George, Paul and Ringo jamming in 1995 video footage- Can someone fill me in?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by mindblanking, Mar 16, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ralph7109

    ralph7109 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Franklin, TN
    True - but it doesn't change the fact he was right about Paul.
     
    jeatleboe likes this.
  2. Zeki

    Zeki Forum Resident

    Kinda hard to be wrong about saying it's a bummer he (McCartney) didn't show up because of a lawsuit.

    What about Diana Ross? Mick Jagger?
     
    Lost In The Flood and theMess like this.
  3. ralph7109

    ralph7109 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Franklin, TN
    The reason why Paul didn't show up is what was so bad. He let a legal business matter get in the way of something pretty big.

    If Diana Ross didn't want to show up because she doesn't like her ex-mates or is a diva or whatever, then that is her deal.

    But Paul loves Ringo. Ringo just drummed on Tug of War and Broadstreet. But to not go to and then use the excuse of a "lawsuit" was really shady. Maybe because he wasn't in charge or would gain to benefit of three Beatles being on stage at the same time since they broke up.

    But less than 10 years later he was more than happy to have the three of them filmed and playing together to cash in on Anthology.
     
    jeatleboe and notesfrom like this.
  4. bward

    bward Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston, MA USA
    Yeah that's a good one.

    I don't mind that song so much. Really nice melody. But I'd like it better if it was shorter and if it employed a better conceit.
     
    theMess likes this.
  5. SgtPepper1983

    SgtPepper1983 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    Who are we to know all the stuff that went on? None of us knows anything really. Friendships tend to burst when there's a lot of money involved, nothing unusual in that. Friendships also tend to just grow apart over time. It's kind of fun to speculate and mythicise using selected 'facts', personal views, and amateur psychology about people we think we know and love, but what remains in the end is most certainly pretty boring everyday stuff.
     
    petem1966 likes this.
  6. Zeki

    Zeki Forum Resident

    I was responding to your comment that what Love said was "right". And that was that it was a "bummer". I agree! It was a bummer.

    I doubt Love had any idea that McCartney was referring, in his telegram, to having just been served with a brand spanking new lawsuit...after just having dined with Harrison. If that story is true. Not that any of this is Mike Love's business, especially during his own acceptance speech (bizarre way for Mike Love to express his own gratitude at receiving the award, by the way).

    Anthology. I have no idea why something years after "the pleasant dinner and subsequent slapped with a lawsuit" event would factor in. Personally, I think they all made out well, financially, on the Anthology project. I have no idea what the individual motivations were. What's been mentioned here, is that Harrison needed the cash. I don't know if that is true or not. Certainly couldn't hurt!
     
    Paulwalrus and theMess like this.
  7. jeatleboe

    jeatleboe Forum Resident

    Location:
    NY
    I didn't "make things up". I misunderstood the details, and then someone came here and set the facts straight for me. I try to be fair across the board with all four Beatles even though I love them all; I don't set out to "smear" them any more than some fans try to unconditionally "build them up" or think "they can do no wrong". Sometimes even our favorite celebrities warrant some criticisms, and I suppose that's up to us each to decide ourselves as to what warrants criticism.

    Your opinion was that Paul's decision not to turn up was correct; but I am of a different opinion.
    As for the HOF having turned into a joke, I already offered my POV on that ... I don't think it was considered a joke back in 1987/1988; however, in recent years I do agree that it has become a "Free For All" where it now has become something of a joke. But Paul must not think so, as it was McCartney who reportedly felt bad for Ringo's not being inducted yet, and influenced the decision to have Mr. Starkey inducted next month.
     
  8. Kim Olesen

    Kim Olesen Gently weeping guitarist.

    Location:
    Odense Denmark.
    Free for all. Well then i am ready for my induction ;-)
     
  9. jeatleboe

    jeatleboe Forum Resident

    Location:
    NY
    Like I said, John came out and vocally admitted that Paul had been right about Klein.
    All The Beatles had felt betrayed at various points by one or the other. Including John feeling betrayed when Paul turned 'round and ended The Beatles, after John had already been asked to keep his decision to quit first, quiet.

    I don't recall using the word "manager" in an Epstein-like sense, but even Paul himself in interviews has said he could now understand why the other three might have felt Eastman might lean toward Paul in "the band's finance and legal matters".

    Well, once the other three refused Eastman, of course I think Paul did right for sticking to his guns and going his own way.
     
  10. theMess

    theMess Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kent, UK
    The difference is simple; the Eastman's did not intentionally rip the group off, and did eventually manage Paul really well. Even today, an Eastman runs MPL.

    I know that McCartney did not initially reject Klein, but that was because he had tried to bring in an arrangement whereby Klein would manage the bands financial interests, and the Eastman's would manage their legal interests, as a compromise. Klein put an end to this after only three weeks.

    I agree that the Eastmans' were not perfect, and that they made clumsy mistakes, but then so did Brian. Klein was different; he actually intentionally ripped them off, as Paul proved in court.

    Seeing as the others did later acknowledge that Klein was a con artist, I hope that they did apologise to Paul, because he was right about Klein, who had intentionally set out to manage them. Had they not gone with Klein, their relationship would not have soured in the way that it did, and they could have just taken a break and then reconvened as a group, like they all suggested in 1970. Klein was the person stopping this from happening, because Paul could not tolerate him.

    I agree with the other suggestions that they should have found a third person that they could both agree on.
     
  11. theMess

    theMess Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kent, UK
    Don't expect me to agree with you when you 'misunderstand' the details. I suggest that you actually find out what they are before you criticise Paul based on a misunderstanding.
     
    Paulwalrus likes this.
  12. theMess

    theMess Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kent, UK

    This is another common misconception. Paul never intended for the McCartney album press statement to be reported on as his resignation from the group. He actually issued a denial to the Mirror in the Times, and Apple press office was also quoted in the Times article stating that Paul had not quit the group.

    Unfortunately, Paul then went away and didn't speak to the press for quite some while, so the incorrect Mirror headline gained credence. Paul's depression during that period was caused by the fact that Klein and their business differences were damaging the Beatles relationships with each other, and because he could see that with Klein in control, he would not be able to work with John and the others, because he could not accept Klein as his manager.

    It is a shame that they didn't ditch Klein, and find someone else who all four could agree on.
     
    fatoldsun, Paulwalrus and foxylady like this.
  13. jeatleboe

    jeatleboe Forum Resident

    Location:
    NY
    Anyway, I still am criticizing Paul for not showing up at the RNRHOF ceremony. George criticized him as well, and he sure understood the details.
     
    ralph7109 likes this.
  14. jeatleboe

    jeatleboe Forum Resident

    Location:
    NY
    I think "Let It Be' was -- and still is -- a very apt title. Klein or no Klein, it was over.
     
    notesfrom and Chuckee like this.
  15. Mkirk

    Mkirk Forum Resident

    Location:
    Christchurch, NZ
    What makes you think it was one of the Eastman's most important objectives to negotiate a majority shareholding in Northern Songs Ltd?

    They were asked and retained with the agreement of all 4 Beatles to manage the situation with NEMS but NEMS held 7.5% didn't they? Where is 25% from? They ballsed NEMS up sure because they wanted to review certain contracts and Clive Epstein was unhappy about the insinuation anything was amiss, in the Eastmans defense their probably were some question marks but they set the cat among the pigeons, it was an error in judgement.

    However the big problem was that James and Silver held 37.5% of the company and they sold their shares to ATV. Who then actively sought to buy more shares to gain a controlling interest.

    I don't think the NEMS shares were decisive or would have given majority ownership to The Beatles.

    When Northern Song was floated Paul and John got 15% each and George and Ringo only had 1.6% jointly so the Beatles held 31.6%. James and Silver had 37.5% NEMS had 7.5% and the remainder was owned by institutional investors i.e the public.

    Now when John got divorced he sold 2% of his shares and the proceeds went into the Trust fund set up for Julian. So he no longer had his 15% so they needed more than NEMS it would have helped but at the same time the Beatles never really got close to gaining control.

    All the dealings to acquire further shares were not managed by the Eastmans.

    Klein attempted to purchase the necessary shares from the public investors and one particular block called the Consortium who owned the largest block but was unsuccessful they sold to ATV and that gave ATV control.


    As for the buying shares in secret well now that is an interesting one as it seems to be in a few of the books, proving perhaps that you can't always rely on the books.

    You see how many did he buy? What percentage ownership did Paul acquire and when? How close to control did he get, who sold them to him and how did he dispose of them? No one has ever said, there's never been a scrap of evidence not a single certificate nada. How come? These are financial transactions in a listed company.

    In 1969 under the Companies Act any increase or decrease of 1% or more of the holdings of a person (or their investment companies) with more than a 3% interest in a listed company had to be formally announced to the exchange. Well where are the announcements? You can buy shares in 'secret' in terms of not telling your friends theoretically but it is and was illegal to trade secretly when you have a 15% holding in a listed company that's the law.

    Now Stock Exchange transaction records that aren't part of the public record are sealed for 30 years but then anyone can wander into the LSX archives and take a look. Still not one single shred of factual documented evidence has ever been provided,

    McCartney was issued 750000 shares when NS floated and when he sold after they failed to gain control he had 751000 shares. He did buy,by his own admission, 1000 shares once, two hundredths of a single percent of the company. He asked Peter Brown to buy them for him and the Eastmans were in no way involved. This transaction occurred prior to James and Silver selling, he had some money coming from Apple and he increased his holding by two hundredths of a single percent.

    The master plan for domination and power is clear. It was minuscule it would have cost less than 1k and in the event of a £100k dividend being declared he would have received an extra £20. It played no part in the Northern Song story.

    Nothing else has ever been found or has ever been proven but Klein did tell John that Paul was up to some Machiavellian scheme and John believed him and the allegation appears to have become fact but there is no proof to my knowledge.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2015
  16. theMess

    theMess Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kent, UK
    You admitted to criticising him despite knowing what had happened. I prefer to research before I comment about someone else's actions.
     
    Paulwalrus likes this.
  17. jeatleboe

    jeatleboe Forum Resident

    Location:
    NY
    Even as far back as 1988 I've been consistently criticizing Paul for letting business matters (WHATEVER their precise details consisted of, which is irrelevant to my point of criticism) get in the way of his celebrating The Beatles' induction into the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame. I agree with George, and I feel Paul was being very petty and denying himself an important night.
     
  18. theMess

    theMess Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kent, UK
    I disagree; that may be your opinion, but it was not the opinion of the Beatles at the time. They were actually all in agreement that they group should continue, with room for solo projects:

    While recording Abbey Road John mentions in an interview that he and Paul are on a big creative spurt and claims that "the outcome of this whole financial business doesn't matter. We'll still be making records, and somebody will be copping some money, and we'll be copping some money and that'll be that."

    Inspired by his Toronto appearance, Lennon proposed a peace festival in 1970 that would include the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Elvis, etc.

    George:"We all have to sacrifice a little in order to gain something really big. And there is a big gain by recording together, I think musically and financially and spiritually." He goes on.. " I think it's the least we can do, to sacrifice three months of the year, at least, just do an album or two. I think it's very selfish if the Beatles don't record together again."

    While he was recording his solo album, George mentions that "Everyone is trying to do his own album, and I am too. But after that I'm ready to go back with the others."

    George invited the three other Beatles to perform at his Concert For Bangladesh.
     
  19. theMess

    theMess Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kent, UK
    You obviously have no ability to imagine how Paul must have felt. This may be because, as you admit, you made your mind up in 1988, before knowing all of the facts.

    Paul saw what George did as a betrayal and thus didn't turn up. I would not turn up if I had been sued by my friend behind my back, despite trying to help him get a better deal.
     
    Paulwalrus and heatherly like this.
  20. jeatleboe

    jeatleboe Forum Resident

    Location:
    NY
    We'll have to agree to disagree on all of this, once again. I feel that no matter how great the desire to always protect Paul may be (I presume even if his and George's roles had been reversed in this scenario), IMO he was a fool for allowing a business thing "that was getting solved anyway" to intrude on this very important evening and honor. It doesn't matter one iota what the "facts" were... I feel this was the time to put business conflict aside.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2015
  21. bewareofchairs

    bewareofchairs Forum Resident

    I'm not so sure George felt the same way after ATMP was released though. That whole experience gave him the boost of confidence he needed, and once he got a taste of freedom, he might've been worried about being stuck in the same situation he was in before.
     
    Mister Charlie and theMess like this.
  22. theMess

    theMess Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kent, UK
    That is definitely a possibility, although he did of course invite all four of them to appear with him at the Concert For Bangladesh.

    I doubt that he would have ever wanted a return to being in the Beatles full time as in the past, but I can imagine him doing what he suggested, which would be to work with them for 4 or 4 months of the year.
     
    Paulwalrus likes this.
  23. BeatlesObsessive

    BeatlesObsessive The Earl of Sandwich Ness

    I stand(or should I say lay on the floor a bloodied mess!) MAJORLY corrected. Well needless to say I learn something new about the Beatles every day.
     
  24. bward

    bward Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston, MA USA
    Thanks for laying this out. I always wondered how, if that story about McCartney buying shares behind Lennon's back was true, they could still work together?

    This sheds some light on that.

    Thanks!
     
  25. theMess

    theMess Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kent, UK
    Thank you very much for clearing this up. Well said. :righton:
     
    Mkirk likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine