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

Anna

Free As A Bird
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
6,696
Points
63
ScreenOrigami;4288983 said:
I think this has mostly been addressed in the thread before. Let me try to sum it up. Paul has been peddling his version of events to the media all through the years, knowing full well how much weight the public would give it, simply due to who he was. He kept implying that he was cheated out of the catalogue, while in the same sentence joking about how MJ told him he’s gonna buy the songs. Essentially navigating around the fact that he was notified about MJ’s intentions by turning it into a funny story about how he didn’t take it seriously. That’s what he continuously told the media from the late 80’s onward.

He’s on tape saying: “We don’t have that great a relationship, to put it that way.”

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XmLO9Hk_ZaU?start=61" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So, yes, he&#8217;s on record saying that he was miffed about the whole situation &#8211; but can be seen in photos with MJ that were clearly not taken on occasions where they accidentally bumped into each other, notably at one of his own concerts in 1989 where MJ showed up backstage, and on the set of Black or White in 1991. Now, I assume neither Paul&#8217;s backstage area nor MJ&#8217;s film set had a revolving door where anyone could just walk in to quickly say hello, especially not someone who you&#8217;re not on good terms with. Seeing them hanging out, while Paul was on a media campaign that seriously harmed MJ&#8217;s reputation particularly in the UK to me seemed worth pointing out. Thus, my comment.
I think calling it a "media campaign" is a bit dramatic. He was hurt so he talked about it. I don't think he was implying he was cheated out of it, just that he didn't expect Michael to actually go through with buying it himself, due to the conflict of interest from their friendship. Since their association publicly continued for a while I guess he still wanted to be friends, or at least acquaintances, even if their relationship was damaged.
 

ScreenOrigami

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,682
Points
48
Anna;4288990 said:
I think calling it a "media campaign" is a bit dramatic. He was hurt so he talked about it. I don't think he was implying he was cheated out of it, just that he didn't expect Michael to actually go through with buying it himself, due to the conflict of interest from their friendship. Since their association publicly continued for a while I guess he still wanted to be friends, or at least acquaintances, even if their relationship was damaged.

Well, he&#8217;s on record stating that he thought MJ&#8217;s acquisition was dodgy and something that friends don&#8217;t do. And he talked enough about his point of view to make it the only official version that the media keep perpetuating to this day. As usual, MJ&#8217;s side gets little to no media coverage. So yeah, I&#8217;d call that a media campaign, but YMMV, of course.
 

Anna

Free As A Bird
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
6,696
Points
63
ScreenOrigami;4288993 said:
Well, he&#8217;s on record stating that he thought MJ&#8217;s acquisition was dodgy and something that friends don&#8217;t do.
Yep, and I agree. I would be upset if my friend did something like that to me.
 

ScreenOrigami

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,682
Points
48
Anna;4288996 said:
Yep, and I agree. I would be upset if my friend did something like that to me.

Do what? Buy up something that&#8217;s available on the market and that you didn&#8217;t choose to buy?

I just found the clip where Holmes à Court&#8217;s negotiator confirms that Paul did not want to buy the catalogue at the time.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7ifYVFQAMWQ?start=50" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Of course, he regretted it later, and has since been trying to convince everyone (including possibly himself?) that it wasn&#8217;t his own fault.
 
Last edited:

Toby34

Proud Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
64
Points
8
ScreenOrigami;4288983 said:
I think this has mostly been addressed in the thread before. Let me try to sum it up. Paul has been peddling his version of events to the media all through the years, knowing full well how much weight the public would give it, simply due to who he was. He kept implying that he was cheated out of the catalogue, while in the same sentence joking about how MJ told him he&#8217;s gonna buy the songs. Essentially navigating around the fact that he was notified about MJ&#8217;s intentions by turning it into a funny story about how he didn&#8217;t take it seriously. That&#8217;s what he continuously told the media from the late 80&#8217;s onward.

He&#8217;s on tape saying: &#8220;We don&#8217;t have that great a relationship, to put it that way.&#8221;

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XmLO9Hk_ZaU?start=61" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So, yes, he&#8217;s on record saying that he was miffed about the whole situation &#8211; but can be seen in photos with MJ that were clearly not taken on occasions where they accidentally bumped into each other, notably at one of his own concerts in 1989 where MJ showed up backstage, and on the set of Black or White in 1991. Now, I assume neither Paul&#8217;s backstage area nor MJ&#8217;s film set had a revolving door where anyone could just walk in to quickly say hello, especially not someone who you&#8217;re not on good terms with. Seeing them hanging out, while Paul was on a media campaign that seriously harmed MJ&#8217;s reputation particularly in the UK to me seemed worth pointing out. Thus, my comment.
Watching this clip I do have to say it is sad he didn't respond to his friend's request for a better deal. I think Paul was more hurt by this than the sale of the songs.
 

Anna

Free As A Bird
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
6,696
Points
63
ScreenOrigami;4288998 said:
Do what? Buy up something that&#8217;s available on the market and that you didn&#8217;t choose to buy?

I just found the clip where Holmes à Court&#8217;s negotiator confirms that Paul did not want to buy the catalogue at the time.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7ifYVFQAMWQ?start=50" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Of course, he regretted it later, and has since been trying to convince everyone (including possibly himself?) that it wasn&#8217;t his own fault.

Yeah. Just because he didn't buy it himself that doesn't mean he's not entitled to be hurt that his own friend bought the rights to his songs and then did what he wanted with them afterwards without any regard for Paul's feelings. Michael chose money over friendship. It may have made sense from Michael's business perspective, but it's still stabbing his friend in the back.
 

Toby34

Proud Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
64
Points
8
Re: Do you think it was wrong for Michael to take The Beatles Catalog away from Paul McCartney?

I find it odd how in the Invincible era MJ kept saying how record labels rip off the artists, yet he bad a chance to make things better for an artist he greatly respected and didn't do it.
 

ScreenOrigami

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,682
Points
48
Anna;4289000 said:
Yeah. Just because he didn't buy it himself that doesn't mean he's not entitled to be hurt that his own friend bought the rights to his songs and then did what he wanted with them afterwards without any regard for Paul's feelings. Michael chose money over friendship. It may have made sense from Michael's business perspective, but it's still stabbing his friend in the back.

Because the multi-million corporation that would otherwise have bought the catalogue would always have had Paul&#8217;s feelings in mind? If Paul cared so much about what happened to the Beatles songs, why didn&#8217;t he buy the catalogue when it was offered to him? He knew better than anybody else that whoever bought the catalogue didn&#8217;t do it as a hobby, but to get a return on their investment.
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,309
Points
0
Re: Do you think it was wrong for Michael to take The Beatles Catalog away from Paul McCartney?

It's really hard to believe who telling the truth but I agree with both sides.
 

ScreenOrigami

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,682
Points
48
Toby34;4288999 said:
Watching this clip I do have to say it is sad he didn't respond to his friend's request for a better deal. I think Paul was more hurt by this than the sale of the songs.

I have said it before in this thread: Paul didn&#8217;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 &#8220;raise&#8221;? Come on! :laughing:

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

Anna

Free As A Bird
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
6,696
Points
63
Re: Do you think it was wrong for Michael to take The Beatles Catalog away from Paul McCartney?

Some random buying the catalog and doing what they want with it isn't the same as Paul's own friend buying his music and on top of that ignoring his wishes afterwards. That is not cool. At all.
 

ScreenOrigami

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,682
Points
48
Anna;4289006 said:
Some random buying the catalog and doing what they want with it isn't the same as Paul's own friend buying his music and on top of that ignoring his wishes afterwards. That is not cool. At all.

Paul opted out, and after that it was just business. If he makes it about anything more than that, then he&#8217;s the one who&#8217;s not cool. It&#8217;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.
 

Toby34

Proud Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
64
Points
8
ScreenOrigami;4289005 said:
I have said it before in this thread: Paul didn&#8217;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 &#8220;raise&#8221;? Come on! :laughing:

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

I think even a small raise would've made a great gesture.
 

Anna

Free As A Bird
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
6,696
Points
63
ScreenOrigami;4289008 said:
Paul opted out, and after that it was just business. If he makes it about anything more than that, then he&#8217;s the one who&#8217;s not cool. It&#8217;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.
If they hadn't been friends it would have just been business. But they were friends. The least Michael could have done was give Paul a better deal, but he didn't even do that much. Sad.
 

ScreenOrigami

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,682
Points
48
Anna;4289012 said:
If they hadn't been friends it would have just been business. But they were friends. The least Michael could have done was give Paul a better deal, but he didn't even do that much. Sad.

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 &#8220;friendship&#8221; over it, is childish. And I said this before also: They cut a few songs together, they weren&#8217;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, &#8220;Oh, it&#8217;s just business, Paul.&#8221;

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.
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,309
Points
0
Re: Do you think it was wrong for Michael to take The Beatles Catalog away from Paul McCartney?

What I heard was paul called Michael and he never pick up his phone. either Michael was shy. (which he was) or knew what he was doing and just ignore those calls. it was told that Michael change it his number a lot due to random unknown people calling him. mostly for safely reasons.
 

ScreenOrigami

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,682
Points
48
Re: Do you think it was wrong for Michael to take The Beatles Catalog away from Paul McCartney?

What I heard was paul called Michael and he never pick up his phone. either Michael was shy. (which he was) or knew what he was doing and just ignore those calls. it was told that Michael change it his number a lot due to random unknown people calling him. mostly for safely reasons.

Right. That makes it three versions then, if true. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? :laughing:
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,309
Points
0
Re: Do you think it was wrong for Michael to take The Beatles Catalog away from Paul McCartney?

It's true that Michael was a shy guy and did change his number a lot due to random unknown people calling him. mostly for safely. but i'm not sure if it true that Paul call him alot and he never answer.

this is what i heard. i'm not sure if it's true or not either.
 

ScreenOrigami

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,682
Points
48
NatureCriminal7896;4289022 said:
It's true that Michael was a shy guy and did change his number a lot due to random unknown people calling him. mostly for safely. but i'm not sure if it true that Paul call him alot and he never answer.

this is what i heard. i'm not sure if it's true or not either.

I think, for the sake of fairness towards both MJ and Paul, it would be best to find a source where Paul said that. And when there&#8217;s no source available, we don&#8217;t assume he said it. :)
 

pug

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
442
Points
18
Re: Do you think it was wrong for Michael to take The Beatles Catalog away from Paul McCartney?

Why the debate? The catalog changed hands several times before Michael purchased it. Each time it was sold to the person or company willing to pay the asking price. Each time Paul was unwilling to pay that price. Michael let Paul know personally that he was willing to buy it and John Brands spoke to Paul's lawyer first, before negotiating the purchase. Michael died and Paul made no effort to buy Michael's share of ATV. Paul has always been said to be wealthier than Michael and most other musicians. It's just like what his lawyer said, Paul always thought too much was being asked for payment. Read the history of the catalog from the time when it was known as Northern Lights.
 

somewhereinthedark

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
986
Points
43
pug;4289034 said:
Why the debate? The catalog changed hands several times before Michael purchased it. Each time it was sold to the person or company willing to pay the asking price. Each time Paul was unwilling to pay that price. Michael let Paul know personally that he was willing to buy it and John Brands spoke to Paul's lawyer first, before negotiating the purchase. Michael died and Paul made no effort to buy Michael's share of ATV. Paul has always been said to be wealthier than Michael and most other musicians. It's just like what his lawyer said, Paul always thought too much was being asked for payment. Read the history of the catalog from the time when it was known as Northern Lights.

Thank you for stating these FACTS. I am so sick of people-haters and even some fans- who act as if Michael went behind Paul&#8217;s back and bought the ATV catalogue. This was a business deal-fair and square.Michael told McCartny he was going to buy that catalogue and he thought Michael was some kid playing around. He found out Michael was a grown @$$ MAN. This has always been one of the reasons racist mainstream media and the music industry wanted to destroy Michael. He was and STILL IS too powerful!! Don&#8217;t be fooled into thinking otherwise. As I have always stated, there IS an AGENDA, and it has $#@* to do with the fake allegations.
 

ozemouze

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2018
Messages
852
Points
18
Re: Do you think it was wrong for Michael to take The Beatles Catalog away from Paul McCartney?

I think calling it a "media campaign" is a bit dramatic. He was hurt so he talked about it. I don't think he was implying he was cheated out of it, just that he didn't expect Michael to actually go through with buying it himself, due to the conflict of interest from their friendship.

We don't even know the extent of their relationship to build our opinion around it, and the story is indeed mostly known from Paul's point of view. But if you want to make this about "friendship": what's with Paul not taking MJ's business plans seriously? Why exactly?

It's unfair that the catalogue wasn't in the hand of the Beatles members in the first place but this had nothing to do with MJ (BTW, why don't we hear complaints towards the other owners?). Then Paul got a reasonable offer (first right of refusal) but he still thought it was too pricey and chose not to buy it (making it dramatic: "Paul chose money over art"*) - this should be the end of the story (as it always was, except when MJ is involved).

Just because he didn't buy it himself that doesn't mean he's not entitled to be hurt that his own friend bought the rights to his songs and then did what he wanted with them afterwards without any regard for Paul's feelings.

May I ask why we act like big bad rich MJ came and bought the catalogue from poor little Paul? Paul refused to buy it (don't forget that important fact that he was considered the richest musician at the time), then it went to auction, and that's when MJ purchased it (after letting Paul know about his plans).

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?).

The least Michael could have done was give Paul a better deal, but he didn't even do that much.

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.

*that's not my opinion, just an example how anything could be interpreted to make it look bad
 
Last edited:

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,309
Points
0
Re: Do you think it was wrong for Michael to take The Beatles Catalog away from Paul McCartney?

Everyone has their own opinions here. and i agree with every opinion on here.

whatever or not Michael did get the catalog or not at the end of the day he would of been okay. Michael was a very smart man. if he couldn't get the catalog i'm pretty sure he would of got something else. fans never think about the what if's. i'm one of those fans who do think about the maybes.

at the end of the day it's what you guys think. feels it was wrong then it was. if not, then it wasn't.

i think Michael was a great owner and i do not know about paul money problems so i can't say what his money problems were.

at the end we all have opinions with this. oh yeah Michael was a business man too. so.... we don't know what was the problem between him and Paul. maybe Paul just should of kept his month shut if he wanted it that bad.

at end of the day Paul somewhat messed his own self up. sorry my dude but you should of just stayed quiet with somethings. i'm pretty sure we all don't share everything with our friends or family. unless we really trust them.
 
Last edited:

ScreenOrigami

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,682
Points
48
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 &#8220;Mr. Eminem&#8221;. :D
 
Last edited:

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,309
Points
0
Re: Do you think it was wrong for Michael to take The Beatles Catalog away from Paul McCartney?

Eminem was wrong for what he did. Michael wasn't the type man who speak out with somethings. he left somethings alone or wasn't his view of life. but Michael speak out sometimes.

he was very shy man.
 

ChrisC

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
3,277
Points
38
ScreenOrigami;4289080 said:
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 &#8220;Mr. Eminem&#8221;. :D

Totally speaks to Michael's character that. He very rarely if ever got involved in any public spats. Respectful, polite guy.
 

MOR316

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
63
Points
0
Re: Do you think it was wrong for Michael to take The Beatles Catalog away from Paul McCartney?

Paul McCartney played the victim in a lot of interviews I've seen.
As far as I can see, Michael Jackson done nothing wrong. He was up front and honest with him and told him of his intentions.

I'm pretty certain it was Paul playing the victim that made Michael think, "You know what, to hell with you!"
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,309
Points
0
Re: Do you think it was wrong for Michael to take The Beatles Catalog away from Paul McCartney?

I'm pretty certain it was Paul playing the victim that made Michael think, "You know what, to hell with you!"

Now he's on Team Michael is guilty.
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,309
Points
0
Re: Do you think it was wrong for Michael to take The Beatles Catalog away from Paul McCartney?

Totally speaks to Michael's character that. He very rarely if ever got involved in any public spats. Respectful, polite guy.

He was. mom raise him well.
 

Mechaspiderman

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
34
Points
0
Re: Do you think it was wrong for Michael to take The Beatles Catalog away from Paul McCartney?

Call me a blind fangirl, but I honestly don't see how Michael would be wrong in this one. Paul was capable of acquiring the catalogue but didn't like parting with money. Guy is, and was at that time rich AF, if his work meant that much to him why couldn't he shell out the money? It wasn't pocket change, but he never owned the whole catalogue, so it's reasonable to assume he would have to pay much more than what he got for his share.
If Michael was indeed a heartless businessman he wouldn't properly compensate Little Richard, which he wasn't in any way obliged to do. He simply didn't see Paul as a victim if he refused to regain rights for his songs. As for commercial use of the Beatles songs, I never put the band on such a pedestal as most people seem to, so I don't consider it such a disgrace.
And regarding his commentary on LN, it was just disappointing. Paul enjoys being everyone's sweetheart and doesn't want to risk negative comments if he raised doubts about LN, I get that much. But all he had to say was that he didn't want to comment on the topic. His comment clearly meant that he believes MJ was guilty, sugarcoating it with the "dark side" doesn't change a thing.
 
Top