Will solo Beatles eventually become group compilation albums ?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by johnny moondog 909, Aug 24, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. beatleroadie

    beatleroadie Forum Resident

    To me, if it's presented as these are the singles John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr released on the label they owned together, Apple Records, then that could work as a collection. But only singles. Maybe a collection of vinyl 45s with reproduction original picture sleeves and a digital download included. Not cherry-picking album cuts or fan favorites and certainly not trying to create some kind of "Beatles" album with a lineup of solo tracks.
     
  2. Bingo Bongo

    Bingo Bongo Music gives me Eargasms

    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    Why not, worked on the 1968 white album!
     
    Blue Note, Lewisboogie and majorlance like this.
  3. dewey02

    dewey02 Forum Resident

    Location:
    The mid-South.
    I think compilation albums are a thing of the past.
    Very few people would buy anything like this.
    A playlist? Sure, that would be easy to make off of iTunes.
    But a physical product like a double LP or CD...not a chance.
     
    Rojo likes this.
  4. johnny moondog 909

    johnny moondog 909 Beatles-Lennon & Classic rock fan Thread Starter


    Well. If that's the case, I guess Ringo's gonna drop buy & give Jeff Jones his severance check, along with the other former staff. Then around 2.30 the real estate people are doing a walk through, to lease the building.

    No I don't think so.

    But in order to keep turning a profit, they might need to, start releasing products people actually want.

    Universal paid billions to acquire all this, I'm pretty sure they'd like to release something to make a buck. The solo Beatle hits, is a pretty good idea. Alpha Omegas idea, whoever they were. Lennon probably had one, I know he had a copy of Roots!!!!!! The Morris Levy special !!!!

    Ringo is 76, Paul 74. It doesn't seem like it, because they are so active, touring, recording, social causes like TM & vegetarianism etc. But to keep money rolling in $$$ in large amounts, they can't stupidly stick to a 5 or 10 year plan , they have to adapt to changes in technology & the marketplace. What are they, a company of maybe 20-25 people at Apple ? 35 tops ? They need to start giving fans what they want. That money may not last the heirs, the way they spend, if it stops coming in.

    Right now the money seems to be in live perfor & license for the old hits in films. I'm no business guy. But they still seem open for business.
     
    Lewisboogie likes this.
  5. wildstar

    wildstar Senior Member

    Location:
    ontario, canada
    Actually, none of them were on Apple EVER!

    Badfinger and Mary Hopkin (to name the two most successful acts) were actually "on Apple", which is the reason all their stuff went OOP for almost two decades from the mid 70's til the early 90s - during which time the label/company had ceased operations.

    If the Beatles were "on Apple" then their stuff would have gone OOP as well at the same time and for the same reason.

    The Beatles were only ever on EMI.

    As to OP's question - when will a solo comp happen?

    Only if/when The Beatles stuff is allowed to eventually fall out of copyright - but does anyone believe corporations are ever going to willingly give up ownership of their properties without a fight?

    Until then - its NOT gonna happen.

    EMI owns John, George and Ringo's solo recordings up until IIRC Jan 1976, while Paul owns ALL his solo material, which he gained in 1975 when negotiating a new EMI solo deal, using the leverage of his proven track record as a solo hit maker (not to mention the negotiating skills of his in-laws).

    So - in theory anyway (but ONLY in theory - I'll get to the reality in a bit), EMI *could* do a "Best of John, George & Ringo" comp...but then would they even want to? Apparently Paul's back on EMI so I guess its not impossible that he would agree to such a comp, but he'd have to agree, because he's only licensing the recordings to EMI - he still owns them. They can't just do whatever they want with them - there are terms to the licensing deal. While he still had a licensing deal with Concord, it would likely have been impossible to do a solo Beatles comp - even if Paul wanted to, as I assume the Concord deal had the standard exclusivity clause.

    ...and to get to the reality I mentioned above - once Apple (the Beatles jointly owned company - not the "record label") got veto power over EMI's future Beatles releases in the late 80s as part of a court settlement, EMI probably couldnt get away with releasing a "John/George/Ringo" comp without permission, since the veto probably covers the solo stuff as well since it was all recorded under their existing "Beatles" contact, rather than under individual solo contracts.

    So to sum up - it became impossible for EMI to do such a comp without Paul's permission once he gained ownership of his solo masters in 1975 (and likely impossible to do even WITH Paul's permission during the brief periods while labels other than EMI (Columbia & Concord) held the exclusive license to release his solo material.

    It likely became impossible to even do a John/George/Ringo solo comp without permission when the right to "veto" future EMI Beatles releases was granted by the court in the late 80s.

    I doubt the estates, especially John's, would want to give permission for such a skewed collection, since the three of them put together would barely have as many hits as Paul did in that time period. Heck - if they stuck to the Beatles 1 formula (#1 singles in the UK and/or US) , John would have less songs than Ringo (unless they allow the inclusion of posthumous #1s - which IIRC would still only give John an equal number of tracks to Ringo - 2 each). Does anyone imagine Yoko agreeing to that?
     
  6. kendo

    kendo Forum Resident

    It could be called "We're Only In It For The Money" but I believe somebody else has that covered. :)
     
  7. johnny moondog 909

    johnny moondog 909 Beatles-Lennon & Classic rock fan Thread Starter


    You sure know to clear a room. I haven't seen people hit the exits like that since pizza night with the neighbors & the cat had gas.

    Obviously any comp album of solo Beatles hits, would need to represent all four of them. All would have to agree.

    The real question is, would it make money, how much money ? That's the real issue.

    If not ? What product do you see the Beatles making money on ? Cause they don't seem to be making it lately.
     
    Lewisboogie likes this.
  8. jwb1231970

    jwb1231970 Ordinary Guy

    Location:
    USA
    George Harrison was a fading g brand at the time of his death, Olivia has sure made sure he's more popular now, the doc, the iTunes, the early takes, etc. it shows how important it is that their name remains relevant in our culture. When it it's time the comps will come
     
    Lewisboogie likes this.
  9. fallbreaks

    fallbreaks Forum Resident

    Doesn't matter what the Beatles would've thought, or their wives, it just matters what their adult grandchildren will think.
     
  10. lavalamp3

    lavalamp3 Forum Resident

    Location:
    UK
    Cass Elliot's solo hits are to be found on most recent "Mamas and Papas Hits" compilations. If Cass was around now she may well feel a bit miffed, for back in the 70's, just like John, Paul, George and Ringo, she was branching out on her own, trying to forge a new direction and career. But forty years on, does anyone really care? It's all just considered 'Mamas and Papas music' these days.
    In the not too distant future, a new album with the likes of Imagine, My Sweet Lord, Jet and Photograph will be seen as 'Beatles music' (even if the album is maybe called "The Beatles - the best of John, Paul, George and Ringo"). A well thought out compilation will sell in droves to the kind of casual Beatles fan that kind of lost interest when the band split up or were themselves busy getting married and having kids through the 70's and 80's. If marketed properly the album would be huge - and go a long way in putting an end to the popular myth that their solo songs paled badly in comparison to their group efforts.
     
    Grand_Ennui and Lewisboogie like this.
  11. MeanMrMayo

    MeanMrMayo Well-Known Member

    Location:
    USA
    Unfortunately, seeing how slowly Olivia and Dhani are moving with issuing brand new Harrison material, it still feels as though George is a fading brand and in many ways is still now as ever 'The Quiet One' .
     
    RonBaker likes this.
  12. slane

    slane Forum Resident

    Location:
    Merrie England
    Yes, EMI continued to own the actual recordings, but the Beatles & Solo records WERE on Apple Records, whatever the behind-the-scenes shenanigans.

    Every Beatles & Solo record on Apple carried these two statements - one concerning the actual record, the other concerning the recording:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2016
    Grand_Ennui, Farmer Mike and dbone828 like this.
  13. wildstar

    wildstar Senior Member

    Location:
    ontario, canada
    Every Beatles and solo record was owned and distributed by EMI - and every REAL Apple record (Badfinger et al) was owned by Apple, and distributed by EMI.

    Are you really unable to understand that distinction? Apple was nothing more than a "vanity label fiction" as far as the Beatles and solo releases were concerned, while it was a real label for everyone else who was actually signed to it. The label on Paul's "Give Ireland..." single had several shamrocks on it - does that make it a "Shamrock Record"?

    You seem to be trying to somehow conflate "Apple" and "EMI" to try to minimize the difference. So try to minimize this:

    Every genuine "Apple Record" went OOP when the Apple Label folded in the mid 70s, while all the Beatles and solo records stayed in print - but with EMI labels on them instead of Apple labels. So if they were "Apple Records" as you claim, why did they not only stay in print while everything else didn't, but why did they suddenly start having EMI labels on them instead of continuing to have Apple labels if they were IN REALITY Apple records?
     
  14. dewey02

    dewey02 Forum Resident

    Location:
    The mid-South.
    You are both correct, in some fashion.

    The Beatles clearly said they were on Apple. And their singles and albums were issued with an Apple label. These two photos are evidence of that.
    On the other hand...take a look at the caption under the photo of the Beatles in the Our First Four.
    It says: The Beatles. Hey Jude. An Apple single. So they were on Apple - right?
    Not so fast. Take a look at the record catalog issue numbers.
    • For Jackie Lomax - Apple 3
    • For Mary Hopkin - Apple 2
    • For Black Dyke Mills Band - Apple 4
    • For The Beatles - R5722
    This is an EMI catalog number, and is NOT Apple 1 as you would think it would be.

    Bruce Spizer wrote an entire book on this subject called The Beatles on Apple Records.
    I don't have it, but I'm guessing he goes into the reality of the situation. My understanding was that in the US, they truly were on Apple. In England, they were on EMI/Parlophone, but were allowed to use a custom Apple label on their releases.

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2016
    Shak Cohen likes this.
  15. slane

    slane Forum Resident

    Location:
    Merrie England
    EMI allowed the Beatles (& Solo) to appear on Apple records - even the 'Shamrock' single says 'An Apple Record' on it - but EMI owned the recordings. EMI was also responsible for the manufacture and distribution of all Apple records (including the other artists who were 'signed to' Apple, and the Beatles who 'appeared on Apple' courtesy of EMI).

    Obviously when Apple folded, EMI could do what they wanted with the Beatles & Solo recordings on whatever EMI label they wished - they owned the sound recordings, no question.

    I get the 'trick question' aspect of it, but it's silly to suggest that the 1968-75 records were not on Apple Records, when every record states 'An Apple Record'. Does that mean that the Dave Clark Five were not 'on' Columbia Records, or Paul McCartney was not 'on' Concord, simply because those companies never actually owned the sound recordings?

    [​IMG]
     
  16. wildstar

    wildstar Senior Member

    Location:
    ontario, canada
    There are still significant and in some cases insurmountable differences, such as you're never going to see an "Apple Label" compilation that has Beatles or solo recordings included on it. EMI would never have allowed that!

    As far as comparing Concord distributing McCartney solo, to the Beatles and solo supposedly being "on Apple" that's actually comparing two opposite situations. Concord distributed McCartney owned material, while with Beatles and solo material it was EMI distributing EMI material with a picture of an Apple on it which was done for no other reason than to make The Beatles happy. A vanity label fiction - plain and simple.

    Fiction is fiction - any way you slice it.

    PS - unless the "An Apple Record" notation is positioned next to a "P" or a "C" with a circle around it, it is totally meaningless, and is nothing more than an attempt to further advance the fictitious narrative (ie deceive people).
     
  17. slane

    slane Forum Resident

    Location:
    Merrie England
    'My Sweet Lord' was the final US 'Beatles' single that followed the Capitol numbering - after that, 'Beatles' releases used the Apple numbering. So yes, for all intents and purposes.

    Well, sometimes an Apple Record is just an Apple Record...

    As I said, the Beatles 1968-75 records were 'Apple Records', even if EMI owned the recordings, used their catalogue numbers and pressed and distributed them.

    PS. I'm pretty sure McCartney wanted to come 'off' Apple after the split, but the partnership agreement did not allow him to.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2016
  18. wildstar

    wildstar Senior Member

    Location:
    ontario, canada
    Do you hear (read) yourself?

    Translation of what you just said:

    "Well I'm just going to steadfastly hold to my same original opinion despite all the indisputable evidence to the contrary which cannot be honestly ignored/dismissed"

    .....or.....

    Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia »
     
  19. slane

    slane Forum Resident

    Location:
    Merrie England
    Not at all. EMI could have said no to putting 'An Apple Record' on every single Beatles release on Apple and argued that they were 'An EMI Record'. They didn't.
     
    Lewisboogie likes this.
  20. wildstar

    wildstar Senior Member

    Location:
    ontario, canada
    Why would they risk damaging their relationship with the #1 most popular group in the world at the time, over something as trivial as a picture of an Apple (or rather two pictures - cut and uncut)? It changed NOTHING. EMI never lost one penny from making that purely cosmetic concession (and may have actually earned - or hoped to earn - some brownie points with the band - nice to have when contract re-negotiation time comes around). Plus (and this is pure speculation) EMI may have thought - "We're lucky that's all they're asking for, considering how unfair their royalty structure is - yeah go ahead - give them their picture of an Apple - what the hell - its not like they're asking for more money."

    And as I said before - if there's no P or C in a circle next to the word "Apple" then the phrase "An Apple Record" is 100% meaningless.

    PS - You are displaying textbook 'confirmation bias' so forgive me if I dismiss/laugh at your "Not at all" dismissal of the charge.
     
  21. henryjg

    henryjg Forum Resident

    Location:
    Biloxi, MS
    Love that sentence.
     
  22. Mickey2

    Mickey2 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Bronx, NY, USA
    Yoko and Olivia would never approve of creating another revenue stream from John and George's music. That's completely unimaginable. o_O
     
    Lewisboogie likes this.
  23. slane

    slane Forum Resident

    Location:
    Merrie England
    Thank you Dr. Wildstar...
     
  24. dewey02

    dewey02 Forum Resident

    Location:
    The mid-South.
    While this has almost NOTHING to do with the thread title, I am amused (and enjoying) the two of you sparring and not giving any quarter on your positions. I've been keeping score:
    • Yes, the Beatles appeared on Apple records. Contractually they were on EMI. (point for wildstar)
    • And that quote of "its not like they're asking for more money"... have you forgotten a certain manager name Allan Klein who "renegotiated the Beatles’ EMI contract, which at that time granted the group the highest-ever royalty rate at 69 cents per album" (point for slane)
    Here's a link to some information that makes clear that in the re-negotiated contract in 1967, the Beatles asked for and got more money. Their contract with EMI and Capitol ran through 1976, And then when Klein came on board, he re-negotiated that contract in September of 1969 for a much higher percentage on sales.

    This link also sheds information on how the Beatles and the Apple artists were dealt with differently and under different contracts. Capitol had a contract where it would release non-Beatle artists on Apple records and agreed to release the Beatle records on the Apple label.

    More here: Deconstructing Pop Culture: The Beatles' Contract History with Capitol Records | MuseWire »
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2016
  25. zen

    zen Senior Member

    Wouldn't be surprised.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine