The Beatles were riding the wave of their unparalleled successes when they were hit with a stark realisation. The world around them was rapidly changing socially, politically, and culturally, and the band, always at the forefront of these changes, felt a growing dissatisfaction with the traditional ways of the music business.
The Beatles
Though they had witnessed their music be transformed into a huge commodity and fodder for an incredibly successful business model, this trajectory made them feel somewhat boxed in, shackled by the unrelenting parameters of being a monetised and marketed global phenomenon. Despite their achievements, they had little control over how their work was managed and grew increasingly tired of being treated as mere subjects of profitability.
At the same time, the counterculture movement they had been entangled in preached an opposing ethos, where music was less a part of the capitalist regime and more an integral facet of freedom and expression. The Beatles’ rise to fame marked a significant turning point and a startling contradiction to this, and in response, they knew they needed a countering initiative that would redirect revolutionary and artist-friendly spaces in the industry.
Apple Corps wasn’t born out of the necessity to establish a new business venture; it was The Beatles’ attempt at regaining control in an industry that had long lost sight of its power as an art form for the people. “It’s a company we’re setting up which involved records, films, electronics which make records and films work, the by-products that end up as Larry Page T-shirts,” John Lennon cynically remarked the moment he sat beside Paul McCartney to discuss their new venture.
“It’s just trying to mix business with enjoyment,” McCartney interjected, evidently attempting to simplify the entire notion. His excitement became quickly shadowed by the negative implications of fame, as he added: “Because we find ourselves in business, but all the profits won’t go into our pockets, they’ll go to help people. But not like a charity.”
As such, The Beatles invented Apple Corps as a safe haven for artists. It was a radical statement against the status quo, a utopian vision where creativity and commerce could coexist harmoniously. It was “a kind of Western communism,” as McCartney put it, where musicians, filmmakers, painters, inventors, and thinkers could come together, free from the constraints of the commercial world.
Does Apple Corps still exist today?
A couple of years into Apple Corps’ existence, it faced significant financial struggles, which coalesced with The Beatles’ internal frictions and eventual breakup. For a number of years, it entered complete financial ruin to the point where dissolution was considered. However, after many years of litigation, the company survived by initially retiring most of its divisions.
Today, the company continues to operate in London, with ownership remaining with McCartney, Lennon, Ringo Starr, and George Harrison’s estates. Although it was initially launched with the vision of becoming the ultimate hub for today’s artists to create music with tomorrow’s equipment, Apple Corps is now mainly focussed on promoting and preserving The Beatles’ legacy.
Although it has diverted from its original purpose, Apple Corps has become something arguably much more important—a goldmine of Beatles material, including music releases, film projects, digital engagement, and licensing. Although it’s likely that The Beatles’ legacy would remain intact without Apple Corps acting as the central nucleus, the organisation is crucial to ensuring all generations of fans have consistent access not only to archive material but to those lost to the hands of time.
Moreover, even if Apple Corps ceased to exist, it has also accrued its own legacy that would likely withstand the test of time. Even through multiple disputes with Steve Jobs and structural internal reshuffling, the company remains one of the most important lessons in the music business, and that centres on the prospect of creating art for the sole purpose of creating art, not for profitable gain or market monopoly.
