HIStoric, I understand this is your view however; the Beatles' music is not considered sacred by all others and do not see such songs being licensed as disrespectful. Michael's music was used in commercials while he was living and he was aware of the benefits of such. His music continues to be used commercially after his passing. It would be interesting to know what Sir Paul's views are now regarding that as it did not have the negative results many felt it would have (including Sir Paul).
Naturally I understand that not everyone holds The Beatles music as 'sacred' and I don't expect them to. I don't think you need to even like the Beatles to agree with their point of view. I just merely think that if someone buys the art of someone else, they should respect that artist's wishes. I suppose it's like what happened between Weird Al and MJ with Black or White. He asked Michael if he could parody that song (and legally he had every right to) but Michael said no. Weird Al was respectful and, upon the wishes of the artist, didn't make a parody of it. I feel that's how Michael should've acted in this situation. Just respect the artists, you know?
I am aware of the benefits (and there were some I'm sure) but I am also aware of the potential disadvantages it holds too. I feel that The Beatles were just mainly afraid that their music would start to become commercialised a lot more. George Harrison said
"If it's allowed to happen, every Beatles song ever recorded is going to be advertising women's underwear and sausages. We've got to put a stop to it in order to set a precedent. Otherwise it's going to be a free-for-all. It's one thing when you're dead, but we're still around! They don't have any respect for the fact that we wrote and recorded those songs, and it was our lives." and I can understand that as they were against doing commercials from the very beginning.
It's not that I see the music as 'too sacred' to be used, I'm just merely siding with the artists who worked hard to create this art. Nothing more, nothing less. I'd do it for any artist, so long as the request is reasonable and I believe this request is. That's all it comes down to for me and if someone still doesn't agree, then well ya know, so be it.
I too would be keen to know Paul's current views on the situation. I think he would still be against the use in commercials, but given that I think Him, Ringo and the Estates of John/George now have to give permission on top of Sony/MJ's Estate, he probably isn't that worried now. It seems he got over Michael's buying of the catalogue in the few years after it happened.
By the way, Michael also returned publishing rights to Sly Stone and Little Richard in tribute to them because it meant that much to him. That is not someone who is disrespectful of other artists.
That's great but being respectful to one artist doesn't cancel out the fact he was disrespectful in this particular case. However, I want to make it clear that I'm glad Michael did get the rights because on the whole he did respect them more than some random guy in a suit would. He understood how important this music was. Minus the whole Revolution/Nike fiasco, I am happy with MJ's treatment of the rights and feel that he was respectful on the whole.
