3 ms·
I've heard the Michael Jackson/McCartney story before. I think that what bothers me about the whole thing is that if it were me that was friends with McCartney,
by S_A_P 11y ago
I've heard the Michael Jackson/McCartney story before. I think that what bothers me about the whole thing is that if it were me that was friends with McCartney, I would have offered to make it right with a personal friend.(maybe sell/give up some of the rights so he can at least get a piece of his own songs) Instead, Jackson said something to the effect of "Its just business". That is a pretty shitty move IMO. However, it seems that McCartney isn't wholly innocent here either. Why not get the surviving members/yoko in on the bidding process and return the songs to the group that created them. It was just a big rent seeking exercise. I think this is also a case of inflated egos prevent common sense from ruling the day.
As for Fogerty, Saul Zaentz(the owner of fantasy records) was famously screwing over CCR and Fogerty as well as making poor decisions on their behalf. I would have been pretty upset if I were John Fogerty too. The record business seems to attract the shadiest of characters and young naive artists are easy pickings for these guys.
- vinceguidry 11y agoI read somewhere that Jackson tried several times to sell the catalog back to McCartney, but they couldn't work out a price. The Beatles catalog was just out of McCartney's league. McCartney wasn't new to the rights-management business, in fact, he taught it to Jackson, he just didn't have the capital. > It was just a big rent seeking exercise. I wouldn't necessarily conclude that. It's true, the Beatles catalog was a huge money-maker for Jackson, but Jackson's people were remarkable stewards. Managing rights is not just a matter of sitting back and collecting royalty checks. You have to manage things so that you stay in the public eye. One could say that the Beatles might not be quite as popular now without Jackson's management.
- S_A_P 11y agoI dont know if snopes is the most reliable source, but according to that(http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp) Lennon/McCartney have always received 50% of the songs, so maybe the situation was as bad for sir Paul as he made it out to be. I also want to be clear that I don't think that Michael Jackson is the only bad actor in this whole saga, and it looks like you may be right that Paul and Michael did try(unsuccessfully) to work out a deal.(http://wzlx.cbslocal.com/2015/08/10/michael-jackson-beatles-songs-can-paul-mccartney-get-them-back/ http://wzlx.cbslocal.com/2015/08/10/michael-jackson-beatles-...). Seems that it makes for great gossip more than anything, and maybe it is equivalent to a "rap beef"...
- vinceguidry 11y agoAll I'm saying is that of all the people to pick to own the publishing rights to my songs, Michael Jackson isn't the worst choice. He was probably right when he said it was "just business". I mean, it's not as if McCartney was all that opposed to the practice of selling publishing rights, not only did he sell his own rights, but he also participated in the whole regime by buying other artist's rights.