Log In
Register
8.24am
24 March 2014
Offline
I read somewhere that they said things like “let’s write a swiming pool” or “let’s write a new house”… Dunno whe they did realize they were actually rich
"I Need You by George Harrison"
9.29am
27 April 2015
Offline I don’t really know the exact point, but in Cynthia’s book she mentions her and John’s honeymoon where he took her to this grand hotel in Paris, and both of them felt they didn’t really deserve to be there and feared they’d be bundled out any moment. I think it says something about John realising him being able to afford staying in the hotel. This must be in the mid-late 1963. Also when they started buying these big bungalows and spending lavishly on cars, I think they realised that they were pretty rich by that time.
There was also this point where they return from US after the first tour and they are being asked whether they’re millionaires. They just play it safe and things. The press constantly asked them how much they were earning and stuff, and while not giving straight answers, they did say they were earning a “healthy” amount. I think they were pretty diplomatic about it.
The following people thank O Boogie for this post:
Beatlebug, Starr Shine?, Ahhh Girl, Merch, Zig, BeatleSnut
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
12.20pm
14 February 2016
Offline
LoveUlikeGuitars said
I don’t really know the exact point, but in Cynthia’s book she mentions her and John’s honeymoon where he took her to this grand hotel in Paris, and both of them felt they didn’t really deserve to be there and feared they’d be bundled out any moment. I think it says something about John realising him being able to afford staying in the hotel. This must be in the mid-late 1963. Also when they started buying these big bungalows and spending lavishly on cars, I think they realised that they were pretty rich by that time.There was also this point where they return from US after the first tour and they are being asked whether they’re millionaires. They just play it safe and things. The press constantly asked them how much they were earning and stuff, and while not giving straight answers, they did say they were earning a “healthy” amount. I think they were pretty diplomatic about it.
Is that true? In a biography I’m reading about The Beatles it said that Brian Epstein lent them a flat or something after their marriage. Maybe that was after their honeymoon?
I am you as you are you as you are you and you are all together.
12.46pm
27 April 2015
Offline Brian Epstein lent them his flat in Faulkner street, but they got out of it pretty quick because of burglar scare, and stayed in Mimi’s house for a while. Cyn couldn’t put up with her constant resentment of her, so she moved into her childhood home, and I think it’s after this that he takes her to the honeymoon. They didn’t go on their honeymoon until about a year after their wedding.
The following people thank O Boogie for this post:
Evangeline, Beatlebug, Ahhh Girl, Merch
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
5.43pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Before George died when was the longest period between two Beatles playing together? I have a feeling it would have been between the two Ringo albums ‘Rotogravure’ and ‘Stop And Smell The Roses’ but willing to be proved wrong.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
6.09pm
11 November 2010
Offline meanmistermustard said
Before George died when was the longest period between two Beatles playing together? I have a feeling it would have been between the two Ringo albums ‘Rotogravure’ and ‘Stop And Smell The Roses’ but willing to be proved wrong.
Actually, I don’t think that there was such as long a break. George, Paul, and Ringo performed together at Eric Clapton’s wedding on May 19, 1979.
The following people thank Necko for this post:
meanmistermustardI'm Necko. I'm like Ringo except I wear necklaces.
I'm also ewe2 on weekends.
Most likely to post things that make you go hmm... 2015, 2016, 2017. 
6.43pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline @Ahhh Girl said
Is there a point at which each of The Beatles knew they were now rich? If so, how did they talk about it?
See Taxman !
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Beatlebug, Ahhh Girl"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
7.06pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline 
Necko said
meanmistermustard said
Before George died when was the longest period between two Beatles playing together? I have a feeling it would have been between the two Ringo albums ‘Rotogravure’ and ‘Stop And Smell The Roses’ but willing to be proved wrong.Actually, I don’t think that there was such as long a break. George, Paul, and Ringo performed together at Eric Clapton’s wedding on May 19, 1979.
I forgot that happened.
So possibly after ‘Cloud 9’ came out as I think Ringo next played with George in the Royal Albert Hall in 1992(?). Did Ringo play with Paul during his 1989/90 tour?
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
9.35am
1 November 2013
Offline 
What were each of the Beatles like when they were drunk?
9.58am
27 April 2015
Offline John couldn’t hold his drink, and that’s very well documented. Ringo said he beat up his wife under the influence of alcohol, but this was very later on in his life.
Paul & George’s, I haven’t really read about them being nasty or anything while drunk. I don’t recall anything in the Pattie book either, but wasn’t it a drunken rant where he admits to being in love with Maureen?
The following people thank O Boogie for this post:
Starr Shine?
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
11.19am
27 April 2015
Offline How are The Beatles viewed as a live band? People say they weren’t really as good as The Who or The Rolling Stones.
Isn’t it really a shame that the situations brought them down so much that they sort of disliked performing live when they started off as a live band (obviously) and went on to become an exciting live band in Hamburg?
The following people thank O Boogie for this post:
meanmistermustard
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
8.24pm
28 February 2016
Offline What part of The Beatles’ catalog does Apple Records own? – I noticed their label is on all of the releases but so is Capitol’s. Hoping someone can provide clarity as to what the deal is
8.46pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline The answer to that is incredibly simple, @Bullion.
EMI (so Universal) has exclusive ownership of all recordings The Beatles made for EMI, and rights to prevent the release of outside recordings (BBC, live, etc.) made during their time under contract to EMI.
However, as with all things to do with post-Beatles Beatles business, it is far from that simple.
After The Beatles contract with EMI expired in 1976, EMI and Capitol went compilation crazy – thinking they been freed from The Beatles interference. Rock ‘N’ Roll Music, Hollywood Bowl, Love Songs, EMI’s Rarities, Ballads, Capitol’s Rarities, Reel Music, 20 Greatest Hits…
The Beatles, while agreeing they were out of contract, objected by asserting that didn’t mean the terms of the contract were now null and void. Thus begun a series of lawsuits which lasted a good decade between Apple and EMI about not who owned The Beatles music, but who controlled what could be released and how. It finally came to an end in the early ’90s when EMI lost a case over wanting to reconfigure the Red and the Blue into a two disc set for CD release, which would have easily worked. Apple insisted it was released on CD as it was on vinyl, 2 double-disc sets selling at full price (which made them more money than a single double disc set now called 1962-1970 would have done).
EMI lost and realised the Courts were going to uphold The Beatles 1967 contract.
The end of the lawsuits paved the way for Live At The BBC and Anthology.
So, what was so important about the 1967 contract? I’m pretty sure you’ve heard me reference it before. The “Capitol” clause, Clause 17. It was only included to placate The Beatles annoyance at Capitol keeping on chopping up their albums, butchering them if will. 
However, it ended up with EMI unable to do anything with The Beatles catalogue unless Apple agreed.
EMI own the tapes, they are the only company that can release them, but The Beatles (or what is left) have effectively secured the rights.
I’ve cut it down to its basic in how it stands now, but this is what lost EMI all but physical ownership of The Beatles tapes…
17. (A) NOTWITHSTANDING anything herein contained EMIR shall during the currency of this Agreement:
(i) agree with … the Artists the material recorded under this Agreement which is approved for release and the couplings thereof and such couplings shall not be changed in … without the prior consent of … the Artists. EMIR shall issue or cause to be issued in the United Kingdom material agreed hereunder; EMIR shall not issue or cause to be issued in the United Kingdom material recorded under this Agreement unless it has been so agreed
EMI argued this clause ran out in 1976. The Courts agreed with The Beatles that the “currency” of the agreement existed until EMI (or future owner of) no longer owned the release rights. Until out of copyright, The Beatles (and their Estates) needed to say yes. So, the ball is always in their court.
That’s my take anyway. And nobody really knows the inside track of the tangled legal weave that are all that’s really left of The Beatles (“Four Lads Who Shook the World”).
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
meanmistermustard, Beatlebug, Ahhh Girl, Merch, Bullion"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
3.42pm
28 February 2016
Offline Ron Nasty said
The answer to that is incredibly simple, @Bullion.EMI (so Universal) has exclusive ownership of all recordings The Beatles made for EMI, and rights to prevent the release of outside recordings (BBC, live, etc.) made during their time under contract to EMI.
However, as with all things to do with post-Beatles Beatles business, it is far from that simple.
After The Beatles contract with EMI expired in 1976, EMI and Capitol went compilation crazy – thinking they been freed from The Beatles interference. Rock ‘N’ Roll Music, Hollywood Bowl, Love Songs, EMI’s Rarities, Ballads, Capitol’s Rarities, Reel Music, 20 Greatest Hits…
The Beatles, while agreeing they were out of contract, objected by asserting that didn’t mean the terms of the contract were now null and void. Thus begun a series of lawsuits which lasted a good decade between Apple and EMI about not who owned The Beatles music, but who controlled what could be released and how. It finally came to an end in the early ’90s when EMI lost a case over wanting to reconfigure the Red and the Blue into a two disc set for CD release, which would have easily worked. Apple insisted it was released on CD as it was on vinyl, 2 double-disc sets selling at full price (which made them more money than a single double disc set now called 1962-1970 would have done).
EMI lost and realised the Courts were going to uphold The Beatles 1967 contract.
The end of the lawsuits paved the way for Live At The BBC and Anthology.
So, what was so important about the 1967 contract? I’m pretty sure you’ve heard me reference it before. The “Capitol” clause, Clause 17. It was only included to placate The Beatles annoyance at Capitol keeping on chopping up their albums, butchering them if will.
However, it ended up with EMI unable to do anything with The Beatles catalogue unless Apple agreed.
EMI own the tapes, they are the only company that can release them, but The Beatles (or what is left) have effectively secured the rights.
I’ve cut it down to its basic in how it stands now, but this is what lost EMI all but physical ownership of The Beatles tapes…
17. (A) NOTWITHSTANDING anything herein contained EMIR shall during the currency of this Agreement:
(i) agree with … the Artists the material recorded under this Agreement which is approved for release and the couplings thereof and such couplings shall not be changed in … without the prior consent of … the Artists. EMIR shall issue or cause to be issued in the United Kingdom material agreed hereunder; EMIR shall not issue or cause to be issued in the United Kingdom material recorded under this Agreement unless it has been so agreed
EMI argued this clause ran out in 1976. The Courts agreed with The Beatles that the “currency” of the agreement existed until EMI (or future owner of) no longer owned the release rights. Until out of copyright, The Beatles (and their Estates) needed to say yes. So, the ball is always in their court.
That’s my take anyway. And nobody really knows the inside track of the tangled legal weave that are all that’s really left of The Beatles (“Four Lads Who Shook the World”).
Thank you for the clarification. So they don’t own their publishing or their masters. This all sounds bad. I bet they would’ve liked to of bought the rights to both the masters and the publishing long ago but probably feel that they’ve inflated in value so much by now and it’s too late in life for such a large expense. Are The Beatles still today getting the same royalty percentage today that they got 1967? I heard an interview from John Lennon where he mentions that they were still locked in to their royalty rate in 1962 (or 1963, forgot what year he mention) so they weren’t making that much
5.28pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline The Beatles have sued EMI a good number of times to claim unpaid royalties they believe they were owed and the royalty rates have changed over the years as well. The Independent in 2006 published a list of 10 Beatles lawsuits which EMI appear on 5 times and is still out of date; the 2005 lawsuit was settled in 2007 with the Beatles being awarded £30m in unpaid royalties.
Edit
Found this, concerns the settlement in 1990 1989 of a lawsuit against EMI-Capitol, the whole article starts two pages above, where the Beatles were awarded $80m plus an “extraordinarily high royalties’ rate on all Beatles records…”.
In case the attachment ever goes, from ‘The Beatles Diary Volume 2: After The Break-Up 1970-2001′
Wednesday November 8 [1989]
Following a case that has lasted for over 20 years, The Beatles’ lawsuit against EMI/Capitol regarding unpaid royalties is finally settled. It is decided, by all the parties concerned, not to reveal to the press the exact terms of the agreement. However, sources close to The Beatles suggest that EMI/Capitol is set to pay the group approximately $100 million in back royalties. The Beatles are also given full control over the use of their EMI recordings, and a final say in any future record cover artwork.
Following a case that has lasted for over 20 years, The Beatles’ lawsuit against EMI/Capitol regarding unpaid royalties is finally settled. It is decided, by all the parties concerned, not to reveal to the press the exact terms of the agreement. However, sources close to The Beatles suggest that EMI/Capitol is set to pay the group approximately $100 million in back royalties. The Beatles are also given full control over the use of their EMI recordings, and a final say in any future record cover artwork.
Heres a great example of total incompetence and for once EMI and Apple were on the same side doing the suing (far more at the link).
A cleaner threw out £700,000 worth of original pictures of the Beatles including the only surviving copy of the photograph on their breakthrough album Please Please Me , according to a legal action filed at the High Court.
EMI, the record giant, and the Beatles’ music publisher Apple Corps, is now suing the cleaner’s employer Crystal Services after the pictures were sent to a waste compactor and lost forever…
EMI and Apple claim in the writ that seven Beatles photographs, along with another 452 transparencies and negatives, were in three cardboard boxes in the office of John Mouzouros, the head of EMI’s photographic office, in 2001. The plan, according to the writ, was to transfer the boxes to the company’s archive in Hayes.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Bullion, Ahhh Girl"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
8.03pm
28 February 2016
Offline Wow, thanks for the info @meanmistermustard that certainly clears things up. It’s nice to see that such a great band is being rewarded properly. 20% is considered very high in the music business . . just out of curiosity I wonder what that “extraordinarily high royalty rate” is
To me it sounds like those were stolen . . why would this cleaner be throwing away tangible items? They’ll probably show up at an action one day
1.52pm
21 November 2012
Offline LoveUlikeGuitars said
John couldn’t hold his drink, and that’s very well documented. Ringo said he beat up his wife under the influence of alcohol, but this was very later on in his life.Paul & George’s, I haven’t really read about them being nasty or anything while drunk. I don’t recall anything in the Pattie book either, but wasn’t it a drunken rant where he admits to being in love with Maureen?
I imagine George would’ve been one of those people who usually was pretty quiet, but starts blurting out all kinds of stuff when drunk.
The following people thank Linde for this post:
Starr Shine?, Beatlebug8.42am
27 April 2015
Offline Is there any record of The Beatles playing “Woman ” – the song that Paul gave Peter & Gordon? A bootlegged version or something?
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
8.58am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Lacking George, Woman was one of the songs that cropped up on 14 January 1969 at Twickenham. It does appear on several of the bootlegs from those sessions.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
O Boogie"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
1 Guest(s)
