How can Michael Jackson talk about ARTIST rights and freedoms and all that when he OWNS the rights to almost all the BEATLES music. How can Michael expect anyone to really think he is suffering here, how about this deal Michael? How about SONY lets U do want you want to and U give Paul and John and George and Ringo back what THEY CREATED. How in-human is it that JULIAN LENNON had to buy some work of his FATHERS back at an auction, does MICHAEL or YOKO for that part even have a soul. Some will say thats just business and that PAUL had his chance to buy them, well that is true but the fact that another person was able to buy anyones property is what MICHAEL is complaining about plus the fact they didnt promote his cd his way. Whatever Michaels point is, I just cant feel for him because he has done something that he is accusing others of being. Now I know some people complain about ENDORSEMENTS when artists sell out to commercials, however this doesnt bother me unless the ARTIST doesnt reap the rewards. Hey MICHAEL I didnt know U were there in the studio when John cut REVOLUTION.Hopefully Michael will just shut up about this and not embarrass himself even more, your argument has been better voiced by GEORGE MICHAEL, REM, RADIOHEAD, PRINCE, SPRINGSTEEN, ELTON, BOWIE, MELLENCAMP and MARIAH, basically because they werent preaching about SLAVERY when they too were keepers of a SLAVE (beatles music), give it up mike!

I've heard about Springsteen lately in all of this nonsense but what has he said? I'm not saying anybody is lying, it's just weird that people bring him up lately about this and it seems like he hasn't been out of hibernation since his last reunion tour a few years ago.

all think all this crapping on and on from these famous people is just silly..."oh, i cant afford to buy a new 10 million dollar home"...how freaking sad...


and I dont understand how the Beatles rights have anything to do with MJ's complaints...The Beatles signed a deal...They had a chance to purchase their music back, they lost the bid, big freaken deal...ITS BUSINESS!! If it wasn't, why did they sign a contract in the first place...and why arent they complaining about the billions they have made on their recordings besides not owning their music rights...

Now, both MJ and Prince have valid complaints when it comes to the distribution of music and the marketing aspects of music...And its disgusting how a couple entity's have monopolies on radio and video outlets...but that has nothing to do with owning masters or rights to music...

If the artist wants to retain their rights...DONT SELL EM in the first place...

SkletonKee said:

It is the same IDEA, Michael is complaining about distribution of his music and the fact that he owns someone elses property this being the beatles music and he can distribute it anyway he likes. My point is that he is operating under a double standard here. Isnt it crazy that Michael gets money when someone covers a BEATLE song. Or the fact that THE Beatles 1 CD generated more money for MIKE than the Actual Beatles. It may seem to most like MILLIONAIRES arguing over more money, but its just a basic argument of what is right. All Im saying is that Michael just look inside and say Im an artist and would I want someone to buy my music (and by the way Michael scumbagged his way into working with McCartney and thats how he outbid him, Michael also tried this with QUEEN during 1979-80 when QUEEN was recording the GAME but they were on to him and broke off the recordings.).

SkletonKee said:

your argument is flawed. you justify the Beatles position by their having signed a contract, yet defend Michaels dispute when he as well signed a contract. he signed with Sony, thus giving them the rights to do with his cd whatever they wanted to, thus he has no room to bitch, by your own argument.

It's rather ironic when these artists sign multimillion dollar deals and were on top of the charts they didn't complain. But when they fall off the charts they kept the money and blamed the label for their crappy sales. MJ was given plenty of promotion but nobody cares. You can't force people to buy your shitty record no matter how much money you have.

dumbass said:

true dat..true dat...they all are a bunch of whinning rich brats...

but...radio and mtv still suck!! and they can complain about *that* all they want...

lastdecember said:

Please take a look at the Forbes top list...The Beatles are on there for their sales of the One Album...not Michael...They get a crap load of money..MJ only has the publishing rights...not the masters...He isnt complaining about that..MJ is complaining about the studios and airplay issues...two huge different issues...

no double standard...

If they want to impress me, is why don't they complain while they're doing well? You never see any of these musicians stand up and go "hey, I'm at the height of my career, but I don't like how the majors are cheating many of their acts, I'm going to start my own label." I was listening to Aimee Mann (Till Tuesday) the other night going on about how the major labels betrayed her and how she's doing it herself. Well, what they don't tell you is Ms. Mann has a big fan clientele (thanks to her major label), and she has friends like filmmakers who can get her music in their films (thanks to her being famous), so she has it a hell of lot easier than an unknown artist starting out on their own. I watch my friend struggle daily just to get heard, trying to get her foot in the door, entertainment people to call her back and such all because she listens to people like Aimee Mann and believes that she can do it all herself. I wish they would just shut up and tell the friggin' truth instead of getting all these other musicians to listen to them and give them false hopes that they're going to make more money on their own without a major label. It can happen, but the road is going to be a lot harder for an unknown musician then it is for them. People don't take you serious it seems unless you've been with a major label or have managed to get big time promotion.

Michael can afford to walk away from a major label. While he may not make as much money as he once did, he could be a free agent and have just as many advantages. Look at what Prince accomplished? Do you think Prince could have done this without Warner Brothers?

He of all people should have known the evils of the record empires. He got jacked around by Motown when the Jacksons weren't fronting the hits any longer. There has been plenty of literature out there for years talking about the truth about the music industry, educating artists, but they don't read it. They just go out there and get signed and happy they got chosen enjoying all the fame and the goodies that come with it and when they don't bring in the hit records anymore, they want to sing the blues about how they were ripped off. Please. I can't go with Mike on this one, but I think he should be honest about it, chock it up as a bad album and move on.

LQ

lastdecember said:

It's the Beatles who get the money when people cover their songs, not Michael. And they also get most of the money from their 1 cd.

LadyQ said:

i agree. can u please tell me what i can read and what others can read about the truth of the industry? thanks.
btw, mj's album was not as good as his past.



i feel so sorry for your friend. it sucks when someone works hard and really tries, and nothing is happening. for starters, maybe you can post her songs online so maybe something can happen. good luck to your friend.

Recently,I read that Paul McCartney is a BILLIONAIRE.That's right,he is not just a millionaire,but a BILLIONAIRE.He certainly has more money than Michael.So,I wouldn't worry about him dying broke,whether he owns that Beatles catalog or not.

Wolf said:

I know for a fact that Michael made over $9 million last year from the sales of the Beatles '1' hits compilation.

Speaking of MJ,I'm listening to 'Off The Wall' right now.The songs "I Can't Help It" and "It's The Falling In Love" are my favs:)
[This message was edited Mon Jun 24 0:42:18 PDT 2002 by DavidEye]

I posted this on another thread...but, I think it works well here 2:

"Why is that messed up? He bought it with his hard earned money at a legal auction that everyone interested in, could partake in! It's called free enterprise, anyone can do it.

What happened was Michael approached Paul McCartney (who initially taught Michael about the purchasing of other artist's songs) and offerred to go in with him on the upcoming auction of the Beatle's catalogue. Paul, a billionaire, was 2 cheap 2 put up his own money and talked 2 Yoko, who didn't give a shit, 2 go in with him. Yoko declined, so Paul said "no" to Michael.

At silent auction, Michael put in a bid 4 $25 Million dollars, and won.

Ever since then, Paul has been bitching!

I say he should get over it! He could have bought it free and clear with a cashier's check...Michael had 2 maneuver and wheel and deal 2 get the money up 4 the purchase...who wanted it more?!?"

U can read all about it in the unauthorized biography titled: "Michael Jackson - The Magic and the Madness" by J. Randy Taraborelli

On the other topic about Sony and Michael, I don't think he wants u 2 think that he's suffering, I think he wants 2 bring about the problem with major labels 2 the public. True, Prince hit this topic b4, but has nowhere near the publicity Michael has...

So, who better than Michael?

Regardless if whether his album is a hit or not; if he walks down the street it's still front page news! The fact that Michael's album wasn't promoted enough is irrelevant. Truth b told, it was just an okay album. But with some videos 2 push any singles they should have released, it could have been bigger...so, he does have some valid complaints. The video they did push was all over MTV and the like!

The record label has an obligation 2 promote the artists they sign, the artist is obligated 2 record "x" amount of albums...it's called business. One fails 2 live up 2 their obligation, then the music stops.

Just ask George Michael.

DavidEye said:

Your point is? The surviving Beatles and their estates made gobs more than that.

It is always easier to join the bandwagon!

We have alot of talented musicians here, my question is why didn't they band together to fight this? Anybody know?

LadyQ said:

Yeah, I'd love 2 see someone do this. Good point LadyQ!

..in the end it all comes down to this; mike, as well as prince and many others DID put their signature on the bottom of their contracts. crying about it now is kinda childish.

can you relate?

DavidEye said:

on vh1 news ticker, it said paul mccartney was the world FIRST POP BILLIONAIRE. mj too is a BILLIONARIE. i read he's worth $3 billion.
do u want to marry their asses?

DMSR said:

a-the phuc-men.

purpleone said:

I didn't saw nobody crying.

and I think you don't know what you are talking about.

If an artist/band wants to break through and give themselves a name, a carreer, then they have to sign the standard contract. That's the way it has always been.

And if the record company gives them a nice advance the tempation is very big when you have no money.

When you are basically still a kid and you think your record company gives you a good deal it always turns out that when you have succes they have locked you up for more than 10 years, they own all the rights and that you still need to recoup from those recording costs, video production costs, promotion costs, tour support etc, etc, etc. because the royalties they gave you turned out to be not as high as they told you... you see there were some slick clauses in the contract that made it possible for the record company to recoup almost everything against almost the lowest possible royalty rate...

Yes they signed the contract. But I bet you will be bitching about it too when you would have one.

Abrazo said:

that IS TRUE. on tlc behind the music, they were telling about how their money was being reduced due to production costs, etc.
so PLEASE tell me how will someone who wants a recording contract get one w/o being abused? how will the person be able to make a good album, sell a lot without having their money too reduced. what can the person due do not to have them be taken advantage of? mj has a roylaty rate of $1.00 per album. how would a new artist or any artist be able to get that type of deal? who makes the deal? the person, the label, the lawyer? PLEASE GIVE ANY INFO ON WHAT I ASKED AND ANY OTHER INFO ON THE RECORDING CONTRACT.

When they sell lots of records they dont complain. Then they dont care about freedom and rights. When it goes bad they start acting like spoiled kids. I dont take them serious. They just hypocryts...its all money money money, like they need it. These artists are not better then the record companies...

I don't think MJ complaining about Sony's handling of his album has much to do with mj's ownership of the Beatles music--apples to oranges.

MJ's last album was ok at best, he may feel that Sony could have promoted Invincible more than they did. Truth is, you can sell any piece of crap, no matter how bad and still sell millions more: examples- Poison, Motley Crue, N'sync, Britney, BackSt Boys, the multitudes of boy/girl bands out there, etc.

What happened back in the 80's: MJ and Sony outbidded Paul McCartney and Yoko(who bidded together) to purchase the rights to the Beatles music. Paul was upset at the time esp when MJ later licensed out Beatles songs for Nike commercials and such.

Today i don't know how he feels, maybe Paul and MJ have come to terms about how to use the songs, maybe not.--but MJ makes a lot of $$$ off of re-releases like "#1"(MJ also owns Sly Stone's catalog too and releases songs for commercials-I don't know if Sly Stone makes any $ off of these at all--not likely).

The real problem is that MJ has been the poster child for big business...with Pepsi, Disney, Sony, he's the musical equivalent of a complacent peg boy, and he may end up trivializing the whole movement. Especially when he hires two demogogues such as Al Sharpton and Johnny Cochran.

Me 2 i cannot help but have the impression that MJ goes with the artist right movement now bcause it fits him. This doesn't mean however he does not have a valid case. He has one of the best contracts in the business and i think if every artist would get the same conditions as MJ, very few would complain. It's only bcause this time around he is xperiencing the downsides of a contract and of the limited number major companies, he feels related 2 other artists in the same situation. So, while it is obvious Sony screwed him over bcause he's at the end of his contract and his popularity is not what it was back in the days, i agree he may not b the greatest addition 2 the artists right movement. I predict a contract with universal b4 the end of the year.

I think TLC and The Dixie Chicks r 2 good examples of artists bitching about their contracts when still at the top of their game!

I didn't think about this earlier, but both have sued their label 4 a better deal than the one they signed initially.

TLC, in the form of bankruptcy, were able 2 get out of their shitty "Pebbles" contract and make more money with LaFace.

The Dixie Chicks sued 4 a better deal, when their last (and 1st) two albums went Diamond (over 10 million units sold each), and they didn't see any big $$$! They recently reached an agreement and should b recording as we speak.

Do u know of any others?