Latest on MJJC

Michael and the Beatles catalogue mentioned...

yes, if I remember correctly Michael STOLE the Northern Songs catalogue for around $47 million :lol: that THIEF :lol:
Click to expand...

mikes a nice thief. he'd ransack you home then tidy it up for you before yougot back lol

and I'm actually not so sure Michael owns his own music. Not all of it anyway. I only found a few MJ songs, mostly from Invincible when I searched the Sony ATV website:
Click to expand...

mikes music comes under mijac publishing. he kept it seperate to the sony/atv. mijac contains about 800-1000 songs. not just his own but alot of other artists like sly stone/jackie wilson etc


I'm not sure if the Beatles ever owned their own music
Click to expand...

they sold the rights off to avoid paying taxes.think the cat had 2 previous owners b4 mj bought it Lou grade being the most famous.thats where the ATV name comes from
 
On the subject of Mike being greedy or a thief: i think I remember him owning a catelogue that included Lil' Richard's music at one time. And Michael gave Lil' Richard all his publishing rights back ... that creep of a guy michael :p
 
MJJChichi said:
On the subject of Mike being greedy or a thief: i think I remember him owning a catelogue that included Lil' Richard's music at one time. And Michael gave Lil' Richard all his publishing rights back ... that creep of a guy michael :p
Click to expand...
Did MJ actually give it back though, or did he give him something for it, cause unless LR is into publishing, he would not be able to do anything with it. He would still need a publisher for it. I could have sworn I saw LR listed on Atv/Sony catalogue.^_^
 
presume by giving it back they ment mj gave him the money the songs earned not literally gave him the songs.like you say you still need administrators and what not
 
like I said, i think i remember :lol:

let me look and see if I can recall-i-ficate the ac-shamal factoids with regardification to which I is speakifying
 
elusive moonwalker said:
presume by giving it back they ment mj gave him the money the songs earned not literally gave him the songs.like you say you still need administrators and what not
Click to expand...
yes, I think so too, cause LR wouldn't have had the wherewithall to distribute the songs himself. Maybe he gave him back the rights to claim songwriters royalties, like the beatles have, cause he probably lost all the rights to his songs and wasn't getting any royalies for it. I hear he was practically penniless, so this must have been a great help to him.:)
 
Maybe he gave him back the rights to claim songwriters royalties
Click to expand...

yeah thats what i read. dont you get so many points or something. that rings a bell
 
MJJChichi said:
like I said, i think i remember :lol:

let me look and see if I can recall-i-ficate the ac-shamal factoids with regardification to which I is speakifying
Click to expand...
:lol: What you said is exactly how it was reported. I remember going through the Sony/Atv list and saw Lottle Richard listed there and wondered what happened. :lol:
 
AllTheLovelyFlowers said:
You were right. People who love the Beatles have convinced themselves that Michael TOOK the catalogue from Paul. That is just the way they want to see it. But if they were to be honest with themselves, they would admit that....

1. Paul is a very selfish man. This is the same Paul who tried to switch John Lennon's names from the songwriting credits and put it last....he wanted it to be McCartney/Lennon instead of Lennon/McCartney. Upset Yoko. And poor Lennon had already died and couldn't defend himself.

2. If Michael was not black or if Sony were a 100% owner of this catalogue, no one, including the Beatles fans would be fussing about Sony TAKING Paul's music.

3. Paul had the first opportunity to buy back this music, but he thought that $20 mil was too much to pay for it. In other words, that music did not mean that much to him. If Yoko had first dibs because of Lennon, then Paul had first dibs too. She declined....and so did he. So Michael didn't take anything from Paul.

4. When Sir whatshisname, and Northern owned the songs, you never heard anyone in the media complaining, nor did you hear the Beatles fans complaining. But as soon as Michael got it, everybody jumped on Michael and started painting him as the worst friend. Michael is no worst than Paul. He saw an opportunity and he took it.
Click to expand...

i agree. it's simply business..the kind of business that people practice everyday for centuries. MJ is no different. he did it right..and with more courtesy than anyone in history. yoko has no problem with it. anybody on those messageboards who is asking the question, already knows that MJ rightfully owns that catalogue(is at the helm..owns bigger portion by himself than sony owns as a big collective staff, relatively speaking). that's why they asked..and that's why they are bitter out of envy.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
mikes a nice thief. he'd ransack you home then tidy it up for you before yougot back lol



mikes music comes under mijac publishing. he kept it seperate to the sony/atv. mijac contains about 800-1000 songs. not just his own but alot of other artists like sly stone/jackie wilson etc




they sold the rights off to avoid paying taxes.think the cat had 2 previous owners b4 mj bought it Lou grade being the most famous.thats where the ATV name comes from
Click to expand...

they sold them to keep from paying taxes? wellll..then they deserve to lose the rights. i can imagine if MJ did that to avoid taxes he would be considered a threat to national security.
 
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker said:
presume by giving it back they ment mj gave him the money the songs earned not literally gave him the songs.like you say you still need administrators and what not
Click to expand...

Michael gave Lil Richard back the rights to his songs and Sony/ATV is the adminstrator of the LR's catalog...but lil Ric is the owner of his songs...
 
That is the point that the fans need to consider. They sold their rights to their songs to evade paying taxes. They were tax dodgers. Also, MJ did not buy the cat from them They did not own it, hadn't done so for the longest time. They were payed for those songs. they cannot have it both ways.
 
macca was totight to buy the songs back he asked yoko to got into a partnership but she wasnt bothered
 
Bob George said:
That's not fair to say. Those songs mean the world to him. He was not stupid, or didn't care about the songs, he just didn't have enough money to buy them.
Click to expand...

No they did not! If those songs meant that much to Paul and the rest of the Beatles, then they would have paid the taxes on them. They were making a lot of money back then. I saw a documentary about the Beatles and how they got started. In that documentary, they talked about how the Beatles squandered their money when they first opened their Apple office in the UK. The first owner, Lou Grade, I believe, bought the thing from them under some plan of giving it back once they paid their taxes. But they never paid the taxes and this dude was allowed to keep the thing. Then he sold it to Northern.

Datsymay said:
Did MJ actually give it back though, or did he give him something for it, cause unless LR is into publishing, he would not be able to do anything with it. He would still need a publisher for it. I could have sworn I saw LR listed on Atv/Sony catalogue.^_^
Click to expand...

Michael GAVE Little Richard back his entire catalogue. Little Richard's catalogue is administered by Sony. This does not mean that Michael gets anything from it. It just happens to be administered by them.

vncwilliam said:
but i thought somebody said he was the richest artist in music.
Click to expand...

That SOMEBODY would be the media. And we have discovered through media reports that Paul is not worth no $1.6 BILLION like the media has been claiming for years. The divorce records show that he is only worth $400 mil. Even Heather tried to inflate his worth by claiming that he was worth $800 mil. Of course she was doing this to get the most money out of him.
 
Datsymay said:
That is the point that the fans need to consider. They sold their rights to their songs to evade paying taxes. They were tax dodgers. Also, MJ did not buy the cat from them They did not own it, hadn't done so for the longest time. They were payed for those songs. they cannot have it both ways.
Click to expand...

true.. the ironically the person who Michael really outbid for the Beatles Catalog is Martin Bandier and his investment partner...
 
AllTheLovelyFlowers said:
Michael GAVE Little Richard back his entire catalogue. Little Richard's catalogue is administered by Sony. This does not mean that Michael gets anything from it. It just happens to be administered by them.


.
Click to expand...

true
well, the songs has to administer by a music publishing company.. why not sony/atv
 
And even better, everyone knows how much control Michael has over the Beatles music. Now, I hear the Beatles songs on commercials, too. If you look on iTunes, there are barely any Beatles songs, maybe like 5 hits at the most. It goes to show how Paul probably regrets "losing" the catalog in the first place. And he goes around telling people that Michael outbid him. What a brat.....
 
On a related note, I was talking to some dude about this, and he goes, "MJ's a thief all right. He stole our hearts."

I punched him in the stomach for being a fairy. I had to watch a bunch of Chuck Norris movies to get the effect off of me.
 
[youtube]bNfnVQanfos&feature=related[/youtube]
paul said in some other interview too that mike told him 'I'm gonna buy your songs'.
 
Last edited:
I saw this interview with Paul on Youtube, and he admitted that he did not take Michael seriously when he said that he would place a bid. He said Michael even told him twice, and he still didn`t take him serious.
In my opinion, that is a clear case of Michael being almost too nice when it comes to this business. And its a clear sign of respect for Paul.
Paul should have been nice enough to clear this discussion a long time ago.
 
Datsymay said:
Paul said himself that Michael told him 2 times that he was going to bid on the catalogue and he just laughed at him. He probaly thought that the little singer and dancer from Gary Ind. would not be so ambitious.
Click to expand...

That's right; I had forgotten that part, which is very important. Not only did he have his chance to buy it and turned it down, Michael also informed him of what he was going to do. He was not or should not have been surprised by any of it. It's his own fault for not buying it and then not taking Michael seriously. Shame on him for trying to make anyone think differently.

Thanks to everyone for your responses and explanations so I have more knowledge to share with others on AI about this. ^_^
 
Well, Paul is lying about why they lost the catalogue in the first place. He is blaming it on some group of lawyers, but the real reason was outlined in a Beatles documentary that I saw on tv. The Beatles were not wise with their money at all. And when they created Apple Corps was when they started going down hill. They got behind on their taxes and that group of lawyers he is talking about had to think of a way to get them out since they had no money. The outcome was to find a buyer for the catalogue. And that is how they lost it. They had no choice but to sell it.

And I wish that all of you could have seen that documentary because I learned a lot of things about the Beatles that shocked me. Like John Lennon having a homosexual relationship with that gay manager they had who committed suicide. And Like Paul getting this girl pregnant and disowning his first son.
 
Last edited:
AllTheLovelyFlowers said:
No they did not! If those songs meant that much to Paul and the rest of the Beatles, then they would have paid the taxes on them.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of reasons why artists don't own their publishing rights. Most artists don't in fact. But it does not mean they don't care about their songs. Please. Those songs, that the Beatles' wrote, changes music forever, they were the music of a generation, those guys are damn proud of the music they made together. I've never seen someone sing a song with as much pride and love for that song that when Paul sings Yesterday, Hey Jude or Let It Be. I mean, c'mon, are you going to tell me that Paul McCartney does not love the songs he made?
 
Bob George said:
There's a lot of reasons why artists don't own their publishing rights. Most artists don't in fact. But it does not mean they don't care about their songs. Please. Those songs, that the Beatles' wrote, changes music forever, they were the music of a generation, those guys are damn proud of the music they made together. I've never seen someone sing a song with as much pride and love for that song that when Paul sings Yesterday, Hey Jude or Let It Be. I mean, c'mon, are you going to tell me that Paul McCartney does not love the songs he made?
Click to expand...
What is you argument. The beatles sold their songs to avoid taxes. They were up for sale again and the beatles failed to buy them back even when they were offered to them for less the price that they were sold for at auction, Michael Jackson bid for them on the open market AFTER he informed Paul TWICE that he was bidding for them.
The catalogue was up for sale. Anybody but Paul would have owned them because Paul did not bid for them. Michael Jackson payed $47 million of his hard earned money fir the catalogue. He did not steal ot he bought it. What is your problem BOB?
 
Last edited:
My arguments just that the Paul loves his songs. I'm not implying Michael stole Northern songs or anything. But I do think it'd be nice if he sold them to Paul. Although, that would be difficult now that the songs are merged with the Sony. It's going to be hard to isolate the Lennon/McCartney songs and then sell them to Paul.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top