That’s true but I think that Pete was in general terms fine from the perspective of playing the clubs on the Liverpool group ‘circuit’, many of the fans liked him. I think it was a festering frustration within the band that he was holding them back musically and wasn’t on the same level as the others personality wise.
I think the tape has extremely little value as a commercial release by a third party. Assuming they are the Anthology versions, Love Me Do and Besame Mucho are under copyright to UMG. The other two tracks are almost certainly public domain. Two to four 1962 Best-era recordings have very little commercial appeal to begin with, and anyway, as soon as they are released they could be copied by anyone else who wants to reissue them, or they could be freely distributed across the internet. Hence, the profit potential for any buyer would be negligible. I think the only way the tape would have value at auction would be for sale to a deep-pocketed collector who wanted to buy the tape and hoard it, not letting anyone hear the contents.
I think you highlight a good point. Their interest historically is great, but only to those that are interested. Personally I would sacrifice a lot to hear them, maybe travel across the globe if that was my only opportunity but after that?......well it would add to our knowledge, that’s why people have shown so much interest in any between the takes chatter but the recordings are almost certainly not going to be anything you play for the pleasure of the music in itself. To non fans then they might well be considered as damaging to The Beatles’ reputation. In terms of making money from them the ‘Best’ (-: approach would probably be to use them to promote a bigger project/product based upon their historic value, build up the interest and release the whole session as is. The commercial value is in the anticipation, I’m naturally a bit of a cynic and I think there’s more than a fair chance that copies were made of the tape for whatever reason(s). If the bootleggers get there first then UMG have lost a lot of that anticipation.
Pet: You are correct!! Thank you for that. I have a Jumpin Jewel Lp but Shaking and Braking isnt on it.
I don't know if Neil Aspinall kept a diary or committed anything to paper or (computer hard drive) about The Beatles but he could have written the ultimate tell-all book if he'd wanted to (as he knew where all the proverbial bodies were buried). I wonder how he viewed the various books written about the group and if he passed a lot of what he knew on to Mark Lewisohn? It's interesting to think that if Mona Best and Neil Aspinall had have officially coupled up, they were in an excellent position to take over the management of The Beatles once Brian Epstein passed.
I think he was a good choice for a temporary replacement for Ringo. He was good, he had already recorded some budget label Beatle covers, Brian Epstein had been filmed with him at an earlier non Beatles session in London so probably knew him a little bit and he was never likely to be any ‘threat’ to Ringo in the looks or personality stakes as part of the band.
Mark Lewisohn tells of how sad he was that having apparently gained Neil’s trust and tacit agreement to cooperate with his biography that his illness meant that it never got further than a couple of meetings for that purpose. Mona did arrange quite a few gigs for The Beatles and Neil of course was always there.
UMG is aware of it because the Emerick estate went to court to assert ownership. The estate apparently hasn't done that for any other tapes.
Well then those are the ‘facts’ and that might well be the end of it. Who’s to know what might be lying around in a cupboard somewhere though?
I saw this part of the discussion looking back on the thread, and sorry, but what evidence could Lewisohn have to make an assertion like this?. It seems simply too callous. The decision was made long in advance, Brian was well aware, yet they waited that long, until after they had even signed with EMI to tell him?.
Top item on the agenda for the new management: re-instate Pete Best on drums effective from September 1967 onwards.
Nobody has just one tape. They may not be pilfered from EMI, they may not even be Beatles related... but you’d have to be crazy to think that there’s nothing else of interest in that collection.
It is exactly because he didn't keep it all written down and would never have written the "tell all" book that he was one of the very few people the band trusted implicitly. I believe he had some conversations with Lewisohn, but I don't believe he would have given him too much detail had he lived longer - maybe confirming or denying key points and stories. Nell was absolutely loyal and was always going to take the secrets to his grave. Nobody knew more than he did and nobody was less likely to spill the beans!
My take on the 62 tape is that UMG is claiming ownership. They believe (and rightly so in my opinion) that the tape is their property. I doubt they have plans to release it. More likely trying to prevent it slipping through their hands and into those of a private collector and to stop it subsequently appearing on a grey market or public domain release. UMG spent big to obtain the Beatle tape archive in the EMI sell off, so they clearly believe this tape is legally part of that. Also, I agree with Dr.O'Boogie's assessment of Geoff's response in that YouTube clip. He knows he's being filmed and does not want to 'fess up to anything untoward. He quickly moves the discussion on to a couple of items he says he does have in order to deflect the pointed issue of what tapes he might have. To me, there was clearly something in his possession that he didn't want known. Is this 62 tape the only thing? Who knows.
Neil Aspinall discussed some things with Lewisohn but was still head of Apple at the time. The understanding was that once he was no longer with Apple he'd meet Lewisohn and would be able to discuss a lot more. He left Apple in April 2007, but fell ill and died March 2008, so Lewisohn never got his more extensive interviews. Concerning Emerick's tape, what a lot of people are forgetting is that he was actually told to destroy this tape. So, let's say he goes home, does a personal copy and then throws the EMI tape away. He can say then that he did as EMI instructed. Any other theoretical tapes in his possession wouuld be less negotiable since he wasn't told to destroy them so EMI could say they were stolen.
I seem to remember that Neil was not on good terms with Apple towards the end - I'm sure Mark Lewisohn alluded to it in an interview. So, had he lived, he might have been quite scathing about certain things.
This is one part of the information reported so far that I really would like to know more about. What was the nature of the order? When and in what circumstances? Hopefully more will be revealed as the case proceeds. Unfortunately Geoff is no longer with us to confirm or refute the nature of the 'order', or I wonder if it was perhaps just a protocol that he should have followed in this instance rather than a direct order?
The Emerick estate is claiming ownership, and UMG is disputing that. The discussion doesn't move that quickly, though. And the interviewer seems to be interchanging "things you have" with "things that haven't been released". The only thing that was clear in the video is the interviewer wasn't being very clear and Emerick was having a hard time hearing/understanding him.
I'm not so sure that's true - Lewisohn is pretty grumpy with Apple these days and throws a fair amount of mud their way, not all of it warranted. There is no way Neil would have broken the bands confidence - it wasn't in his nature even if there had been some sort of falling out (which I doubt). He was a good guy, and the loyalty ran deep. Sadly we'll never know.
I think this will be key. In reading the UMG objection again, they indicate the "conversion" of the tape occurred in 1962. Whether that's based on what's stated in the estate's petition, I don't know. But, UMG (or Calderstone) repeatedly make the case that tapes weren't to be removed, regardless of if they were to be disposed of, based on Ken Townsend's accounts. Well, if it was 1962, what was the disposition of unwanted tapes at EMI? If they weren't bulking or re-using them, then they certainly weren't indefinitely storing them. And in 1962, this certainly was not a "valuable master tape", although UMG refers to it this way in the context of 1962. What happened to all the tape purged back then? If it went to the street, I think this could all boil down to a minor violation of company policy. This all needs to be grounded in circumstances at the time, not considering the significance of the tape now. And I think it might be easy to find tape policy exceptions that contradict Ken Townsend's account.
