The Beatles: why all the fuss? (1 Viewer)

[LanceJ]

Can anybody write a summary of the relationships between the Beatles, Apple Records, Yoko Ono, EMI and any other person/organization/business entity involved with them; and why they always seem to be arguing with each other over practically every decision--large & small--concerning the Beatles?

I've tried to research this myself but this is one of those times the Internet offers TOO much information & wading through it all would be a daunting task.

Thanks a lot.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

One sentence answer: they argue because there's a LOT of money involved and everyone wants some.

 

[Henry Gale]

OK :frowning:

Here's an idea. Read the first and last paragraph of long articles, that's where most everything of importance is located.

 

[LanceJ]

Henry: I'm not what you would call a rabid Beatles fan so that is why I asked for just a summary (I only own the white album, Sgt. Pepper's, and the "1" album). I know there are people here that have much knowledge of this subject and enjoy discussing it and this IS a forum for discussion of music-related matters, so I thought I would find my answer a lot faster this way.

Colin: I know there is a lot of moolah involved but I just thought BECAUSE there is a lot of moolah involved the participants would cooperate more readily......or did I watch The Brady Bunch too much? :b

 

[Ike]

John and Paul had a nasty seperation towards the end, and Paul and Yoko have seemingly never gotten along.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

John wanted Yoko to be 'part of the group' after they got married, and Paul didn't like that idea. Towards the end, most of them wanted to go solo, and my guess there would be that they were branching out with musical interests that weren't anything like what they had been doing.

If you can hear Lennon's 'Imagine' album or Harrison's 'All Things Must Pass', you'll see that they weren't Beatles' songs anymore.

It was a real shocker when it happened, but looking back, they had just been together for so long that they had finished what they could do together.

I don't know about the EMI stuff, so I can't help you there.

Glenn

 

[Brian L]

Lance,

I know you may not want to invest the time, but if you can borrow a copy of the Beatles Anthology DVD, the last couple discs will give you a good idea of how things fell apart towards the end. Or failing that, a bootleg of the movie Let It Be would also be informative.

Oh, and on the Anthology there are some stunning 5.1 mixes of a host of Beatles songs as well.

BGL

 

[Colin Jacobson]

You also have to factor in the "legacy" element. The Beatles aren't a band anymore - they're a myth. They've reached such legendary status that people view them as gods more than as musicians, and that attitude affects decisions. Everyone has their own idea of how to protect the legacy, and this - combined with all the money involved - messes with the process.

It's all money, egos, and revisionist history...

 

[Marty M]

A new rift has developed between Paul and Yoko over Paul listing the Beatle songs on his last DVD. He listed the writing credits as McCartney & Lennon. Originally, all of their songs were listed as Lennon & McCartney. Yoko is very upset about this.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

*Yawn* This is old news because a) this instance happened two years ago, and b) Paul also changed the listing in the Seventies for "Wings Over America" plus a couple of other instances, I believe. Yoko wanted Paul to drop his credit for "Give Peace a Chance" and he refused - that's what pissed her off this time and led her to bitch about it in the press.

It's far from a "new rift".

And this has less than nothing to do with the various legal wranglings over the Beatles legacy - that'd been an issue LOOOONG before 2002 and Paul's live album.

Don't believe everything you read in "Personality Parade"!

 

[AnthonyC]

Despite Paul's refusal, Yoko did drop Paul's name from the credits of GPAC...check out the Lennon Legend DVD booklet.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Whaddya know - you're right! That means either she and Paul DID reach an agreement - unlikely - or she said "F*** you!" to Paul and did it anyway.

If the latter's true, it seems much more questionable than Paul's credit reversal. He just changed the order - he didn't OMIT Lennon's name. That's beyond petty...

 

[LanceJ]

Thanks for the info everybody.

Jeez if people in their 50s(?) are bitching about the order of names on a credit listing, that says a lot right there. :frowning:

As far as that Anthology is concerned I'm surprised they could sit down long enough together to allow EMI to remix the master tapes into 5.1 form. Just as a slight sidetrack into that subject, how is the actual sound quality of the surround tracks (since they had access to the masters it seems like the sonics should be better)?

 

[Brian L]

Well, I am not sure the surviving Beatles at the time (Paul, George, and Ringo) were involved. They did sit down for some interviews at Geroge's estate (IIRC), and actually played/sang together, but I don't think they were involved in the production, although they likely had to sign off on it.

I am sure someone here can clarify exactly who did the mixes.

I think the overall SQ is wonderful, although you have to realize it is not Steely Dan! I can only compare it to the current redbook CD's, and my scratchy old LPs. Hearing "A Day in the Life" and "I Am the Walrus" in 5.1 was/is a real thrill.

BGL

 

[Henry Gale]

Paul has some good reasons for this. He says that many times only ONE artist's name will show up after a song title.
In the case of Yesterday, if only Lennon's name appears, well, that's just misleading since John had nothing to do with the song.

BTW... Sir Paul is 62 and Yoko (who thinks she wrote Makin' Whoopee!) is 71.

 

[LanceJ]

62 and seventy one?? Now we have the stereotypical grumpy-old-person factor to throw into the mix.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I think Paul has become too defensive of his legacy, but I understand his point. On December 8, 1980, Lennon went from being A Beatle to being THE Beatle in the public mind. The entire myth that he was the brains and the talent behind the operation started when he died, and it's gotten worse and worse over the years. When Lennon died, Paul was the most successful and best regarded ex-Beatle. Lennon had produced some great but much spotty solo work and hadn't even done much since he sat idle half of the 10 years after the Beatles' demise.

His death turned him into a martyr and established the myth of his single genius - the concept that he did all the heavy lifting and took Paul along for the ride. If I'd had to spend 24 years competing with a ghost, I'd be pretty defensive too.

Lennon was brilliant. Paul was/is brilliant. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive, but the world seems to embrace the former and mock the latter. If changing the credits order lets Paul feel a little more secure, so be it.

Yoko deciding to drop Paul's name from "GPAC" is just petty, though. Yeah, Lennon added McCartney's name as a courtesy, but the same went for the many Beatle songs composed by one without the other. Yoko can argue Paul doesn't deserve credit because he didn't co-write the tune, but as noted, Paul could easily turn around and rip John's name off of many Beatle tunes for which Lennon did nothing. Paul flip-flopped names, but at least he didn't DROP one...

 

[Charlie C]

Doesnt Michael Jackson own most of the rights to the songs anyway?

 

[LarryDavenport]

Charlie,

Michael (and Sony) own the publishing rights but not the recordings. They can't stop recordings from coming out, they just make a profit from them. EMI holds the current liscense for the recordings and they would love to release a ton of Beatle product, but there has always been a veto by a band member (and actually it was usually George who was the veto).

 

[Charlie C]

thanks for the clear up