Del Boy
Moderator
Posts: 9,899
Online Status:
|
Post by Del Boy on Nov 18, 2021 12:34:16 GMT
Both those artists 80s output never hit the heights of the years you mentioned. The 80s was a fallow period for some very big names in the business. Paul McCartney is a good example. Two good singles over the decade was a huge slide from his previous output. Having dealings with Heather Mills might have had some bearing on that.
I heard him on Radio 2, interviewed by Ken Bruce - must be around 2005/6ish. He mentioned that he had just managed to secure a better royalties deal - as he felt he had been getting shafted by record labels for most of his career. Ken Bruce asked him - cheekily, just how good the new deal was. Paul told Ken that he was over the moon as he had won his case for a huge increase to - 7%.
So - what the hell was he on before this; and if it was something like 3 or 4% - how many records has he had to sell to make the cash he had back then...
It surprised me as I assumed he was on something like 25%, and had increased to something like 40%..... So the other 93% ends up elsewhere.
Most of the sixties band went down this route after being ripped off. As you say the early contracts still effect a lot of those guys in this day and age. Paul makes more from his stuff post Beatles because he set up his own company that controls all the rights (MPL Communications). Beatles stuff on Apple pays them more than the northern songs stuff I think ? and certainly post 1987 cd reissues. I bet Steve Austin would know more.
|
|
Sparky
Producer
Status? Would that be Credit or in Society?
Posts: 2,784
Online Status:
|
Post by Sparky on Nov 18, 2021 12:46:22 GMT
Having dealings with Heather Mills might have had some bearing on that.
I heard him on Radio 2, interviewed by Ken Bruce - must be around 2005/6ish. He mentioned that he had just managed to secure a better royalties deal - as he felt he had been getting shafted by record labels for most of his career. Ken Bruce asked him - cheekily, just how good the new deal was. Paul told Ken that he was over the moon as he had won his case for a huge increase to - 7%.
So - what the hell was he on before this; and if it was something like 3 or 4% - how many records has he had to sell to make the cash he had back then...
It surprised me as I assumed he was on something like 25%, and had increased to something like 40%..... So the other 93% ends up elsewhere.
Most of the sixties band went down this route after being ripped off. As you say the early contracts still effect a lot of those guys in this day and age. Paul makes more from his stuff post Beatles because he set up his own company that controls all the rights (MPL Communications). Beatles stuff on Apple pays them more than the northern songs stuff I think ? and certainly post 1987 cd reissues. I bet Steve Austin would know more. It's been said that if you had a guitar in the 60s you'd get a record contract. Especially after the Beatles hit the big time. Of course with the gleam in their eyes, kids would sign any contract, just in case they might just end up on "Top of the Pops".
|
|
Cartman
Producer
Posts: 4,022
Online Status:
|
Post by Cartman on Nov 26, 2021 21:58:58 GMT
I've never been a Beatles fan at all, but strangely, I do like some of the songs that the four individuals did on their own after they broke up.
|
|
Lord Emsworth
Director
Drive safely, we're walking or cycling...
Posts: 1,430
Online Status:
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Nov 30, 2021 10:44:05 GMT
I've never been a Beatles fan at all, but strangely, I do like some of the songs that the four individuals did on their own after they broke up. Wow
How odd
It's not like the music sounds that different
A lot of the early solo stuff was written for The Beatles especially on George's All Things Must Pass LP. J&P usually restricted him to a couple of tracks per Beatles album so he must have been v gratified when the album sold gazillions
|
|
Cartman
Producer
Posts: 4,022
Online Status:
|
Post by Cartman on Nov 30, 2021 15:31:15 GMT
I've just never been able to get into them at all. They were a bit before my time, the 70s was my era, but among 60s stuff, I prefer the Stones. The Beatles did a couple which I thought were ok, Eleanor Rigby is my favourite of theirs, but overall I can very much take or leave them.
|
|
Del Boy
Moderator
Posts: 9,899
Online Status:
|
Post by Del Boy on Nov 30, 2021 15:47:13 GMT
The four did some good stuff after The Beatles. I don't think any hit the heights of the collective though. John and George made the best post Beatles albums and Paul and Ringo both had great singles. McCartney for example isn't very good apart from one great track. The Wings albums are pretty much the same. George owns the 80s with his Cloud Nine album and collab with the Wilburys.
|
|
Cartman
Producer
Posts: 4,022
Online Status:
|
Post by Cartman on Nov 30, 2021 21:58:12 GMT
Both Lennon and McCartney I thought were very variable in their subsequent careers, some excellent stuff, some not so good, dreadful in one of two instances from Paul.
|
|
Del Boy
Moderator
Posts: 9,899
Online Status:
|
Post by Del Boy on Dec 21, 2021 12:28:59 GMT
Both Lennon and McCartney I thought were very variable in their subsequent careers, some excellent stuff, some not so good, dreadful in one of two instances from Paul. Spot on Carty. Such a shame we lost John. His Double Fantasy album was nowhere near as good as Imagine but I feel John would have wrote a few more hits in the 80s.
|
|
Three Litre
Producer
Oscar 24
Posts: 3,418
Online Status:
|
Post by Three Litre on Dec 21, 2021 13:29:26 GMT
Both Lennon and McCartney I thought were very variable in their subsequent careers, some excellent stuff, some not so good, dreadful in one of two instances from Paul. Spot on Carty. Such a shame we lost John. His Double Fantasy album was nowhere near as good as Imagine but I feel John would have wrote a few more hits in the 80s. I often wonder what Live Aid would have been like if John hadn't died, surely The Beatles would have been there.
|
|