Please consider registering
Guest
sp_LogInOut Log Insp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
PAUL AND LINDA - NEW AUDIO posted to my Youtube, talking Beatles, Apple/Lawsuits, Yoko (!!) with attorneys
18 August 2023
8.13pm
amess0stuff
Los Angeles
A Beginning
Members
Forum Posts: 2
Member Since:
18 August 2023
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Never before broadcast until now, cleaned up. Art’ed up and transcribed w/ added images  – new this week! From an audio tape recorded by The Eastmans, a 22+ minute dive into Apple, EMI and Beatles, a lesson in music publishing, contracts and sheer practicality. If a few minutes of vacuuming is too much, zip on through to the final 7 explosive minutes. Taking the better part of 2 months, it was extremely difficult but never a burden and I really hope you enjoy it. I will happily respond to any comment or inquiry. Thanks to everyone, especially The Beatles Bible!!   rb

(246) PAUL & LINDA McCARTNEY NEW AUDIO! Beatles, Apple and lawsuits! – YouTube

The following people thank amess0stuff for this post:

Sea Belt, Ron Nasty
19 August 2023
2.50am
Avatar
Sea Belt
Shea Stadium
Members
Forum Posts: 944
Member Since:
7 November 2022
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

One comment by Paul is disappointing and a bit surprising, given this must have been 1969 or 1970.  I didn’t realize this habit of incorrect grammar anxiously motivated by trying to sound sophisticated was that old.  He should have said “…offer it to George and me.” — not “and I”. 

As John Simon noted on his blog,

…“groceries” pronounced, as if it were spelled “grocieries,” as grosheries.  The poor misguided souls may even think they’re being refined, just as some deviants do when they say “with Bill and I” for “with Bill and me.” Genteelism, the great Fowler called it: saying something that sounds genteel (I) rather than common (me), but happening to be incorrect.

bb81.JPGImage Enlarger

The following people thank Sea Belt for this post:

amess0stuff

Now today I find, you have changed your mind

19 August 2023
6.14pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 12534
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You are so far out on the dating, Sea Belt. The very earliest this conversation could have taken place is 1982. Why? Because at one point John Eastman (?) runs through Paul’s earnings from record royalties in 1981, along with numerous events that took place in the ’70s being referenced throughout.

It’s obviously about the lawsuit Apple launched against Capitol over unpaid royalties, during the discovery period of which the others discovered Paul had negotiated himself a higher royalty rate on Beatles records in the US than they were getting when he signed with Capitol in ’75, which ended up with George, Ringo and Yoko suing Paul and Capitol.

While the extra royalties were being paid by Capitol, and were not coming from The Beatles slice of the royalties, it is easy to see why the others were annoyed that Paul was earning more from their US releases than they were.

It’s interesting how Paul seems so much more interested in keeping his extra royalties (the “over-ride”) than coming to an agreement which saw them going after Capitol as a group to lift the royalties for the group so they were all on equal royalties again.

The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:

amess0stuff, Richard, Sea Belt, Ahhh Girl, Rube

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966

19 August 2023
8.36pm
amess0stuff
Los Angeles
A Beginning
Members
Forum Posts: 2
Member Since:
18 August 2023
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sea Belt that’s funny as I will use “and I”.

Ron Nasty, I wasn’t sure if the “Paul got the year ’81” was a projection of future earnings but the “15 years now!” would be 1985 if Paul were referring the initial 1970 split.

The following people thank amess0stuff for this post:

Sea Belt, Rube
20 August 2023
3.51am
Avatar
Sea Belt
Shea Stadium
Members
Forum Posts: 944
Member Since:
7 November 2022
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Fascinating @Ron Nasty — I never realized they were still haggling that late after the breakup.

The following people thank Sea Belt for this post:

Rube

Now today I find, you have changed your mind

Forum Timezone: Europe/London
Most Users Ever Online: 700
Currently Online:
Guest(s) 1
Top Posters:
Starr Shine?: 16105
Ron Nasty: 12534
Zig: 9832
50yearslate: 8759
Necko: 8041
AppleScruffJunior: 7583
parlance: 7111
mr. Sun king coming together: 6402
Mr. Kite: 6147
trcanberra: 6064
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 88
Members: 2856
Moderators: 5
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 44
Topics: 5501
Posts: 380093
Newest Members:
Orchid837, john1958, freeze_trax, darwinsrefutation, PaulLev
Moderators: Joe: 5685, meanmistermustard: 24934, Ahhh Girl: 22167, Beatlebug: 18159, The Hole Got Fixed: 8410
Administrators: Joe: 5685