Album Veto Rights (1976 - 1985) | Fab Forum

Introducing the inaugural Fab Forum February Fundraiser! Click here for more details.

Please consider registering
Guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
Album Veto Rights (1976 - 1985)
No permission to create posts
2 September 2012
8.03pm
Avatar
Joe
Pepperland
Admin
Forum Posts: 4390
Member Since:
31 March 2008
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2 September 2012
9.48pm
Avatar
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 17131
Member Since:
1 May 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think with Sessions it was more down to an ongoing legal fight between EMI and Apple than anything else, and those were resolved for the cd releases in 1987. 

It was more the Hollywood Bowl thing that got me wondering. I know that John loved bootlegs and had a massive collection so makes sense he was up for it. Cant see Ringo being that fussed, George would depend on what day you asked him, Paul would be pretty much the same.

 

I just remember they all had complaints and reservations about the compilations that EMI shoved out as soon as the contract ran out in 1976 but couldnt stop their releases so actually the question remains - why couldnt they stop the compilations (Rock And Roll Music, Love Songs etc) yet they could Sessions? Maybe its simply because it was unreleased material and EMI could do anything they wanted with the rest. But then why couldnt they release the cds earlier unless it was the lawsuits that stopped them only (kind of legal lockdown)? The last of the compilations was 20 Greatest Hits in October '82 so it would fit with a legal lockdown and then the veto was brought in. But then why ask John, Paul, George and Ringo for the Hollywood Bowl unless it was out of courtesy?

 

I think im rambling to myself and going in circles.

Don’t make your love suffer insecurities, trade the baggage of self to set another one free. ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)
2 September 2012
9.56pm
Avatar
SatanHimself
Hades-on-Leith
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 696
Member Since:
15 August 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I've you've got the time to read it, this is a very detailed story of 'Sessions':

 

http://web.archive.org/web/200.....sions.html

 

It would seem that the entire album was kept quiet from the remaining Beatles until the very last minute, and then Paul threw the brakes on it.

 

In hindsight, I can see why.  Paul most likely didn't want an arbitrary collection of stuff that wasn't good enough the first time around to be unceremoniously dumped onto the market, especially while he was at a very busy point in his solo career.

E is for 'Ergent'.
2 September 2012
10.12pm
Avatar
SatanHimself
Hades-on-Leith
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 696
Member Since:
15 August 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2 September 2012
10.18pm
Avatar
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 17131
Member Since:
1 May 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

SatanHimself said

I've you've got the time to read it, this is a very detailed story of 'Sessions':

http://web.archive.org/web/200.....sions.html

It would seem that the entire album was kept quiet from the remaining Beatles until the very last minute, and then Paul threw the brakes on it.

In hindsight, I can see why.  Paul most likely didn't want an arbitrary collection of stuff that wasn't good enough the first time around to be unceremoniously dumped onto the market, especially while he was at a very busy point in his solo career.

Thanks for that Satan.

From what i understand they were going to release Sessions in either '83 or '84 but due to delays (Pauls Broadstreet album being one) it was rescheduled for '85 at which point Apple found out and they (mostly Paul) blocked it. Im sure there were legal issues between Apple and EMI (royalties,  it was always royalties) and/or Yoko, George and Ringo v Paul (but that could have been later as wasnt that what stopped Paul being at the Hall of Fame ceremony in '88?).

 

However it doesnt answer my question of how the 3 beatles and Yoko came to be in the position of being able to block Sessions but not the compilations – unless it was only the already released stuff and not what was in the vaults, which would acount for George Martin going to the 4 for Hollywood Bowl. Then legal case outcomes kicked in which brought about the veto rule beween '82 and '85. They were always suing someone in the 80's were Apple - and 70's... & 90's.... & 00's. Theyre probably suing someone as i type.

 

[Note.

I know a large chuck of this post duplicates my last one but i thought i edited it to address Satan's post 2 back and not copied it. Im not going to delete the last one.]

Don’t make your love suffer insecurities, trade the baggage of self to set another one free. ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)
Forum Timezone: America/Chicago

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: Necko
35 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

meanmistermustard: 17129

Ahhh Girl: 10741

Annadog40: 9715

Zig: 7545

parlance: 7092

mr. Sun king coming together: 6980

Mr. Kite: 6092

Silly Girl: 5774

trcanberra: 5535

Ron Nasty: 4940

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 87

Members: 3331

Moderators: 4

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 42

Topics: 3815

Posts: 202031

Newest Members:

ravenswolf, Gamer1234, Stockholm1955, tomomi, ttn48griff

Moderators: Ahhh Girl: 10741, meanmistermustard: 17129, Zig: 7545, Joe: 4390

Administrators: Joe: 4390, Ellie: 3

Members Birthdays
sp_BirthdayIcon
Today: None
Upcoming: DrBeatle