Mister_Jay_Tee
Proud Member
Avid, maybe, but I've been listening to him since early childhood. I was only as old as his daughter when he passed.
Avid, maybe, but I've been listening to him since early childhood. I was only as old as his daughter when he passed.
Why do you come to this thread?Avid, maybe, but I've been listening to him since early childhood. I was only as old as his daughter when he passed.
We know why, he's their scapegoat. Ever since he bought the Beatles they've resented him. And if he was still around, exerting any control, he'd absolutely have Robson and Safechuck in line.
Why do you come to this thread?
Because it pops up on the feed...Why do you come to this thread?
Yes, I do. So does anybody with basic sense. Ever listen to "Money"? That's truly what the world's all about.How? He's 'dead'. He needs his lawyers to take care of it. But again, think different. WHY do they resent him? You really think buying a catalogue is the sole reason?
Yes, I do. So does anybody with basic sense. Ever listen to "Money"? That's truly what the world's all about.
Maybe they have support from people Michael couldn't get along with.So Beyonce and Jay Z are extremely wealthy, for what is known publicly much richer than Michael supposedly was. Why aren't they resented? Quite the contrary, they are celebrated and idolized. What is the difference?
They don't own any stakes in catalogues do they? There's also 20 years difference.So Beyonce and Jay Z are extremely wealthy, for what is known publicly much richer than Michael supposedly was. Why aren't they resented? Quite the contrary, they are celebrated and idolized. What is the difference?
They don't own any stakes in catalogues do they? There's also 20 years difference.
Beyonce is definitely an industry favorite with all their fluff pieces on her being the new King of Pop, I can't even believe you'd legitimately say her name in comparison to Michael. She's straight up had connections and favors, that's the difference.
And enmity with Paul McCartney. Who is basically celebrated as one of the four figureheads of the music in most people's circle. The Beatles are heralded as the greatest figures of music, remember? In general, Michael as a black figure, "owning" the greatest white talent the world has ever seen, that absolutely infuriated, specifically the British press. That started the utter smear campaign almost immediately, as bad if not worse than Princess Diana.The catalogue gave him power and riches you mean, no?
Well that was the Crux of it. But in truth, he had been, hurt by Michael seemingly deciding to buy it even despite not actually having a real interest apparently. That's what he's said at least once. And they've asked him about it multiple times, because of course they would.I thought Paul's beef with Michael wasn't that he owned the songs but that he gave permission for the songs to be used in adverts which The Beatles had always said they would never do. Quite a common idea for many of those 60's / 70's bands.
That's a weird take. I've never come across that version of the story before. I find it hard to believe Michael had no real interest in the catalogue. He already owned some music, afaik. And the catalogue didn't just include Beatles stuff, there was loads of other stuff in there, also.Well that was the Crux of it. But in truth, he had been, hurt by Michael seemingly deciding to buy it even despite not actually having a real interest apparently.
Well, he has the rights to the music now so he gets to decide if and when his songs get used commercially. Can't say I blame him for being a bit peeved with Michael. 'Revolution' doesn't belong in an advert.That's what he's said at least once. And they've asked him about it multiple times, because of course they would.
Anyway, he's pretty much fine now. He's over it. It's all worked out for him.
Understandably, McCartney was shocked and outraged by the insidious manoeuvring of MJ. He opined, “I think it’s dodgy to do something like that.” He concluded that it was like, “To be someone’s friend, and then buy the rug they’re standing on.”That's a weird take. I've never come across that version of the story before.
Yeah, I've seen that article before. I think this is a despicable write-up, quite frankly. I don't buy it at all, it is such a pile of crap. Most of the articles about this that I've seen push this version of the story.Understandably, McCartney was shocked and outraged by the insidious manoeuvring of MJ. He opined, “I think it’s dodgy to do something like that.” He concluded that it was like, “To be someone’s friend, and then buy the rug they’re standing on.”
McCartney finally got back what was truly his, and luckily for him, his unbelievably dated work with Jackson has been tossed into the paper shredder of memory.
How Michael Jackson betrayed Paul McCartney and the Beatles
Today August 14th marks the anniversary of the greatest betrayal in music. The day in 1985 that Michael Jackson bought the rights to the Beatles back catalogue.faroutmagazine.co.uk
Well, I may have downplayed it. Branca definitely was eyeing it. MJ highly valued the catalogue and of course loved the songs but I don't think he cared either of. Am I wrong?Couldn't see anything in that article about Michael not having any real interest in the catalogue. That's the bit I was calling weird.
I asked Mr Jay that because they tried to talk trash about me being here but here they be also lolOh is this thread 'verboten'?
Reportedly when Paul gave MJ the advise to “get into publishing” Mj responded something to the effect of, “Thanks for the advice…I’m gonna buy the Beetles” which was for sale and Paul couldn’t outbid MJ, who reportedly said (in response to criticisms), “I just did good business”Well, I may have downplayed it. Branca definitely was eyeing it. MJ highly valued the catalogue and of course loved the songs but I don't think he cared either of. Am I wrong?
From day 1 as I was already on here (MJJC) at the time it was unfolding in real-time and there was a LOT of different analyzing going on by all users.Because it pops up on the feed...
Anyway, like I said. I've been researching this stuff, admittedly a while. I had a phase. How long have you been researching this?
Nothing clownery about it, there is plenty of evidence that he hoaxed his death. Much more than him being dead.I used to believe Michael was alive but a lot of it was the doubt process that comes with grief itself. I wanted my idol and inspiration to still be here - because I wouldn't have blamed him if he were to do such a thing. But that faded with time - though, sometimes, I still have my clownery moments.
The lack of a decisive stance on what it means, mixed with lack of Hard, evidence, both are points against the hoax.
Share some?Who says there is a lack of hard evidence?
Share some?
I always saw people say they were in on it. And if I was to go for this, I'd say that too. Why wouldn't you tell them?Curious, for those who believe this death hoax. Do you believe that Michael tricked his family and made them go through the grief of losing a son/father/brother/uncle, or they are all "in on it?"
Curious, for those who believe this death hoax. Do you believe that Michael tricked his family and made them go through the grief of losing a son/father/brother/uncle, or they are all "in on it?"