Please consider registering
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Forum Options

Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
Why didn't the "solo" Beatles continue releasing LP's on Apple Corps???????
11 April 2015
Somewhere In Time
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 1664
Member Since:
28 March 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Why are they all on different record label's?? 

apple01apple02 BEATLES Music gives me Eargasms!  apple01

11 April 2015
Inside the beat
Forum Posts: 2859
Member Since:
8 January 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think it was a reaction to the entanglement of writing credits vested in the company, to say nothing of the business entanglement! McCartney in particular would have been keen to disassociate his solo work from Apple, and I'm pretty sure George was always planning to go it alone himself. John and Ringo were probably advised similarly. Apple is essentially a holding company for Beatles royalties and assets now, and that makes sense from a solo Beatles point of view. Peter Doggett's book You Never Give Me Your Money goes into some detail on this, it really wasn't a fixable situation due to the way the company was set up.

The following people thank ewe2 for this post:


I'm like Necko only I'm a bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin and also everyone. Or is everyone me? Now I'm a confused bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin everyone who is definitely not @Joe.  This has been true for 2016 & 2017 Sig-Badge.png but I may have to get more specific in the future.

11 April 2015
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop

Forum Posts: 10086
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The Beatles, together or solo, were never actually signed to Apple. Their records appearing with Apple labels was merely a courtesy by EMI, who they were signed to until 1976. The catalogue numbers tell the story. They're (mainly) EMI catalogue numbers.

By 1976 Apple had ceased to be an active record label, becoming more of a holding company. John went into retirement. Paul signed with Capitol to give himself a higher royalty rate on The Beatles Capitol releases (which later saw him sued by George, Ringo and Yoko). George moved to his own label, Dark Horse. Ringo moved through various labels.

If you take the example of George, for instance, after his EMI contract expired, why would he want to put the label of the Beatles record label on his releases when he had his own label?

The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:

ewe2, Bongo, vonbontee

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


The Beatles Non-Canon Poll List

13 April 2015
Somewhere In Time
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 1664
Member Since:
28 March 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Txs guys, makes sense.  

Other than Macca's Wings music, I never gave much credit to the other band members solo stuff until much later in life, hence my ignorance towards Apple Corps! apple01apple02 BEATLES Music gives me Eargasms!  apple01

Forum Timezone: America/Chicago
Most Users Ever Online: 700
Currently Online: AppleScruffJunior
Top Posters:
Starr Shine?: 15690
Ron Nasty: 10086
50yearslate: 8142
Necko: 7866
parlance: 7111
AppleScruffJunior: 6588
mr. Sun king coming together: 6403
Mr. Kite: 6147
trcanberra: 6064
mithveaen: 4621
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 87
Members: 2732
Moderators: 6
Admins: 2
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 44
Topics: 4805
Posts: 334993
Newest Members:
vonttresbienensemble, alanxhughes, alanhughes, ChelleLennonNo9, coreystannard
Moderators: Joe: 5076, Zig: 9807, meanmistermustard: 22428, Ahhh Girl: 18814, Beatlebug: 15933, The Hole Got Fixed: 7330
Administrators: Joe: 5076, Ellie: 4