Album Veto Rights (1976 - 1985) | The albums | Fab forum

A A A

Please consider registering
guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Wildcard usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

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

Topic RSS
Album Veto Rights (1976 - 1985)
1 September 2012
1.48am
meanmistermustard
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 7164
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Online

Did something change in The Beatles contract rights to veto any albums in 1985 with sessions compared to the Hollywood Bowl album in '77? We know that that Sessions lp was ready to go (down to artwork etc) until Apple heard about it and refused to sanction its release but what about the Hollywood Bowl concert?

Was the Hollywood Bowl passed by John, Paul, George and Ringo for release (they complained about most releases in the 70's but were unable to block them) or did they simply not raise objection because it wasnt a reissue of previously released tracks?

Were Live recordings not included along with what was in the vaults so Apple had no say in the matter?

 

Its got me wondering.

"Well, probably we'll sell less records, less people'll go to see the film, we'll write less songs, and we'll all die of failure" (John Lennon 8/64)
2 September 2012
8.03pm
Joe
Pepperland
Admin
Forum Posts: 3207
Member Since:
31 March 2008
Offline

George Martin relistened to the Hollywood Bowl tapes and discovered that they might be releaseable after all (studio tech had moved on since the 60s and he was able to make them more presentable). He then persuaded the former Beatles to give it the green light – Lennon loved it, Harrison and Starr less so (don't know about McCartney). There's more info here: http://www.beatlesbible.com/al…..wood-bowl/

I don't know much about Sessions, sorry.

Please don't spoil my day; I'm miles away

Can buy me love! Please consider using these links to support the Beatles Bible: Amazon | iTunes

2 September 2012
9.48pm
meanmistermustard
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 7164
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Online

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.

"Well, probably we'll sell less records, less people'll go to see the film, we'll write less songs, and we'll all die of failure" (John Lennon 8/64)
2 September 2012
9.56pm
SatanHimself
Hades-on-Leith
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 699
Member Since:
16 August 2012
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
10.06pm
meanmistermustard
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 7164
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Online

Thanks for that Satan. I skimmed thru it but 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.

"Well, probably we'll sell less records, less people'll go to see the film, we'll write less songs, and we'll all die of failure" (John Lennon 8/64)
2 September 2012
10.12pm
SatanHimself
Hades-on-Leith
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 699
Member Since:
16 August 2012
Offline

This is an interesting topic.  I will research it some…

E is for 'Ergent'.
2 September 2012
10.18pm
meanmistermustard
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 7164
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Online

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.]

"Well, probably we'll sell less records, less people'll go to see the film, we'll write less songs, and we'll all die of failure" (John Lennon 8/64)
Forum Timezone: UTC 0

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: Necko, meanmistermustard, Ahhh Girl, IveJustSeenAFaceo, Billy Rhythm, primadonna paul
74 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Members Birthdays
Today None
Upcoming Ahhh Girl

Top Posters:

meanmistermustard: 7163

mr. Sun king coming together: 6972

mithveaen: 4678

parlance: 3636

MeanMrsMustard: 2803

Ron Nasty: 2517

skye: 2295

IveJustSeenAFaceo: 1913

LongHairedLady: 1891

Von Bontee: 1813

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 87

Members: 2332

Moderators: 5

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 33

Topics: 3059

Posts: 109819

Newest Members: ChristianCorl, primadonna paul, Simple Press, Kattatude, El Dorado

Moderators: Ahhh Girl (3320), fabfouremily (2941), Zig (3294), Joe (3207), Ellie (1)

Administrators: Joe (3207)