Was John a liar? | Page 2 | John Lennon | Fab forum

Please consider registering
Guest

Log In 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

Was John a liar?
30 December 2013
11.22pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 10350
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Online

Yeah, and i think it was discovered when Apple were seeking higher % of royalties from EMI for Beatles records sold (might be wrong tho). Was this the reason Paul was missing from the Beatles acceptance into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?

Don’t make your love suffer insecurities, trade the baggage of self to set another one free. ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)
30 December 2013
11.31pm
Ron Nasty
"Where have you been?" "I'm not telling you..."
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 3209
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
22

I know he (Paul) excused himself due to ongoing legal battles.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
31 December 2013
12.13am
Billy Rhythm
Shea Stadium
Forum Posts: 488
Member Since:
22 December 2013
Offline
23

mja6758 said 

I often think the effect of John's discovery of that in 1969 is often overlooked. John expected the "suits" to screw him, but his friend and partner? I think that played a part in all that followed.

 

 

Yes, this would be what's at the core of the rotted apple, you can't fault Paul for wanting to own more of what was his, but at the very heart of what made Lennon/McCartney was a personal pact between them (the "blood oath" variety) to credit everything equally between them and he most certainly must regret going about it this way for the consequences he still lives with to this day.  Besides having to still pay royalties on every Lennon/McCartney tune he performs live today, his relationship with John would be soured forever afterward, no matter how polite they eventually learned to be around each other.

 

History will never say if they would've been able to outbid ATV Music had John not got up and walked out of that historic meeting, but they were both there ready to put up a fight when the meeting first started before John decided that their songs weren't worth fighting for anymore, thanks to Paul's selfishness.  Paul's suffered tremendously for this colossal error in judgement he made, and I think that most of us will be happy for him when he does finally regain control of his songs in the not too distant future.  I believe that the copyright laws automatically fork the rights back over to him (& Yoko) in approximately 5 years or so, there is an "expiry date" on the current agreement which I can't recall off of the top of my head.

 

John did play somewhat of a key role himself in ATV Music's bid to purchase Northern Songs beside walking out of that meeting.  It was only recently before the meeting that John had declared publicly in the London Daily Mail, "Apple is losing money, if it carries on like this we'll be broke in six months" (there's John's Brutal Honesty for you, he wasn't lying).  This statement had two very major impacts on their history, the first would be that ATV Music saw an opportunity to move in for the kill and acquire one of the true Golden Rings, which they then set out to do successfully.  The second was that Allen Klein showed up at their door literally the next day, the rest is history...:-)

31 December 2013
12.42am
Ron Nasty
"Where have you been?" "I'm not telling you..."
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 3209
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline

I would disagree with you on your opening line, Billy Rhythm. You say you can't fault Paul to want own more of what was his, but Northern Songs was Lennon/McCartney and what was theirs, so Paul was shifting from 50/50 between him and John.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
31 December 2013
12.45am
Billy Rhythm
Shea Stadium
Forum Posts: 488
Member Since:
22 December 2013
Offline
25

mja6758 said
I would disagree with you on your opening line, Billy Rhythm. You say you can't fault Paul to want own more of what was his, but Northern Songs was Lennon/McCartney and what was theirs, so Paul was shifting from 50/50 between him and John.

 

Hence the use of italics on the word his....:-)

31 December 2013
2.53am
Ron Nasty
"Where have you been?" "I'm not telling you..."
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 3209
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
26

meanmistermustard said
Yeah, and i think it was discovered when Apple were seeking higher % of royalties from EMI for Beatles records sold (might be wrong tho). Was this the reason Paul was missing from the Beatles acceptance into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?

Thinking about it, I think they were questioning royalties paid by Capitol at the time, and negotiating their cut on CD releases with EMI.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
31 December 2013
2.56am
Ron Nasty
"Where have you been?" "I'm not telling you..."
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 3209
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
27

Billy Rhythm said

mja6758 said
I would disagree with you on your opening line, Billy Rhythm. You say you can't fault Paul to want own more of what was his, but Northern Songs was Lennon/McCartney and what was theirs, so Paul was shifting from 50/50 between him and John.

Hence the use of italics on the word his....:-)

Okay, I'll give you that. Just a different way we use language, as I would have included "he believed" in there somewhere... We're not at odds, just would've used different words to describe that bit...

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
31 December 2013
3.23am
Billy Rhythm
Shea Stadium
Forum Posts: 488
Member Since:
22 December 2013
Offline
28

To elaborate a little more on it, I believe that Paul perhaps may have honestly felt that he should've had more of a percentage at the time.  After John's 'All You Need Is Love' single from early summer 1967, virtually all of their singles' A-Sides were his (Lennon/McCartney pact aside) songs, 'Hello Goodbye', 'Lady Madonna', 'Hey Jude', & 'Get Back'.  The timing of this Northern Songs fiasco also coincides with, and could very well have been the catalyst for the 'The Ballad of John & Yoko' session between the two of them as some sort of "kiss and make up" gesture to finally have a John song on the A-Side for the first time in nearly two years.  I don't agree at all with him breaking their pact, but if I were to hypothetically get inside his head and try to understand his logic, I could see how he felt that 'Yesterday' was his and wanting more of the action...:-)

 

 

31 December 2013
3.59am
Ron Nasty
"Where have you been?" "I'm not telling you..."
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 3209
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
29

However, in the case of ownership of the company, we're not talking songwriter royalties but company dividends. For three of the four singles you name, they had equally strong Lennon b-sides: I Am The Walrus, Revolution and Don't Let Me Down.

And nor are we talking about just the period where Paul dominating a-sides, but the whole of their career.

Paul bought himself a greater dividend on In My Life and Strawberry Fields than John had. That was the point of the break.

And don't be fooled about The Ballad Of John And Yoko. John wanted it recorded quickly, he wanted it released as "The Beatles", and there was only one Beatle available. They may have found some of their earlier camaraderie during the session, but John would have been just as happy had George and Ringo been there.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
31 December 2013
4.13am
Billy Rhythm
Shea Stadium
Forum Posts: 488
Member Since:
22 December 2013
Offline
30

mja6758 said
For three of the four singles you name, they had equally strong Lennon b-sides: I Am The Walrus, Revolution and Don't Let Me Down.

And nor are we talking about just the period where Paul dominating a-sides, but the whole of their career.
 

 

 

Except that an A-Side garnered far bigger returns on royalties back then, especially the amount of royalties received from radio playback where the B-Sides weren't played nearly as much.  In the case of 'Yesterday', the most widely covered song ever, royalties were astronomical from other Artist's performing and recording it, it probably especially bothers him now that Yoko Ono receives the same amount as him from this song (I thought that I heard him say in the 1990s that she even receives more than him because of some kind of "widows clause")....:-)  

31 December 2013
4.49am
Ron Nasty
"Where have you been?" "I'm not telling you..."
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 3209
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
31

However, speaking for UK copyright laws for writers, writers estates receive royalty payments for 70 years after the writer's death, which means the McCartney estate will be receiving royalties long after John's side becomes public domain in 2050, even though we all know making it Lennon/McCartney was a present to Paul.

If Paul, please God!, makes it to +100 plus, his family will earn an additional 70 songwriter royalties on what we all know is a John Lennon song! Copyright throws up some oddities, where the McCartneys will earn longer on a Lennon song than the Lennons!

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
31 December 2013
2.41pm
vectisfabber
The Jacaranda
Forum Posts: 28
Member Since:
11 November 2013
Offline
32

As regards Paul buying shares in Northern Songs, this is completely separate to the relationship between Northern and Lennon/McCartney as songwriters, and is essentially no different to Paul buying shares in ICI or General Motors (or ATV) - anyone can buy shares in any publicly traded company for whatever reason they wish, and that includes both Paul and John.  Paul purchased Northern Songs shares, John didn't.  Their legal relationship with Northern as songwriters remained unchanged at equal 50:50.  John saw it as a betrayal of trust, but there is a strong argument to say it wasn't (there is, of course, also a strong argument to say that Paul should have approached John with a view to them buying the shares jointly).

31 December 2013
2.52pm
Ron Nasty
"Where have you been?" "I'm not telling you..."
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 3209
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
33

No, no, no, Vectis! You are right at the end where you say they should have done it jointly! Of course it is different to Paul buying shares in any other company that he could have. Northern Songs was set up to publish the songs of John Lennon and Paul McCartney, when it went public they were given an equal share, when the battle started for the company with ATV they went into on the basis they were equal shareholders, then Paul changed the game and lost John's trust. You cannot truly believe Paul buying shares in Northern Songs without telling John is the same as him buying shares in EMI, can you?

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
31 December 2013
5.15pm
Billy Rhythm
Shea Stadium
Forum Posts: 488
Member Since:
22 December 2013
Offline
34

vectisfabber said
As regards Paul buying shares in Northern Songs, this is completely separate to the relationship between Northern and Lennon/McCartney as songwriters, and is essentially no different to Paul buying shares in ICI or General Motors (or ATV) - anyone can buy shares in any publicly traded company for whatever reason they wish, and that includes both Paul and John.  Paul purchased Northern Songs shares, John didn't.  Their legal relationship with Northern as songwriters remained unchanged at equal 50:50.  John saw it as a betrayal of trust, but there is a strong argument to say it wasn't (there is, of course, also a strong argument to say that Paul should have approached John with a view to them buying the shares jointly).

 

 

It's the principle of the act, and Paul knew he was betraying a strict pact between himself and John.  He specifically directed Peter Brown not to tell ANYONE about these transactions because he knew the ramifications of his actions.  I know that someone suggested earlier that it was the Eastmans advising Paul, but Paul hadn't even known Linda for a year yet, he first met her in New York during the launch of Apple the previous summer and his extracurricular Stock Exchange activities predated them even meeting.  To suggest that there was no "betrayal of trust" by Paul is just as cold as the act, it'd be much the same as any equal family partnership where one of them would secretly alter the balance of power behind the other's back...:-)

31 December 2013
5.22pm
acmac
Carnegie Hall
Forum Posts: 231
Member Since:
1 August 2013
Offline

Still wish this was moved to a different thread, but oh well...

I agree the secret share-buying was a huge misstep on Paul's part; it was underhanded, counter-productive, and stupid. I can't figure out his motive there. It couldn't have been monetary in anything but the most casual sense (it only amounted to a few thousand pounds) and I don't see what advantage over John it gave him, control-of-the-catalogue-wise, though perhaps he mistakenly thought it would, somehow? Michael Gerber over at Hey Dullblog posits that Paul was probably afraid that this strange new John -- with his heroin, far-out concept-artist-activism, and "I am Jesus" press conferences -- might well do something rash and disastrous with his shares. But I dunno; again, how would owning a few more shares enable him to prevent something like that? At first he didn't want John to find out, but as MMM observed above, he had to have known it would come out in that meeting (and that then John would easily be able to buy more shares to even things up again, which he did, IIRC). So the betrayal seems largely symbolic, to me... did Paul WANT to piss John off, on some weird level, conscious or subconscious? 

On a personal level, though, of course it further fractured John and Paul's relationship, which had already taken a beating from studio tensions, John's unilateral signing with Klein, Paul pushing for his in-laws -- and which would later sustain more damage in the form of Paul's lawsuit, the others' attempt to trick Paul into forfeiting the lawsuit, the Spector dispute, the Melody Makers war, the Lennon Remembers interview, Ram, "How Do You Sleep," etc. But I think they eventually got back to something warmer than "politeness." Although the business problems would still occasionally surface right up until the end, John did say many very warm things about Paul throughout the '70s: "best friend," "brother," "my dear one" (???), and "I love Paul" (according to Nilsson's button-wearing story).

31 December 2013
5.34pm
Ron Nasty
"Where have you been?" "I'm not telling you..."
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 3209
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
36

Billy Rhythm, I was the someone.

Paul and Linda first met in 1966. Here is her with Paul at the Sgt Pepper launch party. You have your dates wrong.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
31 December 2013
5.45pm
Billy Rhythm
Shea Stadium
Forum Posts: 488
Member Since:
22 December 2013
Offline
37

mja6758 said
Billy Rhythm, I was the someone.

Paul and Linda first met in 1966. Here is her with Paul at the Sgt Pepper launch party. You have your dates wrong.

 

 

Yeah, that's right I remember that Brian Epstein actually hired her for that shoot.  But he didn't meet up with her again until the summer of 1968 (remember that Paul brought Jane Asher with him to Rishikesh in 1968) and I highly doubt that his future in-laws were involved in his business dealings so quickly, Peter Brown had been a "right-hand man" to Brian Epstein since the early days and claims that he personally closed the transactions for Paul...:-)

31 December 2013
5.48pm
Billy Rhythm
Shea Stadium
Forum Posts: 488
Member Since:
22 December 2013
Offline
38

acmac said
John did say many very warm things about Paul throughout the '70s: "best friend," "brother," "my dear one" (???), and "I love Paul" (according to Nilsson's button-wearing story).

 

One would have to ask the question then, "Was John a liar?"...:-)

1 January 2014
3.36am
Ron Nasty
"Where have you been?" "I'm not telling you..."
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 3209
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
39

The Eastman's started acting for Paul very quickly once the battle lines were drawn. A point shown by this letter from Klein, John, George and Ringo on 18 April 1969, stating that the Eastman's represented Paul alone, and not The Beatles.

This letter was sent following the Eastman's blocking a deal for Apple to buy out ATV in early April 1969, when they stated that Klein did not represent Apple - despite Paul's verbal agreement to the deal Klein was attempting to do. It was following this, on the advice of the Eastman's, that Paul bought an additional 107,000 shares on top of the 644,000 both he and John had been given when the company went public.

However much, Billy Rhythm, you might want to say that the Eastman's were not involved, the paper trail - including Paul buying those shares in 1969 while the battle was going, and while Lee Eastman was representing him - is there for all to see, and well known, and resulted in The Beatles eventually selling their shares to ATV in October 1969, and losing the battle.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
1 January 2014
5.29am
Billy Rhythm
Shea Stadium
Forum Posts: 488
Member Since:
22 December 2013
Offline
40

mja6758 said
The Eastman's started acting for Paul very quickly once the battle lines were drawn. A point shown by this letter from Klein, John, George and Ringo on 18 April 1969, stating that the Eastman's represented Paul alone, and not The Beatles.

This letter was sent following the Eastman's blocking a deal for Apple to buy out ATV in early April 1969, when they stated that Klein did not represent Apple - despite Paul's verbal agreement to the deal Klein was attempting to do. It was following this, on the advice of the Eastman's, that Paul bought an additional 107,000 shares on top of the 644,000 both he and John had been given when the company went public.

However much, Billy Rhythm, you might want to say that the Eastman's were not involved, the paper trail - including Paul buying those shares in 1969 while the battle was going, and while Lee Eastman was representing him - is there for all to see, and well known, and resulted in The Beatles eventually selling their shares to ATV in October 1969, and losing the battle.

 

 

I don't know mja6758, my eyeballs are spinnin' a bit (it is New Year's Eve here on the Pacific Coast), but my point earlier was that the accumulation of additional stock by Paul had begun long before this documentation that you provided had been dated.  My source was Peter Brown, who had been an insider since the early days of The Beatles, and up until Paul married Linda during the Spring of 1969, the Eastman's were still very much outsiders from what I can gather.  I recommend that you read the book 'The Love You Make' for it's well documented and references its sources thoroughly throughout.

 

So, 'Was John a liar?", I say no, if anything he was brutally honest which got him into heated water at numerous times throughout his life.  The "Apple is losing money, if it carries on like this we'll be broke in six months" statement that I referenced earlier is just one example of John "telling it like it IS" and suffering significant consequences as a result.  His interview with Maureen Cleave of the London Evening Standard during the Spring of 1966. where he spoke very honestly about the decline of interest in Christianity throughout England at length was reduced to just one sentence in the press only a few months later before The Beatles were about to embark on a tour of the Southern United States (Bible Belt), "We are more Popular than Jesus".

 

Paul also learned later that "honesty isn't the best policy" when he was asked if he'd taken LSD.  It's no small wonder that all of The Beatles chose to "take the high road" when pressed on certain subjects during interviews under the intense scrutiny of the public eye, it's a case of "damned if you do and damned if you don't" for many instances.  "Lying" is about concealing the truth, and I've always subscribed to a "where there's smoke, there's fire" approach to seeking answers to certain questions.  For some inexplicable reason, Peter Brown wasn't interviewed at all for The Beatles' 'Anthology', eventhough he was the "next best thing" to Neil Aspinall (and possibly Derek Taylor) when telling The Beatles' story from a first hand knowledge point of view, someone who was actually THERE other than John, Paul, George or Ringo....:-)   

 

 

Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: robert, Necko, meanmistermustard, Ahhh Girl
56 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

meanmistermustard: 10350

mr. Sun king coming together: 6916

Ahhh Girl: 5489

parlance: 5471

Annadog40: 4706

mithveaen: 4651

Zig: 4534

Mr. Kite: 4266

Ron Nasty: 3209

fabfouremily: 2947

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 88

Members: 2683

Moderators: 4

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 34

Topics: 3148

Posts: 140171

Newest Members: Johnlovedcats, Alex, Aimo Kankkunen, henrysorren, tlokietekcorn

Moderators: Ahhh Girl: 5489, meanmistermustard: 10350, Zig: 4534, Joe: 3490

Administrators: Joe: 3490, Ellie: 1

Members Birthdays
Today: yellow-submaureen
Upcoming: Mimi, Beatles4ever, Bulldog