Why did Paul get angry at Michael Jackson?
-
cowhouse92 — 16 years ago(March 06, 2010 07:40 PM)
As I understand it, when they were working together Paul told Michael he shouldb68 get involved in music publishing. Just as friendly advice. Michael turned around and bought the publishing rights to the Beatles' songs. Not exactly what Paul had in mind.
And after all, I'm only sleeping. -
BlackGoldMustang — 16 years ago(March 07, 2010 04:11 AM)
Yes, Michael out-bid Paul for The Beatles catalog because as Paul said "He was rolling in it" after "Thriller", meaning he was filthy rich at the time even Paul couldn't touch him. He also laid some blame on Yoko at t5b4he time, maybe he tried to get her to release some funds??? not sure why really.
"Instant Karma's gonna get you" -
Jazz_Singing_Apple — 16 years ago(March 08, 2010 12:28 AM)
Michael, definitely.
Michael asked Paul, when they were working together, for business advice. Paul said to get into music publishing. Michael said "I'm going to own yours".
And low and behold he did. It was a very, very backhanded thing to do.
The Beatles were taken advantage of constantly in their career. As the most successful band in the history of history the financial rewards they did reap are nowhere near what they should have reaped.
Paul considered Michael to be a friend of his. So for a friend to screw a friend over so knowingly is despicable. Lennon and McCartney could have finally had in their possession something that should have always been theirs, ownership of their songs.
Yoko was, apparently, unwillingly to offer anymore money than she did. From what I gather the amount that Michael won with was quite close to Paul/Yoko's offer. Which is a damn shame because they would have both earned back their 'investment' easily. -
Actorsactiondotorg — 13 years ago(June 11, 2012 05:35 PM)
Considering how much the Beatles got screwed over by Lew Grade (whom they sued), Paul could have appreciated that Allen Klein renegotiated the EMI deal to pay them 25% as of 1969/70.
- no thanks for that!
The whole Beatles catalog of LPs was hotter thanks to the PAUL IS DEAD / PAUL HAS QUIT causing a boost in sales as the 70s began.
- no thanks for that!
-
ilahilda — 16 years ago(March 14, 2010 06:15 PM)
At least Paul did not hound him for the catalog when he was facing the molestation charges that ruined him financially, why kick a former friend when he was down. There were rumors that MJ was thinking of returning the catalog back to Paul, who knows?
-
frana43 — 15 years ago(April 23, 2010 04:39 AM)
After Jackson died, it was rumoured that he had left the Beatles catalogue to McCartney in his will - but this turned out not to be the case.
Nevertheless, McCartney said nothing except that he enjoyed working with him,
and never had any desire to buy back the catal1c84ogue before Sony got hold of it,
even though McCartney once complained he had to pay to perform the songs live.
After the auction in 1985, McCartney asked Jackson for a raise - MJ refused.
And the two surviving Beatles, plus the widows of the two deceased Beatles,
are lucky to be rich at all - unlike the totally cheated Bay City Rollers! -
gpicto — 14 years ago(July 05, 2011 01:30 PM)
As I understand it, Paul bid $40M for the catalogue and MJ bid $60M. I'm a fan but it doesn't bother me that Paul is not the owner of his Beatle songs. And Paul is far too savvy to criticize MJ, or any deceased person, publicly. Paul criticized Lennon for a few things in the early 1980s and the media & Yoko were all over him for it! He learned his lesson ages ago. Fans don't want truth or honest thoughts and opinions, we want to live in Fantasy Land.
Marriage is between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.