|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 17, 2015 14:07:15 GMT -5
In an anniversary none of us, including Paul and Yoko, are celebrating unlike the 50th of the U.S. Invasion or the recent 50th of Shea, it was 30 years ago when Michael Jackson outbid Paul for a large part of the Beatles catalog! ultimateclassicrock.com/paul-mccartney-michael-jackson-beatles-catalog/This purchase was really controversial and upset Paul, ending his friendship with MJ.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 19, 2015 21:51:59 GMT -5
In an anniversary none of us, including Paul and Yoko, are celebrating unlike the 50th of the U.S. Invasion or the recent 50th of Shea, it was 30 years ago when Michael Jackson outbid Paul for a large part of the Beatles catalog! ultimateclassicrock.com/paul-mccartney-michael-jackson-beatles-catalog/This purchase was really controversial and upset Paul, ending his friendship with MJ. Is it Michael's fault John & Paul lost their song catalogue in the first place? Michael was in the right place at the right time with the assets to buy it. Was he supposed to stand back and wait for Paul to get on his knees to Yoko to come up with enough money to buy them back? Can you imagine the bickering that would have gone on with Yoko and Paul sharing ownership? The lawsuits going back and forth over trying to rename some songs "McCartney/Lennon?" If I had the money, I would have bought the songs too. It was an absolute no-brainer for anyone to pick up that catalogue when it came up for sale. Paul is just pissed he lost the catalogue at all and blamed Michael for not letting him correct the situation. Once Brian died in 1967, their business affairs went into the toilet right up until the breakup. Michael did exactly what Paul advised him to do. Buy a valuable song catalogue when it came up for sale.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 19, 2015 22:55:45 GMT -5
I don't disagree with one word you wrote lowbasso! I have always been bemused that Paul and Yoko let that catalog slip right through their fingers in 1985.
For Christ sake, why was Paul even looking to Yoko in 1985, he knew she was a flakey businesswoman who made decisions based on astrology bullshit!
In 1985, Paul could have bought the catalog with little or no hurt to himself and if he was the great, super guy that the Macca Mad Hatters tell us he is, he could have then offered Yoko a piece of the pie for fair compensation of course.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 19, 2015 23:39:43 GMT -5
Paul should have called the other two and said, "Let's tour and all four (Yoko) of us will use the money to share the catalog". George would have probably said no, but a 40 city tour and movie/VHS/LP would have brought in close to half a billion dollars in 1985 dollars-John or no John.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 21, 2015 3:02:56 GMT -5
I don't disagree with one word you wrote lowbasso! I have always been bemused that Paul and Yoko let that catalog slip right through their fingers in 1985. For Christ sake, why was Paul even looking to Yoko in 1985, he knew she was a flakey businesswoman who made decisions based on astrology bullshit! In 1985, Paul could have bought the catalog with little or no hurt to himself and if he was the great, super guy that the Macca Mad Hatters tell us he is, he could have then offered Yoko a piece of the pie for fair compensation of course. Can you imagine the savaging Paul would have got if he'd gone ahead and done it on his own?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 21, 2015 10:19:33 GMT -5
I don't disagree with one word you wrote lowbasso! I have always been bemused that Paul and Yoko let that catalog slip right through their fingers in 1985. For Christ sake, why was Paul even looking to Yoko in 1985, he knew she was a flakey businesswoman who made decisions based on astrology bullshit! In 1985, Paul could have bought the catalog with little or no hurt to himself and if he was the great, super guy that the Macca Mad Hatters tell us he is, he could have then offered Yoko a piece of the pie for fair compensation of course. Can you imagine the savaging Paul would have got if he'd gone ahead and done it on his own? Not if he had been more farsighted as I write above and first secure the deal from the evil "suits" to keep the songs in Pepperland and then once safely in his ownership make an offer to sell half to Yoko at his costs including his acquisition costs(attorney, accounting, other professional fees). He and Yoko obviously couldn't work together against the "fat businessmen in suits" to seal the deal in that frantic environment with competing offers but it would have been easier for Paul to first go alone and then deal with Yoko over years perhaps but at least not rushed. Hey, if she says no or will not agree to Paul's fair terms then no one can fault Paul and he now owns all the rights to the songs, not the bad guys!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 21, 2015 18:32:25 GMT -5
People keep saying Paul lost the rights to the songs. He never owned more than 20%.That became less when the catalog went public. Michael Jackson paid way too much for them. But like a work of art, once someone pays big money for something, the value goes up.
If you buy the catalog at their current price, you are buying it as an investment, like the handwritten lyrics to Hey Jude or a butcher cover album, certainly not for the income they provide.
If Yoko and Paul had bought the catalog together, I don't think there would have been much disagreement. You basically say yes to everything. Publishing is all about the income. It's not the same as owning the recordings. If Justin Bieber wants to record In My Life, you say sure. If he wants to sample it, you have problems. We probably still would not have Let it Be on Blu-ray.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 21, 2015 22:22:36 GMT -5
People keep saying Paul lost the rights to the songs. He never owned more than 20%.That became less when the catalog went public. Michael Jackson paid way too much for them. But like a work of art, once someone pays big money for something, the value goes up. If you buy the catalog at their current price, you are buying it as an investment, like the handwritten lyrics to Hey Jude or a butcher cover album, certainly not for the income they provide. If Yoko and Paul had bought the catalog together, I don't think there would have been much disagreement. You basically say yes to everything. Publishing is all about the income. It's not the same as owning the recordings. If Justin Bieber wants to record In My Life, you say sure. If he wants to sample it, you have problems. We probably still would not have Let it Be on Blu-ray. I don't know how you can say MJ paid "too much" for the catalogue. He paid $47.5 Million in an auction in 1985. Value of artistic items like music and paintings is determined by what an individual will pay for them when available to purchase. They could not be bought any cheaper at that moment in time. The catalogue was merged into Sony/ATV after Jackson's death and it is now estimated to be worth well over $1 Billion. That's a nice net profit over about 30 years. And a profit at sale means someone did not pay too much regardless of the original purchase figure. He most likely would have sold the catalogue to keep himself from bankruptcy had he lived and his planned London Mega-Concerts had not succeeded in bailing him out of possible bankruptcy. Saw this in Wikipedia, not sure if it is accurate; "In August 2013, it was reported that McCartney and Ono will be able to begin to reclaim the rights to Beatles songs in 2018, as a result of the Copyright Act of 1976, in which the ownership of songs written before 1978 reverts to the songwriter after 56 years. McCartney and Ono (or their estates) will be able to claim full rights to all Beatles songs by 2026."
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 22, 2015 0:13:41 GMT -5
I may be wrong. I was going on the fact that Yoko thought that $40 million was too high and Michael paid $47. But that was four years later. Maybe that is reasonable. I'd also heard when the talk was out that Michael was thinking of selling it, that he would not be able to get what he paid for it. But the talk was that he was thinking of selling half of it. That would drop the value.
Like a work of art, having been owned by Jackson, who is now deceased, adds to the current value.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 22, 2015 9:04:19 GMT -5
Saw this in Wikipedia, not sure if it is accurate; "In August 2013, it was reported that McCartney and Ono will be able to begin to reclaim the rights to Beatles songs in 2018, as a result of the Copyright Act of 1976, in which the ownership of songs written before 1978 reverts to the songwriter after 56 years. McCartney and Ono (or their estates) will be able to claim full rights to all Beatles songs by 2026."
I thought Beatle songs were now beginning to revert to Public Domain status over the next few years. The laws surrounding this subject differ in the UK than they do in the USA I believe. I was under the impression it is no longer financially sensible for Paul to pursue ownership of his shares of the Lennon/McCartney Catalogue.
Which is why he now just harps about changing his claimed share of the songs to calling them legally McCartney/Lennon, which I assume will never happen as long as Yoko is alive. Have Sean or Julian ever voiced opinions on this subject, or are they keeping mute as long as Yoko remains in control of John's share?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 22, 2015 13:14:08 GMT -5
The Public Domain thing got extended I think 25 years or so. That's why there was no "bootleg" for '64.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 22, 2015 20:36:55 GMT -5
Saw this in Wikipedia, not sure if it is accurate; "In August 2013, it was reported that McCartney and Ono will be able to begin to reclaim the rights to Beatles songs in 2018, as a result of the Copyright Act of 1976, in which the ownership of songs written before 1978 reverts to the songwriter after 56 years. McCartney and Ono (or their estates) will be able to claim full rights to all Beatles songs by 2026." I thought Beatle songs were now beginning to revert to Public Domain status over the next few years. The laws surrounding this subject differ in the UK than they do in the USA I believe. I was under the impression it is no longer financially sensible for Paul to pursue ownership of his shares of the Lennon/McCartney Catalogue. Which is why he now just harps about changing his claimed share of the songs to calling them legally McCartney/Lennon, which I assume will never happen as long as Yoko is alive. Have Sean or Julian ever voiced opinions on this subject, or are they keeping mute as long as Yoko remains in control of John's share? And Let it Be will be released a year later...
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Aug 24, 2015 0:09:15 GMT -5
Saw this in Wikipedia, not sure if it is accurate; "In August 2013, it was reported that McCartney and Ono will be able to begin to reclaim the rights to Beatles songs in 2018, as a result of the Copyright Act of 1976, in which the ownership of songs written before 1978 reverts to the songwriter after 56 years. McCartney and Ono (or their estates) will be able to claim full rights to all Beatles songs by 2026." I thought Beatle songs were now beginning to revert to Public Domain status over the next few years. The laws surrounding this subject differ in the UK than they do in the USA I believe. I was under the impression it is no longer financially sensible for Paul to pursue ownership of his shares of the Lennon/McCartney Catalogue. Which is why he now just harps about changing his claimed share of the songs to calling them legally McCartney/Lennon, which I assume will never happen as long as Yoko is alive. Have Sean or Julian ever voiced opinions on this subject, or are they keeping mute as long as Yoko remains in control of John's share? That stuff's been reported several times over the past few years. It's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Sept 22, 2015 3:19:40 GMT -5
If Paul had bought the lot in 1985, could he then have reverted all the songwriting credits (except for the 'Please Please Me' LP and single) to 'McCartney / Lennon'?
Just think... someone might have gone into a karaoke bar, programmed 'Strawberry Fields', and the display would have read: "Written by Paul McCartney and J-".
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Sept 22, 2015 3:32:48 GMT -5
My word. Wouldn't that have been something?
|
|