Beatles Article in Bloomberg Businessweek

[8mileshigher]

In the eye doctor's office this afternoon, I read Bloomberg Businessweek (July 5 - July 11, 2010 edition) as I saw a small picture of the Beatles on the cover.

'The article by Hugo Lindgren "Could Anything Have Saved the Beatles" basically expands on the subject matter of a recently released book "You Never Give Me Your Money - The Beatles After the Breakup" by author Peter Doggett. This article gives good praise for the You Never Give Me Your Money book.... looking at the Beatles from a busine$$ perspective, alluding that the breakup of the Beatles was one of the most wasteful events (dollar-wise) in human history.... that they could have made millions (duh !!) if they had not let their personal indulgences and adolescent resentments drive them apart.

Dominant schools of thought reported on what broke up the Beatles were the Evil Yoko Ono theory that argues that with a rock band being a chick magnet, that once long-term love interests are on the scene that these women don't like the chick-magnet dynamic of a band and seek to intervene. This was also alleged against Linda McCartney. Theory #2, (heralded last year in Rolling Stone magazine) blames the greed and dirty dealing of manager Allen Klein. Yawn ---- Nothing new in these old-rehashed bits of Beatle history.

An interesting idea in the article was that what the Beatles needed was a neutral third-party to be the psychological ballast in their own lives. An "intervention" against their own self-destruction. The article hints that if the Beatles had been less financially successful that they might have had no choice but to soldier-on and deal with their personal differences. They make a comparison to Metallica having a psychologist for the Band to prevent them from breeaking up and how many hundreds of millions Metallica has made as a result of learning to cope with their personal differences and avoid breaking up the band. It goes so far as to allude that if Klein's dishonesty had bankrupted the Beatles, that such a dilemma might have been the best incentive for the Beatles to continue. Using the analogy of the Rolling Stones own dealings with Klein, the article says that Keef turned to drugs to deaden the pain of losing their song rights to Klein, etc. but that Jagger turned to learning from the business mistakes and chose to thrive and survive.

Conclusion --- an astute business manager would or should have invested in psycho therapy for the band to keep the greatest act in showbusiness together to make more money. Personally, I don't think Lennon would have bought into such a venture-- he preferred to get psychological help (Primal Therapy) from Dr. Arthur Janov to reinforce Lennon's own ideas and antagonism against McCartney. And Lennon certainly didn't need the money enough to continue his battle with/against McCartney.

In typical Businessweek style, there are little charts/pictures with how much money certain Beatles events generated ... $563 million on the Mono Releases Box Set, and that Michael Jackson had bought the ATV song catalogue (including 200+ Beatles tunes) for $47.5 million in 1985 and extrapolating what dollars could have been made "if".....

An interesting magazine article --- and wondering if any Forumites have acquired the "You Never Give Me Your Money" book yet ??

[doctorwho]

Thanks for sharing that, Rich.

[Zurdo]

hi all,

theories, theories!!

mine is that the problems started right after Brian Epstein's death. They all fell into a "what do we do now?" state-of-shock. And it wasn't because of Yoko or Linda, it was because of John and Paul. Just my theory!

[Clint]

The last thing The Beatles should be judged on is how much money they could or should have made. I'm glad they walked away when they did (still on top and at a creative peak). Leaving a legacy untainted by inane, forgettable albums and bloated tours where they croak out some lame, cartoonish version of the hits, take the money and run.

Besides, they did alright for themselves as solo artists. Didn't John Lennon say something like, what's the big deal if The Beatles break up? Now you can buy four times as many "Beatle" albums.

[brammy]

hi all,

theories, theories!!

mine is that the problems started right after Brian Epstein's death. They all fell into a "what do we do now?" state-of-shock. And it wasn't because of Yoko or Linda, it was because of John and Paul. Just my theory!

I think you're right that that was the start. John has said exactly that. John also said (about the final breakup)

"It’s natural, it’s not a great disaster, people keep talking about it as if it’s the end of the Earth, it’s only a Rock group that split up, it’s nothing important, you have all the old records there if you want to reminisce….. Even the young people refuse to accept change, that’s what the problem is….. I told people 20 years ago, or whenever it was, that I’m not going to be singing She Loves You when I’m 30, I was 30 last year and it was then when I broke the band up, or Paul broke up the band, whatever happened... that’s when it happened. I knew I wouldn’t be doing the same thing. It just doesn’t work like that, it’s like a rugby team, sometime you have to get married and leave the boys on a Saturday night. That’s how it is." ......... 'If it is Yoko and Linda’s fault for breaking up The Beatles, can they have the credit for all the great music that each of us have made individually? Linda and Yoko never had an argument ever. How can two women split up four strong men? It’s impossible.'

[Zurdo]

hi all,

theories, theories!!

mine is that the problems started right after Brian Epstein's death. They all fell into a "what do we do now?" state-of-shock. And it wasn't because of Yoko or Linda, it was because of John and Paul. Just my theory!

I think you're right that that was the start. John has said exactly that. John also said (about the final breakup)

"It’s natural, it’s not a great disaster, people keep talking about it as if it’s the end of the Earth, it’s only a Rock group that split up, it’s nothing important, you have all the old records there if you want to reminisce….. Even the young people refuse to accept change, that’s what the problem is….. I told people 20 years ago, or whenever it was, that I’m not going to be singing She Loves You when I’m 30, I was 30 last year and it was then when I broke the band up, or Paul broke up the band, whatever happened... that’s when it happened. I knew I wouldn’t be doing the same thing. It just doesn’t work like that, it’s like a rugby team, sometime you have to get married and leave the boys on a Saturday night. That’s how it is." ......... 'If it is Yoko and Linda’s fault for breaking up The Beatles, can they have the credit for all the great music that each of us have made individually? Linda and Yoko never had an argument ever. How can two women split up four strong men? It’s impossible.'

There you have it!! at the end, Paul wanted Linda's father to manage the group, the other three wanted what's his name? to manage it. Then John with his "I'm not going to be singing "She Loves You" when I'm 30" tv interviews, drove a wedge between all of them. George became disenchanted at the whole thing and picked up all his equipment. Ringo went to California

[johnnysain]

Lennon wanted a criminal, Alan Klein, to manage the group. Ringo and George went along,....Paul didn't.......= end of the Beatles
.
http://www.hitsville.org/2009/07/05/roc ... l-is-dead/

[Zurdo]

Lennon wanted a criminal, Alan Klein, to manage the group. Ringo and George went along,....Paul didn't.......= end of the Beatles http://www.hitsville.org/2009/07/05/roc ... l-is-dead/

yeahh, Klein, but why was he a criminal ?

[chucksimms]

I wonder if the fact Paul was right about Klein made it even worse? It's funny that Paul seemed to garner so much emnity from George post breakup, particularly when it appears that John and Yoko were the greater source of friction and resentment where George was concerned.

[johnnysain]

"He was essentially the Vito Corleone of rock 'n' roll. The true genius criminals do their best to stay out of the limelight.

Gangsters are usually brought down by their accountants and that was the genius of Klein. He was an accountant! When rock 'n' roll acts like the Who, the Beatles, and the Stones all had no idea where their money was really going or coming from, he was stalking every single penny.

He had a sign on his desk that said, "Though I walk in the shadow of the valley of evil, I have no fear, as I am the biggest ******* in the valley."

After the death of Beatle manager Brian Epstein, the band was filled with tons of utopian ideas and fantastical dreams. It became Apple Records (and assorted other Apple side projects) and it cost them a fortune. The band that changed everything; the band that seemed able to print money was dangerously close to going broke.

Realizing that they desperately needed someone to manage their affairs, Paul McCartney put forward the name of his father-in-law, Lee Eastman, but John Lennon was piqued by the street fighting, brawler image of Klein, and, as George and Ringo were wont to do back then, they followed Lennon. In most comparisons between John and Paul, I usually come down on John’s side, but there is little doubt that McCartney was by leagues the superior businessman and that he was right to distrust Klein."

http://blogcritics.org/music/article/yo ... es/page-2/

[Zurdo]

I wonder if the fact Paul was right about Klein made it even worse? It's funny that Paul seemed to garner so much emnity from George post breakup, particularly when it appears that John and Yoko were the greater source of friction and resentment where George was concerned.

George was a quiet Beatle until he spoke...the battles were obviously between John and Paul, the two Leaders.

Nothing makes sense to me anymore. In 'Let it Be', they were fighting, you can see George and Ringo about to get up and leave.
Lot of pent-up resentment was visible. Tug-of-war. The environment they chose to rehearse and record didn't help the mood.
The sound was awful. I hate "Let it Be". I hate George's cheesy-sounding Telecaster. Some of the songs are great and some of the playing is outstanding, (for example 'Dig a Pony'), but the overall sound is horrible. Where was George Martin?

[brammy]

I hate George's cheesy-sounding Telecaster.

REALLY!.... I'm glad SOMEBODY finally said it. It wasn't so much the sound, but that he kept with the same cheesy wah wah sound for song after song after song.

As for Lennon-McCartney-Klein.... yes, I think John was impressed, bullied and bowled over by Klein's bravado.

In a similar (although different) way, I think John was impressed, bullied and bowled over by Yoko's bravado and aggressive personality.

For all HIS genius and bravado, I think Lennon was essentially a weak willed individual with a shaky ego who was all too eager to let someone else tell him what to do.

[FretlessOnly]

Amen to all what Zurdo and Brammy said.

All that aside, it's a damn shame that business has to waste its time talking about what could have been with the Beatles. Can't business just go on alone and nurse its over-inflated ego and leave art alone?

The thought of having business, among the most despicable forms of "evolved" human thought ever associated with art, typically embodied/espoused/implemented by those who have no artistic thought at all, or if they, do, no desire to express it other than to ponder its potential for deriving wealth from something someone else does, sickens me.

Fortunately, I can ignore it. Sometimes.

[Zurdo]

I hate George's cheesy-sounding Telecaster.

REALLY!.... I'm glad SOMEBODY finally said it. It wasn't so much the sound, but that he kept with the same cheesy wah wah sound for song after song after song.

I blame it all on that awful Fender Telecaster and the horrible sounding Fender amplifiers

[chucksimms]

I didn't write that 'I hate George's cheesy telecaster' but I am in complete agreement! I always respected that The Beatles' guitar sounds never really fell into the cliches of the era (the horrible fuzz sound everybody had for a while around '66/'67) but this is one period where it was really egregious. It's matched only by John's bizarre 'jam' codas at the end of so many tunes where he wanders off to various keys.
Add in all the rancour, half assed renditions and their bedraggled appearance and you have the lowlight of their career. I think Let It Be should have been advertised with: 'A cringeworthy time is guaranteed for all'.