Jacko and the Beatles, hee-hee!

[Lucky Bob]

Since he's been in the news lately, here's a pic I've found of the next Beatles album to be released by Michael Jackson. (Who owns most of the music anyway.)

[Patrick Bateman]

First off, that music rightfully belongs to Paul McCartney. I heard the story if how Michael Jackson basically stole the rights to the music right out from under his nose.

Secondly, damn that pic's funny!

[mbaker]

Originally posted by Batman Year One
First off, that music rightfully belongs to Paul McCartney. I heard the story if how Michael Jackson basically stole the rights to the music right out from under his nose.

I always was suspicious about Jacko's ownership of the Beetles music. I think McCartney should reclaim them back.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by mbaker
I always was suspicious about Jacko's ownership of the Beetles music. I think McCartney should reclaim them back.

There's not much he can do. If Jackson agrees to sell them, then Paul could buy them back. And what about Sony? I thought I remember hearing that Sony had part ownership? If that's true, I don't see any way Paul could get them back.

[Good Ol' Batmanuel!]

Hilarious picture!

As far as the ownership thing, that was addressed on the VH1 100 Most Shocking Moments in Rock History dealy. Paul was outbid by Wacko. That's about it, it seems. Disgusting, isn't it? That's why guys like Robert Fripp are involved in making music that is owned by the actual creators of said music.

Paul was very upset when Wacko allowed Nike to use the tune "Revolution" for a shoe commercial. He said that the song was about revolution, not selling shoes. Poor Paul. Poor George. Poor Ringo. Poor John, who was most likely "turning in his grave" when that came out!

[SonGoku V3]

Originally posted by Batman Year One
First off, that music rightfully belongs to Paul McCartney. I heard the story if how Michael Jackson basically stole the rights to the music right out from under his nose.

Secondly, damn that pic's funny!

STOLE? It's called a business. It's called making money. Back in 84 when the deals took place, MJ SHOWED interest into that catalogue. Heck, he even TOLD Paulie that he was gonna buy that catalogue. What did Paulie do? He laughed in his face, because he didn't believe MJ was gonna do it.....And he did, for about 50 million I believe. Today, that catalogue is worth upwards to 1 billion dollars.......it's isn't MJ's fault that he beat Paul to the punch.

[The Landstander]

Originally posted by LilSonGoku
STOLE? It's called a business. It's called making money. Back in 84 when the deals took place, MJ SHOWED interest into that catalogue. Heck, he even TOLD Paulie that he was gonna buy that catalogue. What did Paulie do? He laughed in his face, because he didn't believe MJ was gonna do it.....And he did, for about 50 million I believe. Today, that catalogue is worth upwards to 1 billion dollars.......it's isn't MJ's fault that he beat Paul to the punch.

whether it's business or not, that was a really sick & mean thing for Jacko to do. Jacko does a lot of weird things, but i think this thing makes me hate him more than anything else.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by DrWeird
whether it's business or not, that was a really sick & mean thing for Jacko to do. Jacko does a lot of weird things, but i think this thing makes me hate him more than anything else.

I'm not going to say it's sick, because as LilSonGoku said, it's business. But I don't think it's right. Not at all. To me, it's unfathomable that a person can write a set of songs and that those songs can then end up under some else's ownership. That shouldn't even be possible. Paul and John were screwed during the 60s, plain and simple. Yeah, Paul could have gotten the songs back before Jackson stepped in. But to have to pay millions for his own songs? There's something very wrong with that.

[SonGoku V3]

Originally posted by DrWeird
whether it's business or not, that was a really sick & mean thing for Jacko to do. Jacko does a lot of weird things, but i think this thing makes me hate him more than anything else.

Well, that's okay, but remember, ALOT of major players in the music industry(including Paul) does this type of thing. It's called owning the publishing rights of songs. Read about it, and the MJ/Beatles situation here. I mean, hey, if you're gonna hate MJ for doing this, you might as well hate Paul McCartney, because he too owns the rights to songs that wasn't written by him. That's the way you win and stay financially healthy in a business such as the music business.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

NEWSFLASH: Pieces of debris from Michael Jackson's reputation and career could be sighted along the southern coastal areas of China. More might be found in other parts of the world.

[Mackenzie Rainelle]

Originally posted by Good Ol' Batmanuel!

Poor John, who was most likely "turning in his grave" when that came out!

Considering Lennon was cremated, I don't think that would have been possible.

[rggkjg1]

lol.

[Arkangel]

Originally posted by DarkAngel
Paul and John were screwed during the 60s, plain and simple. Yeah, Paul could have gotten the songs back before Jackson stepped in. But to have to pay millions for his own songs? There's something very wrong with that.

You're right. I think the creators of the songs should own the rights to them until they die. And, of course, record companies shouldn't be screwing the artists out of their ownership rights either. That way, Paul's creation would still be in his hands, and he could oversee how his songs were used.

Instead they go the highest bidder who doesn't care at all about the songs and is using them only as a means to make more money. As if Michael Jackson needed any more money. Not to mention that he was, at one time, supposed to be Paul's friend. How noble of him to put monetary gain ahead of his friendship. Paul has since offered to buy the songs back from Jackson, but he was rebuffed.

Maybe in a couple of weeks when the world starts crashing in around Jackson he can remember the words of John Lennon: "Instant karma's going to get you" and in Michael's case it's all bad karma.

[The Landstander]

Originally posted by Arkangel

Maybe in a couple of weeks when the world starts crashing in around Jackson he can remember the words of John Lennon: "Instant karma's going to get you" and in Michael's case it's all bad karma.

hey, wasn't it shortly after this beatles thing that the world started seeing Jacko as a weirdo-wannabe 10 year old-white-woman? maybe the karma was instant.

I mean, hey, if you're gonna hate MJ for doing this, you might as well hate Paul McCartney, because he too owns the rights to songs that wasn't written by him. That's the way you win and stay financially healthy in a business such as the music business.

I think it goes slightly deeper than that. Paul & jacko were friends at the time. jacko knew Paul cared a lot about getting his songs back, but just bid on them anyway and turned "Revolution" into "Nike Presents Revolution". I'm sure Paul has gotten some song rights of his own, but...well, it's just something about the way jacko did it, and the fact that he's almost stubborn now about not giving the songs back ("Not now, not ever!"). it might be unfair to dislike jacko just because it was Paul's songs, but...well, I do.

P.S. To stay on-topic, that picutre is hilarious. did you get that from www.fark.com? i thought i saw that in a photoshop contest the other day.

[Lucky Bob]

drweird - The pick came from (surprise!) hannity.com As you may know, Sean's not a big fan of Jacko.

I don't care who owns the Beatles' albums, I just thought that the pic was pretty funny, in a "weirdo" way. (rimshot)

Isn't there a Beatles song that can be used for this pic?

[James]

The picture is wrong but very funny. Proof that Michael is a potential danger to his kids, but to the Beatle's heads too...

[HelloKittyKat]

Originally posted by Batman Year One
First off, that music rightfully belongs to Paul McCartney. I heard the story if how Michael Jackson basically stole the rights to the music right out from under his nose.

he didn't steal the rights, he bought them legally, even outbiding the combination of Paul and Yoko. Sure, I wish Paul had the song rights back, but there was no stealing involved.

By the way, I've seen a clip of Paul talking about how Michael told him he was going to buy them. Paul's impression of Michael is hilarious.

[SonGoku V3]

Originally posted by HelloKittyKat
he didn't steal the rights, he bought them legally, even outbiding the combination of Paul and Yoko. Sure, I wish Paul had the song rights back, but there was no stealing involved.

By the way, I've seen a clip of Paul talking about how Michael told him he was going to buy them. Paul's impression of Michael is hilarious.

It's ironic because NO ONE in this thread has brought up all the songs Paul has "stolen". Check it all out here:
http://www.mplcommunications.com/lis...s.asp?letter=1

I guess we can all start hating that evil thief Paul too, right? lol Seriously, like I said before, when you're in a business like this, the only way to stay financially afloat(and to have as much money as Jackson and McCartney presently have), going into the publishing rights business is the only way to go. As some people would say, don't hate the playa(MJ in this case), hate the game! lol...

[Patrick Bateman]

People should own their own songs. Period.

[mbaker]

Now let me get this straight. When you haven't had A hit record in years, your last resort is to venture into the publishing business? That's news to me.