Re:How McCartney and Lennon Lost Ownership of the Beatles Ca...
by mgkimsal on Monday January 04, 2016 @02:45PM
(#10837974)
> Why should he hand Yoko, who is swimming in money, $20m of his own? Because of some unrealistic gentleman generosity that only exists in Jane Austin novels?
To get (or recover) something of business and sentimental value and have it 'in the family' so to speak. Paul's no dummy, and understood the long term value of publishing rights for music from decades earlier. Could he have predicted digital music? No, but regardless of music format, the Beatles were (even by the 80s) an extremely unique entertainment entity, and weren't going away.
It was a decent amount for either/both of them, but wouldn't have bankrupted either of them. It actually seemed more of a struggle for Jackson to pull things together to make his acquisition happen than it might have been for Paul.
> some unrealistic gentleman generosity
L&M seemed to do just fine with a gentleman's agreement between them for several years re: songwriting splits.
To get (or recover) something of business and sentimental value and have it 'in the family' so to speak. Paul's no dummy, and understood the long term value of publishing rights for music from decades earlier. Could he have predicted digital music? No, but regardless of music format, the Beatles were (even by the 80s) an extremely unique entertainment entity, and weren't going away.
It was a decent amount for either/both of them, but wouldn't have bankrupted either of them. It actually seemed more of a struggle for Jackson to pull things together to make his acquisition happen than it might have been for Paul.
> some unrealistic gentleman generosity
L&M seemed to do just fine with a gentleman's agreement between them for several years re: songwriting splits.