Mindflux said:

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.

What you are saying kinda conflicts with other actual documented historical events though.

MJ wasn't even the highest bidder, at all. He had been outbidded by others. The reason why he was able to acquire it was, because he was able to offer the money upfront. If MJ hadn't had the money like that someone else would have gotten it instead. Would that have been better for you then? Would you have been able to sleep better at night knowing that publishing rights to all of the songs in the ATV catalog belonged to some faceless men in suits who probably would have been just as aggressive, if not moreso, about making as much money as possible from their investment? At least MJ was a musician, an artist.

I also remember it being stated that it wasn't as if poor Paul couldn't afford the price tag either. He had the money, but I don't think that he wanted to pay for the entire price for it which is why he wanted to split it with Yoko, but she didn't want to pay for it either. With her refusal and his own personal reasons he dropped out of the bidding war. So it's not as if poor, homeless, broken down Paul was, desperately, trying to scrounge the money to get the publishing rights to the ATV catalog then and here came evil, ruthless Michael Jackson who stabbed him in the back to get them right? Especially considering that MJ told him to his face that he was going to buy them. It was Paul's fault for not taking him seriously if he wanted them so badly. Even Yoko Ono approved of the sale. She still has a say since she is John Lennon's wife.

That being said, I do remember Paul saying that he called up MJ wanting to buy them back, but I think it was for a much cheaper price and I don't think that MJ was having that after all that money & time he just spent on acquiring them. At the end of the day, if Paul wanted them back, then he should have made more of a concerted effort to do so when he had the chance rather than trying to be so cheap about it. I think that fans who don't really know what they're talking about are making mountains out of molehills tbqh.

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.

Oh fuck you gotta be kidding me.

According to reports, Sly Stone sold his catalog to MJ for $1 million back in 1984. Anyone who would do something like that either doesn't feel that they need the money, ignorant/not thinking of the future, and/or on a LOT of fucking drugs.

Guess Sly was fine with money up until his people screwed him over with his royalty checks.

So, I think before you start popping off it would be wise to do a simple google search and read up on the facts FIRST. Especially since you are on the internet. I don't know why people are so gung-ho about having opinions on things they have no clue about. Nobody is interested in uneducated opinions. =/

Unholyalliance said:

Mindflux said:

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.

What you are saying kinda conflicts with other actual documented historical events though.

MJ wasn't even the highest bidder, at all. He had been outbidded by others. The reason why he was able to acquire it was, because he was able to offer the money upfront. If MJ hadn't had the money like that someone else would have gotten it instead. Would that have been better for you then? Would you have been able to sleep better at night knowing that publishing rights to all of the songs in the ATV catalog belonged to some faceless men in suits who probably would have been just as aggressive, if not moreso, about making as much money as possible from their investment? At least MJ was a musician, an artist.

I also remember it being stated that it wasn't as if poor Paul couldn't afford the price tag either. He had the money, but I don't think that he wanted to pay for the entire price for it which is why he wanted to split it with Yoko, but she didn't want to pay for it either. With her refusal and his own personal reasons he dropped out of the bidding war. So it's not as if poor, homeless, broken down Paul was, desperately, trying to scrounge the money to get the publishing rights to the ATV catalog then and here came evil, ruthless Michael Jackson who stabbed him in the back to get them right? Especially considering that MJ told him to his face that he was going to buy them. It was Paul's fault for not taking him seriously if he wanted them so badly. Even Yoko Ono approved of the sale. She still has a say since she is John Lennon's wife.

That being said, I do remember Paul saying that he called up MJ wanting to buy them back, but I think it was for a much cheaper price and I don't think that MJ was having that after all that money & time he just spent on acquiring them. At the end of the day, if Paul wanted them back, then he should have made more of a concerted effort to do so when he had the chance rather than trying to be so cheap about it. I think that fans who don't really know what they're talking about are making mountains out of molehills tbqh.

Oh fuck you gotta be kidding me.

Mindflux said:

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?

According to reports, Sly Stone sold his catalog to MJ for $1 million back in 1984. Anyone who would do something like that either doesn't feel that they need the money, ignorant/not thinking of the future, and/or on a LOT of fucking drugs.

Guess Sly was fine with money up until his people screwed him over with his royalty checks.

So, I think before you start popping off it would be wise to do a simple google search and read up on the facts FIRST. Especially since you are on the internet. I don't know why people are so gung-ho about having opinions on things they have no clue about. Nobody is interested in uneducated opinions. =/

Thanks, but I've already acknowledged that I didn't know the truth about it. Perhaps before popping off you could read the whole thread?

Mindflux said:

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

It was 2009.

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.

If what you say is true, then your sympathies should really go out there for ALL musicians who get screwed, even MJ himself. Also, I think your major sympathy should go to those genuinely screwed over for reasons beyond their control rather than someone who was just being really cheap in the end.

Just saying...

Mindflux said:

Thanks, but I've already acknowledged that I didn't know the truth about it. Perhaps before popping off you could read the whole thread?

I only saw the other responses after the fact if you look at the times all the posts was submitted. Next time you should really just try to do your research first so you don't have to try and save face after showing your ass to everyone.

Unholyalliance said:

Mindflux said:

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

It was 2009.

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.

If what you say is true, then your sympathies should really go out there for ALL musicians who get screwed, even MJ himself. Also, I think your major sympathy should go to those genuinely screwed over for reasons beyond their control rather than someone who was just being really cheap in the end.

Just saying...

Which is what the paragraph says "not out of major sympathies for Paul McCartney, but out of sympathy for all musicians who get screwed". I didn't say I had no sympathies for MJ. Please don't allow your bias to cloud your judgements, especially after all the accusations you've already made.

Unholyalliance said:

Mindflux said:

Thanks, but I've already acknowledged that I didn't know the truth about it. Perhaps before popping off you could read the whole thread?

I only saw the other responses after the fact if you look at the times all the posts was submitted. Next time you should really just try to do your research first so you don't have to try and save face after showing your ass to everyone.

Oh save your didactic tone for someone who cares! Look, I'm sorry that I was mis-informed about events neither of us had any involvement in and that I may have given an impression which made your hero look unreasonable. I hope the/your world will survive this cataclysm

Unholyalliance said:

Mindflux said:

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.

What you are saying kinda conflicts with other actual documented historical events though.

MJ wasn't even the highest bidder, at all. He had been outbidded by others. The reason why he was able to acquire it was, because he was able to offer the money upfront. If MJ hadn't had the money like that someone else would have gotten it instead. Would that have been better for you then? Would you have been able to sleep better at night knowing that publishing rights to all of the songs in the ATV catalog belonged to some faceless men in suits who probably would have been just as aggressive, if not moreso, about making as much money as possible from their investment? At least MJ was a musician, an artist.

I also remember it being stated that it wasn't as if poor Paul couldn't afford the price tag either. He had the money, but I don't think that he wanted to pay for the entire price for it which is why he wanted to split it with Yoko, but she didn't want to pay for it either. With her refusal and his own personal reasons he dropped out of the bidding war. So it's not as if poor, homeless, broken down Paul was, desperately, trying to scrounge the money to get the publishing rights to the ATV catalog then and here came evil, ruthless Michael Jackson who stabbed him in the back to get them right? Especially considering that MJ told him to his face that he was going to buy them. It was Paul's fault for not taking him seriously if he wanted them so badly. Even Yoko Ono approved of the sale. She still has a say since she is John Lennon's wife.

That being said, I do remember Paul saying that he called up MJ wanting to buy them back, but I think it was for a much cheaper price and I don't think that MJ was having that after all that money & time he just spent on acquiring them. At the end of the day, if Paul wanted them back, then he should have made more of a concerted effort to do so when he had the chance rather than trying to be so cheap about it. I think that fans who don't really know what they're talking about are making mountains out of molehills tbqh.

Oh fuck you gotta be kidding me.

Mindflux said:

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?

According to reports, Sly Stone sold his catalog to MJ for $1 million back in 1984. Anyone who would do something like that either doesn't feel that they need the money, ignorant/not thinking of the future, and/or on a LOT of fucking drugs.

Guess Sly was fine with money up until his people screwed him over with his royalty checks.

So, I think before you start popping off it would be wise to do a simple google search and read up on the facts FIRST. Especially since you are on the internet. I don't know why people are so gung-ho about having opinions on things they have no clue about. Nobody is interested in uneducated opinions. =/

Can you provide a link right now to support the bolded statement, if you can. I haven't heard of this one. Also, what was the rule of bidding? Did the highest bidder have to have the money upfront or else? Were they allowed a certain amount of time to get up the money?

Mindflux said:

Oh save your didactic tone for someone who cares! Look, I'm sorry that I was mis-informed about events neither of us had any involvement in and that I may have given an impression which made your hero look unreasonable. I hope the/your world will survive this cataclysm

You obviously do care, because you keep responding.

The truth of the matter is that you make a lot of WRONG assumptions. You just made one when you accused me of not reading the entire thread and it didn't cross your mind that maybe, at the time that I did the other posts weren't there yet. You assumed a shitload of things you didn't understand and were making quite a big deal out it just a few posts ago. So now in order to save face you are attacking me trying to make yourself seem not as big of an idiot as you were being. You are accusing me of some other shit now when all I was doing was correcting you, especially when you were so convinced otherwise just a few moments ago.

Just come to the conclusion that you need to use google to verify your shit before you go off on a rant about things you don't understand and just stop replying back already.

Let this be the end of it.

angel345 said:

Can you provide a link right now to support the bolded statement, if you can. I haven't heard of this one. Also, what was the rule of bidding? Did the highest bidder have to have the money upfront or else? Were they allowed a certain amount of time to get up the money?

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/music/la-et-hilburn-michael-jackson-sep22,0,540678,full.story

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony/ATV_Music_Publishing#Acquisition

(There was another link that, recently, had the entire story as well, but I can't find it at the moment. =/)

The Jackson team, which had been interpreting Holmes a Court's letters as signs that he still viewed Jackson as the chief bidder, got a jolt a few days later. They learned that Holmes a Court had signed a tentative $50-million deal with Charles Koppelman and Marty Bandier's Entertainment Co.

But in early August, Holmes a Court's agents contacted Jackson again, saying the door might still be open. Branca informed Holmes a Court attorney Geoffrey Davies that Jackson was indeed still interested, but only if something could be concluded quickly because Jackson was considering another major investment.

Holmes a Court exec Alan Newman called back to invite Branca to London. Branca then learned that Koppelman was also going to meet with Holmes a Court. It set up what had all the earmarks of an old-fashioned showdown.

In London, however, the shoot-out never materialized. Branca and Stiffelman sensed that Holmes a Court was finally ready to make a deal--with Jackson.

During this frantic period, concessions apparently were made by both sides. Jackson agreed to up his offer by $1.5 million. Holmes a Court threw in some other assets and also agreed to set up a scholarship in Jackson's name at a U.S. university.

Though Koppelman had actually come up with a higher bid, Holmes a Court apparently accepted Jackson's offer because it appeared that the singer could close the deal more quickly. Jackson's early decision to examine the books before waiting for a formal contract turned out to be the key to the deal, a Holmes a Court representative said recently.

"In the end," he suggested, "it came down to who could act fastest . . . and Mr. Jackson was in a position to act."

OK, enough is enough to the both of you. In a way we seem to be getting away from the orriginal question which tends to happen a lot on the forum lately. I'm a big fan of the music of MJ, PM, and SLY but being a "struggling musician" as a lot of us are on this forum, I find it difficult to feel any pain for the mismanagement/poor business decisions of current or former mega millionaires. However, I will learn from the mistakes of others and I hope it won't happen to me. IMO artists egos were too big in my opinion ,which probably led to most of their stupid decisions. Some people should'nt have too much money because it tends to poison their judgement. Like I said earlier " What it is, is what it is"

madhattter said:

OK, enough is enough to the both of you. In a way we seem to be getting away from the orriginal question which tends to happen a lot on the forum lately. I'm a big fan of the music of MJ, PM, and SLY but being a "struggling musician" as a lot of us are on this forum, I find it difficult to feel any pain for the mismanagement/poor business decisions of current or former mega millionaires. However, I will learn from the mistakes of others and I hope it won't happen to me. IMO artists egos were too big in my opinion ,which probably led to most of their stupid decisions. Some people should'nt have too much money because it tends to poison their judgement. Like I said earlier " What it is, is what it is"

Yeah I don't know why people as talented as Sly never learn about the music BUSINESS. It's easy to get into the industry but no one will wanna let you know about business unless you found a way to manage that business. Ego is a disease. Sly had a massive one.

Timmy84 said:

Yeah I don't know why people as talented as Sly never learn about the music BUSINESS. It's easy to get into the industry but no one will wanna let you know about business unless you found a way to manage that business. Ego is a disease. Sly had a massive one.

I don't really know if it's more about ego rather than artists just, simply, not knowing or even wanting to be bothered with it. As an artist you want to create rather than calculating numbers. I think that as of late though many artists are trying to take control of that end, well from learning from the past mistakes of those who suffered.

I could be wrong, but that's I believe has been happening now.

Unholyalliance said:

Timmy84 said:

Yeah I don't know why people as talented as Sly never learn about the music BUSINESS. It's easy to get into the industry but no one will wanna let you know about business unless you found a way to manage that business. Ego is a disease. Sly had a massive one.

I don't really know if it's more about ego rather than artists just, simply, not knowing or even wanting to be bothered with it. As an artist you want to create rather than calculating numbers. I think that as of late though many artists are trying to take control of that end, well from learning from the past mistakes of those who suffered.

I could be wrong, but that's I believe has been happening now.

The more I read about it, the more I hate it. Artists gotta stop playing coy when it comes to money. You can still be creative and still learn about the business. I think the problem most have is how to balance the artistic with the financial. That's why it no longer shocks me when I read on how many artists are broke or poor as fuck because they didn't ask about their paychecks until it was too late.

Timmy84 said:

Unholyalliance said:

I don't really know if it's more about ego rather than artists just, simply, not knowing or even wanting to be bothered with it. As an artist you want to create rather than calculating numbers. I think that as of late though many artists are trying to take control of that end, well from learning from the past mistakes of those who suffered.

I could be wrong, but that's I believe has been happening now.

The more I read about it, the more I hate it. Artists gotta stop playing coy when it comes to money. You can still be creative and still learn about the business. I think the problem most have is how to balance the artistic with the financial. That's why it no longer shocks me when I read on how many artists are broke or poor as fuck because they didn't ask about their paychecks until it was too late.

Todays most successfull artists have taken a higher plane as far as the BUSINESS of music is concerned such as JayZ and PDitty, and its a good thing, because there are still a lot of unscrupolous managers, record companies and agents who only care about how much they can pimp the band or artist out of their just reward. Our publishing should be sacred to all of us and we should be smart enough to know that if some one or organization wants to buy it then common sense should tell you that its worth more than you think.

madhattter said:

Timmy84 said:

The more I read about it, the more I hate it. Artists gotta stop playing coy when it comes to money. You can still be creative and still learn about the business. I think the problem most have is how to balance the artistic with the financial. That's why it no longer shocks me when I read on how many artists are broke or poor as fuck because they didn't ask about their paychecks until it was too late.

Todays most successfull artists have taken a higher plane as far as the BUSINESS of music is concerned such as JayZ and PDitty, and its a good thing, because there are still a lot of unscrupolous managers, record companies and agents who only care about how much they can pimp the band or artist out of their just reward. Our publishing should be sacred to all of us and we should be smart enough to know that if some one or organization wants to buy it then common sense should tell you that its worth more than you think.

Unholyalliance said:

angel345 said:

Can you provide a link right now to support the bolded statement, if you can. I haven't heard of this one. Also, what was the rule of bidding? Did the highest bidder have to have the money upfront or else? Were they allowed a certain amount of time to get up the money?

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/music/la-et-hilburn-michael-jackson-sep22,0,540678,full.story

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony/ATV_Music_Publishing#Acquisition

(There was another link that, recently, had the entire story as well, but I can't find it at the moment. =/)

The Jackson team, which had been interpreting Holmes a Court's letters as signs that he still viewed Jackson as the chief bidder, got a jolt a few days later. They learned that Holmes a Court had signed a tentative $50-million deal with Charles Koppelman and Marty Bandier's Entertainment Co.

But in early August, Holmes a Court's agents contacted Jackson again, saying the door might still be open. Branca informed Holmes a Court attorney Geoffrey Davies that Jackson was indeed still interested, but only if something could be concluded quickly because Jackson was considering another major investment.

Holmes a Court exec Alan Newman called back to invite Branca to London. Branca then learned that Koppelman was also going to meet with Holmes a Court. It set up what had all the earmarks of an old-fashioned showdown.

In London, however, the shoot-out never materialized. Branca and Stiffelman sensed that Holmes a Court was finally ready to make a deal--with Jackson.

During this frantic period, concessions apparently were made by both sides. Jackson agreed to up his offer by $1.5 million. Holmes a Court threw in some other assets and also agreed to set up a scholarship in Jackson's name at a U.S. university.

Though Koppelman had actually come up with a higher bid, Holmes a Court apparently accepted Jackson's offer because it appeared that the singer could close the deal more quickly. Jackson's early decision to examine the books before waiting for a formal contract turned out to be the key to the deal, a Holmes a Court representative said recently.

"In the end," he suggested, "it came down to who could act fastest . . . and Mr. Jackson was in a position to act."

Ok, thanks.