This is why I cant even read these bullshit Jacko threads. What racism is played here?

Paul is pissed. Yes its his fault. People have a go at Michael because he leased those songs out to ads etc..... You can see why Paul is pissed considering their friendship. I think zealot beatles fans were miffed Paul didn't win the bid, and hated Michael for it. Why hate Michael? Probably because he was the biggest act at the time, and most beatles fans probably hate his music. But that ain't racism. If Madonna had bought the beatles out, then beatles fans woulda hated that too.

To a casual observer, it does seem backstabbing, but business is business, and Michael was totally in the right (as we all know). but the hate he gets or got is not colour based. Thats bullshit.

Anyway, as far as I know, he only owns 25% of the catalogue now. Still a tidy sum, but most of it is Sony's now I think?
[Edited 6/9/08 23:11pm]

OMG, I am not even going to respond to individual posts. Yes, I am an MJ fan, but that in no way skews my POV, so here goes:

1.Paul was a fucking IDIOT for selling the songs in the first place.
2. He had the chance to buy them back, but was too cheap to do so.
3. He did know MJ was bidding because MJ told him, and even offered to go thirds with Paul and Yoko Ono. Yoko didn't want them anyway, and Paul was STILL to cheap to go halves. LMAO
4. If Paul really wanted his songs back, he would have spent the money. In the end there were two bidders left. One of them was Michael. The other WASN'T Paul.
5. Paul McCartney owns the rights of a shitload of songs and makes something like 5 million a year off OTHER PEOPLE's songs alone. So what's so wrong about what MJ did? Paul is doing the exact same thing. (as per kibble's post.
6. Not all the Beatles songs are in that catalog- 251 of them are. I could be wrong, but I thought Paul owned the rights to the rest of them anyways.
7. Yoko Ono said she is glad MJ has the songs.
8. They did a total of 3 songs together. That makes them best friends? Paul changes his story all the time, as previously said. "I care", "I don't care". He's just pissed off at his own stupidity.

Having said all of that, I love Paul too. He's made some smart business moves in his life- he just happen to let himself miss out on what could have been his best move.

As a side note- yes, MJ's problem is cash. Mj still earns money on the rights of the half a million songs in the Sony / ATV catalog. That catalog / company, after merging ATV (Northern songs and others) with Sony, is now the second biggest music publisher in the world and estimated to be worth over a billion dollars. I'd have to say that's one (or 2) smart moves indeed.

thesexofit said:

From what I heard he still got 50% ownership. I just think Michael took Paul's "advice" of owning some records by somebody else by heart. Paul didn't raise a fuss until NIKE which in his case was understandable but by then someone should've told him "you blew it in 1984, dummy!"

Timmy84 said:

Yoko welcomed the deal apparantly. Not sure if John would LOL (or is John lennon would like Sean hanging out with Mike but thats another story).

At least it meant no more soft/MOR collabs in the future....

I found it odd when Quincy said "I just cant stop loving you" was "the girl is mine" off "bad"? Surely "just good friends" was? Sure "IJCSLY" was the first single, and it was Soft MOR again ala "girl is mine", but vibe wise, "just good friends" is just like "girl is mine. Male co-leads, fighting over a girl etc..., and Iam sure Michael didn't write "IJCSLY" with Paul in mind LOL. Who knows, maybe he did LOL. Woulda been good is Streisand woulda agreed to duet with him, but Iam going off topic now...

Substitute "Hillary Clinton" with "Paul McCartney" and "Barack Obama" with "Michael Jackson" and then I think you'll understand what's going on here:

Timmy84 said:

It's 50%. It's a merger- which happened in 1995, hence Sony / ATV. Michael's not sold it- Michael gets 50% and Sony gets 50%. It's that simple.

Bitter PM/Beatles fans never bring up the fact that Paul never even bid on the songs. He was too cheap to bid - he wated them but refused to pay for them himself and tried to get Yoko to foot half the bill. She didn't care and said no, and he just gave up.

If MJ didn't get the, someone else would have, and they might have been licensing Beatles songs out to toilet duck left right and centre, instead of waiting 5 years before using one song for a large respected sports brand.

thebanishedone said:

Wow, and that was a year before Mike outbid him. I wonder what he'd say now?

Ellie said:

Exactly.

Damn, there's some bullshit flying as usual. Kids, let me tell you something. At the time, Michael received NO FLACK WHATSOEVER for buying the Beatles catalogue. He was actually praised for it, and it gave him the reputation (unfounded as it turned out) of being a good businessman. No one was threatening to lynch him for being too uppity. Sometimes I wonder how old you guys are, because anyone who was around at the time would know this.

speeddemon said:[quote]

ButterscotchPimp said:

It has nothing to do with race, you stupid, fucking, idiot.

marnifrances said:[quote]OMG, I am not even going to respond to individual posts. Yes, I am an MJ fan, but that in no way skews my POV, so here goes:

1.Paul was a fucking IDIOT for selling the songs in the first place.
2. He had the chance to buy them back, but was too cheap to do so.
3. He did know MJ was bidding because MJ told him, and even offered to go thirds with Paul and Yoko Ono. Yoko didn't want them anyway, and Paul was STILL to cheap to go halves. LMAO
4. If Paul really wanted his songs back, he would have spent the money. In the end there were two bidders left. One of them was Michael. The other WASN'T Paul.
5. Paul McCartney owns the rights of a shitload of songs and makes something like 5 million a year off OTHER PEOPLE's songs alone. So what's so wrong about what MJ did? Paul is doing the exact same thing. (as per kibble's post.
6. Not all the Beatles songs are in that catalog- 251 of them are. I could be wrong, but I thought Paul owned the rights to the rest of them anyways.
7. Yoko Ono said she is glad MJ has the songs.
8. They did a total of 3 songs together. That makes them best friends? Paul changes his story all the time, as previously said. "I care", "I don't care". He's just pissed off at his own stupidity.

Paul didn't sell the rights in the first place. he never had them. He and John were only 20+ when Dick Leahy bought them off teh rights. They didn't know anything about rights.

Anyway, I think MJ is not blame and acted fair. Paul had his chance to buy them sveral times and MJ just took his chance.

BTW, most Beatles fans find Paul's reaction silly too.

graecophilos said:

Ahh, yes, you're right- my mistake. They were under contract with ATV and had to sell out to ATV to get out of the contract to retain royalties- I got confused. This from Wiki:

HOLD UP!

Why do I feel I've been in this thread before a year ago or something?

DarlingDiana said:

Who do we replace "Bill" with?

Linda?

graecophilos said:

But Buddy Holly wasn't Paul's friend.

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.

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.[/quote]
from what i gathered Paul didn't get upset until the songs were used for commericals. if that's true it doesnt' seem racist. i think others are putting racial overtones in there.

The things you learn at the org : Paul didn't like Michael to buy his catalog because he's black.

And Paul is psychic.
He only accepted to take part in a duet with MJ because he already knew it was going to be the best selling album of all time.

As a matter of fact Michael had always admired Paul and the Beatles.

He had already sang Paul's Girlfriend 3 years before.

When Michael discovered Paul's racism he decided to turn white to get Paul's love back

bboy87 said:

now thats the funniest thing ever!!!