?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Apr. 4th, 2007 @ 11:32 am Rant Post #12
About this Entry
macca
abromeds:
[User Picture Icon]
From:hb_princess
Date:April 5th, 2007 03:28 pm (UTC)

Re: Was Ringo really blameless?

(Permanent Link)
Part of the problem with the business was that instead of making a unanimous decision as they had always done, the Beatles started making 3-1 decisions.

Thank. You.

Why nobody EVER points this out when they start in with all the "Paul sued his best friends OMGHESUXELEVENTYBILLION!!" bullshit is a mystery to me. No doubt Paul was pretty fucking stupid (or, okay, maybe NOT so very stupid) to try and push for his new in-laws, and no doubt John and Yoko were gullible morons (you pick a manager b/c he knows which songs you wrote, John? Hello?), but the bottom line is that all decisions to that point had been all-or-nothing _ ALWAYS - and all of a sudden this one wasn't. That's a betrayal, folks, any way you slice it - and I don't blame Paul one bit for saying, "Well, then, fuck ya! See you in court, assholes."

(I do blame him for a myriad host of OTHER bad behaviors, mind you - just not that one.)

And, yeah, Ringo definitely had a hand in that as much as anyone.
[User Picture Icon]
From:minds_opaque
Date:April 5th, 2007 04:40 pm (UTC)

Re: Was Ringo really blameless?

(Permanent Link)
I don't blame Paul one bit for saying, "Well, then, fuck ya! See you in court, assholes."

And see, that wasn't even his attitude. He describes himself agonizing over whether he had any other choice but to sue them. Paul was definitely betrayed, but I don't see any sign that he went the revenge route. That's pretty cool.
[User Picture Icon]
From:abromeds
Date:April 5th, 2007 04:45 pm (UTC)

Re: Was Ringo really blameless?

(Permanent Link)
Hmm, I would say it was a bit of both. I don't doubt the decision was excruciating, but that doesn't mean he wasn't pissed as well. With a capital "sst." ;D
[User Picture Icon]
From:minds_opaque
Date:April 5th, 2007 04:50 pm (UTC)

Re: Was Ringo really blameless?

(Permanent Link)
Could be! I don't know how much his anger went into the decision to go to court. But when the other Beatles were calling it a betrayal, Paul could say not only did he have to do it, but they betrayed him first.
[User Picture Icon]
From:abromeds
Date:April 7th, 2007 02:11 am (UTC)

Re: Was Ringo really blameless?

(Permanent Link)
the bottom line is that all decisions to that point had been all-or-nothing - ALWAYS - and all of a sudden this one wasn't. That's a betrayal, folks, any way you slice it

Ooch, yeah, that is true. :( I guess "blameless" isn't the best term... "significantly lacking in blame relative to the other three" would probably be better... ;)