Book Review You Never Give Me Your Money PART 2 by Peter Doggett |  

Regarding Lennon's heroin addiction and the breakup - Lennon was on heroin seriously for a little over a year, I think. Keith Richards was a junkie for more than a decade. The Beatles broke up; the Stones didn't. Although the drugs certainly didn't help, the problem was always John himself. He wanted the band to break up.

Hi Matt. Great video and very interesting stuff discussed. I believe that Doggett’s book is, in the main, excellent but I did have an issue over the Lennon/McCartney shareholding in Northern Songs. From what I remember from reading this book, Klein allegedly found out that McCartney was buying up shares but had not told Lennon. Klein then told Lennon who exploded as there was a verbal agreement between John and Paul not to buy up shares without at least telling each other first. I also understand that Paul had around 100 shares more than Lennon. The way this is told in the book suggests John and Paul fell out badly over this, almost to the extent that this sole fact caused the break up of their relationship. However, I have found that the 100 share discrepancy was a result of Lennon’s divorce settlement from Cynthia, in which he transferred 100 shares in Norther Songs to be held in trust for Julian. So I’m not sure if the Doggett version is necessarily correct. Again, trying to get to the truth is so difficult ! That said, I do think had Epstein survived, the business side would have unfolded very differently and may have led to the group not breaking up at this time. Cheers Tim

You two could talk Beatles until you’re blue in the face and I wouldn’t miss a syllable. Bottom line… this is great shit! 👍

Great stuff lads. My in-laws and wife of 42 years are from the Glasgow district 'The Gorbals. This is as tough a district as any where in Scotland. In 1969 the thought of therapy would be viewed as simply out of the question. It was seen as being soft and vulnerable. Two things no working class British person in 1969 could ever be accused of. Anthony's take on Americans (Vis a vis therapy) was/is honest and accurate, As a Yank, I appreciate that. Looking forward to Part #3. Happy New Year Matt, Rick

I really enjoy listening to these interviews. Thank you.

Excellent conversation. I think John's reactions and interactions with all these events were NOT based on any sort of logical process but was entirely based on emotion. Not just emotion but a sort of messed up teenager emotion. Irrational and very self absorbed. I was like that to a certain extent too but maybe not as ADHD as Lennon.

I love being a fly on the wall for these conversations! Worst part of the video? They end, could watch you guys talk all day about the Beatles!

The Longest Cocktail Party is one of the most entertaining books about The Beatles. It was published in 1971, I think. I'm surprised it didn't cause scandal. It's very funny.

I haven't read You Never Give Me Your Money since I bought it years ago, but because of your video, I have to read it again. You guys mentioned, The Longest Cocktail Party. Another great read, is Miss O'Dell by Chris O'Dell. She was hired by Derrick Taylor towards the end of the Beatles, and gives her own insight on what was going on at Apple on a daily basis.

16:00 Lennon also makes some rather nasty anti-semitic comments about Eastman in the Lennon Remembers interview. Eastman went on to help make McCartney very wealthy after 1970 and no doubt could have done the same for the Beatles if given the chance.

If they had carried on for one more year. The black album would knock everyone’s socks off!!

14:00 Yes. Beatles commentators usually swing from one monolithic pov to its reactionary revisionist opposite. So JL goes from working class prototype to undercover bourgeois. He was working class, with a middle class veneer that was to do with Woolton Village and a grammar school. But his first home was working class tenement, his mother and father were working class through and through, and so was most of his extended family and so was Mimi and George (who cleaned trams for a living for a while) - - Mimi was an interloper on Menlove Ave who only got the house by scaling the back fence and claiming squatter's rights to own the place. Every Mimi interview I ever saw, she came over working class and hard despite her pretensions - - merely snobbish in the way some working class folk could be, more class conscious than the upper class. PM was working class but he too had a slight veneer based on his parents' modest but bourgeois aspirations for him that fed PM's ambition and his dialect and his grammar school education - - the college puddin'. They did have an upright piano, but then so did I, from a background that was working class with no upward gradients whatsoever - - 2nd hand upright pianos were a fixture of some working class households that hark back before television and before affordable gramophone players/records, with only the wireless for company. That working class tradition died by the end of the 1960s - - ours was chopped up and burned in a bonfire, and not even Harpo could have got a tune out of the embers. 11+ exam results put a schism between boyhood friends that was class-related where class was not on their radar pre-11. GH was more straightforwardly working class: only grammar school suggested aspirations upwards and even there he was hanging by a thread. Ringo was unequivocally working class and the only one who dabbled in gang fights out of necessity. Brian Epstein was the nearest thing to middle class they'd ever seen. He had a car that was paid for and sounded like he was from South of the regional divide. Had Epstein lived, how would that would have affected the Beatles rifts? Epstein was losing influence with the group after they stopped touring, and some say the group was considering sacking him. They showed back in 1962 how ruthless they could be in dropping someone. Some even say that Epstein killed himself, because he could see it coming. Pete Best attempted suicide that same year for reasons that may point to that same wound. Around 1969 the Beatles were aware of some naive business deals of Epstein's that lost them money...but had Epstein lived, they wouldn;t have been aware of that so soon. Had Epstein lived and continued to manage them, this erases the big Klein/Eastman rift between the Beatles. If that was why they split, the cause doesn't arise with Eppy. Eppy's power base was a partnership[ with Dick James which as you say would have kept James on board so Lennon-McCartney keep their songs in-house...and Eppy had a strong relationship with George Martin so at least Eppy had a comrade inside the studio. Eppy was so Mr Showbiz that the rooftop concert would never have happened, alas: Eppy would have talked them round to a respectable venue even if it was only his own London theatre. So the interesting What If question is, had Eppy lived, how would he have influenced the Yoko Ono problem? Probably not very much. His influence wasn't what it was. Eppy's own future would be more determined by what Yoko Ono thought of HIM, that's the power shift that would have happened anyway. If YO put the finger on him, Epstein would have been sold down the river on JL's initiative and the others would have gone along with it if they already harbored misgivings about his fiscal management. So then they are headed straight into a Klein/Eastman situation anyway. Seems they always draw that card no matter which What If comes up: Go Directly To Jail, Do Not Pass Go.

The 70's was the time of encounter groups, Esalen, Est and stuff like that in North America. Primal Scream "therapy" evolved as part of that milieu. There were quite a lot of things done that had rather destructive effects on some people. California was the main driver of the counterculture; the New York scene would have been different but subject to the same overall zeitgeist in some ways. Antony is right that the buttoned-up emotional culture of England was much different. I don't know if John Lennon suffered from a condition such as bipolar disorder, but he almost certainly would have had CPTSD stemming from the abandonment and family trauma of his early years. Just knowing that one famous anecdote of being made to "choose which parent" at age 5.... one can expect him to have been left with lifelong issues that would not have resolved on their own. Great convo again, you two! Thanks for letting us listen in 🙂

John was fighting his Scot/ Irish side against his English side.lol😄

Hey Pete, what broke up the Beatles? "I don't know that either! Great job Boys! Very entertaining two parter.

Happy New Year both ! Excellent and interesting conversation. Looking forward to part 3 ! Some reflections, i lost my mum at 17 and basically had to just get on with it, no counselling etc was not in the 50s like Lennon but 70s Uk. I blamed Drs , for years not sure why, i was angry but couldn’t explain why, my brother was Pauls age and interestingly was melancholic but kept it inside! Lennon as you both allude had a very confused personality, being free he oddly needed a Mimi /yoko figure, was this why Klien appealed ! He does in a rare tv interview in 73 say Paul was right ! But its done ! Liverpool people love to chat it’s like Irish people! I think to understand Lennon it’s understanding how talking for him gets something out ? Then somehow the world is better and you move on, others may find his words harsh, but for him he’s moved on and doesn’t see the hurt ? Probably a physiological name for this, this is why he is often contradictory? Fred Seaman let himself down by misting the waters on Lennon for me, for sure he probably speaks a truth but why feed Goldman ? Fluxus is a fascinating art movement early 60s i can see it’s appeal to Lennon ! Last thought where john and yoko pioneers of the Tik Tok world, everything culture and you tube communication world we now have ? Great stuff lads x ❤

Great series gentleman. When I finish the Paul McCartney Legacy book, this book is next for me.

Loved it guys!! I wonder if Derek Taylor ever said to Lennon "on our first trip I tried so hard to rearrange your mind". 😎😎😬

An interesting side note is how the Historiography of these events are told. On the one side you have Lennon/Klien's stories, on the other you have McCartney/Eastman's stories. In this sense, McCartney/Eastman are the clear victors as their story is the one that is most accepted.

Don't forget the timeline on the management deal. Late 1968- McCartney/Lennon go shopping for new management. Late 68, McCartney goes to New York, meets with John Eastman (and Lee?) and chooses him to represent him; which he seems to want from this point forward; and for Eastman to represent the band, if the rest of the band will have Eastman . Jan- Get Back starts, McCartney has already offered John Eastman as the solution, Linda is there at some of the rehearsals. To Paul, she is his girlfriend, to the others she represents that as well, but also as being the sister of the manager Paul is offering. My impression is that John is not pleased with Eastman being offered and wants another choice, I think this because of how he informs George about his first meeting with Klein (during the Get Back doc). Late January, John meets with Klein. The next evening, Klein meets with all four. Paul begs off early in the meeting. George and Ringo stay and start to lean towards Klein. George is quoted as saying, "Well, if that was the choice, then I'm going with Klein". Ringo also chooses Klein. I assume that because so many of the artists in George and Ringo's orbit had been involved with Klein that George and Ringo asked around, or already knew a little about Klein. I also assume that George and Ringo had been informed about the previous search results for new management. With John Eastman, Ringo and George may have felt he was too inexperienced and unknown. After the Eastman's blow up in the joint meeting with the Beatles and Klein, the choice was easy for George and Ringo. (Ringo and George are portrayed as passive players in the process, but I think this is so only because they have spoken out so little about it.) After that, all three had chosen Klein and Paul remained opposed. The urgency to clean up the Apple and contracts messes also may have played a big part in the Beatles desire to make the decision now. Which means it was either Klein or the Eastmans and a choice had to be made.

I think the reason why they didn't consider a 3rd option was because of Lennon. Around this point in time, after the real emotional turmoil and depression of the India trip, he was feeling a second wind of self confidence. Mainly through his relationship with Yoko, he began to believe in himself again in a very strong way. I believe he had told himself "I believe in me and I believe in my decisions. I will not compromise what I believe in or do what anybody tells me to". All 4 of them needed to unanimously agree to look for a 3rd option, and John wasn't having it

Great discussion! Kind regards, Scott Rowland

There's a photo of John Eastman from right around that time period in the book APPLE TO THE CORE - THE UNMAKING OF THE BEATLES by Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld, published in 1972. He vaguely resembled Ryan O'Neal at that time. I once saw a photo of Lee Eastman from that time period, but I can't recall where I saw it.

I listened to the “Nothing is Real” multi part series on Allen Klein and to simplify things, I think Klein screwed up the NEMS/Triumph Investment situation and the Eastman’s screwed up the Northern Songs situation. Regarding Lennon getting angry at Paul “secretly” buying” up shares of Northern Songs, what a joke. Those were public shares! Lennon could have easily bought more shares if he wanted to.

Facsinating discussion, Matt and Antony! Your attention to detail is incredible!

For the three Americans (New Yorkers?) who "infiltrated" the Beatles post Brian's death, you could add Phil Spector. While not involved in the business side of things, he contributed to the breakdown of Lennon and McCartney's musical relationship. Personality-wise, George Martin he was not

i've always suspected that George and Ringo went with Klein because they knew that it was John who had pushed for George and Ringo to get a small part of Northern Songs back in '62. that was a pretty huge act of generosity on John's part. and both George and Ringo had temporarily quit at different times because of Paul telling them how to play in the studio, which probably didn't help.

Seems like this ended quite suddenly Matt - does that mean (fingers crossed!) that there's a Part 3?

I read somewhere that Epstein's contract with the Beatles was due to expire and since they retired from touring his role would be diminished. There was speculation that the Beatles would not renew Epsteins contract as he lost them millions of dollars with poor deals and practically giving away merchandising rights. Although Epstein believed in the Beatles and they owe him much credit for getting their careers launched, he was a terrible manager.

In a time of extreme income inequality it pays (pun intended) to revisit the breakup of the Beatles. At that time in Britain, anything past a certain income level was taxed at 95%! So there was no incentive for the Beatles to create a product that people wanted to buy, if they couldn’t make money themselves. So they started their own multi media company, Apple, basically as a tax dodge. From day one it was intended to waste money so the taxman wouldn’t get it. And they wasted their talent right along with it. Apple quickly became a giant money pit and all around circus. It lead to tensions in the group and that was the end of the Beatles

When we talk about Paul making a stand against Brian, or whatever you want to call it, we have to remember that Brian went on holidays with John, and only John. Everybody knew about his feelings towards John. And still we expect Paul (and the others) to just sit still, when the manager clearly has a favourite?

(btw- this podcast has been awesome; take my long posts as a compliment). NEMS- The Beatles liquidity issues in 1969 were due to NEMS selling to Triumph.NEMS sold to Triumph because of Eastman's letter accusing NEMS (and by extension, Epstien and his brother) of impropriety. EMI was holding that money until the Beatles and Triumph could work out a deal. Klien was forced to make a deal with Triumph (as opposed to NEMS) , which he does, but it takes about 3-6 months. In that time the Beatles record money is being held by EMI. Dick James/Publishing. James is looking to sell by at least January 1969. You rightly state that this result is primarily the fault of Lennon and McCartney. McCartney buying shares on the sly was devastating to John, as they were partners and expected to do things re their publishing together, not separately . Lennon's sense of betrayal was big. You are also correct in saying that L/MC should have been buying shares- they should have offered to buy the whole thing from James- he's shopping it to them in the Get Back doc. However, Klien was not yet in a position to advise them to do this until after James has already sold them. Eastman has McCartney secretly buying shares long before Klein arrives in the scene. After James sold, it was a matter of a bidding war between ATV and Len/McC. Eatsman tried to sabotage this process, complicated by their money being held by EMI, by withholding McCartney's ready cash. Klien made up the difference by contributing his own money. The timely negative newspaper article in London on Klein made the Consortium (3rd party) nervous about selling to the Beatles. The Consortium's desire to NOT have Lennon or McCartney on the board if they merge with the Beatles pisses off Lennon. Lennon's comments in the papers also made the 3rd party nervous about selling to the Beatles. The Eastman/Klein (McC/Len) power struggle also made the 3rd party nervous. They sell their shares to ATV and Len/McC's publishing is gone. Klein negotiates a big buyout of Len/McC's shares to get them a payout. Len/Mc have no control over their publishing, but continue to get 50% writing royalties up to the present time. EMI- Klien is rebuffed in trying to renegotiate their UK record deal , but is allowed to renegotiate their US deal, which he does at an excellent rate of compensation. Klein is able to do this despite Eatman informing Capitol that Klein did not represent McCartney. UA- Klein uses Let it Be to fulfill their contract with UA pictures. McCartney gets his solo album released before Let it Be and the film come out and announces his split. Apple- Klein cleans out the riff raff and ends the rampant spending. McCartney retreats to Scotland, change his phone number and ignores Apple. Apple/The Beatles shared holdings are now as consolidated as they are going to be. NEMS and its percentage take has been removed, obligations to UA has been fulfilled. Northern Songs is gone, A new record deal has been signed- increasing their profits, and the money pit of Apple has been stopped reducing their outflow of cash. . Klein's management deal is for 20% of what the Beatles makes in profit due to his deals. Klein does not make 20% off of the Beatles gross income, only 20% of the profit he makes them AFTER becoming their manager. In ALLL of these deals, the Beatles would have greatly benefited by presenting a united front. I have included McCartney/Eastman's behavior to highlight the pattern of obstruction which was consistent throughout this period and probably cost the Beatles better deals. At any rate, the deals they did make were a big improvement to their cash flow and future income. Abbey Road, Hey Jude and Let it Be all bring in more cash than the Beatles were earning before as do their solo records in 1970. This all stops in early 1971 when Eastman/MCartney wins his lawsuit against the Beatles (an amazing long shot victory for John Eastman btw). After the lawsuit, the Beatles and their solo profits money is held in trust until they negotiate a final separation. McCartney/Eastman will not negotiate this final separation until Klein is gone. Once Klein is let go by the other 3, negotiations begin and are resolved by Jan 1975. After that their money is released. I am not 100%, but I think the Red and Blue albums are needed to fulfill the terms of the renegotiated royalty rate on the records on Capitol. (they also forestall a unauthorized greatest hits package about to be shopped at the time).

I think it's easy to get bogged down in the John Eastman-Klein power struggle. I say John Eastman, because he is by far the lead on this. Lee Eastman only comes in once.Paul Relationship with John Eastman starts in late 1968. I think the other three rightly viewed John Eastman as young, vastly inexperienced compared to Klein, the brother of Paul's fiancé, and obviously out to promote Paul's interests over the other three. This makes their decision to go with Klein a much more reasonable response. We also tend to judge the Eatman's based on how well they did for Paul after the breakup, which they did very well indeed. However, the Eastman's actions in 1969-70 were not very wise. But all of this distracts from what was needed to be done- which I outline below.

Stellar...as always!

I ordered a copy of You Never Give Me Your Money because of this ongoing conversation and I've been reading it through for the first time. Something I thought was very interesting is Ono's account that John wanted her to be around all the time which is a different perspective than I'm used to hearing. I find her perspective humanizes her a little more and does not make her out to be the controlling force in Johns life but rather, the one who is controlled. Like all relationships, I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle. Another interesting discovery from this book is that Paul's girlfriend Francie Schwartz wrote her own book which documents her time with Paul. Have you read her book? The quotes Doggett uses from her work does not paint McCartney in a very good light at all. Take good care Matt. You're doing great work.

An expert account pored over by two experts.

Money destroyed the Beatles relationships and that caused the break-up. TRUE

Way cool video's, thank you Matt and Antony, really enjoyed the convo's.. I read this book a few years ago and it is just superb. It's one of those books that you can open at any random page or paragraph and get immediately hooked and engrossed in it / that sad part of Beatles history gets so complex and it's hard to reconcile the fabs breaking up and falling apart as they did.:. ..........(Daily Mail headline: "When Yoko walked in McCartney said O NO!"} .........BTW .I've just finished reading Tony Bramwell's 'Magical Mystery Tours'. Dude it's mean!

In terms of the Lennon/Klein relationship, Lennon does discuss Klein with George and Ringo during the Get Back sessions and it is in the Get Back docuseries (Part 3 I think); it’s also interesting what he says about Klein. And, despite what George says, he hero-worshipped Lennon !

I had a connection with NAT WEISS stayed a few nights same place where JOHN & Paul stayed in NYC April 68 Tonight Show (Danny Fields LINDA'S Friend -film DANNY SAYS a real eye opener (how much do I know😉)

i think I will save this one and take a look tomorrow with a glass of wine maybe :)

Regarding your comments about John Lennon's "tough guy" image vs. his ability to carefully pick his fights, I would suggest that the reason he ordered Epstein to sack Pete Best instead of talking to Pete himself was because he knew that Pete could likely "take him" in a fight. Pete was the only former athlete in the group, having played sports in school. You might also recall that when the Beatles were in Hamburg, John took Pete along when he decided he would try to "roll" a British sailor late one night.

BBC 4 THE BRIAN EPSTEIN STORY DVD hard to find sadly awesome

maybe one reason John liked Cline was because the Stones liked him

Matt, I enjoyed the videos so much that I bought the book.Well, on Audible, so notes nor photos. And let me praise the folks who have commented. A lot of the Amazon reviews of Doggett can be seriously critical because he has the temerity to show the Beatles in a bad light. The art and the artist are two separate entities, so I do relish seeing what went on with 'the boys' behind the cloak of the Fab Four. I guess this makes me a bit of a peeping Tom, but we are all human beings, foibles and all, on this biosphere, and deifying your heroes is doomed to failure. Unless you are sitting with the three monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.

What is the Janoff incident?

John was crazy, Paul was full of himself, George was self-righteous, and Ringo was unsure of himself.

Note on the class approach: John called Eastman a WASP Jew, so here's that.

Hi Matt....Terry Tutor here (still in Brazil)....yeah, I live the sarcasm in this book, but it reminds me of something earlier. ...Do you have any of the versions of "The Beatles: An Illustrated Record" by Roy Carr and Tony Tyler? A wonderful read....particularly when they don't like a song...As always love your show......Peace and love.....

Bodyguard Malcolm Evans (Mal) didn’t look a tough nut.

As you and Antony discussed, details of Brian Epstein’s life (and a lot of his business dealings) are fairly sparse. A few topics that could be examined further include: -His favoritism towards Lennon and its impact on group dynamics. -The possibility of his sexual orientation having any influence (as is often rumored) on his decision to sign The Beatles and/or his management style with them. -His success as a business manager. Clearly, he was brilliant in his marketing of The Beatles. But was he as bad of a financial manager as history treats him?

Matt, Antony, The Epstein family always considered Brians involvement in the music industry to be not a real job and also dirty. So as soon as Dick James sold his shares in Northern Songs, Clive sold all of Epstein's shares as well. All this was easy to do because John and Paul had resigned from the board of Northern Songs. Yoko was like Johns mum. It was her that got John to the studio. It was like a parent taking a child to school every day, the child does'nt want to go. But as soon as they get in the school gates they are off with their mates. Over the years George slowly became more and more grumpy. I Wonder if George would have turned into Mr. Grumpy from the Mr. Men, books? Lord Beeching. This was John referring to Lord Beeching and liking him to the "Fat Controller" from the "Thomas the Tank Engine" books where the Fat Controller can sort out any disaster. Everyone seems to take it as a true statement of intent. Not one of Johns irony lines. About who should manage the Beatles. Part 3, please. Cheers Chris Perry.

Are You Joking? There’s Still Classism in America.

Most of Lennon and Yoko's stuff is pretty lame. Although I also do think they are funny and entertaining. On the bad side it just looks like dumb exhibitionism. I do think the nude cover for their Two Virgin's album was brilliant. It is a great idea to mock the publics desire to know absolutely everything. So there they are totally naked."Here you go, you want everything?"-" here it is- both sides"). Lennon's constant changes in focus and need to promote them no matter how trivial and his desire to be perceived as cool and forward thinking just rankles after a bit.

It always seemed like Lennon was using media interviews and art as a means of therapy. While, of course, art can be therapeutic, he surely needed significant psychiatric/psychological help. It’s too bad that the weirdo Janov was his one shot at this. Almost anything else would have been more productive. A more traditional approach could have really helped him.

What do you make of the comments that in 1980 Lennon signed a legal document referring to a Beatles reunion in 1981, and that a booking had been made in, I think, Central Park? Is this bs, a business manoeuvre by Lennon, or was something going on that nobody involved wants to talk about now, given Lennon's murder?

First home Pen Lane IS THAT PENNY LANE? Talk properly please you two ruffians 😂