Lennon, The Mobster and the Lawyer

I have been meaning to write a blog about the book Lennon, the Mobster and the Lawyer by Jay Bergen since I saw the author speak here in Nashville last year.  As an obsessive Beatles fan, I find that one of the most interesting chapters in John Lennon's life concerns his convoluted involvement with Morris Levy.

 

To recap, Levy, the notorious mobster who had far-reaching connections in the music business (owning among other entities, Roulette Records, Birdland and the Strawberries record store chains, as well as numerous publishing companies) sued Lennon for copyright infringement for "borrowing" a bit of Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me" in the song "Come Together".  (As an aside, I always wondered if that claim would have had any chance of success at trial).

 

Lennon did not want to litigate the case, and as a settlement, he offered to record several of Levy's other copyrights on an upcoming oldies album he was planning to record with Phil Spector.  Spector proved difficult to work with and eventually absconded with the master tapes, and Lennon had no choice but to delay the album while he finished a new album, Walls and Bridges (which included a bit of a Levy copyright ("Ya Ya ") but in an incomplete version. Levy was apparently not happy.  

 

Lennon and Capitol Records eventually retrieved the tapes from Spector, and Lennon began to arduously rework and finalize the recording Spector had started.  Without spoiling the plot, Levy decided he could somehow market the recording (sourced from an unfinished reel-to-reel tape Lennon had given him) as a sold-on-television-only album – which he did – despite the fact that Lennon was unquestionably signed exclusively  to Capitol Records as a recording artist.  The saga of the Roots album, John Lennon Sings the Great Rock & Roll Hits, with its cheap incongruous photo of White Album period Lennon on the cover, continues to perplex Beatles fans to this day.  

 

We know that lawsuits commenced immediately with Levy's company suing Lennon, Apple Records, Capitol Records, Lennon's attorney, Harold Seider, etc.   Lennon, Capitol and Apple filed counterclaims.  This book is the story of the ensuing  trial.  From a lawyer's perspective, Bergen's work is fascinating.  He describes the missteps made by Levy's counsel and  the importance of educating the judge as to why Lennon's claims of damage to his career were significant.  The parts where Bergen quotes directly from trial transcripts are amazing.   We also learn that Dave Marsh  was an expert witness for Lennon. The only complaint I have with the book is Bergen's re-creating dialog between Lennon and himself – although, in hindsight, this may have been the only way to convey Lennon's state of mind at the time.  It's interesting to see how Lennon was so engaged in every aspect of the trial.  It is also fascinating  to learn more about Morris Levy, one of the most  colorful characters in the music business.  (I still need to read Tommy James' book about his dealings with Levy).  I'm pleased  that Jay Bergen got to tell this story and I recommend it to both Beatles fans and courtroom drama enthusiasts.

Beatles History Lesson...You Do The Math

For half a century (!) Beatles' fans have been debating the fact that Capitol Records released different versions of the Beatles' recordings than their British counterpart Parlophone Records, a practice that lasted through the release of Revolver.  Capitol generally released albums with fewer songs, combined songs from different UK albums or EPs or created completely different compilations of songs.  First generation American fans are still jarred when they hear the British versions of albums like Help!  and Rubber Soul. On the other hand, this practice led to some purely American classics like the Beatles’ Second Album and of course Yesterday and Today.

            I've always subscribed to the theory that this practice was motivated by pure greed, i.e. Capitol could sell more records if they offered less songs per album than the British company.  I think that my theory has been slightly modified by the esteemed Bruce Spizer.  As an aside, all Beatle fans owe a debt of gratitude to Spizer, a New Orleans tax attorney who has published a series of fascinating and detailed books on the history of the Beatles' recordings in both the United States and England.  Although expensive, his books are well worth seeking out.

            In his book The Beatles Story on Capitol Records Volume 2, Spizer points out that in 1964 the statutory mechanical royalty rate (i.e. the amount the record company had to pay the music publisher per song per record) was 2 cents.  By contrast the rate today is 9.1 cents.  To quote  Spizer "although this may sound trivial today a reduction in the number of tracks on an album could cause significant savings when considering the value of money at that time."  Spizer goes on to say that by putting 12 songs on an album instead of 14 (as most British labels did) the company could save $40,000.00 per each million records sold and they could save an additional $20,000.00 by reducing the number of tracks to 11 (Spizer, P. 24).

            That's obviously a lot of money in 1964 dollars – according to the consumer price index calculator $60,000 in 1964 would be $461,309 today.  Of course all of this sounds silly when you're talking about the Beatles catalog but remember that no one in the record business in 1964 figured that this music would still be around in 50 years (or  that we would be gladly buying the records over and over) It's even more interesting to look at the Beatles' artist royalty rate on their early recordings, but that's another story.

Jim Fogelsong

I feel compelled to write something about my friend, Jim Fogelsong, who died a few weeks ago at the age of 90.  Although I certainly knew who he was, I did not know Jim when he ran MCA Records or Capitol Records in Nashville in the 1980's.  I got to know Jim when he took on running the music business program at Trevecca Nazarene University.  I think that I had already been teaching there as an adjunct  for a few years when he arrived.

Jim made a point of spending time with each faculty member, meaning, in my case, he would take me to lunch each semester.  I grew to really enjoy these lunches. Later, when he started teaching a music business survey course at Vanderbilt's Blair School of Music, he would invite me to come speak to his class each semester ‑ an offer which always included an early dinner at Noshville.

  During our meals,  Jim would tell me stories about working for RCA Records and Columbia Records in New York.  He once told me a great story involving Doug Sahm and another one about trying out for a major league baseball farm team.  I am a student of the history of the music business and I was fascinated when Jim told me that he thought  he knew the guy who invented the controlled composition clause.  I told him that he should write a book.  I think he said that he was too busy. I think he was 86 at the time.  It's a shame that he couldn't share his vast institutional knowledge with the world.

  Honestly, what impressed me most about Jim was his awareness and concern for his Trevecca students ‑ he knew their strengths, weaknesses, passions, family situations,etc.   He cared deeply about them and I found this remarkable.  As my friend, Kay West wrote about him last week , "the good in Jim Fogelsong was there for all to see."  It really was.  I feel lucky to have known him and I  will miss those dinners at Noshville.

Tomorrow Never Knows: Don Draper Does the Math

I am a huge fan of "Mad Men".  I am also a huge Beatles fan and once I discovered that the show’s  trajectory was chronological,  I have been anticipating Don Draper's discovery of the Beatles.  While we have had nice little references in the past (Don buying his daughter Sally the latest Beatles’ record, Don trying unsuccessfully to meet the Rolling Stones to discuss a television commercial) nothing prepared me for the visceral excitement of watching and hearing Don drop the needle on "Tomorrow Never Knows".  Matthew Weiner got this exactly right.

                The next day we learned that the show paid approximately $250,000.00 for the synchronization license and master use license i.e. the right to use not just the song but the Beatles' original recording on the show.  Every music lawyer knows what a coup it was for the producers to get the master use rights as well as the synchronization rights to "Tomorrow Never Knows".  I thought it would be fun to guess what the various interested parties might have made on this deal.  Understand this is pure conjecture, based on traditional record company/publishing company economics.  The Beatles’ story is not traditional. The story of how Lennon and McCartney founded a publishing company, then lost it, only to see it end up in the hands of Michael Jackson and Sony has been reported many times (apparently most explicitly in a book called "Only a Northern Song" that I am still waiting to get my hands on).  Additionally,  everyone is aware of the fact that the years of litigation between the Beatles and EMI mean that the Beatles most assuredly do not have a traditional 50/50 split of license fee income with EMI…but assuming that they did –

                Then, one has to also assume that this deal involved the traditional split of 50/50 between master use license and synchronization license.  That is not always the case but it is a good rule of thumb.  Under this scenario the publisher of the song, Sony/ATV would receive $125,000 of which $62,500 would be paid in equal shares of $31,250 to Paul McCartney and the heirs of John Lennon (as an aside it looks as if Lennon's share of the copyright to the song was renewed in 1995 in the names of Yoko Ono, Sean Lennon and Julian Lennon).

                From the master use side, typically the label EMI (the parent company of Capitol) would split the master use fee 50/50 with the artist which means that it would pocket $62,500 and pay out approximately $15,625 to each of the Fabs or their heirs.

                Again, all this is mainly illustrative and is not meant to presume to know the intricacies of Apple's finances.  However if anyone knows more details about this deal please share.  In the interim, I  can wonder what Don Draper's reaction would have been had he heard the original "Anthology" version of "Tomorrow Never Knows" and what Don Draper, the ad man would have thought about paying $250,000 to use a song in a television show.