Re: Paul's lawsuit against the others



This was just a convenient landing for my cursor...it isn't pointed at anyone - -
More at where the thread traveled after dahl answered my question.

First, after he filled me in & I admitted why I was confused on the re-gaining of rights - - - I concluded:
"You probably firmed up my conclusion that people tend seek 'reasons' for the dissolution & though we 'heard music', that was deceptive.
I mean most people are familiar with and accept when relationships in a family, among friends or loving parters disintegrate. The strongest commitments or the most loyal associations dissolve an meet with less examination than four guys who were in a band. Not that blaming and finger pointing doesn't happen with friends, family and partners but it is usually temporal and people put the scattering in the past.
My seeking a smoking gun in the reclaiming of the rights is typical. But it not how I usually 'think'.
My view is human beings can get along and as long as they get along amazing things happen but it's an exception and not a rule.
I'm probably more surprised when that is the case than when I hear of conflict.
Given the complexity of the four (plus) it's easier for me to wonder how it happened at all & how they manage to sustain it all. Knowing what we do know?
Put the "plan" on paper, try and sell it & someone would say:
"Nope, it won't work."
But, it did!

====

I don't doubt there may be ample evidence to find greater fault with one individual at any given time.
EX: "Who left the band first?"
That "proof" is likely to be met with a convincing set of quotes, eyewitness accounts or an interview to support another "person" was the "quitter, trouble maker, reason for (fill in the _______________ ) or, 'The End'.
Can one determine if any "action" was truly an action..or a reaction? (Which was actually a reaction to another action and on it goes...)

The dynamics of any failed relationship of only two people is damn complicated to conduct an autopsy upon. Yet it's possible to dissect this corpse and find a COD?
If you have four or five or six at the center and add all the 'xtra' baggage which was not with the main 4 to begin with? How realistic is it to think one can attach blame, narrowly, for The Beatles dissolving?

Yeah, it's possible to support any theory of "what happened" and find a single culprit's fingerprints for a specific 'deed' - - But linking or attributing a person, motive, condition or issue to The End? Is it logical?
How does one cite a simple source of a demise yet ignore the dynamics that made the whole thing work in first place (people tend to not give full 'credit' to one person but find it easy to blame)?
If your brother or friend gets divorced it's self serving to defend your tribe and blame the "other" & we know we sacrifice our wit's for that cause.
Does anyone have a dog in this fight? Is it like looking at a best friend and not being able to say: "Sorry it's over, but you fucked up, too."
As a fan of The Beatles I may have preferences but I don't know if it's the same loyalty I'd have for a friend I'd not come down on (so that I'd suspend objectivity).
Why is no concise explanation given for "the several years when it worked'"? Not as easy as saying Pete wrote 90% of what The Who did or Keith and Mick divided responsibilities and a few followed each in their specific role.
No Morrison, no Doors - - I get that.

Does anyone argue The Beatles benefited more than any band by a dynamics which included the four and then some?
Any single album ranks as an effort which on its ow
Other than the heavy hand of Spectie on LIB (which they in effect walked away from) most efforts were mini-musical-Manhattan projects.
I don't know of a FAB effort similar to TOMMY where Pete delivered complete demos of the whole thing? Yeah, he can be blamed or credited...a single FAB or wife of? Not logical.
Yet people are at the ready to isolate a reason (or a person in or out of the band) and cite "that" as the cause for them to cease being a unit.
It's not difficult to apportion credit and blame - - Yeah, and the distribution of labor and credit is diversified & Forty years later we still shift 'responsibilities' if we find out more about a specific tune session or concept.
One can tune in to this group and still find out something new about how/why it "worked". Or a new witness account can lessen or create doubt regarding a reason for the end.

I don't suggest they were destined to fail but neither do I credit anything but "them" in the broadest sense for "their" success.

Since it's been over three decades and a lot of people aren't giving an inch on the 'reason' for "The Break-Up", I may be missing something. I'd be a poor judge as I've seen some persuasive claims but everyone's case is equally weak if they only have one name or a simple reason for 'Fin'.

Michael
.