|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 7, 2008 18:58:56 GMT -5
I understand that you are standing by history. This doesn't mean it had to end the way it did. I think it was inevitable. ALL The Beatles were drifting apart, it wasn't just about Paul "pissing everyone off". I think Paul had tried admirably already. He did everything he could to say "look, lads, let's try it like this..." in fact, he speaks very much in such ways throughout LET IT BE. I have never knocked Paul for trying to keep it together... his heart was in the right place... but he's really the only one of the four who wanted it that way. The others were each happy to split. George had his own music to burst out with and was feeling restricted; John wanted to do more creative things with Yoko and 'sod the Beatles'; Ringo couldn't have cared one way or another and was also involved in movies and solo projects. I just think that Paul finally gave up trying himself, and figured: "okay, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and he released McCARTNEY -- but to me the annoying thing was that he came out like he was the main guy who wantd OUT, when he'd been the one who wanted to stay together all along! -- and then even trumped John, who had been the main guy who wanted to break up the band first (but who graciously kept silent for business reasons). ALL THINGS MUST PASS. It was time to split - and they split - period. That's the story, that is the END. We then had the solo years to savor.... I just can't see why some cannot Let It Be, even 40 years after. And Brian Epstein? As far as I'm concerned he was a moot point by 1967. He wasn't as influential on them anymore, and I doubt things would have been very different had he lived. But the main thing is, all the Beatles (well - I'll say just John, George and Ringo) felt disinterested and did not want to really continue... they all had priorities elsewhere. This would not have changed, especially in John's case. Even if George and Ringo had come 'round to pulling it together, John was into the whole Yoko thing ... and you couldn't have a Beatles without John Lennon.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Aug 7, 2008 19:32:40 GMT -5
I understand that you are standing by history. This doesn't mean it had to end the way it did. I just think that Paul finally gave up trying himself, and figured: "okay, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and he released McCARTNEY -- but to me the annoying thing was that he came out like he was the main guy who wantd OUT, when he'd been the one who wanted to stay together all along! -- and then even trumped John, who had been the main guy who wanted to break up the band first (but who graciously kept silent for business reasons). My sentiments exactly. Sneaky and Cheeky!!! S.O.B. got over on the whole lot. And to beat it all, commands worship to this day. Not in this camp lad. I see what I see. I say what I say. And if the lot of you cannot handle the truth about Paul, I suggest you find another board that is prefixed as Gullible-Toppermost!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Aug 8, 2008 4:48:10 GMT -5
I think it was inevitable. ALL The Beatles were drifting apart, it wasn't just about Paul "pissing everyone off". I agree that all four Beatles were drifting apart during 1968/9. However, the pivotal relationship in all of this was Lennon / McCartney. I honestly think that if this relationship had endured, George and Ringo would not have left the band. Both would have wanted more time away to pursue solo projects, but I can't see either walking away permanently, as long as John and Paul wanted to carry on working together. Bottom line -- at some point in time - late '67 / early '68 John got brassed off with Paul and wanted to start wresting himself away from his erstwhile partner. I don't think it was meticulously planned or that Lennon could have predicted how it was all going to pan out, but it eventually happened. It's almost like everything Lennon did, during the latter stages of the Beatles, was either designed, or had the nett effect of, alienating McCartney and his middle-class, 'good ole-Paulie', clean cut image: Wanting R9 and Mary Jane on the White Album Two Virgins album cover Opting for an uncooth street-fighter for band manager (i.e. Klein) and being prepared to go 3-1 against McCartney over the decision Sending back MBE Bed-in protests I'm not saying that Lennon undertook the above with the sole intention of estranging Macca, but he was quite happy that it panned out that way..
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 8, 2008 9:05:07 GMT -5
Maybe a way to determine why the Beatles broke up is to ask, "Why did they NOT reunite before 1980?" I can understand none of them wanting to get back pre-1976, each one was having a successful solo-career. But, between 1977 and 1980, things were not as rosy - by 1960s and early 1970s standards. I suspect that by looking at it in this way, those of you who ascribe the break to personality differences MIGHT be spot on.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Aug 8, 2008 11:19:30 GMT -5
Joe K. just think that Paul finally gave up trying himself, and figured: "okay, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and he released McCARTNEY -- but to me the annoying thing was that he came out like he was the main guy who wantd OUT, when he'd been the one who wanted to stay together all along! -- and then even trumped John, who had been the main guy who wanted to break up the band first (but who graciously kept silent for business reasons).
ChokingSmoker: My sentiments exactly. Sneaky and Cheeky!!! S.O.B. got over on the whole lot.
RTP: And John said he wished he'd thought of it and he'd have done it in conjuction with a record release.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Aug 8, 2008 11:26:09 GMT -5
*** Important statement from SuperHans*** D'you know why the Beatles broke up? Because after about 1967, Paul started irritating the hell out of John. Rightly or wrongly, everything flowed from that. Think about it -- Klein, 'musical differences', business differences......sadly, they were all a result of that one, insurmountable fact. Yoko seemed like part of the problem, but underlying even that was the pre-existing rift between Lennon and McCartney.....a sort of one-way, unrequited rift, if you like. Macca's overbearing and slightly bossy nature wore Lennon down and the game was up. Look at the number of line-up changes in Wings if you need any verification of this fact. Right. That's sorted. Next question, please? There was no rift between John and Paul until Yoko entered the picture and was treated badly. But she was only a catalyst. John made his own decisions. It was not Yoko dictating to him.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Aug 8, 2008 11:37:53 GMT -5
ChokingSmoker: The fact still remains intact. If Paul had just weathered the storm, the Beatles would have endured in some capacity. I cannot understand how some of you on this board actually think that it was the right time. That can never be determined., although Paul did a helluva good job in that department.
RTP: I agree with you completely. I have made this point before. If Paul could have withstood Klein's meddling for a while, Klein would have been gone eventually and perhaps after a solo album each, they would have come back together for a time. All of them were writing songs that didn't fit the Beatles blueprint. Remember Paul called John just before announcing he was leaving. John knew he was about to release the McCartney album. What happened on April 10, 1970 couldn't have been a surprise to John. Most importantly, it was after Paul's phone call that John wrote the song God about no longer believing in the Beatles instead it now was about "Yoko and me". Until then, I don't think John emotionally accepted the Beatles as once and for all broken up. When Instant Karma was being promoted in Feb. 1970, John was asked about the future of the Beatles and he held out the possibility. He didn't say no comment or I don't know. And Paul had a perfect right to declare he had no intention of recording any more Beatles records. He made no mention of John's view as he wasn't about to speak for John.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 8, 2008 17:11:39 GMT -5
Maybe a way to determine why the Beatles broke up is to ask, "Why did they NOT reunite before 1980?" I can understand none of them wanting to get back pre-1976, each one was having a successful solo-career. But, between 1977 and 1980, things were not as rosy - by 1960s and early 1970s standards. I suspect that by looking at it in this way, those of you who ascribe the break to personality differences MIGHT be spot on. Well, John Lennon was not interested in doing ANYTHING musically, even as a solo artist, during 1977 - 1980 (and I believe he was in Japan in 1977). So there was no way this could ever have happened in those years, especially.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Aug 11, 2008 21:21:41 GMT -5
For arguments sake, if Paul had come back and said lads "let's give it one more for the ages" what would have been the response??? He did do that - after the Get Back sessions - and Abbey Road was the result. I think it's a bit unfair to hammer Paul for ultimately being the one that made the dramatic seperation from the band. If John wanted to do it so bad earlier than he could have. John even tried to backpeddle and say that he really wanted to leave and was talked out of it by Paul. One could look at what Paul did as him having the balls to finally do what the others may have wanted to do. I never really bought into the thinking that the "McCartney" album release had anything to do directly with money, or to trump the LIB album. It seemed to me that having decided to take the plunge to part with the band Paul needed to underline the move with the release of music under just his name. After Epsteins death, Paul seemed to take a keen interest in the bands affairs. Why? Because he wanted to be in charge? I don't think so. I'd say purely out of desire to help the band. John sure as hell wasn't going to do it. Actually, had the band continued I could see George as being the one who would cut and run. He was the most surpressed band member. The band split because it had run it's course. I always liked John's comparison to them being kids that grew up and moved on. John was the one who most desperately needed something else. That's why I hate the age-old idea of Yoko having split the band. John could have stopped or encouraged all of Yoko's inclusion in the Beatles world - and he very much encouraged it. He wanted that. And about the idea put forth that Paul had been iritating John for years - well don't you think that John knew he was infuriating the others with all the Yoko stuff? Would it fair to say that when John had Yoko's hospital bed wheeled into the studio that he planted the seed for the "McCartney" album right then and there? BTW - I love the fantasy scenario that has them agreeing to walk away from the band in 1970, and getting together in the mid-70's to at least talk about future Beatles music. But then again John and Paul did have that chance when they hooked up during John's "lost weekend". The desire to put the band back together was obviously not so strong. Remember, Paul and Ringo (yes, Ringo!) were enjoying great solo success at that time.
|
|
|
Post by melody on Aug 12, 2008 12:21:37 GMT -5
For arguments sake, if Paul had come back and said lads "let's give it one more for the ages" what would have been the response??? He did do that - after the Get Back sessions - and Abbey Road was the result. I think it's a bit unfair to hammer Paul for ultimately being the one that made the dramatic seperation from the band. If John wanted to do it so bad earlier than he could have. John even tried to backpeddle and say that he really wanted to leave and was talked out of it by Paul. One could look at what Paul did as him having the balls to finally do what the others may have wanted to do. I never really bought into the thinking that the "McCartney" album release had anything to do directly with money, or to trump the LIB album. It seemed to me that having decided to take the plunge to part with the band Paul needed to underline the move with the release of music under just his name. After Epsteins death, Paul seemed to take a keen interest in the bands affairs. Why? Because he wanted to be in charge? I don't think so. I'd say purely out of desire to help the band. John sure as hell wasn't going to do it. Actually, had the band continued I could see George as being the one who would cut and run. He was the most surpressed band member. The band split because it had run it's course. I always liked John's comparison to them being kids that grew up and moved on. John was the one who most desperately needed something else. That's why I hate the age-old idea of Yoko having split the band. John could have stopped or encouraged all of Yoko's inclusion in the Beatles world - and he very much encouraged it. He wanted that. And about the idea put forth that Paul had been iritating John for years - well don't you think that John knew he was infuriating the others with all the Yoko stuff? Would it fair to say that when John had Yoko's hospital bed wheeled into the studio that he planted the seed for the "McCartney" album right then and there? BTW - I love the fantasy scenario that has them agreeing to walk away from the band in 1970, and getting together in the mid-70's to at least talk about future Beatles music. But then again John and Paul did have that chance when they hooked up during John's "lost weekend". The desire to put the band back together was obviously not so strong. Remember, Paul and Ringo (yes, Ringo!) were enjoying great solo success at that time. Excellent post, snookeroo. I agree with panther's well thought out 'organic' break-down theory as well. It's totally unfair, uninformed, and silly in the extreme to heap all the blame on one Beatle being the cause of the break-up as ChokingSmoker has attempted to do. I don't know why so many stanch Lennonists have such a bitter axe to grind with McCartney, but I'm sure weary of reading it. A multitude of factors (virtually all the possible causes vectis listed in his opening post) were factors, imo, but ultimately, the two lead Beatles decided the fate of the band when John asked for a divorce in September 69, and Paul took the necessary legal steps to grant it.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 12, 2008 16:24:54 GMT -5
I don't know why so many stanch Lennonists have such a bitter axe to grind with McCartney, but I'm sure weary of reading it. Perhaps -- but to me it's not NEARLY as bitter and tiring as reading all the "JohnandYoko / Yoko broke up the Beatles" rants over the decades! I have to laugh a little here, Melody... because you wonder why some Lennon fans get bitter or have an axe to grind? You just answered it yourself - John was the one who wanted the divorce, and then Paul asked to keep it quiet... and John obliged, even though he could have blown the lid off himself. And then instead, Paul snuck 'round and gave it to him!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 12, 2008 16:29:23 GMT -5
If John wanted to do it so bad earlier than he could have. John even tried to backpeddle and say that he really wanted to leave and was talked out of it by Paul. One could look at what Paul did as him having the balls to finally do what the others may have wanted to do. I don't think John backpeddled at all. I believe he wanted OUT, and would gladly have been the one to say "ADIOS" to the Beatles, and to go on to do more solo stuff like LIVE PEACE IN TORONTO, GIVE PEACE A CHANCE and COLD TURKEY. Who needed them at that point? I believe he did the "noble" thing by keeping mum about it at Paul's request. He did McCartney (and the others) the favor and then Paul did him dirty. There was even a video interview (in recent years somewhere) where Paul recounts this and imitates John, whining: "But I wanted to tell..!", to which Paul just shrugs it off and says: "Well, tough". Paul admits that it was John who said "I want a divorce". And that the words shook him (Paul) up. He says he still recalls this vividly, it was such a shock to him. John did not exaggerate this later or backpeddle.
|
|
|
Post by melody on Aug 13, 2008 17:06:06 GMT -5
That's not my understanding of how it went down, Joe. Klein asked them to keep it quiet because of the new record contract he had just negotiated, and John went along with it for business reasons, and emotionally, I believe he was still reluctant to pull the plug for good. Nobody was twisting John's arm against his will to 'not blow the lid off' himself, if he really wanted to do so. I think John used that as an excuse to cover up his own mixed feelings; part exileration and part terror. In the end it was Paul who wanted out ever more
Paul initially wanted it kept quite too, parly because, knowing John, there was still a sliver of a possibly that John was spouting off in haste, and might change his mind. When a change of mind didn't become apparent to Paul in the next few months, and he later became angered by the Spectorization of his songs, and increasingly distrustful of Klein and his mismangement, he appealed directly and repeatedly to John to let him out - split it four ways, the bubble had burst, which was ignored/refused, leaving him with little choice but to reluctantly go to court to rid himself of Klein.
Paul wasn't blameless in some of his actions, but if Lennonists base part of their bitterness towards Paul on this episode, then they seem to be doing so on a distortion of the facts and/ or a very one-eyed bias to accepting everything John lashed out about regardling Paul and the break-up as THE gospel. John himself got past most of the feuding and nastiness by the mid-70's, especially once they were all on the same page about Klein, so why can't his fans?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 13, 2008 18:43:09 GMT -5
That's not my understanding of how it went down, Joe. Klein asked them to keep it quiet because of the new record contract he had just negotiated, and John went along with it for business reasons, and emotionally, I believe he was still reluctant to pull the plug for good. Nobody was twisting John's arm against his will to 'not blow the lid off' himself, if he really wanted to do so. I think John used that as an excuse to cover up his own mixed feelings; part exileration and part terror. In the end it was Paul who wanted out ever more I believe John wanted out and would obviously have been the LEAST of the four to be affected at this time in his life, what with Yoko and their new "discoveries" and projects. And how about Paulie's known habit of changing history when he tells stories? You can use that term "Lennonists", but there are a hell of alot of "McCartneyites" as well. Me? I'm fair to both sides, as needed. And once again, which you passed over - there are plenty of "Anti-LenOno" people out there. I hope you're not lumping me in there, as I am always the one happily saying "The Beatles broke up 40 years ago -- get over it!".
|
|
|
Post by revolver66 on Aug 13, 2008 23:57:59 GMT -5
So much of what I am reading here is heresy. I mean as I have read Paul tried his best to keep the Band going. However when he realized this wasn't to be he bailed! Now John knew his intentions before Macca announced the end of the Fabs but didn't say anything based on Business dealings that could be affected if the Band split. Business is business after all. I mean just watch Let It Be and you can see Macca wants the band to go on. John and George obviously don't share his setiments and could care less. I mean a person is only going to try and convince another for only so long until he gives up(as Paul did). As stated above,Lennon was doing alot of things that Macca wasn't so fond of. Was Ringo? I doubt he was thrilled with the Two Virgins Cover or the Political stuff. Maybe George wasn't either. I mean didn't George make some negative remarks about Yoko? I mean if John was the leader of the Beatles and no longer cared then why didn't he call it a day then? I mean Macca became the leader by default around the Apple Days..Why? Cause Lennon didn't care? I don't buy that. Lennon created some of his best Music during this time. He just didn't want or take the responsibilities necessary to run a band. As far as the Politics and Avant Garde stuff...John did what he wanted. He didn't do it to piss Paul off or distance himself. Heck he was hoping Paul would be into some of the stuff like Revolution Number 9. Why do discussions such as these become a John VS Paul debate? I mean haven't any of you had arguments with friends or falling outs?
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Aug 14, 2008 14:10:51 GMT -5
Remember in Sept 1969 after the release of Abbey Road, they came back together to see what the future held for the group. John presents his new song Cold Turkey as the Beatles next single and Paul and George throw up all over the idea. John's feelings were hurt by this no doubt. Then Paul talks about what the group should have done at that time--make plans for some live concerts and/or TV shows.
At that point, John, realizing Paul has all these plans for the group says it doesn't matter, I'm leaving anyway. This is not too long after his song is rejected as the next single. Its easy to see that his rant could be caused by hurt feelings. The idea was to see what move he made next. He didn't really make any move even behind the scenes to change anything. A few months go by, Christmas comes and goes. Its January and George Paul and Ringo finish up I Me Mine. George in a tongue in cheek mood, says Harold and Phil and I are here but we are waiting for Dave to come or something like that (referring to the others with pseudonyms). He says something like we hope Dave (John) will be around soon.
More months go by. John and Allen Klein get Phil Spector to butcher Let It Be. Allen Klein tries to put his ABBCO company logo on Paul's solo album. Klein wants Let It Be out before McCartney solo album. Paul says screw this I'm out of here. I don't give a shit what you do John. John responds by writing the song God about letting go of the Beatles myth. I tell you he had not let go until Paul called him to say he was leaving. It was too f'ing scary to think about life after the Beatles.
But Paul was so pissed he didn't think of that because a guy he voted against (3 to 1) was allowed to take over Apple (his creation and its great that we have Apple today as a buffer between the the Beatles compilations and the record company who would have released any piece of junk to make money -this power came from winnng a lawsuit Paul filed against the record company over royalties but that's another story). In the past all three to one votes meant they would not do what one of them voted against. Then the guy tries to be Paul's manager and take a part of his solo work when Paul never signed with him.
So Paul was asking to get out and saying our agreement was with an intact group and not four solo artists and they say tough shit. Klein tries to dictate when Paul can release his albums and changes his work with the Beatles to reflect some outside producer's gaudy taste. I say good for you Paul. I woudn't take that shit either. The fact that he did it before John has no relevence. John had plenty of chances. And Paul was speaking for himself, not John when made the announcement and he had a perfect right to do so.
And its no wonder the courts sided with him on the matter of the breakup and the others eventually sided with him about Klein.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 14, 2008 14:25:53 GMT -5
Didn't George end up playing guitar on the Cold Turkey single anyway? George played piano on Instant Karma-that I know.
|
|
|
Post by revolver66 on Aug 14, 2008 14:39:52 GMT -5
Remember in Sept 1969 after the release of Abbey Road, they came back together to see what the future held for the group. John presents his new song Cold Turkey as the Beatles next single and Paul and George throw up all over the idea. John's feelings were hurt by this no doubt. Then Paul talks about what the group should have done at that time--make plans for some live concerts and/or TV shows. At that point, John, realizing Paul has all these plans for the group says it doesn't matter, I'm leaving anyway. This is not too long after his song is rejected as the next single. Its easy to see that his rant could be caused by hurt feelings. The idea was to see what move he made next. He didn't really make any move even behind the scenes to change anything. A few months go by, Chistmas comes and goes. Its January and George Paul and Ringo finish up I Me Mine. George in a tongue in cheek mood, says Dave and Phil and I are here but we are waiting for Harold to come or something like that (referring to the others with pseudonyms). He says something like we hope Harold (John) will be around soon. More months go by. John and Allen Klein get Phil Spector to butcher Let It Be. Allen Klein tries to put his ABBCO company logo on Paul's solo album. Klein wants Let It Be out before McCartney solo album. Paul says screw this I'm out of here. I don't give a shit what you do John. John responds by writing the song God about letting go of the Beatles myth. I tell you he had not let go until Paul called him to say he was leaving. It was too f'ing scary to think about life after the Beatles. But Paul was so pissed he didn't think of that because a guy he voted against (3 to 1) was allowed to take over Apple (his creation and its great that we have Apple today as a buffer between the the Beatles compilations and the record company who would have released any piece of junk to make money -this power came from winnng a lawsuit Paul filed against the record company over royalties but thats another story). In the past all three to one votes in the past meant they would not do what one of them voted against. Then the guy tries to be Paul's manager and take a part of his solo work when Paul never signed with him. So Paul was asking to get out and saying our agreement was with a group in tact and not four solo artists and they say tough shit. Klein tries to dictate when Paul can release his albums and changes his work with the Beatles to reflect some outside producer's gaudy taste. I say good for you Paul. I woudn't take that shit either. The fact that he did it before John has no relevence. John had plenty of chances. And Paul was speaking for himself, not John when made the announcement and he had a perfect right to do so. And its no wonder the courts sided with him on the matter of the breakup and the others eventually sided with him about Klein. Amen!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Aug 14, 2008 17:51:22 GMT -5
And its no wonder the courts sided with him on the matter of the breakup and the others eventually sided with him about Klein. I'm not arguing with you on this point. Paul so the bullshit, but he should have had trust in the other lads and gave it some time. After all, he was the right-wing money genius in the end. Even Yoko has to bow on that one.
|
|
|
Post by melody on Aug 14, 2008 17:53:56 GMT -5
That's not my understanding of how it went down, Joe. Klein asked them to keep it quiet because of the new record contract he had just negotiated, and John went along with it for business reasons, and emotionally, I believe he was still reluctant to pull the plug for good. Nobody was twisting John's arm against his will to 'not blow the lid off' himself, if he really wanted to do so. I think John used that as an excuse to cover up his own mixed feelings; part exileration and part terror. In the end it was Paul who wanted out ever more I believe John wanted out and would obviously have been the LEAST of the four to be affected at this time in his life, what with Yoko and their new "discoveries" and projects. And how about Paulie's known habit of changing history when he tells stories? You can use that term "Lennonists", but there are a hell of alot of "McCartneyites" as well. Me? I'm fair to both sides, as needed. And once again, which you passed over - there are plenty of "Anti-LenOno" people out there. I hope you're not lumping me in there, as I am always the one happily saying "The Beatles broke up 40 years ago -- get over it!". Joe, Sorry, I should have been more precise. I wasn't lumping you in there and basically agree with your sentiment of 'getting over it' after all these years. I still feel sad by the way it ended. And sure, there are some rabid McCartney freaks out there too, and lots of anti-Lennon-Ono sentiment. Acknowledged. I'd have to re-read the thread but I don't remember the Lennon-Ono thing being targetted as the sole culprit for the break-up in this thread as Paul was, hence my not commenting on it. It was a factor though, and some of the criticism of their behavior surrounding the break-up (not the ugly bashing part) is justified, just as some of Paul's behavior was factor. I think Paul has been rather consistent in his interviews through the years to the point of fans bagging him for repeating the same old boring stories, and sentiments I don't agree he has a habit of changing history with his stories. I'm not saying he never spins anything (they all did) but normal memory glitches have to be factored in if he gets it wrong and messes up the details of something that happened 30-40 years ago. Same goes for John and everyone else involved when it is obvious that they are simply confusing or misremembering an event.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 14, 2008 20:18:18 GMT -5
Remember in Sept 1969 after the release of Abbey Road, they came back together to see what the future held for the group. John presents his new song Cold Turkey as the Beatles next single and Paul and George throw up all over the idea. John's feelings were hurt by this no doubt. Then Paul talks about what the group should have done at that time--make plans for some live concerts and/or TV shows. At that point, John, realizing Paul has all these plans for the group says it doesn't matter, I'm leaving anyway. This is not too long after his song is rejected as the next single. Its easy to see that his rant could be caused by hurt feelings. The idea was to see what move he made next. He didn't really make any move even behind the scenes to change anything. A few months go by, Christmas comes and goes. Its January and George Paul and Ringo finish up I Me Mine. George in a tongue in cheek mood, says Harold and Phil and I are here but we are waiting for Dave to come or something like that (referring to the others with pseudonyms). He says something like we hope Dave (John) will be around soon. More months go by. John and Allen Klein get Phil Spector to butcher Let It Be. Allen Klein tries to put his ABBCO company logo on Paul's solo album. Klein wants Let It Be out before McCartney solo album. Paul says screw this I'm out of here. I don't give a shit what you do John. John responds by writing the song God about letting go of the Beatles myth. I tell you he had not let go until Paul called him to say he was leaving. It was too f'ing scary to think about life after the Beatles. But Paul was so pissed he didn't think of that because a guy he voted against (3 to 1) was allowed to take over Apple (his creation and its great that we have Apple today as a buffer between the the Beatles compilations and the record company who would have released any piece of junk to make money -this power came from winnng a lawsuit Paul filed against the record company over royalties but that's another story). In the past all three to one votes meant they would not do what one of them voted against. Then the guy tries to be Paul's manager and take a part of his solo work when Paul never signed with him. So Paul was asking to get out and saying our agreement was with an intact group and not four solo artists and they say tough shit. Klein tries to dictate when Paul can release his albums and changes his work with the Beatles to reflect some outside producer's gaudy taste. I say good for you Paul. I woudn't take that shit either. The fact that he did it before John has no relevence. John had plenty of chances. And Paul was speaking for himself, not John when made the announcement and he had a perfect right to do so. And its no wonder the courts sided with him on the matter of the breakup and the others eventually sided with him about Klein. You forgot to mention, RTP, that Paul tried to push off his in-laws, Lee Eastman and John Eastman(I wonder whose interest they cared about) on the other Beatles all the while Paul is frantically buying shares of Northern Songs behind John's back. Lee Eastman and John Eastman were pigs. Paulie ain't no virgin in all of this, he wanted to screw the others and what better way than have his pig in-laws run the shop. What a conflict of interest!
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Aug 14, 2008 20:18:44 GMT -5
I mean if John was the leader of the Beatles and no longer cared then why didn't he call it a day then? I mean Macca became the leader by default around the Apple Days..Why? Cause Lennon didn't care? I don't buy that. Lennon created some of his best Music during this time. He just didn't want or take the responsibilities necessary to run a band. As far as the Politics and Avant Garde stuff...John did what he wanted. He didn't do it to piss Paul off or distance himself. Heck he was hoping Paul would be into some of the stuff like Revolution Number 9. ...also, John was into heroin by then and didn't care about anything except himself & Yoko.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Aug 14, 2008 22:11:23 GMT -5
...George in a tongue in cheek mood, says Harold and Phil and I are here but we are waiting for Dave to come or something like that (referring to the others with pseudonyms). He says something like we hope Dave (John) will be around soon. . "Micky, Titsch and I" - and Dave Dees. Ya gotta get the names right. Your post lost all credibility right there ;D
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 15, 2008 3:16:24 GMT -5
Here's that final timeline. Not sure when McCartney hears the Let it be mixes and/or when the argument with Ringo happens.
3/1/70 - George, Paul, Ringo - I me mine 23-30/3/70 - Spector mixing Let it be 1/4/70 - Final session - Ringo and orchestra 10/4/70 - McCartney's announcement of leaving 20/4/70 - McCartney released 18/5/70 - Let it be released
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Aug 15, 2008 12:46:06 GMT -5
They would have been better off with the Eastmans. They would all be billionaires today. It might have changed history. John might be alive today. But really Paul was doing with his money what the Eastman's advised- invest it back into the music. The others could have done the same thing. It wasn't like Paul was planning a coup or anything for heaven's sake. What do you think he was going to do-gather shares and do something harmful to the Beatles as a group. He was holding on to the shares so the group didn't get ripped off has they had before by losing control of their publishing. The others were busy spending their money on things like huge mansions (John (Ascot) and George (Friar Park) and other material world purchases. On the other hand Paul bought quite a modest home in St. John's Wood and used the extra money to secure the Beatles future. I say good for him. At least one of them was thinking with both sides of his brain. I am not convinced this was a big secret that it was a good idea to get control of their publishing again. The whole Northern Songs fiasco is is a staggering saga of incompetence, duplicity and music industry politics. I would like to know how a minor singer turned publisher Dick James got to handle Lennon and McCartney's songs. He wasn't to be trusted and when he sold them out without even an opportunity to buy them, it caused great resentment between Dick James and the Nurk Twins. After all Britain's Associated TeleVision (ATV) had bought enough public shares to threaten a majority holding in Northern Songs. Paul was trying to mitigate that situation. And John was well aware of the situation. Early in 1969, James abruptly sold his shares in Northern Songs to (ATV), giving the Beatles no notice, or the chance to buy them out. John learned of the sale from a morning newspaper during his honeymoon with Yoko Ono, and immediately called Paul to talk about what a backstabber James was. This is what happend next: A block of investors who owned a small but crucial percentage of shares was lobbied by both sides to sell out or cooperate with them ultimately to take control of Northern Songs. During negotiations, Lennon made an understandable, but ill-timed and poorly-worded, comment expressing his disdain for businessmen trying to influence his creative output — "I'm sick to death of being fucked about by men in suits sitting on their fat arses in the City!" — which threw the investors to ATV's side. Under their publishing contract with Northern Songs, Lennon and McCartney were legally bound to continue their songwriting until 1973. The simplest way out, if they couldn't gain control, was to also sell out to ATV, while keeping the writer's royalties from their contracted songs. Lennon and McCartney sold their stock (Lennon his 15%, McCartney's portion slightly higher, since he himself bought additional shares) in October 1969 for £3.5 million. Harrison and Starr chose to keep their shares. ATV held its controlling interest in Northern Songs until 1985, when ATV Music went up for sale. Outbidding McCartney (who'd tried unsuccessfully to persuade Ono to join him) was singer Michael Jackson, whose recent friendship and collaboration with McCartney ended suddenly as a result. It turned out Ono had actually encouraged Jackson to buy the shares, telling the press after the sale, "I just feel like a friend has them." When asked how he felt about having Jackson as his "boss," as of the song catalogue, McCartney replied, "I think he needs to give me a raise." (None of the Beatles' royalty rates as composers had ever been increased, despite their continuing sales.) McCartney reportedly did ask Jackson for a royalty increase but was turned down, further cooling their relationship.
|
|
|
Post by melody on Aug 15, 2008 18:31:38 GMT -5
This is one of the hot Beatle flashpoints that will never be resolved. It comes down to who you believe.
According to Ray Coleman's book (Yesterday and Today) Paul bought a miniscule number of shares - 1000*. Paul said it was Peter Brown (not the Eastmans) who suggested he buy some Northern stock and took care of the purchase, and that it wasn't done behind John's back, he had told him about it... John *reportedly* flipped out and said otherwise, but I've never found a direct quote from John claiming this (only second hand sources describing his initial reaction and accusation).
*J & P started out with 750,000 shares. When they tallied the shares at this infamous meeting, Paul had 751,000 shares, John had 694,000, which was 56,000 less than the 750,000 he started with - apparently LOST in his divorce settlement and the trust fund set up for Julian. Cyntha later said (around 1999) that John had her sign back shares to him without telling her.
I can understand how the other's would feel The Eastmans' might be too favorable to Paul interests, but I wouldn't go as far to say it was a 'conflict of interest'? From Paul's point of view, as pending family, they would be less likely to rip them all off, and as we know now, John Eastman has continued to quitely run and handle Paul's business affairs with great success. I've also read somewhere (but can't remember where) that Paul wasn't adverse to finding another manager they could all agree on.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Aug 15, 2008 19:05:44 GMT -5
I don't see why Paul would want to back stab his mates if his in-laws took over their affairs. The only time it would get ugly would be if they broke up which they eventually did so perhaps it was a blessing that the Eastmans didn't take over at that time.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 16, 2008 15:57:53 GMT -5
I say good for you Paul. I woudn't take that shit either. The fact that he did it before John has no relevence. John had plenty of chances. And Paul was speaking for himself, not John when made the announcement and he had a perfect right to do so. You're kidding!??! What a surprise! Who'd EVER have thought that RTP would uncharacteristically side with Paul for a change of pace?
|
|