Lots to unpack. In general, re: Paul making Ram in its current form rather than with "Dear Friend" as a placatory gesture, despite knowing something like "How do you sleep?" must be coming - I'm going with "he was too angry not to at this point". Lennon Remembers cut too deep not to be. BTW, lest we forget, he wasn't the only one. Derek Taylor has talked about how deeply what John said about him and the other employees hurt - which John scoffed at in later interviews -, and George Martin seems to have been the only one doing the emotionally healthy thing (instead of the indirect messages thing) and actually saying point blank to John, when he met him again, that John had hurt him, at which point John pulled his usual "that was just me being me, you had to know it didn't mean anything" defense. (Which, head, desk.) Anyway, nobody has accused Paul of being a turn the other cheek type, temper wise. And he was past the depression and "I suck" part of post-Beatledom by 1971, and apparantly wildly going back and forth between "fuck you, John" and "peace out, let's just stop arguing". "Lennon Remembers" is the kind of thing to let the "Fuck you, John" mood be stronger for a while.
Details:
. He knew what John was like. He must have known John would flip upon meeting the Eastmans.
Yes and no. I mean, clearly John and Lee Eastman were destined to clash, personality wise. But let's not forget, Lee wasn't, originally, supposed to be the Eastman doing the representing/negotiation thing. Lee wasn't the one set to make the original pitch to the other three Beatles for Eastman & Eastman to become their new manager. That was John Eastman, Linda's brother, who had been chosen precisely because Lee thought he'd get along better with the band - he was their age, after all. I wouldn't be surprised if Paul thought the same thing. Lee the patriarch was bound to be clash with John Lennon, but John Eastman? Jonathan Gould in Can't By Me Love speculates Paul saw his future brother-in-law as basically a US version of Brian Epstein, and thus definitely acceptable to the rest of the gang. And why not? On paper, there was no reason why John E. and John L. shouldn't have gone along as well as John and Brian, well, minus Brian's attraction. John Eastman was a young businessman working in his father's business, yes, but also eager to carve out his own niche. He was well educated, impeccably mannered (like Brian, and unlike his father, he also wasn't overbearing), fond of art (he'd already started collecting) and well read. Again, given Brian Epstein, nothing about this screams "Won't be able to get on with John Lennon" if you don't look at it with hindsight but with an early 1969 perspective. And since Eastman & Eastman had at this point a good record in representing musicians and spefically dealing with music license rights, nobody could accuse them of not being qualified.
(Sidenote: it's always tempting to point out that E & E went on to represent Paul McCartney to this day and make him a fortune, but nobody could have known that at the time. However, they did have a good record. Mind you, Allen Klein had also one in the sense that he'd managed to conclude a fantastic record deal for the Stones that outshone anything the Beatles had been getting - but Allen Klein, as opposed to Lee Eastman, also had those lawsuits hanging around him, so.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Management Issues I
Date: 2016-12-09 10:25 am (UTC)Lots to unpack. In general, re: Paul making Ram in its current form rather than with "Dear Friend" as a placatory gesture, despite knowing something like "How do you sleep?" must be coming - I'm going with "he was too angry not to at this point". Lennon Remembers cut too deep not to be. BTW, lest we forget, he wasn't the only one. Derek Taylor has talked about how deeply what John said about him and the other employees hurt - which John scoffed at in later interviews -, and George Martin seems to have been the only one doing the emotionally healthy thing (instead of the indirect messages thing) and actually saying point blank to John, when he met him again, that John had hurt him, at which point John pulled his usual "that was just me being me, you had to know it didn't mean anything" defense. (Which, head, desk.) Anyway, nobody has accused Paul of being a turn the other cheek type, temper wise. And he was past the depression and "I suck" part of post-Beatledom by 1971, and apparantly wildly going back and forth between "fuck you, John" and "peace out, let's just stop arguing". "Lennon Remembers" is the kind of thing to let the "Fuck you, John" mood be stronger for a while.
Details:
. He knew what John was like. He must have known John would flip upon meeting the Eastmans.
Yes and no. I mean, clearly John and Lee Eastman were destined to clash, personality wise. But let's not forget, Lee wasn't, originally, supposed to be the Eastman doing the representing/negotiation thing. Lee wasn't the one set to make the original pitch to the other three Beatles for Eastman & Eastman to become their new manager. That was John Eastman, Linda's brother, who had been chosen precisely because Lee thought he'd get along better with the band - he was their age, after all. I wouldn't be surprised if Paul thought the same thing. Lee the patriarch was bound to be clash with John Lennon, but John Eastman? Jonathan Gould in Can't By Me Love speculates Paul saw his future brother-in-law as basically a US version of Brian Epstein, and thus definitely acceptable to the rest of the gang. And why not? On paper, there was no reason why John E. and John L. shouldn't have gone along as well as John and Brian, well, minus Brian's attraction. John Eastman was a young businessman working in his father's business, yes, but also eager to carve out his own niche. He was well educated, impeccably mannered (like Brian, and unlike his father, he also wasn't overbearing), fond of art (he'd already started collecting) and well read. Again, given Brian Epstein, nothing about this screams "Won't be able to get on with John Lennon" if you don't look at it with hindsight but with an early 1969 perspective. And since Eastman & Eastman had at this point a good record in representing musicians and spefically dealing with music license rights, nobody could accuse them of not being qualified.
(Sidenote: it's always tempting to point out that E & E went on to represent Paul McCartney to this day and make him a fortune, but nobody could have known that at the time. However, they did have a good record. Mind you, Allen Klein had also one in the sense that he'd managed to conclude a fantastic record deal for the Stones that outshone anything the Beatles had been getting - but Allen Klein, as opposed to Lee Eastman, also had those lawsuits hanging around him, so.)