her Yoko is easy, her Ono is uno numero

 UUMMM...yep - this ain't got skiz to do with Jesus.  At least not directly...uyhm.....anyway

HOW can people say that Yoko Ono is the reason The Beatles broke up?  What are people accusing her of specifically?  Was her relationship with John Lennon not a mutual decision between him and her?  Did she do something wrong in her life that negatively influenced John Lennon?  If the other Beatles couldn't stand her, then John could have dumped her and refused to hang around her (as much).  He didn't.  How is that Yoko's fault?  People treat The Beatles like they're The Holy Grail of rock and roll.  They aren't.  They never were.  So many noteworthy elements of The Beatles music, especially in the later half of their career, were either thought of after someone else had already outright done it, and in some cases done it better, or they were influenced by other stuff.  The Beach Boys PET SOUNDS had a distinct influence on SGT. PEPPER'S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND, or so I'd read.  I don't have a tape recording of anyone saying so.  And there was a song by The Kinks that heavily utilized the sitar, but still kept the ROCK N ROLL intact, and then a year or two later "Norwegian Wood" comes out and everyone is like "woah!  What is THAT?" and now that nobody's knowledge is constrained by scheduling conflicts with travel, we all can listen to that song and recognize how FFFFFF n BORING it is!!  The Beatles did do a great job at changing stuff up but people go way too far with crediting them with anything and everything.  Someone said The Beatles invented prog rock. ?QAA!  Can ANYONE, seriously, name ONE SONG by The Beatles that classifies as prog rock?  You know what?  Nevermind.  The term "prog rock" doesn't even mean anything.  I'm sure Genesis' "Time Table" (Track 2 from 1972's FOXTROT album) bears some similarities to many of The Beatles' songs and I'm sure bands like Caravan who have very little in common with ELP and Yes - but are still classified as prog rock for what reason don't ask me - have even more in common with The Beatles.  Someone was telling me because I'm a "fan" of Genesis, I should appreciate that the "genre they exploited" was invented by The Beatles.  Uh...sure.  I don't care what genre Genesis is.  I can't stand other prog rock bands.  I like Camel's pre-BREATHLESS music ok, RAIN DANCES, MOONMADNESS, THE SNOW GOOSE, are all OK albums, and Van Der Graaf Generator is pretty cool.  Can't stand King Crimson, even though Genesis was heavily influenced by them in the early 70's.  By 1974, there were very minimal similarities to King Crimson or even Yes and ELP, although "In The Cage" was an exception.  If not for the bumbling excuse for a story that SUPPOSEDLY connected all of the 23 tracks on THE LAMB LIES DOWN ON BROADWAY there would be no perceived connection to prog rock on that album with the exception of "In The Cage".  THE LAMB... was just as much a prog rock album as WHO'S NEXT by The Who, which as far as I know according to most people, if I'm not missing something, would mean THE LAMB... just was not a prog rock album.  TRICK OF THE TAIL and WIND & WUTHERING, THE LAMB...'s two immediate follow ups, did have more in common with prog, but, especially WIND & WUTHERING, did have a little more of a inclination to pop music than NURSERY CRYME or FOXTROT did.  It was very slight and grew a tad more when ...AND THEN THERE WERE THREE... came along.  People say that DUKE is when Genesis shed their prog rock skin, but I think that's a rather bogus assertion.  The only actual pop song on that album was "Misunderstanding".  "Turn It On Again" was not any more of a pop song than "I Know What I Like" was.  "Alone Tonight" and "Please Don't Ask" I suppose were pop in structure, so if you count those, you have 1/3 of an album of pop music and 2/3 of a prog rock album.  Sure, the sound was a little different.  Genesis never kept the same exact sound in any given album.  FOXTROT was mostly thundering electric music.  SELLING ENGLAND was mostly folky postoral music, while THE LAMB... was glitzy funk rock.  TRICK--TAIL wasn't particularly unique in its styling, although it did have a good chunk of just flat out good songs.  

Anyway....The Beatles broke up.  I can see their contribution to music, both mainstream and not, but I don't really think there'd be any benefit to them carrying on into the 1990s or beyond.  They may have had a few or so more years left in them creatively, but I don't think they'd have lasted beyond 1977 had they not gotten irritated with John Lennon's hanging out with Yoko Ono.