Comments on: The Beatles Yesterday and Today http://pubfrontier.com/2008/07/06/the-beatles-yesterday-and-today/ A raucous public discussion of the publishing revolution. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:07:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Personanondata http://pubfrontier.com/2008/07/06/the-beatles-yesterday-and-today/#comment-143 Personanondata Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:09:00 +0000 http://pubfrontier.com/?p=44#comment-143 Brian was a showman and promoter and no one would argue he perfected the early Beatles but he wasn't a businessman. In The Love You Make by Peter Brown, there is a scene where Brian meets with some business men to discuss merchandising The Beatles image and brand. The meeting has barely started when Brian blurts out "we can't accept anything less than 10%" and in so doing effectively eliminated any appreciable income The Beatles may have gained from this source for many years. Not owning their publishing rights can be explained given how the business worked at that time, but that error must rank as one of the worse decisions ever in Music. No telling what The Beatles could have received had Brian sought the expertise he lacked (or just kept his mouth shut) but even then it wouldn't have been outside the realm of possibility for them to have recieved royalties upwards of 75%. (I can't speak of the Dead; even free can't get me to listen to that music, but it is wonderful - maybe ironic - that their philosophy may become mainstream). Brian was a showman and promoter and no one would argue he perfected the early Beatles but he wasn’t a businessman. In The Love You Make by Peter Brown, there is a scene where Brian meets with some business men to discuss merchandising The Beatles image and brand. The meeting has barely started when Brian blurts out “we can’t accept anything less than 10%” and in so doing effectively eliminated any appreciable income The Beatles may have gained from this source for many years. Not owning their publishing rights can be explained given how the business worked at that time, but that error must rank as one of the worse decisions ever in Music. No telling what The Beatles could have received had Brian sought the expertise he lacked (or just kept his mouth shut) but even then it wouldn’t have been outside the realm of possibility for them to have recieved royalties upwards of 75%.

(I can’t speak of the Dead; even free can’t get me to listen to that music, but it is wonderful - maybe ironic - that their philosophy may become mainstream).

]]> By: mike furlough http://pubfrontier.com/2008/07/06/the-beatles-yesterday-and-today/#comment-134 mike furlough Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:19:00 +0000 http://pubfrontier.com/?p=44#comment-134 Artists certainly should be able to earn a living off their work—US copyright is there to promote the progress of the useful arts. With no money in the system, nobody hears or sees the work—artistic, scholarly, whatever. There are many ironies to this story. One is that Lennon and McCartney sold/lost the publishing rights to their songs decades ago. In this they are no different from many songwriters of the era, many of whom were ripped off in a much worse way. But they learned from Epstein well, and have always been businessmen just as much as artists. They do have control over their recordings, and these are still the major source of their income (although McCartney earns a good bit from the Buddy Holly songs he owns, as well as others. In the true spirit in which they were raised, they have jealously and zealously controlled those recordings. They are business creatures of their time, and they don’t seem to feel at home in a different business environment that has to contend with a remix culture. The remix culture grew out of and extends the recording culture that the Beatles helped to create. So far the remaining Beatles and their heirs (acting through Apple) have shown little trust for it. They don't appear to see a business case for how being a little looser with your content might actually benefit them. A New Yorker profile of McCartney last year depicted him to be confused and hesitant to accept the idea that you might actually give a song away to promote his new CD, but he went along. You could even get non-DRMs copies of his last album on eMusic. Of course, you still can’t buy mp3s of any Beatles song. DJ Danger Mouse created the Grey Album several years ago, remixing the vocals from Jay-Z's Black Album with a sliced and diced White Album serving as the musical backing. To my ears (and many others) it was brilliant and it gave me a way of hearing the White Album that sent me back to it again and again. I own a copy—didn’t have to buy one, like the kids. (It was also better than anything any of the Beatles have done since before John Lennon died, but I digress). Danger Mouse did not charge for the remixes—they went viral—but he did earn some artistic capital in the process. Jay-Z didn't complain: he had released the vocal only version of the Black Album for just this sort of thing. As for the Beatles, EMI issued a cease and desist on their behalf. It’s still out there if you look hard just a bit. Danger Mouse is one half of Gnarls Barkley. Artists certainly should be able to earn a living off their work—US copyright is there to promote the progress of the useful arts. With no money in the system, nobody hears or sees the work—artistic, scholarly, whatever.

There are many ironies to this story. One is that Lennon and McCartney sold/lost the publishing rights to their songs decades ago. In this they are no different from many songwriters of the era, many of whom were ripped off in a much worse way. But they learned from Epstein well, and have always been businessmen just as much as artists. They do have control over their recordings, and these are still the major source of their income (although McCartney earns a good bit from the Buddy Holly songs he owns, as well as others. In the true spirit in which they were raised, they have jealously and zealously controlled those recordings. They are business creatures of their time, and they don’t seem to feel at home in a different business environment that has to contend with a remix culture.

The remix culture grew out of and extends the recording culture that the Beatles helped to create. So far the remaining Beatles and their heirs (acting through Apple) have shown little trust for it. They don’t appear to see a business case for how being a little looser with your content might actually benefit them. A New Yorker profile of McCartney last year depicted him to be confused and hesitant to accept the idea that you might actually give a song away to promote his new CD, but he went along. You could even get non-DRMs copies of his last album on eMusic. Of course, you still can’t buy mp3s of any Beatles song.

DJ Danger Mouse created the Grey Album several years ago, remixing the vocals from Jay-Z’s Black Album with a sliced and diced White Album serving as the musical backing. To my ears (and many others) it was brilliant and it gave me a way of hearing the White Album that sent me back to it again and again. I own a copy—didn’t have to buy one, like the kids. (It was also better than anything any of the Beatles have done since before John Lennon died, but I digress). Danger Mouse did not charge for the remixes—they went viral—but he did earn some artistic capital in the process. Jay-Z didn’t complain: he had released the vocal only version of the Black Album for just this sort of thing. As for the Beatles, EMI issued a cease and desist on their behalf.

It’s still out there if you look hard just a bit. Danger Mouse is one half of Gnarls Barkley.

]]>