Ringo himself said that if "Lee Eastman had been Lee Northman", he'd sided with Paul.
But that's exactly my point. I know the situation was desperate, but it seems like "maybe my bandmates would be uncomfortable being managed by my future in-laws", especially with band already in a band state of relations. The #1 reason that Eastmans were not a good idea of the Beatles wasn't John L.'s personality clash with Lee Eastman, but the fact that they were Paul's in-laws. I wonder if Lee and Paul discussed that at all beforehand, what they said.
BTW, this is what Paul had to say about the situation in the Beatles' Anthology:
I put forward Lee Eastman as a possible lawyer but they said, 'No, he'd be too biased for you and against us.' I could see that, so I asked him, 'If the Beatles wanted you to do this, would you do it?' And he said, 'Yeah, I might, you know.' So I then asked them before I asked Lee Eastman seriously. and they said 'No way - he'd be too biased.' They were right - it was just as well he didn't do it, because it really would have gotten crazy with him in there.'
I'm thinking now that I don't think Paul knew it would get as bad as it did, but I think he knew perfectly well that this move would piss his bandmates off.
I wouldn't be surprised if Paul, on general "John vents what I can't allow myself to feel" principle, would have expected some John-Lee clashes in their further future with a certain degree of anticipation. But that would have been a Klein-less future in which E & E was securely the new management. IMO he definitely didn't expect - and nor did Lee Eastman - the initial John L - John E encounter to go as badly as it did so that Lee had to show up himself in London.
I agree with this. I may have overstated my point - I've noticed in conversations in other fandoms that when I'm talking about characters (or people) having suppressed negative emotions that I sometimes overstate how significant the emotions are. John Lennon was out of control in 1969, and I agree that I don't think Paul thought it would go *that* badly.
ETA: Also, even if relations between the Beatles were good, I have a hard time seeing John, George, and Ringo being OK with being managed by Paul's in-laws. No matter how well-intentioned Paul and said in-laws were. I think everyone would have been better able to communicate about it, but I don't think they would have accepted it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Management Issues II
Date: 2016-12-09 01:40 pm (UTC)But that's exactly my point. I know the situation was desperate, but it seems like "maybe my bandmates would be uncomfortable being managed by my future in-laws", especially with band already in a band state of relations. The #1 reason that Eastmans were not a good idea of the Beatles wasn't John L.'s personality clash with Lee Eastman, but the fact that they were Paul's in-laws. I wonder if Lee and Paul discussed that at all beforehand, what they said.
BTW, this is what Paul had to say about the situation in the Beatles' Anthology:
I put forward Lee Eastman as a possible lawyer but they said, 'No, he'd be too biased for you and against us.' I could see that, so I asked him, 'If the Beatles wanted you to do this, would you do it?' And he said, 'Yeah, I might, you know.' So I then asked them before I asked Lee Eastman seriously. and they said 'No way - he'd be too biased.' They were right - it was just as well he didn't do it, because it really would have gotten crazy with him in there.'
I'm thinking now that I don't think Paul knew it would get as bad as it did, but I think he knew perfectly well that this move would piss his bandmates off.
I wouldn't be surprised if Paul, on general "John vents what I can't allow myself to feel" principle, would have expected some John-Lee clashes in their further future with a certain degree of anticipation. But that would have been a Klein-less future in which E & E was securely the new management. IMO he definitely didn't expect - and nor did Lee Eastman - the initial John L - John E encounter to go as badly as it did so that Lee had to show up himself in London.
I agree with this. I may have overstated my point - I've noticed in conversations in other fandoms that when I'm talking about characters (or people) having suppressed negative emotions that I sometimes overstate how significant the emotions are. John Lennon was out of control in 1969, and I agree that I don't think Paul thought it would go *that* badly.
ETA: Also, even if relations between the Beatles were good, I have a hard time seeing John, George, and Ringo being OK with being managed by Paul's in-laws. No matter how well-intentioned Paul and said in-laws were. I think everyone would have been better able to communicate about it, but I don't think they would have accepted it.