|
|
EMI's possible role in 1966 anti-Lennon campaign
From: Salvador Astucia (cropdustersal@cs.com)
Subject: EMI's possible role in 1966 anti-Lennon campaign
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Date: 2004-10-14 18:10:16 PST
This thread explores a series of unfortunate events
which occurred in the summer of 1966, just before
the Beatles decided to stop touring.
[Salvador]
>> ...I think people don't give enough importance
>> to Paul's own admission that he got mad at the
>> other Beatles and walked out of the studio during
>> the recording of She Said She Said. As I have
>> stated several times, this meant John only had
>> one song on the American version of Revolver
>> in which all of the Beatles performed.
>> That was Tomorrow Never Knows. In the true Revolver
>> sessions (the British version), John sang FIVE songs
>> but three were scrapped by Capitol and Paul openly
>> attempted to sabotage She Said She Said by walking
>> out of the studio...
[Derek Larsson]
> The sloppiness from McCartney in some of John's
> recordings is something that you can hear right on the
> record itself which is why I think Lennon's complaint
> is validated. The sloppiness is the 'sabotage' issue
> that Lennon was referring to.
>
> However, the Capitol song list format was not
> something you can ever blame on McCartney here
> or any other individual ( that is way off the mark ).
>
> Capitol was the American offshoot of EMI and they
> just wanted to profiteer by reformatting the
> Beatles albums (more albums) . The other missing songs
> were then stuck on the "Yesterday and Today" album.
> These decision were made arbitrarily by executives
> in office buildings without regard to artistic considerations.
> Neither McCartney nor any of the other band members were
> ever controlling that process and even Brian Epstein was not.
Don't forget that besides being a record company,
Electrical and Musical Industries (EMI) was a weapons
contractor to the British War Office. This means a
high-ranking official within the American government,
like President Lyndon B. Johnson, for example, could
have easily made a phone call to EMI's then-chairman,
Sir Joseph Lockwood, and expressed concern that this
John Lennon fellow had too much influence over the
young people in America and any help by EMI to
rein him in would be very much appreciated by the
United States government. It would have been very
much like LBJ to have said something to Lockwood
like this: "This John Lennon fellow makes some
awfully good music; my two daughters love him and
his musical group, but I hear he's a nut. He brags
about being more popular than Jesus Christ, and
some of my people say he's a Communist. Frankly,
I'm concerned about his influence on the young
people in America. I'm asking you for help. And
we both know my country has helped yours a great
deal in the last twenty-five years and we will
continue to do so. But sometimes we need a little
help in return. And Sir Lockwood, this is one
of those times. Now if you will do what you can
to help us control this Lennon nut, and I will
personally put in a good word for EMI with
the Prime Minister to help get your company more
weapons contracts to help defend the world from
the spread of Communism. If that is agreeable,
I will have my good friend J. Edgar Hoover call
you shortly to work out the details on how to
proceed with this Lennon character."
President Johnson made phone calls like this
all the time. He was a wheeler and dealer,
a horse trader, so to speak. Keep in mind,
Revolver was released just six years after the
notorious Payola hearings in Congress in
1959/1960. The Payola hearings themselves
demonstrated that the United States Government was
trying to destroy Rock 'n' Roll. Many Rock 'n'
Rollers had quite a run of bad luck around that
time, the most extreme examples being the deaths
of Buddy Holly and Eddie Cochran. I am not saying
that their deaths were not accidents, but on the
other hand, if the American Government was trying
to stamp out Rock 'n' Roll, it is not beyond the
realm of possibility to entertain the possibility
of assassination. Within that context, if Joseph
Lockwood had intentionally pulled three Lennon songs
from the American version of Revolver as a mild form of
harassment against Lennon (at the request of the
American government), this was mere child's play,
certainly within the realm of possibility.
Salvador
===== INTERESTING COMMENTS ======
Subject: Re: John claimed Paul tried to destroy/sabotage his great songs
From: cropdustersal@cs.com (Salvador Astucia)
Date: 10/14/04 12:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <20041014004328.04811.00004603@mb-m24.news.cs.com>
["Tom" tellett@yahoo.com]
>> This is just silly. In 1966, Lennon had virtually no
>> politics whatsoever.
First, Lennon had already made his Jesus remarks by the time
Revolver was released. When he publicly apologized for the
comments, he also criticized America's military involvement
in Vietnam. That was really the beginning of John's political
persona, and it happened BEFORE Revolver, even before he met
Yoko.
Second, the FBI had already started a file on the Beatles in
1964. So people didn't have to be political in order
to become an enemy of the FBI.
To view the FBI's files on the early Beatles, click here:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/EarlyBeatlesFBI.htm
Third, the United States government had already demonstrated
its contempt for Rock 'n' Roll with the bogus Payola hearings
in Congress in 1959/1960. Uncle Sam undoubtedly disliked Lennon
because he was the leader of the biggest Rock 'n' Roll band in
history. The power of the Beatles was driven home by their 1965
performance at Shea Stadium on August 15, 1965 (also the date
Woodstock would begin, four years later). That particular
performance (Shea Stadium) is considered one of the Beatles'
most famous live shows and a landmark event in rock history.
They played before an audience of 56,000 hysterical fans which
marked the beginning of "stadium rock."
[Charlie Joe@blow.com]
> It's just as silly to think that releasing three of
> John's songs three months early would diminish his
> popularity. What difference did if make if they were
> on "Yesterday and Today" or "Revolver". I, for one,
> was just as excited taking home YAT as I was Revolver.
> We considered it a "real" Beatles album, and a great
> one at that.
If the three missing Lennon songs from the American
version of Revolver had been the only negative thing
to happen to Lennon at that time, I would write it
off as an unfortunate event. But the summer of 1966
turned out to be possibly the worst time in John's
life until then, notwithstanding the deaths of his
mother and his Uncle George.
Here's a timeline:
On June 15, 1966, Capitol Records released Yesterday and
Today, which used a gruesome picture on the cover, known
as the "butcher block photo," a picture that showed the
Beatles surrounded by bloody baby dolls. The Beatles claim
they had nothing to do with Yesterday and Today's production
or the bizarre photo selected for the cover. Lennon's three
missing songs appeared on the Yesterday and Today album,
an LP tainted to a degree because of the controversial
cover photo.
On July 5, 1966, the Beatles were booed and jeered in
Manila, the capital of the Philippines. The tumult was
caused after the Beatles were erroneously accused of
snubbing the president's wife, Amelda Marcos, by not
attending a party she had hosted. Most sources agree
that the Beatles never received an invitation, but a
false story was leaked that they had been rude to
Marcos. As a result, their security was dropped as
they tried to leave the country; they were jeered by
several people and shoved at the airport by about thirty
thugs, many armed.
On July 29, 1966, Datebook--an American magazine--published
John Lennon's interview with Maureen Cleave which had been
published in London's Evening Standard four months earlier,
on March 4, 1966. Datebook quoted John out of context when
he said the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus;" however,
he wasn't being boastful, just stating a fact. But Datebook
and the rest of the media created a huge sensation which put
the Beatles on their defensive, ultimately forcing John to
publicly apologize.
On August 5, 1966, the Beatles released Revolver. As previously
stated, three of John's five original songs did not appear on
Capitol's version of the album released in America. Instead,
Paul McCartney was presented as the primary creative force.
None of McCartney's songs were omitted from original version
of Revolver. In addition, McCartney admitted walking out of
the recording session for She Said She Said and ultimately
not playing or singing on the recording at all. This means
that the Beatles, as a full quartet, only played on one of
John's songs on the American version of Revolver. That song
was Tomorrow Never Knows.
On August 19, 1966, at a concert in Memphis, a member of the
audience threw a firecracker on stage. When it exploded,
the Beatles' entire entourage thought John Lennon had
been shot.
On August 29, 1966, the Beatles played their final concert
at Candlestick Park in San Francisco.
Regarding the three Lennon songs that were pulled from
the American/Capitol version of Revolver and placed
prematurely on Yesterday and Today, some have speculated
it was an arbitrary decision made by EMI executives
without regard to artistic considerations.
I agree it was probably a decision made by executives,
but I also remind people that Electrical and Mechanical
Industries (EMI) was a weapons contractor to the
British War Office, in addition to being a record
company. This made EMI vulnerable to the darker side
of capitalism: Bribery. It is very possible that
someone within President Johnson's government (perhaps
Johnson himself) pressured EMI's then-chairman, Sir
Joseph Lockwood into harassing Lennon. In exchange,
LBJ could have used his influence to get more weapons
contracts for EMI.
Salvador
===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/
Also see Astucia's homepage:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com
British Prime Minister Harold Wilson called
Sir Joseph Lockwood (EMI chairman) in 1965
From: Salvador Astucia (cropdustersal@cs.com)
Subject: Re: EMI's possible role in 1966 anti-Lennon campaign
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Date: 2004-10-15 19:35:34 PST
In the exchange below, I speculated that someone like
President Johnson might have contacted Sir Joseph
Lockwood and pressured him to use EMI resources
to harass John Lennon. This would explain how three
of John's songs ended up missing on the American
version of Revolver.
I further suggested that someone like President
Lyndon Johnson might have contacted Sir Joseph
Lockwood and pressured him to use EMI resources
to harass Lennon. If Lockwood cooperated,
Electrical and Musical Industries (EMI) would
continue getting weapons contracts from the British
War Office. If Lockwood refused, EMI's present
contracts would not be renewed. Such a scenario
would explain how three of John's songs ended up
missing on the American version of Revolver. But
some of you said I needed to do more research
to determine if such a phone call was ever made.
Okay, I was just thumbing through Philip Norman’s
book, "Shout," and noticed that Prime Minister
Harold Wilson (from the Merseyside) called
Lockwood shortly before becoming Prime Minister
in 1965. Norman wrote:
"There was, however, another side to Harold Wilson.
It became visible, though not yet diagnosable, the
previous April when, as Leader of the Opposition,
he had presented the Beatles with their Variety Club
award at the Dorchester Hotel. It was perhaps the most
astute act of his political career to telephone Sir
Joseph Lockwood, Chairman of EMI, and offer to grace
the occasion as a fellow Merseysider."
(Philip Norman, "Shout" (1993 edition), p 238)
So according to Philip Norman, the Prime Minister
of Britain, Harold Wilson, had called Sir Joseph
Lockwood at least once. But that begs a question.
Why would Wilson call Lockwood? Wouldn't it be
more appropriate to call the Beatles' manager, Brian
Epstein? This seems a bit fishy. Perhaps Wilson
already knew Lockwood as a contractor for the
British War Office.
Is it so far-fetched to think Wilson might, at some
point, call again in an attempt to control John Lennon
once it became clear to powerful interests across the
globe that Lennon was more influential than any
head of state in the world?
Salvador....
===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/
Also see Astucia's homepage:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com
RCA, the multinational corporation/conglomerate
headed by General David Sarnoff was EMI's silent partner
From:
[Salvador Astucia]
Subject: Re: EMI's possible role in 1966 anti-Lennon campaign
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Date: 2004-10-23 09:38:32 PST
[Enquirer]
>>> ...and RCA Victor was no longer associated with EMI in the
>>> 1960's.....
[Salvador]
>> That's quite an admission. In fact, your admission caused me
>> to do more research today. When the Gramophone Company
>> merged with Columbia Graphophone Company in 1931, thereby
>> creating EMI, this meant RCA owned half of EMI because RCA
>> owned the Gramophone Company at that time. Apparently in
>> 1929, RCA bought "Victor Talking Machine" which had already
>> acquired the Gramophone Company in 1920.
>>
>> In other words, RCA was a silent partner in the creation
>> of EMI in 1931.
>>
>> Here's the chronology:
>>
>> 1897 William Barry Owen of US National Gramophone Company
>> establishes independent recording business in UK as The
>> Gramophone Company
>>
>> 1899 Francis Barraud's 'His Master's Voice' painting
>> bought by The Gramophone Company
>>
>> 1909 Nipper, the Gramophone Dog, appears on British 'His
>> Master's Voice' record labels
>>
>> 1920 Gramophone Company becomes subsidiary of US Victor
>> Talking Machine Company
>>
>> 1929 RCA buys Victor Talking Machine
>>
>> 1931 Gramophone Company Ltd and Columbia Graphophone
>> Company Ltd merge as Electric & Musical Industries Ltd (EMI)
>>
>> 1931 Sir Edward Elgar opens the new EMI Studios at Abbey Road
[Enquirer]
> But by the 1960's--well actually even earlier than that, RCA
> was no longer involved with EMI, just as Decca USA became no
> longer involved with Decca UK. Amazing what a world war can
> do to companies really.
>
> Ever seen Elvis on an EMI label? [...]
The phrase "no longer involved with" suggests another admission
on your part. True, RCA was probably not involved with EMI recording
or publishing businesses per se. But my point is RCA was a
multinational corporation/conglomerate "active in military
and space electronics and satellite communications" as the
following Britannica article indicates.
RCA Corporation
Encyclopedia Britannica Article
formerly (1919–69) Radio Corporation Of America, major American
electronics and broadcasting conglomerate that is a unit of
General Electric Company. Among its subsidiaries is the National
Broadcasting Company (NBC). Headquarters are in New York City.
RCA was founded as Radio Corporation of America by the General
Electric Company in 1919 to acquire Marconi Wireless Telegraph
Company of America (incorporated in 1899). A subsidiary of a
British-owned company, Marconi Wireless at that time was the
only company capable of handling commercial transatlantic radio
communications, and General Electric took it over with the
assistance of the U.S. Navy Department, which was eager to keep
the technology in American hands. For the following 50 years
the company was led by David Sarnoff, who built the company
into a modern communications conglomerate.
Westinghouse beat RCA to the first commercial radio broadcast
in 1920, but Sarnoff followed in 1921 with the first sports
broadcast. In 1926 the National Broadcasting Company was set
up to carry on the company's radio activities. In 1929 the
company acquired the Victor Talking Machine Company and in
1939 developed the first experimental television set. The
first black-and-white sets went on sale in 1946, and colour
became available four years later. Meanwhile, NBC had divested
itself of one of its two networks (the “Blue” network), and
this became the American Broadcasting Company (ABC). General
Electric Company acquired RCA in 1986 for more than
$6,000,000,000 in what was the largest non-oil company merger
up to that time. RCA also is active in military and space
electronics and satellite communications. In 1987 General
Electric sold RCA's consumer-electronics manufacturing
operations to the French corporation Thomson-Brandt, SA.
====== end of Britannica article =======
So if RCA was "active in military and space electronics and
satellite communications," and RCA also owned a major part
of EMI, through its original ownership of the Gramophone
Company, this means EMI was really part of what the late
President Dwight D. Eisenhower would have called "the military
industrial complex." In addition, the Britannica article
states that RCA was led for 50 years by David Sarnoff.
Sarnoff had quite an interesting career. During World War II,
Sarnoff served on General Eisenhower's staff as a
communications consultant and was promoted to brigadier
general. Even more interesting, a Britannica article on
Sarnoff states the following: "As a boy in Russia
Sarnoff spent several years in preparing for a career as
a Jewish scholar of the Talmud."
So we've come full circle back to the same ole bunch.
And we have established they had the means, motive and
opportunity to launch an anti-Lennon campaign in 1966
to destroy the Beatles. Is it any wonder they've been
historically kicked out of virtually every country they
tried to migrate to and inhabit as a people?
Salvador
===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/
Also see Astucia's homepage:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com
|