Paul McCartney settles with Sony/ATV over Beatles music rights

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

We are aware that's not how Paul himself speaks but every time he's asked about Michael he does that ridiculous baby voice. Again, I insist, is it necessary to do that cheap impersonation? There's no other Michael Jackson who bought the Beatles catalog. Chris Tucker has told jokes about Michael on many occasions and when he impersonates him, Chris doesn't make him sound like a baby, he's better than that cliché.

 

[HIStoric]

You might think it's funny or cute. I just find it classless and disrespectful.

It's one thing to enhance someone's strong regional dialect or accent but another to make them sound like Mickey Mouse.

If he doesn't want people imitating him in a fake high pitch voice, maybe don't speak with a fake high pitch voice for years on end? Michael really has no one to blame but himself for that. I really don't think it's a big deal, if at all.

We are aware that's not how Paul himself speaks but every time he's asked about Michael he does that ridiculous baby voice. Again, I insist, is it necessary to do that cheap impersonation? There's no other Michael Jackson who bought the Beatles catalog. Chris Tucker has told jokes about Michael on many occasions and when he impersonates him, Chris doesn't make him sound like a baby, he's better than that cliché.

Im listening to Chris Tucker's latest skit on MJ from his Netflix special and he's highering his pitch when talking as Michael. Same with Eddie Murphy. Two figures that Michael Jackson was good friends with. As I said earlier, it's a caricature of him.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Chris doesn't sound like a baby Mickey Mouse, nor does like a caricature. If Michael sounded silly to you, so does Paul as well as childish for doing it during 30+ years. Maybe it was genuinely funny the first few times but after all those years is irritating.

 

[HIStoric]

Chris doesn't sound like a baby Mickey Mouse, nor does like a caricature. If Michael sounded silly to you, so does Paul as well as childish for doing it during 30+ years. Maybe it was genuinely funny the first few times but after all those years is irritating.

No, he doesn't because I know he's imitating someone. He's not trying to convince us that's his actual speaking voice. That's the key difference. If Paul started speaking like that normally, trying to convince us it's his actual voice then yeah I would think he sounds silly.

Donald Trump for example has a distinct voice and limited, repitive speaking manner. He sounds like a moron. When I hear comedians imitate his voice and replicate his limited and repitive speaking manner, I don't think they sound like a moron. I think Donald Trump sounds like a moron.

 

[8701girl]

If he doesn't want people imitating him in a fake high pitch voice, maybe don't speak with a fake high pitch voice for years on end? Michael really has no one to blame but himself for that. I really don't think it's a big deal, if at all.



Im listening to Chris Tucker's latest skit on MJ from his Netflix special and he's highering his pitch when talking as Michael. Same with Eddie Murphy. Two figures that Michael Jackson was good friends with. As I said earlier, it's a caricature of him.

Chris never does it in a mean sarcastic way!

 

[ChrisC]

If he doesn't want people imitating him in a fake high pitch voice, maybe don't speak with a fake high pitch voice for years on end? Michael really has no one to blame but himself for that. I really don't think it's a big deal, if at all.

Context is so very important. Something you're not really grasping.

 

[HIStoric]

Context is so very important. Something you're not really grasping.

Oh no, I'm understanding and grasping the context of how Paul feels against Michael and all that well enough, thank you very much. It doesn't change the fact that the high-pitch voice caricature started with Michael and he has absolutely no one else to blame but himself when people do it. That's it. There's no getting around that and as I've explained before, that to me is a key factor in regards to people using it.

It's for that reason, I am not against people using it when they impersonate him even if it is exaggerated as some of you are mentioning, because it's not unusual for caricatures to be exaggerated for comedic effect. The last interview I saw Paul doing where he told the story - the aforementioned Graham Norton one with Katy Perry - judging by his timing and the audience's reaction, he was ending the story the story in a comedic way. If it makes Michael sound silly and naive, well then that's just the unfortunate consequence of being a highly publicised public figure and trying to pass off a voice that makes you sound silly for years.

By this point we're going in circles and repeating ourselves over and over and over. You all know my opinion, I know yours, and I've stated mine many times. I've yet to find a good enough reason for it to change the way I see this issue, so with that and all due respect, peace out.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Paul has mocked him all those years and it doesn't make it ok regardless how he feels about him. I'll turn the tables, the only one to blame how he feels about Michael is Paul himself for being cheap. Michael bought the catalog fair and square.

 

[PoP]

My mom believed that if Paul hadn't shown that music catalogue and explained how it works to Michael, Michael would've gotten the catalogue and I agree. Paul never wanted to get it back because it was to pricey for him, but until Michael got it, Paul regreted it and wanted it back because Michael got it. I do like Paul I really do, but does he have to keep on complaining about Michael having the catalogue all these years? He needs to learn that Michael got it fair and square, if he gonna keep on whining and complaining about it, now who's acting like a sore loser now? That's what he's been acting like after that.

 

[ChrisC]

Oh no, I'm understanding and grasping the context of how Paul feels against Michael and all that well enough, thank you very much. It doesn't change the fact that the high-pitch voice caricature started with Michael and he has absolutely no one else to blame but himself when people do it. That's it. There's no getting around that and as I've explained before, that to me is a key factor in regards to people using it.

It's for that reason, I am not against people using it when they impersonate him even if it is exaggerated as some of you are mentioning, because it's not unusual for caricatures to be exaggerated for comedic effect. The last interview I saw Paul doing where he told the story - the aforementioned Graham Norton one with Katy Perry - judging by his timing and the audience's reaction, he was ending the story the story in a comedic way. If it makes Michael sound silly and naive, well then that's just the unfortunate consequence of being a highly publicised public figure and trying to pass off a voice that makes you sound silly for years.

By this point we're going in circles and repeating ourselves over and over and over. You all know my opinion, I know yours, and I've stated mine many times. I've yet to find a good enough reason for it to change the way I see this issue, so with that and all due respect, peace out.

It's you repeating yourself.

I'm not commenting on Michael's speaking voice (I happen to think Michael was a PR genius in the years you speak of but that's by the by). But the use of an impersonation when speaking overwhelmingly positively about a person has a different effect to when you do it when you're being asked to divulge some 'dirt' on a person and the details are negative - it works strongly as a communication device in that scenario. As I said before - lest I too repeat myself - to belittle, to degrade, to make a person seem niave and silly. It communicates that you feel that way and encourages others to this conclusion. I'm not for a second suggesting impersonations are completely off the table. But the context is so very important (ugh, repetition!).

The excuse you make for Paul is just such a cynical one, to me. The 'serves them right' mentality. It's just not how I'm wired.

 

[AliCat]

Linda McCartney's father was Lee Eastman, who was a New York City show business attorney. Eastman became McCartney's business manager shortly before the breakup of The Beatles while his son John represented McCartney during his 1970 lawsuit to legally dissolve the Beatles.

Eastman and his son successfully managed McCartney's solo career, leaving McCartney the wealthiest of the former Beatles. In 1984, McCartney cited one example of advice he received from Eastman:

“The music publishing I own is fabulous. Beautiful. I owe it all to Linda's dad Lee Eastman and her brother John. Linda's dad is a great business brain. He said originally, 'If you are going to invest, do it in something you know. If you invest in building computers or something, you can lose a fortune. Wouldn't you rather be in music? Stay in music.' I said, 'Yeah, I'd much rather do that.' So he asked me what kind of music I liked. And the first name I said was Buddy Holly. Lee got on to the man who owned Buddy Holly's stuff and bought that for me. So I was into publishing now."

McCartney's music publishing investments have paid off. In 1984, he estimated that half his income came from recording, and half from his music publishing business

I guess you could say, say, say the same with the relationship of Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson. Evidently, Paul was very fond of Michael!

 

[#MJforever57]

I hate it when ppls try to talk in Michael voice all the time their talk about Michael like they would say Michael would say it like this and they use his voice that makes me so mad use your own voice please.