5 ms·

The Beatles were/are a band, but someone still controls who is in the band as band members can (and often do) change. At the moment the people that control the

by ratg13 3y ago

The Beatles were/are a band, but someone still controls who is in the band as band members can (and often do) change. At the moment the people that control the band are Paul McCartney and Sony. So, the "Beatles" and whatever the band comprises is whatever Paul wants it to be, not what you want it to be.

coldtea 3y ago
>The Beatles were/are a band, but someone still controls who is in the band as band members can (and often do) change. Yes. And when they do so, it's a hijacking of the original band's name. Which can be legally fine, but dubious as to the original spirit. Of course some bands are just a figurehead (or two) plus a replacable roster of members that are just hired guns. These remain the same band throught changes, because they were never about those other persons. But the Beatles weren't that with regards to John and George. Even more so when it's 53 years (over a century) after the band called it quits. Even more so when they are using, without the persons' permission, a demo song by a member who died 40+ years ago, who wrote it for their own solo use, as "the band's". >At the moment the people that control the band are Paul McCartney and Sony. So, the "Beatles" and whatever the band comprises is whatever Paul wants it to be, not what you want it to be. Irrelevant. We're talking about music and legacy, not trademarks and contract law. If that's your criteria for whether a song is a Beatles songs, that's a pretty law bar. Hell, they might even sell the rights to the name and some Max Martin type in 2100 might put out new music as "The Beatles", having proper rights and everything. Even use snippets of the old songs. Doesn't mean that has anything to do with Beatles the band. It's just greedy music industry looking for quick bucks pissing all over a legacy.
- ratg13 3y ago
  So people like John and George are “The Beatles” but people like Pete Best are not, because of some arbitrary attachment you have to them personally. I mean I get it, but you shouldn’t try and force your personal paradigm on others.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >So people like John and George are “The Beatles” but people like Pete Best are not Yes. >because of some arbitrary attachment you have to them personally No, because those (Best and Stuart) aren't the persons that wrote and played the Beatles seminal songs and albums, or that billions of people identified as the Beatles during their recording career. Best is just a member from when they were a small time cover band, that was sacked before they made anything of importance, and who didn't contribute anything to their music or their sound, and zero album songs. You could remove everything they did with Best and you'll still have their discography intact, including all their seminal songs. Try doing that without the other four. That's the very opposite of "arbitrary attachment"... >I mean I get it Nah, you clearly don't.

by ratg13 3y ago

coldtea 3y ago

>The Beatles were/are a band, but someone still controls who is in the band as band members can (and often do) change. Yes. And when they do so, it's a hijacking of the original band's name. Which can be legally fine, but dubious as to the original spirit. Of course some bands are just a figurehead (or two) plus a replacable roster of members that are just hired guns. These remain the same band throught changes, because they were never about those other persons. But the Beatles weren't that with regards to John and George. Even more so when it's 53 years (over a century) after the band called it quits. Even more so when they are using, without the persons' permission, a demo song by a member who died 40+ years ago, who wrote it for their own solo use, as "the band's". >At the moment the people that control the band are Paul McCartney and Sony. So, the "Beatles" and whatever the band comprises is whatever Paul wants it to be, not what you want it to be. Irrelevant. We're talking about music and legacy, not trademarks and contract law. If that's your criteria for whether a song is a Beatles songs, that's a pretty law bar. Hell, they might even sell the rights to the name and some Max Martin type in 2100 might put out new music as "The Beatles", having proper rights and everything. Even use snippets of the old songs. Doesn't mean that has anything to do with Beatles the band. It's just greedy music industry looking for quick bucks pissing all over a legacy.

ratg13 3y ago
So people like John and George are “The Beatles” but people like Pete Best are not, because of some arbitrary attachment you have to them personally. I mean I get it, but you shouldn’t try and force your personal paradigm on others.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >So people like John and George are “The Beatles” but people like Pete Best are not Yes. >because of some arbitrary attachment you have to them personally No, because those (Best and Stuart) aren't the persons that wrote and played the Beatles seminal songs and albums, or that billions of people identified as the Beatles during their recording career. Best is just a member from when they were a small time cover band, that was sacked before they made anything of importance, and who didn't contribute anything to their music or their sound, and zero album songs. You could remove everything they did with Best and you'll still have their discography intact, including all their seminal songs. Try doing that without the other four. That's the very opposite of "arbitrary attachment"... >I mean I get it Nah, you clearly don't.