speeddemon said:

Uh huh.
Which is why his house got foreclosed on and he's considering a Vegas run to get an influx of cash.

He's "rolling" in dough.
Again, karma's a bitch.

bboy87 said:

Michael bought ATV which owns The Beatles songs in 1985, not 1984 as has been stated in this thread. Michael's close friendship with Paul McCartney stopped then, and just became a distant business relationship.

The above photo of Michael and Paul is backstage at a Paul McCartney concert, where they had met in person for the first time since 1983-84. During that meeting Paul asked Michael to raise his royalty rate of the Beatles songs. Michael agreed to do so, which is why Paul looks so happy in the photo. But after the concert Michael allegedly didn't increase Paul's royalty rate which is why they still aren't friends.

Another urban myth is that Paul McCartney is pissed of because Michael outbid him for The Beatles song. The fact is Paul McCartney never put a bid in for them , because he's said why should be pay millions for songs he wrote for free. Also Yoko Ono proposed a joint deal to by The Beatles songs in 1981 when they were up for sale, and he refused to put a bid in.

ButterscotchPimp said:

Who say's Michael is considering a Vegas run, that's nothing more than a rumor that I doubt has any truth. Also Prince played in Vegas, so of it's cool for Prince why not Michael who played there in 1974 with the Jackson 5. Michael has said he didn't enjoy performing in Vegas.

Michael Jackson has in influx of cash from his publishing companies MiJac Music and Sony/ATV. Has for the forcloser of Neverland I can't comment on what's happening with that except the media always wish to make things appear far worse than they actually are for Michael. And most of what the media report about Michael is not fact. ie the story last week that Michael pulled out of American Idol at the last minute due to stage fright. It's sad and pathetic that so many people believed this to be true. And Simon Cowell said in a BBC Radio 2 interview a few days later that it story was NOT TURE !!!

Harlepolis said:

I remember hearing Paul Mooney say that during his "Know Your History" special

ButterscotchPimp said:

Not exactly ButterscotchPimp, the whole story is in a book that came out about a year or 2 ago(I need to find the title)

From what I recall, Michael TOLD him he was gonna buy the songs and Paul actually encouraged him.

Michael had earned over $100 million from Thriller and he began trying to buy the catalog in September 1984. He and his attorney John Branca were deciding either buy CBS's corporate offices in Los Angeles or buy publishing. MJ wasn't interested in Real Estate so he began to start acquiring publishing rights

ButterscotchPimp said:

Michael's problem is cash, still he's worth over a billion with his assets.

bboy87 said:

Thats where I stole that idea from it makes sense though, don't it?

bboy87 said:

wow i've never seen that foto. This was 3,4, years after they broke up!!

Michael also thanks Paul McCartney (and then wife at the time Linda) in the booklet of his HIStory album from 1995. Not sure what he thanked him for though.

i usually lurk on this board, but every time this subject comes up, i get a little steamed and i had to speak on it this time.

my understanding is that long before mj purchased atv, he'd been acquiring publishing rights. he owed the sly and the family stone rights before atv.
moreover, mj grew up around barry gordy, a man whom he idolized at one time as a father, the same man who stated that mj was very interested in the music business. he also grew up around smokey, stevie, lionel richie - all men who undoubtedly could and most likely did "school" him about the music business. the only person claiming that he was the first to advise mj to invest in publishing is mc cartney. the only person that could have been possibly been a mentor to mj was a white man with whom i doubt mj had any thing other than a business relationship in the first damn place? mc cartney is acting like a jilted "best friend", and it just doesn't pass the smell test to me.

even if that was true, that mc cartney was the one to advise mj about publishing, is it mc cartney's position that mj was supposed to only bid on rights that mc cartney decided he could bid on?

mc cartney: "michael, i know that i advised you to invest in music publishing, but you may not bid on the atv catalog because i don't want you to. you will only bid on the rights that i want you to. you may be okay to dance around in a video with me, but my so-called white liberal openness can't stomach that you, a man i don't even think is in my league talent-wise, would own my catalog. i would prefer that it remain in the hands of other white men like myself, otherwise i would bid on it. i mean, after all, you don't hear me perpetually whining about the white men who own it now, do you? that's because i don't care if they own it. i only care that you do. if you don't do what i say, i won't be your friend anymore.

michael: yassah, boss. i's never would bid on this catalog if it displeases you. 'cause lawdy knows, i wouldn't want that. even though music is a business, as you know, boss, 'cause you sho do own a lot of other people's publishing rights, now don't you, boss? i bet you didn't even ask buddy holly's heirs whether or not it was okay with them that you owned their loved one's music, did you? you bought them 'cause they's was sho nuff for sale, and nobody in their right mind would even question whether it was okay for a white man to buy something that was for sale with his money. lordy knows, i would never be given that same respect boss, so i shouldn't even go assuming that whatever i buy with my legitimately earned money is okay, should i? no suh, boss, you is sho nuff right. i wouldn't want to offend you. guess what boss? i just have time to shine your shoes before we begin shooting the say, say, say video.


'cause that's what i hear in my head every time this issue is brought up.

that because mj refused to be dictated to, he's just a typical n***** getting his "karmic retribution" for daring not to kow-tow to the great mc cartney and the thinly veiled racism that surrounds the underlying reasons why people really have an issue with any of this. that whole "they were friends" bs is just that - bs. if mc cartney was mj's friend, he wouldn't have had problem with mj bidding on the catalog. he would have had nothing to say about it, except, 'well, that's too rich for my blood. if you want to bid on it, go right ahead. i hope you submit the winning bid.' instead, he keeps making out like mj was the nubian in his fuel supply who stole this catalog from him. if he had wanted it, he should have bid on it. and since he didn't, he should stfu.

publishing is where you secure your future. who would have thought in 1984 that at this stage in his life, mj would be without a record label and that he might never record again? that he would be brought so low? maybe mj did. he allegedly said he never wanted to end up like joe louis, the famous boxer who was reduced to being a las vegas greeter to make ends meet toward the end of his life.

he had to think about his future and his family's future (since it would seem it supports quite a number of them), and making a bid on this catalog - not knowing beforehand whether he would actually win it - was the right thing for him to have done.

bottom line, nothing was stopping mc cartney from bidding on this catalog. and i don't buy this argument that it was too expensive; if mj could afford $45m so could he. and what's too expensive when you're talking about getting back the rights to your own songs? if it doesn't matter, then what's with the whining from him and his sychophants in the media all these years? i'm old enough to remember when mj actually won the bid; the thinly veiled racist animus displayed toward him was palpable even then, when he was supposedly on top of the world.

kibbles said:

AGAIN,
and i don't know why i'm shocked that there's a bunch of MJ "kool-aid kids" on the Org as well,
i'm NOT saying that MJ wasn't within his rights to purchase the Beatles catalog.
What i AM saying, is that if my understanding of the situation is correct,
and him and Paul were supposed to be "FRIENDS",
and Paul advised him on the advantages of owning publishing and the like,
AND MJ turned around and bought the catalog and DIDN'T TELL HIS "FRIEND" that he was going to do so, then THAT'S FUCKED UP.

You can argue "business saavy", sure.
"FRIENDSHIP"???? NOT EVEN CLOSE.
And Paul's spoken on this topic MORE THAN ONCE in radio interviews so i'm gonna take his word that the way i heard it happened was the way it happened.

AGAIN? to quote Katt Williams?

FUCK MICHAEL JACKSON. FUCK EM.
[Edited 6/9/08 13:51pm]

ButterscotchPimp said:

he DID tell Paul

ButterscotchPimp said:[quote]

kibbles said:

Why are u talking about friendship. This was the smartest business move in music history.
Here is a 25 year old black man spending 47.5 million $ and 25 years later increase its worth to over 1 billion $.
Michael is hated for this move because he was the black man beating a white man on its own rule. Like he did culturally and racially 2 years earlier when breakin racial barriers on radios and MTV, Michael was single-handedly showing signs of change in an era where it was possible for blacks to play equally with whites in their game.
Michael was turning the business upside down, making possible what was impossible. He should be celebrated for that.

ButterscotchPimp said:

Why were they supposed to be friends? Because they smiled in pictures together? Because they recorded 3 songs together? If anything, I think Paul was using Michael at the time, because Paul's solo career was nowhere near as big as when he was with the Beatles. Why would a man that has a fading solo career start hanging out with a young black kid when he's almost double his age? Do you really think Paul wanted to help Michael, or help himself?

exactly, bboy. i guess it depends on what mood paul is in when he's telling story. he has indicated on more than one occasion that mj *did* tell him he was bidding on the catalog. i have heard out of mc cartney's own mouth:

'i advised michael on publishing, and he said (mimicking michael's voice) i'm bidding on atv, i'm bidding on your catalog and i'm going to win. i laughed at him. but he won'.

so that "betrayed" bs is just that. fuck mj? no, fuck mc cartney.

i'm still having a disconnect here: even if they were friends (again, debatable), why was mj *not* supposed to do what was in his best interest? what did mj hope to gain by not bidding on the catalog? what? paul's undying gratitude? what would that get him in long run? paul owns tons of rights, but he's going to try to dictate who can own what? did paul go around asking all the other people and entities bidding on atv not to bid on it or just mj? why was it so important to mc cartney that mj not bid? he wouldn't bid on his own music, yet he expected mj *not* to?

fine, call me a kool-aid drinker. don't care. i'd rather drink kool-aid than haterade any day of the week.

on edit: exactly speed and diamond. i have never understood this "but they were friends!" crap. SAYS WHO? i only ever viewed their "friendship" in the context of the times. the execs want mj to crossover, and so they make him go write an innocuous little song, arguably the worst cut on thriller, that he and mc cartney could release as the lead off to pop radio. it goes to number one, so they hook up for another one. these two people have absolutely nothing in common, and yet we're supposed to believe that not only are they friends, but that mc cartney is some big time mentor (supposedly) doling out business "advice" to mj. and when mj takes the "advice", mc cartney gets upset 'cause mj is supposed to consign himself to doing what mc cartney says to do. he says jump, and mj is supposed to say, how high? mj is a backstabber b/c he did do what mc cartney said to do? a grown ass man being told to do something by some other grown ass man, not his father, not anything to him but a professional acquaintance? bizarre. if the motown catalog had been up for sale, do you think mc cartney would have not bid on it if mj asked him not to? highly doubtful.
[Edited 6/9/08 14:25pm]
[Edited 6/9/08 14:53pm]

bboy87 said:

Revolution is a John Lennon song (even though it part of the Lennon McCartney listing).

yep. btw, Paul has the right for Buddy Holly songs and used them in commercials too.

TonyVanDam said:

yep

kibbles said:

only a page and half and racism comes up!!!! it's the root of all evil!!!

TonyVanDam said:

all the songs are Lennon/McCartney regardless of whether both parties were involved.

Wow,this is an interesting discssion!

Jesus Christ...

Let me hijack the thread!

See on how I put madonna in the discussion:



Oh and Madonna's friends with Macca's daughter...

Matronik said:

I got the drinks!

ehuffnsd said:

and the problem with that was that he has rights to the songs, not the recordings. He used the recording and they had to remove it right away.

Did M and MJ ever done it?

I mean...stuff make babies come....

Like Sam. u . L

ehuffnsd said:[/quote]only a page and half and racism comes up!!!! it's the root of all evil!!![/quote]

i'm sorry, but this is one of those times when i do see a racist double standard at play.

as has already been pointed out, mj did not go behind mc cartney' back to bid on the catalog. that's just the convenient excuse people use to obfuscate and deflect their own (usually racist) anger about mj owning the catalog.

are they upset that mc cartney owns and licenses the rights he purchased of other people's work? that he "exploits" for profit like a good capitalist and businessman the works of buddy holly and others? no. you never, ever hear about that shit. however, to let so many tell it, mj is lowlife backstabbing scumbag for doing the same. racist double standard through and through.

as i've said, i don't think they were good friends. it seems obvious to me that they weren't; mj didn't give a good g-ddamn what mc cartney thought about him bidding on the catalog. maybe he knew in what low esteem paul really held him. based on the quote from playboy posted here, it's clear that paul just thought of himself as "slumming" with mj. mj's not a songwriter paul admires, but he was willing to deign to work with mj in order to line his own pockets when thriller blew up and mj became the hottest thing since the beatles. just business, i guess...and that knife cuts both ways as mc cartney soon found out.

kibbles said:

only a page and half and racism comes up!!!! it's the root of all evil!!![/quote]

i'm sorry, but this is one of those times when i do see a racist double standard at play.
[/quote]

I agree. I'm usually against MJ fans blaming every bit of negative press he gets on racism, but this time, I think there is a lot of truth to it. If some rising young white male musician of the time had bought it, do you really think people would have made such a fuss? It would barely have been noticed at the time, and we certainly wouldn't remember who had bought it today, let alone still be resenting him for it.