Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:02:15 AM:

Another Beatles book? Doesn't the world already know everything it possibly can about the Fab Four, from the nickname of their favorite Hamburg pill dealer to the mustache style of the cab driver who took George through the streets of Rishikesh?
Well... no. And as long as interest in the band continues to flower - and pass along to new generations - Ye Olde Beatles Bookshelf will continue to groan under the accumulated weight of its tomes. Beatles for Sale, though, is the first one to make a comprehensive study of the group through the prism of its finances. Publishing, record contracts, Apple, Inc., merchandising, management, movies and even their fan club are studied with an accountant's eye.

The result is actually not dry and pretty fascinating - mostly how the biggest group in the world, before or since, made blunders that even today's MySpace minions wouldn't fall for. You never give me your money? Not unless it's in the contract, baby.

Rocks Off spoke with Beatles for Sale author and all-around Fabs expert John Blaney (Lennon and McCartney: Together Alone - A Critical Discography of Their Solo Work) about a wide range of money matters that would make a Liverpool taxman orgasm with delight.


Rocks Off: With so many hundreds of books already written about the Beatles, what made you decide to concentrate on their financial life?

John Blaney: It's a fascinating aspect of The Beatles' story that's never been covered in-depth. Money is like sex. None of us think we are getting enough, and when a group like the Beatles comes along, we all want to know how much they're getting and what they do with it.

The fact that The Beatles could have been even richer is also intriguing. Where did it go? And when you look into their business deals, you realize how they were controlled by businessmen and lawyers from the word go. They didn't stand a chance.

RO: The Beatles made many bad business decisions that even a struggling band today would never make. Do you think it's because many of these areas for bands - publishing, merchandising - were relatively new at the time?

JB: To be fair, The Beatles didn't make the mistakes. Their manager, lawyers, and accountants made the mistakes because nobody, with the exception of Elvis Presley and the Disney Corporation, had ever done anything like this before.

The Beatles had to rely on advisors, who for the most part didn't appreciate just how much the group could earn. It wouldn't happen today, because everyone has learned from the mistakes made by
[manager Brian] Epstein and his advisors.



RO: Brian Epstein: how much "blame" should he really get for his bad or uninformed decisions?
JB: The buck stops with Epstein (right). He constantly said The Beatles were going to be bigger than Elvis, and yet he constantly undervalued the group. While it's true that he was breaking new ground with some of his business deals, a businessman would have fought for better deals than Epstein secured.

It's easy to blame him in hindsight, but contemporaries like Don Arden and Allen Klein would have cut better deals. But whether they would have been better for The Beatles is unlikely. If nothing else Epstein was honest, open and a gentleman.

RO: Epstein also signed away a shocking 90 percent of the Beatles' merchandising sales to the Seltaeb company. Is this his biggest blunder?

JB: It sounds like a massive blunder, but the real shocker is the fact that Lennon and McCartney ended up losing the rights to their own songs. The last time Sony/ATV, which owns Northern Songs, was valued, it was said to be worth $30 billion!

What they lost in merchandising is peanuts compared to what they lost in royalties when they lost control of Northern Songs. The merchandising bubble would have only lasted a few years at best, but the royalties from songwriting will keep pouring in for as long as their music lasts. And it looks like that is going to be a long time.



RO: I was surprised to find out that Paul McCartney only co-owns outright the publishing on two songs - "Love Me Do" and "P.S. I Love You". Do you think he's just resigned to this fact today, or does it still drive him that he could get the rights back?
JB: McCartney has said he's happy to sit back and wait, because in a few years, some of the rights revert back to him. Why he didn't buy ATV/Northern Songs when he had the chance [in 1981] is a mystery. He could have sold off ATV and effectively acquired Northern Songs for next to nothing. But he was adamant that he only wanted Northern Songs. Somebody else stepped in. and he lost the chance to buy back his "babies."
RO: What do you make personally about Northern Songs honcho Dick James not notifying the Beatles of the earlier original sale?
JB: Dick James had a pretty good hunch that without Epstein to guide them, the Beatles would split up - and he was right. However, the gentlemanly thing to have done was give them first refusal. That he went behind their backs says a lot. I think he was only interested in looking after himself. But how short-sighted he was.
Surely, he must have known that Lennon and McCartney's songs would continue to earn vast sums of money regardless of whether or not the Beatles were a working band. He's another example of what the Beatles were up against - the fast buck rather then long term investment. But that was the nature of the music business at the time.
RO: You mention that the Beatles sold more records in 1996 than in any other year up until then. There is only a finite amount of material that can be packaged and repackaged. What are your thoughts on that?



JB: I think Apple has done a good job, so far. But in my opinion, they seem to be struggling to give the fans what they want. The Love project was a real disappointment. I'd rather hear the 20-minute version of "Helter Skelter," no matter how bad it is, or "Carnival of Light," than an uninspired Giles Martin remix of "Because."
I think the release of the re-mastered albums, whether on CD or as downloads, will be the last big push from Apple. I really can't see the Beatles topping the 1996 sales figure ever again. The market is changing, their audience is getting older, and there's only so many times you can get people to pay for something they already own.
RO: Any other comments?
JB: This is a story that will run and run. Beatles for Sale only scratches the surface. We will never know the whole story, because too many interested parties want to keep it secret, and who can blame them? John Lennon was right, the Beatles made a lot of people millionaires. The group probably still generates more money than some Third World countries, and nobody wants to harm the golden goose.
And that includes people like me who have made money from them. It's an irony that's not lost on me, I can assure you! - Bob Ruggiero

Beatles for Sale: How Everything They Touched Turned into Gold, by John Blaney. Jaw Bone Press, 288 pp., $19.95.

http://blogs.houstonpress..._by_jo.php
[Edited 12/2/08 13:04pm]
[Edited 12/6/08 9:46am]

I dont think the well is empty as far as what can be released and "cashed in" on so to speak. There is alot from their last album "abbey road" that is laying around, from recordings to photos to footage. But my feeling is they are waiting for the 40th anniversary or possibly 50th of that record.

As much as people have made off of them, the Beatles themselves were not dumb, they did get "their houses in order" towards the final days of the group and afterwards.

lastdecember said:

I still think for Paul to wait around and NOT pursue ATV in 1981 was one of the most stupidest mistakes he ever done.

JB: McCartney has said he's happy to sit back and wait, because in a few years, some of the rights revert back to him. Why he didn't buy ATV/Northern Songs when he had the chance [in 1981] is a mystery. He could have sold off ATV and effectively acquired Northern Songs for next to nothing. But he was adamant that he only wanted Northern Songs. Somebody else stepped in. and he lost the chance to buy back his "babies."


Am I allowed to say that somebody is MJ? If so, I have read that this topic is the reason that McCartney and MJ broke their friendship. I believe that he had a chance to buy the full catalogue and blew it. Now MJ is sitting pretty on a $30 billion catalogue, which of course may have cost him his career, I cannot say. Is MJ really broke?

angel345 said:

Shh. Do you wanna ruin a secret everybody knows already? But to answer the broke question. No, but he's in debt though. He's richer than rich but I think he has had cash flow problems. Of course that's not as tabloidish as saying the dude's fucking broke.
[Edited 12/2/08 14:11pm]

"The last time Sony/ATV, which owns Northern Songs, was valued, it was said to be worth $30 billion!"

maybe I'm wrong, but that doesn't read the same to me as the Beatles stuff alone being worth 30 billion.

angel345 said:

They were cool after Michael bought it. It wasn't until 1987 or '88 when their friendship ended

NDRU said:

It doesn't. ATV has the Acuff-Rose and Famous Music catalogs. When MJ bought the ATV catalog in 1984, it was well around $30 million if I'm not mistaken and MJ got it for $47 mill.

NDRU said:

well MJ owns half of ATV itself. sony owns the rest, and has been trying to buy his half from him. but obviously mj is not going to sell it is he?
so therefore, it does not make sense he can be broke if these songs are still making money.

dirtyman2005 said:

Im curious what he still owns and doesnt own and when certain things/rights are up, because certain things revert back to McCartney very soon, and to lennon. This reminds of Prince's 125 miilion dollar WB deal back in 1993, and the ensuing issues with WB during 1993-96 and Prince selling things off and buying his way out, in the end, that 7 album deal he signed for 7 years in 1992 for 125 million, turned into a 20 million deal in the end.

Timmy84 said:

There are no losers in this for McCartney's net worth from my understanding has reached the billon dollar mark. His ex-wife left with pocket change (about 20 million). Harrison left this world with hoardes of money and a big mansion castle. The Beatles did very well, not the way they've expected, but they're not crying broke.

bboy87 said:

Do you know what caused the friendship to end?

angel345 said:

angel345 said:

Not to mention actually being the creators of the music has to feel pretty good, assuming you're not actually broke. Between McCartney & MJ, I know who I'd rather be!

NDRU said:

Yes, MJ's cash flow may be limited, but if he sold his shares of the Beatles catalogue,and he refuses, his net worth would far surpass McCarthy's. His catalogue works just like a CD, draw it out and it lose interest. At least he doesn't have to pay the penalty.

angel345 said:

true, but once you reach a certain level of wealth it hardly matters to a poor guy like me. I look at the two and Paul McCartney looks to have had a very enviable life. I would not want to be Mike.

Timmy84 said:

Could you elaborate more on it? What does Nike have to do with it all? I wish I knew.

angel345 said:

They used the song Revolution in an ad, not just the song, but the actual Beatles recording. Someone fucked up because that's not part of owning the publishing rights and they got in trouble for it.
[Edited 12/3/08 10:41am]

NDRU said:

Yeah, I understand.

why he dissin on the Love album? I thought that was pretty inspiring stuff.. It was a refreshing dip into soundscapes that are tattooed in our memory. It might be a novelty item compared to the original albums, but none the less it's a fantastic addition to any Beatle lovers catalog.

NDRU said:

Yeah Macca claimed Michael and his people used it without asking Paul or members of John's family to use the actual recording so Mike got hell for it.

Timmy84 said:

There's more to it that just asking permission ... one of McCartney's main gripes is that a song like Revolution -- with it's anti-war sentiment and political leanings -- was used to sell gym shoes. The song means too much to be commercialized like that.

Prince would be upset too if Purple Rain was used to sell grape Gatorade.
[Edited 12/3/08 14:52pm]

Se7en said:

Yeah that too. I knew I forgot something.

Se7en said:

true, but it really is about permission, too. The beatles recordings haven't ever been licensed to anything, not movies or TV, and definitely not commercials.

NDRU said:

MJ is a silly ass...that guys damaged everything he's touched including his face...you think by now ...he's ya 50 he would have some control of his life? He can't even get a record out or get a concert tour sorted WTF? ...he not broke yet...he has money all over the shop...thats why he takes the pi$$ living on remix after remix ...cover after cover and sample royalties very sad ...he where's the tribute to james brown...er..

LondonStyle said:

you mad or somethin'?

When I heard the Beatle's version of "Come Together", it did seem like it had a revolutionary and warlike feel to it. I saw MJ's video movie "Moonwalker" many years ago and his version was more upbeat,and rock. I've also remember being shocked by his transition from "Thriller" to "Bad". He's always changing.