Will solo Beatles eventually become group compilation albums ?

Thanks.

 

This will never happen and should never happen. The Beatles finished when they finished-just the right time. The solo-stuff has nothing to do with the Beatles.

 

Yes, but you bolded everything in that line that I quoted.
If you noticed, I bolded only the word label. Capitol agreed to release Beatles on an boutique label, but they were still Capitol records. However, this agreement may have changed when Klein renegotiated the contract in 1969.

There IS a difference between appearing on a boutique label and being contracted to a label.
If I recall, I have several early Beatle Apple records that have a small Capitol records logo on the bottom of the label.

 

K-Tel, anyone?

 

I had a whole web page dedicated to it as a companion piece to Beatlemoney. I had over 200,000 visitors when my friend lost his hosting rights. I even used photoshop to produce LP covers and back pages. The premise was that the solo careers continued, but the Beatles would contribute occasionally to "collections". The idea came out of the Alpha Omega collection, the Monkees later LPs, the 4 set Kiss solo collection and a comment by John Lennon on Dick Cavet. It was done for fun and to make personal CDs. With the exception of 1970-71 and 73-74, the Cds I made might have just as well been random collections of multiple artists as there were different themes, styles, mixes and volumes, etc. It was just a fan hobby-I also did with some Pink Floyd and Who solo albums.

However, if it had a Beatle label on it back in the 70s - those suckers would have sold. Even if all 4 parties agreed today to do it digitally, I doubt it would catch fire, but who knows.

 

It's not always about revenue.
Sometimes it's about integrity.

 

I agree that it's just pop music but, would there really be a market for this?

Anyone who cares can make their own compilations.

 

Have you forgotten that Apple (the label which began legitimately releasing non-Beatles product as well as "appearing" on Beatles product in Aug 68) predated Klein's renegotiation to 69 cents, so they (he) hadnt yet asked for "more money" (ie anything close to what they were actually worth)? What they asked for (and got) in 1967 was still far less than they were worth (ie less than many bands who were far less successful, yet had competent management representing their interests were receiving). Your own cited link places the Beatles "Apple as record label idea" as being hatched "sometime in 1968" clearly in between their inadequate 1967 bump in royalties and their more substantial 1969 increase that finally put them somewhere closer to finally receiving what they were actually worth. (slane's point erroneously awarded by dewey02 deducted)

PS - The fact that you yourself bolded the word "label" (I assume to differentiate it from "record company") in regards to Apple is a tacit admission that I am correct - is it not?

ie - Apple as label (a piece of paper glued on to the slab of vinyl - with no real significance or meaning when the slab of vinyl is owned by an entity other than Apple.

...as opposed to...

Apple as record company - an entity that signs bands, records bands, makes its own decisions and (most importantly) remains Apple whether the piece of paper with a picture of an Apple on it is glued onto the slab of vinyl or not. For example if a Badfinger record had a picture of a "bad finger" on it rather than a picture of an apple on it, it would still be in reality an Apple record(ing).

Anyone who denies/minimizes/ignores these facts is clearly being disingenuous.

 

I suppose many of us have made our own playlists of solo tunes. What I wish I had was reasonably decent artwork. There are few, if any, photos of more than 2 of the fabs together during the '70s. I've made some collages, but they suck. Anyone know of any that look good? Solo era collages similar, but better than, the i-tunes release?

 

I can't believe no one has mentioned this, but there is a guy who creates nonexistant albums - complete with cover art (you can download them)
Albums That Never Were: Search results for beatles »

In his imaginary world, the beatles made it until lennon quit music in '75, and each of the albums starting with early '70's Get Back has a full story to go along with the album. I highly recommend all 5 Beatles "albums"

Instant Karma! and Imagine Clouds Dripping are both great - and he has several other albums from other bands that are really fun listens and very enjoyable albums


The Beatles – Instant Karma!
(a soniclovenoize reimagining)

Side A
1. Instant Karma! (We All Shine On)
2. All Things Must Pass
3. Every Night
4. I Found Out
5. Beware of Darkness
6. Working Class Hero
7. Momma Miss America
Side B
8. It Don’t Come Easy
9. Isolation
10. Junk
11. My Sweet Lord
12. Maybe I’m Amazed
13. Love
14. Hear Me Lord

So sit back and imagine, if you will, an alternate timeline… That sometime in 1970: The Beatles fired Allen Klein and somehow came upon an agreement of how to run Apple Records, allowing the band members to separate the music from the business, the chief destruction of the band being averted; with the success of “Here Comes The Sun” and “Something” and an amazing back-catalog of unused and new songs, George successfully campaigns for an equal share of his own songs to be featured alongside the Lennon/McCartney originals (with the compromise that Linda and Yoko are allowed in the Beatles' inner circle if need be); pleased with Phil Spector’s work remixing Let It Be, The Beatles opt to have him produce the bulk of their recordings throughout the 1970s (despite McCartney’s reluctance); John agrees but wants to elaborate on the stripped-down and live-band-sounding arrangements, as revisited in the Get Back sessions from the previous year, but at least for his own compositions written from his Primal Scream therapy sessions; Ringo was, as always, just happy to be there.

Instant Karma! is released to critical and commercial success in late 1970, re-establishing The Beatles as a dominant musical force in the 1970s. Three hit singles were released from this album in 1970 and early 1971: “Instant Karma!” b/w the non-album B-side “That Would Be Something”, “Maybe I’m Amazed” b/w the non-album B-side “Apple Scruffs” and “My Sweet Lord” b/w the non-album B-side “Well Well Well”. The success of Instant Karma! gave a new confidence to the band that was so close to breaking up, especially with a new producer, a stronger leading-role for their lead guitarist as a songwriter and the band's uncertainty of relevance in a new decade. Regrouping in the summer of 1971 with a new set of songs and a new sense of unity, The Beatles attempt to record their second album of the 1970s. Can you... imagine?

 

The fish still bite though.

 

I was merely pointing out that neither you nor slane seemed willing to give an inch.
Yes, I AM agreeing with you that the Beatles appeared on the Apple boutique label, while their records were still under EMI and Capitol. That is precisely why I bolded the word label. (If you see my response to slane, it explains that.)

On the other hand, you stated that it wasn't like the Beatles were asking for more money. In fact, and by your own admission they DID ask for and got more money in 1967 and then substantially more in 1969. So your statement that they weren't asking for more money is FALSE, and slane gets a point for your putting forth false statements. The 1967 contract was in effect for only about a year when they formed Apple and the Apple enterprise. So they had just within the past year asked for and received more money, and then again a year later they again asked for and got more money.

If you cannot recognize your own misstatements then you are clearly being disingenuous. I was trying to point out that you both made some good points and some bad ones. But you can't acknowledge that. I'm not interested in anything further. My part in this conversation is over. Cheers.

 

First of all - I made no "statement". Reread what I said and you'll see that what I said in post #70 was:

"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."

Plus as you said they asked for more money in 1967 and in 1969. Show me where it was that I denied this? Are you saying its impossible that EMI may have said in 1968 when Apple Records was being formed "Sure why not - let them have their hollow victory of changing the picture on the piece of paper that we glue onto the records. Its not as if they're asking for more money." Again - this would have happened in 1968 when the were indeed NOT asking for more money.

What does 1967 (a slight pay bump that still left them well below what they were actually worth) or 1969 (I doubt they had a crystal ball to see Klein coming with his demands) have to do with the events of 1968?

PS - if *I* can't recognize *MY* mistatements?....WOW!!!


PPS - its too bad that your "part in this conversation is over" because I'd really like to know why you think its OK to make false statements about what I said.

 

I find that my ability to enjoy his compilation has a negative correlation to how well I know the band's backstory. In the case of the Beatles, I can't enjoy them at all (and never downloaded any of them) because I know far too well the ways in which they make no sense. Fiction requires a suspension of disbelief, but still - there are limits.

1 - Instant Karma was written and recorded in a single day and released as fast as was possible afterwards. So obviously there would have been no way that Lennon would have held it back for well over half a year to be the title track on a late 1970 Beatle album.

2 - Maybe I'm Amazed - Paul recorded this quite late in the McCartney album sessions, as he had been previously been holding it back for use on the next Beatles single. When Lennon released Instant Karma as a solo record, Paul basically said - well John's obviously not holding back his best stuff for Beatles use, so I may as well put it on my album.

The Beatles were still in the era of putting out stand alone singles (sometimes as double A-sides) so Instant Karma and Maybe I'm Amazed may have been paired for release as an early-mid 1970 stand alone single, but not held back for more than half a year awaiting the next Beatles album, especially given Lennon's obvious urge to have it out immediately.

It Don't Come Easy - now this I like! It probably wouldnt have been a Beatles single, but it is strong and placing it as a side opener is a good way to highlight a VERY GOOD album track. It "sounds" like a side opener anyway in the way it builds. Plus opening side two with it places it right in the center of the album, which is the right place to put a song when that member has only one vocal on the entire album.

Most (if not all) of the "controversial tracks" would probably have been nixed by the other band members and George Martin as being inappropriate for the Beatles and set aside for solo album which they had all started releasing prior to the band's "real world" breakup.

So George's overtly religious stuff would likely have been excluded and come out on a solo album, as well as Lennon's darker (and dirty word featuring) POB album material.

So from that list four more tracks should obviously be excluded from consideration:
My Sweet Lord
Hear Me Lord
I Found Out
Working Class Hero

I have minor issues with some of the other listed tracks, the largest being "All Things Must Pass" as John apparently wasnt into it ("what else is new" when it came to John's level of interest in George's songs in the late Beatles era) during the Jan 69 sessions so it was dropped from consideration as a Beatles track then. However many George songs that John disregarded were recorded without his involvement by "The Threetles" and released as Beatles tracks, so perhaps its really doesn't require too much of a stretch of the imagination...

 

Capitol was slapping Apples on everything in the 1970s. I remember buying Eleanor Rigby/Yellow Submarine on Apple in the late 1970s -- well, just because.

 

Lol

 

The Whiter album?

 

They can call it 'Sweet Apple Trax'...

(Oops, that's one's already taken!)

 

It would take nothing less than the power of K-Tel to make this happen.

 

That is exactly right. If "The Beatles" put a label on it...people would buy it.

 

BLASPHEMY... God forbid.

 

Yes...I haven't been impressed at all, considering the incompleteness of the Dark Horse and Apple sets...and by now, I think it is safe the say there will be no "Early Takes Volume Two".

 

That wasn't Capitol's idea - that order came from Apple.

After Allen Klein became involved, all Beatles/solo Beatles product seems to have been controlled by Apple (the Hey Jude and Red & Blue compilations, for example, were conceived by Apple with EMI/Capitol only distributing Apple's finished product - ABKCO's Allan Steckler was responsible for compiling those albums).

This is from the article posted earlier by @dewey02 :

The 1969 agreements went further than most royalty contracts in that they gave approval of product, packaging, pickup albums, etc. to the Beatles. Klein not only wanted to keep those features but also add release dates, pricing, approval and placing of advertising, promotion, publicity, etc. Essentially he wanted to reduce Capitol's position from that of a partner to that of a distributor (with a small distribution margin).

 

I literally cannot think of a single person I know personally who would be remotely interested in what the OP proposes, and that includes a lot of people who were around when those solo singles were hits. Beatle people really do live in their own bubble sometimes.

 

I think you're looking at this wrong - for the beatles to survive post abbey road, the history would have to be different entirely. To me, these are enjoyable little comps that have been fun to listen to at work - if we are poking holes into them I would argue they would've written entirely different songs both because their lives and minds would've been in different places, and from the other beatles' contributions to the work.