4 ms·

I 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

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  All 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.

S_A_P 11y ago

I 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 ago
All 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.