uuhson said:

Emancipation89 said:

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]

And this is exactly what I'm talking about you being all irrelevant with the discussion, but always just to enter threads to mock MJ fans, and now, you're about to get this thread locked. Look what your post that had nothing to do with the article or discussion is leading us. Way 2 go man.

And lol @ the bolded. Either yor're not aware of how this thing called "internet" works, or acting all cute. Go ahead, go to google search function above and type "uuhson Michael Jackson". What you posted stays forever, and I can tell you there's gonna be a lot more than just 2 or 3.

It's funny how it seems so easy for you to generalize and make fun of MJ fans every damn time you're talking about him, and but when you're called out you act all butthurt and get overly defensive.

And also, what now? "mr"?!

So? What do you think about the original article OR Paul and the Beatles catalogue situation?

"Still waiting"

ill go actually see how many, im guessing around 3 more or less in m&m not including this one
edit: found 4, not counting everytime his name gets mentioned in a thread i happen to post in

i dont think i meant to generalize anyone except the particular group of fans on here that foam at the mouths when anything remotely negative is mentioned.

like when i remarked at how impressively white his children were(which i dont think is even inherently negative unless you have a problem with white people) and people including yourself flipped out

[Edited 3/19/12 15:31pm]

[Edited 3/19/12 17:17pm]

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]

[Edited 3/19/12 17:40pm]

Emancipation89 said:

prime said:

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]

I can't believe I found the interview I was talking about (or even remembered the interview). http://www.youtube.com/wa...UCyJX6ugcQ Yes. You are correct he doesn't like the songs in commercials, but he thought he was joking about buying them.

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]

[Edited 3/19/12 17:40pm]

That was two years after but at the time Paul was pissed. I remember this as this was a big story in the news.

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

Very Interesting

Emancipation89 said:

laurarichardson said:

That was two years after but at the time Paul was pissed. I remember this as this was a big story in the news.

Do u believe every story on the News and what they say on the magazine covers and stuff? For the 900th time, Paul was NOT pissed at MJ outbidding him at the time, because again, before MJ, other companies like CBS had already OUT-BIDDEN Paul. He was later mad at what MJ did with the catalogue, there's a difference. Even in the interviews that orger Jonywilson or whatever the fuck his username is uploaded, Paul says the commerciality was the problem. There's literally a crapload of evidence right before your eyes that tells you Paul obviously didn't care enough to bid high enough for his own damn songs, why would he be mad at someone else buying the publishing rights then?

It was interview conducted with Paul McCarthy !!!! It was not in the National Enquirer. Back in the day legitmate media had not sunk to the level of tabloids and did actaully report facts.

Paul was not mad at Mike for outbidding him he was mad that Mike bid at all. Paul mentioned the matter to Mike in confidence and Mike went off and placed a bid on the catalogue.

I know what I read and remember this has a big news story at the time.

laurarichardson said:

Emancipation89 said:

Do u believe every story on the News and what they say on the magazine covers and stuff? For the 900th time, Paul was NOT pissed at MJ outbidding him at the time, because again, before MJ, other companies like CBS had already OUT-BIDDEN Paul. He was later mad at what MJ did with the catalogue, there's a difference. Even in the interviews that orger Jonywilson or whatever the fuck his username is uploaded, Paul says the commerciality was the problem. There's literally a crapload of evidence right before your eyes that tells you Paul obviously didn't care enough to bid high enough for his own damn songs, why would he be mad at someone else buying the publishing rights then?

It was interview conducted with Paul McCarthy !!!! It was not in the National Enquirer. Back in the day legitmate media had not sunk to the level of tabloids and did actaully report facts.

Paul was not mad at Mike for outbidding him he was mad that Mike bid at all. Paul mentioned the matter to Mike in confidence and Mike went off and placed a bid on the catalogue.

I know what I read and remember this has a big news story at the time.

I'd appreciate it if you could send me the link. I've never heard that from Paul before and I watched and read quite a few interviews of Paul talking about Beatles catalog. (In Oprah interview, she even questioned if Paul WANTED MJ to buy the catalog, which was interesting)

If what you're saying is true, I can only conclude that Paul Mccartney tells a different story in every interview. So yeah, I'd really love to read the interview, thanks.

jonylawson said:

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

The use of 'Revolution' in the Nike commercial was vulgar, especially since it went against the wishes of the artists who created that music.

Can you imagine, hypothetically, 'Take Me With You' being used for a travel agency add, if it were also owned by MJ (who happened to outbid Prince for the WB material), against Prince's wishes?

Vulgar, even if MJ had the right to do it.

But, then again, I always cringe when people say MJ was the best. Fuck...that...shit.

imago said:

jonylawson said:

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

The use of 'Revolution' in the Nike commercial was vulgar, especially since it went against the wishes of the artists who created that music.

Can you imagine, hypothetically, 'Take Me With You' being used for a travel agency add, if it were also owned by MJ (who happened to outbid Prince for the WB material), against Prince's wishes?

Vulgar, even if MJ had the right to do it.

But, then again, I always cringe when people say MJ was the best. Fuck...that...shit.

good point dude, btw did you know Paul Mccartney pulled off the same exact shit over Buddy Holly's catalogue? He owns the publishing rights and he's been using the songs for commercials for many times, and since Paul thinks using songs for commercials actually cheapens artists' legacy, I can only assume Paul's sole purpose of selling out Buddy Holly's music is to ridicule his legacy & make some $$$ off of them

imago said:

Can you imagine, hypothetically, 'Take Me With You' being used for a travel agency add, if it were also owned by MJ (who happened to outbid Prince for the WB material), against Prince's wishes?

No because that didn't happen and please stop trying to associate every little thing in the world with Prince. Yuck.

Honestly I'm sooooo beyond sick of these people not getting over this shit. It's been almost 3 freaking decades since that happened, and all you people care about is

"Waaaaaaahhh!! That evil Michael Jackson hurt Paul Mccartney's precious little feelings!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa"

Seriously, get the fuck over it already. Paul should've bought the catalog himself, but he didn't. End of story.

[Edited 4/22/12 14:31pm]

Emancipation89 said:

imago said:

Can you imagine, hypothetically, 'Take Me With You' being used for a travel agency add, if it were also owned by MJ (who happened to outbid Prince for the WB material), against Prince's wishes?

No because that didn't happen and please stop trying to associate every little thing in the world with Prince. Yuck.

Honestly I'm sooooo beyond sick of these people not getting over this shit. It's been almost 3 freaking decades since that happened, and all you people care about is

"Waaaaaaahhh!! That evil Michael Jackson hurt Paul Mccartney's precious little feelings!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa"

Seriously, get the fuck over it already. Paul should've bought the catalog himself, but he didn't. End of story.

[Edited 4/22/12 14:31pm]

Who said, I really cared about it.

The fact that I find MJ repulsive doesn't mean I sit around crying myself to sleep about.

I view him merely the same way I view hyenas. They give me a knee jerk ick factor,

but I don't spend my days thinking about them.

Why are you so offended by my point of view anyways?

Is it so offensive to know people disagree with you?

lawd, some folks need a life.

Emancipation89 said:

imago said:

The use of 'Revolution' in the Nike commercial was vulgar, especially since it went against the wishes of the artists who created that music.

Can you imagine, hypothetically, 'Take Me With You' being used for a travel agency add, if it were also owned by MJ (who happened to outbid Prince for the WB material), against Prince's wishes?

Vulgar, even if MJ had the right to do it.

But, then again, I always cringe when people say MJ was the best. Fuck...that...shit.

good point dude, btw did you know Paul Mccartney pulled off the same exact shit over Buddy Holly's catalogue? He owns the publishing rights and he's been using the songs for commercials for many times, and since Paul thinks using songs for commercials actually cheapens artists' legacy, I can only assume Paul's sole purpose of selling out Buddy Holly's music is to ridicule his legacy & make some $$$ off of them

I don't see how this makes MJ's actions any less vulgar.

imago said:

Emancipation89 said:

No because that didn't happen and please stop trying to associate every little thing in the world with Prince. Yuck.

Honestly I'm sooooo beyond sick of these people not getting over this shit. It's been almost 3 freaking decades since that happened, and all you people care about is

"Waaaaaaahhh!! That evil Michael Jackson hurt Paul Mccartney's precious little feelings!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa"

Seriously, get the fuck over it already. Paul should've bought the catalog himself, but he didn't. End of story.

[Edited 4/22/12 14:31pm]

Who said, I really cared about it.

The fact that I find MJ repulsive doesn't mean I sit around crying myself to sleep about.

I view him merely the same way I view hyenas. They give me a knee jerk ick factor,

but I don't spend my days thinking about them.

Why are you so offended by my point of view anyways?

Is it so offensive to know people disagree with you?

lawd, some folks need a life.

Well I don't give a shit about your opinions on MJ, really. I just thought it was funny how someone who can't stand MJ, conveniently decides jump into thread and throw negative judgements on MJ's action only when Paul Mccartney did the exact same shit.

Emancipation89 said:

imago said:

Who said, I really cared about it.

The fact that I find MJ repulsive doesn't mean I sit around crying myself to sleep about.

I view him merely the same way I view hyenas. They give me a knee jerk ick factor,

but I don't spend my days thinking about them.

Why are you so offended by my point of view anyways?

Is it so offensive to know people disagree with you?

lawd, some folks need a life.

Well I don't give a shit about your opinions on MJ, really. I just thought it was funny how someone who can't stand MJ, conveniently decides jump into thread and throw negative judgements on MJ's action only when Paul Mccartney did the exact same shit.

You obviously do.

MJ sucks ass.

imago said:

Emancipation89 said:

Well I don't give a shit about your opinions on MJ, really. I just thought it was funny how someone who can't stand MJ, conveniently decides jump into thread and throw negative judgements on MJ's action only when Paul Mccartney did the exact same shit.

You obviously do.

MJ sucks ass.

Sorry I don't. The only thing that keep me amused is your contribution to the Beatles publishing rights discussion so far.

"MJ is repulsive"

"MJ sucks ass"

lol, why don't you keep going? I think that really says a lot about you as a person.

I always wonder why folks bother defending MJ on this.

The artist who create their music may not have a legal right to control what's done with thei song, but they certainly have the right to criticize those who exploit it.

MJ was smart to buy those songs though, considering how washed up he became in the end.

Emancipation89 said:

imago said:

You obviously do.

MJ sucks ass.

Sorry I don't. The only thing that keep me amused is your contribution to the Beatles publishing rights discussion so far.

"MJ is repulsive"

"MJ sucks ass"

lol, why don't you keep going? I think that really says a lot about you as a person.

Yes, you do.

The very tone and nature your response is so transparent, it's not even funny.

You can dub me a hater or whatever, but perhaps your just an MJ apologist?

Either way, you're offended by my poss, and that's what's truly hilarious.

And let's not forget ALL the surviving members of the Beatles were upset about the use of the song.

imago said:

Emancipation89 said:

Sorry I don't. The only thing that keep me amused is your contribution to the Beatles publishing rights discussion so far.

"MJ is repulsive"

"MJ sucks ass"

lol, why don't you keep going? I think that really says a lot about you as a person.

Yes, you do.

The very tone and nature your response is so transparent, it's not even funny.

You can dub me a hater or whatever, but perhaps your just an MJ apologist?

Either way, you're offended by my poss, and that's what's truly hilarious.

You're not getting the point, are you?

You calling MJ repulsive, someone who, what was it, "sucks ass" is no different than, let's say, MJ fan jumping into discussion and making comments about how cute MJ looks, or how awesome Thriller record sounds. It's something that has nothing to do with the discussion, and you chose to go that way. You can't stay on topic and discuss what's being discussed without bringing in your personal hatred on someone, and that's what's funny to me.

I didn't label you as a hater, again, it's all in your head.

Emancipation89 said:

imago said:

Yes, you do.

The very tone and nature your response is so transparent, it's not even funny.

You can dub me a hater or whatever, but perhaps your just an MJ apologist?

Either way, you're offended by my poss, and that's what's truly hilarious.

You're not getting the point, are you?

You calling MJ repulsive, someone who, what was it, "sucks ass" is no different than, let's say, MJ fan jumping into discussion and making comments about how cute MJ looks, or how awesome Thriller record sounds. It's something that has nothing to do with the discussion, and you chose to go that way. You can't stay on topic and discuss what's being discussed without bringing in your personal hatred on someone, and that's what's funny to me.

I didn't label you as a hater, again, it's all in your head.

OMG, why are you going about this?

The point is that MJ was wrong for licensing that song out to Nike.

What Paul did is irrelevent.

WHy are you being so dense? Perhaps it's because you're so offended by people dissagreeing with you.

At this point, you're just trying to get the last word.

JAYSUS

imago said:

I always wonder why folks bother defending MJ on this.

The artist who create their music may not have a legal right to control what's done with thei song, but they certainly have the right to criticize those who exploit it.

MJ was smart to buy those songs though, considering how washed up he became in the end.

The reason is simple; though Paul had money for it, for some reason, he didn't bother enough to purchase the publishing rights.

And Paul can criticize it all he wants, though there's nothing he can do about it, (and though the song was written by John Lennon lol), but if he were to do that he should also be criticized for doing the same.

Emancipation89 said:

imago said:

I always wonder why folks bother defending MJ on this.

The artist who create their music may not have a legal right to control what's done with thei song, but they certainly have the right to criticize those who exploit it.

MJ was smart to buy those songs though, considering how washed up he became in the end.

The reason is simple; though Paul had money for it, for some reason, he didn't bother enough to purchase the publishing rights.

And Paul can criticize it all he wants, though there's nothing he can do about it, (and though the song was written by John Lennon lol), but if he were to do that he should also be criticized for doing the same.

It's completely irrelevent to MJ being in the worng.

Completely.

goddamnit, I have to sleep to.

I want to stay up all night telling you how wrong you are, but I can't!

imago said:

Emancipation89 said:

The reason is simple; though Paul had money for it, for some reason, he didn't bother enough to purchase the publishing rights.

And Paul can criticize it all he wants, though there's nothing he can do about it, (and though the song was written by John Lennon lol), but if he were to do that he should also be criticized for doing the same.

It's completely irrelevent to MJ being in the worng.

Completely.

Why are you being so dense ?

Why do you think MJ was "wrong" first of all? MJ doesn't think commercializing songs cheapens artists' legacy. Paul can have his opinions on, again, that written-by-John-Lennon-song, but Paul's opinion doesn't automatically make MJ's action morally "wrong".

Emancipation89 said:

imago said:

It's completely irrelevent to MJ being in the worng.

Completely.

Why are you being so dense ?

Why do you think MJ was "wrong" first of all? MJ doesn't think commercializing songs cheapens artists' legacy. Paul can have his opinions on, again, that written-by-John-Lennon-song, but Paul's opinion doesn't automatically make MJ's action morally "wrong".

Yes, it does.

These are songs the Beatles wrote. Their wishes may not be legally binding

but I view it as fundementally wrong to use them for against the originally

artists's goals.

You're offended by this, aren't you?

Emancipation89 said:

imago said:

Yes, it does.

These are songs the Beatles wrote. Their wishes may not be legally binding

but I view it as fundementally wrong to use them for against the originally

artists's goals.

You're offended by this, aren't you?

I'm not offended, it's 100% your opinion. Although after you made it clear how you can't stand MJ, I can't help but to think that you're quite biased lol but everyone's entitled to their opinion I guess.

I would honestly take Paul's criticism seriously if he never did the same thing to other artists.

The fact that he sold out Buddy Holly's catalog, simply says that Paul DOES NOT think selling music to commercials is wrong. And his own songs to Apple commercial.

So in short, I don't think Paul actually meant what he said when he said using Beatles songs in commercial is not a good thing.

1. yes, I'm biased, but MJ is in the wrong anyway

2. I don't think Paul would have minded the song being used for something other than selling shoes. Had it been for a different cause. MJ is in the wrong.