This article is from a great website for all Black Music: www.soul-patrol.com, there are links to the Rhythm and Blues Foundation and the site where this article comes from "Commentary: (MJ vs. Prince). On the left side of the page there's a link to Larry Graham's acceptance speech for this R&B Foundation Award and you can hear Larry Graham take a swipe at Michael Jackson aka The Master. You gotta listen to it, to get it. Enjoy!

http://www.soul-patrol.co...omment.htm

Hey....
I know that a few of yall are bored by these series of postings, but
I have more to post, but since I'm an old man I have to pace myself (so bear
with me) and just scroll by them if you aren't interested

One of the
things that flares up on this mailing list from time to time is what I regard as
a rather silly comparison that some people like to engage in between the "gloved
one" and the "purple one".

Personally I have never understood the need to
do the comparison.
They are both two different kinds of artists...

Prince and MJ are my two joint favorite artists of all time, so I don't get into these topics, but this is an awful article.

Michael was on a PRESS TOUR promoting his album. Press tours are intense, especially for the biggest artist in the world. For all we know, Michael may have wanted to go to this R&B Foundation ceremony, but there simply wasn't time. It takes a lot of preparation to get Michael and his entourage anywhere. It's a lot of co-ordination, anywhere Michael went got flooded with fans, sometimes even before he arrived, which has to be co-ordinated so it doesn't break public safety rules.

Was he asked to attend this ceremony in advance? Was it co-ordinated for him to be there? I'm guessing not. With the King of Pop, it doesn't take a genius to understand that it's not a case of him "simply showing up". Prince was less in the public eye in 2001 so it was easier for him to be there. And they probably arranged it in advance for him to be there and he didn't have prior arrangements.

And yeah, Larry was maybe bitter that Michael owned the catalog, but that's BUSINESS. He wouldn't sit and make shots at random businessmen if they owned the catalog, would he? Michael was an easy target. And frankly, we know nothing about what Michael's relationship was like with Sly regarding the catalog. Saying Michael "didn't bother to show up" because he's "one of the masters" is so misguided it's ridiculous and just looks like the author has an axe to grind.

^

Good points. This was also around the time when Prince and Larry were recording The Rainbow Children and their friendship probably was centered around their past grievances around the business of the music industry as well as spiritual matters. And when Larry spoke about "The Master", that sounded like Prince speak. But Larry did make some good points about the notion that if artists did own their master recordings there would be no need for sponsors, businesses and artists donating money to a foundation for artists to pay for funeral expenses, keeping their lights on etc.. Aside from the serious tone of the story, hearing Larry Graham in his "Baptist Preacher" mode was amusing.

always eemed to me that michael owned masters to make money and not out of love for the music

outbidding mccartney forhis own musuc then selling that shit for commercials and movies?? shame on mike

bashraka said:

This article is from a great website for all Black Music: www.soul-patrol.com, there are links to the Rhythm and Blues Foundation and the site where this article comes from "Commentary: (MJ vs. Prince). On the left side of the page there's a link to Larry Graham's acceptance speech for this R&B Foundation Award and you can hear Larry Graham take a swipe at Michael Jackson aka The Master. You gotta listen to it, to get it. Enjoy!

http://www.soul-patrol.co...omment.htm

Hey....
I know that a few of yall are bored by these series of postings, but
I have more to post, but since I'm an old man I have to pace myself (so bear
with me) and just scroll by them if you aren't interested

One of the
things that flares up on this mailing list from time to time is what I regard as
a rather silly comparison that some people like to engage in between the "gloved
one" and the "purple one".

Personally I have never understood the need to
do the comparison.
They are both two different kinds of artists...

One is a musical genius who plays nearly EVERY instrument, sings with an incredible hi/lo vocal range and has a musical vision that encompasses nearly every musical style imaginable. He was a big pop music star in the 1980's who continues to create new music today, but now seems less interested in being a pop star, than in establishing himself as a "role model" for independent artists who are out to BUST the monopolistic system of slavery that the major media companies hold artists under. The other is a singer who was also a big pop star in the 1980's who frequently makes news today because of what appears to be an obsessive desire to reclaim his former title of "King of pop", an the resulting public acceptance. He is quite literally the "poster child" of an artist who is so controlled by the whatever record label he happens to be with, that his current status on the pop music charts seemingly dictates his every move.None of that is the reason why I am making this posting...The reason for the commentary has to do with "roots" and why they might be important to some people and not to others.On Wednesday of the R&B Foundation Pioneer awards as the formal press conference was ending and we saw that there was going to be a lull in the activities, we decided to take a break for lunch over in nearby Times Square. After we ate, we decided to go and check out the Virgin (largest in the city I think?) record store located on Broadway, we discovered that the store was closed.It was closed because the "gloved one" was supposed to making a promotional appearance there. We were told that he was inside of the store, but that nobody was allowed in.We asked when the store was going to be re-opened, and were told that the store would be re-opened at 7pm.There was a HUGE crowd of people standing outside as well as camera crews from ALL the large international/domestic media operations.As we returned to the now nearly empty lobby of the Roosevelt Hotel, I couldn't help but wonder if perhaps the "gloved one", could find it in his heart somehow to have someone drive him over to the hotel and perhaps give the R&B Foundation some much needed publicity?Perhaps that might be too much to ask of him?Perhaps he's got more important priorities?The next night at the actual awards ceremony, when Paul Shaffer announced that Prince was in the house, I was hardly surprised. Prior to the Pioneer awards, most people were asking if Sly was going to show up. I had pretty much figured that he wouldn'tBut I KNEW that Prince was going to be there!He understands a little something about his historical connections, and he acknowledges them.He wasn't there at the Apollo on Thursday night to get any publicity or to draw any attention to himself.In fact, I didn't even know he was there till Paul Shaffer announced it.He was just sitting in the audience with the rest of the Apollo patrons that night (and I am certain that he probably also has an "Apollo ticket office" story to tell as well.....lol)He doesn't shy away from them, nor does he think that "other priorities" are more important.Hell, he even thinks that what we are doing here is important, he has shown up in my chat rooms both here on Soul-Patrol and on Prodigy MANY TIMES.If I am not mistaken, I read here on Soul-Patrol that Michael Jackson owns the rights to the music of Sly & the Family Stone.If so, could this be the "MASTER" that Larry Graham was referring to during his acceptance speech?As I left the Apollo that evening, I felt like a much wiser man that night, because now I understood why the "gloved one", didn't bother to show up to support the R&B Foundation...He is "one of the MASTERS" and as such, he's got......."other priorities"--Bob Davis (11/2001)"STAND and in the end YOU will STILL be YOU…"--Sylvester Stewart

Thanks for the link

amazing choice of free radio!! thanks man!!

Mike own Sly's music & tried to give them back to Sly, for nothing.....FREE!!!

Just like he did for Little Richard, but Sly wanted the million dollars instead..

Not Mike's fault

HuMpThAnG said:

Mike own Sly's music & tried to give them back to Sly, for nothing.....FREE!!!

Just like he did for Little Richard, but Sly wanted the million dollars instead..

Not Mike's fault

SOURCE??????

jonylawson said:

always eemed to me that michael owned masters to make money and not out of love for the music

lol, that's not true, it's both. He loved the music and wanted to become successful at business.

jonylawson said:

outbidding mccartney forhis own musuc then selling that shit for commercials and movies?? shame on mike

As Paul McCartney himself mentioned countless times in interviews, outbidding itself didn't really bothered him. It's not MJ's fault Paul trusted Yoko on that one is it?

Emancipation89 said:

jonylawson said:

always eemed to me that michael owned masters to make money and not out of love for the music

lol, that's not true, it's both. He loved the music and wanted to become successful at business.

jonylawson said:

outbidding mccartney forhis own musuc then selling that shit for commercials and movies?? shame on mike

As Paul McCartney himself mentioned countless times in interviews, outbidding itself didn't really bothered him. It's not MJ's fault Paul trusted Yoko on that one is it?

oh come on...paul mccartney was pissed at that. mike stabbed him in the back-or rather im sure the guys who were telling mike what to do.

and as for the love..so what did mr jackson do with the beatles legacy?? and sly and the family stones??

larry g has a right to be pissed at the "master"

jonylawson said:

Emancipation89 said:

As Paul McCartney himself mentioned countless times in interviews, outbidding itself didn't really bothered him. It's not MJ's fault Paul trusted Yoko on that one is it?

oh come on...paul mccartney was pissed at that. mike stabbed him in the back-or rather im sure the guys who were telling mike what to do.

and as for the love..so what did mr jackson do with the beatles legacy?? and sly and the family stones??

larry g has a right to be pissed at the "master"

Co-Sign. I am not sure where this stuff about Paul not being mad is coming from. Paul went to the media with his grip about Mike and the Beatles catalog and stopped working or speaking to Mike because of it. It was documented in the press back in the day.

In addtion, some one else mentioned that Mike had a press tour to do but the foundation has been around for a while. Did Mike every support it. You got a big difference between dragging someone out on stage and actually helping artist who are struggling.

this is going to be a fun thread

laurarichardson said:

jonylawson said:

oh come on...paul mccartney was pissed at that. mike stabbed him in the back-or rather im sure the guys who were telling mike what to do.

and as for the love..so what did mr jackson do with the beatles legacy?? and sly and the family stones??

larry g has a right to be pissed at the "master"

Co-Sign. I am not sure where this stuff about Paul not being mad is coming from. Paul went to the media with his grip about Mike and the Beatles catalog and stopped working or speaking to Mike because of it. It was documented in the press back in the day.

In addtion, some one else mentioned that Mike had a press tour to do but the foundation has been around for a while. Did Mike every support it. You got a big difference between dragging someone out on stage and actually helping artist who are struggling.

Like I said, Paul himself said, the fact that MJ bought Beatles publishing rights was something that he was "cool" with at the time. Which he should've been, because ATV first offered the catalogue to Paul and Yoko but they weren't bidding high enough. Paul and Yoko bid £10 million, which is like what, less than 20 million USD right? But Michael ended up paying 46 million USD for the catalogue, so really, it wasn't even a close bid. The catalogue was going to be owned by either Jackson or any other bidder at the market, (as far as I know, many other music market moguls were also in the auction, I mean, duh), but not Paul and Yoko. Looks like either they simply didn't have enough money, or didn't really care enough to own the publishing rights at the time. What Paul was so bitter about was when Paul asked for a raise and MJ didn't give him any lol. MJ wasn't really willing to sell that ATV catalogue back to Paul, but that's something Paul had to deal with, because the catalogue was now worth more than 200 million.

Oh yeah, and he seemed pretty bitter at the fact that the song was used in commercial.

But what did MJ do with Beatles legacy? Sure, he once used the original Beatles song for Nike commercial, which made Paul, George, Ringo and die hard Beatles fans mad as hell. But hey, the use of that song was actually approved by Yoko Lennon, so really, there wasn't anything the rest of the members can do about it. Correct me if I'm wrong but after that, MJ did take Paul's anger and opinions into consideration and never used the original Beatles song for commercials, as far as I know.

But honestly, I have to ask you guys about using songs in commercials and movies. Does it really "cheapen" artists' legacy like Paul was so worried about 25 yrs ago? Or the fact that Beatles songs (mostly covers, but still) have been everywhere to the point where they're almost shoved in our faces on a daily bases, actually turned out well for them because after 40 years the band broke, their albums still sell like crazy? Hmm, I don't know, let's look what's been happening with the Wings and McCartney solo work catalogue. Last time I checked, their songs were used in the movies. Maybe Paul now realizes using songs in the movies and commercials is not such a bad thing after all?

There's difference between publishing rights and royalty, right? All artists naturally get the royalty of their own catalogue but publishing rights is simply a separate business. There's not that many artists who actually own the publishing rights to their own catalogue. This is not a stab at Paul but if you ask me, artists should know better and before you buy a fancy house and a fancy car, should pay for the publishing rights of your own damn catalogue first.

[Edited 3/18/12 10:40am]

Emancipation89 said:

laurarichardson said:

Co-Sign. I am not sure where this stuff about Paul not being mad is coming from. Paul went to the media with his grip about Mike and the Beatles catalog and stopped working or speaking to Mike because of it. It was documented in the press back in the day.

In addtion, some one else mentioned that Mike had a press tour to do but the foundation has been around for a while. Did Mike every support it. You got a big difference between dragging someone out on stage and actually helping artist who are struggling.

Like I said, Paul himself said, the fact that MJ bought Beatles publishing rights was something that he was "cool" with at the time. Which he should've been, because ATV first offered the catalogue to Paul and Yoko but they weren't bidding high enough. Paul and Yoko bid £10 million, which is like what, less than 20 million USD right? But Michael ended up paying 46 million USD for the catalogue, so really, it wasn't even a close bid. The catalogue was going to be owned by either Jackson or any other bidder at the market, (as far as I know, many other music market moguls were also in the auction, I mean, duh), but not Paul and Yoko. Looks like either they simply didn't have enough money, or didn't really care enough to own the publishing rights at the time. What Paul was so bitter about was when Paul asked for a raise and MJ didn't give him any lol. MJ wasn't really willing to sell that ATV catalogue back to Paul, but that's something Paul had to deal with, because the catalogue was now worth more than 200 million.

Oh yeah, and he seemed pretty bitter at the fact that the song was used in commercial.

But what did MJ do with Beatles legacy? Sure, he once used the original Beatles song for Nike commercial, which made Paul, George, Ringo and die hard Beatles fans mad as hell. But hey, the use of that song was actually approved by Yoko Lennon, so really, there wasn't anything the rest of the members can do about it. Correct me if I'm wrong but after that, MJ did take Paul's anger and opinions into consideration and never used the original Beatles song for commercials, as far as I know.

But honestly, I have to ask you guys about using songs in commercials and movies. Does it really "cheapen" artists' legacy like Paul was so worried about 25 yrs ago? Or the fact that Beatles songs (mostly covers, but still) have been everywhere to the point where they're almost shoved in our faces on a daily bases, actually turned out well for them because after 40 years the band broke, their albums still sell like crazy? Hmm, I don't know, let's look what's been happening with the Wings and McCartney solo work catalogue. Last time I checked, their songs were used in the movies. Maybe Paul now realizes using songs in the movies and commercials is not such a bad thing after all?

There's difference between publishing rights and royalty, right? All artists naturally get the royalty of their own catalogue but publishing rights is simply a separate business. There's not that many artists who actually own the publishing rights to their own catalogue. This is not a stab at Paul but if you ask me, artists should know better and before you buy a fancy house and a fancy car, should pay for the publishing rights of your own damn catalogue first.

[Edited 3/18/12 10:40am]

"rights was something that he was "cool" with at the time."

No he was not cool with it. Paul was on T.V and print interviews saying that he was mad that Mike went ahead and brought the songs after Paul had told Mike about the opportunity. Paul felf Mike went behind his back.

I remember seeing Paul on t.v and reading this in print. Paul might be okay with it now since he cannot do anything about it but not back at the time.

laurarichardson said:

"rights was something that he was "cool" with at the time."

No he was not cool with it. Paul was on T.V and print interviews saying that he was mad that Mike went ahead and brought the songs after Paul had told Mike about the opportunity. Paul felf Mike went behind his back.

I remember seeing Paul on t.v and reading this in print. Paul might be okay with it now since he cannot do anything about it but not back at the time.

There's an interview done only 2 years after MJ snatched the ATV catalogue.(1989) I think it may be on youtube.

Paul says "I can't blame him, you know, it was on the market". and that was his exact words.

If he ever said he was "angry" at MJ for buying the catalogue, it's kinda laughable because 1. MJ DID tell Paul he was going to buy it, Paul's the one who took it as a joke, 2. Paul reached out to Yoko but they didn't even have enough money to buy it; well, it surely seems like it

[Edited 3/18/12 14:19pm]

hell yes i think using the beatles songs in a shoe advert cheapens the art

same as mike slugging back cans of pepsi

but i guess one can always use another 20million on top of your 500m

does he look"cool with it"??

mike sold out the beatles...SHAME ON HIM

http://www.youtube.com/wa...UCyJX6ugcQ

Just fucking disgusting.................

paul mccartney is so dignified

http://www.youtube.com/wa...re=related

paulmccartney said"WE DONT DO COMMERCIALS" what did mike do? sell revolution for sneakers

all you need is love for a fucking biscuit??

this should be made into a wider thread!!

A Beatle song was used in a commercial wah wah!!!

gheesss

Emancipation89 said:

laurarichardson said:

"rights was something that he was "cool" with at the time."

No he was not cool with it. Paul was on T.V and print interviews saying that he was mad that Mike went ahead and brought the songs after Paul had told Mike about the opportunity. Paul felf Mike went behind his back.

I remember seeing Paul on t.v and reading this in print. Paul might be okay with it now since he cannot do anything about it but not back at the time.

There's an interview done only 2 years after MJ snatched the ATV catalogue.(1989) I think it may be on youtube.

Paul says "I can't blame him, you know, it was on the market". and that was his exact words.

If he ever said he was "angry" at MJ for buying the catalogue, it's kinda laughable because 1. MJ DID tell Paul he was going to buy it, Paul's the one who took it as a joke, 2. Paul reached out to Yoko but they didn't even have enough money to buy it; well, it surely seems like it

[Edited 3/18/12 14:19pm]

I saw an interview with Paul and he said that he was with Michael just talking and Michael said "I think I'm going to buy your music" (said it in a MJ voice). Paul than said I thought he was joking because I was just telling him that I was thinking about buying the masters. Paul was upset and shocked. He said he hasn't spoken to Michael since and you could see he wasn't happy. Call it business but that's not cool to do to a friend. Would you out bid your friend on a house he was looking at? Stuff like this was the reason MJ dind't have a lot of friends and was in bad debt. JMO

jonylawson said:

does he look"cool with it"??

mike sold out the beatles...SHAME ON HIM

http://www.youtube.com/wa...UCyJX6ugcQ

Well, Paul himself said that.

Or is he considered "hypocrite" just because he said this AFTER MJ died? I don't know, U tell me.

jonylawson said:

paulmccartney said"WE DONT DO COMMERCIALS" what did mike do? sell revolution for sneakers

all you need is love for a fucking biscuit??

this should be made into a wider thread!!

The song "Revolution", used for Nike commercial, was solely written by Lennon anyway, and Jackson got Yoko Lennon's approval on that one, which he didn't have to, obviously.

Really, the bottom line is, the publishing right was going to be owned by either MJ or other company, NOT McCartney.

If you were going to be immature like that, How about "shame on McCartney" for being a cheapskate? Being dumb as hell at music publishing business? Even if he didn't have the money, there are ways to get that catalogue.

At the end of the day, music publishing is a business and if you're not smart about it, oh well, too bad. You can whine about it all you want but you had your chance, so...

[Edited 3/18/12 21:07pm]

prime said:

Emancipation89 said:

There's an interview done only 2 years after MJ snatched the ATV catalogue.(1989) I think it may be on youtube.

Paul says "I can't blame him, you know, it was on the market". and that was his exact words.

If he ever said he was "angry" at MJ for buying the catalogue, it's kinda laughable because 1. MJ DID tell Paul he was going to buy it, Paul's the one who took it as a joke, 2. Paul reached out to Yoko but they didn't even have enough money to buy it; well, it surely seems like it

[Edited 3/18/12 14:19pm]

I saw an interview with Paul and he said that he was with Michael just talking and Michael said "I think I'm going to buy your music" (said it in a MJ voice). Paul than said I thought he was joking because I was just telling him that I was thinking about buying the masters. Paul was upset and shocked. He said he hasn't spoken to Michael since and you could see he wasn't happy. Call it business but that's not cool to do to a friend. Would you out bid your friend on a house he was looking at? Stuff like this was the reason MJ dind't have a lot of friends and was in bad debt. JMO

No...again, it wasn't the fact that MJ acquired the publishing rights that ticked him off...

MJ bought that catalogue in 1985, and this picture was taken 1987, the "bad" era Jackson (You can tell by his hairstyle, nose, and the outfit). They seem to be pretty close, don't they?

Paul was mad about the songs being used in commercials, MJ declining his requests for a raise.

I understand your viewpoint, and I agree friendship is a precious thing, but the reality is, it wasn't only MJ that had out bidden Paul. There was no way Paul and Yoko could've bought that catalogue with the amount of money they offered. I heard CBS was also in the auction and they had already out-bidden Paul and Yoko's offer, by offering roughly around 35 or 40 million USD. Imagine if companies like CBS ended up owning the catalogue, Beatles would be known as pure Jingle singers by now, lol.

[Edited 3/18/12 21:22pm]

^ sexy picture, all you need is glove

Militant said:

Prince and MJ are my two joint favorite artists of all time, so I don't get into these topics, but this is an awful article.

Michael was on a PRESS TOUR promoting his album. Press tours are intense, especially for the biggest artist in the world. For all we know, Michael may have wanted to go to this R&B Foundation ceremony, but there simply wasn't time. It takes a lot of preparation to get Michael and his entourage anywhere. It's a lot of co-ordination, anywhere Michael went got flooded with fans, sometimes even before he arrived, which has to be co-ordinated so it doesn't break public safety rules.

Was he asked to attend this ceremony in advance? Was it co-ordinated for him to be there? I'm guessing not. With the King of Pop, it doesn't take a genius to understand that it's not a case of him "simply showing up". Prince was less in the public eye in 2001 so it was easier for him to be there. And they probably arranged it in advance for him to be there and he didn't have prior arrangements.

And yeah, Larry was maybe bitter that Michael owned the catalog, but that's BUSINESS. He wouldn't sit and make shots at random businessmen if they owned the catalog, would he? Michael was an easy target. And frankly, we know nothing about what Michael's relationship was like with Sly regarding the catalog. Saying Michael "didn't bother to show up" because he's "one of the masters" is so misguided it's ridiculous and just looks like the author has an axe to grind.

To everything you said! Including MJ and Prince being my two joint favorite artists!

wow...........i post two interviews with paul mccartney saying how upset he was that mike bought his back catologue and whored it for a buck

AND mj fans still deny it............its fascinating

jonylawson said:

wow...........i post two interviews with paul mccartney saying how upset he was that mike bought his back catologue and whored it for a buck

AND mj fans still deny it............its fascinating

those people cant be reasoned with on anything, i'm starting to understand why every thread that even mentions MJ gets locked. its to protect our sanity

jonylawson said:

wow...........i post two interviews with paul mccartney saying how upset he was that mike bought his back catologue and whored it for a buck

AND mj fans still deny it............its fascinating

Help me out, who has denied the fact that Paul got upset at MJ used songs for commercials :confused:

I guess at this point, you're simply only reading what you want to read. It's quite fascinating.

uuhson said:

jonylawson said:

wow...........i post two interviews with paul mccartney saying how upset he was that mike bought his back catologue and whored it for a buck

AND mj fans still deny it............its fascinating

those people cant be reasoned with on anything, i'm starting to understand why every thread that even mentions MJ gets locked. its to protect our sanity

lol

Please, let me remind you, the reason why MJ threads get locked is something you showed us a long time ago. You seem to always go into every thread that mentions MJ, have nothing informational to offer but throw some random insults at certain fan group to provoke them. Either that or bring up some gossip talk about his kids that no one gives a damn. Obviously too immature to ever be taken seriously.

Emancipation89 said:

uuhson said:

those people cant be reasoned with on anything, i'm starting to understand why every thread that even mentions MJ gets locked. its to protect our sanity

lol

Please, let me remind you, the reason why MJ threads get locked is something you showed us a long time ago. You seem to always go into every thread that mentions MJ, have nothing informational to offer but throw some random insults at certain fan group to provoke them. Either that or bring up some gossip talk about his kids that no one gives a damn. Obviously too immature to ever be taken seriously.

i think ive been apart of like 2 or 3 threads with MJ mentioned ever.

get over yourself mr hello kitty


edit: and gossip talk? what the hell are you talking about? i made one little comment about a picture one of you bozos posted, it wasnt even negative. this is exactly what im talking about with the whole delusional thing

[Edited 3/19/12 14:06pm]