Latest on MJJC

Michael and the Beatles catalogue mentioned...

Bob George said:
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.
Click to expand...
Paul did not buy them for $20 mil then. Do you honestly think that paul would buy those songs now for the asking price?
Another thing. I would bet my last dollar that those songs wouldn't have worth that much if MJ hadn't owned them. Noboldy woud have been talking about their ownership and nobody would have been talking about the beatles songs. MJ's name on those songs are what has made them so priceless, as with everything else MJ owns, Neverland included.
 
most of the songs sung by Paul are written by him and visa versa.

I would like to know why he didn't bid for them himself.... i find it strange.


that's a bit harsh Datsymay, those songs would be worth just as much, IMO.......... alot of them are GOLD!
 
Last edited:
Yeh but Michael also went against Paul's wishes and allowed Beatles songs to be used in commercials. I know he's the publisher and he can do what he wants, but it'd be nice if he respected Paul's wishes. They are his songs after all. I'm not at all implying MJ is a bad guy for owning the songs. But don't you think it's Paul who really deserves them?
 
Bob George said:
Yeh but Michael also went against Paul's wishes and allowed Beatles songs to be used in commercials. I know he's the publisher and he can do what he wants, but it'd be nice if he respected Paul's wishes. They are his songs after all. I'm not at all implying MJ is a bad guy for owning the songs. But don't you think it's Paul who really deserves them?
Click to expand...

true... but i'm pretty sure Paul has used his own material recently in commercials. Does he have the same policy for material he owns?
 
Bob George said:
Yeh but Michael also went against Paul's wishes and allowed Beatles songs to be used in commercials. I know he's the publisher and he can do what he wants, but it'd be nice if he respected Paul's wishes. They are his songs after all. I'm not at all implying MJ is a bad guy for owning the songs. But don't you think it's Paul who really deserves them?
Click to expand...
Michael bought the songs. They were his. Paul had no say in the matter and it was rude of Paul to tell Michael what he should do with his songs. I wonder if Paul allowed Buddy Holly's family to dictate to him how he should use Boddy's songs. I think Paul has a problem. He needs to sit down,. He ruined a good friendship between him and Michael because of envy. Yoko Ono was very happy for MJ to own those songs. She owned half he say.
 
Last edited:
Datsymay said:
Michael bought the songs. They were his. Paul had no say in the matter and it was rude of Paul to tell Michael what he should do with his songs. I wonder if Paul allowed Buddy Holly's family to dictate to him how he should use Boddy's songs. I think Paul has a problem. He needs to sit down,. He ruined a good friendship between him and Michael because of envy. Yoko Ono was very happy for MJ to own those songs. She owned half he say.
Click to expand...

that was the point i was getting at.
 
I don't think it's rude at all for the guy who wrote the songs, created the song to say how he thinks the songs should be used. I actually think it'd be rude for the publisher to not respect those wishes especially in the case of songs like the Beatles' songs that have so much respect that could easily be tarnished by a TV commercial. And I don't agree that Yoko Ono should have half the say, since she's not her late husband. If Lennon was alive, he's have half the say. He's not, so Paul has all the say IMO since he's the only remaining writer of the Lennon/McCartney songs.
 
Datsymay said:
Michael bought the songs. They were his. Paul had no say in the matter and it was rude of Paul to tell Michael what he should do with his songs. I wonder if Paul allowed Buddy Holly's family to dictate to him how he should use Boddy's songs. I think Paul has a problem. He needs to sit down,. He ruined a good friendship between him and Michael because of envy. Yoko Ono was very happy for MJ to own those songs. She owned half he say.
Click to expand...

The Beatles and Paul lovers always ignore the 1,000 songs that Paul owns by other writers that he does with them whatever he pleases, for example Paul owns a college theme song of a college in the same state i live in the USA and nobody complains about that, much of the criticism leveled at Michael is rooted in racism, ignorance, and bitterness about this black man being smart enough to own part of the industry that has pimped and profited off of so many dead and broken black stars for so long.
 
Bob George said:
I don't think it's rude at all for the guy who wrote the songs, created the song to say how he thinks the songs should be used. I actually think it'd be rude for the publisher to not respect those wishes especially in the case of songs like the Beatles' songs that have so much respect that could easily be tarnished by a TV commercial. And I don't agree that Yoko Ono should have half the say, since she's not her late husband. If Lennon was alive, he's have half the say. He's not, so Paul has all the say IMO since he's the only remaining writer of the Lennon/McCartney songs.
Click to expand...
A builde4r builds a house and sells it. The buyer purchases the house and furnishes it. The builder has no say in how the house is furnished and is a tresspasser if he sets foot on the premises withou an invite. The same applies to Paul and those songs. $47 million is not to be scoffed at. You don't spend that amount of mony to be told what to do with your aqusition. Should a painter of art tell the buyer where he should display his posession, Paul and paul's fans need to let it go. It doesn't belong to Paul. He wants to sell his cake and have it.It belongs to Michael Jackson. the proud owner.:)
 
I don't think you can compare a house with a collection of songs, especially the Beatles songs. Unless that house held sentimental value.
 
hopespringseternal said:
The Beatles and Paul lovers always ignore the 1,000 songs that Paul owns by other writers that he does with them whatever he pleases, for example Paul owns a college theme song of a college in the same state i live in the USA and nobody complains about that, much of the criticism leveled at Michael is rooted in racism, ignorance, and bitterness about this black man being smart enough to own part of the industry that has pimped and profited off of so many dead and broken black stars for so long.
Click to expand...

I wasn't going to go there as it is POLITICALLY INCORRECT to do so now a days. But Yes, I do agree with you.:)
 
Bob George said:
I don't think you can compare a house with a collection of songs, especially the Beatles songs. Unless that house held sentimental value.
Click to expand...
And what do you do with the property that hoild sentimental value? Do you sell it, take the money and winge about it?:)
 
Bob George said:
Buddy Holly's a bit too dead to be requesting that his songs not be used in commercials.
Click to expand...

that's not the point, don't complain about how other people use their bought songs when you use yours the way you want.

it's just a bit arrogant.. like the Beatles material is above everyone elses.....i know a few Buddy Holly fans who wouldn't like his material in commmercials.
 
I think if it's a house that holds real sentimental value, and I someone acquired it, I'd respect the wishes of the person whole built it. Like if it belonged to a family who all built it together years ago and it was such a special experience that brought them all together, I wouldn't knock it down if they wanted it to remain standing. I'd sell it back to them if they wanted it.

The Lennon/McCartney music that Michael owns is the songbook of the 20th century. It's invaluable. No matter who owns or how much they paid for it, those songs will always belong to Paul, the only remaining member of the Lennon/McCartney songwriting team. He should definitely be able to say if those songs are allowed to be sold out to TV commercials and American Idol or not.
 
Bob George said:
I think if it's a house that holds real sentimental value, and I someone acquired it, I'd respect the wishes of the person whole built it. Like if it belonged to a family who all built it together years ago and it was such a special experience that brought them all together, I wouldn't knock it down if they wanted it to remain standing. I'd sell it back to them if they wanted it.

The Lennon/McCartney music that Michael owns is the songbook of the 20th century. It's invaluable. No matter who owns or how much they paid for it, those songs will always belong to Paul, the only remaining member of the Lennon/McCartney songwriting team. He should definitely be able to say if those songs are allowed to be sold out to TV commercials and American Idol or not.
Click to expand...

is part... alot of great songwriters through the 20-60's are being forgotten there.
 
There's no collection of songs more important to 20th century music than the Beatles' songs. No Leiber-Stoller, not the Corporation, not anybody.
 
Bob George said:
There's no collection of songs more important to 20th century music than the Beatles' songs. No Leiber-Stoller, not the Corporation, not anybody.
Click to expand...

That mindset is purely subjective too, personally the songs Smokey Robinson wrote are more meaningful to me than any Beatles song, i would never arrogantly suggest that only a certain songwriters work is above anyone else's that's just beyond obnoxious.
 
i just say it's hard to put that label on it.... some might say Bob Dylan.

and in the way of groundbreaking alot of the songwriters from the Great American Songbook period.
 
Bob George said:
There's no collection of songs more important to 20th century music than the Beatles' songs. No Leiber-Stoller, not the Corporation, not anybody.
Click to expand...
And who are they important to bob, cause they are not important to me. The whole world was not singing the beatles, but they were singing MOTOWN> The beatles songs were songs for a generation of people who were celebrating being a hippie. Black people the world over were still fighting for their liberation. We were not hearing he Beatles. We were hearing James Brown and Marvin Gaye. So Please. The world is full of people who were disfranchised because of racism.,They were not into drugs and free loving. Their was a second movenent gong on. Vietnam, jessie Jackson ect. So NO. The beatles songs did not reach everybody. More like some middle class white europeans who were in a rebellious mood. I never liked the beatles songs. But I iked Motown.
Beatles sonmgs might be important to you, it is not to me.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but the black population of America was just a small percentage of the world. UK, Australia, Germany, Japan, France, people all around the world were rocking to the Beatles, including African Americans and Motown artists who drew a lot of inspiration from Lennon/McCartney and vice versa. But anyway, how'd the argument get to a black/white thing? I thought this was about people who wrote important music like the Beatles' music deserving some say over how that music is used.
 
Bob George said:
Sorry, but the black population of America was just a small percentage of the world. UK, Australia, Germany, Japan, France, people all around the world were rocking to the Beatles, including African Americans and Motown artists who drew a lot of inspiration from Lennon/McCartney and vice versa. But anyway, how'd the argument get to a black/white thing? I thought this was about people who wrote important music like the Beatles' music deserving some say over how that music is used.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence that the rest of the world was rocking to the beatles. The beatles were more popular in America that they were in Britain. Even the Jacksons were more popular in Britain. The beatles were known for thier over indulgence on drugs and sex. Britain was still very stiff and did not condone their behaviour. The Jacksons were far more popular. Yes, since Jon Lennon died the beatles are now considered legends, but they were not always considered so.
MJ owning the beatles catalogue has given the songs more value due to so many wanting to take them off him. It is ironic but true.
 
Of course the world was rocking to the Beatles. They are the biggest selling act of all-time and the US accounts for just a part of that total. They were very popular world wide, and very popular in Britain especially. Everywhere they went they drew huge crowds and sold out audiences.

But back to the catalogue. It depends what you mean by making the songs more valuable, because IMO allowing them to be used in TV commercials decreases their value as songs (but increases their value as products).
 
Bob George said:
Of course the world was rocking to the Beatles. They are the biggest selling act of all-time and the US accounts for just a part of that total. They were very popular world wide, and very popular in Britain especially. Everywhere they went they drew huge crowds and sold out audiences.

But back to the catalogue. It depends what you mean by making the songs more valuable, because IMO allowing them to be used in TV commercials decreases their value as songs (but increases their value as products).
Click to expand...
The world was not rocking to no beatles. They were just a hyppie band and not everyone was into hyppies. Most of their records sold was in europe and America. In the 70's, they were the only ones buying misic anyway. Rest of the world was happy listening to radio and going to dance hall. Most peolple in the world was listening to Motown cause you could dance to that. Beatles was never a world music. It was music for the hippies.
 
Bob George said:
Yes, and that's why you'll find their music in all the school text books for music next to Beethoven and Tchaikovsky.
Click to expand...
Whose text book? Where Australia? Do you think the Japnese chose it? Do you thing the middle eastern countries choice it? Who do you think choice those songs? Have they got Motown songs in there, cause motown sound was the UNIVERSAL sound of the 60's and 70's not beatles.
 
Last edited:
I don't know where the books were published, just that I remember having a lot of text books for high school music where you turn to the chapter for 20th century music and it's all about the Beatles. It's funny that who don't get the significance of the Beatles when you yourself are comparing them (one group) to an entire empire of artists and groups (Motown). Doesn't that show their significance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top