Post by aliasn on Oct 21, 2013 13:20:08 GMT
With all due respect to the bounty of theories offered, no one in thread has mentioned that this was not a garage band getting a substitute member for a dance on Friday night. EMI/parlophone had a contract with a band that included Pete. Unless Lewisohn's new research uncovers some profound doucument to show otherwise, it's pretty fair to say that record company and producer were fine with Pete in band, especially since he was a draw for live shows, which would be helpful for marketing a new record. Studio drummers were common practice then, so even if he wasn't on the recording, fans were already coming out in droves to see them, and him. Did record company make it a contract term to change the drummer, even for live performances, or we won't move forward? If so, hopefully Lewisohn can
produce that document. Otherwise, it would appear that the brian signed a contract (with Pete as member), leaving record company to think that the same band that did the test on June 6th would be the same band coming back in to studio after the final contract had been signed. Until someone (perhaps Lewisohn?) can show full communications between Brian and record company,
it seems Brian made a material change to the band
after signing a record contract. If that's true, that he made material change after signing, why did neither brian nor JPG ask their new producer what kind of new drummer they should look for? (Maybe they didn't want record company knowing they were making a material change to band after they had alreasy signed contract). With a record contract in hand, there must have been something extraordinary, far beyond a haircut, or social habits, or allegedly poor drumming to prompt making such a major change, and then not asking the record company, the other side of the contract, for some guidance on what kind of drummer they should get. Instead, after signing record contract they dropped the fan's favorite, and brought in a drummer who had barely 3 weeks to learn new, original songs not just for live shows, but also at a level that would be acceptable in a studio session. It seems more rational that Martin's session drummer comment (after June 6th) provided a musical excuse - good cover story - to make change for some other reason. Whatever it was, must have been pretty huge, and well past most of the theories posted in thread. They had a new record contract, which included Pete as a bandmember. That means there's a whole lot of legal implications, especially if band manager was going to make material change without even asking record company for guidance on making such a change. Unless, of course, brian was trying to keep the change secret. Hopefully, Lewisohn's larger volume can show the relevant documents and communications of June, July, August '62. As for me, I believe George Martin (and the engineers ) , that he may have preferred a session drummer, but liked Pete as a live draw and saw no reason to make change. The foregoing may be 100 percent incorrect, but the band did have a signed contract, which normally would require full disclosure when negotiating. If Brian had any intention of changing a member, it seems he had a duty to disclose that before signing the contract. Hopefully, Lewisohn can show where and when brian discloses to record company that "we will be making a change before next studio date". I'm no legal expert, but if I have a contract to have 4 musicians, each with a unique value to the group (maybe 1 member has more marketing value than music value), then I have every reasonable and legal right to expect those 4 guys to show up, not 3 guys and some stranger I've never heard of. For what it's worth, have fun kicking that around a bit. Haircut? Is that a reason to make a material, undisclosed, change to a record contract? Doesn't have same sense of humor? Is that a reason to make material, undisclosed,
change to a record contract? Even if Ringo Starr was a better drummer that Pete, neither EMI nor George Martin had any idea who he was, which is why they had contract with the JPGP band, not the "JPG and a player to be named later" band. Maybe Lewisohn has the documents to show the specific chain of communications. He has showed some docs in his earlier books, but nothing yet where record company gives permission for brian to make legal change to the band membership after the final recording contract was
signed. I hope the above makes some sense, at least from the perspective of considering that the matter isn't about someone someone wanting their friend in a band, or other trivial matter. There were no legal contracts at issue, and disclosures between counterparties would be required, especially if a significant change is about to be made before or after signing. If disclosures not made, then what would be the reasons that Brian didn't tell record company they have plans to sack the drummer? Would record company have cancelled on them? Its just food for thought.
Have fun kicking it around. I don't know the answer,
just asking some questions.
I'd hope Lewisohn documents can answer.
produce that document. Otherwise, it would appear that the brian signed a contract (with Pete as member), leaving record company to think that the same band that did the test on June 6th would be the same band coming back in to studio after the final contract had been signed. Until someone (perhaps Lewisohn?) can show full communications between Brian and record company,
it seems Brian made a material change to the band
after signing a record contract. If that's true, that he made material change after signing, why did neither brian nor JPG ask their new producer what kind of new drummer they should look for? (Maybe they didn't want record company knowing they were making a material change to band after they had alreasy signed contract). With a record contract in hand, there must have been something extraordinary, far beyond a haircut, or social habits, or allegedly poor drumming to prompt making such a major change, and then not asking the record company, the other side of the contract, for some guidance on what kind of drummer they should get. Instead, after signing record contract they dropped the fan's favorite, and brought in a drummer who had barely 3 weeks to learn new, original songs not just for live shows, but also at a level that would be acceptable in a studio session. It seems more rational that Martin's session drummer comment (after June 6th) provided a musical excuse - good cover story - to make change for some other reason. Whatever it was, must have been pretty huge, and well past most of the theories posted in thread. They had a new record contract, which included Pete as a bandmember. That means there's a whole lot of legal implications, especially if band manager was going to make material change without even asking record company for guidance on making such a change. Unless, of course, brian was trying to keep the change secret. Hopefully, Lewisohn's larger volume can show the relevant documents and communications of June, July, August '62. As for me, I believe George Martin (and the engineers ) , that he may have preferred a session drummer, but liked Pete as a live draw and saw no reason to make change. The foregoing may be 100 percent incorrect, but the band did have a signed contract, which normally would require full disclosure when negotiating. If Brian had any intention of changing a member, it seems he had a duty to disclose that before signing the contract. Hopefully, Lewisohn can show where and when brian discloses to record company that "we will be making a change before next studio date". I'm no legal expert, but if I have a contract to have 4 musicians, each with a unique value to the group (maybe 1 member has more marketing value than music value), then I have every reasonable and legal right to expect those 4 guys to show up, not 3 guys and some stranger I've never heard of. For what it's worth, have fun kicking that around a bit. Haircut? Is that a reason to make a material, undisclosed, change to a record contract? Doesn't have same sense of humor? Is that a reason to make material, undisclosed,
change to a record contract? Even if Ringo Starr was a better drummer that Pete, neither EMI nor George Martin had any idea who he was, which is why they had contract with the JPGP band, not the "JPG and a player to be named later" band. Maybe Lewisohn has the documents to show the specific chain of communications. He has showed some docs in his earlier books, but nothing yet where record company gives permission for brian to make legal change to the band membership after the final recording contract was
signed. I hope the above makes some sense, at least from the perspective of considering that the matter isn't about someone someone wanting their friend in a band, or other trivial matter. There were no legal contracts at issue, and disclosures between counterparties would be required, especially if a significant change is about to be made before or after signing. If disclosures not made, then what would be the reasons that Brian didn't tell record company they have plans to sack the drummer? Would record company have cancelled on them? Its just food for thought.
Have fun kicking it around. I don't know the answer,
just asking some questions.
I'd hope Lewisohn documents can answer.