Topic: Michael Jackson vs. Paul...your opinions (Read 10008 times)

sexy sadie · « **on:** July 09, 2004, 06:41:59 AM »

i was wondering what u guys thought of the michael jackson/paul mccartney fight. as i know it, the story was that in 1985 or around there the beatles catalog was up for grabs. michael mentioned buying it to paul, but he laughed it off and thought he was joking. paul was struggling to get money and even asked yoko for some to get it, but michael shelled out the $4.7 million or something close to that and got it. do u think paul has a right to be mad? i am a big fan of mj, so i tend to be a little more on his side...i do understand paul wanted it and it was his band, but michael did mention buying it and if he had the money and was a fan he had the right. im not sure of all the facts, i was just wondering what ur guys thoughts are.

The End · « **Reply #1 on:** July 09, 2004, 01:00:52 PM »

PAUL

You SO don't want to hear my comments on michael jackson (deliberately used no capital letters there!)

Bruno · « **Reply #2 on:** July 09, 2004, 01:23:37 PM »

Yeah, Jacko ended up buying the rights. I didn't like that but he was the one that came up with the money and bought them.
Too bad Paul didn't have the amount of money he has now

broady · « **Reply #3 on:** July 09, 2004, 01:44:43 PM »

What a d*ckhead. Any self respecting fan would let Paul have it (imo anyway, especially if Paul was so desperate to ask Yoko.)

Stupid Michael Jackson, he can't even be happy to stay black.

« **Reply #4 on:** July 09, 2004, 02:25:36 PM »

Wacko Jacko pulled a fast one. Business ethics I suppose.

Still, Paul could have easily afforded it himself. He says he was waiting on Yoko and it slipped away. Same way it happened the first time with the Beatles and Dick James.

Amazing...the Beatles (especially Paul) just seemed destined not to ever own their own songs. That's alright. He has enough spare change left.

broady · « **Reply #5 on:** July 09, 2004, 02:48:47 PM »

They just don't know what they're missing out on, eh?

NGM · « **Reply #6 on:** July 09, 2004, 04:43:03 PM »

There was doodoo all over the place!

tkitna · « **Reply #7 on:** July 09, 2004, 05:16:26 PM »

I agree with Charlie. Paul had 4.7 million laying around and dont believe him if he says differently (the guys worth a billion now and this was only 20 years ago, you do the math). I just believe it was a timing issue (Paul dropped the ball) and Paul lost.

Bruno · « **Reply #8 on:** July 09, 2004, 05:47:51 PM »

I tought it was 47 millions, not 4.7 ?

Bruno · « **Reply #9 on:** July 09, 2004, 05:53:11 PM »

yep, I found the correct amount here:

Quote

"1985: Michael Jackson buys the publishing rights of over 100 Beatle songs to the tune of $47.5 million, outbidding the combined efforts of Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono. McCartney had recommeded to Jackson buying publishing rights as a wise business investment."

now, there's a huge difference between 4.7 and 47 millions.

Rowdy · « **Reply #10 on:** July 09, 2004, 06:05:36 PM »

Paul still must be angry about it......he didn't include the Jackson duets on Wingspan....

Herecomesyoursun · « **Reply #11 on:** July 09, 2004, 11:01:05 PM »

what did mj want them for anyways?

Rowdy · « **Reply #12 on:** July 10, 2004, 12:40:40 AM »

They make you money in the longrun. You get dough whenever a Beatles track is used (and supposedly part of the album sales of recent releases like 1 and all)....in the long run, he probably made money off of the rights. A LOT of money.

Bruno · « **Reply #13 on:** July 10, 2004, 01:43:56 AM »

yeah, for example Jacko sold the song Revolution for a Nike commercial in the late 80s (I think).
In other words, if you want to use a Beatles song for commercial purposes you have to pay Jacko because he owns the rights

Herecomesyoursun · « **Reply #14 on:** July 10, 2004, 02:21:54 AM »

so paul doesn't get royalties for Beatle songs?

NGM · « **Reply #15 on:** July 10, 2004, 03:20:41 AM »

He still performs and makes albums.

number14 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 10, 2004, 04:30:20 AM »

Im on pauls side.

Rowdy · « **Reply #17 on:** July 10, 2004, 05:55:36 AM »

[quote by=number14 link=Blah.pl?b=news,m=1089355319,s=16 date=1089433820]Im on pauls side.[/quote]

Aren't we all?

Honestly though, Michael Jackson hasn't made a good album since Thriller....Bad had its moments and everything after that was garbage.

Stratford · « **Reply #18 on:** July 12, 2004, 08:44:44 AM »

There's more exact information here as to exactly what rights Jacko has with the music:
http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.htm

I don't like Jacko - I feel he doesn't respect the music, in a way. Dunno why, I just don't. I feel Paul would be the best choice to own the rights - he has a personal attachment to the songs (he wrote them) - why should anyone else have to say what the songs should be used for?

I usually don't care about tabloid scandals, but I've been following Jacko's money problems ever since I read he might very well be forced to auction off the Lennon/McCartney catalogue soon. If he does, I'll be off his back

broady · « **Reply #19 on:** July 13, 2004, 01:06:57 PM »

God Jacko is a jacka*s

News:

Author Topic: Michael Jackson vs. Paul...your opinions (Read 10008 times)

broady

broady

NGM

NGM

broady