|
|
Post by TTTM on Jan 19, 2004 19:51:15 GMT
This question has probably been answered a thousand times before, but why did they need to replace Brian? No one commited suicide when Frian died.
|
|
|
|
Post by LUCY on Jan 19, 2004 23:42:12 GMT
This question has probably been answered a thousand times before, but why did they need to replace Brian? No one commited suicide when Frian died. professional jealously, for starts......contract negoiations.....ever look into emi history? |
|
|
|
Post by HerMajesty on Jan 19, 2004 23:44:56 GMT
probably true lucy, they still needed a hand to sign contracts.. sounds like a good reason to replace him
|
|
|
|
Post by TTTM on Jan 19, 2004 23:54:03 GMT
probably true lucy, they still needed a hand to sign contracts.. sounds like a good reason to replace him But who signed the contracts after Frian died? |
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Jan 20, 2004 0:19:58 GMT
They had to cover up the whole death scene, which meant covering up the death of Brian.
They couldn't exactly hold an inquest on Epstein when half the witnesses would say "Also, Paul McCartney's decapitated corpse was there."
|
|
|
|
Post by TTTM on Jan 20, 2004 0:21:37 GMT
Well, they could have said that he died in a car crash, and given fake details.
|
|
|
|
Post by HerMajesty on Jan 20, 2004 1:23:42 GMT
It wouldn't have worked. to admit to brians death then would have been giving up the control on the beatles, someone still had to make decisions.. sign contracts... too much at stake handing that over to a bunch of lads from liverpool
|
|
|
|
Post by TTTM on Jan 20, 2004 1:25:31 GMT
It wouldn't have worked. to admit to brians death then Then why did it work 2 years later? |
|
|
|
Post by HerMajesty on Jan 20, 2004 1:28:10 GMT
good question.. two years later all the money was already tied up and the boys were committed to certain contracts
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Jan 21, 2004 7:55:36 GMT
OK, this from the Yuck's digest:
Apple Logos Dispute Settled
LONDON (AP)
A multimillion dollar trademark battle between Apple Computer Inc.
and the Beatles' Apple Corps holding company over their similar
corporate logos has ended with an out-of-court settlement.
Apple Corps, formed by the Beatles in 1963 to manage their music
rights, accused Apple Computer of violating a 1981 agreement by using
its apple logo on music-synthesizing equipment.
Apple Computer's logo features a horizontally striped apple with a
bite out of it and a leaf on top, while the Apple Corp logo is an
apple with a stalk on top.
The two-year-old dispute centered on Apple Computer's musical
instrument digital interface or Midi. Apple Corps contended the
personal computer maker had agreed to use the apple logo only on
computer equipment in order to avoid interfering with the British
company's music business.
Gordon Pollock, a lawyer for Apple Corps, said in the High Court
on Friday that the companies had reached an amicable settlement.
Apple Corps sued Apple Computer in the court last Oct. 29.
"It has been a long, hard road," Pollock said. He said the terms
of the settlement were confidential.
The San Francisco Chronicle cited one report that it said called
for Apple Computer to pay $29 million. The newspaper did not reveal
the source of the report.
Apple Computer, based in Cupertino, Calif., disclosed in July that
it had put about $38 million in reserve to settle the litigation.
Apple Corps is owned by the three surviving members of the Beatles
Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr and by the estate
of John Lennon, who was shot to death in New York in December 1980.
London news reports said the case cost the two companies an
estimated 7 million pounds ($11.9 million) in lawyers' fees and other
costs.
Apple Corps was asking for a worldwide ban on the use of the Apple
Computer logo on music-synthesizing equipment designed by Apple
Computer.
Lawyers for Apple Computer argued that the agreement was
unenforceable and that Apple Corps' claim violated the 1957 Treaty of
Rome that set up the European Common Market.
[Still no word on the use of the number 9. --spaf]
Formed in 1963? Not 1968? When was Apple formed? Did Brian ever know this Apple? Wasn't it Northern songs?
Without a live concert aspect to their careers, of what use was Brian to the Beatles after Sept 1966? (I ask rhetorically.) Why would Brian ever have permitted it? He managed their performances, and touring. EMI already had them locked in, if not on paper, somehow. After the initial contract, what participation into the Beatles' EMI/recording issues would Brian have had?
He goes from up-front wheeler dealer, to entrepreneur in the shadows.................ooh----WEEEEE---oooooh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Jan 21, 2004 8:05:54 GMT
This question has probably been answered a thousand times before, but why did they need to replace Brian? No one commited suicide when Frian died. If they announced to the world that the main man who promoted and controlled the Beatles (initially) was dead, there would have been scads of snoopers and opportunists getting up in there face for information, and a play at getting the Beatles to sign with them. There coud not be ANY new manager not in the loop. Any new manager of the Beatles would INSIST upon them performing live. If they had left themselves open to the possibility of being courted by American managers, other British managers, managers on a world class scale, like Sol Hurok, THEY WOULD have to be turned down. This would raise questions. If you bought the METS, wouldn't they have to play games? You'd have to tell your new manager everything. This would pose problems. If Colonel Parker had been murdered during Elvis's early career, wouldn't the press have dug and dug even it hurt Elvis's carreer? If there was another secret to be hidden, you can't have everything under scrutiny by the blabby press. (Of course, then the CIAFBINSA cold have created Col. Farker...... Or Folonel(?)Parker, but that's tricky to pronounce.) If you bought the Beatles, wouldn't they have to tour? How many other bands in the 60's could make it NEVER touring? Huh? Old bands, or start-up bands? Ok, Ok, the Archies and "Sugar, Sugar,". One song. And how could they have a face to face meeting with the four most famous faces in the world and not knit their brow at Paul circa 1966? In October 1966, how would four Beatles have met a new manager? With bandages on the face? And how do they explain that? How do you keep it inside and bring in outside people? Why didn't Major Healey ever tell Dr. Bellows about Jeanie? I ask you, people! |
|
