New topic
PrintableEmbattledWarrior said: AlexdeParis said: What's ignorant about it? I don't think either of them should have any more rights to 40-year-old songs than the rest of us do. Then again, that wasn't my point. If it's common knowledge that Paul was the principle songwriter on some "Lennon/McCartney" songs, where is the harm in calling them "McCartney/Lennon" songs? Yes, Paul agreed to calling them all "Lennon/McCartney" way back when, but the other person who made the agreement is dead; I doubt he cares. Even if John does, he can't do anything about it. common knowledge? by his word, Lennon is not here to disbute it, just because the mans dead, i don't believe that he should be exploited, by a former colleague egotisticle desires but so be it yeah, if there's to be any exploitation of him, it should be by that disgusting hag of a widow of his.  "I don't need your forgiveness, cos I've been saved by Jesus, so fuck you." | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
EmbattledWarrior said: AlexdeParis said: What's ignorant about it? I don't think either of them should have any more rights to 40-year-old songs than the rest of us do. Then again, that wasn't my point. If it's common knowledge that Paul was the principle songwriter on some "Lennon/McCartney" songs, where is the harm in calling them "McCartney/Lennon" songs? Yes, Paul agreed to calling them all "Lennon/McCartney" way back when, but the other person who made the agreement is dead; I doubt he cares. Even if John does, he can't do anything about it. common knowledge? by his word, Lennon is not here to disbute it, just because the mans dead, i don't believe that he should be exploited, by a former colleague egotisticle desires but so be it It's common knowledge that most of, say, "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" was written by Paul and the majority of "The Ballad of John and Yoko" came from John. Those are just two (obvious) examples. There was talk of "Paul songs" and "John songs" even before the Beatles broke up, including from the horses' mouths. Anyway, I don't see how putting McCartney's name first on roughly half of their songs is exploiting Lennon. "Whitney was purely and simply one of a kind." ~ Clive Davis | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sallysassalot said[/quote]
you don't have to pay to perform the song live. [/quote] Yes you do! I am performing myself and I have to pay everytime I use someone else's material. I didn't know that so I got an official warning. Now I only use my own material on stage. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: Cloudbuster said: Shoulda coughed up in the first place. It's not like he couldn't afford it.
And I'm with Yoko on this one. She was much happier with Michael having control because as she pointed out, someone else would've exploited the catalogue to no end. She was happier that it was in the hands of a friend. Funny how McCartney always overlooks this just so can have another bitching session. And apparently only some of the rights are returned. The fact that you just defended that whore knocked you down 10 levels on my respect scale
 You never even sniffed the bottom levels of my respect scale, so... 
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I don't care if Paul, George's kids, John's kids or whoever gets the rights, so long as Yoko doesn't!!!
I Keed, I keed! While I cannot stand that strangled cat sounding, big ass shade wearing freak, I DO think she and Paul should be the primary owners of the music. MJ had bought them fair and square, and I DON'T have a problem with that, but I just think that the actual writers and their families are the ones who should control the music. It would be nice if Paul got the lions share of the work he composed, while Yoko, Sean and Julian got the John stuff. George's family should benefit from his stuff as well, and Ringo...well, even Ringo should be able to make a buck off of "Octapus's Garden" 
Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones. (Ecclesiastes 7:9) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
calldapplwondery83 said: I wonder if this quote is really from him. Do you really have to pay for a song performed live? ESPECIALLY when your the composer? Did Prince hae to pay for the little Love Rollercoaster snippet he did on the ONA tour? Doubtful.
Actually there is performance rights fee for live performance. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cloudbuster said: SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: The fact that you just defended that whore knocked you down 10 levels on my respect scale
You never even sniffed the bottom levels of my respect scale, so...
I bet you've done that a few times, tho'. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cloudbuster said: SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: The fact that you just defended that whore knocked you down 10 levels on my respect scale
You never even sniffed the bottom levels of my respect scale, so...
Defending that whore, I could smell it all the way in California!  2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AlexdeParis said: EmbattledWarrior said: common knowledge? by his word, Lennon is not here to disbute it, just because the mans dead, i don't believe that he should be exploited, by a former colleague egotisticle desires but so be it It's common knowledge that most of, say, "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" was written by Paul and the majority of "The Ballad of John and Yoko" came from John. Those are just two (obvious) examples. There was talk of "Paul songs" and "John songs" even before the Beatles broke up, including from the horses' mouths. Anyway, I don't see how putting McCartney's name first on roughly half of their songs is exploiting Lennon. I did a lil homework, and found out this wasnt the first time McCartney put in this request. When he layed his first request to put the catalogue in as McCartney and Lennon, Yoko, George and Ringo, wished it would stay as Lennon - McCartney, emphasizing that Lennon and McCartney did make a binding agreement. Paul withdrew his request afterwards after reading some of the posts, seems theirs alot of hostility toward yoko... which i believe is creating a general bias anyway I am a Rail Road, Track Abandoned
With the Sunset forgetting, i ever Happened http://www.myspace.com/stolenmorning | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Graycap23 said: calldapplwondery83 said: I wonder if this quote is really from him. Do you really have to pay for a song performed live? ESPECIALLY when your the composer? Did Prince hae to pay for the little Love Rollercoaster snippet he did on the ONA tour? Doubtful.
Actually there is performance rights fee for live performance. actually, there are usually clauses that the writer of the song can perform it without having to pay a licensing fee to the other financial interests in the publishing copyright. "I don't need your forgiveness, cos I've been saved by Jesus, so fuck you." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tessa said: Graycap23 said: Actually there is performance rights fee for live performance. actually, there are usually clauses that the writer of the song can perform it without having to pay a licensing fee to the other financial interests in the publishing copyright. when i have play a cover for the gig, i have to check with firm who holds the copyright of the song, if im able to perform the song without a fee. Some songs have performance fees, and others don't i believe I am a Rail Road, Track Abandoned
With the Sunset forgetting, i ever Happened http://www.myspace.com/stolenmorning | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EmbattledWarrior said: Tessa said: actually, there are usually clauses that the writer of the song can perform it without having to pay a licensing fee to the other financial interests in the publishing copyright. when i have play a cover for the gig, i have to check with firm who holds the copyright of the song, if im able to perform the song without a fee. Some songs have performance fees, and others don't i believe right, but you don't have to pay a fee to play your own songs, which is what i'm saying is usually the case with most artists. if they wrote they song, they generally don't have to pay a fee to play it. if it's written with someone else, they have to pay that person, but if you write it yourself, you don't have to pay a fee, even to the publishing company. (i think) "I don't need your forgiveness, cos I've been saved by Jesus, so fuck you." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cloudbuster said: calldapplwondery83 said: I wonder if this quote is really from him.
Yeah, it is. He's mentioned it a few times. a few times? Hysterical comes to mind; One of Michael's finest moments | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JediMaster said: I don't care if Paul, George's kids, John's kids or whoever gets the rights, so long as Yoko doesn't!!!
I Keed, I keed! While I cannot stand that strangled cat sounding, big ass shade wearing freak, I DO think she and Paul should be the primary owners of the music. MJ had bought them fair and square, and I DON'T have a problem with that, but I just think that the actual writers and their families are the ones who should control the music. It would be nice if Paul got the lions share of the work he composed, while Yoko, Sean and Julian got the John stuff. George's family should benefit from his stuff as well, and Ringo...well, even Ringo should be able to make a buck off of "Octapus's Garden"
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
since john lenon and paul wrote most of the songs they own the equal share and more then the other 2 beattles!!
paul only got rid of the rites because of tax reasons and nothing else yoko makes more money from the rights then paul just coz lenon is dead. if pual died his estate would be gettin more money |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
asg said: since john lenon and paul wrote most of the songs they own the equal share and more then the other 2 beattles!!
paul only got rid of the rites because of tax reasons and nothing else yoko makes more money from the rights then paul just coz lenon is dead. if pual died his estate would be gettin more money in other words the cliche "im worth more dead than i am alive" is in effect I am a Rail Road, Track Abandoned
With the Sunset forgetting, i ever Happened http://www.myspace.com/stolenmorning | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |