Page 1 of 1

OT: Michael Jackson Leaves Nothing to Paul McCartney

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:38 am
by Voyager
Hmm... what a surprise... Michael didn't give Paul a half-billion dollar gift. What was he thinking?

PAUL McCARTNEY - MICHAEL JACKSON NEWS ROUNDUP

7/8/2009

Yesterday (July 7th) Paul McCartney posted a message on his official website (paulmccartney.com) in an effort to set the record straight regarding Michael Jackson's ownership of the Lennon and McCartney song catalogue.

McCartney posted: For The Record - Message From Paul:

"Some time ago, the media came up with the idea that Michael Jackson was going to leave his share in the Beatles songs to me in his will which was completely made up and something I didn't believe for a second. Now the report is that I am devastated to find that he didn't leave the songs to me. This is completely untrue. I had not thought for one minute that the original report was true and therefore, the report that I'm devastated is also totally false, so don't believe everything you read folks!"

McCartney added, "In fact, though Michael and I drifted apart over the years, we never really fell out, and I have fond memories of our time together.

He closed by saying: "At times like this, the press do tend to make things up, so occasionally, I feel the need to put the record straight. Paul."

On July 4th, McCartney updated his tribute to Michael Jackson on his site with a special remembrance for Jackson called Memories Of Michael in which he chronicled the pair's hit-making early-'80s relationship.

McCartney's post read: "I first heard from Michael when he phoned me over the Christmas holiday season in 1980 and my initial reaction was 'Who is this and how did he get my private telephone number?' Michael laughed and explained who it was and, as we talked and I asked him why he was ringing, he said 'Do you wanna make some hits?' and that was the start of our adventure together. He came over to England with his close friend and minder, Billy and they visited our house in the country many times as Michael and I put together the ideas for our songs together. First of all, we came up with and finished an idea for a song I had started which became 'Say Say Say.' We recorded in Air Studios, London with George Martin producing and eventually went to California to make the video for the song. Funnily enough, I was staying at the ranch that Michael later bought and made into Neverland."

McCartney went on to say, "My memories are of his great sense of humor and we seemed to spend most of the time playing around and having a laugh. He became very friendly with my family and we had lots of great times together. Although we drifted apart in later years I will always remember fondly the fun we had working and playing together. My family and I send our deepest condolences to his family and, like them, we know that his great talent will never be forgotten."

Clickliverpool.com posted that while talking to McCartney insisted that omitting father Joe Jackson from his original statement regarding Jackson's passing was unintentional, explaining, "When I issued the statement I had a feeling things might be construed like that. The truth is I kind of know (Michael's mother) Katherine a bit better, I've met her a few times with Michael and with the family and she was a more personal friend than the dad. I haven't really met Joe, so that was why I did that."

McCartney, who throughout the years has refrained from playing armchair psychiatrist with Jackson's' personal life and problems, spoke out for the first time about Jackson's relationship with his father saying, "I don't know for sure about the physical abuse but I know he was on a TV program and the interviewer said: 'Did you ever beat Michael?' And Joe replied, 'I didn't beat him, I whupped him.' So I am pretty sure that went on, I don't want to be the judge on that kind of thing but I do think that contributed to some of the problems Michael might have had."

He added: "I was very blessed because Michael never gave me a sense of that stuff, we just hung out and had fun."

McCartney was pressed about Jackson outbidding him and Yoko Ono in 1985 for ownership of his and John Lennon's Beatles songs: "I got off that years ago. It was something for a while I was very keen on and you can see why, naturally. I thought it was a natural with Michael taking over that something would be happening there but when I realized it wasn't I thought, get off it. Those sort of things can eat you up so I thought get off it."


8)

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:43 am
by bluejeangirl76
Sir Paul is a high class gentleman and a fine human being. I do not like to read b.s. posted about him, and I'm glad to see him stop everyone in their tracks and straighten out media-created drama.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:47 am
by Jana
Love, Love, Love, Sir Paul. Always comes across honest in his interviews.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:49 am
by artist4perry
Nice of Paul to set that straight. I had heard the same. But it would have been nice and still would be nice for someone who has control of the songs to offer Paul the ability to have them back. But if he has moved on, then so should we. It is after all his affair.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:51 am
by Don
artist4perry wrote:Nice of Paul to set that straight. I had heard the same. But it would have been nice and still would be nice for someone who has control of the songs to offer Paul the ability to have them back. But if he has moved on, then so should we. It is after all his affair.


I always thought the problem was you had to take the whole catalog, of which the Beatles songs were only a small percentage.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:52 am
by LordofDaRing
I second that Bluejeangirl76. If I were him, I think I would be really pissed off about it still. But from I recollect, Yoko and her Lawyers kept thinking they could get the songs a lot cheaper. I think they just had a bad strategy.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:54 am
by artist4perry
Gunbot wrote:
artist4perry wrote:Nice of Paul to set that straight. I had heard the same. But it would have been nice and still would be nice for someone who has control of the songs to offer Paul the ability to have them back. But if he has moved on, then so should we. It is after all his affair.


I always thought the problem was you had to take the whole catalog, of which the Beatles songs were only a small percentage.


I am not sure how that goes. But as I said, Paul seems to not be troubled by it now from what I read. So I guess it is a mute point right now.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:08 am
by Don
This all started because of McCartney to begin with, To avoid paying certain taxes, he and Lennon sold off the publishing rights to a public company, Northern Songs. When that company got bought out he and Lennon were arguing as usual and let the company slip away from them.
They were paid however 7X the value of the actual stock so don't feel too bad for him. In the end, Paul made this bed for himself long before Jackson came into the picture. He just got beat at his own game.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:16 am
by The Sushi Hunter
So who gets the rights to the songs now? Yeah, Paul always seemed pretty cool to me. I remember seeing him and Linda on SNL back in 79', 80' or 81', can't exactly remember the year, but remember the skit.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:17 am
by jrnyman28
The Sushi Hunter wrote:So who gets the rights to the songs now?


I imagine whomever MJ dictated in his will. Probably in estate/trust to the kids...

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:20 am
by The Sushi Hunter
jrnyman28 wrote:
The Sushi Hunter wrote:So who gets the rights to the songs now?


I imagine whomever MJ dictated in his will. Probably in estate/trust to the kids...


If they are in a trust, will the rights forever be stuck in the trust?

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:21 am
by bluejeangirl76
The Sushi Hunter wrote:So who gets the rights to the songs now?


I would assume that Jackson's percentage of Sony/ATV is now owned by his estate, The Jackson Family Trust, and this investment, sort of like stock ownership, would probably be inherited by his children, unless some other type of arrangement is in place with with Sony. Not much has been revealed on this yet, unless I missed something.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:22 am
by Don
The Sushi Hunter wrote:So who gets the rights to the songs now? Yeah, Paul always seemed pretty cool to me. I remember seeing him and Linda on SNL back in 79', 80' or 81', can't exactly remember the year, but remember the skit.


Sony has majority ownership and the kids trust holds the rest. If Michael's percentage is sold off, Sony will have first rights. Also, who ever wants the catalog has to take the other 4000 songs with it, not just the 200 Beatles songs.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:30 am
by steveo777
Gunbot wrote:
The Sushi Hunter wrote:So who gets the rights to the songs now? Yeah, Paul always seemed pretty cool to me. I remember seeing him and Linda on SNL back in 79', 80' or 81', can't exactly remember the year, but remember the skit.


Sony has majority ownership and the kids trust holds the rest. If Michael's percentage is sold off, Sony will have first rights. Also, who ever wants the catalog has to take the other 4000 songs with it, not just the 200 Beatles songs.


So, what are the other 3800 songs?

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:33 am
by Don
steveo777 wrote:
Gunbot wrote:
The Sushi Hunter wrote:So who gets the rights to the songs now? Yeah, Paul always seemed pretty cool to me. I remember seeing him and Linda on SNL back in 79', 80' or 81', can't exactly remember the year, but remember the skit.


Sony has majority ownership and the kids trust holds the rest. If Michael's percentage is sold off, Sony will have first rights. Also, who ever wants the catalog has to take the other 4000 songs with it, not just the 200 Beatles songs.


So, what are the other 3800 songs?


Different acts from the 60s and early 70s I guess. Jackson actually got the Idea from McCartney who was bragging to him about all the money he was making off of publishing royalties by buying up music catalogs.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:38 am
by jrnyman28
steveo777 wrote:
Gunbot wrote:
The Sushi Hunter wrote:So who gets the rights to the songs now? Yeah, Paul always seemed pretty cool to me. I remember seeing him and Linda on SNL back in 79', 80' or 81', can't exactly remember the year, but remember the skit.


Sony has majority ownership and the kids trust holds the rest. If Michael's percentage is sold off, Sony will have first rights. Also, who ever wants the catalog has to take the other 4000 songs with it, not just the 200 Beatles songs.


So, what are the other 3800 songs?


Why? Are you interested? ;)

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:47 am
by The Sushi Hunter
Gunbot wrote:
steveo777 wrote:
Gunbot wrote:
The Sushi Hunter wrote:So who gets the rights to the songs now? Yeah, Paul always seemed pretty cool to me. I remember seeing him and Linda on SNL back in 79', 80' or 81', can't exactly remember the year, but remember the skit.


Sony has majority ownership and the kids trust holds the rest. If Michael's percentage is sold off, Sony will have first rights. Also, who ever wants the catalog has to take the other 4000 songs with it, not just the 200 Beatles songs.


So, what are the other 3800 songs?


Different acts from the 60s and early 70s I guess. Jackson actually got the Idea from McCartney who was bragging to him about all the money he was making off of publishing royalties by buying up music catalogs.


So basically MJ "swooped" in on the deal. Yeah, MJ was one hell of a great guy all the way around alright.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:51 am
by steveo777
jrnyman28 wrote:
steveo777 wrote:
Gunbot wrote:
The Sushi Hunter wrote:So who gets the rights to the songs now? Yeah, Paul always seemed pretty cool to me. I remember seeing him and Linda on SNL back in 79', 80' or 81', can't exactly remember the year, but remember the skit.


Sony has majority ownership and the kids trust holds the rest. If Michael's percentage is sold off, Sony will have first rights. Also, who ever wants the catalog has to take the other 4000 songs with it, not just the 200 Beatles songs.


So, what are the other 3800 songs?


Why? Are you interested? ;)


Even if I was, my measly paycheck wouldn't pay for one guitar lick from one track. :(

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:54 am
by Don
The Sushi Hunter wrote:
Gunbot wrote:
steveo777 wrote:
Gunbot wrote:
The Sushi Hunter wrote:So who gets the rights to the songs now? Yeah, Paul always seemed pretty cool to me. I remember seeing him and Linda on SNL back in 79', 80' or 81', can't exactly remember the year, but remember the skit.


Sony has majority ownership and the kids trust holds the rest. If Michael's percentage is sold off, Sony will have first rights. Also, who ever wants the catalog has to take the other 4000 songs with it, not just the 200 Beatles songs.


So, what are the other 3800 songs?


Different acts from the 60s and early 70s I guess. Jackson actually got the Idea from McCartney who was bragging to him about all the money he was making off of publishing royalties by buying up music catalogs.


So basically MJ "swooped" in on the deal. Yeah, MJ was one hell of a great guy all the way around alright.


No. The deal came down a few years later. McCartney wasn't interested at first because he didn't want the rest of the songs. Only when things were already past the point of no return did he change his mind and even then try to low ball the bidding process.

As I said earlier, he brought this on himself by trying to skirt the tax issues and then was paid seven times the amount of the catalog anyway. Why would anyone feel sorry for him because of that? He was being greedy and got burned.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:09 am
by S2M
bluejeangirl76 wrote:Sir Paul is a high class gentleman and a fine human being. I do not like to read b.s. posted about him, and I'm glad to see him stop everyone in their tracks and straighten out media-created drama.



Yep......such a high-class gentleman that he claimed he and Linda never spent ONE night apart during their marriage....yet married that gimp VERY soon after Linda died....yeah, a wonderful example of stellar character..... :roll: :lol:

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:48 am
by Voyager
bluejeangirl76 wrote:
The Sushi Hunter wrote:So who gets the rights to the songs now?


I would assume that Jackson's percentage of Sony/ATV is now owned by his estate, The Jackson Family Trust, and this investment, sort of like stock ownership, would probably be inherited by his children, unless some other type of arrangement is in place with with Sony. Not much has been revealed on this yet, unless I missed something.


How weird... the rights to the Beatles' music will be owned by kids who were born to a surrogate mother and don't even have any blood relation to the celebrities involved.

Talk about winning the lottery.

:shock:

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:51 am
by Voyager
StocktontoMalone wrote:
bluejeangirl76 wrote:Sir Paul is a high class gentleman and a fine human being. I do not like to read b.s. posted about him, and I'm glad to see him stop everyone in their tracks and straighten out media-created drama.


Yep......such a high-class gentleman that he claimed he and Linda never spent ONE night apart during their marriage....yet married that gimp VERY soon after Linda died....yeah, a wonderful example of stellar character..... :roll: :lol:


Heather Mills Confirms She is a Whore:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qNKWlG_9QY

:roll:

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:49 am
by bluejeangirl76
StocktontoMalone wrote:
bluejeangirl76 wrote:Sir Paul is a high class gentleman and a fine human being. I do not like to read b.s. posted about him, and I'm glad to see him stop everyone in their tracks and straighten out media-created drama.



Yep......such a high-class gentleman that he claimed he and Linda never spent ONE night apart during their marriage....yet married that gimp VERY soon after Linda died....yeah, a wonderful example of stellar character..... :roll: :lol:


He married her 4 years after Linda's passing. 4 years is a respectable enough amount of time.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:52 am
by The Sushi Hunter
StocktontoMalone wrote:
bluejeangirl76 wrote:Sir Paul is a high class gentleman and a fine human being. I do not like to read b.s. posted about him, and I'm glad to see him stop everyone in their tracks and straighten out media-created drama.



Yep......such a high-class gentleman that he claimed he and Linda never spent ONE night apart during their marriage....yet married that gimp VERY soon after Linda died....yeah, a wonderful example of stellar character..... :roll: :lol:


I thought it was more like a dozen nights in all total that Paul and Linda didn't spend the night together during their entire marrage. Whatever the case may be, Linda was a much better woman then the chick Paul ended up marrying after Linda passed away. Another fine example of 20/20 hind sight though.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:53 am
by Saint John
bluejeangirl76 wrote:
StocktontoMalone wrote:
bluejeangirl76 wrote:Sir Paul is a high class gentleman and a fine human being. I do not like to read b.s. posted about him, and I'm glad to see him stop everyone in their tracks and straighten out media-created drama.



Yep......such a high-class gentleman that he claimed he and Linda never spent ONE night apart during their marriage....yet married that gimp VERY soon after Linda died....yeah, a wonderful example of stellar character..... :roll: :lol:


He married her 4 years after Linda's passing. 4 years is a respectable enough amount of time.


4 days is good enough for me. She's dead...why waste time? You only live once. As long as their was no infidelity I see nothing wrong with what he did.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:55 am
by bluejeangirl76
Saint John wrote:
bluejeangirl76 wrote:
StocktontoMalone wrote:
bluejeangirl76 wrote:Sir Paul is a high class gentleman and a fine human being. I do not like to read b.s. posted about him, and I'm glad to see him stop everyone in their tracks and straighten out media-created drama.



Yep......such a high-class gentleman that he claimed he and Linda never spent ONE night apart during their marriage....yet married that gimp VERY soon after Linda died....yeah, a wonderful example of stellar character..... :roll: :lol:


He married her 4 years after Linda's passing. 4 years is a respectable enough amount of time.


4 days is good enough for me. She's dead...why waste time?


Do the women of the world a favor. Don't marry any of them. :lol:

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:03 am
by portland
bluejeangirl76 wrote:
Saint John wrote:
bluejeangirl76 wrote:
StocktontoMalone wrote:
bluejeangirl76 wrote:Sir Paul is a high class gentleman and a fine human being. I do not like to read b.s. posted about him, and I'm glad to see him stop everyone in their tracks and straighten out media-created drama.



Yep......such a high-class gentleman that he claimed he and Linda never spent ONE night apart during their marriage....yet married that gimp VERY soon after Linda died....yeah, a wonderful example of stellar character..... :roll: :lol:


He married her 4 years after Linda's passing. 4 years is a respectable enough amount of time.


4 days is good enough for me. She's dead...why waste time?


Do the women of the world a favor. Don't marry any of them. :lol:





:lol:

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:18 am
by StoneCold
No pity for Mac. He was probably 3 time richer than Jack when he got outbid for those tunes.

Shouldn't have been a cheapskate. Was he saving that money for Heather? :evil: