|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 19, 2011 16:57:44 GMT -5
I'm just finishing this. It is a 2009 book which starts in late 1966 and concentrates on the business side of things - the contracts, court cases and so on. It is an entertaining read (albeit not as forensic as Joey's articles) and contained a fair number of quotes and details I had never read before, as well as some inaccuracies. Enjoyable - I recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Jun 19, 2011 19:30:39 GMT -5
I'm just finishing this. It is a 2009 book which starts in late 1966 and concentrates on the business side of things - the contracts, court cases and so on. It is an entertaining read (albeit not as forensic as Joey's articles) and contained a fair number of quotes and details I had never read before, as well as some inaccuracies. Enjoyable - I recommend it. Just curious - what inaccuracies?
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Jun 19, 2011 21:48:12 GMT -5
hey vectis, I would be interested in your take on the business side of things, were they taken for a ride ?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jun 20, 2011 0:41:10 GMT -5
hey vectis, I would be interested in your take on the business side of things, were they taken for a ride ? I haven't read the book, but the SELTAEB licensing agreements reportedly were terrible. If you read "Shout," it appears Brian let his "nice guy" image get taken advantage of.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 20, 2011 3:03:57 GMT -5
Just curious - what inaccuracies? And, of course, not having the book in front of me, I can't remember. But there's at least one place where, in connection with something quite unimportant, he identifies the wrong person. I'll look it up tonight if I remember.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 20, 2011 3:08:39 GMT -5
hey vectis, I would be interested in your take on the business side of things, were they taken for a ride ? This comes in well after Seltaeb. And it's not so much that they were taken for a ride (although at times they were), more that they were incessantly at loggerheads with each other, with Klein, with EMI. And it came to me so strongly that the answer was really simple, and all the 1970/71 (et seq) problems needn't have been. McCartney's problem was that he was locked in to the original partnership and wanted out because it stifled his solo activity. The practical problem with that was that UK tax laws crystallised a huge tax liability when a partner left or joined a partnership. Solution: don't break up the partnership, just create a supplemental partnership deed which varies the term of the original which brings solo work within the partnership to allow solo work outside the partnership. Duh.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 20, 2011 3:10:22 GMT -5
Derek Taylor is quoted as saying, "It should never have ended like this."
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Jun 20, 2011 8:05:52 GMT -5
hey vectis, I would be interested in your take on the business side of things, were they taken for a ride ? This comes in well after Seltaeb. And it's not so much that they were taken for a ride (although at times they were), more that they were incessantly at loggerheads with each other, with Klein, with EMI. And it came to me so strongly that the answer was really simple, and all the 1970/71 (et seq) problems needn't have been. McCartney's problem was that he was locked in to the original partnership and wanted out because it stifled his solo activity. The practical problem with that was that UK tax laws crystallised a huge tax liability when a partner left or joined a partnership. Solution: don't break up the partnership, just create a supplemental partnership deed which varies the term of the original which brings solo work within the partnership to allow solo work outside the partnership. Duh. Thanks for that, it makes me think that the breakup left a sour taste in everyone's mouth especially John and it really all came down to $$$ . Those quotes from Paul where he would ring John in the 70's but was careful not to bring up the business stuff because it would set him off is consistent with what you're saying.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jun 20, 2011 10:59:09 GMT -5
I've been meaning to read this but frankly the business aspects of Apple get me all discombobulated. Since you recommend it, vectis, I'll make more of an effort to tackle it.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 20, 2011 12:57:41 GMT -5
I've been meaning to read this but frankly the business aspects of Apple get me all discombobulated. Since you recommend it, vectis, I'll make more of an effort to tackle it. I'm like Winston O'Boogie, I want vectis to give us a thorough summary so we don't need to read it. What were those book summaries we used in school, Cliff Notes?
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Jun 20, 2011 15:55:07 GMT -5
I've been meaning to read this but frankly the business aspects of Apple get me all discombobulated. Since you recommend it, vectis, I'll make more of an effort to tackle it. I'm like Winston O'Boogie, I want vectis to give us a thorough summary so we don't need to read it. What were those book summaries we used in school, Cliff Notes? We've got Vectis Quotes
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 21, 2011 9:56:07 GMT -5
In one way, I quite wanted a detailed trawl through the court cases - I have greatly enjoyed Joey's articles on the subject, and I think there is a good book in there. But maybe this one is it. The detailed trawl is something for idiots like me who deal with the law here and there during their working life and have an interest in some of the finer points involved (things like Apple Records coming up with release schedules whenever an action against Apple Computers was looming in order to demonstrate that their trading name was live and active in the marketplace, a fairly cynical ploy which might fool a judge, but wouldn't fool a member of the record buying public for a second). This book picks up points like that, but doesn't dwell in depth on legal issues unless they are critical to an understanding of the point being covered. Although it covers all the main legal battles involving The Beatles/Apple from its formation through to the very recent past (just post Aspinall's death), it is very readable and easy to follow, and there is stuff in there which I hadn't previously registered, either the importance of them, or at all - the significance of the "McCartney uplift" when he renegotiated his contract with EMI in 1976, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by Zander on Dec 27, 2011 21:06:24 GMT -5
I just wished that Doggett had stopped refering to Ringo as Richard Starkey / Mr Starkey throughout the book - it got on my nerves. But aside from that an informative read...
|
|