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 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
Miscellaneous questions about the Beatles
24 March 2016
8.24am
Avatar
Shamrock Womlbs
Waiting for the van to come
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 3202
Member Since:
24 March 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
481sp_Permalink sp_Print

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"

24 March 2016
9.29am
Avatar
O Boogie
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1352
Member Since:
27 April 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
482sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

24 March 2016
12.20pm
Avatar
Evangeline
1334 North Beechwood Drive
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1809
Member Since:
14 February 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
483sp_Permalink sp_Print

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. 

24 March 2016
12.46pm
Avatar
O Boogie
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1352
Member Since:
27 April 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
484sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

24 March 2016
5.43pm
Avatar
meanmistermustard
Here when I am. Not when I am not.
Moderator
Members

Reviewers


Moderators
Forum Posts: 23412
Member Since:
1 May 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
485sp_Permalink sp_Print

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)

24 March 2016
6.09pm
Avatar
Necko
Earth
Apple rooftop
Members
Forum Posts: 7920
Member Since:
10 November 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
486sp_Permalink sp_Print

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:

meanmistermustard

I'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. 

24 March 2016
6.43pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 11055
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
487sp_Permalink sp_Print

@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

24 March 2016
7.06pm
Avatar
meanmistermustard
Here when I am. Not when I am not.
Moderator
Members

Reviewers


Moderators
Forum Posts: 23412
Member Since:
1 May 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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)

25 March 2016
9.35am
Avatar
Starr Shine?
Waiting in the sky
Apple rooftop
Members
Forum Posts: 15967
Member Since:
1 November 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
489sp_Permalink sp_Print

What were each of the Beatles like when they were drunk?

https://youtu.be/52nwiTs7bk8

Brainwashed by RadiantCowbells.

If you can't log in and can't use the forum go here and someone will help you out.

25 March 2016
9.58am
Avatar
O Boogie
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1352
Member Since:
27 April 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
490sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

25 March 2016
11.19am
Avatar
O Boogie
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1352
Member Since:
27 April 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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

4 April 2016
8.24pm
Bullion
London Palladium
Members
Forum Posts: 185
Member Since:
28 February 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
492sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

5 April 2016
8.46pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 11055
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
493sp_Permalink sp_Print

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 MusicHollywood BowlLove Songs, EMI's RaritiesBallads, Capitol's RaritiesReel Music20 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. a-hard-days-night-george-10 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

6 April 2016
3.42pm
Bullion
London Palladium
Members
Forum Posts: 185
Member Since:
28 February 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
494sp_Permalink sp_Print

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 MusicHollywood BowlLove Songs, EMI's RaritiesBallads, Capitol's RaritiesReel Music20 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. a-hard-days-night-george-10 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 

6 April 2016
5.28pm
Avatar
meanmistermustard
Here when I am. Not when I am not.
Moderator
Members

Reviewers


Moderators
Forum Posts: 23412
Member Since:
1 May 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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...". 

emi90.JPGImage Enlarger

 

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)

6 April 2016
8.03pm
Bullion
London Palladium
Members
Forum Posts: 185
Member Since:
28 February 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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 

8 April 2016
1.52pm
Avatar
Linde
The Netherlands
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 2781
Member Since:
21 November 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
497sp_Permalink sp_Print

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.ahdn_george_06

The following people thank Linde for this post:

Starr Shine?, Beatlebug
9 April 2016
8.42am
Avatar
O Boogie
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1352
Member Since:
27 April 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
498sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

9 April 2016
8.58am
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 11055
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
499sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

16 April 2016
3.49am
Bullion
London Palladium
Members
Forum Posts: 185
Member Since:
28 February 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
500sp_Permalink sp_Print

 why hasn't anyone told me about this? It doesn't seem to be mentioned often 

 

Where are these episodes available? Why doesn't Apple release a set?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?.....nitGXpipFg

Forum Timezone: America/Chicago
Most Users Ever Online: 700
Currently Online: vonbontee, Mr. Kite
Guest(s) 1
Top Posters:
Starr Shine?: 15967
Ron Nasty: 11055
50yearslate: 8663
Necko: 7920
AppleScruffJunior: 7254
parlance: 7111
mr. Sun king coming together: 6403
Mr. Kite: 6147
trcanberra: 6064
sir walter raleigh: 5201
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 88
Members: 2598
Moderators: 6
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 44
Topics: 4952
Posts: 353525
Newest Members:
Tesco, pdCGM, Billy Shears, pat0099, hoaxing
Moderators: Joe: 5184, Zig: 9812, meanmistermustard: 23412, Ahhh Girl: 19649, Beatlebug: 17433, The Hole Got Fixed: 8042
Administrators: Joe: 5184