new in-laws-to-be's terms. One is that he was marrying up, and he expected his bandmates to see the sense in that and join up; two is his depression, of a type often the derivative of erotic re-attachment, i.e., love. The recalcitrance specific to hiring Allen Klein as the band's financial manager can be explained in the Eastman family's own Jewish background, but that's a much more complex socio-cultural picture that neither McCartney nor his fans could have been aware of.
The meaning of Apple Corp., the meaning of the hype around Monterrey and the Summer of Love (Sgt. Pepper's its gleaming event), the meaning of its subsequence, can all be reduced to the simple statement that John Lennon hated businessmen. However, he kept a clear eye out for the pop competition, and in the aftermath of Epstein's death, the Rolling Stones (half-owned, at this point, by Allen Klein) had a better contractual, as well as short-term financial, situation than the Beatles. I take it that some few gestures of characterization dispel the myths around Lennon, and one of these that, having avoided taking a meeting with Allen Klein that Klein had been trying to schedule for two years, because in general Lennon avoided businessmen, it suddenly occurred to him that Klein would be the businessman to save him from the culture of businessmen (genteel, anti-semitic, Eastmanesque) he truly hated. So in late January 1969, during the studio recordings filmed by Michael Lindsay-Hogg, in which McCartney and Lennon sing "Two Of Us" into each other's eyes, Lennon took a meeting with Allen Klein, and then invited him to a band meeting at which the McCartney-Eastmans took their initial, but subsequently proliferating and litigious, stand against Allen Klein.
As subsequent litigation would bear out, this meeting was fairly straightforward. Lennon was proposing the Beatles hire Klein to straighten out their contract with EMI-Capitol, disentangle Northern Songs (Lennon-McCartney's publisher) from its holdings in Epstein's estate, and manage the band's financial situation. McCartney counter-proposed the Eastmans. We are fifty years out from this meeting, however, it doesn't take a brain scientist to predict which way George & Ringo would go. The only question is, what was McCartney thinking? and the answer is, he was depressed. He was seven weeks from being married, he didn't want to play in this band any longer, or at any rate he didn't yet realize his bandmates had no particular stake in his marrying up. They come to the same thing.
When a band votes, and the vote is 3-1, that generally suggests how the thing should go, but a year later Klein lost in the Eastman's court case against him. McCartney wanted the band's business to be put into the safe-keeping of a receiver-ship, as the price for Klein's continuing to manage them; so that McCartney's moneys would not need to pass through Klein's accounts.
Fred Goodman shrewdly chose Allen Klein to be the subject of his continuing saga in the chronicles of the American Music Business. His idea was that Klein is the figure on whom American rock music scaled the industry up to the level of the superstar artists the Rolling Stones & The Beatles. The claim is complex, because others (Clive Davis to David Geffen) are perhaps equally responsible for the industry's shape in the post-Monterey context. Klein, coming from an accounting background, though not a CPA, but accustomed to finding revenue streams where no one knew to look for them, went to bat for the young musicians who were learning to not be ripped off for the first time. Goodman had access to Klein's documents, the first music journalist with that access. His biographical work here recovers the important role Klein played in the formation of the present-day music industry.
*Among the reasons from 1970 for my youthful understanding of cause in the Beatles break-up: We thought it was Yoko. This was not entirely wrong, but our emphasis on her was of course racist. She was something we did not understand, so were willing, at least initially, to call out. Two things interest me in this nine-year old's view: that we aggrievedly needed to believe in a cause; and that it was shortly dispelled in one's reading through Lennon's ideological apologists -- i.e., rock critics. Rock critics were not subject, as I was, to anti-Asian mystifications in our longing to see the Beatles together. Example on offer if any needed that just because some view is an ideology doesn't mean it's not in substance right. Yoko's presence in the band's midst may ultimately have contributed to the split in the song-writing team's creative moment; but no more so than Linda's, such that any truth to the causality shows up causality as a truth-inquiring mechanism of the mind.