28 March 2014
8 January 2015
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:Bongo
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 but I may have to get more specific in the future.
17 December 2012
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
28 March 2014