Just finished reading a great book about Sly and the Family Stone titled " I want to take you Higher" by Jeff Kaliss . I've noticed that MINUS the drug addiction, Sly & Prince have alot of things in common, as far as isolating himself from the rest of his band and the public once he reached a certain amount of success , recording all day ,everyday , dealing with more than one woman at the same time , and both of their great Bassists left the group ( Sly : Larry Graham Prince : Andre Cymone ) , etc ...

Why anyone thinks Prince should reach out and/or resuce Sly is beyond me. Sly is doing what he wants to and since he's grown; leave him to clean up his own act.

WetDream said:

woogiebear said:

Um......didn't He do the same thing putting 2gether THERE'S A RIOT GOIN' ON?????

Maybe there's a MASTERPIECE of that level somewhere in that Van!!!!!!

Let Us Pray.........

Ah! Alas! Someone says something very interesting. You're correct, Riot was done the same way for some of the albums highlights. My question is....what must the neighbours think!?

Yes!!!! Every Critic & their Mother is callin' RIOT a masterpiece!!!! Sly recorded most of that in a Winnebago. Just saw The Family Stone (Greg Errico, Jerry Martini & Cynthia Robinson) perform this past week, and they sound AMAZING!!!!!

I hope & pray that Sly gets it 2gether enough that they can pull it 2gether so that He and the FULL Family Stone can throw down ONE MORE TIME while they're all still here!!!!

p.s.: there's a Lady in South Central LA that lets Sly take showers at Her place & make sure He eats. He's OK. As long as He STOPS usin' Drugs!! Both He & George Clinton are too old 4 that shit!!!!!

kae510 said:

Just finished reading a great book about Sly and the Family Stone titled " I want to take you Higher" by Jeff Kaliss . I've noticed that MINUS the drug addiction, Sly & Prince have alot of things in common, as far as isolating himself from the rest of his band and the public once he reached a certain amount of success , recording all day ,everyday , dealing with more than one woman at the same time , and both of their great Bassists left the group ( Sly : Larry Graham Prince : Andre Cymone ) , etc ...

I've read that book as well.....AMAZING!!!!!! What I found the most intersting fact is that from the get-go, they say Larry challenged Sly's authority, and that was an issue later on, with death threats hurled at one another.

I think in order fot a full-fledged re-union to work, those two have to make peace w/one another, swallow their pride, and FUNK ON!!!!!!!

Cerebus said:

nursev said:

I know Prince feels for Sly, but he is not responsible for every old musician who falls on hard times!

I actually agree with this. Prince has his own issues, worries, problems to deal with. He didn't create any of Sly's problems, so why should he feel like he needs to solve them?

In regards to something somebody said up above, you don't have to pay another artist to perform their song live. That's why there's tribute bands that actually make a pretty good living.

Really?

I think it's a problem of enforcement, not that it's not illegal.

You are still performing someone's song. The writer and publisher should be paid, but not the artist.

woogiebear said:

kae510 said:

Just finished reading a great book about Sly and the Family Stone titled " I want to take you Higher" by Jeff Kaliss . I've noticed that MINUS the drug addiction, Sly & Prince have alot of things in common, as far as isolating himself from the rest of his band and the public once he reached a certain amount of success , recording all day ,everyday , dealing with more than one woman at the same time , and both of their great Bassists left the group ( Sly : Larry Graham Prince : Andre Cymone ) , etc ...

I've read that book as well.....AMAZING!!!!!! What I found the most intersting fact is that from the get-go, they say Larry challenged Sly's authority, and that was an issue later on, with death threats hurled at one another.

I think in order fot a full-fledged re-union to work, those two have to make peace w/one another, swallow their pride, and FUNK ON!!!!!!!

Yeah i truly hope Sly & Larry do reunite . Let go of the B.S. from the '70's .

Mindflux said:

silkylee said:

There's one thing I know for certain! MJ was a hellava business man! He owned every bodies music! I wouldn't be shocked if somebody said he owns the rights to Prince!

I'd say he was a megalomaniac and a bit of a c***, especially outbidding Paul Macartney on the Beatles catalogue! I fundamentally disagree with an artist acting like some huge, coporate conglomerate buying up all the rights to other great artists tunes.

BTW, he didn't own "every bodies"(sic) music, by any stretch. Oh and, by your logic, prepare for the shock of learning that he didn't ever own the rights to Prince's music - Prince owns his own publishing and has always maintained that he'll retain control - its mentioned in Big White Mansion, for example;

"(What about dem publishing rights?)

Sell my publishing? What a laugh!

I don't know Bo, but I do know math"

If I'm not mistaken doesn't sir paul own the rights to Buddy Holly's music? It would have been stupid if Mj didn't buy the Beatles catalogue.

Marlena58 said:

Mindflux said:

I'd say he was a megalomaniac and a bit of a c***, especially outbidding Paul Macartney on the Beatles catalogue! I fundamentally disagree with an artist acting like some huge, coporate conglomerate buying up all the rights to other great artists tunes.

BTW, he didn't own "every bodies"(sic) music, by any stretch. Oh and, by your logic, prepare for the shock of learning that he didn't ever own the rights to Prince's music - Prince owns his own publishing and has always maintained that he'll retain control - its mentioned in Big White Mansion, for example;

"(What about dem publishing rights?)

Sell my publishing? What a laugh!

I don't know Bo, but I do know math"

If I'm not mistaken doesn't sir paul own the rights to Buddy Holly's music? It would have been stupid if Mj didn't buy the Beatles catalogue.

Meaning what? Its not the same situation at all.

McCartney bought the publishing rights 16 years after the artist and original owner himself had died and then went on to ensure regular tributes to one of the great rock'n'roll pioneers. You might also want to bare in mind that the Beatles themselves were shafted over their publishing, which was why their back catalogue was available.

Jackson, on the other hand, went in to a bidding war with a supposed friend and former musical collaborator, an artist who was still alive at the time and, given that he was shafted on his own publishing years before, should really have already held the rights. Its entirely inappropriate that he should ever be in a position where he had to buy back the rights to HIS OWN WORKS in the first place, its even more sickening that a "friend" would shaft you again and deny you those rights to your legacy.

Is the difference clear enough for you?

Probably not, because its the business that matters to you and to MJ, right? Not the morality, or artistic integrity, but a money move. And the only reason, it transpires, that it was fortunate that MJ bought the Beatles catalogue is that it helped to dig himself a little further out of the vast financial hole he created for himself.

Let a man..................be a man.

Mindflux said:

Marlena58 said:

If I'm not mistaken doesn't sir paul own the rights to Buddy Holly's music? It would have been stupid if Mj didn't buy the Beatles catalogue.

Meaning what? Its not the same situation at all.

McCartney bought the publishing rights 16 years after the artist and original owner himself had died and then went on to ensure regular tributes to one of the great rock'n'roll pioneers. You might also want to bare in mind that the Beatles themselves were shafted over their publishing, which was why their back catalogue was available.

Jackson, on the other hand, went in to a bidding war with a supposed friend and former musical collaborator, an artist who was still alive at the time and, given that he was shafted on his own publishing years before, should really have already held the rights. Its entirely inappropriate that he should ever be in a position where he had to buy back the rights to HIS OWN WORKS in the first place, its even more sickening that a "friend" would shaft you again and deny you those rights to your legacy.

Is the difference clear enough for you?

Probably not, because its the business that matters to you and to MJ, right? Not the morality, or artistic integrity, but a money move. And the only reason, it transpires, that it was fortunate that MJ bought the Beatles catalogue is that it helped to dig himself a little further out of the vast financial hole he created for himself.

Paul got into the publishing after he hooked up with Linda, her family schooled him on it.

I've always thought Yoko was a silent partner in the Michael Jackson deal. For someone so protective of John Lennon's legacy, she was too nice about Michael's acquisition. Michael didn't own all the publishing, the first two albums were under a different publisher.

The Beatles catalog was split, John and Paul get a percentage... it's just that when it comes to things like advertising, Jackson's estate can override it.

But with Apple Records being run by a former Sony exec, who still has connections there, he's cut through a lot of red tape. Now they're using original Beatles recordings in movies, which hadn't happened in decades.

The Beatles actually have more power to approve and deny songs and covers the way it is now. As far as they're concerned, what's out there is it, and McCartney might try to fight to get one Pepper era song released, the concerts, and maybe the promo videos in a DVD release.. they've mastered recordings for a possible Blu Ray release in the near future, but wanted to roll out the Mono/Stereo box sets and the downloads first. Plus the Cirque was a guaranteed cash cow, and wanted to get that out as well. "Love" is pretty much the last recording George Martin's going to be involved in, and it was a passing of the torch from father to son.

It's still not as bad as what happened to the Beach Boys, where their father sold the publishing behind their backs.

Sly owns some of his songs. I think from Riot on, they're part of Michael's publishing... but Sly made money off of Shrek when Eddie Murphy did "Dance to the Music", and I'm sure the live shows are money in his pocket because he pretty much owns it.

iloveannie said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Read the thread--in the other artists' forum, one poster stated that Prince and Larry reached out to Sly at one time. Of course, I can't verify that source, but I certainly wouldn't doubt it, considering Larry's history with Sly.

Christ the last thing a man needs when he's down is religion! Sending in two JWs? That's just preying on someone whilst their defences are down!

Ain't that the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WetDream said:

woogiebear said:

Um......didn't He do the same thing putting 2gether THERE'S A RIOT GOIN' ON?????

Maybe there's a MASTERPIECE of that level somewhere in that Van!!!!!!

Let Us Pray.........

Ah! Alas! Someone says something very interesting. You're correct, Riot was done the same way for some of the albums highlights. My question is....what must the neighbours think!?

It does make you wonder ...........

woogiebear said:

kae510 said:

Just finished reading a great book about Sly and the Family Stone titled " I want to take you Higher" by Jeff Kaliss . I've noticed that MINUS the drug addiction, Sly & Prince have alot of things in common, as far as isolating himself from the rest of his band and the public once he reached a certain amount of success , recording all day ,everyday , dealing with more than one woman at the same time , and both of their great Bassists left the group ( Sly : Larry Graham Prince : Andre Cymone ) , etc ...

I've read that book as well.....AMAZING!!!!!! What I found the most intersting fact is that from the get-go, they say Larry challenged Sly's authority, and that was an issue later on, with death threats hurled at one another.

I think in order fot a full-fledged re-union to work, those two have to make peace w/one another, swallow their pride, and FUNK ON!!!!!!!

I agree!

MickyDolenz said:

Mike didn't buy anything from Sly. His songs were part of the ATV catalogue, the same as Dion's, The Beatles, Elvis Presley's, etc. Mike offered Sly his publishing back for free, but Sly declined. Mike also gave Little Richard (who was also part of ATV) his songs back.

that's right

It is what it is. Maybe rehab would be helpful for Sly, but really the best thing would be for the world to pull our expectations out of his ass and let them man go on living his life as is. (Is this the conversation to plague Whitney lovers for the rest of their days? "If Whitney had just tried rehab one more time ... she coulda been the next Chaka Kahn.") What are people expecting from Sly at this point? Some fucking kind of Oprah-Winfrey-like transformation where he stops doing drugs and moves in with Sandra Bullock or Michelle Pfieffer or Hillary Swank or Meryl Streep, and puts out the album of his lifetime, complete with him peforming ballet and jazz and break dancing in the video as little angels follow him out when it's done, and into the street as he goes to his volunteer position at the crack baby food bank ?

The dye is cast - without us on this one.

allsmutaside said:

It is what it is. Maybe rehab would be helpful for Sly, but really the best thing would be for the world to pull our expectations out of his ass and let them man go on living his life as is. (Is this the conversation to plague Whitney lovers for the rest of their days? "If Whitney had just tried rehab one more time ... she coulda been the next Chaka Kahn.") What are people expecting from Sly at this point? Some fucking kind of Oprah-Winfrey-like transformation where he stops doing drugs and moves in with Sandra Bullock or Michelle Pfieffer or Hillary Swank or Meryl Streep, and puts out the album of his lifetime, complete with him peforming ballet and jazz and break dancing in the video as little angels follow him out when it's done, and into the street as he goes to his volunteer position at the crack baby food bank ?

The dye is cast - without us on this one.

I can't say that I agree or disagree with that statement. What I can say is only SLY REALLY kNOWS exactly what the real deal of his living conditions and songwriting/recording is all about. We can only speculate on it at best. I feel that at present he has no choice due to legal issues and expense but to do what he is doing. It's like you said, "IT IS WHAT IT IS"! and the DYE IS CAST.

Mindflux said:

silkylee said:

There's one thing I know for certain! MJ was a hellava business man! He owned every bodies music! I wouldn't be shocked if somebody said he owns the rights to Prince!

I'd say he was a megalomaniac and a bit of a c***, especially outbidding Paul Macartney on the Beatles catalogue! I fundamentally disagree with an artist acting like some huge, coporate conglomerate buying up all the rights to other great artists tunes.

BTW, he didn't own "every bodies"(sic) music, by any stretch. Oh and, by your logic, prepare for the shock of learning that he didn't ever own the rights to Prince's music - Prince owns his own publishing and has always maintained that he'll retain control - its mentioned in Big White Mansion, for example;

"(What about dem publishing rights?)

Sell my publishing? What a laugh!

I don't know Bo, but I do know math"

Didn't the Beatles have a chance of buying it before MJ? I think if he was that ruthless, he wouldn't have given Sly Stone or Little Richard their catalogues back.

angel345 said:

Mindflux said:

I'd say he was a megalomaniac and a bit of a c***, especially outbidding Paul Macartney on the Beatles catalogue! I fundamentally disagree with an artist acting like some huge, coporate conglomerate buying up all the rights to other great artists tunes.

BTW, he didn't own "every bodies"(sic) music, by any stretch. Oh and, by your logic, prepare for the shock of learning that he didn't ever own the rights to Prince's music - Prince owns his own publishing and has always maintained that he'll retain control - its mentioned in Big White Mansion, for example;

"(What about dem publishing rights?)

Sell my publishing? What a laugh!

I don't know Bo, but I do know math"

Didn't the Beatles have a chance of buying it before MJ? I think if he was that ruthless, he wouldn't have given Sly Stone or Little Richard their catalogues back.

The Beatles originally had an opportunity to buy back their publishing rights in 1969, but were scuppered by the majority shareholders of Northern Songs, who sold the company before a deal was reached. They sold to ATV, who then became the owners of the publishing rights.

In 1984, ATV put its entire catalogue up for sale and anyone with enough money could have bought the rights to those songs. MJ outbid everyone, including Paul McCartney.

How would you know that offering Sly or Little Richard's catalogues back was an act of altruism? It might have been that those catalogues weren't actually making much money. What we do know, is that Paul McCartney had been trying to buy back the rights to his own songs for 2 decades and his "mate" Jacko outbid him! It didn't help that McCartney then tried to agree a higher composer's royalty with regard to the songs with MJ and MJ refused to even discuss it!

But, of course, he wasn't ruthless, eh?!

Mindflux said:

angel345 said:

Didn't the Beatles have a chance of buying it before MJ? I think if he was that ruthless, he wouldn't have given Sly Stone or Little Richard their catalogues back.

The Beatles originally had an opportunity to buy back their publishing rights in 1969, but were scuppered by the majority shareholders of Northern Songs, who sold the company before a deal was reached. They sold to ATV, who then became the owners of the publishing rights.

In 1984, ATV put its entire catalogue up for sale and anyone with enough money could have bought the rights to those songs. MJ outbid everyone, including Paul McCartney.

How would you know that offering Sly or Little Richard's catalogues back was an act of altruism? It might have been that those catalogues weren't actually making much money. What we do know, is that Paul McCartney had been trying to buy back the rights to his own songs for 2 decades and his "mate" Jacko outbid him! It didn't help that McCartney then tried to agree a higher composer's royalty with regard to the songs with MJ and MJ refused to even discuss it!

But, of course, he wasn't ruthless, eh?!

I would have thought in my mind that it was done from the goodness of my mind, and honestly I don't know. However, I have also taken in consideration from what I've read about MJ taking care of Sly till the day he died. Being ruthless was a stretch of a word, I'll grant that.

[Edited 10/18/11 11:31am]

angel345 said:

Mindflux said:

The Beatles originally had an opportunity to buy back their publishing rights in 1969, but were scuppered by the majority shareholders of Northern Songs, who sold the company before a deal was reached. They sold to ATV, who then became the owners of the publishing rights.

In 1984, ATV put its entire catalogue up for sale and anyone with enough money could have bought the rights to those songs. MJ outbid everyone, including Paul McCartney.

How would you know that offering Sly or Little Richard's catalogues back was an act of altruism? It might have been that those catalogues weren't actually making much money. What we do know, is that Paul McCartney had been trying to buy back the rights to his own songs for 2 decades and his "mate" Jacko outbid him! It didn't help that McCartney then tried to agree a higher composer's royalty with regard to the songs with MJ and MJ refused to even discuss it!

But, of course, he wasn't ruthless, eh?!

I would have thought in my mind that it was done from the goodness of my mind, and honestly I don't know. However, I have also taken in consideration from what I've read about MJ taking care of Sly till the day he died. Being ruthless was a stretch of a word, I'll grant that.

[Edited 10/18/11 11:31am]

I think you've missed the point here. First off, ruthless isn't a stretch at all - he was ruthless, simple (my last sentence of the former post being somewhat sarcastic).

Second, how exactly was MJ "taking care" of Sly? He bought Sly's publishing rights, meaning Jackson was creaming half the profits off those songs, not Sly! Somebody mentioned that MJ had offered the catalogue back and that Sly refused. I don't know much about that, but I find that hard to believe. Why would an artist refuse to take ownership of a catalogue that would earn him his rightful royalties? And MJ owning the rights to his songs and taking the cash for himself is not looking after Sly, is it?

But, as I said, let's stick to what we know. And what we do know is that MJ shafted McCartney on the rights to the Beatles songs and then refused to negotiate with McCartney on a higher composers fee. That's ruthless, but that's business!

Mindflux said:

angel345 said:

I would have thought in my mind that it was done from the goodness of my mind, and honestly I don't know. However, I have also taken in consideration from what I've read about MJ taking care of Sly till the day he died. Being ruthless was a stretch of a word, I'll grant that.

[Edited 10/18/11 11:31am]

I think you've missed the point here. First off, ruthless isn't a stretch at all - he was ruthless, simple (my last sentence of the former post being somewhat sarcastic).

Second, how exactly was MJ "taking care" of Sly? He bought Sly's publishing rights, meaning Jackson was creaming half the profits off those songs, not Sly! Somebody mentioned that MJ had offered the catalogue back and that Sly refused. I don't know much about that, but I find that hard to believe. Why would an artist refuse to take ownership of a catalogue that would earn him his rightful royalties? And MJ owning the rights to his songs and taking the cash for himself is not looking after Sly, is it?

But, as I said, let's stick to what we know. And what we do know is that MJ shafted McCartney on the rights to the Beatles songs and then refused to negotiate with McCartney on a higher composers fee. That's ruthless, but that's business!

the butt hurt of the beatles fanboys never ceases to amuse me.

how could mj outbid him if PAUL NEVER FUCKING BID ON ATV HIMSELF?! paul admits that mj told him to his face that he was going to bid on atv, but paul never thought in a million years that some little pickaninny out of gary, indiana had a snowball's chance of winning that catalogue.

SURPRISE, he did (!), leaving paul (and his sychophants like you) to whine about it like a little bitch for years to come.

if i'm not mistaken, lennon and mccartney originally lost the rights b/c they sold them themselves, didn't they? no one held guns to their heads. not a smart move on their parts, but when the opportunity to buy them back came around, mccartney didn't want to pony up the money that was being asked for them, right? so why the fuck should mj give a shit that mccartney then expected mj to 'negotiate' a new composers' fee, especially when paul laughed at him when mj told him he was bidding on the catalogue? that 'mate' business cuts both ways, ya know.

fuck paul mccartney. if he wanted a higher fee, he should have fucking put up his own money, outbid everyone, and went on about his business. but he didn't, so he should have shut the fuck up about it years ago (and really, so should you).

Mindflux said:

angel345 said:

I would have thought in my mind that it was done from the goodness of my mind, and honestly I don't know. However, I have also taken in consideration from what I've read about MJ taking care of Sly till the day he died. Being ruthless was a stretch of a word, I'll grant that.

[Edited 10/18/11 11:31am]

I think you've missed the point here. First off, ruthless isn't a stretch at all - he was ruthless, simple (my last sentence of the former post being somewhat sarcastic).

Second, how exactly was MJ "taking care" of Sly? He bought Sly's publishing rights, meaning Jackson was creaming half the profits off those songs, not Sly! Somebody mentioned that MJ had offered the catalogue back and that Sly refused. I don't know much about that, but I find that hard to believe. Why would an artist refuse to take ownership of a catalogue that would earn him his rightful royalties? And MJ owning the rights to his songs and taking the cash for himself is not looking after Sly, is it?

But, as I said, let's stick to what we know. And what we do know is that MJ shafted McCartney on the rights to the Beatles songs and then refused to negotiate with McCartney on a higher composers fee. That's ruthless, but that's business!

Yeah, it sounds like business. I am aware of that saying its business, not personal. So, it's business, I agree To my understanding, he was financially taking care of him, whatever he needed. For the sake of argument, say Sly did refused to take his catalogue back. If MJ took the cash for himself, how is that selfish? Creaming half of the profits? Honestly, I haven't heard or read this one.

angel345 said:

Mindflux said:

The Beatles originally had an opportunity to buy back their publishing rights in 1969, but were scuppered by the majority shareholders of Northern Songs, who sold the company before a deal was reached. They sold to ATV, who then became the owners of the publishing rights.

In 1984, ATV put its entire catalogue up for sale and anyone with enough money could have bought the rights to those songs. MJ outbid everyone, including Paul McCartney.

How would you know that offering Sly or Little Richard's catalogues back was an act of altruism? It might have been that those catalogues weren't actually making much money. What we do know, is that Paul McCartney had been trying to buy back the rights to his own songs for 2 decades and his "mate" Jacko outbid him! It didn't help that McCartney then tried to agree a higher composer's royalty with regard to the songs with MJ and MJ refused to even discuss it!

But, of course, he wasn't ruthless, eh?!

I would have thought in my mind that it was done from the goodness of my mind, and honestly I don't know. However, I have also taken in consideration from what I've read about MJ taking care of Sly till the day he died. Being ruthless was a stretch of a word, I'll grant that.

[Edited 10/18/11 11:31am]

Correction: I meant to say from the goodness of his heart.

Mindflux said:

Marlena58 said:

If I'm not mistaken doesn't sir paul own the rights to Buddy Holly's music? It would have been stupid if Mj didn't buy the Beatles catalogue.

Meaning what? Its not the same situation at all.

McCartney bought the publishing rights 16 years after the artist and original owner himself had died and then went on to ensure regular tributes to one of the great rock'n'roll pioneers. You might also want to bare in mind that the Beatles themselves were shafted over their publishing, which was why their back catalogue was available.

Jackson, on the other hand, went in to a bidding war with a supposed friend and former musical collaborator, an artist who was still alive at the time and, given that he was shafted on his own publishing years before, should really have already held the rights. Its entirely inappropriate that he should ever be in a position where he had to buy back the rights to HIS OWN WORKS in the first place, its even more sickening that a "friend" would shaft you again and deny you those rights to your legacy.

Is the difference clear enough for you?

Probably not, because its the business that matters to you and to MJ, right? Not the morality, or artistic integrity, but a money move. And the only reason, it transpires, that it was fortunate that MJ bought the Beatles catalogue is that it helped to dig himself a little further out of the vast financial hole he created for himself.

so much butt hurt.

you're so intellectually dishonest, it's not even funny. or actually, it is too funny. there is absolutely no difference in mccartney owning buddy holly's and others publishing than it is mj owning the beatles'. if this so-called moral and artistic integrity is of the utmost importance to you, then the only ones that should be profiting from holly's publishing are holly's descendants. well, they may get something ... but only after macca gets his cut, right?

mj didn't 'shaft' mccartney. he shafted himself by being too cheap to bid on his own music. it may be 'inappropriate' (to use your ridiculous word) that mccartney didn't own the rights. but why is mj to blame for paul's misstep? lennon and mccartney made a very poor business decision, but as everyone has pointed out, they were involved in a music BUSINESS. whatever his financial difficulties, mj never sold the rights to his own music, did he?

and again, mj certainly was not involved in a bidding war with paul; PAUL DIDN'T FUCKING PUT IN A BID!!! how can you have a fight with someone who is too lame to step into the arena?!

kibbles said:

Mindflux said:

I think you've missed the point here. First off, ruthless isn't a stretch at all - he was ruthless, simple (my last sentence of the former post being somewhat sarcastic).

Second, how exactly was MJ "taking care" of Sly? He bought Sly's publishing rights, meaning Jackson was creaming half the profits off those songs, not Sly! Somebody mentioned that MJ had offered the catalogue back and that Sly refused. I don't know much about that, but I find that hard to believe. Why would an artist refuse to take ownership of a catalogue that would earn him his rightful royalties? And MJ owning the rights to his songs and taking the cash for himself is not looking after Sly, is it?

But, as I said, let's stick to what we know. And what we do know is that MJ shafted McCartney on the rights to the Beatles songs and then refused to negotiate with McCartney on a higher composers fee. That's ruthless, but that's business!

the butt hurt of the beatles fanboys never ceases to amuse me.

how could mj outbid him if PAUL NEVER FUCKING BID ON ATV HIMSELF?! paul admits that mj told him to his face that he was going to bid on atv, but paul never thought in a million years that some little pickaninny out of gary, indiana had a snowball's chance of winning that catalogue.

SURPRISE, he did (!), leaving paul (and his sychophants like you) to whine about it like a little bitch for years to come.

if i'm not mistaken, lennon and mccartney originally lost the rights b/c they sold them themselves, didn't they? no one held guns to their heads. not a smart move on their parts, but when the opportunity to buy them back came around, mccartney didn't want to pony up the money that was being asked for them, right? so why the fuck should mj give a shit that mccartney then expected mj to 'negotiate' a new composers' fee, especially when paul laughed at him when mj told him he was bidding on the catalogue? that 'mate' business cuts both ways, ya know.

fuck paul mccartney. if he wanted a higher fee, he should have fucking put up his own money, outbid everyone, and went on about his business. but he didn't, so he should have shut the fuck up about it years ago (and really, so should you).

Hahaha - good lord, MJ fans really do get their knickers in a twist over such things, eh?

For the record, I don't consider myself a "beatles fanboy" - having only ever purchased 2 of their albums would evidence this.

I've never delved that deeply in to what happened, but further recent research has enligtened me to some of the points you have raised. Apparently Paul didn't bid, saying it was too expensive. As for him whining about it ever since (and me, apparently, even though this is the first discussion I have ever had with anyone about it), McCartney said this in interview with David Letterman in 2009;

"Which was, you know, that was cool – somebody had to get it, I suppose. What happened actually was then I started to ring him up. I thought, here's the guy historically placed to give Lennon–McCartney a good deal at last, 'cos we got signed when we were 21 or something in a back alley in Liverpool. And the deal, it's remained the same, even though we made this company the most famous – hugely successful. So I kept thinking, it was time for a raise ... I did talk to him about it, but he kind of blanked me on it. He kept saying, 'That's just business Paul'. You know. So, 'yeah it is', and waited for a reply, but we never kind of got to it ... It was no big bust up. We kind of drifted apart after that"

Seems to me he's been somewhat pragmatic about it. So, it would seem the entire feud has been blown out of all proportion (isn't it always?). Flying off at me as though I'm some sort of McCartney guardian is unwarranted, presumptious and makes it appear you're more caught up in the hysteria than you should be.

kibbles said:

Mindflux said:

Meaning what? Its not the same situation at all.

McCartney bought the publishing rights 16 years after the artist and original owner himself had died and then went on to ensure regular tributes to one of the great rock'n'roll pioneers. You might also want to bare in mind that the Beatles themselves were shafted over their publishing, which was why their back catalogue was available.

Jackson, on the other hand, went in to a bidding war with a supposed friend and former musical collaborator, an artist who was still alive at the time and, given that he was shafted on his own publishing years before, should really have already held the rights. Its entirely inappropriate that he should ever be in a position where he had to buy back the rights to HIS OWN WORKS in the first place, its even more sickening that a "friend" would shaft you again and deny you those rights to your legacy.

Is the difference clear enough for you?

Probably not, because its the business that matters to you and to MJ, right? Not the morality, or artistic integrity, but a money move. And the only reason, it transpires, that it was fortunate that MJ bought the Beatles catalogue is that it helped to dig himself a little further out of the vast financial hole he created for himself.

so much butt hurt.

you're so intellectually dishonest, it's not even funny. or actually, it is too funny. there is absolutely no difference in mccartney owning buddy holly's and others publishing than it is mj owning the beatles'. if this so-called moral and artistic integrity is of the utmost importance to you, then the only ones that should be profiting from holly's publishing are holly's descendants. well, they may get something ... but only after macca gets his cut, right?

mj didn't 'shaft' mccartney. he shafted himself by being too cheap to bid on his own music. it may be 'inappropriate' (to use your ridiculous word) that mccartney didn't own the rights. but why is mj to blame for paul's misstep? lennon and mccartney made a very poor business decision, but as everyone has pointed out, they were involved in a music BUSINESS. whatever his financial difficulties, mj never sold the rights to his own music, did he?

and again, mj certainly was not involved in a bidding war with paul; PAUL DIDN'T FUCKING PUT IN A BID!!! how can you have a fight with someone who is too lame to step into the arena?!

As I alluded to before, that's how the story has been put out there - investigation shows this wasn't quite the case and I've acknowledged that.

Now, go and put on Thriller and calm down dear!

Mindflux said:

kibbles said:

the butt hurt of the beatles fanboys never ceases to amuse me.

how could mj outbid him if PAUL NEVER FUCKING BID ON ATV HIMSELF?! paul admits that mj told him to his face that he was going to bid on atv, but paul never thought in a million years that some little pickaninny out of gary, indiana had a snowball's chance of winning that catalogue.

SURPRISE, he did (!), leaving paul (and his sychophants like you) to whine about it like a little bitch for years to come.

if i'm not mistaken, lennon and mccartney originally lost the rights b/c they sold them themselves, didn't they? no one held guns to their heads. not a smart move on their parts, but when the opportunity to buy them back came around, mccartney didn't want to pony up the money that was being asked for them, right? so why the fuck should mj give a shit that mccartney then expected mj to 'negotiate' a new composers' fee, especially when paul laughed at him when mj told him he was bidding on the catalogue? that 'mate' business cuts both ways, ya know.

fuck paul mccartney. if he wanted a higher fee, he should have fucking put up his own money, outbid everyone, and went on about his business. but he didn't, so he should have shut the fuck up about it years ago (and really, so should you).

Hahaha - good lord, MJ fans really do get their knickers in a twist over such things, eh?

For the record, I don't consider myself a "beatles fanboy" - having only ever purchased 2 of their albums would evidence this.

I've never delved that deeply in to what happened, but further recent research has enligtened me to some of the points you have raised. Apparently Paul didn't bid, saying it was too expensive. As for him whining about it ever since (and me, apparently, even though this is the first discussion I have ever had with anyone about it), McCartney said this in interview with David Letterman in 2009;

"Which was, you know, that was cool – somebody had to get it, I suppose. What happened actually was then I started to ring him up. I thought, here's the guy historically placed to give Lennon–McCartney a good deal at last, 'cos we got signed when we were 21 or something in a back alley in Liverpool. And the deal, it's remained the same, even though we made this company the most famous – hugely successful. So I kept thinking, it was time for a raise ... I did talk to him about it, but he kind of blanked me on it. He kept saying, 'That's just business Paul'. You know. So, 'yeah it is', and waited for a reply, but we never kind of got to it ... It was no big bust up. We kind of drifted apart after that"

Seems to me he's been somewhat pragmatic about it. So, it would seem the entire feud has been blown out of all proportion (isn't it always?). Flying off at me as though I'm some sort of McCartney guardian is unwarranted, presumptious and makes it appear you're more caught up in the hysteria than you should be.

So there it is. It was business, and if Paul was aware of the auction, which is bidding and not screwing the other person, then that should have been the end of it.

I'll just say my piece on the "controversy" with MJ and Paul and dead it:

OK, we know this to be true:

1. The Beatles unknowingly sold most of their 1964-1968 records to Northern Songs Publishings, later put in the ATV catalog.
2. Paul was told about publishing from Linda.
3. The Beatles had ample opportunity to win back the publishing, I don't think neither member pursued it, neither John, nor Paul, nor George, nor Ringo.
4. Paul told Michael about publishing around 1982, 1983-ish; Michael, his manager Frank and his attorney looked at potential publishing and found the ATV catalog, which included the Beatles' Northern Songs publishings and, Paul admits, Michael told him "I'm buying your songs". Paul insisted he thought he was joking.
5. Paul was NOT upset when Michael bought the publishing. He didn't even bid on it. And neither did Yoko. And again the other surviving Beatles didn't pursue it either.
6. Paul was still friends with Michael until around 1987. That was the year that Michael allowed NIKE to use "Revolution" for a commercial and that's why Paul got upset because he said when he and John wrote the song, he wrote it about social change not for a sports shoe.
7. SINCE Paul and John (and George) did write those songs, they STILL get money, and besides as already been stated, Paul owns the music of Buddy Holly and a few others.

To be honest, I doubt Paul wasn't that concerned about Michael using the songs for something that had meaning. I'm guessing when you sell it to a shoe company, you're gonna feel some kind of way about it but that's business and Michael understood that, so does Paul.

I think the arguments from both sides are a little tired. Michael and Paul made their peace before Michael died anyways.

As for Sly and Michael, who knows? I'm sure Sly still gets paid off "Dance to the Music" so I doubt he's homeless. He's probably still got money but he always had a cash flow problem, not to mention he trusted the wrong people when it came to protecting him in case he needed more money, the same mistake George Clinton and Co. made.

angel345 said:

Mindflux said:

Hahaha - good lord, MJ fans really do get their knickers in a twist over such things, eh?

For the record, I don't consider myself a "beatles fanboy" - having only ever purchased 2 of their albums would evidence this.

I've never delved that deeply in to what happened, but further recent research has enligtened me to some of the points you have raised. Apparently Paul didn't bid, saying it was too expensive. As for him whining about it ever since (and me, apparently, even though this is the first discussion I have ever had with anyone about it), McCartney said this in interview with David Letterman in 2009;

"Which was, you know, that was cool – somebody had to get it, I suppose. What happened actually was then I started to ring him up. I thought, here's the guy historically placed to give Lennon–McCartney a good deal at last, 'cos we got signed when we were 21 or something in a back alley in Liverpool. And the deal, it's remained the same, even though we made this company the most famous – hugely successful. So I kept thinking, it was time for a raise ... I did talk to him about it, but he kind of blanked me on it. He kept saying, 'That's just business Paul'. You know. So, 'yeah it is', and waited for a reply, but we never kind of got to it ... It was no big bust up. We kind of drifted apart after that"

Seems to me he's been somewhat pragmatic about it. So, it would seem the entire feud has been blown out of all proportion (isn't it always?). Flying off at me as though I'm some sort of McCartney guardian is unwarranted, presumptious and makes it appear you're more caught up in the hysteria than you should be.

So there it is. It was business, and if Paul was aware of the auction, which is bidding and not screwing the other person, then that should have been the end of it.

and yet you still saw fit to pop off on your own little rant against mj, even though you didn't have all the facts, right? paul gave that interview after mj's death, so yes, i would say he was gracious in his comments there, but no, he wasn't always as 'pragmatic'.

i admit i ranted, but it was only in response to your own soapbox, chest-thumping 'oh the humanity of poor paul mccartney, what every happened to artistic integrity' drama.

kibbles said:

angel345 said:

So there it is. It was business, and if Paul was aware of the auction, which is bidding and not screwing the other person, then that should have been the end of it.

and yet you still saw fit to pop off on your own little rant against mj, even though you didn't have all the facts, right? paul gave that interview after mj's death, so yes, i would say he was gracious in his comments there, but no, he wasn't always as 'pragmatic'.

i admit i ranted, but it was only in response to your own soapbox, chest-thumping 'oh the humanity of poor paul mccartney, what every happened to artistic integrity' drama.

Hey, we can only comment on what we know at the time - I'm open to change my mind when presented with more knowledge. I daresay you don't know ALL of the facts surrounding the various deals (for example, you claim a "stupid business move" by Lennon/McCartney in selling them in the first place, but there is much more to it than that (losing 90% of their income in generating so much income, so being advised to earn by capital gains to reduce the tax burden as well as other factors which are too much to go in to over such a trivial conversation!)). Regardless, my opinion on what went down, either prior to your revelations or since, is not going to change anything one iota, so there's no need for you to get quite so upset about it.

BTW, I thought MJ died in 2010, not 2009?! Which makes the interview prior to MJ's death.

My "chest-thumping" as you put it, is borne not out of major sympathies for Paul McCartney, but out of sympathy for all musicians who get screwed - something which has happened throughout the music business's history. And the reason for that is that I'm in the business myself, as a musician. So, when I had the mis-information about MJ outbidding PM, that seemed overly unjust to me. I hope that puts it in to context gor you and dispels your absurd assumptions.