Search this Topic:
Jan 27 17 7:22 AM
Jan 29 17 11:09 AM
Say what one will about Kanye West , he is very clever about what he samples, and in doing that brings artists like King Crimson, Brenda Lee ,and Otis Redding to younger people, but he (and other samplers) should pay them royalties as well."
True, but I'm pretty sure royalties are paid for the samples, I have friends who get paid because a rap song with their sample became a hit.
Arthur Alexander walked into The Beatles offices (I'm not sure if it was NEMS or Apple, I think it was Apple) sometime in the late 60s ,George Harrison was the only Beatle there that day, Alexander told Harrison he got no royalty money for The Beatles version of "Anna" and Harrison was shocked to hear that.
During that day ,John Lennon happened to call the office and got to speak to Alexander (they never met) and Lennon was as shocked as Harrison to hear that, so it's quite obvious Arthur Alexander was one of those who were cheated out of their royalties by their management, but even if he hadn't been cheated out of his royalties ,it doesn't change the fact that he has a HoF career as much anyone else. "
Well, here's the thing, by the late 1960s (or even the early 1970s), even John Lennon himself was often broke (especially for somebody as famous) and he didn't start getting what he really deserved from his Beatles work until the mid 1970s, he didn't have millions in his band account until his last 5 years. The whole money situation with the Beatles business was always questionable even from the start, but became a total mess after Epstein died, and Lennon himself wasn't very good at handling financial stuff. So I have no doubt that a lot of funny stuff went down when it comes to royalties of their old Blues and R&B covers. Even their BBC cover of "I got to find my baby", it is credited to Chuck Berry, but Little Walter actually wrote it and did it earlier. Or on the other hand, their cover of "Kansas City" credited Little Richard as the writer. Unfortunately Arthur Alexander was one of the unlucky ones, and one can hope that he ended up getting at least some of that money before he passed. He certainly is deserving of being in the RR hall of fame, that's for sure!
From what I heard, Pete Best became a multi-millionaire from Anthology 1 royalties ,that was his consolation prize, some say Yoko Ono fought for the royalty Pete Best got because while John defended the firing of Pete and hiring of Ringo, John did not like the way Pete (who had been his friend)was fired (John especially didn't like George -and to a lesser extent Paul -taking advantage of John's preoccupation of unwanted marriage and fatherhood to push though the Best firing the way it happened, and that sewed the seeds for the eventual Beatles breakup to be as nasty as it was)."
Firing Pete Best had nothing to do with their break up or any tensions they had. All 3 of them absolutely agreed that Best had to go, and even if they didn't, George Martin put his foot down on that one. They could either keep a mediocre drummer and continue playing the low paying clubs in England and Germany, occasionally opening for somebody like Billy Fury and Marty Wilde, or they could get a REAL exceptional drummer, like Ringo, and get a record deal with an opportunity for great success. Pete Best got a chance, the producer said he had to go, and George Harrison was right about making the move and keeping it real. Taking time to fire him wouldn't have done good for neither one. And by the way, they didn't leave him completely in the cold either, Brian Epstein got Pete Best's band a record deal and was managing them too. Team Beatles did try to help Pete Best out even after firing him from the group, it's just that his records failed and his ego and being hurt over the Beatles made it even harder to work with him.
The reason why Pete Best got a great deal out of the anthology is because it was the right thing to do, either way. He played drums on those early songs and now that they are released and are being bought by people, it's only obvious that he should get money for his contributions to the Beatles based on the number of songs with him that were released. If Stuart Sutcliffe was alive, he'd probably also get a fair amount of money from that album.
Jan 29 17 7:59 PM
Jan 30 17 1:25 PM
Jan 30 17 2:13 PM
Jan 31 17 1:08 PM
Jan 31 17 1:55 PM
Not all people pay royalties on samples , and Kaynye West isn't (or at least wasn't) one of them,because both King Crimson and Brenda Lee sued him for not doing so."
Exactly, people like that get sued, it is even more illegal than what Jimmy Page did, because Page didn't actually sample the original track. I wasn't aware about Kanye though, but that doesn't surprise me. Just like his hero Trump, his narcissism and ego is pretty much a mental disease at this point.
But most rappers have the sample of their song labeled on their albums, if you look at the CDs, and it says who wrote it, so most time (unless ASCAP and BMI rip them off somehow) they should be getting their money.
IMO the best John Lennon biography is John Lennon :The Life by Phillip Norman,it is the only Lennon bio where those closest to him (including Yoko and McCartney) gave interviews for , that book has the testimony of Bill Harry of Mersey Beat ,he was an insider to the Pete Best firing ,and he was also close to Lennon who talked to him about it.
Ringo was the better drummer and Best had to go to go ,that is not in dispute, what is in dispute was the way Pete Best was fired, what happened was all three wanted Ringo in,but while this was going on John's girlfriend was pregnant and he was going to have to marry her,and he didn't want to be a father or a husband ,but he knew he was going to have to(to the mores of that time)."
While John was preoccupied with that,George (and to lesser extent Paul) went behind John's back and got Brian Epstein (who wasn't crazy about firing Best) to speed up the firing."
Speed up the firing? I mean, what other choice did they have? Sit on their asses and tell Pete Best that everything is ok, after George Martin clearly refused to do anything with them until they change the drummer? In any business, and especially the music business, you have to make tough choices sometimes, if they waited any longer, George Martin would simply move on to other projects, and we know he's had plenty.
"Unlike George and Paul,John regarded Best as a friend and while John also felt that Best had to go, he felt it could have been done in a less cold-hearted way, also John was the boss of that band and he felt George and Paul going behind his back about anything was not cool and he would not let that happen again without a fight, that was 1962,"
George and Paul had nothing personal against Best as far as I understand, they were all friends, it was strictly business. But you did bring up a good point, John had a very problematic tendency of mixing friendship and music, in fact, he was just fine playing with mediocre musicians if he loved them as people, and +$$% anybody that had a problem with it, as far as he was concerned! He hired Stu Sutcliffe to play bass even though he couldn't play a single note, and even when he learned how to play a little bit, he still made Sid Vicious sound like John Entwistle! Pete Best wasn't the first and certainly not the last mediocre musician that Lennon fought for. He was a good drummer for the bar scene but not the kind of drummer that you make big records with.
Let's forget about Yoko (or Linda) for a second here, no matter how anybody feels about their singing...take a look at the bands that Paul, George or Ringo hire/have hired to back them up live, and take a look at Lennon! The other three have not only always hired top best musicians in the world to play behind them, but their shows have been absolutely tight, perfect, nobody even dares showing up wasted and play sloppy at their gig! When anybody in Paul's band plays or sings a wrong note on a very rare occasion, you can see Paul turning around and giving them a very dirty look...you have to be a completely finesse musician to get a job with them. Some of the people who played behind Lennon, specifically in the early 1970s, weren't virtuosos, and even those ones who were, it was a very flexible gig where everybody simply learned the songs 3 hours before the show and nobody had to worry about making any mistakes...Lennon didn't give a @$@$ about that, he cared about the spirit of the show. If you listen to any live Ringo, George or especially Paul albums, you will not find any sloppiness or mistakes, it's absolutely tight and well rehearsed, while Lennon's live stuff is raw, wild and neither very produced nor rehearsed, in fact some of his shows weren't rehearsed at all. It was still great, and in some ways, I even prefer it this way, but it's still very noticeable, for instance, the difference between Clapton's playing with Lennon (amazing raw experimental jam without much structure but a lot of soul) and his playing for Harrison's Japan tour/album (finesse, perfect, tight, most amazing tone, very structural, and no little mistakes or sloppiness anywhere in sight).
My point is, they all had different approach towards what's most important for the music and what's less important for the music. And the record labels (especially back then) wouldn't waste time on less than great musicians in the studio, because they didn't have the technology we have today to make mediocre players sound good...even good musicians who were absolutely tight in any live situation (Beach Boys, The Byrds, The Monkees...) were still often subbed by virtuoso session players (Glenn Campbell, Leon Russell, Carol Kaye...) on the records, because sometimes even very good wasn't good enough. So in the end of the day, George Martin put the food down on Pete Best, and the guys had very little choice but to fire him immediately.
"in 1969 Paul started bringing his in-laws in the business, etc., John felt that was going behind his back again and this time he fought back, The Beatles would have broken up anyway, but maybe the breakup wouldn't have been as nasty as it was if going behind John's back hadn't happened in 1962."
Paul was absolutely right about his in-laws, because unlike Alan Klein who ripped the other 3 off, Linda's dad actually helped Paul become one of the richest people in the world. Which is why, while the 3 others are/were millionaires, none of them are NEARLY as rich as Paul. John was never very good at business and made a very shitty decision with Klein. A good example of why personal emotions and business should never mix and why sometimes the musical leader of the band isn't the right business leader for the band.
Compare the way the way Pete Best was let go(not that he was let go, but the way it was done) with how a (then) unknown Kurt Cobain handled a similar situation, when it came time for Nirvana to fire one of their first drummers, Cobain wrote that guy a letter saying they guy wasn't showing up for gigs(which was part of Pete Best's 's firing too),that this drummer came from a different culture than they did and didn't really fit in with the band musically or in any other way(which was part of the Pete Best situation too) and that they were sorry ,but they found another drummer who was better for them and they were going to have to let this guy go.
Cobain added in the letter, that this drummer was really good and that if he didn't mind they would like to recommend him to other musicians, John Lennon felt something like that was how the Beatles should have fired Pete Best, and I guess he felt guilt that they didn't, and (according to rumor) that is why Yoko recommended the (fairly) high royalty for Best on Anthology 1,and that Paul,George, and Ringo agreed."
Well, like I said, The Beatles didn't really leave Pete Best completely in the cold, Brian Epstein was still managing him for years after that. Did Cobain help the career of his former drummer after he fired him?
Yes ,Paul ,George ,Ringo ,and Yoko gave Pete Best the royalty/consolation prize they did because "it was the right thing to do", but why was "it the right thing to do"?
Because he played on those recordings, DUHHHH! And since he wasn't getting paid as a session musician with a contract that requires him to forget about any rights or future money, he would have every legal and moral right to sue them if they didn't pay him the same proportional money as any other members of the band who played on those songs. And they would look like assholes too.
"THC ,you personally know Yoko does a lot of charity work ,so this rumor (I don't know if it's true or not) isn't far fetched."
Sure, but Yoko never knew Best and I'm not sure if she even met him to this day (if she did, it was probably recently). My guess is, they all were in favor of giving Pete Best and the family of Stu Sutcliffe their fair share.
First place ,Brian Epstein was reluctant to fire Pete Best ,he kept dragging his feet on it and John was preoccupied with Cynthia's pregnancy ,once again ,firing Pete Best wasn't the issue to John ,how it was done was the issue to him.
If you were in a band where another band member said "Let my father in law and brother in law manage us", wouldn't you fear nepotism?
I know I would,and so would most people.
And it turns out McCartney did have something to hide , Macca broke the 50-50 split deal he and Lennon had by buying publishing stock behind Lennon's back ,and Lennon didn't know that until Allen Klein opened the books, say what you will about Klein, Lennon did have the right to know that, and Lennon was right to feel stabbed in the back because of that too.
Check out the recent Dave Clark 5 documentary on PBS, on the segment about Dave Clark's business acumen, McCartney himself that he had no business acumen as a kid, that Dave Clark was the only one on that scene who did(Elton John also made a similar comment about Dave Clark on that show).
McCartney became a billionaire because he eventually became smart enough to get into music publishing. Lennon invested his Beatles money after he got paid in full in 1975(the year he went into hiatus),George Harrison became a film producer, Ringo Starr was involved in various businesses(and battled alcoholism).
No,Yoko never met Pete Best,but it's very logical to assume John talked to her about him, and it's also logical to assume John talked to her about any guilt he might have felt over the way Best was fired.
I don't know what else happened in the Cobain case, I read the letter in the book about Cobain's writings/journals.
Jan 31 17 2:30 PM
Jan 31 17 4:55 PM
Jan 31 17 6:40 PM
Ya stole somebody's record then ya looped it, ya looped itYa boosted the record then ya looped it, ya looped itAiyyo, I came from Cali, and they hooped it, they hooped itBut now you're getting sued kinda stupid
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.