mjforever said:

Oooh! I'm liking this picture. Don't believe I've seen this one.

mjforever said:

Thanks.

the actual concert doest start untill around the 9:10 mark.

ENJOY!

*croaks like Wyclef* SOMEBODY PLEASE CALL 911..... <3

just watched paul mccartneys incredibly dignified interview regarding mike selling out the beatles

paul mccartney"the beatles DO NOT DO ADVERTS"

MIKE BOUGHT THEM AND SOLD REVOLUTION FOR SNEAKERS???

ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE FOR A FUCKING BISCUIT?

AND OTHERS.........

disgusting

http://www.youtube.com/wa...re=related

watch paul mccartney and understand the word "dignified"

jonylawson said:

just watched paul mccartneys incredibly dignified interview regarding mike selling out the beatles

paul mccartney"the beatles DO NOT DO ADVERTS"

MIKE BOUGHT THEM AND SOLD REVOLUTION FOR SNEAKERS???

ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE FOR A FUCKING BISCUIT?

AND OTHERS.........

disgusting

http://www.youtube.com/wa...re=related

watch paul mccartney and understand the word "dignified"

Did he? Classic. I guess this would only bother one of those losers who concerns themselves with business affairs that have nothing to do with their own life (assuming they have much of one .. and you'd assume they didn't since they're concerning themselved with OTHER PEOPLES business).

Those kinds of people make me happy (that I have a life and could give two s**ts about a couple of billionnaires business affairs).

Even Paul doesn't care. I guess cos he has a life. Go Paul!

Doesn't MJ have a song called Beat It?

How about Paul McCartney whoring himself out to Starbucks and Apple with that AWFUL song 'Dance Tonight"? Hypocrite.

[Edited 3/19/12 2:05am]

I loооve and respect Paul McCartney.

I loооve the Beatles, even more than MJ, and Paul has always been, is and will be my favorite Beatle .... But in this conflict, I was always on the side of MJ for two simple reasons: 1) Paul himself advised Michael to buy copyrights of other artists -----> he does not think this business is immoral, and 2) Paul has a huge collection of publishing rights to various artists (including his friends) and uses songs in all forms that can bring money.

Looks like anytime MJ's mentioned in a topic it gets closed even when it's not completely about him

aardvark15 said:

Looks like anytime MJ's mentioned in a topic it gets closed even when it's not completely about him

People here ain't no fun and are sometimes just plain rude. What can I say?

Ellie said:

How about Paul McCartney whoring himself out to Starbucks and Apple with that AWFUL song 'Dance Tonight"? Hypocrite.

[Edited 3/19/12 2:05am]

I didn't know that, seriously Paul? Wow.

jonylawson said:

just watched paul mccartneys incredibly dignified interview regarding mike selling out the beatles

paul mccartney"the beatles DO NOT DO ADVERTS"

MIKE BOUGHT THEM AND SOLD REVOLUTION FOR SNEAKERS???

ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE FOR A FUCKING BISCUIT?

AND OTHERS.........

disgusting

http://www.youtube.com/wa...re=related

watch paul mccartney and understand the word "dignified"

Michael bought it fair and square. Fuck a Paul McCartney. Don't want no commercials? Buy it your own damn self.

[Edited 3/19/12 13:06pm]

wow........the beatles songs really to you lot are just commodities that should be used and whored how mike felt fit

okay.

thats your opionion.

lets end this

smoothcriminal12 said:

Michael bought it fair and square. Fuck a Paul McCartney. Don't want no commercials? Buy it your own damn self.

[Edited 3/19/12 13:06pm]

jonylawson said:

wow........the beatles songs really to you lot are just commodities that should be used and whored how mike felt fit

okay.

thats your opionion.

lets end this

Actually, yes, they are commodities, money making commodities. What'd you think, Michael was gonna sit there drooling at them and not do anything with them?

It's great music, but at the end of the day there's more to it. This is a business. There's a money making aspect to it and Michael used it to his advantage. If Paul McCartney wanted it to be seen differently, he should of acquired them himself. But he didn't.

ThruTheEyesOfWonder said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Michael bought it fair and square. Fuck a Paul McCartney. Don't want no commercials? Buy it your own damn self.

[Edited 3/19/12 13:06pm]

smoothcriminal12 said:

Actually, yes, they are commodities, money making commodities. What'd you think, Michael was gonna sit there drooling at them and not do anything with them?

It's great music, but at the end of the day there's more to it. This is a business. There's a money making aspect to it and Michael used it to his advantage. If Paul McCartney wanted it to be seen differently, he should of acquired them himself. But he didn't.

Why is it that time and time again, we have to re-iterate that Michael did not out-bid Paul McCartney on that catalogue? Paul didn't give a crap at the time and didn't even bother to bid on it, thinking Yoko Ono should have put up half the cash even though he had the money (more than Michael in fact).

If Michael didn't get it, some faceless record company would have bought it instead and probably licensed out the music far more often with far less thought than under MJ's watch.

jonylawson said:

wow........the beatles songs really to you lot are just commodities that should be used and whored how mike felt fit

okay.

thats your opionion.

lets end this

http://www.youtube.com/wa...w_NPhkRm7A

the above link is to a commercial for at&t, using the song, 'everyday' by buddy holly.

wow, the buddy holly songs really to paul mc cartney are just commodities that should be used and whored out how macca felt fit.

yes, but i bet we'll never see any response to this from our dear mr. lawson.

[Edited 3/19/12 14:19pm]

Ellie said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Actually, yes, they are commodities, money making commodities. What'd you think, Michael was gonna sit there drooling at them and not do anything with them?

It's great music, but at the end of the day there's more to it. This is a business. There's a money making aspect to it and Michael used it to his advantage. If Paul McCartney wanted it to be seen differently, he should of acquired them himself. But he didn't.

Why is it that time and time again, we have to re-iterate that Michael did not out-bid Paul McCartney on that catalogue? Paul didn't give a crap at the time and didn't even bother to bid on it, thinking Yoko Ono should have put up half the cash even though he had the money (more than Michael in fact).

If Michael didn't get it, some faceless record company would have bought it instead and probably licensed out the music far more often with far less thought than under MJ's watch.

Besides that - Paul himself gave up on it after it reached a certain amount. So tough for him.

LiLi1992 said:

But in this conflict, I was always on the side of MJ for two simple reasons: 1) Paul himself advised Michael to buy copyrights of other artists -----> he does not think this business is immoral, and 2) Paul has a huge collection of publishing rights to various artists (including his friends) and uses songs in all forms that can bring money.

This:

Paul has always been, is and will be my favorite Beatle ....

This:

kibbles said:

jonylawson said:

wow........the beatles songs really to you lot are just commodities that should be used and whored how mike felt fit

okay.

thats your opionion.

lets end this

excuse me, but i seem to recall that the beatles themselves authorized all sorts of commercial endeavors to capitalize on their success.

Yes, they did. Paul would've "whored" The Beatles songs, too. And as a huge Beatles fan, it's ridiculous to think they shouldn't be used in commercials.

CrabalockerFishwife said:

kibbles said:

excuse me, but i seem to recall that the beatles themselves authorized all sorts of commercial endeavors to capitalize on their success.

Yes, they did. Paul would've "whored" The Beatles songs, too. And as a huge Beatles fan, it's ridiculous to think they shouldn't be used in commercials.

i agree. i'm a beatles fan as well, as well as a fan of a lot of music that's used in commercials. i don't think any 'less' of a song b/c it's used in a commercial, and i don't think it 'cheapens' the music which is always the rationale for certain people getting their panties in a twist over this.

american airlines used gershwin's 'rhapsody in blue' for their campaign for the longest, and the only thing it accomplished was to make me remember their ad (which was the whole purpose), and make me want to know and hear more about the song.

Ellie said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Actually, yes, they are commodities, money making commodities. What'd you think, Michael was gonna sit there drooling at them and not do anything with them?

It's great music, but at the end of the day there's more to it. This is a business. There's a money making aspect to it and Michael used it to his advantage. If Paul McCartney wanted it to be seen differently, he should of acquired them himself. But he didn't.

Why is it that time and time again, we have to re-iterate that Michael did not out-bid Paul McCartney on that catalogue? Paul didn't give a crap at the time and didn't even bother to bid on it, thinking Yoko Ono should have put up half the cash even though he had the money (more than Michael in fact).

If Michael didn't get it, some faceless record company would have bought it instead and probably licensed out the music far more often with far less thought than under MJ's watch.

exactly

I highly recommend anyone interested in knowing the story behind the sale of the ATV catalogue should read "Another Northern Song". Very insightful.

And whilst I respect McCartney as an exceptional song writer and musician, he is a tad hypocritical here.

He was given first right of refusal on the catalogue and thought it over priced. He, along with Yoko Ono were approached and declined. Then it was up for sale for anyone to buy. Michael saw the value in the investment and paid for it.

And as for the Beatles songs being used in commercials. He might have been annoyed, but he himself had used the songs by others he owned in commercial ventures. Maybe he just valued his own creations above others. 'Help' for example was used in car commercial before Jackson owned it (albeit a cover of the song by a soundalike).

At the end of the day if McCartney really valued the work he had produced he should have bought it when he had a chance.

As they say if you don't want it bought, don't sell it.

Michael did nothing new with using music in advertising deals. Nor did he do anything wrong.

And I'm sure McCartney never refused the royalties that the sale of the songs generated either.