Create new topic
Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)| Author | Message |
Why Michael Jackson is Not Broke, (for the morons ) IS IT BECAUSE HE'S BLACK?: What They Don't Want You to Know About Michael Jackson
| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
now get this
| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i don't care how much money he has, i just want some memorable new music from the man. that's all.
i....feel.... cold as a razorblade, tight as a tourniquet, dry as a funeral drum...... | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Nice read. Thanks for the article. It´s a real rarity to read something nice about MJ.
"When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
WE WANT NEW MUSIC! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Been saying this for years. "Think inside out." | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I'd love to see him releasing groundbreaking music again! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Thats a very interesting article, yes songs like "Kayne west - gold digger" yeah Mike owns that song, | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
That article is more opinion than it is written on the basis of pure facts. Yes MJ owns half the Sony catalogue and Yes that will be enough to keep him from ever going poor, but that has never been in dispute. MJ's problem is not the brilliant peices of business he conducted when at the height of his fame and power & sanity (peices of business that have everything to do with advisors and good fortune as much as they do with his own savy), but it is to do with the state he is in today.
| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CrozzaUK said: That article is more opinion than it is written on the basis of pure facts. Yes MJ owns half the Sony catalogue and Yes that will be enough to keep him from ever going poor, but that has never been in dispute. MJ's problem is not the brilliant peices of business he conducted when at the height of his fame and power & sanity (peices of business that have everything to do with advisors and good fortune as much as they do with his own savy), but it is to do with the state he is in today.
No tours, no new music, by all accounts a dependency on drugs, and extremely lavish spending habbits. If he is so well off, why did he have to take multi million dollar loans out in the first place??? Answer, because his outgoings exceed his income. How many businesses can collapse through lack of cash flow, thousands, its the same scenario. If he's using the Sony catalogue as collateral, there's every possibility he could lose it if he's defaulting on loan repayments as reported. MJ needs to release music and to tour to generate a cash flow capable of matching his outgoings. Yes the catalogue will contribute to this income, but clearly not enough. I think MJ fans do the man no favours by burying their heads in the sand with him. The only way he's ever going to get back any of his greatness is through people telling him like it is, not sicophants screaming about jealousy, hatred or racism everytime anyone comments on the reality of his current state. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Diddy said: Thats a very interesting article, yes songs like "Kayne west - gold digger" yeah Mike owns that song,
Its not just alot of other artists Michael owns, but the big ones and its not just the "Beatles" theres Elvis and Bob Dylan who the media portray them as the greatest and Michael Jacksons owns them whos the King now fucker? I think we will see a autobiagraphy from the man himself once his passed away, thats what i think. Erm, No Michael owns half a portion of the publishing royalties, which are generally about half of the overall royalties. So Bob Dylan = 50%, Sony = 25%, MJ = 25% (i think this all depends on what kind of deal the artists signed back in the day). Indeed this is still quite a stakehold, and will earn him a nice little earner, but it doesnt mean he OWNS these artists, and im surprised you even used that terminology. He will also earn 25% of the royalties from the beatles catalogue but ask Billionaire Paul McCartney whether he feels like MJ owns him, and he'll probably laugh in your face. At the end of the day publishing royalties do not really generate enough income for artists, thats why you see most major artists still touring late on into their careers as thats where they earn the real money. Prince, Madonna, U2, Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney all earn the majority of their income through touring. New records are of course important in maintaining a profile and relevance, and to stimulate a demand for touring, but all the same thats where the money is. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
If he aint paying my bills...who cares? OK Prince. This year... if your ready, then Im ready.
RIP MJ and RIP NaNa | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CrozzaUK said: Diddy said: Thats a very interesting article, yes songs like "Kayne west - gold digger" yeah Mike owns that song,
Its not just alot of other artists Michael owns, but the big ones and its not just the "Beatles" theres Elvis and Bob Dylan who the media portray them as the greatest and Michael Jacksons owns them whos the King now fucker? I think we will see a autobiagraphy from the man himself once his passed away, thats what i think. Erm, No Michael owns half a portion of the publishing royalties, which are generally about half of the overall royalties. So Bob Dylan = 50%, Sony = 25%, MJ = 25% (i think this all depends on what kind of deal the artists signed back in the day). Indeed this is still quite a stakehold, and will earn him a nice little earner, but it doesnt mean he OWNS these artists, and im surprised you even used that terminology. He will also earn 25% of the royalties from the beatles catalogue but ask Billionaire Paul McCartney whether he feels like MJ owns him, and he'll probably laugh in your face. At the end of the day publishing royalties do not really generate enough income for artists, thats why you see most major artists still touring late on into their careers as thats where they earn the real money. Prince, Madonna, U2, Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney all earn the majority of their income through touring. New records are of course important in maintaining a profile and relevance, and to stimulate a demand for touring, but all the same thats where the money is. Oh geez you know what i mean, not literally own them, but there precious babys On your post above, why is it when its all the negative articles everyone believes the shit like its gospel but when once in a blue moon theres a good article on him people scream opinion and crap? This is the second article ive read about this subject in the media and you'll never hear it again for along time. And the whole article is true and one of the most fascinating ive read. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
paul mcartney should have been a smarter business man and needs to stop b*tching about it.
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Paul McCartney is a joke. At least Michael used some of his lives fortune for good causes and worthwhile ventures.
| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dirtyman2005 said: Michael took two cultural icons and shattered them to pieces. All our lives, we've been bombarded with 2 facts. The Beatles were the greatest group of all time and Elvis was the King of Rock and Roll. Michael bought the Beatles and married the King's daughter. (if that ain't literally sticking it to the man)
| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dirtyman2005 said: Elvis was great, but he didn't write his songs. His manager, Col Tom Parker, was the mastermind behind Elvis ... keeping him drugged with fresh subscription pills and doing all the paperwork. ![]() | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
FunkyBrotha said: Paul McCartney is a joke. At least Michael used some of his lives fortune for good causes and worthwhile ventures.
McCartney is sitting with £600million doing absolutely nothing with it. Also, MJ earned more from the Beatles Number Ones album than McCartney did so technically McC would be pissed off. I find that hard to imagine. If Paul earns 25% of the royalties from every Lennon / McCartney song, MJ earns exactly the same. Songwriter & Publishing is normally 50/50 of Songwriter royalties, and both own half of each. On top of that McCartney would get 25% of artist royalties, about 5% of the retail price (songwriter royalties are just under 5% normally). On top of that he probably gets a very small portion of the record company royalties as he will have some stake in Apple. Lets put it this way, both will have done very very well from Beatles one, but i cant see a way MJ would have done better. As for Paul being a joke, id suggest to you his legacy is cemented more with each year that passes, whereas MJs is deteriorating. His status as a songwriter and a MUSICIAN is global, and hes written some of the most well loved, well covered songs of all time. He pioneered music in the 1960's, and is still performing massive sell out tours across the globe 40 years later. His fortune is esitimated at $1.5bn. As for his charitable contributions, im sure we could all do more, but to my recollection, he's always involved in some charity, be it PETA, anti-landmines, anti-poverty. Macca may have lost out in 1985, but in 2005 im pretty sure 99% of people would choose to be in Pauls shoes rather than MJ's. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Diddy said: Oh geez you know what i mean, not literally own them, but there precious babys But thats just it, he doesnt own their precious babys. He owns half of half of the royalties they will get (ie, 25%). See my above post. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cloudbuster said: Been saying this for years.
Then you agree with this guy that MJ will be remembered more for his business successes and not primarily for his music. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
thedoorkeeper said: Cloudbuster said: Been saying this for years.
Then you agree with this guy that MJ will be remembered more for his business successes and not primarily for his music. I actually meant that he ain't as broke as people make out because of his business successes. "Think inside out." | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dirtyman2005 said: Michael took two cultural icons and shattered them to pieces. All our lives, we've been bombarded with 2 facts. The Beatles were the greatest group of all time and Elvis was the King of Rock and Roll. Michael bought the Beatles and married the King's daughter.
MJ has had not one iota of an impact on the Beatles rep as the greatest group of all time. Owning their song rights does not diminish them in any way. This writer is so worshipping MJ it is laughable. This is this guy's opinion column - not a news article. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
the sony atv catalogue's most valuable asset is the beattles collection
| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
WHEW! Well, that's a relief...now he can continue to bottle his Jesus Juice and molest little boys. "Free yo mind and yo ass will follow" - George Clinton | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Interesting...but ...why did he have his whole damn staff suing him for non payment ??? | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CinisterCee said: dirtyman2005 said: Elvis was great, but he didn't write his songs. His manager, Col Tom Parker, was the mastermind behind Elvis ... keeping him drugged with fresh subscription pills and doing all the paperwork. [img]"sub" instead of "pre"[/img] | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
OdysseyMiles said: CinisterCee said: [img]"sub" instead of "pre"[/img] | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I find it hard to believe that a Prince fan is suggesting that MJ's ownership of the Beatles catalogue doesnt mean shit to McCartney. The fact that MJ owns this means that he has the power to do whatever he wants with McCartney's songs, he can prevent them being re-released, covered, used in commercials, played on the radio and on and on.
| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
That man will never be broke, no matter how much money he spends, imo. Jealous individuals will have to just accept that. It should be no surprise that, the bigger the income, the bigger the bills. "I'm down to my last billion" is nowhere close to being kicked out on the street....with NOTHING. His property is alot more valuable than alot of "insiders" would probably like to admit, and the guy is a businessman. And his old albums are still selling. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dirtyman2005 said: Michael took two cultural icons and shattered them to pieces. All our lives, we've been bombarded with 2 facts. The Beatles were the greatest group of all time and Elvis was the King of Rock and Roll. Michael bought the Beatles and married the King's daughter. (if that ain't literally sticking it to the man) If I wasn't a cynic, I'd say Michael did the Lisa Marie thing just to stick it to the people who consider Elvis the King. The Beatles were great, but they weren't great enough to maintain publishing rights over their own songs. Elvis was great, but he didn't write his songs. His manager, Col Tom Parker, was the mastermind behind Elvis ... keeping him drugged with fresh subscription pills and doing all the paperwork. 1) The above comments regarding are simply rude and ignorant. Music was different back then. 2) Source of this article is who? A fan? 3) MJ owning half of the Beatles Catalog and getting Half of what Sony is making make me not like him that much more. Yes Yes Yes, what's the big deal of owning and making money EVERYONE ELSE DOES IT...I find music to NOT be a commodoty and feel tha tthe artist should retain most rights and get most of the share. Kudos to Mike for making money off of other artist without lifting a finger...just like the Record Execs. 4) People think he's "crazy" for entirely other reasons than this "article" suggests. Like the Baby thing...the WHOLE STORY behind it. His strange marriages. His numerous "Plastic Surgeries". Regardless if he has had them or not, it is percieved by the general public that he has and that he looks very wierd nowadays. 5) what would convince me that the guy still has it...COME OUT WITH A FRIKIN GOOD RECORD AND TOUR THE USA!!!!! Christian Zombie Vampires | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Create new topic
Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)