Re: The Easmans

On 6 abr, 07:17, fattuc...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 5, 4:45 pm, "Crisstti" <crissttigalda...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:




On 5 abr, 01:04, fattuc...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Apr 4, 6:52 pm, "Crisstti" <crissttigalda...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From the little I have read, I do not like them. First, I think they
tried to "screw" John, George and Ringo and were involved in Paul's
lawsuit against them. IMO if they were Paul's family, they had no
business trying to be the managers of the Beatles. It was a big
conflict of interest IMO. Further, they acted as the Beatles' lawyers
at some point and then were involved in suing and doing other things
to hurt John, George and Ringo. That is another conflict of interest.
Not nice.

Well, what do you mean they tried to "screw" them?, you mean the
lawsuit?

Yes, and in other ways.

Of course it is a conflict of interest. Paul virtually admitted it in
the Beatles Anthology movie. It makes common sense anyway regardless
of Paul's admission.

OK. Maybe it is. Had never thought about it. The thing is , if you
are a lawer, and you think that you could help someone - a family
member, a friend - by giving them advice, you will. You won't give a
damn if it's a conflict of interests. I think they thought Paul was
being treated unfairly and they advised him.

If that is true, they certainly had no business being the Beatles
manager!!! That is precisely why there was a conflict of interest.
Paul and the Eastmans should have stepped aside and been honest and
moral with the other Beatles and said, "Hey, the Eastmans are clearly
NOT qualified because there is a conflict."

Furthermore, the Eastmans had already been HIRED to be the lawyer for
the Beatles. Once they were hired to represent the Beatles as lawyers,
they had no business giving Paul advice to hurt the other Beatles.

Furthermore, IMO if they are lawyers, they should have known this
better than most people! Lawyers, including lawyers in New York State
where the Eastmans have their office, are governed by a code of
professional responsibility which requires lawyers to avoid such
conflicts of interest.



Paul was in love with and married Linda. She obviously loved her
family and wanted Paul and her family to run the Beatles. IMO if
someone is hired as a lawyer or manager for the Beatles, they must be
fair and impartial. Do you really think that if Paul had a dispute
with one of the other Beatles, the Eastmans would be fair and
impartial?

Since The Beatles had been ripped off so much, I think it was only to
their convenience to hire a manager that would be family to one of
them. The Eastmans, being family, should have been more trustable
than other people. And about them being Paul's family, well, the
friend of my friend is my friend, isn't it?. John, George and Ringo
should have trusted the Eastmans for being related to Paul, and not
the other way around.

You strike me as a kind hearted person. However with all due respect
your position is naive.

Are you aware that by 1968 or 1969 George was disgusted with Paul. In
the studio, Paul had been bossy and domineering. In 1968 Ringo had
quit during the White Album sessions because Paul redid Ringo's
drumming behind his back. Then during Let it Be, George quit because
he was tired of JohnandYoko and tired of Paul. Lastly, John had been
suspicious of Paul for years. John is quoted as saying in Beatles
Anthology that even as young man he figured "I'm going to have to keep
him in line." (I can't recall the exact quote, but it is close to
that.) After the split John said "We were tired of being sidemen for
Paul."

That is why Ringo left in the White Album?, never heard of it. Are
you sure?.

I don't think John had been suspisious of Paul for years. The comment
you mention doesn't seem at all to indicate that. For what I know, it
has always seemed that John felt that having Paul in the band would be
a danger to his position as a leader. In fact, I'm sure he directly
said that. That up to that point (when he met Paul) it had been he
and the boys. He was worried because Paul had more musical training
and all. I think Pete Shotton (it could have been another member of
The Quarry Men) said that once, a few weeks or months after Paul had
joined, Joh told him to leave the band and start another onw together,
just the both of them. And that he answerd: no, we need Paul..., he
said that was his contribution to the Beatles. Of course John was
right in his concern :).

And I don't really think I am naive... :). I'm studying Law, and I am
always the one insisting that one should read everything one signs,
and to put everything in writing instead of just making spoken
agreements. It's just that I don't like thinking badly of other
peolple, second-guessing nor anything like that. Especially if it is
people one love. I trust the ones I love.


Why on earth would George, Ringo or John trust Paul and the EAstmans?
Especially after Paul broke his agreement with John regarding Northern
Songs? They had an agreement to be 50/50 partners; Paul went and
bought thousands of shares of stock behind John's back, without
telling him. (according to the Brown book, he did this at the advice
of the Eastmans) Why not just tell John? If you were John, would you
trust Paul?

Well, John almost did, sort of did. After all, you said that he
almost accepted them as managers. I'm sure he didn't think Paul had
back-stabbed his with that thing of Northern songs. Or he would have
left before, or said something in some interview... I mean, what he
didn't say in 1971, when he kept publicly attacking him. And yet, he
never mentioned that. If it's true that Paul bought that shares and
didn't tell him, and that he was angry (and the only source for that
seems to be Peter Brown's book), then he must have apologized or
something, because they didn't seem to have a problem about that.

Anyway, they simply were given that percentage (15%?) in their
agreement with Dick James. I don't know of they agreed not to buy
shares, or to keep it 50-50.


And, anyway, Brian Epstein was always closer to John, and the others
(Paul included) never said they didn't want to renew his contract
because of that.

True . . . . yet when Brian made decisions, he did it to benefit the
group. I know of no evidence that Brian stabbed one or the other in
the back.

I read an interview with Paul in which he said that one day he
arrived, late (I think), at a meeting with the other beatles and
Brian, and they had pretty much decided already that they should swith
the credits in the songs. Becuse you know that they were McCartney -
Lennon at the beggining (in Please Please me they appeared that way).
They said it souded better like that. He disagreed, but said that
since the others agreed, he just said "sod it" and went along with
it. In that occation, Brian favored John , clearly... And I am sure
that I read somewhere that Paul thought John had gone in vacation with
Brian to Spain in order to get his support in that. I don't know if
Paul ever said he thought that, though...





For what I know, Paul bought 1000 shares (which was really little)
through Peter Brown, who was a close friend of John and Paul. If Paul
wanted to "back-stab" John, he wouldn't have asked Peter Brown to do
it. And the all of them could by shares if they wanted.

Paul should have told John. Plus, I don't know if it was merely 1000
shares. And, btw, I guess to millionaires 1000 shares is not much but
to the little guy, it is a lot.

Well, they originaly had 750.000 shares, I think. 1000 shares is
little compared to that...







I was under the impression that Lee changed his name, not Lee's dad.

Changing one's name is not bad in of itself. (hey, Ringo changed his
name)

However everything I've read suggests EAstman changed his name because
he disliked his Jewish heritage. There's a difference.

Well, maybe Lee (or his father) changed his name to "fit in", but that
would be his bussiness, right?. And maybe he simply wasn't a
religious man.
And I mentioned Bob Dylan because his name, Zimmermann, it's Jewish
also, isn't it?.

OK. I guess . . . . .



Thirdly, if you read May Pang's book, she describes a meeting between
Lennon and Lee Eastman in 1974 or so where Eastman says nasty things
to John like "George hates you."

Not very nice, but John said very nasty things to many people, and we
like him, don't we?

True, but John is John . . . Paul has said bad things, George has sad
bad things. Hey this is a Beatles message board. They get some slack.

This is not an Eastman message board.

Yeah, that's true :). But I what I mean it that his saying that
doesn't make him a bad person. Like I said, John complained about his
temper in 1971.

I don't know the EAstmans personally; they may be very nice people.
However we are discussing their relationship with the Beatles.


Well, John seems to have disliked the Eastmans even before he met
them...they probably were not nice with one another, and neither of
them like the another...

They may be true; I don't know. But John consented to allowing the
Eastmans to being the Beatles lawyers, right? And if you read his
interview in Rollingstone he almost agreed for them to be managers,
but they did something to piss him off (I forget what . . . it was
probably silly)

I think John showed quite a bit of flexibility . . . . it was Paul who
was inflexible.

It's quite well known that when John met Klein, and decided he wanted
him as his manager, he said he was having him as his manager, not
matter what anyone else thought. Flexible...?.

Read John's interview in Rollingstone. (Of course, John could be
bullshitting)


What dou mean...?, what did he say about that?. I have read it, and I
don't remember anything about that... but I am not sure if the whole
thing is on-line.


Plus, Paul was outvoted 3 to 1 as far as Klein, but Paul refused to go
along. It seems that Paul was happy in the past as long as he got HIS
way.

Not very democratic that Paulie . . . .

Neither of them was very flexible...

I read that John was upset that when they were supposed to meet Lee
(at Paul's insistence), he didn't show up and sent his son instead.
He seems to have felt it as a disrespect, like they thought that
having Paul on their side was enough. I guess he saw his leader
position challenged.

Yes, that is true. I think John has a valid point. John Eastman
(Linda's brother) was what . . . . 28 years old? About the same age
as John? John Lennon's attitude was basically, "Hey we are the
biggest act in the world. People would consider it a wonderful
opportunity to be our manager. Any manager has the chance to make
millions and millions off of us. And the Eastman's send their junior
parnter to meet with us? Don't they give a shit?" John felt
disrespected; I don't blame him.

Yeah, he had a point. But I think he also wanted to show his position
of leader, and show that it wasn't enough with Paul's approval. And
he himself said that one of the reasons he liked Klein it was that he
knew all his lyrics. And that he knew to come to him instead of Paul.

Can you blame John for feeling that way? He wanted to make sure
whoever the manager was showed an interest in John.

BTW, my memory if fuzzy, but I think John Eastman attempted to make a
similar impression on Lennon by claiming he knew John's music. For
some reason, by then Lennon was pissed at him.

What I remember is John saying that he wasn't impressed by John
Eastman's talk about Kafka and things like that.



May I ask, what is your "first language."?- Ocultar texto de la cita -

Spanish.

You write BEAUTIFUL English . . . much better than some of the other
people here.- Ocultar texto de la cita -

Thank you very much :).

- Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Easmans
    ... business trying to be the managers of the Beatles. ... to hurt John, George and Ringo. ... I think they thought Paul was ... someone is hired as a lawyer or manager for the Beatles, ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: The Easmans
    ... business trying to be the managers of the Beatles. ... to hurt John, George and Ringo. ... I think they thought Paul was ... someone is hired as a lawyer or manager for the Beatles, ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: Paul says he never knew he was a "dictator"
    ... agreement) songs by the other Beatle as its flip side when all eyes ... The Beatles' own reaction to the pressure for singles was the ... in the creation of that song, and John wanted Yoko to have a presence ... his immediate view -- by THAT time it was clear Paul was the one ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: Interesting take on Paul v. Yoko
    ... The Beatles had personal friends around them all the time ... > and it was not something aggressive against Paul McCartney. ... >> While John had already dug his heels in and decided that Klein would ... others, all of them, that HE and YOKO were going to have Klein for THEIR ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: The Easmans
    ... business trying to be the managers of the Beatles. ... to hurt John, George and Ringo. ... quit during the White Album sessions because Paul redid Ringo's ... explained that John wanted to know the guy who was their manager.) ...
    (rec.music.beatles)