Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Buttmunker]

Seems that bands, if unanimous, can kick out a founding member if the feeling arises - it was done with Brian Jones (Rolling Stones), and it was done with Dave Mustaine (Metallica), and even the Beatles with Pete Best (although he wasn't a "founding member").

Let's say that Macca was just at odds with everybody, and Lennon, Harrison, and Starr all got along and wanted to continue as a threesome, could they have ordered Paul McCartney out of the band?

(And I don't just mean this towards Macca, I'm just using him as an example.)

[Klang]

Depends on when, I'd say. If you're thinking towards the end, I just don't see it. They were seen as a solid foursome by the public, and what about all those contractual arrangements? Jeez, what a hornet's nest.

 :-/

[BlueMeanie]

As far as I see it, they all equally owned the rights to The Beatles, and Apple. If Paul had been kicked out (and I can't even see the point of the question in the first place), he'd have prevented them from releasing anything, or performing under the name 'The Beatles'.

[wingsman]

... could they have ordered Paul McCartney out of the band?

I really don't think so. Could you imagine Rolling Stones withouth Richards or Jagger? No. Well, it's the same here. Or even bigger. Because Paul was, in the last years of the Beatles, the driving force of the band.

[tkitna]

BlueMeanie said it correctly. They could have kicked him out, but they would have never been allowed to record under the Beatles name again.

Seems that bands, if unanimous, can kick out a founding member if the feeling arises - it was done with Brian Jones (Rolling Stones), and it was done with Dave Mustaine (Metallica), and even the Beatles with Pete Best (although he wasn't a "founding member").

Let's say that Macca was just at odds with everybody, and Lennon, Harrison, and Starr all got along and wanted to continue as a threesome, could they have ordered Paul McCartney out of the band?

(And I don't just mean this towards Macca, I'm just using him as an example.)

yes but if they had kicked him out, what's the bet Lennon, Harrison & Starr would've been too chicken sh*t to tell him themselves--just like they did to Best--they asked poor George Martin do their dirty work LOL (this is the ONLY incident that I didnt respect the Beatles for how they handled something...(IMO)--AT LEAST JAGGER & RICHARDS WENT OVER TO BRIAN'S HOUSE TO TELL HIM "YOU'RE OUT, MATE" (but then Brian--who I loved dearly--was a forlorn drug addict by then so how can Mick & Keith really be blamed ? ...(once again, IMO)

[Buttmunker]

yes but if they had kicked him out, what's the bet Lennon, Harrison & Starr would've been too chicken sh*t to tell him themselves--just like they did to Best--they asked poor George Martin do their dirty work LOL (this is the ONLY incident that I didnt respect the Beatles for how they handled something...(IMO)--AT LEAST JAGGER & RICHARDS WENT OVER TO BRIAN'S HOUSE TO TELL HIM "YOU'RE OUT, MATE" (but then Brian--who I loved dearly--was a forlorn drug addict by then so how can Mick & Keith really be blamed ? ...(once again, IMO)

But, and this is the part I don't get, Brian Jones formed the Rolling Stones.  He chose Richards (who was drinking a pint at the bar at the time), and he chose Jagger, and he named the band, and he signed contracts and such.  Of course, through 1963 to 1969, Jagger and Richards emerged as the leaders of the group because they wrote the songs.  What's strange is that, on the album covers, Brian Jones is always the focal point - he's always in front, while the rest of the group is hiding in the back.  Anyway, couldn't Jones have told them to continue under a different name, since he was committed to the group contractually?  If Paul McCartney could, why couldn't Brian Jones?

Now.  As I said before, I only used McCartney as an example.  What about if the example was GEORGE HARRISON.  I read in Geoff Emerick's book that George Harrison wasn't a very good lead guitarist, and that they really had to work with him to get it right.  What if, in 1965/66, they decided to give Harrison the boot?  The answer, I think, would be YES, because Harrison wasn't the main songwriter, and really had no "clout" to protect himself.  Same can be said about Ringo.

But I guess that's all pretty obvious.  The real question is about McCartney and John Lennon.  Could either of those two been kicked out, if it was three against one.

[BlueMeanie]

Now.  As I said before, I only used McCartney as an example.  What about if the example was GEORGE HARRISON.  I read in Geoff Emerick's book that George Harrison wasn't a very good lead guitarist, and that they really had to work with him to get it right.  What if, in 1965/66, they decided to give Harrison the boot?  The answer, I think, would be YES, because Harrison wasn't the main songwriter, and really had no "clout" to protect himself.  Same can be said about Ringo.

In 65/66 it would have been easier, but by '68 they were all legally tied in to the monster that was Apple. Hence all the years of legal wrangling after the split. Either one of them could have prevented the rest from working under the 'The Beatles', if they'd wanted to. Look what happened to Yes in the late '80's. Suddenly there were 2 bands, one based in America, fronted by Chris Squire, the other in the UK. Squire owned the rights to the name, hence the band in England had to go under the rather catchy name of: Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman, Howe, and bill their gigs as 'an evening of Yes music'!!

[CleanOldMan]

They were seen as a solid foursome by the public

Sometimes public opinion just isn't enough. They kicked out Pete Best. Guess what the public said? "RINGO NEVER!! PETE BEST FOREVER!!"
They went along with it regardless.

[Kevin]

But, and this is the part I don't get, Brian Jones formed the Rolling Stones.  He chose Richards (who was drinking a pint at the bar at the time), and he chose Jagger, and he named the band, and he signed contracts and such.  Of course, through 1963 to 1969, Jagger and Richards emerged as the leaders of the group because they wrote the songs.  What's strange is that, on the album covers, Brian Jones is always the focal point - he's always in front, while the rest of the group is hiding in the back.  Anyway, couldn't Jones have told them to continue under a different name, since he was committed to the group contractually?  If Paul McCartney could, why couldn't Brian Jones?

Isn't the answer as simple as Jones had lost control of the group. He might have been at the front of photo shots - he was the best looking one - but musically he'd been sidelined, was ruined with drugs and couldn't tour america. He became a liability, McCartney never stopped being an asset. Maybe a more alert and savvy Jones could have hired a lawyer and put up a fight. But the real Brian was sitting at home, smacked off his nut and swimming with the builders.
Pink Floyd dumped Syd Barrett. Sabbath dumped Ozzie. There's probably more examples.

[fendertele]

But, and this is the part I don't get, Brian Jones formed the Rolling Stones.  He chose Richards (who was drinking a pint at the bar at the time), and he chose Jagger, and he named the band, and he signed contracts and such.  Of course, through 1963 to 1969, Jagger and Richards emerged as the leaders of the group because they wrote the songs.  What's strange is that, on the album covers, Brian Jones is always the focal point - he's always in front, while the rest of the group is hiding in the back.  Anyway, couldn't Jones have told them to continue under a different name, since he was committed to the group contractually?  If Paul McCartney could, why couldn't Brian Jones?

Now.  As I said before, I only used McCartney as an example.  What about if the example was GEORGE HARRISON.  I read in Geoff Emerick's book that George Harrison wasn't a very good lead guitarist, and that they really had to work with him to get it right.  What if, in 1965/66, they decided to give Harrison the boot?  The answer, I think, would be YES, because Harrison wasn't the main songwriter, and really had no "clout" to protect himself.  Same can be said about Ringo.

But I guess that's all pretty obvious.  The real question is about McCartney and John Lennon.  Could either of those two been kicked out, if it was three against one.

yeah but Brian Jones would probably have been in breach of his contract which would have basically have that he had to show up to practices and contribute to recordings and generally just do more with the band.

in the harrison case  theres one thing not being the best at youre job but if youre  punctual on time and generally are well kept it would be harder  to sack you if you worked to a competant level.

but if you were always off never called in, and when you did show up were falling alseep at work and generally out youre face, that would be a sackable offense for bad misconduct ?.

[fendertele]

But, and this is the part I don't get, Brian Jones formed the Rolling Stones.  He chose Richards (who was drinking a pint at the bar at the time), and he chose Jagger, and he named the band, and he signed contracts and such.  Of course, through 1963 to 1969, Jagger and Richards emerged as the leaders of the group because they wrote the songs.  What's strange is that, on the album covers, Brian Jones is always the focal point - he's always in front, while the rest of the group is hiding in the back.  Anyway, couldn't Jones have told them to continue under a different name, since he was committed to the group contractually?  If Paul McCartney could, why couldn't Brian Jones?

Now.  As I said before, I only used McCartney as an example.  What about if the example was GEORGE HARRISON.  I read in Geoff Emerick's book that George Harrison wasn't a very good lead guitarist, and that they really had to work with him to get it right.  What if, in 1965/66, they decided to give Harrison the boot?  The answer, I think, would be YES, because Harrison wasn't the main songwriter, and really had no "clout" to protect himself.  Same can be said about Ringo.

But I guess that's all pretty obvious.  The real question is about McCartney and John Lennon.  Could either of those two been kicked out, if it was three against one.

But the sacking of best would have been a hell of a lot harder to do than the sacking of jones.

Jagger/Richards were well within the rights to sack brian, they had formed a band together and gradually watched him change from the man he was to what he became he was no longer showing up for practice and was really disconnected from the the band/world

the beatles had it a lot harder its one thing sacking someone who deserves it but sacking someone purely on there talent must be horrible especially if theyre commited and love there job to the point they practice all the time, the look on the persons face would be horrible to witness especially if they were completly in love with being in the band and did everythign else right only to be let down by there lack of talent which is something they cant control either got it or dont.

[bobbydylanlover]

I couldn't picture them kicking Paul out earlier than the LIB era
Watching that film- he seems very commanding, hard to deal with
If the Beatles had stayed together much longer than LIB
I wouldn't have doubted seeing Macca be kicked out

But thats just me

[pc31]

if paul left the group,it would fizzle very quickly afterwards....paul was always the DRIVE in the band....noone pushed harder than paul....it would be like art garfunkel trying to exsist without paul simon after their split...no way.....or how about ian anderson leaving tull??

[walrusgumboot]

Those of us old enough enough to remember and who lived through this ( creak creak) will probably remember that there was a serious suggestion for The

 Beatles to continue, with Klaus Voorman om Bass and Billy Preston on keyboards...seems strange 40 years on but it

really couldn't have been any worse than some of the early solo stuff.


     Walrus

[BlueMeanie]

Those of us old enough enough to remember and who lived through this ( creak creak) will probably remember that there was a serious suggestion for The Beatles to continue, with Klaus Voorman om Bass and Billy Preston on keyboards...seems strange 40 years on but it really couldn't have been any worse than some of the early solo stuff.

I remember that. And I thought my mind was playing tricks with me! I also remember very vaguely something about Jim Keltner replacing Ringo.

[An Apple Beatle]

Those of us old enough enough to remember and who lived through this ( creak creak) will probably remember that there was a serious suggestion for The

 Beatles to continue, with Klaus Voorman om Bass and Billy Preston on keyboards...seems strange 40 years on but it

really couldn't have been any worse than some of the early solo stuff.


     Walrus

Thats a very interesting theory. I have always harboured a wish that the Beatles cotinued with Preston.

[Bobber]

I'm pretty sure the suggestion was not made by The Beatles themselves. Probably some journalist trying to add fuel to the fire that hardly burnt.

[Kevin]

I remember that. And I thought my mind was playing tricks with me! I also remember very vaguely something about Jim Keltner replacing Ringo.

Yes I remember this - but as Bobber said I'm pretty sure it was more journalistic guessing than anything the band themselves said. Are we all remembering this from the book "The Beatles Illustrated Record"? ( though thinking about this I think they suggested Nicky Hopkins for the keyboard role)
Either way, I find the prospect of The Beatles dominated by Angry John and Sanctimonious George a gloomy prospect indeed. (just as a Chirpy Paul band was never quite the same).

[BlueMeanie]

Yes I remember this - but as Bobber said I'm pretty sure it was more journalistic guessing than anything the band themselves said.

More than likely. But I can't imagine how on earth they would have come up with Keltner? Where was the connection?