THE BEATLES and ALLEN KLEIN: the whole story!

[@c.syde65]

I don't care what good things people have to say about Allen Klein. Regardless of his upbringing, that doesn't stop him from being a bad person. When he wanted to manage The Beatles, he only wanted to do so for his own benefits and as proven by John Lennon and George Harrison's experiences with him, he would backstab any of the people he managed in a second if it meant trying to preserve any benefits that were rightfully theirs, or if it meant punishing the people who betrayed him. The fact that he tried to influence the outcome of John's arrangement with music publisher Morris Levy regarding an alleged copyright infringement (of the Chuck Berry song 'You Can't Catch Me') in John's 1969 Beatles composition 'Come Together'. And the fact that he purchased Bright Tunes in the hopes of continuing to profit off of George who had been sued for copyright infringement pretty much confirms this. The only good thing he did that I can name right off the bat is compile The Beatles' _1962-1966_ and _1967-1970_ albums.

[@SimonMas]

believe me: i've been thinking all day to sum up all the things i want to reply. i'll try to be short, but i might not be. for a start, if you really don't care about what people say about klein, there's no point in any discussion. i've decided to write anyway, because while you might not care about him, you might care about the reasons why people (like me) don't just trash him. i can't vouch for anyone but myself, so i'll just talk about me, although i wouldn't be surprised to see other people share my approach or view. in the three videos i have made about allen klein, i've tried to present the viewers with a balanced view about the man. his strong points, what he did well, his genius, AND his wrongdoings and shortcomings. i can't remember if i said it in this video, but i've certainly said it in the comments: i think the only reason why klein didn't screw the beatles up was that the beatles had already collapsed onto themselves by the time he was in the position to screw them over. and he did take advantage of them, singularly. i don't do this because i think klein was a delicate flower that has been misjudged by history. i do think he comes off as the bad guy in the beatles breakup just because he *was* a greedy bastard, too, because he did many a horrible things to people on the beatles behalf, and because people love mccartney and mccartney despised klein from day one. but rest assured: klein *was* a bad guy. but the beatles weren't and aren't angels either. and as for the rolling stones... well. sam cooke was probably the only big name klein screw over that i can't come up with some *serious* wrong doing off the top of my head. oh, and jodorowsky. but i don't know them anywhere near as well as i know the stones or the beatles. if you wanted, we could discuss details, but... well, you don't care. the reason why i tell klein's story as i do is not that i think klein is a more interesting character to talk about, that way. the entertainment value would be just as high if i turned him into the cartoonish character you would be comfortable with. the reason why i try to talk about klein as a tridimensional person, capable of good, intelligent, even kind acts is that i want the listener to be equipped when they will find the kleins in their lives. to spot them. to avoid their bad qualities while blinded by their good side. if one thinks evil is just, well, one dimensionally evil, then they *will* get screwed over. the worst person you can think of, in your life or in our history, is probably charming, capable of good, compassionate about something. if you ignore that, it will take you much longer to protect yourself when that charming, apparently lovable person rips yourself apart.

[@michael1415]

Simon, all your videos on Allen Klein were great, thoroughly researched, and very informative, a real treat insomuch as this man was a central figure in the business history of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. However, the negative ramifications and consequences of Allen Klein's involvement with each band were far greater for the Rolling Stones than the Beatles. For the Stones, losing control of their entire 1960's recorded works (released and unreleased) is the severest penalty any artist can suffer, and it continues to this very day. As a diehard fan of the Rolling Stones, this situation goes beyond just business. We, the fans, have been deprived of any vault releases of their classic 1960's output. There are true gems hidden away at ABKCO (some of which we know of because of bootlegs) that may never see the light of day. I am in my mid-60's, and there is nothing I would ask more than to have the Stones put together anthology albums of the 1960"s as the Beatles have done. I know that ABKCO cannot release outtakes without the permission of the Stones, and no doubt this would involve a lot of money which would explain why it hasn't happened. The only collaboration we've seen between the Stones and ABKCO has been for "greatest hits" packages like "Forty Licks", "Grrr", etc. For regular albums, ABKCO have released 50th anniversary editions of "Satanic Majesties", "Beggars Banquet", and "Let It Bleed", but they've done so without any unreleased outtakes, meaning these sets have sold poorly, unattractive to most fans, including absolute devotees like me who own everything they've ever done, but refuse to keep buying when there is nothing new to add. Can you imagine if the Beatles had suffered this fate, total loss of control of their works? It would have been catastrophic. I don't know if there's any possibility that the Rolling Stones situation can change if for no other reason than us, the fans. The older fans who lived in this period of the 1960"s, those for whom this really matters, are diminishing in numbers on a daily basis. The Glimmer Twins themselves are in their 80's now. The only 1960's outtakes we ever got were in 1975 with "Metamorphosis" as part of a legal settlement. Are the parties (Rolling Stones and ABKCO) speaking today? Is there a behind-the-scenes discussion taking place that would somehow liberate vaults of the Decca years and get them released? Probably not. If you know anything, Simon, please inform us. Again, I truly admire your research for this series on Allen Klein, and I thank you for it. However, this will always remain, for me, a very painful subject. Thank you.

[@SimonMas]

Hello Michael, first of all sorry for the long reply, you are touching different points, and I'm in a "talkative" (writative?!) mood. Thank you for your kind words. I'm happy my videos were enjoyable. I'm always trying my best to cram as much information as possible in them, without making them pedantic, and I'm really happy when I manage. :) I agree that Klein's effect on the Stones were felt on the band for a longer time than what happened in The Beatles, but (and this is one thing that I glossed over, in the videos... more on this later) you have to appreciate the situation. You are looking at it with the eyes of someone who has seen managers operating in the 1970s and on and, obviuosly, Klein is a piece of work if you compare him to, say, Chris Parry, Rob Gretton, Simon Napier-Bell, etc. Napier-Bell, in particular, evolved with time, which Klein didn't. Klein was an old-school manager. While he did operate in the 1960s, with 1960s acts, he is of an older generation (because he started working very young, not because of his age). For this reason, he should be compared with, say, colonel Parker, or Andrew Loog Oldham. Thrown in with that bunch, Klein doesn't seem too bad, after all. And here's the cusp of the tragedy: 1960s bands were in the midst of a change in the way popular music was listened, thought of, commercialised, and managed, and sometimes, they got the short end of the stick. Going back to The Beatles: Epstein was a much more positive figure for them, but financially, he was a disaster. He was inept, because there was no positive example to follow, quite simply. Epstein didn't screw The Beatles up because he never screwed anyone up. He kept his word in a bargain, he didn't step on anyone's toes, etc... But this meant that he was often taken advantage of, financially. Klein, on the other hand, only cared about number one. When his interests identified with that of the bands he was managing (early period with the Stones) he did incredible feats. Later on... he thought about him, first. As I said in the video: that doesn't make Klein an angel. Putting him in perspective only makes him... a smallor piece of work, shall we say? ;) I would have said as much in the videos, but I have to cut them with a machete every time I think the KZbin algorhythm won't like the length of the video, or, say, 50% of the viewers leaving because it's too much information for them. KZbin only cares about you staying on the platform to watch more ads, not about the quality of the videos. Part 1/2

[@SimonMas]

As for the Stones' back catalogue, I have bad news for you. The Stones and ABKCO have been talking for a long time. I don't have my notes with me, but I remember that they struck a new deal by the time Steel Wheels came out, and then, they must've struck another when the British albums *FINALLY* came out in CD formats (I think it was some time in the mid 2000s?). This makes the kind of reissues you are talking about quite unlikely. I, for one, salute that. I have long become bored with yet another version of this album, now with 1 extra song!!!!!!. I have multiple copies of The Beatles albums laying around, and I think The Who also milked that cow a bit too much. The Prince estate is now doing the same. It's confusing for new fans, the original album loses its impact, and it's bloody expensive. If the new music is relevant, exciting, and interesting, the powers that be have to learn to get it out there as a separate CD. I can't spend 50-200 euros every to buy an album a good chunk of which I already own. With spotify, youtube, etc out there (and I'm not pointing anything illegal, here), no surprise these releases are bought only by the most die-hard fans. In my opinion, if the Rolling Stones haven't released those outtakes, it's one of three things: 1. They want to keep them as an insurance for the time when they'll stop putting out albums. They might be 80+, but they have to think about their grandkids. 2. They cannot strike a deal with ABKCO, for whatever reason. Probably: they can't agree on the advance and royalty payment. If that is the case, we have no way of knowing, at the moment, who wants what and how likely the situation is to get sorted. 3. They do *not* want those outtakes to come out, for whatever reason. In which case, history has taught us that when both Jagger and Richards will be dead, their estates will put them out, pronto. If you're 60, it will probably be during our lifetime, although, with Richards... it might not be the case! :D Again, I could have said all this in the video, perhaps more consisely... or put out a fourth Klein video. But "nobody" (meaning only a few million fans) would watch a 20 minute video about the man, and so KZbin would have killed it, like it has killed other videos I have created because the few (10-50 people, literally) viewers he showed it to in the first 48 hours, didn't stay until the final advert they surely put on every video I make (I wouldn't know: I don't watch them, and I have an ad block. Which I would advise anyone and everyone to use). Sorry for the added aggro about KZbin, which is probably one of the best social media out there. But it's sad how we self-censor ourselves and put out material that could be more informative, just to make it fitting to some algorythm's expectations. part 2/2

[@michael1415]

@@SimonMas Hello Simon, Thank you for your detailed response to my comment, much appreciated, and filled with really good points. Although I understanding some bands, including the Beatles, have milked the cow a little too often with "bonus" material (we buy because we're completists, but rarely listen to the so-called bonuses, especially different versions of the same songs), the Stones have been more restrained. For their post-1970 recordings which they control, they have given us outtakes of unreleased songs (some "as is" and others reworked in the present day) for 4 albums :"Exile" (2010); "Some Girls" (2011); "Sticky Fingers" (2015, but no new song outtakes on this); "Goats Head Soup" (2020); and "Tattoo You" (2021). I've enjoyed all of these, and to me, the unreleased songs (reworked or not) on each of these albums are worthy to be added to the canon of the band. There are numerous bootlegs with unreleased studio material from the 1960's, and I could point to about a dozen or so songs (from 1964 to 1969) that are worth releasing because they are simply good enough (yes, to my ears, but also to many other fans). I am certain that ABKCO must have tried to get the Stones to agree to some outtakes for the 50th anniversary editions that they've released over the last 7 years, knowing that outtakes would make these packages much more attractive and marketable, but it was not to be. The sad part is that it's possible that the Stones see merit in releasing certain outtakes for the pleasure of their fans and also for the historical value of adding to the catalog, but helping ABKCO make more money seems to be of no interest to them except when it comes to compilations where they combine ABKCO material with post-1970 material, providing a mutual interest for each party. For a legendary band like the Rolling Stones, it is shameful that we have nothing from these critical years of their history. I agree, that too much is, well, too much. But nothing at all is worse. It was in 2002 that ABKCO re-issued their entire catalog of CD's to include the British versions of their albums, including "Metamorphosis" which had been previously unavailable on CD. They also gave us a couple of outtakes on the re-issue of the compilation "More Hot Rocks", but since then, nothing. Again, for the Rolling Stones, the loss of control of their precious 1960's output was an extremely heavy price to pay in exchange for the good that Allen Klein did for them in the early years. All of these bands, Stones, Beatles, Who, etc. learned the hard way that creating music is one thing, but keeping a business afloat is a whole other ball of wax. Your 3 points in your second response are all excellent and make a lot of sense, especially, I believe, point #2. I've never blamed Mick Jagger for playing hardball with money since the days of Allen Klein. He has become, businesswise, what Allen Klein was, not in the sense that he is trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, but simply understanding that if he isn't acting like a hawk for the business interests of the band, there are always those who will seek to take advantage. I am 66, and I do not believe there will be resolution in my lifetime that would allow for 60's outtakes to see the light of day. As you said, with the 2002 ABKCO rereleases, and then with the 50th anniversary editions already out, all without outtakes, it seems unlikely that anything will change. Thank you again, Simon, for your really great videos and fantastic comments to my comment. I really appreciate your input and the extensive research you did to get all of the facts you presented in your videos in a very concise fashion. It must have taken a lot of work on your part because rarely have I seen Allen Klein's involvement in the music business presented so neatly and clearly despite all the complexities surrounding this very unique character.

[@SimonMas]

sadly, i think you are more right than you might realise on this topic. it has been years that rock's value in the corporate media has been that of a nostalgia brand. i think 2022 (perhaps 2021?) was the first year in which the sales of back catalogues + publishing rights have outperformed financially that of new music. to put it bluntly, putting out new music is not valuable anymore for the big firms. they still do, as a gamble, and to justify their existance, but the vault is where the money is. this might seem like a good thing for your quest to find unreleased stones material finally on the market. but: 1. as you said, the publishing of the 1960s material is firmly in the hands of ABKCO. it's not going to change. if a "new" song is interesting enough to make a sensation (which i doubt, given the state of music today: it has nothing to do with the quality of the music, which might be mind blowing), who is going to rake in the money when it's included in the commercials, films, tv series, and so on? not the stones. they don't have the masters NOR the publishing. they will get the songwriting credits, plus a bit more on the side, but it's not going to be the lion's share of the money. 2. what's the chance of a song *breaking* the market today? almost zero. if the band is alive and kicking today, they're young and hip, etc, there's a better chance. but in order to make heads turn, you need *a lot* of marketing money. have you seen what happened when the new stones album has come out? everyone was talking about it, in the media. anyone who thinks that's because they are a great band is probably delusional. money were spent. favours exchanged. and so on. would *you* do that, for a song you composed 50 years ago, that is available not in its own album, but as an addendum to another product? 3. the most sad point, for me, is that we're discussing this thing as fans, but that's not how The Beatles and the Rolling Stones think about music. they have made their name. now they're selling nostalgia. watch the video of Angry, off Hackney Diamonds. sorry if you like it, but i find the whole thing embarassing. much worse with Then And Now: i honestly think it's a huge stain on their heritage. there's no excuse for putting that crap out... especially (in the case of Then And Now) McCartney put out a really impressive album with McCartney III, showing that he still had it. Such songs beingput on the market, to me, signals that these people are just selling nostalgia. people desperately want to buy the next item by the Stones and feel like it's 1972. and i'm not talking about you, who have obviously a personal history with the band, i'm talking about new fans as well. the beatles, the stones (notice the small letters) are jsut brands, who need to use (and possibly enlarge) their back catalogues to get placements in films, series, commercials, to sell t-shirts, documentaries, podcasts, and so on and on and on. in a word, they have become corporate, too, with all that it entails. now, obviously, i have no connection with these people, and i might be talking out of my derrière, but if that's how things stand, then these outtakes will not be released before these people are dead and gone, and then again, only if their families are greedy or deperate enough to need more money than their hologram-happy tours can rake in. this looks like a really dire situation. and it is. but there is a lot of good music, or every genre, put out to this very day. i do not talk about that, in my videos, because... who would watch? eventually, though, i hope enough donations and money will rake in to allow me to feature a new 100% non-corporate album each month.@@michael1415

[@michael1415]

@@SimonMas Hi Simon, I noticed that my comment yesterday was on a separate post when it should have been in reply to your last comment. I am correcting this by sending this very same comment below so as to not lose the thread. My apologies. Please do not feel the need to respond. You have been most gracious thus far with your detailed replies, and I truly appreciate your perspective, very informative. You know your stuff. So here's a repeat of my last comment: Simon, Once again you make great points. I will tell you, however, on a personal level, that I'm extremely satisfied with the entire album "Hackney Diamonds", I've listened to it numerous times, front to back, and I thoroughly enjoy it. I won't comment on the video as I don't care about videos, the music being the most important thing for me, but I see your point about "Angry". Yet, I'm sure the Stones' marketing people pointed them in this direction for the video. It's crass, but the Stones have never shied away from crassness, sometimes to their detriment: Think back to the "Black and Blue" bondage promotion posters as another example. As for the "Hackney Diamonds" full album, most of my Stones friends and trusted sources have liked it and consider it to be a worthy addition to their recorded works. Where it will eventually rank in their pantheon of albums is unknown at this time as it will need to age properly and be evaluated in the future by people with pristine ears, and I am not one of those. I do carry a heavy bias when it comes to the Rolling Stones. I was 13 years old in 1971 when the current album back then was "Sticky Fingers", which I fell in love with, and for the next few years in the 1970's, many of their most esteemed albums were released. I delved into their back catalog as well in those years and was blown away at how great their music was, especially the post 1965 albums, how they morphed into different forms of musical expression through to the end of the 60's, and then into the 1970's. I have my criticisms of certain songs and albums, but, for me, no one has defined rock and roll over the last 6 1/2 decades better than the Rolling Stones, both in the studio and on stage. I have seen them, live, 15 times since 1975, and it's been a pleasure each time. Of course I wish that they would play other songs, deeper cuts, but this is not what the people who pay for the tickets want. They want all the hits, all the time. So, I have come to accept that this is how it will always be. Of course, to say that the Rolling Stones are a definition of rock and roll may seem important, but today, rock and roll does not rule the roost the way it did 50-60 years ago. The real splintering for the Stones started with disco in the 1970's, which they embraced in their Stones kind of way, and punk as well, and the new technologies of the 1980's that drastically changed the sound of rock (drum machines and generally heavier drum sounds, stronger bass, louder guitars, etc..). And the splintering continues, of course, more now than ever. But this is fine, showing what a diverse place the world is. I find it amazing to see how it's still possible for a single artist like Taylor Swift to so dominate the world market as she has been doing. So, for the Stones to still be able to put out new music in this context is a treat as far as I'm concerned. Their glory years will never come back, but their name still carries a lot of weight. Your comparison with Paul McCartney concerning the album Paul McCartney III may be correct, but I believe creating new music is harder for the Stones because of what comes with the name. McCartney can do whatever he chooses in any style. He is McCartney, not the Beatles, not Wings. He is whatever he wants to be and releases albums as he pleases. The Stones do not have that luxury. They have a reputation and style to live up to. If Mick Jagger was recording solo work (and strictly solo work, no Stones, nothing else but solo work), it would be a better comparison. There is no doubt in my mind that a solo Mick Jagger would have come up with different albums and potentially more introspective work. But it is not to be. The confines of the Rolling Stones are not large enough to do anything else. Fans need to hear Keith and Ronnie doing their thing. This is what makes it the Stones, and all the other non-Stones musicians on their albums play up to this. It's not just Mick or any other member individually. It's the band as a whole. As a fan, I would not have it any other way. And I do believe they are still a great band. The marketing, as you mentioned, and the millions it costs, is essential, however, and I would not have expected anything else. They wanted, and needed, to garner attention for the new album, so the scheduled event last September 6th with Jimmy Fallon, and various interviews they've given since then are all par for the course. Like any other legacy act, their egos push them to show they can still be relevant. They need to feel this and believe it. What else drives old timers, not just the Stones, but McCartney, Springsteen, etc.. to keep doing it? I believe they all need to keep ingesting the biggest drug of them all: audience applause and appreciation. This has driven them most of their lives when they really had to work to stay relevant, and now, in old age with their careers mainly in the rearview mirror, they're unable, it would seem, to walk away and call it a day. As long as the people come to see and hear (and pay), they will continue to perform. I definitely understand your point in terms of releasing older outtakes not being financially viable. I had not thought of it along the lines you presented, but it makes sense. If it was to happen, it would have happened already. The opportunities were there. Even the 2002 compilation re-issue of "More Hot Rocks", the outtakes were not really new. One song, "I've Been Loving You Too Long", had previously been released as a "fake" live cut on "Got Live if You Want It" in 1966 with audience applause added (mainly a constant drone of screaming). The true studio version without the edited applause was released on the "More Hot Rocks" 2002 re-issue. Had the Stones never lost control of their 60"s output, perhaps things might have been different. I think they would have gone over the old, finished, unreleased songs of that time, and packaged them as other bands have done. Sometimes, songs were left out not because they weren't liked, but because difficult choices had to be made in terms of what goes on and what's left off an album. Vinyl made this necessary with it's 40-45-minute or so maximum capacity. Sometimes, a song left off could be good but just not fit the mood or concept of an album. Some such songs were retained for later, especially so in the 70's, but not in the 60's. These 60's songs would end up simply being discarded. So, the only outtakes it seems we'll ever get are those we already got in 1975 with the disjointed, but thoroughly enjoyable "Metamorphosis", an ABKCO release that Allen Klein managed to secure in a court ruling (which I do not know all the details of). To think the Stones ran ads when this came out to convince fans to not buy it because these were leftovers they considered below standards. Of course, there was no mention in the ads that the Stones were getting minimal financial returns from the sales. It is true that many of these songs would not have fit the Stones image at the time of the recordings and it's easy to see why they were left off. However, the passage of time has a way of changing the perspective. What seemed, and indeed was, important in 1965, no longer matters today. I care about recordings, music, and many of these "Metamorphosis" songs are excellent, and can easily be appreciated even when placed in the chronology of actual releases. I'm glad to have them, so thanks to Allen Klein for this. Sorry for this lengthy reply. Again, Simon, I thank you for what you've done and presented in these videos and comments, in spite of the KZbin difficulties you're forced to navigate through.

[@michael1415]

Simon, Once again you make great points. I will tell you, however, on a personal level, that I'm extremely satisfied with the entire album "Hackney Diamonds", I've listened to it numerous times, front to back, and I thoroughly enjoy it. I won't comment on the video as I don't care about videos, the music being the most important thing for me, but I see your point about "Angry". Yet, I'm sure the Stones' marketing people pointed them in this direction for the video. It's crass, but the Stones have never shied away from crassness, sometimes to their detriment: Think back to the "Black and Blue" bondage promotion posters as another example. As for the "Hackney Diamonds" full album, most of my Stones friends and trusted sources have liked it and consider it to be a worthy addition to their recorded works. Where it will eventually rank in their pantheon of albums is unknown at this time as it will need to age properly and be evaluated in the future by people with pristine ears, and I am not one of those. I do carry a heavy bias when it comes to the Rolling Stones. I was 13 years old in 1971 when the current album back then was "Sticky Fingers", which I fell in love with, and for the next few years in the 1970's, many of their most esteemed albums were released. I delved into their back catalog as well in those years and was blown away at how great their music was, especially the post 1965 albums, how they morphed into different forms of musical expression through to the end of the 60's, and then into the 1970's. I have my criticisms of certain songs and albums, but, for me, no one has defined rock and roll over the last 6 1/2 decades better than the Rolling Stones, both in the studio and on stage. I have seen them, live, 15 times since 1975, and it's been a pleasure each time. Of course I wish that they would play other songs, deeper cuts, but this is not what the people who pay for the tickets want. They want all the hits, all the time. So, I have come to accept that this is how it will always be. Of course, to say that the Rolling Stones are a definition of rock and roll may seem important, but today, rock and roll does not rule the roost the way it did 50-60 years ago. The real splintering for the Stones started with disco in the 1970's, which they embraced in their Stones kind of way, and punk as well, and the new technologies of the 1980's that drastically changed the sound of rock (drum machines and generally heavier drum sounds, stronger bass, louder guitars, etc..). And the splintering continues, of course, more now than ever. But this is fine, showing what a diverse place the world is. I find it amazing to see how it's still possible for a single artist like Taylor Swift to so dominate the world market as she has been doing. So, for the Stones to still be able to put out new music in this context is a treat as far as I'm concerned. Their glory years will never come back, but their name still carries a lot of weight. Your comparison with Paul McCartney concerning the album Paul McCartney III may be correct, but I believe creating new music is harder for the Stones because of what comes with the name. McCartney can do whatever he chooses in any style. He is McCartney, not the Beatles, not Wings. He is whatever he wants to be and releases albums as he pleases. The Stones do not have that luxury. They have a reputation and style to live up to. If Mick Jagger was recording solo work (and strictly solo work, no Stones, nothing else but solo work), it would be a better comparison. There is no doubt in my mind that a solo Mick Jagger would have come up with different albums and potentially more introspective work. But it is not to be. The confines of the Rolling Stones are not large enough to do anything else. Fans need to hear Keith and Ronne doing their thing. This is what makes it the Stones, and all the other non-Stones musicians on their albums play up to this. It's not just Mick or any other member individually. It's the band as a whole. As a fan, I would not have it any other way. And I do believe they are still a great band. The marketing, as you mentioned, and the millions it costs, is essential, however, and I would not have expected anything else. They wanted, and needed, to garner attention for the new album, so the scheduled event last September 6th with Jimmy Fallon, and various interviews they've given since then are all par for the course. Like any other legacy act, their egos push them to show they can still be relevant. They need to feel this and believe it. What else drives old timers, not just the Stones, but McCartney, Springsteen, etc.. to keep doing it? I believe they all need to keep ingesting the biggest drug of them all: audience applause and appreciation. This has driven them most of their lives when they really had to work to stay relevant, and now, in old age with their careers mainly in the rearview mirror, they're unable, it would seem, to walk away and call it a day. As long as the people come to see and hear (and pay), they will continue to perform. I definitely understand your point in terms of releasing older outtakes not being financially viable. I had not thought of it along the lines you presented, but it makes sense. If it was to happen, it would have happened already. The opportunities were there. Even the 2002 compilation re-issue of "More Hot Rocks", the outtakes were not really new. One song, "I've Been Loving You Too Long", had previously been released as a "fake" live cut on "Got Live if You Want It" in 1966 with audience applause added (mainly a constant drone of screaming). The true studio version without the edited applause was released on the "More Hot Rocks" 2002 re-issue. Had the Stones never lost control of their 60"s output, perhaps things might have been different. I think they would have gone over the old, finished, unreleased songs of that time, and packaged them as other bands have done. Sometimes, songs were left out not because they weren't liked, but because difficult choices had to be made in terms of what goes on and what's left off an album. Vinyl made this necessary with it's 40-45-minute or so maximum capacity. Sometimes, a song left off could be good but just not fit the mood or concept of an album. Some such songs were retained for later, especially so in the 70's, but not in the 60's. These 60's songs would end up simply being discarded. So, the only outtakes it seems we'll ever get are those we already got in 1975 with the disjointed, but thoroughly enjoyable "Metamorphosis", an ABKCO release that Allen Klein managed to secure in a court ruling (which I do not know all the details of). To think the Stones ran ads when this came out to convince fans to not buy it because these were leftovers they considered below standards. Of course, there was no mention in the ads that the Stones were getting minimal financial returns from the sales. It is true that many of these songs would not have fit the Stones image at the time of the recordings and it's easy to see why they were left off. However, the passage of time has a way of changing the perspective. What seemed, and indeed was, important in 1965, no longer matters today. I care about recordings, music, and many of these songs are excellent, and can easily be appreciated. I'm glad to have them, so thanks to Allen Klein for this. Sorry for this lengthy reply. Again, Simon, I thank you for what you've done and presented in these videos and comments, in spite of the KZbin difficulties you're forced to navigate through.

[@slappyabromowitz]

Paul’s main reluctance was all based on Kleins reputation which he knew (stealing Sam Cookes and the Stones publishing for instance, extending the payout of the Decca bonus to the Stones he bragged about in 1966 for twenty years, spreading his own tax liability across his partners and paying himself off the gross, etc) and Pauls desire to sign no piece of paper that tied him to Klein who had offered up his Kingsway shares as collateral to buy Northern Songs. I’d fucking stall my ass off. You add the fact that Klein tried to physically bully Paul who had arguably written 40% of their hits and there is no way Klein walks away as nothing more than a greedy animal.Certainly not a victim.

[@SimonMas]

i'm quite sure mccartney knew nothing about sam cooke. not one source i've read or watched mentioned this. mccartney never mentioned this that i know of. mccartney did know about the rolling stones. he even called jagger to tell the other three beatles about it... and jagger didn't bring the point home. perhaps out of jealousy, who knows. if i recall correctly, he said something along the lines of: "klein's ok as a manager, if you like that sort of things". by which lennon understood someone behaving like a bull in a china shop, which he absolutely liked. so. the band felt there was no time to look for another alternative. paul mccartney had already abundantly pissed everyone off with his being needlessly pushy since 1968 (he meant well, but he did nothing to ease the rising tension in the band, and often raised up a notch). mccartney really did look like wanting to become the de facto leader of the beatles, which nobody wanted. and now he wanted to push his in-laws to mange the affairs of the band. there was no way the other threes could have vote for eastman. and lee eastman didn't even show up, sending his young son, someone who didn't look very experienced (whatever his merits were or would be furhter down the line). it's psychology 101. the fact that klein was not the dear fellow he portraited himself to be has no bearing on the decision as much as "anyone but paul's in-laws". even if lennon hadn't fell in love with klein, so to speak. also, i remember no mention in any source i used of klein physically bullying mccartney. including paul's recount of the story, if memory serves. which might not, because it's 3 years i re-read it, but i honestly don't recall ever hearing it before you wrote it. what's you're source on this? you're heavy on accusations but extremely light on sources, like everyone just knew these things. if you have new material which i have not read, i'm more than happy to give it a look... but you have to state what it is. otherwise it's like a discussion one has down the pub. the beatles lost nems and it was 100% lost because of eastman, by the way. 100%. you never mention that eastman's disastrous letter to clive epstein was *the* reason the deal fell. how is that klein's fault? the loss of northern song was 100% due to john lennon not being able to shut his mouth and alienating/ scaring off stockholders. again, you never mention this. and again, it was not klein's fault. see, like it or not, this is being balanced. recognising that it's not all one person's fault. in fact, despite the hurricane of crap that the behaviour of other parties left him to deal with, klein managed to at least get the beatles a fair deal of money, both on northern songs and nems case. and he did wonders renegotiating the emi contract at a time when john lennon had already announced that he wanted out. not bad, in my book. perhaps the eastmans could have done much more. maybe they could have done much less. but they were not the business manager of the beatles, so we will never know. reading what you write it's obvious to me that you absolutely love paul mccartney and you absolutely hate allen klein. it doesn't matter what the former did wrong, he's god. and it doesn't matter what the latter did right, he's a thief and a scumbag. so, see, in this sense (because people do buy the spin mccartney added to the tale, and they do to this day) allen klein *IS* a victim. which doesn't mean he's an angel. you can be the worst scumbag in the universe and still be a victim of slander. i'm not interested in a one sided view of history. it's boring. if i want to read a fairy tale, there's much better stories to read than that of the beatles.

[@cam21333]

@@SimonMasand based on what YOU have written and said in this video, you absolutely hate McCartney and excuse Klein just because ‘cool leader’ Lennon loved him. And George and Ringo voted for Klein in order to go with said cool leader, because round glasses and controversial opinions about the Vietnam war meant more to them than the guy who kept the band together for the last three years and CORRECTLY sussed out Klein, just because he suggested his father-in-law (Klein was kind of like Lennon’s sugar-father-in-law considering that the whole reason he went with him was because he was going to pay for Yoko’s art studio…. But he doesn’t make granny music nor he is lame, so he gets a pass, right?) George and Ringo suffered from ‘straight man cool leader Lennon’ syndrome just everyone else in the 1970s There is no nuance to the Klein situation. He was a ****. And Paul isn’t rewriting history, he’s correcting after decades of people like you undermining him and his accomplishments because your boy Lennon said so. You clearly don’t like Paul and it shows, but if someone likes him and considers him to be ‘god’ (can you think of any other Beatle that was called a god for a long time? After 1980?), their opinion doesn’t matter and you boil it down to just ‘Paul fanboys’. And you look like the kind of guy whose favorite Beatle is either George or John because you think it makes you look cool - it doesn’t and neither does that hat.

[@SimonMas]

@@cam21333 "and based on what YOU have written and said in this video, you absolutely hate McCartney" is that what really comes across? then there must be some *serious* misunderstanding. the proof is not some convenient "i really know how i feel", but the THREE HUNDRED SIXTY SIX podcast episodes on the beatles. the first thing i uploaded on youtube, years ago, when i decided to talk about music. the times that i praised mccartney and his role in the beatles far outnumbered any criticism (even harsh critisism) i have for him. on the other hand, "cool leader" lennon gets his share of harsh critisism, too. quite simply, i don't care for "gods" and i critique people when they need. people do that with me and i think it's only fair i do the same, don't you think? :) on the other hand, your comment is so full of hate that, having assessed the pillar on which it is based, i don't feel like replying on every little thing you say, expect for two things. 1. paul (with ringo, and george before he died) are indeed rewriting history. they have been, from day one, along with your (not mine) "cool leader" lennon. it's called marketing, and it's another thing the beatles were (and are) masters of. there's ample proof of that in any lewisohn book you might care to open, along to a host of other publications from respectable sources. 2. i don't talk about musicians i "absolutely" or relatively hate. if the negative things I can say outnumber the positive, i don't talk about them. at all. as in, i don't even mention their name. do you think i would have wasted a solid 24 months of work on the podcast having as one of the major characters someone i "absolutely hate"? LOL. having said that, you have two options. perhaps you had a bad day and you happened to vent out with this comment. we're all been there, i understand... but quit putting false gross oversimplifications in my mouth. i can speak for myself, you know. if instead that's who you are normally, do a favour to both of us: don't watch my videos. what's the use? you can get more narratives you love elsewhere, i'm sure. :)

[@scotttaylor7767]

My own theory about that is the baby boomers don’t want an ugly version of there history. They love the fairytale of the Beatles story just like they overlook Kennedy’s faults. And don’t want to go there because it’s too confronting. What did John Lennon say “ you have to be a bastard to make it. And the Beatles were the biggest bastards in the world. “ lol. But you are right a band’s history is worth money. And you can’t damage the brand in the market place. Plus John Lennon is now a murdered Rock n roll hero. Gunned down for singing give peace a chance. Not the victim of a phsyco in New York with access to a firearm.

[@SimonMas]

damned boomers! :D time for gen x to finally shine, i tell you! :D

[@scotttaylor7767]

What’s that old saying only the winners write history. Lol. But your right being one of the last Beatles left alive. His version of history will probably be the one popular culture will go with.

[@SimonMas]

i doubt the other beatles would have told it much differently: there's too much money at stake. what mesmerizes me is that this disney version of the story is being accepted by the media, too. go figure. i guess the cogs have been greased this time around like they were in the 1960s. :D

[@scotttaylor7767]

Unfortunately with the Beatles the rot had set in well and truly before Klein arrived on the seen. In the anthology video John Lennon says it was the trip to India in 1968 that the break up really started. When Paul and Ringo left the ashram in February 1968 and the marshhee. And John and George stayed for another month. Eventually John and George left as well in April. But according to John this was the first sign that the band unity was finished. They had all gone to India as a United group but left fragmented and disunited. Even in the recent get back documentary you can see by January 1969 it was proving harder to work in the studio on any project. Also another important thing to remember Klein was a business manager. He didn’t spent hours with them like Brian Epstein did and sort out any personal problems between them. He didn’t for example sort out Paul’s wedding to Linda in March 1969. Like Brian Epstein did for George Harrison in January 1966. In fact if he could be faulted he didn’t attend to those details. For example George getting busted the day of Paul’s wedding. Brian would have made sure George was there at the wedding. And he would have been tipped off by the press it was going to happen! Klein it seems was taken by surprise by all that !!

[@SimonMas]

thank you for the thoughtful reply. :) i agree that klein was not the reason why the beatles split up. india certainly played a role, but i think lennon walked into that adventure with highly unreasonable expectations, which he never openly acknowledged... and while the beatles were indeed very close at the start of 1967, they weren't as much at the end of that year, after working on magical mystery tour. and it's only human: they were literally a "four headed beast" like someone called them (i think it was jagger). they replied to personal questions with a "we", because they were a band. it's not possible to keep that level of unity for long. i've covered more at length what i think about their break up in this episode of What A Fab Day, my day by day story of the beatles: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bai6iqeYbtSffqs as for klein... i think you are being a bit unfair. brian might have done the things you said, indeed, but not because he was the band's manager. he was way more than that, and they knew it. what klein did do that had a really negative impact on an already compromised situation was playing the faction game. he couldn't stand mccartney as much as paul couldn't stand him. and he took advantage of the existing rifts in the band to make sure he would get the job and the power. there's an episode in which the enminty between mccartney and klein went to 11: mccartney called klein on the phone, but he was busy with an apple's board of meeting and kept him waiting. after god knows what, paul went about his business. klein was happy to "have shown him". mccartney never spoke directly to the guy again. ever again. what i wanted to point out in the video was that klein was not *the* reason why the beatles split up, like some beatles fan maintain. nor was he only a negative force in their life. but the guy was an unsavoury figure all the same, and he did screw things up further. :)

[@scotttaylor7767]

I feel a bit sorry for Klein in a way. He walked into a situation he thought he could handle but nobody could at that point in 1969 ! Lol. But thanks for the video it’s nice to have a well researched account. It’s clear you put in the hard work to make it. Well done 👍

[@SimonMas]

@@scotttaylor7767 thank you for watching. klein is a strange character. it's hard not to feel he's been treated unfairly for decent people... but it's also important that for all the unfairness, he had some serious character flaws and personality issues. perhaps it would be better if history "forgave" him for the beatles and really punished him for sam cooke, the rolling stones, alejandro jodorowsky, and so on. man, he really screw those people royally!

[@RobbieCalifornia69]

I think, and many agree, the day Brian Epstein died in August ‘67 was when the Beatles really started to fall apart. Lennon was quoted as saying something like “What are we gonna do now? Without Brian we’re f**cked” on the day Brian passed away. That’s pretty much what happened.

[@maryellacreations4190]

he would have screwed them up, too, in due course!

[@SimonMas]

that's very possible, considering who we are talking about... :D

[@scotttaylor7767]

I’m not a psychologist but clearly he had some major demons that warped his judgment. Perhaps he never got over being an orphan? Who knows but the guy seems to have been at war with the world never satisfied. I read where Ronnie Shinder said he wanted all the Beatles to like him. But Ronnie told him as long as it’s a majority decision who cares !! But apparently Paul’s rejection really got to him.

[@SimonMas]

he wasn't technically an orphan (only his mother had died), but yeah, there must've been something deep inside him that caused him to act like he did. he wanted to be recognised as the richest, most successful, smartest guy in the room. and he wanted to be loved. that combination usually produces anti-social behaviours and huge chips on one's shoulder in my experience... and there you go, full on display of that in him :D

[@billmartyn-smith1364]

He may have been the manager of three of them but he never had Paul. He was a back stabbing thief.

[@SimonMas]

he was no worse than the average manager of the time... in fact, klein was much better. other people just got all the money from the bands' work and the musicians hardly saw much. for all his faults, brian epstein was a genuine rarity. he really did care. paul never liked klein, it is true... but he was also at fault, in many ways. the fact that george and ringo voted for klein, probably, is due to the fact that paul was against, which says a lot! it's a pity they couldn't find someone else they could all agree on... i wonder if it might have saved the band, but i think, klein or not, they all needed more space. what do you think, how do you see the situation?

[@myguitardetective5961]

Backstabber?… that is Paul McCartney….its unlikely Klein would have ever taken control over the Beatles as he had others. Their earning power, and his business acumen, meant they would both profit enormously in the future together but Paul’s lack of team skills, and backstabbing of John, fractured the band cohesion, forever…this is the best and most accurate discussion of Klein & the Beatles I’ve encountered on KZbin: this is the same narrative that Mark Lewisohn is presenting in his final volume of his Beatles History. Great job 🎉🎉!

[@monetfaversham6703]

Brian Epstein, Dick James and countless others were the ones who well and truly ripped off the Beatles. But they were young and naïve back then. They had no choice. Do you want fame and money ? Then sign here. 10 years later they decided they didn't like their contracts. It was left to Klein to change that. Although he couldn't save NEMS and Northern songs from the sharks, he radically changed the royalties fees with EMI out of which McCartney benefited as well. The music industry is riddled with bands and pops groups ending up almost penniless. See Bee Gees, Leonard Cohen, Bay City Rollers, Gilbert O'Sulivan and Mike Oldfield but a few. Klein rescued the Rolling Stones from Andrew Oldham. There was Elvis Presley who was well and truly ripped off by the Colonel.

[@SimonMas]

i appreciate the comment, but i can't agree 100% with it. quite simply, the beatles were at the cusp of change. the contract epstein offered them was *incredibly* good for a manager, for example. naturally, looking at it with today's eyes, it seems like the worst thing ever, but the contract was offered in 1962, not in 2024. the beatles were never penniless. never. they generated a lot of money for other people, that's true... but it's also undeniable that when they woke up one morning and decided that only they should profit from their music making, they risked going bankrupt thanks to the mess apple was. in fact, mess doesn't even begin to tell the tale of how bad apple was, business-wise. they gradually distanced themseves from james because they felt he was ripping them off (which, to some extent is true), but it's also true that they weren't complaining when james came up with sophisticated ideas that made them millions. i think they had just become too full of themselves after 1967, and they paid that dearily, both in monetary terms and in career terms. with a bit more peace of mind and less hubris, they might have kept going instead of breaking up so acrimoniously. and while klein did save them from bankruptcy, lennon, harrison, and starr did get rid of him only after a few years after the beatles broke up: hardly something you do with a manager that has your best interests in mind (confront that with epstein that had made many questionable decisions, but that was *always* working to get them the best he could provide). as for the rolling stones... i've had a klein video on them, too ;) i've been wanting to do a video on elvis and parker, but who knows... maybe next year?

[@slappyabromowitz]

Respectfully submitted, calling your perspective impartial is hardly reasonable and is a controlled spin. Having been in business myself for close to 40 years and in many cases at the highest level of corporate America if I had a main contributor to the success of a major organization I was trying to win over (Paul McCartney for instance) and I refused to attempt to win favor with him and actually eventually manage him, I would know I had a serious issue ahead of me when I witnessed his refusal. When you partner with Klein yes he could organize your structure better, yes He could get you more points in terms of royalties, but he walks away with partial and in some cases total ownership of your publishing. Look at the story of Sam Cooke for or the Stones. If you call that victimhood as he sat on his fat ass collecting royalties on Satisfaction, that’s an egregious spin. The Rolling Stones' $1.25 million advance from the Decca Records label in 1965, for example, was deposited into a company that Klein had established, and the fine print of the contract did not require Klein to release it for 20 years.Klein's involvement with both the Beatles and Rolling Stones would lead to years of litigation and, specifically for the Rolling Stones, accusations from the group that Klein had withheld royalty payments, stolen the publishing rights to their songs, and neglected to pay their taxes for five years; thus had necessitated their French "exile" in 1971. After years of pursuit by the IRS, Klein was convicted of the misdemeanor charge of making a false statement on his 1972 tax return, for which, in 1980, he was jailed for two months. The Beatles sued him for over payments. The lack of emotional maturity on a part of Klein is astounding. The reason he was probably less of a thief with the Beatles was he had the Eastmans looking over his shoulder. BTW The Eastmans took McCartney to become the richest entertainer in show business within five years of the breakout with Paul owning his publishing and eventually his masters. The other three while wealthy were waiting on their big payout once the receivership passed. I’ll give you the benefit that you’re not doing this for clicks and truly believe Klein was the best manager for the band. I think it is unmitigated nonsense and he was another in a long line of industry crooks and not a victim. Jeez

[@SimonMas]

@@slappyabromowitz are you replying to me or to monetfaversham6703? if you're replying to me, there's a number of factual errors in your message. "If you call that victimhood": i never did. not even close. in fact, i do state clearly that he was hardly a gentleman in my videos about klein and the rolling stones and sam cooke, stating quite clearly that what he did could have looked ok in business terms at the time, but it's hardly "ok" in any moral sense. and that, even if one wanted to find psychological excuses for his behaviour, the man was ultimately a greedy bastard. also, i honestly don't think i offered a "controlled spin", as i have no money in this game, nobody is offering me anything to do these videos, and i do try to read multiple sources and get acquainted with multiple points of view before i pull out even a simple review. why should i put out a "spin" on anything is completely lost on me. i really wish i had the luxury of wasting my time propagating false view about this or that person, but rest assured: if i ever will be in that position, music business people are well down the list of much more important people i would like to spread positive "spins" about. klein was certainly the best manager for the beatles when he was appointed, certainly much better than eastman. and it's not me saying it: it's john lennon, ringo starr and george harrison who said it. ignoring their vote and passing it as the effect of manipulation on klein's behalf is really calling three adult men morons, forgetting they fully immersed in band litigations and politics (as the beatles were at the time). to say that eastman did incredible things for paul mccartney is a non-sequitur, as he was not going to manage paul mccartney, but the beatles, which were a different beast. and, in fact, it is exactly for that reason that the other three beatles voted for klein and against eastman to begin with. there could have been neutral managers capable of doing what klein did and better? probably. were lennon, starr and harrison willing to meet them all, being lectured as you would a young lad (as most of these neutral manager would have or did, according lennon's own recounting of the tale), and waste precious time until they found The One? no. and they didn't. the time was tight and it was eastman or klein. in that situation, i would have voted klein, too, even if he was a thief and a bastard. finally, to be impartial doesn't mean to believe to have The Truth, but simply listening to different voices, relating those as faithfully as possible, and keeping the door open to new information to come in. in your reply, for all your 40 years of experience in the business, you offered no new insight, and no information that i didn't offer elsewhere, except form the later litigation by the three beatles who had appointed him as their manager (which is not covered in any of my videos, but which i pointed at in a number of comments in this very video, if memory serves). you have your view about klein being a monster. fine. i don't think you are correct. he was no saint, but he was not the utter monster he is made out to be. if you want to make your own video about the subject, i'll be happy to watch it and get new information (i'm not being sarcastic), but so far, you haven't offered me anything that i didn't read elsewhere: in the continuous moaning of mr. mccartney (who, not being an imbecile by any stretch of imagination is extremely well versed in spinning his own version of whatever story he's telling), in beatles books, and even in mr. klein's own biography.

[@SimonMas]

PS: the reason why klein was less of a thief than usual with the beatles has nothing to do with the eastmans. he simply didn't have the time. if you look at what he did for cooke and the rolling stones (and others), the same pattern arises: an initial honeymoon period followed by the nastiest crap he could pull. the beatles broke up before he could pull any serious crap, that's all. so, see, i don't know where you're getting the notion that i think klein is a poor innocent victim. on the other hand, let's give credit where it's due, and let us not forget that sometimes (like in the case of the rolling stones) the people he was managing were hardly angels themselves. in fact, much of the venon spit on klein has to do not on his factual shortcomings as a businessman or person, but because of the fact that he pissed off paul mccartney, and that sir paul is much more loved than allen klein ever was.

[@scotttaylor7767]

Yeah having read his biography the guy must have had a massive inferiority complex. He took Paul McCartney’s rejection of him more like Jane Asher did ! Lol. It’s interesting that even today McCartney never refers to him by name. It’s usually “ that guy” or “ mister x from America “. Or “ this guy was going to take all our money and I said no guys we can keep it !”.

[@SimonMas]

paul himself has quite a bit to blame in the whole klein thing. but, of course, he's the one re-writing history and so he will end up being right :D