Only A Northern Song

I am writing this blog whilst listening to a programme broadcast on BBC Radio 2 on Monday entitled Only A Northern Song. The synopsis of the programme taken from the website is shown here:

Paul Sexton tells the story of how the two most successful songwriters in pop history won and then lost control of a billion dollar publishing empire.

Northern Songs was set up in 1963 by Dick James and Beatles manager Brian Epstein, solely to publish the songs of John Lennon and Paul McCartney. It went public in 1965, and then in 1969, that weighty songbook slipped out of John and Paul's hands, when ATV stepped in and bought Northern Songs without their immediate knowledge or consent. The programme describes how the catalogue then came to be bought in the 1980s by Michael Jackson, and how Paul McCartney and the family of the late John Lennon would effectively (but quite legally) be denied their birthright.

The documentary explains how Northern Songs was bought and sold with the help of eyewitnesses such as songwriters of the day Tony Hatch and Graham Gouldman; Dick's son Stephen James; Northern Songs’ lawyer Michael Eaton; Brian Southall, the author of a recent book about the company; and Paul Russell, who worked closely with Michael Jackson at CBS when he bought the catalogue.


Here we go then.

Programme presented by Paul Sexton. I've never heard of him either. Paul McCartney does not own 'Yesterday', but does appear that he owns a lot of random nonsense, including 'I Once Was An Ugly Duckling'. Perhaps he thought it was autobiographical. He was wrong. Never became the swan.

Now we're talking, a bit of George, 'Only A Northern Song' playing, as expected. See previous entrys for details.

'Cos It's Only a Northern Song'. Imagine my dulcite Yorkshire tones singing along.

Sexton is talking a lot about publishing companies, it just sounds like a lot of letters to me. I'm sure they stand for something. Not keeping up very well. I wonder what the letters do stand for. There's a fun game. What do you reckon:

Brian Southall. Thinks it is very odd that the beatles do not own there songs, and is comparing this issue to artists owning paintings, the idea that the creativity can be bought and sold, and original ideas can be passed to another.

This idea is very intriguing, yet I can't help thinking that ownership is purely a kind of figurehead positon, even though Michael Jackson may technically own 'Yesterday' would anyone question that in truth it belongs to Lennon and McCartney? I suppose the real issue is that of control, how the songs are used and distributed. And yet it is of general opinion that when and artist releases their work into the world, it is then a product of the public, to interpret and use in any way they see fit. I would say this was certainly true of visual artists. To relate the question of ownership to them aswell,

ut how would people make money? no matter who owns it, everyone knows who's it really is. if someone owned a damian hirst, hirst is going to earn the fame, the owner would just be known for being rich.

there are chatting about Dick James and George Martin. dont really care. going to carry on about ownership.

so, how important is it to own your work?

northern was open for lennon and mcartney. thats faith. everyone is speaking about how northern was an unusual set up in regard to percentages. blind spot with regard to publishing. very true. get on the the beatles stuff, not the behind the scenes fighting.

steve harley. rock on.

write that songwriters should own songs, should lease songs to publishers. 20's wrote song in shop, sold it for a tenner.

world without love. havent heard that for a while. golden oldie. artists covering betales songs, northern still got money.

michelle. overlanders wanted it. never been a favourite of mine.

songs earn money once you have it, they are so famous they attract revenue through covers.

1965 float on stock exchange. if any one wnats to comment about whet tahis means please do.

'flittering writing talents of george harrison' what

southall wrote recent book on northern songs. maybe i should read it/

lenmac became maclen oh paul, you will never be first

northern sold to atv 69, len and mac no longer owners

bit of george, bit of taxman

george seems to be narrating this very well, is he a background story teller, len and mac leaft to get the glamour storylines.

floating northerns songs made it tax free - saved money.

harrison restricted in northern, looked at him thinking not belonging, wanted out early, len mac had too much of stronghold

discribing only northern as dreadful. saved for yellow, what does that say about yellow

earning - covers everyone has.

nortehrn sold to atb without knowledge of john or paul. epstein only one to hold band. brian died. quite teh nut shell. maybe it wasnt yokos fault.

resigend to atb in 73 for second time when contracts expired.

yoko got rights in 80

mccca wanted songs back, only wanted northern not just atb 42 mill dollars - wouldnt buy songs 25 for northern told to buy al then sell off. 82 knew ownership

paul gave michael idea to buy songs.

lots of thriller cash, what to do with it? michael said paul should buy, paul said didnt, would nt buy together so michael saig would buy on own 84

michel gave chairmans daughter penny lane as good faith mark, her favourit esong

beatles and families have no say who songs are used

87 jackson and capital used revolution for nike ad, hardly the context.

greatest catoloue in world, ddidnt want tehem made freely available. discisions didnt have to go through michel as sony stv controlled but they still did. king=d of like th equeen

mcartney wants the publishing, strange when he goes on stage and has to pay someone else but hey, rock on

precious not about money, as everything with the beatles, its love love love


rb if you are reading this, i'm going to sort it out