The Michael/Paul McCartney/Beatles Catalog Story - What's the real story? [MERGED]

[ChrisC]

Re: Do you think it was wrong for Michael to take The Beatles Catalog away from Paul McCartney?

Did Paul say that thing about not being able to do the moonwalk? I remember seeing that somewhere in the 90s...

 

[KINGKONG]

Re: Do you think it was wrong for Michael to take The Beatles Catalog away from Paul McCartney?

MJ was smart to buy the beatles catalog. This is why racist are mad and saying anything to make MJ look like he lied to Paul to buy the catalog behind his back, but it was just a smart buisness deal. A black man made a great buisness deal. Sadly racist murdered MJ for owning half of Sony music. Now the racist own it again.

 

[Crisstti]

Re: The Michael/Paul McCartney/Beatles Catalog Story - What's the real story?

Paul was offered first buyer's rights, but he didn't want it as he felt it was unfair to spend so much on his own songs, he didn't want the other songs in the catalog, and he didn't want to have to go into a partnership with Yoko Ono in order to get them.

Paul owns other people's catalogs too, like Buddy Holly's music, which he has licensed out to adverts in the past.

Old thread, but I have to answer. What people have been saying here is innacurate, or at least it's certianly not what Paul has said. It wasn't that he didn't want to buy the catalogue, he didn't feel it'd be right for him to own the whole thing when John Lennon had written half. So he called Yoko and proposed they buy it together. Yoko said she could, somehow, get them cheaper. So Paul waited, and in the meantime (he's never said how long), Michael bought them. It appears he told Paul he intended to do it, but Paul thought it was a joke?

Buddy Holly, or his estate, had licensed his music to commercials before.

The tide did start turning on MJ in 1985, which is when he bought the catalog.

In the 90s he complained the ATV thing wasn't fair as he was the only living Beatle and he didn't get publishing rights, blah blah blah... except at this point George was still alive, and Ringo is also still alive.

The ATV catalog included the former Northern Songs, which never had the publishing rights of songs written by George nor Ringo, only the Lennon/McCartney songs.

 

[Anna]

Re: The Michael/Paul McCartney/Beatles Catalog Story - What's the real story?

Old thread, but I have to answer. What people have been saying here is innacurate, or at least it's certianly not what Paul has said. It wasn't that he didn't want to buy the catalogue, he didn't feel it'd be right for him to own the whole thing when John Lennon had written half. So he called Yoko and proposed they buy it together. Yoko said she could, somehow, get them cheaper. So Paul waited, and in the meantime (he's never said how long), Michael bought them. It appears he told Paul he intended to do it, but Paul thought it was a joke?

Buddy Holly, or his estate, had licensed his music to commercials before.



The ATV catalog included the former Northern Songs, which never had the publishing rights of songs written by George nor Ringo, only the Lennon/McCartney songs.

George and Ringo were both on Northern Songs. George didn't like the pitiful deal that he had (which is why he wrote Only A Northern Song) and let his contract expire in 1968, at which point he switched to his own publishing company, Harrisongs. Ringo also started his own company.

 

[Crisstti]

Re: The Michael/Paul McCartney/Beatles Catalog Story - What's the real story?

Neither songs were on the catalog Michael bought, right?

 

[Anna]

Re: The Michael/Paul McCartney/Beatles Catalog Story - What's the real story?

Neither songs were on the catalog Michael bought, right?

All of George's songs before the White Album must have been included. Ringo only wrote two songs, which were in 68 and 69, so they were published by his own company.

 

[Crisstti]

Most people just don’t like to look stupid, so they blame other people for their mistakes whenever they can. It’s human nature, I guess.
It’s also very telling that MJ remained friends with Yoko Ono. Unlike Paul, she was totally ok with MJ buying the catalog. I wonder why. :laughing:

According to Paul, Yoko Ono was the reason he didn't buy the catalog when he got first refusal. Not because he didn't want to buy it.

 

[Crisstti]

Re: Do you think it was wrong for Michael to take The Beatles Catalog away from Paul McCartney?

lol. Why are you acting like you've caught Paul McCartney out in a spicy lie? He wasn't happy about the catalog situation but he was always diplomatic about it from what I've seen. It's not like he flipped his lid and severed their relationship. They drifted apart over time. It's not like he hated Michael. He was supportive when the allegations came out in 93. He was supportive when Michael had plastic surgery and everyone thought he was bleaching his skin. He was supportive when Michael died. And he gave a very reasonable response when he was put on the spot about LN.

Yeah. People keep talking about Paul's "lies", but no one points out what these lies are supposed to be. He's never said Michael outbid him for the catalog, that's been the media's spin.

He obviously wasn't exactly happy about the situation, but he's never badmouthed Michael and in fact, as you point out, supported him on several occations, even when they were no longer close.

What did Paul say about LN? Didn't know he had said anything.

 

[Anna]

Re: Do you think it was wrong for Michael to take The Beatles Catalog away from Paul McCartney?

Yeah. People keep talking about Paul's "lies", but no one points out what these lies are supposed to be. He's never said Michael outbid him for the catalog, that's been the media's spin.

He obviously wasn't exactly happy about the situation, but he's never badmouthed Michael and in fact, as you point out, supported him on several occations, even when they were no longer close.

What did Paul say about LN? Didn't know he had said anything.

He was doing a radio interview in March 2019 - so right after LN - and they asked him about it:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/03/26/paul...l-jackson-seen-leaving-neverland-9026352/amp/

 

[NatureCriminal7896]

Then why he was with orpah and the others on the ship when LN aired for orpah birthday last year? paul said he didn't know Michael had a dark side.

 

[Anna]

Then why he was with orpah and the others on the ship when LN aired for orpah birthday last year? paul said he didn't know Michael had a dark side.

Another myth perpetuated by MJ fans. That photo of Paul, Oprah and a bunch of other people on the boat is from 2016. He's not in the photos from Oprah's LN birthday trip with Gayle King and he isn't mentioned as being there either - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ens-300M-yacht-watches-Leaving-Neverland.html
And even if he had been on the boat for Oprah's birthday that has nothing to do with what he said about not knowing Michael had a dark side. He was talking about when he was alive and when he knew him.

 

[NatureCriminal7896]

LOL! okay. i think fans need to do research before saying anything also stop putting other people in to this because they don't like them etc.

 

[NatureCriminal7896]

LOL! it's really makes me laugh how we suppose to be MJ fans but we telling each other false information. oh my goodness. well I guess we can take paul out of the LN thing and also take little richard out of the catalog thing too with him getting his right back.

wow. :laughing:

 

[Crisstti]

Paul opted out, and after that it was just business. If he makes it about anything more than that, then he’s the one who’s not cool. It’s not like he was in the poorhouse or anything. If he wanted control over whatever happened with his songs, he should have bought them, not whine about it after the fact on TV.

It's never just bussiness when it's dealing with a friend.
He wanted to buy them, but things got entangled with Yoko. But the real cooling off of their relationship came after Michael ignored Paul asking for a better deal, not after he bought the songs. As the pics from up to the early 90's posted here of them together show.

Better deal for Paul = financial loss for MJ. Why on earth would anyone expect him to do that? Paul was not in the poorhouse. To turn this into a personal issue and cancel a “friendship” over it, is childish. And I said this before also: They cut a few songs together, they weren’t best friends, so what kind of entitlement are we talking about anyway?

Also, Paul changes his story.
One time he says he wrote a letter that he got no reply to, the next time around he claims that MJ told him, “Oh, it’s just business, Paul.”

So, which is it? The unanswered letter? Or the personal reply?

Again, like so many times, the media and the public are willing to gobble up anything anyone says that puts MJ in a bad light.

Why would anyone expect him to do that? Because they were friends. From what I've read they actually were friends btw, not just aquintaces.

I think it'd be silly to expect Michael to give Paul the publishing rights, I certainly never would. Paul was a millionaire after all. But a better deal if hardly unreasonable, is it?.

What you say it's no proof of Paul changing his story. His "it's just bussiness" recolection could refer to something Michael said about buying the songs, not about the rise request. Or he could have called him up on the phone after receiving no answer to the letter and gotten that response by phone. We don't know.

He was doing a radio interview in March 2019 - so right after LN - and they asked him about it:

[video=youtube;mP9LadZhHFg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP9LadZhHFg[/video]

https://metro.co.uk/2019/03/26/paul...l-jackson-seen-leaving-neverland-9026352/amp/

Thanks for posting that. That's actually an interview by a Chilean radio, right before he played here last year.
He sure seems to take the documentary at face value. Guess he watched it and was shocked... it's hard for people to call someone who's saying they were abused, especially as children, a liar. I hope he's heard about the innacuracies and problems with the so called documentary.
I haven't watched it myself and I don't think I want to. I'm very wary of documentaries anyway after some bad experiences! Things can be so easily manipulated. I rather read about stuff, from different sources, preferably.

 

[wonderouzmj]

I have said it before in this thread: Paul didn’t shell out the money to buy the catalogue himself, but then expects MJ to let go of a good chunk of his profits, just so that his multi-millionaire friend Paul gets a “raise”? Come on! :laughing:

And then Paul goes on TV to talk about his hurt feelings. And people actually buy it, because: Paul.

👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾

 

[Anna]

From July 2009. MJ part starts around the 2 minute mark.

It's clear when Paul discusses the catalog that he didn't expect Michael to actually go after the Beatles songs, since they were friends, but I've never seen him suggest that he didn't have a chance to get the catalog himself. And it's obvious that he could have got it himself if it was available in the first place. In this video he literally says, "Someone had to get it, I suppose". His issues were the commercialisation of their songs - which I know George didn't like either - and the fact that Michael ignored his requests for a better deal. A request which was very reasonable given their friendship. Because that awkward situation wasn't resolved they drifted apart over time. But as I've said before, Paul was always diplomatic about what happened and still said nice things about Michael afterwards, including in this video.

 

[Crisstti]

But OK, let's judge it on moral ground: MJ was a bad friend, cared only about business, Paul was hurt - it's still the end of story. Paul couldn't seriously expect MJ to offer him the catalogue at a lower price (wouldn't this make him also a questionable friend who cared only about money?).

Do you realize that "doing at least that much" would mean serious financial loss for MJ (not to mention how better that deal should exactly be? When Paul says that's not too pricey anymore?). How is that MJ's loss doesn't matter, but Paul's is enough for making moral judgement?

Thinking that MJ shouldn't have bought the catalogue is fine, but you can't seriously think he should give it to Paul at a discount price. I really can't fathom this idea, it's so unreal.

But I don't think that has ever been sugested. Paul talks about a "rise". Not about Michael selling him the catalogue. Now, I confess ignorance about the workings of this bussines. I'm not sure how it works. The owner of the publishing rights pays a certain rate to the author of the song? Anyone knows?

I don't think it would be reasonable to expect that Michael should have given Paul the rights or sold them to him at a lower price (though what that would mean would have been hard to establish in the first place, cause the price paid was for the whole catalogue and not just the Beatles songs), simply because Paul was rich too. It does seem reasonable that, since they were friends, maybe he should have given him that rise (whatever that means) and not used the songs in commercials since Paul wasn't OK with that.
BTW to suggest that Michael wouldn't have been making money off the songs if he didn't license them for commercials is wrong. The publisher makes money every time the song is played.

One thing I truly dislike is how Paul went on TV to talk about it. MJ never ever did anything like this, except once with “Mr. Eminem”.

Paul never went on TV to talk about it. He was in interviews and the issue was brought up by the interviewer and he commented on it. From his perspective of course.
And I've only seen one interview posted here where he sounds actually somewhat upset. The others are very mild. His imitation of Michael's voice btw is something he had been doing when telling the story of Michael calling him, since way before the whole catalogue thing, so it was never meant in a negative way.

Thank you for posting this- FACTS!!! 100%!! The lies that Paul McCartney has perpetuated all these years is just ONE of the reasons that the some in the industry and the MSM has this hate towards Michael. I wonder why Paul never speaks on the fact that Yoko Ono did not WANT him to have the rights to this catalogue. Paul could have cleared up this misinformation about Michael, years ago. YET, he allowed it to fester and fans of the Beatles, including the media and the industry used it against Michael. For newer fans of MJ, this is what all of the media hate is against Michael. The fake allegations have ALWAYS been a smoke screen. Older fans have always known the agenda behind the hate and jealousy of Michael and it has crap to do with fake abuse allegations.

What lies has Paul McCartney perpetuated?.

He's never said Michael "outbid" him and he's always admitted he was offered the catalog first .

Paul DOES speak of Yoko Ono's role in the affair. If anything, it seems he blames her for not buying the rights back then, though he doesn't outright say it. (I'm going to try to find a video of what he's said about this).

The misinformation about this has been made up by the press: the idea that Michael outbid Paul or that he somehow took the rights away from him (as the title of one of the merged threads here indicates). He couldn't have taken the Beatles catalog away from Paul because Paul didn't own it.

In fact, several interviews by Paul clearly indicate that, while he wasn't exactly pleased, there was no fallout over this, and as the pics posted on this thread show, they seem to have remained friends. The real problem happened over Paul wanting a rise and Michael either refusing or ignoring his requests. The use of some songs in commercials doesn't seem to have helped either. Still, it would appear there was no real fallout either but rather that they drifted apart over this over time.

 

[Crisstti]

I have said it before in this thread: Paul didn’t shell out the money to buy the catalogue himself, but then expects MJ to let go of a good chunk of his profits, just so that his multi-millionaire friend Paul gets a “raise”? Come on! :laughing:

And then Paul goes on TV to talk about his hurt feelings. And people actually buy it, because: Paul.

"A good chunk" of his profits? How do you know how much it would have been? He'd still have been making lots of money. When you have friendship mixed with bussines, it can never be "just bussines".

It's pretty clear as well that it wasn't about the money per se, but about what Paul consiedered a fairer deal, since he obviously feels what happened with the songs wasn't fair to begin with (I mean from way back in the 60's).

 

[ScreenOrigami]

"A good chunk" of his profits? How do you know how much it would have been?

Well, enough for Paul to get upset that he didn’t get it. Even without knowing the numbers, I think it’s safe to say we’re not talking about peanuts here.

Paul should have bought the catalogue when he was given the opportunity, then he could have had any raise he wanted.

But I think I have made my opinion on the whole affair clear throughout this thread, and I don’t really have anything to add to what I have said previously. It’s all somewhere in this thread.

 

[ChrisC]

What commercials did Michael allow Beatles music to be used in? I keep seeing this as if he whored the catalogue out every other week.

I only remember a Nike commercial that Paul spat the dummy over.

 

[Crisstti]

Well, enough for Paul to get upset that he didn’t get it. Even without knowing the numbers, I think it’s safe to say we’re not talking about peanuts here.

Paul should have bought the catalogue when he was given the opportunity, then he could have had any raise he wanted.

But I think I have made my opinion on the whole affair clear throughout this thread, and I don’t really have anything to add to what I have said previously. It’s all somewhere in this thread.

I think for Paul it was more a thing of principle than money itself. It's not as if he had any money problems.