Paul McCartney launches bid to Get Back his Beatles songs

[marv2]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/will-paul-mccartney-get-the-rights-to-his-beatles-songs-back-hes-already-working-on-it/ar-BBqD25t?ocid=ansmsnent11

[Jerry Oz]

Very interesting. I guess there are no friends in business. Michael Jackson's purchase of the catalog always seemed to be a cold blooded move to me but the fact that a $47 million investment wound up being worth a billion dollars kind of justified it. I can understand how McCartney was hurt by it but I also know that it was a shrewd move that most people probably would have made if presented with the opportunity.

[marv2]

Very interesting. I guess there are no friends in business. Michael Jackson's purchase of the catalog always seemed to be a cold blooded move to me but the fact that a $47 million investment wound up being worth a billion dollars kind of justified it. I can understand how McCartney was hurt by it but I also know that it was a shrewd move that most people probably would have made if presented with the opportunity.

Needless to say, McCartney did not attend Michael's funeral services......................

[Guy]

It is the only time in the history of popular music that a black man swindled a white artist out of the revenue due his artistic legacy. Not saying it was right or wrong, just making an observation.

[marv2]

It is the only time in the history of popular music that a black man swindled a white artist out of the revenue due his artistic legacy. Not saying it was right or wrong, just making an observation.

Now did he "swindle" McCartney, or did he buy the songs out and out right? Legally?

[arr&bee]

I wonder how those natives feel about the[sale????]of manhattan island???hehehehe!!!!

[Bluebrock]

It is the only time in the history of popular music that a black man swindled a white artist out of the revenue due his artistic legacy. Not saying it was right or wrong, just making an observation.
What Jacko did was perhaps unethical but i don't think there was anything illegal. His advisers were perhaps smarter and quicker than Paul's who is generally speaking a thoroughly decent bloke. In truth they were never really friends but this situation certainly drew a wedge between the two of them that was never removed.

[marv2]

I wonder how those natives feel about the[sale????]of manhattan island???hehehehe!!!!

Exactly! LOL!!!!!

[marv2]

What Jacko did was perhaps unethical but i don't think there was anything illegal. His advisers were perhaps smarter and quicker than Paul's who is generally speaking a thoroughly decent bloke. In truth they were never really friends but this situation certainly drew a wedge between the two of them that was never removed.

I think Michael Jackson and all of his family were thoroughly decent blokes! There was nothing unethical about what he did in buying those songs.

[Jerry Oz]

As wrong as it may have been given his supposed friendship with McCartney, it was neither unethical nor a matter of him swindling anyone. I'm not even going to say that I would not do the same thing, only that I hope that I wouldn't. It comes down to how much you value your friends. I remember when it happened and it was said that Jackson would recover his investment within ten years. I think he actually did it in less than five.

Tell yourself that you wouldn't do it, but if not, you're probably one of the better people in the world. If you are, God bless you for being good. And if you are not, then God bless you for being human.

[marv2]

As wrong as it may have been given his supposed friendship with McCartney, it was neither unethical nor a matter of him swindling anyone. I'm not even going to say that I would not do the same thing, only that I hope that I wouldn't. It comes down to how much you value your friends. I remember when it happened and it was said that Jackson would recover his investment within ten years. I think he actually did it in less than five.

Tell yourself that you wouldn't do it, but if not, you're probably one of the better people in the world. If you are, God bless you for being good. And if you are not, then God bless you for being human.

Berry Gordy Jr. would have done it!

[Bluebrock]

As wrong as it may have been given his supposed friendship with McCartney, it was neither unethical nor a matter of him swindling anyone. I'm not even going to say that I would not do the same thing, only that I hope that I wouldn't. It comes down to how much you value your friends. I remember when it happened and it was said that Jackson would recover his investment within ten years. I think he actually did it in less than five.

Tell yourself that you wouldn't do it, but if not, you're probably one of the better people in the world. If you are, God bless you for being good. And if you are not, then God bless you for being human.
Whatever the in's and out's of this situation no-one came out of it smelling of roses, and if MJ made as much money from the venture as has been claimed, then you just wonder how much more in debt he would have been at the time of his passing without all these extra millions.

[arr&bee]

berry gordy jr. Would have done it!in a motown minute!!

[Jerry Oz]

Berry Gordy Jr. would have done it!
Suge Knight would have done it, too. But it wouldn't be with his money and there'd be baseball bats, guns, and two of the biggest homeboys you can imagine involved in closing the deal.

[marv2]

Suge Knight would have done it, too. But it wouldn't be with his money and there'd be baseball bats, guns, and two of the biggest homeboys you can imagine involved in closing the deal.

and Mr. McCartney and no one else woulda liked that deal !

[timmyfunk]

I remember that we discussed this topic years ago. I still maintain that if I were to lose possession of a family heirloom, and then later on were granted the opportunity to get that heirloom back, there would be nothing that would stop me from getting it back. McCartney knew full well how much the Beatles catalog was worth when it was up for sale in 1985. Why in the world would you let anyone outbid you? I'm sure that the family of, say, Buddy Holly wouldn't mind have his back from McCartney.

[soulster]

I remember that we discussed this topic years ago. I still maintain that if I were to lose possession of a family heirloom, and then later on were granted the opportunity to get that heirloom back, there would be nothing that would stop me from getting it back. McCartney knew full well how much the Beatles catalog was worth when it was up for sale in 1985. Why in the world would you let anyone outbid you? I'm sure that the family of, say, Buddy Holly wouldn't mind have his back from McCartney.
Perhaps the fact was that McCartney just didn't have the money to outbid Jackson.

[arr&bee]

I tried to auction a family heirloom once,but when the bidding got to a dollar, everybody quit.

[timmyfunk]

Perhaps the fact was that McCartney just didn't have the money to outbid Jackson.

Mecca didn't have the money? One of the world's richest popular music artists in rock history doesn't have the money to buy back his own songs? Nah, I seriously doubt that.

[Jerry Oz]

Would it really make a difference who won since he didn't? the catalog went for $47 million with a valuation indicating an expected return of 10% per year, he could have arranged a loan with which to purchase it. Banks would probably beat down his door to lend it to him. That 10% was very conservative as it turned out. Sir Paul simply blew it.

[soulster]

Mecca didn't have the money? One of the world's richest popular music artists in rock history doesn't have the money to buy back his own songs? Nah, I seriously doubt that. Remember how wealthy MJ was at the time. Just because you are famous, talented, and are a member of the most popular band in the world doesn't mean you are exploding with money.

[marv2]

Would it really make a difference who won since he didn't? the catalog went for $47 million with a valuation indicating an expected return of 10% per year, he could have arranged a loan with which to purchase it. Banks would probably beat down his door to lend it to him. That 10% was very conservative as it turned out. Sir Paul simply blew it.

I had heard that he nor Yoko Ono thought the songs were worth it!

[Bluebrock]

Mecca didn't have the money? One of the world's richest popular music artists in rock history doesn't have the money to buy back his own songs? Nah, I seriously doubt that.
He certainly had the money but he was not quick enough off the mark simple as that. Everyone makes mistakes - this was one of his.

[marv2]

He certainly had the money but he was not quick enough off the mark simple as that. Everyone makes mistakes - this was one of his.

Then how does that make Michael Jackson an unethical swindler? I think it is sour grapes on part of Paul McCartney!

[Jerry Oz]

The more that I hear about this [[although unsubstantiated, of course), the more I think MJ wasn't a huge jerk for doing it.

[marv2]

The more that I hear about this [[although unsubstantiated, of course), the more I think MJ wasn't a huge jerk for doing it.

He wasn't a huge jerk or anything like that. When I think of guys like Nat Turnpool that ripped people like Jackie Wilson for example. Michael was a straight up businessman. He saw an opportunity and went for it! I can tell you, people in the industry had a whole new level of respect [[or was it resentment) for Mike after bought that catalogue!

[timmyfunk]

Remember how wealthy MJ was at the time. Just because you are famous, talented, and are a member of the most popular band in the world doesn't mean you are exploding with money.

You're kidding, right? McCartney was rock's biggest money maker way before MJ cut Thriller. He was just slow on the draw. Nothing more.