BBC 'pulls Paul McCartney's Michael Jackson impersonation'

[mo_rizwan]

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/3212/sirpaul1214170cxt5.jpg



31 December 20080
BBC 'pulls Paul McCartney's Michael Jackson impersonation'

The BBC has pulled an interview with Sir Paul McCartney in which the former Beatle did a "trans-racial impression" of Michael Jackson, it has been claimed.

Sir Paul is said to have talked in a high-pitched Jackson-style voice when asked about the singer, which BBC managers decided could prove offensive.

A Corporation source told the Daily Mail: "McCartney started to reply in this high-pitched J*cko voice, and apparently it was very funny. But the BBC - deeply nervous, perhaps because of the Jonathan Ross-Russell Brand affair - has declined to broadcast the interview."

Explaining the reasoning as to why the impression could possibly be deemed offensive or unsuitable for broadcast, the source continued: "They say it's a 'trans-racial impression' - that's what they say in a memo - and even by Macca that is beyond the pale."

Sir Paul and Jackson used to be friends, but fell out when Jackson outbid the Liverpudlian for the rights to most of the Beatles' back catalogue. Jackson bought the rights for £33 million ($48m).

The purchase soured their friendship.

Sir Paul later said: "You know what doesn't feel very good, is going on tour and paying to sing all my songs. Every time I sing Hey Jude, I've got to pay someone."

Source: Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/4043946/BBC-pulls-Paul-McCartneys-Michael-Jackson-impersonation.html)

[Big Apple2]

Is this story legit or is somebody just trying to start something?

I mean, why would that have to "pull" the ENTIRE interview, couldn't they have just edited that portion of the interview out.

Aside from that, Sir Paul should no longer take questions regarding the sale of his songs. It's been how many years now? Time to move on Sir Paul, what's done is done!

[Foxy..]

McCartney gets cencored.. Ha!

[Datsymay]

this story is a fabrication

[Marilyn Monroe]

wow i wish america would pull michael insults that easily

so this interview was new..because he has done this with his ..Michael voice.. before. haha

[Chaos]

trans-racial impression? what does that mean

[iboz75]

I wish I could see what they were talking about. I don't know what they meant by trans-racial, only that mabey he said something about Michael being black.

[sophia_louise]

yeh after the whole russell brand and jonathon ross thing the BBC are being REALLY careful on what they broadcast because it could be offensive.

[andyroser]

trans-racial impression? what does that mean

Just what I was thinking?

[DanceofLorelei1994]

trans-racial impression? what does that mean

Maybe about Michael's skin colour going from black to white.

[iboz75]

yeh after the whole russell brand and jonathon ross thing the BBC are being REALLY careful on what they broadcast because it could be offensive.

I don't know about the incident you're referring to. I don't get british tv. What happened?

[mjdove]

Maybe about Michael's skin colour going from black to white.NO!

It means it looks as if it could be racial.

[mjdove]

I don't know about the incident you're referring to. I don't get british tv. What happened?
Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross could face prosecution after obscene on air phone calls to Fawlty Towers actor, 78

read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1080621/Russell-Brand-Jonathan-Ross-face-prosecution-obscene-air-phone-calls-Fawlty-Towers-actor-78.html

[Janey]

I know the BBC are extra jumpy at the moment but they didn't really need to pull the whole interview, macca fans are just gonna get more pissed and blame (wrongly, of course) Michael for this silliness.
As for the 'trans-racial impression', well i think its the best reason they could come up with at the time.
Macca should just get over it and move on....so bitter and pathetic :doh:

[144,000]

i'm just a fan of the UK...lol..they seem to be such MJ supporters, these days..lol

one thing is for sure..Paul is bitter about the sale...the comment he made about paying to sing his songs is real..so...there it is..

i am glad to see UK media realize that MJ has fans..(see? i made a positive media comment. lol)

and it's better that the interview not be broadcast. from how it's described, it sounds like a powder keg..

and this forum is one forum that doesn't need powder kegs...lol :lol:

sometimes..censoring is a good thing.

[terrell]

I know the BBC are extra jumpy at the moment but they didn't really need to pull the whole interview, macca fans are just gonna get more pissed and blame (wrongly, of course) Michael for this silliness.
As for the 'trans-racial impression', well i think its the best reason they could come up with at the time.
Macca should just get over it and move on....so bitter and pathetic :doh:
Who cares what Mecca fans think. Beleive me, his fans will find fault in MIchael no matter what. typical. If they want to blame Michael for the incident then jackson fans can cry racism. Why would a white man try to talk down a black man who brought the music fair and square? Paul own alot of black music that many R & B singer would like to have (Bo Didly was one). SO if a white man can get the music from black artist, so can a blacks man who brought the biggest white group music. I think even calling MIchael ""J***o is a form of bigory as well. Why do they need to disrepect a black man by calling him out of his name whereas they do not call whites out of their name.

[rsw22]

I know the BBC are extra jumpy at the moment but they didn't really need to pull the whole interview, macca fans are just gonna get more pissed and blame (wrongly, of course) Michael for this silliness.
As for the 'trans-racial impression', well i think its the best reason they could come up with at the time.
Macca should just get over it and move on....so bitter and pathetic :doh:

Let them get pissed. McCartney's mockery should not be blamed on the target of his mockery.

These lot of people have no respect for MJ and McCartney thinks he can openly come out to mock MJ after all that has happened.

I couldn't care less if his fans get pissed. What does it change? They have been the ones making life hell for MJ afterall, writing trash, making all sorts of comments. It's high time they knew they are being racist by continuously mocking and deriding someone who is not their race just because of his skin color and his voice.

Let McCartney make an impersonation of JayZ or Busta Rhymes and we'll see if he doesn't come off as a racist buffoon. It's MJ they think they can play off all these insults.

[TSCM]

BBC Deny Pulling Paul McCartney's Michael Jackson Impression: Exclusive

http://www.gigwise.com/news/48467/BBC-Deny-Pulling-Paul-McCartneys-Michael-Jackson-Impression-Exclusive

The BBC has tonight (December 31st) denied pulling an interview in which Sir Paul McCartney apparently made “unsuitable” comments about Michael Jackson.

A BBC spokesman told Gigwise that only “the most relevant quotes” had been selected from a press conference last November “due to time constraints”.

Extracts from the interview with the former Beatle were broadcast solely on BBC radio, the spokesman added.

A report in today’s Daily Mail newspaper claimed the former Beatle had made a "trans-racial impression" of Jackson’s voice when asked question about the singer.

The newspaper quoted a corporation source as saying the BBC had sent an internal memo to prevent Sir Paul’s impersonation from being broadcast.

BBC bosses were “deeply nervous, perhaps because of the Jonathan Ross-Russell Brand affair”, the source claimed.

However, speaking exclusively to Gigwise, a BBC spokesman said: “We are not aware of any memos deeming his comments unsuitable."

Sir Paul appeared on Jackson's 1982 single 'The Girls Is Mine', but the pair fell out when Jackson bought the rights to part of the Beatles' music library.

As previously reported on Gigwise, Sir Paul dubbed Jackson “awfully good” during the press conference.

You can read Gigwise’s transcript from McCartney’s interview here. http://www.gigwise.com/features/47751/Paul-McCartney-On-The-Fireman-The-Beatles-&-The-Future

[144,000]

oh noo..we don't wanna look like we're looking out for Michael, do wee? noooooo

ok bbc.

sorry u didn't want a positive comment from an MJ fan..lol. i know that 'time constraints' is a buzz phrase, because if u really want somn on the air u will get it on the air, no matter what time it is. lol..but hey..i'm glad that nothing offensive was aired.

and i'm glad Paul said that MJ is 'awfully good'.

[SIDEWALK]

Why do they need to disrepect a black man by calling him out of his name whereas they do not call whites out of their name.

what do you mean by this?

[Ohood]

i don't care if the interview was aired or not but the main question is ...did he say these things about michael or not ?....

can anyone answer me ?

[Big Apple2]

i don't care if the interview was aired or not but the main question is ...did he say these things about michael or not ?....

can anyone answer me ?

I don't believe he said anything he hasn't said in the past. Meaning that they most likely asked Paul about the songs being brought by MJ and Paul probably did that same impression of MJ that he has always done, while responding, i.e. the conversation he had with MJ regarding the value of publishing.

I really don't see it being any thing other than that.

[AppleHeadPro]

What would you like to see Michael Jackson do next following his recent out-of-court settlement with the second son of the King of Bahrain?

(Mimicking Jackson’s high voice) “You know, make another album (laughs). I don’t know, make another album, that’d be great. The guy’s awfully good.”

Thats all that was said.

[iboz75]

yeah, me too.:agree:

[Ohood]

aha ,i see. thanks.

[wannabestartinsomthin21]

Paul's such a dick. He can't even compliment Michael without making fun of him. Bitter bitch.

[qbee]

MY thoughts were right on this ridiculas story
This whole story was a bunch of CRAP made up by the Tabloids
It Never happened >>> Paul NEVER made ANY trans-racial comments
about MJ and I wont join in any bashing .. over Tabloid lies about anyone

Its all CRAP ALL of it :LOL:
but it sure brings out the worst in people
who believe the tabloid media _ WOW :scratch:

THE DAILY MAIL ..... is GArbage and we all know it from experience

[8701girl]

Well if it anit true then that good
But if it is....well it's just to show how bitter paul mccartney really is!

why cant he just get over it already! lol

[dreamy]

OMG, I am so sorry Paul but I can't listen to you whine about these songs one more time! It only makes him look like a whiner, especially when you examine the facts. Michael paid a helluva a lot of money for that music, you didn't believe him when he told you to your face he was going to buy them, then when he did you want to act like you are some victim. This is his fault not Michael's. Michael is a smart business man, an honorable man, and you should of known that. So leave it alone! Seriously, and how mature is it that after all these years, you feel you need to impersonate mj in interviews in this high pitched voice, which in reality he doesn't have. It may be soft at times but really who cares. Did the high pitched voice tell you there was no way he was smart enough or serious enough to do what he said he would do. GROW UP PAUL MCCARTNEY!

[TialovesMJ]

Well if it anit true then that good
But if it is....well it's just to show how bitter paul mccartney really is!

why cant he just get over it already! lol


Agreed!!!

[8701girl]

OMG, I am so sorry Paul but I can't listen to you whine about these songs one more time! It only makes him look like a whiner, especially when you examine the facts. Michael paid a helluva a lot of money for that music, you didn't believe him when he told you to your face he was going to buy them, then when he did you want to act like you are some victim. This is his fault not Michael's. Michael is a smart business man, an honorable man, and you should of known that. So leave it alone! Seriously, and how mature is it that after all these years, you feel you need to impersonate mj in interviews in this high pitched voice, which in reality he doesn't have. It may be soft at times but really who cares. Did the high pitched voice tell you there was no way he was smart enough or serious enough to do what he said he would do. GROW UP PAUL MCCARTNEY!
*stands up & applauds dreamy*.....totally right on there!
What u just said is completey spot on!

[troubleman84]

This sounds like the Beyonce thing: the story is full of crap. I doubt Paul was that stupid.

[michaelsson]

i guess lol

[benscarr]

I don't know what to think about this news story. And what the hell is a trans-racial impersonation supposed to mean. Because if it's just McCartney doing to stupid high pitched "Paul, I wanna buy your songs" impression he always does when asked about Michael. Then should Madonna's Rock'N'Roll Hall of Fame induction speech were he did a simular high pitched impersonation of Michael be deemed a transracial-impersonation and have been banned from BBC news footage.

Paul McCartney does go on about Michael's buy The Beatles's song, and his bitterness about it is plan boring. Michael buy those songs, wasn't the best thing for Michael to have done friendship wise so I understand McCartney finishing their friendship and not liking Michael anymore. But the fact is, Michael bought those Beatles songs fair and sqaure. And it wasn't Michael who got Lennon & McCartney to song over their publishing rights in the 1960's.

In many ways it's a compliement Paul McCartney is bitter about Michael, because the only other famous person McCartney has issues with in public is John Lennon who was a genius like Michael. Anyway I wouldn't be surprised if this story has been blown out of proportion, just like the Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand one was.

[Chris Davo]

Who cares what Mecca fans think. Beleive me, his fans will find fault in MIchael no matter what. typical. If they want to blame Michael for the incident then jackson fans can cry racism. Why would a white man try to talk down a black man who brought the music fair and square? Paul own alot of black music that many R & B singer would like to have (Bo Didly was one). SO if a white man can get the music from black artist, so can a blacks man who brought the biggest white group music. I think even calling MIchael ""J***o is a form of bigory as well. Why do they need to disrepect a black man by calling him out of his name whereas they do not call whites out of their name.

What are talking about? You just said no one calls whites out of their name. Then why did you refer to Paul McCartney as "Mecca." (You can't even spell it right)

[DanceofLorelei1994]

What's the big deal? They put it up for sale and Michael bought it!!

And yeah, Mike did tell him before buying it but Paul didn't take it seriously.

[elusive moonwalker]

eh? this is a total none story as normal created by the bleepers at the daily mail. so the whole story revolves around mac doing a inpersonation of mj's voice and that suddenly becomes an issue. maybe im missing something but is that it? quiet news day as normal

[lilsusie]

not mecca, it's mcca then, isn't it? lol

[elusive moonwalker]

macca. as anyone with a name that beings with mac gets called same as ***** and jackson and gibbo and gibson for eg. it means nothing

[lilsusie]

Got question here.
Is Michael the only Jackson that gets called Jack*? I dont know if the press or others use it to belittle him or they are just used to call him Jac**.

[lilsusie]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bNfnVQanfos&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bNfnVQanfos&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
macca impersonation of MJ in a high pitched voice.

[mjdove]

<object height="344" width="425">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bNfnVQanfos&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>
macca impersonation of MJ in a high pitched voice.thank you for posting! Wow they're speaking pretty much about Michael, and Paul Mc does rather often the high pitched voice. Could someone do a transcript, please???

[Dri]

ppl dont want believe that Paul was an idiot cuz he is PAUL MAcCartney,THE BEATLE.OHHHHHH,MY GOD!!!!Everyone commit mistakes;also MJ,me,you...Paul is not diferent.

But in fact is Paul feels so bad cuz MJ brought his musics.Thats soooo simple.

Paul dont HATE Michael.I dont think so.But there is something wrong...Not see who dont wants.

[elusive moonwalker]

.
Got question here.
Is Michael the only Jackson that gets called Jack*? I dont know if the press or others use it to belittle him or they are just used to call him Jac**.
it only used to belittle when w.a.c.k.o is put b4 it. any male that lives in the uk and others countries who's last name is jackson gets called *****. the same as anyone whos names begins with mac gets alled macca and anyone called gibson gets called gibbo. MJ is no different and it doesnt mean anything different when hes called that unless u put w.a.c.k.o b4 it. its totally normal. fans in other countries who dont use this term in their society dont understand that the name in its self is not insulting and when the media call him ***** in articles etc it is not ment as an insult unless w is put b4 it.it just what any male with that name gets called.

mj is the only jackson that gets called it because janet is a female and that name is used as a male nickname. the other males in the famiy dont exctly get much paper space and when u see ***** in the press it means mj as hes the most famous of the family

[analogue]

I get offended by the name Jack-0 because Michael has said himself that he dosen't like it.

''I'm not a Jack-0, I'm Jackson''

[MusicMan26]

I find it funny how in that video clip Howard Stern of all people calls Michael Jackson an odd person. He must not listen to his own show.

[mjscarousal]

I don't know what to think about this news story. And what the hell is a trans-racial impersonation supposed to mean. Because if it's just McCartney doing to stupid high pitched "Paul, I wanna buy your songs" impression he always does when asked about Michael. Then should Madonna's Rock'N'Roll Hall of Fame induction speech were he did a simular high pitched impersonation of Michael be deemed a transracial-impersonation and have been banned from BBC news footage.

Paul McCartney does go on about Michael's buy The Beatles's song, and his bitterness about it is plan boring. Michael buy those songs, wasn't the best thing for Michael to have done friendship wise so I understand McCartney finishing their friendship and not liking Michael anymore. But the fact is, Michael bought those Beatles songs fair and sqaure. And it wasn't Michael who got Lennon & McCartney to song over their publishing rights in the 1960's.

In many ways it's a compliement Paul McCartney is bitter about Michael, because the only other famous person McCartney has issues with in public is John Lennon who was a genius like Michael. Anyway I wouldn't be surprised if this story has been blown out of proportion, just like the Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand one was.


Well said.

Even if it is true, who the hec cares? Its nice BBC cares about the comments and took that into consideration but banding the entire interview? lol But shoot I could care less either way.

I dunno why Paul keeps b*tchin about the records. To me it shows more about him than Michael. Just LET IT GO its not changing anything no matter how many interviews you give talking about nothing. The same lame a$$ mess. Instead of whining...why don't you see what you can do about it instead of making excuses. Leave the old in the past... and for crying out loud talk about something NEW.




<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bNfnVQanfos&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bNfnVQanfos&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
macca impersonation of MJ in a high pitched voice.

Thanks for posting.


See this mess right here is the kind of Bullish that pists me off. Not Paul, no no no... that wack a$$ racist Howard Stern. Lord give me strength, cannot stand that man and most of it is not about how he disrespects and bashes Michael. Stern talks some ignorant ish all the times on alot issues and about black people, some good ignorant ish That can get him kiled.
But unlike some folks, im saved.

He needs to keep his mouth shut and sit down some where. People like that have no home training or class. But see Howard Sterns a$$ness is way more out of line than all these other comments by celebs fans seem to trip about.

[144,000]

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bNfnVQanfos&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>
macca impersonation of MJ in a high pitched voice.

lol..notice how Stern(who seems to have negatively affected the financial status of the satellite radio company he now works for, cus they needed help from their rival after he entered) is careful not to let the beatles music play during the interview. we just see images. and while he calls MJ a scumbag for buying publishing, he seems impressed with Paul buying publishing.

[Vard]

That howard stern is a BITCH; he says "Oh i met/saw him once and he was the oddest human being i ever seen" and you would never ever see him again cause you are not good enough, he is jealous he is nothing but a wannabe rockstar, ugly man.
Besides what about the odd fact, whats the whole problem with it, i find the most amzing people in the world to be odd, plus they WANT to be odd, they want to be different than the others, Michael is clearly a remarkable person in Music history,why? well he has the greatest charisma in all music business, when people see him, even if they dont like him, is like OH! Its Michael Jackson! he is like magic, everyone will remeber him, and he does not has to be common, he is awesomely talented,he is obviously weird because of this, with a talent like that i sometimes wonder if he is from this planet. mccartney is an ex-beatle, and John was far more charismatic and talented.
With all the money this mccartney guy has, can NOT buy charisma, and he is boring and theres nothing worst than being burring. MJ has the greatest aura surrounding him, thats why he is so controvertial. I love Michael.

[hilliver]

Sadly the BBC are only trying to save their sorry backsides after some of the idiots that have caused so many complaints. I would rather it was a supportive action for Michael but it is only about them.

McCartney is always whinning about something, I have sympathy for Heather Mills now, god knows what she had to put up with.

[Andrew Ryan]

BBC Deny Pulling Paul McCartney's Michael Jackson Impression: Exclusive
by Jason Gregory
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Photo by: WENN

More The Beatles
Watch Paul McCartney #8211; Dance Tonight
The BBC has tonight (December 31st) denied pulling an interview in which Sir Paul McCartney apparently made “unsuitable” comments about Michael Jackson.

A BBC spokesman told Gigwise that only “the most relevant quotes” had been selected from a press conference last November “due to time constraints”.

Extracts from the interview with the former Beatle were broadcast solely on BBC radio, the spokesman added.

A report in today’s Daily Mail newspaper claimed the former Beatle had made a "trans-racial impression" of Jackson’s voice when asked a question about the singer.

The newspaper quoted a corporation source as saying the BBC had sent an internal memo to prevent Sir Paul’s impersonation from being broadcast.

BBC bosses were “deeply nervous, perhaps because of the Jonathan Ross-Russell Brand affair”, the source claimed.

However, speaking exclusively to Gigwise, a BBC spokesman said: “We are not aware of any memos deeming his comments unsuitable."

Sir Paul dueted with Jackson on the 1982 single 'The Girl Is Mine', but the pair fell out when Jackson bought the rights to part of the Beatles' music library.

As previously reported on Gigwise, Sir Paul dubbed Jackson “awfully good” during the press conference.

[Bee]

Sir Paul later said: "You know what doesn't feel very good, is going on tour and paying to sing all my songs. Every time I sing Hey Jude, I've got to pay someone."

Hahahaha! Fool.

For BBC tro deny that they pulled the interview just shows how the media truly is. Paul is a fool and needs to let it go regarding Mike owing the catalogue. He should just move on and call it a day. He should stop talking about a dude that do not care what he does. Mike is not thinking about this has been fool. Period. Mike is not caring what this has been fool is doing. I believed that he mocked MJ, it was racist and the BBC should confirmed the removal of the interview. All a bunch of fools.

[mistermaxxx]

Paul Mccartney is a mess. a big time bigot. dude is a music Genius,but he is so hateful.

[8701girl]

Paul Maccartney is just a jeaouls man who can't stand the fact he does'nt have the charisma or the talent that mike has!


and beacause of that charisma & talent that mike has., it made mike make THE BIGGEST SELLING ALBUM OF ALL TIME!! And paul hates that with a passion..i bet he does.

[workingdayandnight]

"The pair became friendly, occasionally visiting one another. In one discussion, McCartney told Jackson about the millions of dollars he had made from music catalogs; he was earning approximately $40 million a year from other people's songs.[41]"


Paul McCartney should shut the **** up.

[WHES]

I'm so sick of McCartney complaining about this. It is a fact that he could have bought that catalog but declined not to because of a spat he was having with Ono. It's HIS fault, not Michael's and it's about damn time he take some responsibility for it.

[144,000]

apparently, Paul's insecurity about his own songs, which led to him not having confidence enough in them, to spend whatever it took to get them back, stems from something that producer David Foster said about him...

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/11/25/2008-11-25_music_producers_dishes_the_dirt_on_egoti.html

[Superstition]

This sounds ridiculous. I've heard McCartney do that voice before and while it may not be flattering or anything, it's certainly not something I'd think would need to be censored.

[TeharaMJ]

That interracial or trans racial business they speak about maybe because Paul Mc Cartney who is a white man is doing an impression of Michael Jackson who is a black man and BBC probably felt nervous about the whole thing even though Mecca's done it a number of times before.

Paul Mc Cartney is just an insanely annoying person, quite sarcy and hateful...I doubt Michael gives a sh!te about it so Mc Cartney can whine all he wants but he sounds ridiculous...it reflects poorly on him rathre than Michael.

[Vard]

Anyways ex-beatle guy, youre an old man, TAKE YOUR PILL OF THE DAY, you feel beter and maybe you wont be bitter anymore.

[lilsusie]

thanks elusive, nice explanation.
Still I dont like them calling him jack* though. Because it has the wa*ck* connotation and I know there are many who use it to show disrepect to him. And, Mike himself doesn't like it.

[elusive moonwalker]

thanks elusive, nice explanation.
Still I dont like them calling him jack* though. Because it has the wa*ck* connotation and I know there are many who use it to show disrepect to him. And, Mike himself doesn't like it.

yeah i dont really like the name. its not something id use myself. but it only offends me when others use it as an insult because most articles that use the term arent meaning it as disrespect its just a name that gets used here alot and papers are well known for shorting names after all it saves paper space.

[Hess]

Mike himself has said he doesn't want to be called Jack# - that's why I doesn't like it.

[iboz75]

yeah i dont really like the name. its not something id use myself. but it only offends me when others use it as an insult because most articles that use the term arent meaning it as disrespect its just a name that gets used here alot and papers are well known for shorting names after all it saves paper space.

Mabey that's just Paul being cute. He does have a rather odd sence of humor (I'm the same way).

But then again, I'm sure he wouldn't like people calling him mick. I'm sure he's have a problem with that.

[144,000]

Mike himself has said he doesn't want to be called Jack# - that's why I doesn't like it.

yes..once MJ makes the request himself, there are no excuses. and the media can't say they didn't see his interviews.

[*~MJ Loves MJ~*]

I don't get it; Paul would have to pay 'someone,' to sing his songs whether it was mJ or not! And the guy didn't even BID on the collection, because his ego felt that it wasn't worth fighting for. He wanted to leave the 'Beatles' legend behind and move forward.

Wish he'd stop being such a baby and face the fact that Michael tried to get him to bid, yet he was the one who actually made the mistake and bad judgement.

As far as the 'race' issue is concerned, I don't think that it's the issue of being 'racially ignorant' that's fueling the BBC to cut the interview, it's that fact that Paul was actually mocking MJ, and that's offensive to some viewers as it is. Although, it would have proved that McCartney has a chip on his shoulder. He'd look like the ignorant man he can be, and lod only knows, that would prove his ex-wives statements about his character even more. Let the past go, YOU made the mistake, accept it and move on. Don't be bitter for those who are more wiser with handelling your work.

[RockWithLou]

Hahah, good old Michael buying the Beatles songs.

[*~MJ Loves MJ~*]

Yeah, I don't understand it. The other musicans aren't bitter and causing a fuss; bob Dylan, KC and Sunshin Band..I think..etc about Mike having their music....why can't Paul just cool it.

Stop with the nonsense. Everyone knows you wrote those songs, everyone knows you're a Beatle, everyone knows you....be greateful that someone like Michael has taken the care and consideration with your music and is handling it with care and taste. The guy who had it before...can't remember his name...treated it like crap, he allowed it to go into shambles. YOKO ONOis hapy that Michael is taking care of the Beatles catalouge. Just be greatful for the opportunity you were given, count your blessings and move on. Let Michael do what he's always done best.

[144,000]

also..it's not like Paul isn't still getting paid for the performance of his songs. money is still coming back to him. so i don't know where his resentment is coming from.

[8701girl]

Yeah, I don't understand it. The other musicans aren't bitter and causing a fuss; bob Dylan, KC and Sunshin Band..I think..etc about Mike having their music....why can't Paul just cool it.

Stop with the nonsense. Everyone knows you wrote those songs, everyone knows you're a Beatle, everyone knows you....be greateful that someone like Michael has taken the care and consideration with your music and is handling it with care and taste. The guy who had it before...can't remember his name...treated it like crap, he allowed it to go into shambles. YOKO ONOis hapy that Michael is taking care of the Beatles catalouge. Just be greatful for the opportunity you were given, count your blessings and move on. Let Michael do what he's always done best.

Great post mj loves mj *stands & applauds*

[*~MJ Loves MJ~*]

Aww thanks love. It just seems that Paul always uses Michael as a means to get noticed. He has to give it up sooner or later. :yes:

[Dri]

Originally Posted by *~MJ Loves MJ~*
Yeah, I don't understand it. The other musicans aren't bitter and causing a fuss; bob Dylan, KC and Sunshin Band..I think..etc about Mike having their music....why can't Paul just cool it.

Stop with the nonsense. Everyone knows you wrote those songs, everyone knows you're a Beatle, everyone knows you....be greateful that someone like Michael has taken the care and consideration with your music and is handling it with care and taste. The guy who had it before...can't remember his name...treated it like crap, he allowed it to go into shambles. YOKO ONOis hapy that Michael is taking care of the Beatles catalouge. Just be greatful for the opportunity you were given, count your blessings and move on. Let Michael do what he's always done best.


Thank you!!!!

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

[RockWithLou]

Well I gotta admit, if my "friend" bought my songs instead of letting me do it I'd be pretty pissed lol.

[8701girl]

I actally wouldnt mind it if my friend did that...actally i would feel honured and happy they brought cuz they liked it :)

[RockWithLou]

I actally wouldnt mind it if my friend did that...actally i would feel honured and happy they brought cuz they liked it :)

If it was the other way round (Paul bought Michael's songs) would you still feel the same? Just wondering.

[8701girl]

I wouldnt know how mike would feel...that would be hes business
But i was just saying how I would feel if a friend did that to me

[144,000]

actually, i think Mike did Paul a favor. first of all he did say he would buy Paul's music, to his face. the fact that some people don't take MJ seriously when he says something, is something MJ can't do anything about. secondly, in that interview with Howard Stern, Paul repeatedly reminds me that he doesn't know anything abuot business. he admitted that his accountant handles all that, and he didn't want to go into talking about it. Michael, businesswise will take care of Paul's music, better than Paul would. MJ arranged it so that Paul would still get paid. that's the law, anyway.
and no one...but no one, would ever do the kind thing that MJ did, by arranging that the songs would be well taken care of..and any mileage that they could obtained, would be had. it benefits Paul, tremendously. paying a fee so i could stay rich, isn't such a bad thing. i would love for MJ to do me that favor, if i didn't believe in my own compositions as much as MJ did. but then, i'm not Paul, so i can't be in his shoes.

[8701girl]

yeh i agree

paul should just be happy he is still getting paid and just get on with his life
...its getting quite tireing hearing him whinge bout it all the time.

[Superstition]

Well, it's easier to say when something we didn't spend a late night creating is hugely popular around the globe.

I'm not saying Paul didn't create his own misfortune by allowing his works of art to slip into someone else's control, but I can see why he's sad about the situation.

What I can't figure out is why he didn't just plunk the cash down when he had the chance.

[144,000]

Well, it's easier to say when something we didn't spend a late night creating is hugely popular around the globe.

I'm not saying Paul didn't create his own misfortune by allowing his works of art to slip into someone else's control, but I can see why he's sad about the situation.

What I can't figure out is why he didn't just plunk the cash down when he had the chance.

sometimes, it's easier to see the money you have, or the money someone offers you, and say..'i don't wanna give this money up. i need this money now.' it happened with coca cola and mcdonalds. somebody created the formula, and someone else with business sense offered a one time large looking fee for it..or perhaps smaller, but large looking to the recipient, and they took the money or held onto the money, in Paul's case. seeing the big picture, and having faith in your talent was secondary.

lol...it's like gambling. you don't care about whether a sports team wins or loses...but if you are betting on that team..suddenly, you care a lot. there's just something about quick easy money, and money that is already in your posession. it's just the rare person that can see past that.

[friend]

Explaining the reasoning as to why the impression could possibly be deemed offensive or unsuitable for broadcast, the source continued: "They say it's a 'trans-racial impression' - that's what they say in a memo - and even by Macca that is beyond the pale."

so if it had only been offensive to Michael, that would have been ok, an individual is up for the offering cause they are isolated in their indignation and the offense taken, and would be sluffed off with a get over yourself, but if it involves whole groups... well then, they don't wish to be offensive. interesting logic.

[cryingangel]

Wow...I'm glad to see Michael getting support, though I am rather shocked o_O

I understand why Paul is still bitter about this, but he had his big share of fault...he should start taking responsibility for his own acts and stop acting like a victim.

Thanks for posting :)

[Dublinproud]

Paul is just a bitter old man...Get over it

[Cyborganna]

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/3212/sirpaul1214170cxt5.jpg



31 December 20080
BBC 'pulls Paul McCartney's Michael Jackson impersonation'

The BBC has pulled an interview with Sir Paul McCartney in which the former Beatle did a "trans-racial impression" of Michael Jackson, it has been claimed.

Sir Paul is said to have talked in a high-pitched Jackson-style voice when asked about the singer, which BBC managers decided could prove offensive.

A Corporation source told the Daily Mail: "McCartney started to reply in this high-pitched J*cko voice, and apparently it was very funny. But the BBC - deeply nervous, perhaps because of the Jonathan Ross-Russell Brand affair - has declined to broadcast the interview."

Explaining the reasoning as to why the impression could possibly be deemed offensive or unsuitable for broadcast, the source continued: "They say it's a 'trans-racial impression' - that's what they say in a memo - and even by Macca that is beyond the pale."

Sir Paul and Jackson used to be friends, but fell out when Jackson outbid the Liverpudlian for the rights to most of the Beatles' back catalogue. Jackson bought the rights for £33 million ($48m).

The purchase soured their friendship.

Sir Paul later said: "You know what doesn't feel very good, is going on tour and paying to sing all my songs. Every time I sing Hey Jude, I've got to pay someone."

Source: Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/4043946/BBC-pulls-Paul-McCartneys-Michael-Jackson-impersonation.html)

I didn't know Mr Mccartney was a racist!

[Dri]

I think this atittude from BBC is very suspicious but is in good sense.Pay attention.

Recently, the spokeperson of MJ, Dr.Tohme, said it was negotiating with a TV station.Perhaps could be the BBC station. So the station decided to take the interview cuz MJ could not like this and desist to appear on BBC.

It was on the BBC that showed the news about Peruvian shamans where they said that MJ will be more stronger than ever.

Suspicious, huh?

[friend]

^ self serving. suspicious? no, they are like all other media. they pick people off one at at time, then pretend to be sensitive. yeah... whatever.

[144,000]

so if it had only been offensive to Michael, that would have been ok, an individual is up for the offering cause they are isolated in their indignation and the offense taken, and would be sluffed off with a get over yourself, but if it involves whole groups... well then, they don't wish to be offensive. interesting logic.

yes..interesting and frighteningly common logic.

[emmah24]

This whole thing is bizarre in many ways. The BBC are extremely overly-sensitive at the moment about causing offense due to recent incidents with their presenters but I fail to see how a mimicking a high pitched voice is "trans-racial" or could be offensive...it sounds ridiculous to me.

That said, you can bet that any major boo-boo made by Saint Paul will immediately be played down or unreported by British press, he's God to many.

[DuranDuran]

I didn't know Mr Mccartney was a racist!
Paul isn't racist. Paul's idol is Little Richard. Paul even went down to Lagos to record an album in the 1970s where he and Linda (his wife) was robbed at gunpoint by local bandits, yet he had nothing bad to say about being there. He's done much campaigning for equal rights, animal rights, landmines and other things. I don't know what that article means by "trans-racial".

[SIDEWALK]

I didn't know Mr Mccartney was a racist!

wash your mouth out!

macca ain't a racist

[troubleman84]

Didn't the original story come from the Daily Mirror or the Telegraph?

[benscarr]

I didn't know Mr Mccartney was a racist!

Paul McCartney maybe very bitter about Michael and even hate him. But I'm 100% sure Paul McCartney is no racist. He said in an interview with Michael Parkinson that one of the things he hates the most in the world is "racism".
He is one of the people who helped make Jimi Hendrix a huge superstar in the USA by setting him as a headline act at the Monteray Festival in 1967 which McCartney set up were Hendrix was still an unkown.

As someone has already pointed out, McCartney's idol is Little Richard. Also when asked which pop star he could be if he wasn't one, his answer was Jimi Hendrix. McCartney also recorded the anti racist song Ebony & Ivory with Stevie Wonder. And in 1968 McCartney wrote a song called Blackbird on The Beatles, White Album which was a tribute to Martin Luther-King and the Civil Rights movenment. McCartney also told Oprah Winfery in an interview that he once viewed Michael as a younger brother.

None of use have heard this "trans-racial impersination", and the BBC may have been over sensitive. I think the point is like it or not after 23yrs Paul McCartney is just going to have to accept that Michael Jackson owns the publishing rights to the majority of The Beatles songs. And that him talking about Michael in a negative light and impersonation Michael's voice will just backfire on him from now on. Just as it does when he tries to justify his legacy against John Lennon. Michael Jackson is untouchable, even by the likes of rock gods like Paul McCartney.

[8701girl]

i think the bbc might of thought that the comment he made, might have sounded "trans racial" to them. That properly why they took that part off.

[Hess]

Paul is many things. Maybe he is bitter, angry, hateful or whatever.

But he sure isn't a racist! Da## I think he would be angry hearing people called him that!

[Superstition]

I'm pretty sure the white guy who did a song with Stevie Wonder called "Ebony & Ivory" about racial harmony is not a racist.

[troubleman84]

Dude ain't racist but I don't think no one would deny he still bitter. The BBC is still squirming over the Jonathan Peters and Russell Brand thing so maybe they feared lawsuits and damnation, I don't know. But Paul is not racist.

[Superstition]

How on earth can they get a lawsuit because Paul talks in a high-pitched MJ voice? It just seems like censorship to the extreme.

[144,000]

How on earth can they get a lawsuit because Paul talks in a high-pitched MJ voice? It just seems like censorship to the extreme.

if the BBC has accumulative stuff, it can all add up, so that one more infraction can get them a lawsuit, just because of the quantity of complaints...that can be true for anybody.

[Superstition]

Then NBC, CBS, Fox and pretty much any network that has any comedy or late-night shows should be off the air by now.

[troubleman84]

^^ Exactly. It's crazy. The article sounds more like an attack of the BBC then it does Michael since the BBC themselves DENIED pulling such a thing.

A rumor of any story good or bad is STILL a rumor, people, don't get your hopes up.

[fredastaire]

What does Trans-Racial have to do with a person's voice or it's tone? Talking soft or high pitched is offensive to people?

[friend]

it was only meant to be offensive to Michael - Paul mocking him. apparently the whole story is a farce anyway. not sure how it attacks BBC or was meant to, but if it were true, i've already expressed my thoughts on it.

[big DB]

Michael probably made money from this article or radio appearance no doubt they played McCartney's music Michael owns...BITCH! Pay up!

[Vard]

I dont think it was trans racial, it was high pitched tone of MJ, but, the fact that he (Mccartney) is always complaining is quite horrid, why? this ex-beatle has a LOT of money he does not need any more money, come on!, he is just trying to make MJ look like a thief or something, MJ has given through his life a lot of money and care, and attention to the ones in need, and graced ill kids with his presence, cause, at the time he did this stuff (appearing in hospital with his trademark cloth, the fedora, it might sound superfitial, but MJ was magical to the kids they felt better, he still magical but he isolate now, i guess he is too afraid cause of the media jokes and bad publicity, he should ignored them, but he doesnt, dont ask why cause i dont know) children adored him, now its different cause the media has made MJ a monster and kids dont believe in innocence anymore, only Michael changing the acctitud can change this, ignoring the bad comments and jokes cause they will always do it. Anyways the occult desire of every solo artist, in this case the ex beatle guy, is to be an historical FIGURE like MJ, I mean MJ trademarks are unique, his high pitched voice, the way he dresses, his music, his dance, his very way of talking and act are so personal, that some musicians are a little jealous, and that in the end is like a hide even to them, adoration about the artist they talk a little bad about.

[144,000]

Then NBC, CBS, Fox and pretty much any network that has any comedy or late-night shows should be off the air by now.

well..we're talking about the BBC right now. america seems a little looser. besides..remember people tried to sue mtv for the 'Janet Jackson incident?' and several american radio talk show hosts have lost jobs over the past year for racial comments.

[144,000]

Michael probably made money from this article or radio appearance no doubt they played McCartney's music Michael owns...BITCH! Pay up!

actually, i stated in an earlier post that they were careful NOT to play the music. instead, they showed images of the beatles playing music, and there was no sound. they surely took that into consideration. of course, in their attempt to cut off MJ, they cut off Paul too, cus he would've been paid if they turned the sound up. so, you see..if they go after MJ, they hurt Paul in the process.

[fredastaire]

OK, that is fair. I am trying to figure out who they are afraid would be offended is all. 'trans-racial' meaning people that have crossed racial lines? I don't get the definition. The way I interpret the trans racial comment, that is offensive.

[144,000]

i think the situation is done. the BBC did what they did. i don't know why we're even continuing pursuing it. after awhile they'll start to think they can't win either way. damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[fredastaire]

i think the thread was done with until I read it. My fault for pulling it back to the top of the heap I think.

[~* White Chocolate *~]

I haven't read all of this thread, but I will say that Paul is just angry and bitter that Michael is now making money off of his music. Seriously, Paul had his chance to get the rights but was too much of a pinch penny to care enough. It wasn't until Michael started making money off of his "investment" that Paul started to have an issue with it. Why? Because it wasn't he who was getting the cash. If he gave that much of a damn about it, if the music mattered THAT MUCH why not out bid Michael? Or if say he didn't have the cash at the time (which is total crap...he had the cash) why not go in with Yoko for it and insure that the music would stay within the "family" in a manner of speaking? I guess it didn't matter THAT MUCH. Paul's just REALLY bitter, not racist. Paul needs to get over himself and realize he was the one who made the "mistake" NOT MICHAEL. **rolls eyes** In the end it all comes down to the "all-mighty dollar", and that's what Paul's issue really is all about. And the fact that he feels the need to be immature about it and make it into a personal matter shows how much class this man really has. Michael didn't make it personal, Paul did. And Paul needs to take a serious chill pill. And he can put that in his pipe and smoke it!

[Ali G]

Well said!! Let's move along. Michael outbid Paul, simple as that (I think). lol

[ladyplatinum]

I haven't read all of this thread, but I will say that Paul is just angry and bitter that Michael is now making money off of his music. Seriously, Paul had his chance to get the rights but was too much of a pinch penny to care enough. It wasn't until Michael started making money off of his "investment" that Paul started to have an issue with it. Why? Because it wasn't he who was getting the cash. If he gave that much of a damn about it, if the music mattered THAT MUCH why not out bid Michael? Or if say he didn't have the cash at the time (which is total crap...he had the cash) why not go in with Yoko for it and insure that the music would stay within the "family" in a manner of speaking? I guess it didn't matter THAT MUCH. Paul's just REALLY bitter, not racist. Paul needs to get over himself and realize he was the one who made the "mistake" NOT MICHAEL. **rolls eyes** In the end it all comes down to the "all-mighty dollar", and that's what Paul's issue really is all about. And the fact that he feels the need to be immature about it and make it into a personal matter shows how much class this man really has. Michael didn't make it personal, Paul did. And Paul needs to take a serious chill pill. And he can put that in his pipe and smoke it!

I didn't read the thread either, but what you wrote is close to what I would think, though with less of the nicely put words and more of the negative ones.:D

So, I'll just let that stand.:D

[terrell]

What are talking about? You just said no one calls whites out of their name. Then why did you refer to Paul McCartney as "Mecca." (You can't even spell it right)
LOOk, I said what I said and I STAND by what I said (and lets not get on spelling, heck many people misspell on this board. So lets not go there). I still say whites do not get call out of their name like blacks in MAIN STREAM MEDIA. Look at Brad and Angie Jolie. This woman took a man from another woman, having babies out of wedlock, and people act like she is mother Theresa because she give to charity (and lets not get into her actions when she was married to Billy Bob). How many charities MIchael have given to in his lifetime? Many and yet Mike get called everything but a child of god. Look at Ozzy Osborne, Britney SPears, etc and all the problems they have done in their lives (proven to be FACT, not rumors like many of Michael's problems), do any of these celebs get called out thier name by mainsterm or the British media every time they talk about Ozzy or Britney? Hell no. I, like many others, are sick and tired of this kind of mess and when it is stated by someone, some people want to act as if blacks are making a big deal out of it. Please, if you do not want people commenting on this bias reporting, then DO NOT DO IT. End of story. His name is Michael JACKSON, not J A C K O.

[DuranDuran]

why not go in with Yoko for it and insure that the music would stay within the "family" in a manner of speaking?
Actually he did, but Yoko wasn't interested. At any rate Paul & George Harrison never really got along with Yoko well. Paul owns a lot of songs himself including a lot of Broadway show tunes, Buddy Holly, & jazz songs among others. I think he owns the song "Happy Birthday To You". A person could live off of that song alone. That is how he got Mike interested in music publishing.

[last unicorn]

LOOk, I said what I said and I STAND by what I said (and lets not get on spelling, heck many people misspell on this board. So lets not go there). I still say whites do not get call out of their name like blacks in MAIN STREAM MEDIA. Look at Brad and Angie Jolie. This woman took a man from another woman, having babies out of wedlock, and people act like she is mother Theresa because she give to charity (and lets not get into her actions when she was married to Billy Bob). How many charities MIchael have given to in his lifetime? Many and yet Mike get called everything but a child of god. Look at Ozzy Osborne, Britney SPears, etc and all the problems they have done in their lives (proven to be FACT, not rumors like many of Michael's problems), do any of these celebs get called out thier name by mainsterm or the British media every time they talk about Ozzy or Britney? Hell no. I, like many others, are sick and tired of this kind of mess and when it is stated by someone, some people want to act as if blacks are making a big deal out of it. Please, if you do not want people commenting on this bias reporting, then DO NOT DO IT. End of story. His name is Michael JACKSON, not J A C K O.

Look, I don't appreciate the Jolie/Pitt-hype at all but I think you are very judgemental here. Brad and Angelina get their media bashing all the time, also the name "Brangelina", it's stupid. And not to defend her, but she hasn't "taken a man from another women", there are always two involved when something like that happened and Brad isn't a saint either. STILL I think what they are doing is great and has to be admired, because no one is without sin and mistake on this planet. It's funny you're mentioning Britney as an example, because from all the celebrities I know she has gotten the most flac in recent months, the media has been horrible to her. Not to defend her and her actions, but the girl is sick and needs help not a gazillion paparazzi following her every move. I think it's annoying that MJ fans often tend to use double standards when it comes to issues like that. Yes, we all want justice for MJ, but that doesn't mean you have to put down or point your finger at other celebrities.

[last unicorn]

What are talking about? You just said no one calls whites out of their name. Then why did you refer to Paul McCartney as "Mecca." (You can't even spell it right)

"Macca" is a common nickname for Paul in the music scene, it's not an insult, many of his collegues and fans call him that. It's not like Ja**o, which is stupid and insulting.

[iboz75]

actually, i think Mike did Paul a favor. first of all he did say he would buy Paul's music, to his face. the fact that some people don't take MJ seriously when he says something, is something MJ can't do anything about. secondly, in that interview with Howard Stern, Paul repeatedly reminds me that he doesn't know anything abuot business. he admitted that his accountant handles all that, and he didn't want to go into talking about it. Michael, businesswise will take care of Paul's music, better than Paul would. MJ arranged it so that Paul would still get paid. that's the law, anyway.
and no one...but no one, would ever do the kind thing that MJ did, by arranging that the songs would be well taken care of..and any mileage that they could obtained, would be had. it benefits Paul, tremendously. paying a fee so i could stay rich, isn't such a bad thing. i would love for MJ to do me that favor, if i didn't believe in my own compositions as much as MJ did. but then, i'm not Paul, so i can't be in his shoes.

:clapping:

[Keepthefaith1]

<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/bNfnVQanfos&hl=en&fs=1 width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
macca impersonation of MJ in a high pitched voice.

Wow :mellow: What a bitter, whiney, a-hole. MJ bought those songs fair and square. MJ has made alot of money off those...he had an oppurtinity and he took it. Too bad Paul was not as good a business man as Michael.
He is so bitter and it is annoying.
Also, if MJ has ignored his calls or letters. It is probably cause Paul acted bitter and rude about it I bet. Who wants to listen to that??

Like Michael said. Sorry Paul.. its sad and all... but it is business and it was a SMART move.

[terrell]

Look, I don't appreciate the Jolie/Pitt-hype at all but I think you are very judgemental here. Brad and Angelina get their media bashing all the time, also the name "Brangelina", it's stupid. And not to defend her, but she hasn't "taken a man from another women", there are always two involved when something like that happened and Brad isn't a saint either. STILL I think what they are doing is great and has to be admired, because no one is without sin and mistake on this planet. It's funny you're mentioning Britney as an example, because from all the celebrities I know she has gotten the most flac in recent months, the media has been horrible to her. Not to defend her and her actions, but the girl is sick and needs help not a gazillion paparazzi following her every move. I think it's annoying that MJ fans often tend to use double standards when it comes to issues like that. Yes, we all want justice for MJ, but that doesn't mean you have to put down or point your finger at other celebrities.Yes, I am going to be judgemental when I see one side being judge and not another. Sorry if that hurt your feelings but too bad. I would NOt say a word about any of these people if the media was FAIR. So do not come at me for point out the bias in the media. You are right, the paparazzi do follow her and guess what, they follow Michael too and in the meantime call him J A C KO when the pictures are posted. See what I mean. Yes, I beleive Britney is sick and going through something right now; but guess what, Michael has a skin diease and get told that he bleach his skin. Sorry, but if people are going to get pisss off at me or anyone saying this stuff about Brad, Britney, etc, then get pissed off when they talk about Michael and call him out of his name. That was my ONLY purposes for saying that about Angie and Brad (and yes she did STEAL a man, call it what you want it is still the same). If these people show Jackson the same respect, then you wont get a word out of me; however, if Jackson is disrespect, then I will point out the bias regardless if anyone likes it or not. End of story

[terrell]

"Macca" is a common nickname for Paul in the music scene, it's not an insult, many of his collegues and fans call him that. It's not like Ja**o, which is stupid and insulting.
Exactly. Paul is called that to UPLift him; whearas Michael is called J A C K O to put him down and make fun of him. ALso, PAUL loves him name; whereas MIchael HATES the word J A C K O.

[Chris Davo]

"Macca" is a common nickname for Paul in the music scene, it's not an insult, many of his collegues and fans call him that. It's not like Ja**o, which is stupid and insulting.

What is the difference there seriously? If J a c k o is insulting then why isn't Macca? doesnt make any sense at all. Can you explain the reasoning behind this? Also the media always refer to McCartney as Macca. I also think race has got nothing to do with the media calling MJ j a c k o, there is simply no argument or this, so stop playing the race card. (terrell)

[hopespringseternal]

What is the difference there seriously? If J a c k o is insulting then why isn't Macca? doesnt make any sense at all. Can you explain the reasoning behind this? Also the media always refer to McCartney as Macca. I also think race has got nothing to do with the media calling MJ j a c k o, there is simply no argument or this, so stop playing the race card. (terrell)

Macca doesn't infer that Paul McCartney is a insane, uppity negro who dared to take on the music industry and buy it up and in doing so insulted and enraged those who run it and the media at large who just loved a nice song and dance man who was supposed to stay in his box, J A C K O on the other hand means all I said above that's the stark difference.

[terrell]

What is the difference there seriously? If J a c k o is insulting then why isn't Macca? doesnt make any sense at all. Can you explain the reasoning behind this? Also the media always refer to McCartney as Macca. I also think race has got nothing to do with the media calling MJ j a c k o, there is simply no argument or this, so stop playing the race card. (terrell)
If the game is there the card will be played. If you do not want the card played, get rid of the dam game. I do think race plays a part in this. Soceity has certain presumption about blacks and other groups. I do not have time to explain it because it will take too long. I doubt you are black and know the experiences of this so you are not qualified to tell someone about it. Go back and even look when Michael was talking about tommy M and when Michael was in Harlem back in 2002 with Al Sharpton. Michael hit on the same thing. So if you have a problem with my comment, then you have a bigger problem with Michael. As for the word Macca, if that was use to offend Paul, I would say the same thing; however that is used to UPLIFT Paul and Paul has never be against the word; however Michael has and he has even spoke out on it (even the nasty Tom Sneddon use it to degrade Michael).

[terrell]

Macca doesn't infer that Paul McCartney is a insane, uppity negro who dared to take on the music industry and buy it up and in doing so insulted and enraged those who run it and the media at large who just loved a nice song and dance man who was supposed to stay in his box, J A C K O on the other hand means all I said above that's the stark difference.
EXACTLY. Paul owns alot of music and you do not see the media jumping on him about it. SO why Michael? I remember Bo Diddy talked about his music whom Paul owns when the comment about Michael owning the beatles. As Bo Diddy said, "well Paul owns mine and I would like mine back". Did Paul give it back to Bo? NO.

[Chris Davo]

I think you will find in England that there is hardly any racism (apart from the ill educated people who are in the minority.) I presume its a lot different in America i.e. racism is still practised by a lot of people, probably why you have a different view point on this to myself. (Also i am not saying americans are ill educated, it's just that both countries have different cultural divides etc.!)

[analogue]

Let's switch this around here. If Paul had bought the rights to Michael's songs the media would be praising him and calling him a smart business man

[terrell]

The Bottom line is his name is Michael JACKSON which should be done anyway. Call him Michael Jackson and NOT J A C K O and we won't have this debates on what is what; however, if it continue, yes, the race card is going to be played (that is the way it looks) and many people are going to point out the bias and unfairness of black celebs compare to white celebs.

[terrell]

Let's switch this around here. If Paul had bought the rights to Michael's songs the media would be praising him and calling him a smart business man
Let me put a bug in your ear. Michael and the Jackson 5 wanted to get their music from motown. Barry did not want to sell it at the time. This was around the time the Jacksons left Motown (and the name Jackson 5 is owned by Barry GOrdy). Do you hear Michael hating on Barry? NO. And Barry Gordy was a father figure to Michael. To put it straight, THAT IS THE MUSIC BIZ. And believe me, I am sure if the Jacksons songs were to come able, I doubt Michael will be CHEAP an not go ahead a purchase their catalog if he has the money to get it. Understand now.

[terrell]

I think you will find in England that there is hardly any racism (apart from the ill educated people who are in the minority.) I presume its a lot different in America i.e. racism is still practised by a lot of people, probably why you have a different view point on this to myself. (Also i am not saying americans are ill educated, it's just that both countries have different cultural divides etc.!)
Well, I am American and I speak from experience and from what I see and Michael is called this mess out of racism here. There has been discussion about it some black talk shows here. I do not know why the British media named him this crap in the 80's (I still find them to be bias compare what they do to others. I am curious to know what is Amy Winehouse called in the British prss everytime they talk about her due to what is said about her?). Again, the name just need to be dropped.

[MJFanForeverAndEver]

What is the difference there seriously? If J a c k o is insulting then why isn't Macca? (terrell)

I guess it's because the media make it rhyme with wac*o. And that is nothing but insulting. By the way, to know if it is insulting or not... just picture yourself meeting Michael... Would you say : 'J*cko, I love you so much' ?:no:

[last unicorn]

Yes, I am going to be judgemental when I see one side being judge and not another. Sorry if that hurt your feelings but too bad. I would NOt say a word about any of these people if the media was FAIR. So do not come at me for point out the bias in the media. You are right, the paparazzi do follow her and guess what, they follow Michael too and in the meantime call him J A C KO when the pictures are posted. See what I mean. Yes, I beleive Britney is sick and going through something right now; but guess what, Michael has a skin diease and get told that he bleach his skin. Sorry, but if people are going to get pisss off at me or anyone saying this stuff about Brad, Britney, etc, then get pissed off when they talk about Michael and call him out of his name. That was my ONLY purposes for saying that about Angie and Brad (and yes she did STEAL a man, call it what you want it is still the same). If these people show Jackson the same respect, then you wont get a word out of me; however, if Jackson is disrespect, then I will point out the bias regardless if anyone likes it or not. End of story

My feelings aren't hurt because I couldn't care less about all these people.
It's not the other celebrities' fault that the media is "kinder" to them and not kind to Michael. One injustice doesn't make another injustice any fairer.

[terrell]

My feelings aren't hurt because I couldn't care less about all these people.
It's not the other celebrities' fault that the media is "kinder" to them and not kind to Michael. One injustice doesn't make another injustice any fairer.
True but that was not the point I was making. I was making the point that the media call Michael J A C K O because of what they say how he behaves and what is said about him; that is why I mentioned the other people who have certain IMAGES about themselves as well (if you really look a truth, they have actions far more than Michael) but do the media call them out of their name every time they talk about them? No. They want to call Michael out his name when he wears the mask YET they did not call Angie out of her name when she wore a blood value around her neck. This is what I am talking about. I do not think they should call anyone out of their name; however, if you are going to call one, call them all or NONE AT ALL (otherwise it is going to look racist and bias).

[elusive moonwalker]

the problem sems to be that ppl dont know the origins of the nickanme J.ac.ko. so take it the wrong way. if its used in america as a way to insult mj then fine thats america but thats not how its used in the uk or what the nickname is about so im not sure how ppl can can come to the opinion that its insulting when the name on its own never has been to either mj or the millions of other jacksons that get called it

[terrell]

I guess it's because the media make it rhyme with wac*o. And that is nothing but insulting. By the way, to know if it is insulting or not... just picture yourself meeting Michael... Would you say : 'J*cko, I love you so much' ?:no:
Great point. But I am sure Michael would smile at KING OF POP. And like I said, Macca is used to praise Paul and Paul has NEVER complained about it. If Paul complains about it and say it offends him, I think it should be respected and Paul's feelings should be respected and people should stop calling him "macca".

[Chris Davo]

Well, I am American and I speak from experience and from what I see and Michael is called this mess out of racism here. There has been discussion about it some black talk shows here. I do not know why the British media named him this crap in the 80's (I still find them to be bias compare what they do to others. I am curious to know what is Amy Winehouse called in the British prss everytime they talk about her due to what is said about her?). Again, the name just need to be dropped.

Nothing rhymes with Winehouse and you can't really shorten it to anything :P She does get a rough time with the press though.

[terrell]

the problem sems to be that ppl dont know the origins of the nickanme J.ac.ko. so take it the wrong way. if its used in america as a way to insult mj then fine thats america but thats not how its used in the uk or what the nickname is about so im not sure how ppl can can come to the opinion that its insulting when the name on its own never has been to either mj or the millions of other jacksons that get called it
Again, even Michael hates it so it does NOT matter what anyone else think. His name is Michael JACKSON and that is what they should call him, regardless if you are in the United States, Europe, Asian, Africa, Central America, etc. It is funny these media people will call him "self proclaim" KIng of Pop, something that makes him look good, but do not pause to call him J A C K O.

[elusive moonwalker]

And like I said, Macca is used to praise Paul
no its not, anyone whos name begins with mac in the UK gets called macca by friends etc. it has no conatations one way or the other . like i said b4 it seems some dont understand the meanings of these nicknames because of culteral difference and that why theres all the issues as whether its ment as a negative or not

[elusive moonwalker]

Again, even Michael hates it so it does NOT matter what anyone else think
yes we know mj hates it. but that doesnt have anything to do with what i was saying. i was pointing out the real meaning of the name

[terrell]

Nothing rhymes with Winehouse and you can't really shorten it to anything :P She does get a rough time with the press though.
There are names that rhymes with her name (Wino- to apply she is a person who over drinks-whick Amy does a great deal along with using drugs if she is going to be given a nickname based on her image. She even got a song about drinking). Again, I do not agree with calling anyone out of their name no matter what they may or may not be doing; however, if you going to call one, call all or none at all.

[terrell]

yes we know mj hates it. but that doesnt have anything to do with what i was saying. i was pointing out the real meaning of the name
I understand but that does not matter in the end. If it offends, it offends. that is just like the N word or the B word to a woman. Some people use the N word and the B word to mean something else;however, overall, those words offend some people no matter who uses it.

[Chris Davo]

If the media start calling her Wino we all know where they got it from. Jokes, lol. :)

[terrell]

no its not, anyone whos name begins with mac in the UK gets called macca by friends etc. it has no conatations one way or the other . like i said b4 it seems some dont understand the meanings of these nicknames because of culteral difference and that why theres all the issues as whether its ment as a negative or not
then it is just best to call people what they were named and what they like; then you won't have these issues.

[terrell]

If the media start calling her Wino we all know where they got it from. Jokes, lol. :)
And that would be disrespectful to her but I doubt the media will it. they have not done it this far. Comics have joked and called her that name in the name of comedy; but NOT the media nor should they call her it.

[DuranDuran]

If the game is there the card will be played. If you do not want the card played, get rid of the dam game. I do think race plays a part in this. Soceity has certain presumption about blacks and other groups. I do not have time to explain it because it will take too long. I doubt you are black and know the experiences of this so you are not qualified to tell someone about it. Go back and even look when Michael was talking about tommy M and when Michael was in Harlem back in 2002 with Al Sharpton. Michael hit on the same thing. So if you have a problem with my comment, then you have a bigger problem with Michael. As for the word Macca, if that was use to offend Paul, I would say the same thing; however that is used to UPLIFT Paul and Paul has never be against the word; however Michael has and he has even spoke out on it (even the nasty Tom Sneddon use it to degrade Michael).
Jerry Lee Lewis is white and is commonly nicknamed "The Killer" by the press, which he doesn't like. He was named that because one of his wives mysteriously died, and the name insinuates Jerry did it. And what about all the Elvis fat jokes and dying on the toilet jokes? The media makes fun of a lot of people. James Brown, Ike Turner, the Debarge family, & Flavor Flav have done all kinds of crazy stuff and has not been given names, so race has nothing to do with it.

[troubleman84]

^^ Name-calling is not nice if you're black, white or polka-dot.

[~* White Chocolate *~]

^^ Name-calling is not nice if you're black, white or polka-dot.

Amen.

[MJJSupport]

Has McCartney nothing else to say?

[terrell]

Jerry Lee Lewis is white and is commonly nicknamed "The Killer" by the press, which he doesn't like. He was named that because one of his wives mysteriously died, and the name insinuates Jerry did it. And what about all the Elvis fat jokes and dying on the toilet jokes? The media makes fun of a lot of people. James Brown, Ike Turner, the Debarge family, & Flavor Flav have done all kinds of crazy stuff and has not been given names, so race has nothing to do with it.
Wrong. Jerry Lee is barely talked about and I do not see any media calling him "The killer" in MAINSTREAM media everytime he is spoken about like they do with J A C K O. As for the others you are talking about, sorry but are no where near "name called" like Mike not even Elvis in MAINSTREAm. I could careless what tabloids say but when you get even so to be reliable news outlets like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and other outlet calling you out of yiur name something is up. And I am sorry, Flavor Flav, Debarge Family, etc has not reached the success of Michael and some people have a problem when a black man reaches a certain level of success. My comment still stand that alot of this is race based. Again, if you are not black to know the sign, you can not speak on it. Like I said, even Michael said this in 2002. Enuf said.

[DuranDuran]

Wrong. Jerry Lee is barely talked about and I do not see any media calling him "The killer" in MAINSTREAM media everytime he is spoken about like they do with J A C K O. As for the others you are talking about, sorry but are no where near "name called" like Mike not even Elvis in MAINSTREAm. I could careless what tabloids say but when you get even so to be reliable news outlets like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and other outlet calling you out of yiur name something is up. And I am sorry, Flavor Flav, Debarge Family, etc has not reached the success of Michael and some people have a problem when a black man reaches a certain level of success. My comment still stand that alot of this is race based. Again, if you are not black to know the sign, you can not speak on it. Like I said, even Michael said this in 2002. Enuf said.
I am of color. I don't care for terms like black or African American. What's your point? What does any of this have to do with Paul McCartney? Sorry, not everything is a conspiracy against MJ.

[troubleman84]

Terrell, let's all of us just squash it. We're not getting nowhere with this debate. It is what it is, let this thread die, SHEESH! :lol:

[terrell]

I am of color. I don't care for terms like black or African American. What's your point? What does any of this have to do with Paul McCartney? Sorry, not everything is a conspiracy against MJ.
It does not matter if you like the terms black or AA or not, that is what it is for those to desire to call themself such. Period. So what is your point for say that? The name J A C K O came up in the topic and it was discussed. End of story. As for a conspiracy, who said anything about a conspiracy? I will and I will continue to say what I have say when it comes to calling Michael out of his name. I do not live denial and I do not live to please others in what I think about issues. Again, it is bias to call Michael J A C K O.

[terrell]

Terrell, let's all of us just squash it. We're not getting nowhere with this debate. It is what it is, let this thread die, SHEESH! :lol:
I know, I let is die (unless someone response to me). But again, it is over with.:clapping:

[benscarr]

Wow :mellow: What a bitter, whiney, a-hole. MJ bought those songs fair and square. MJ has made alot of money off those...he had an oppurtinity and he took it. Too bad Paul was not as good a business man as Michael.
He is so bitter and it is annoying.
Also, if MJ has ignored his calls or letters. It is probably cause Paul acted bitter and rude about it I bet. Who wants to listen to that??

Like Michael said. Sorry Paul.. its sad and all... but it is business and it was a SMART move.

Good post, I agree with everything you have said.

Paul McCartney's impersonation of Michael is crap. He just sounds like Paul McCartney with a high pitched voice.

Although I feel sympathy for Paul, with Michael once a close friend buying The Beatles songs. I feel his speaking in public about it and his feelings about Michael is very low. This is a man who couldn't take it when John Lennon was talking very negatively (and I guess a lot of it true) about McCartney after The Beatles broke up. It's strange how Michael's good friends Yoko Ono and Sean Lennon (John Lennon's wife and son), don't speak badly about Michael in public, and still speak highly of him when asked.

I guess Paul McCartney isn't as sharp a business man as Michael in every sense of the word. Including personal finances, ie McCartnety's ex wife Heather Mills swindled McCartney out of £ millions from their marriage, and sold stories to the media during their high profile divorce. Debbie Rowie got a few $ million from Michael, yet he's legally kept her in her place by making an agreement where she can't talk to the media.

[Vard]

I dont think it was trans racial, it was high pitched tone of MJ, but, the fact that he (Mccartney) is always complaining is quite horrid, why? this ex-beatle has a LOT of money he does not need any more money, come on!, he is just trying to make MJ look like a thief or something, MJ has given through his life a lot of money and care, and attention to the ones in need, and graced ill kids with his presence, cause, at the time he did this stuff (appearing in hospital with his trademark cloth, the fedora, it might sound superfitial, but MJ was magical to the kids they felt better, he still magical but he isolate now, i guess he is too afraid cause of the media jokes and bad publicity, he should ignored them, but he doesnt, dont ask why cause i dont know) children adored him, now its different cause the media has made MJ a monster and kids dont believe in innocence anymore, only Michael changing the acctitud can change this, ignoring the bad comments and jokes cause they will always do it. Anyways the occult desire of every solo artist, in this case the ex beatle guy, is to be an historical FIGURE like MJ, I mean MJ trademarks are unique, his high pitched voice, the way he dresses, his music, his dance, his very way of talking and act are so personal, that some musicians are a little jealous, and that in the end is like a hide even to them, adoration about the artist they talk a little bad about, but i dont think he was talking bad( well a little) of Michael i think he just wants to talk about him

[DuranDuran]

http://i41.tinypic.com/1zzpeuo.jpg

[dangerous2000watts]

What's the point of this article?
So do I have to say "Poor Paul" or somethig?
I don't understand why he keeps talking about the songs he sold to Michael decades ago.

[8701girl]

I dont understand either dangerous2000watts!

[athina_livadi]

Pointless...

[Roxanne]

mccartney sucks big time. hes so uncool and phoney.

[friend]

It does not matter if you like the terms black or AA or not, that is what it is for those to desire to call themself such. Period. So what is your point for say that? The name J A C K O came up in the topic and it was discussed. End of story. As for a conspiracy, who said anything about a conspiracy? I will and I will continue to say what I have say when it comes to calling Michael out of his name. I do not live denial and I do not live to please others in what I think about issues. Again, it is bias to call Michael J A C K O.

terrell i agree with everything you've posted on. There is no comparison of what has been done to Michael and his name with anyone else. All of the names presented as examples of those who have undergone same treatment don't even come close. No one else is referred to by a derogatory name that is a mainstream, recognizable, household brand, the way the media has done to Michael. The origins of the name were not kind either. They came originally from a UK tabloid. They did not turn the Whacko to rhyme with *****, as his name is not *****, but Jackson, as he himself has said. They changed his name Jackson to ***** so that it rhymed with Whacko, and the intention is clear. As for Paul being called Macca, that is something I have never even heard until this article came out. Even the Macca association with Paul is not widely recognizable, perhaps only to those who are his fans or who closely follow the music industry. If I'd heard the reference only without any prompt to Paul, I'd have assumed that it was a misspelling for Mecca, and not understood the context at all, wondering what it had to do with Mecca, and how come it was spelled wrong. ***** however needs no prompt. The media has done their branding job to the extent you could probably ask an elementary aged child who is *****, and they could probably answer you. It is very sad what has occurred, and the roots are prejudice for the reasons you've already gone into great detail about, so I will not rehash. Just wanted you to know your comments do not fall on deaf ears. I understand the mainstream public who are not fans to the extent of joining fan forums and following every Michael Jackson official public statement and so on being brainwashed by mainstream media where they get all their garbage they regard as news, but it is disconcerting when even the fans who do follow him closely, still fall prey and are not understanding what you are speaking on. I'm glad you spoke up.

[MJFanForeverAndEver]

terrell i agree with everything you've posted on. There is no comparison of what has been done to Michael and his name with anyone else. All of the names presented as examples of those who have undergone same treatment don't even come close. No one else is referred to by a derogatory name that is a mainstream, recognizable, household brand, the way the media has done to Michael. The origins of the name were not kind either. They came originally from a UK tabloid. They did not turn the Whacko to rhyme with *****, as his name is not *****, but Jackson, as he himself has said. They changed his name Jackson to ***** so that it rhymed with Whacko, and the intention is clear. As for Paul being called Macca, that is something I have never even heard until this article came out. Even the Macca association with Paul is not widely recognizable, perhaps only to those who are his fans or who closely follow the music industry. If I'd heard the reference only without any prompt to Paul, I'd have assumed that it was a misspelling for Mecca, and not understood the context at all, wondering what it had to do with Mecca, and how come it was spelled wrong. ***** however needs no prompt. The media has done their branding job to the extent you could probably ask an elementary aged child who is *****, and they could probably answer you. It is very sad what has occurred, and the roots are prejudice for the reasons you've already gone into great detail about, so I will not rehash. Just wanted you to know your comments do not fall on deaf ears. I understand the mainstream public who are not fans to the extent of joining fan forums and following every Michael Jackson official public statement and so on being brainwashed by mainstream media where they get all their garbage they regard as news, but it is disconcerting when even the fans who do follow him closely, still fall prey and are not understanding what you are speaking on. I'm glad you spoke up.

You spoke my mind. I agree with you.:clapping:

[144,000]

You spoke my mind. I agree with you.:clapping:

i do, too, because they made it 'legit', by using it in mainstream media JUST BECAUSE he hates it.
so, you can no longer tell the difference between a report and an editorial, wnen it comes to MJ. it's worth bellyaching over. eternal envy, on their part. he is the first to get this massive slam/slander treatment. they feel he won't sue them. anyone else would sue for all kinds of stuff if it were happening to them at this magnitude. they DO sue for a lot less, so it's obviously worth talking about. and it's been happening too long, so there is obviously a juvenile mentality, teaching our elementary age kids, while they are in school, being taught not to bully one another. and the media is the teacher. so it's detrimental.

[ruchie]

It's been 24 years of more since the purchase of that Catalog.I love both men but Paul has to get over it because he bid lower than Mike,I know some songs will comeback to him but not all,as long as Michael has poccession. Paul will have to continue shaking his little ass(As John refers to Elvis) and Sing the songs that made him famous while Mike makes his money for the use of the songs.It's across the board when it comes to any Beatle song that is published and The person and persons who are singing them. Whatever the comment,I don't think Paul would get that far without knowing someone will get wind of it and it gets back to Michael.
Paul's life is a mess since after Linda's death and Heather Golddiggin him and Now He's suppose to be datiing a women who is one of the heads of The NYC MTA.The Same MTA that is raising My Transit fare. Damn.I need a car bad. but He's dating her because she has alot of money but she could take him to the cleaners too.
Life is funny isn't it ?especially when you should have saved that money and got those songs yourself.I always believed that since you composed the songs and perforned them.You should own your work. It's ashame that there are people out there shafting Artist today just to make money off of them when they don't own their own work and they worked so hard trying to give out good music for the public to hear.And they get half the credit not full credit if they owned the songs outright.

[Safira]

omg thats foolish behavior.. *edit :)*

[benscarr]

mccartney sucks big time. hes so uncool and phoney.

He was cool in the 1960's, but I agree he's a phoney in that he's not as nice a person as he projects himself to be. The more he talks about Michael, the more I understand why John Lennon hated him for a number of years after The Beatles broke up.



omg thats foolish behavior.. but I kinda understand he's feelings though. But I dont really get how Michael could buy this in the first place? Poul must have said OK for it first because originally the songs was he's property was'nt it?

sorry if I ask an old question ^^

Originally the songs were the property of John Lennon and Paul McCartney, but that was in the very early 1960's when pop stars didn't know anything about the business side of music, where all the real money is made. Lennon & McCartney signed their publishing rights over to ATV without knowing what they were doing, and what music publishing was.

Michael bought ATV almost 20yrs after Lennon & McCartney signed their rights away, so by that time they The Beatles songs hadn't been belonged to Paul McCartney for years.

Paul McCartney never said to Michael it was OK, for him to buy The Beatles songs. Michael told McCartney he was going to buy his songs, and McCartney said he thought Michael was joking. So when Michael bought The Beatles songs, McCartney was taking completely by surprise.

Michael has said he bought the songs because he is a Beatles fan (as well documented from very early Jackson 5 interviews from as young as 11yrs old), and saw it as a good business move (which is has been). My guess is Paul McCartney wants to get far bigger royalties from ATV than he should get. And I guess from interviews McCartney has done about Michael Jackson and The Beatles songs, that this is the major Michael and Paul are no longer friends. The last time I'm aware Michael and Paul met was in 1989, at a Paul McCartney concert which is where Paul is supposed to have asked Michael for a pay rise. Michael is "rumored" (this is not a fact) to have agreed, then ignored McCartney's requests afterwords.

[Vard]

http://i41.tinypic.com/1zzpeuo.jpg
Really? why?