Did Michael Jackson Ever Give Beatles Songs Back To Paul McCartney?! | the detail.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 чер 2023
- Michael Jackson famously acquired the rights to the Beatles music catalog in the 1980s, which, as a result, amassed a huge amount of wealth over the years for the King of Pop. Music publishing, a venture Paul McCartney reportedly advised him to get into in the first place and felt betrayed when Jackson bought the songs the ex-Beatle lost many years before.
Tension built as the two music icons fought each other as to how the legendary music would be licensed and, maybe more importantly, who got a bigger portion of the profit. But after Jackson's death in 2009, many speculated what would happen to the catalog next.
Who's hands is the catalog now in? What its value today? And has Paul McCartney ever been able to gain control of his music since?
✨ TIKTOK | / thedetailmj
▶️ VIDEOS MENTIONED
Paul McCartney Reflects On His Feud With Michael Jackson Over The Beatles Catalog | bit.ly/3N0Dxli
Michael Jackson & Paul McCartney Hated Each Other... But Here’s Why! | bit.ly/43pxpZH
Michael Jackson Buys The Beatles | Moonwalker To Mogul | bit.ly/3qcdNcK
🎵 MUSIC | Sourced from Epidemic Sound | share.epidemicsound.com/mlmwhk
#MichaelJackson #PaulMcCartney #TheBeatles
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
🎬 We Create MJ Videos Every Week
the detail. is a dedicated Michael Jackson channel. We go behind the headlines to understand the man, the music and the magic behind the 'King of Pop' | SUBSCRIBE TODAY bit.ly/2wHjIuF - Розваги
So to recap:
1. Paul has the opportunity to buy the catalog first. Asks Yoko Ono to join. They think it is too expensive and they eventually don’t buy it. Later when the price is even higher they do not even bid, so Michael gets it along with other artists songs as it was a bundle.
2. Michael probably already knew how the industry works. He knew how other artists have been taken advantage of and he was aware of black artists struggling financially. So Paul probably didn’t give him that much of an advice… Even Freddie Mercury once said that you cannot give any tips to Michael; he is young but too long in the industry. Michael probably just used Paul’s ‘tip’ as an opportunity to tell him that he intended to buy the catalog.
3. Michael gives back the songs to an artist that was struggling financially. That was Little Richard if I am not mistaken. Obviously Paul had his own fortune and catalogs of other artists, so didn’t have any immediate need. He was doing business himself buying songs of others.
4. Paul complaints that Michael did not want to negotiate the royalty % for Paul, as a ‘raise’. I do not know how this works, but seems silly. Why would anyone owning something, give away part of its value for free? Did Paul do the same to the artists that he owned the songs of. I wish an interviewer had asked him about that, just so we can see his approach to this.
5. About the commercialisation of the songs, I am a bit indecisive here. Maybe it sounded bad to be included in commercials like Nike, but on the other hand maybe it helped to keep the songs alive and increased their value (?). Anyway, given all the above points and the fact that Paul was doing similar business himself, I am not surprised that Michael was pushing back saying ‘this is just business’.
6. Overall I have the impression that Michael wanted to prove that someone like him can reach the top. He wanted to prove himself, to his father, to the industry and to the whole world. He was very driven and knew his potential (but never greedy, as once he reached the top he just wanted to kind of save the world…). Owning the catalog was one aspect of obtaining this status and respect. And it was expensive at this point, probably he couldn’t imagine the price that this would have today.. I am still puzzled though why his estate sold it to sony after his death, but maybe that was a good move as eventually Paul could legally get it back soon after (at least the US part).
Complex situation but I do not see any fault on the part of MJ here. Paul speaks superficially kindly, while bringing up morals and ethics obviously judging Michael, without ever revealing his own strategy with the other catalogs he owns. Seems hypocritical. While on the other hand Michael was never good at explaining himself; although not sure if he was ever directly asked about it.
Overall though this industry standard should change. The songwriters should own their music from the beginning . If they choose to sell it later, that’s should be up to them. Too many have been taken advantage of, and too many artists keep complaining about it…
Paul asked Yoko Ono if she wanted to bid on the Beatles catalog together. She declined to join him and was happy to see Michael buy them. She said that if she and Paul had bought them, they would have had fights over how to manage all of it and the press would write countless stories about that. Paul just made a mistake by not bidding at all and it would be nice for him to acknowledge that. Also, Michael owned many artists back catalog and I've heard stories of him gifting the publishing rights back to a few of them if they had fallen on hard times... I think he did this with Little Richard.
He never made a bid
@@annemclean2548 you are correct, thanks! I edited my post reflecting that. After Yoko turned him down he chose not to bid at all.
Yes he did this especially for early black artist that got screwed over deals so yes he did give done artist their work back
People forget Yoko & Paul actually had a fued for years every since John started bringing her around, it to years to mend that as well.
@@whereiszach
Paul hasn't made a mistake at all, he just choose not to bid, so he doesn't need to ackowledge anything. He is not angry at Jackson and he recognized that he could do what he did. Paul was simply surprised by MJ's choice and was slightly annoyed that he never answered to many of his letters about the catalog and maybe about other things. That's what he told publicly, and he has the right to do it just as Jackson had the right to buy the songs.
Michael did what executives have been doing to black artists for decades. And what do they tell them when asking for rights/money?
Its business
And Michael gave back a lot of rights to black artists, including Little Richard...
@@ClaraSantos-mg8zwreally? Where you read?
I'm asking because i don't know, i'm not being sarcastic or something
@@Rickil96trollencioit's true Michael gave some black artists their rights back.
@@raiden8991 do you have a link? I don't doubts, michael was a great person in live.
But i would like knowledge more of that stories.
@@Rickil96trollencio I saw it in a documentary called Loving Neverland, it's on UA-cam.
He did it after Purchasing the Beetles catalogue.
I never understood why Paul was mad at Michael. He KNEW in advance what was going to happen. Then want to play victim? 🤣🤣🤦🏽♀🤦🏽♀
Been waiting for this one!! Thank you as always!!!
I honestly get both sides. Paul should obviously get his songs back at some point, but Michael also paid an insane amount for the songs, so he had every right to try and make his money back
Their was talk of songs being returned to their original writers after 50 - copyright clause, in the USA, don't know about other countries ..
I'm not a huge fan of Paul as an individual but yeah I would prefer for any artist to retain control over their work if that's what they want. Of course, I'd like to see John's children and decendants also retain some benefit from the Lennon/McCartney songs, so will be interesting to see if Paul is mananimous enough to provide for that at some point if he does regain control of those works.
@@jrgboy You seem to be the only one here aware of the US Copyright law of 1967. McCartney had to sue and then settle with Sony to get all the rights to his songs back, because England refused to go by US law, but he did it. That hasn't sunk in with almost anyone writing here.
@@seancurran6727 - Thanks, I was sure I read about this a while ago ..
Yep, Michael had every right to try and make his money back.
This is a misconception. Paul had the chance to buy back the catalog and he refused, leading Michael to buying them. Whatever "betrayal" and resentment he felt, that was all on him.
This is a shallow analysis
Wrong. McCartney at the time desperately wanted the Beatles catalogue but couldn't afford it. He was the only Beatle who knew their last manager Allen Klein was a crook & was proved right. To try & help a friend & offer advice & that friend to buy YOUR music may have been just 'business' but it was still a shitty act on MJ's part.
@@gingergirl1122there was an entire group that could’ve put their money TOGETHER to own THEIR catalogue… they didn’t jump at the opportunity to do so. Michael bought it because as I’m sure you know by now, it’s Chess not checkers in the music industry🤷🏾♀️…
@@gingergirl1122 McCartney could afford it, come on. He did't want to bid because he thought the price was to high. If it wasn't Michael buying it it would be someone else and Yoko at least was glad it was a friend who bought it. Don't understand the "betrayal" here
@@ead630 Shallow in what way?
McCartney had more than enough money to buy his catalogue back. He thought it was too expensive and lost his chance. No one but himself to blame for losing such lucrative investment opportunity.
Paul also owned the catalog of other musicians.
Buddy Holly who's SONGS he Used...Paul said to help the HOLLY FAMILY 😅
Exactly
That’s crazy can you make one on farewell my summer love and the story behind that because I don’t see too many UA-cam videos telling that story
I understand the personal feelings of Paul McCartney getting his music, but MJ was doing what Paul said. At the end of the day, it was simply business. I would have done the same thing. Great video from the detail. Long live the king of pop. 🎉
"...was doing what Paul said" and what Paul was doing with other artist's work at the time.
Remind me never to trust you or let you in my home.
Paul and the other Beatles had plenty of money by the mid 70s, they could've bought back the ATV catalogue themselves if they really wanted to. If he wanted to buy it back,why would he tell Michael about it? Michael probably perceived this as a tip. Paul was asleep at the wheel and never bid on it, weird story!
Seriously I could CARELESS....
Maybe, since there was approximately 4000 total songs in the catalog, Paul was hoping MJ would make the purchase and then sell just the Lennon/McCartney songs back to Paul. That's just speculation but I find the timeline of their "friendship" and collaboration in relation to that purchase very suggestive of something like that.
There is no crying in the Music Business. Put your money where you're mouth is. Paul, you're alive and Michael is gone. Do better while you're still alive if you can, that's the best revenge. Stop crying over it.
@@angiecoers6255 How’s he crying? He’s asked questions and answers them. At the end of the day his music will live for another hundred years, Jackson’s is mainly already forgotten except among his peculiar fans.
MJ is a great one .
I'll start by saying I am a McCartney fan first and foremost, having got into his music through Wings as a child and then getting into The Beatles. I do get the feeling that Michael Jackson's commercialising of The Beatles back catalogue may have served to introduce the music to younger generations and reinforced its popularity in general. I would've felt happier for the music to remain in the ownership of the songwriters, but the seeds were sewn back in the early days with Northern Songs/ATV. Ironically, the trend now is for artists to sell their back catalogues. It's like a mexican wave!
Explain how every artist is selling their catalog of music when most artists catalog is owned by the record company. Take the case of Prince. He wrote and created all his own music but the initial contract he signed gave ownership of his music to Warner Bros music label. Hence when he wanted the masters back Warner Bros refused so he stop making music under the name Prince started using a symbol and etched the word slave in his beard as a sign of protest. Prince in order to get his record label to sell him his music back refused to create any other music or tour under the name Prince until Warner Bros let him buy his masters back. In the mid to late 1990s, Prince was seen doing interviews and promoting his new music on tv. He was also blasting his record company for not allowing him to buy his own music back. Warner Bros, realizing they were losing money eventually cut a deal with Prince and resolved their feud. Prince wasn’t broke because he had his own paisley park label with a roster of artists. Michael Jackson was a genius in writing, collaborating but making sure to publish his music through his own publishing company MJJ. Where he controlled all own his music. More artists now are realizing the merits of owning their masters.
@@fidelnenas8390 Bob Dylan, Fleetwood Mac, Springsteen, Justin Timberlake, Neil Young and even David Bowie and Whitney Houston's estates have sold their back catalogues, whereas the likes of Squeeze and Taylor Swift actually re-recorded their earlier material in order to maintain their rights over their catalogues. It seems that artists are split on whether it is better to have the money or the rights. I guess it is the same as having royalties or a lump sum.
@@leftyamazed Good points. Hanging on to the rights can be a good choice but it still takes work and good business sense to keep the value growing over time. For some, it's probably better to sell and invest the lump sum. Good investments can be expected to provide an average yearly growth/gain of 10%. That's probably a lot better for MOST artists rather than gambling that their work will remain relevant and popular enough to maintain and increase in value over the coming twenty years from any point in time.
@@fidelnenas8390 Owning your masters and owning your publishing are two different things. Dylan just sold his catalog for more than 200 million, enough to buy a few Leopard skin pill box hats. Now whoever bought them can use them in commercials, print songbooks, whatever they want to do with them. U2 is another modern band that kept it's publishing since day one, imagine being in your 20's and on the verge of major acclaim with all the shark managers and agents out there, counting on you not knowing how publishing works.
Justin Bieber just sold his catalog for $200M to Hipgnosis. Not to be outdone, Drake sold his rights to Universal for an eye-watering $400M.
U should do a documentary on off the wall. I love your videos ❤
Why did Paul McCartney not have his own catalogue? It's weird to start a grudge with your own good friend over that kind of thing. Couldn't they have negotiated something for this?
Paul had his hands tied a bit as he was forced to do this business with Yoko as the catalogue is a Lennon-McCartney product. Yoko refused to bid higher and wanted instead to wait for a better deal, so Michael bought it instead. Paul tried to be respectful, even though he felt betrayed, and attempted to negotiate with Michael to buy the catalogue back but Michael always refused.
They signed a bad deal in the beginning of the Beatles
Paul didn't even know what publishing was when he made that deal. Micheal was just being a good businessman. Just an unfortunate situation
@@KingdomCooperFan Wow, that's eye opening. So they let Yoko Ono have that power when she wasn't a member of their band...
And we don't remember Michael as a savage businessman.
@@Tech-cy9yoI wouldve asked why he signed his publishing away but to be honest, they might've needed to or they would've never got the opportunity to become the Beatles.
I liked it very much. Thanks a lot.😊
I don't understand why John and Paul gave up their publishing rights in the first place. They really had some bad management.
Great job, greetings from Dominican Republic.
Michael Jackson ❤❤❤❤
Paul told Michael to buy songs of music so mj said he will buy Paul’s
He told Michael to get into music publishing. He didn't actually think MJ would buy the catalogue though.
Period
@@TheUltimateOpportunistjokes on him! He thought MJ was joking but MJ is a hard businessman and smart individual!
@@pressurejawn yeah, I don't have much sympathy tbh.
How come Paul wasn't skewered in the press for wanting his music back like Prince was?.
Thank God he got is songs back after that private settlement with Sony
Ive NEVER Slept Better. 😅
Yeah otherwise it would have been the end of the world for that billionaire and all his sycophants .
Because they wanted Michael Jackson death 💀 and they succeeded otherwise MJ would never sold it to Sony never ever ☝🏽✅💯that’s why they wanted and wish him dead 💀 it’s a dirty game
I'm just tired of Everyone assuming MJ needed to learn about the business from him when he had already been on 2 labels & done prelabel work before meeting him! I guess people forget that MOTOWN was not just a label but is a publishing company As well! Remember Ray Charles, he new him as well the master at owning publishing! & on & on he knew! Paul may have assumed he knew nothing. but that's what people get for assuming. He talked about learning the business on interviews as a kid, PR, publishing etc. That's why he (& Bros)left MOTOWN because he knew he couldn't grow there. I just wish this topic would go away! You win some, you lose some! It's theses labels people should be bashing for their slave contracts, etc. NEXT! as always RIH 👑KOP 1❤💯
Agreed. McCartney learned a few tips and tricks but the way he handled that situation makes it self evident that he was he was no business genius/strategist.
@@brt5273
Do you know about McCartney strategically saving the Beatles form allen Klein in the early 70's, right? And no, McCartney just didn't want to buy back his songs, since he tought they were to expensive.
The question is if it was the other way around would Paul does it differently???
There was about 4000 total songs in that catalog and I can't see McCartney offering all those other artists back their music.
MJ said : "If Paul didnt want to invest $47.5 million in his own songs, then he shouldn't come crying to me now"...
Paul was always a crybaby and ge didnt huy the catalog when he had the chance . Enough of his immaturity
Ok.🙄
@@jimmymelendez1836 what’s with the Sarcasm
Truth
You Einsteins don't realize that McCartney now owns all those rights now. Look it up!
If Paul had only bought back the song-catalogue back in the day. Crazy, considering he first (and second) dibs on it as well as having the money to do so. The catalogue is now worth over a billion U.S. dollars. DOH!!!
hey look I love Michael King Jackson,J5,Paul McCartney,The Beatles,John Lennon,etc.All of these great musicians have made such an impact on the music industry and the world 🌎,like so many other great musicians from yesterday to today they will always have awesome 🎼 yeah you know I love ya to Janet Jackson,Diana Ross,Aaliyah,2pac,Biggie Smalls,NWA,Eazy-E,Dr Dre,Eminem,50cent,Snoop Dogg,Tina Turner,Kool and the Gang,DMX,Jay-Z,Beyoncé,Destiny’s Child,Brandy,Monica,Eve,Jadakiss,Ruff-Riders,Mary-J-Blige,T-pain,etc,my goodness I can go on and on with so many amazing musicians there’s just so many talented musicians that will always deserve a big award 🥇
I like Paul as a musician and as a person as well. Acually Paul is a very rich man and he could easily live with only few of the copyrights of his own songs.
It seems McCartney saw Michael as the way to get everything he wanted without having to pay. He said blatantly that he gave him the idea: why???? Why was he so interested in getting close to him, writing for him? Then giving him the publishing idea....seems like a set up and then he realizee he used the wrong pawn because that pawn wasn't an idiot.
It only seems like that to an idiot.
If he wanted it that badly, he should have purchased it himself. You want to fault him for being a better business man.
he got out bid by Michael. your assuming Paul was filthy rich, when he had to split his money with other members of the Beatles plus he didn’t owned any of his music so he couldn’t profit from them.
@@gmadera7as you just said, Paul had OTHER MEMBERS in the group who were ALL paid. If they wanted their catalog, they should’ve came to together to purchase
Paul is a Genius Business man owning rights to Elvis, buddy holly, Carl Perkins and others. He got screwed over back in the 60s
@@alanabrunoAbsolutely correct.
@@gmadera7Lennon's estate was worth over $200M when he died in 1980. Considering Paul's proliffic post Beatles career, If he wasn't worth more than twice that, and filthy rich in 1985 then he would be quite a dumbass.
Love you Michael
The answer is no. Paul had to buy it back after his death.
These are great videos…
2:45 the moment MJ got a huge target on his back...
The two greatest music artists of all time.
Michael Jackson is the best
Based on his Howard Stern interview, it sounds like he didn't want to humble himself to buy back his catalogue. I do get his point - he wrote them for free. But he could have just as easily recouped the money or flipped it later on.
It does annoy me that people think the ATV catalogue consisted of just the Beatles music when in fact it had many many other famous artists music, it even included music you hear in elevators. The Beatles were just the biggest act that’s all.
If Paul didn't want them sold and how did he let them get sold and they did the song (the man) together
This is straight BS they weaseled there way for Paul to get his music back as soon as MJ died talks started to begin smh……Dude been crying for years for his music he still was bitter MJ had it smh. MJ turned the Beatles music catalog into billions Paul should be thanking MJ
Paul is the most talented musician on earth (tied with Prince), he is also the richest. He doesn't give a damn about what MJ did one day in 1984.
Sony got all of it's catalogs back from Michaels estate
@3:04 anybody know what video is that from?
What was Paul doing on the boat watching Leaving Neverland with Oprah ? Why was he there for that?
David Geffen was behind Michael Jackson’s false allegations and Paul McCartney is David Geffen’s friend, so he knew about those false allegations.
I always wondered that too.
he what?????
@@lucii3135 Oprah Winfrey celebrated her 65th birthday aboard her friend David Geffen's megayacht and apparantly watched "Leaving Neverland" along with Paul McCartney and friends.
Yeah let that sink in. That's the sort of person McCartney actually is.
One Billion wow that's crazy
other year in review video please 🙏🏼
Next week
If the Catalog would have been for the songs of "Freddy and the Pacemakers" there would be no issue or video. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong about this. I wonder how Michael would have felt if Berry Gordy just up and sold all the old Jackson 5 songs to someone else to make money off of it, or worse yet sold all the songwriting royalties for THRILLER. All of Michael's stuff was protected because guys like Berry Gordy and others LEARNED from the Mistakes the Beatles and the Rolling Stones made.
When the Beatles signed the contract with ATV, original songwriters being successful for extended periods of time was unheard of unless you were a contracted writer like Goffin and King or Neil Diamond. Nothing of what exists today or when Michael purchased the Beatles catalog was even a THOUGHT back in the early to mid 60s. The Beatles thought they would be LUCKY to be around for a few YEARS. NOBODY, especially not them, could have predicted what happened.
Thats the problem. When it DID happen everyone went crazy with greed. ATV. Alan Klein, even the BEATLES. Its just been steamrolling since. GEORGE was the only one who had the sense to say "To hell with this! I have my own publishing company and that it" In fact the story is, one of the first songs Michel went looking for in the catalog was "Something" and was pissed when he found out he didn't own it.
Its now been 60 years. This is kinda like someone fighting the descendants of Beethoven over the 9th Symphony royalties. How many years do John and Paul have to be DEAD before this stupidity stops. John and Paul were two kids who got ripped off by an industry who prided itself on ripping artists off. It STILL DOES(Go look up "Taylor Swift ReRecords her Albums to get rights back").
There are ways to make money off the songs and music without acting like you are doing the artist who CREATES them some favor by publishing them. Again, its over 60 YEARS. Let the man have his stuff back and let him do what he wants with it. I think the "Music Industry" has made more than enough off the back of The Beatles. If they can't make as much off their current crop of artists.....whos fault is THAT?!?!
Michael did not leave anything to Paul in his will
And Lennon didn’t leave anything in his will to Julian
@@joshdaboss2365a horrible father
That is not true McCartney got first refusal, there was a few people bidding but none were Paul. He did not want to buy them he sat back letting MJ buy them 47million, then wanted his say and a special deal He and John sold them,, Pauk owns plenty of other peoples music has anybody got a special deal from him.
Exactly!
No why would he mj buy the songs so not sell back to Paul
I loveee your videos can you become a Whitney Houston fan and do simular videos for her aswell ? lol
Are you sure Sony regained control over the catalog in 2009 "immediately" because Michael's lawyers went in and restructured so many debts. I thought the buyout wasn't until 2016 for the entirely of the 50% because the estate did hold on to 10% of EMI which they later sold so Michael did get his 1 billion dollars thanks to his lawyer's
Im just disagreeing slightly with the timing.
They took over control of the catalogue while his estate established themselves and restructured their assets.
Really sucks, that those vultures would sell his catalogue, considering how michael struggles to not do it.
I don't know exactly when Sony bought them from the Jackson estate, but I do know when McCartney got them all back. 2017!
@@thedetail. Warum ißt das nicht mit deutsch Untertitel ich warste englisch schade
@@thedetail. any info why the estate of MJ decided to sell the catalog in 2016? They have paid. Ack the debts by then, so they didn’t need to sell the catalog. It puzzles me that they sold it while MJ was avoiding this fiercely, even with his cash issues at the end of his life…
If Jackson had not made the purchase, someone else with superior business sense to McCartney would have at near the same price point. The approximately 4000 song catalog not only contained valuable songs by the Beatles but also pieces by Elvis, Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen and other big and fairly big names. If McCartney ever approached George or Ringo about collaborating to help make the purchase, I've never heard about it. I can't imagine him "lowering" himself to do that, narcissist that he is. Instead he tried to partner with Yoko under the delusion that they could get the package cheap and split big profits between just the two of them. They certainly had the assets between them to make the purchase. In 1980 Lennon's estate was worth over $200M when he died, and only continued to increase in value, and Paul is bound to have had even more at that time since he had the most prolific post Beatles carreer. So by 1985 their combined net worth would have been well over $400M. But they were too cheap and stupid to either pay cash, liquidate assets or even borrow against the catalog's value to make the deal happen. Bad choices.The right thing would have been to approach everyone represented in that catalog, offer them the option to go in on the deal and buy back their own songs as well. But McCartney is not that sort of individual. He wanted to own all that for himself just like Jackson did. The only thing cringier than him winging about it all these years is his fans simpering about "poor mistreated Paul"😂
F*cker's worth over $1.2 billion now, so boo f*cking hoo that he doesn't quite own every fart he ever cut.
But he does own them, your folly. Look it up.
😂😂😂😂😂😭😭😭😭😭
It's a bit hard to know about a bad relationship between people you love..😕😐💔🤷
Let’s talk about how they got where they are now @Sony 🤔 🤔 🤔 😡
Can you please do a new video on Michael Jackson and Eminem’s dyed and how Michael bought his music lol
That was as clear as mud.
Hmm 🤔
Short answer: No.
They were The Beatles...
Why did they "sell" in the 1st place?
This is exactly what Darrell Hall and John Oates are fighting about now.
It's a shame to allow companies own their creations...it's the same as art.
The Detail when are you making the new i was asking for the video is gonna be about 2004 year in review please 😢 are gonna make it 🙏🏻 when will it come out can you say last time when i commented about the new video you said that it's coming in 2 weeks probably
Next week
branca sold atv to Sony, his death seems more orchestrated.
They all got it all back! They killed him!
that deal mike made in 95 is way ultimately lead to his demise.
Why was MJ'S will so openly discussed when he was so much younger than Paul?.
😂 that's what he get
Hi bro,when will you answer my question?
Here in Somalia. Everyone knows who Michael Jackson is even the smallest village. There is no one else like him.
He is the last great American.
The Estate should have NEVER given SONY the rest of that catalog, but Mike should have been clear about it in the will because he knew that's all sony & anyone really cared about! Just sad that's all I know 😢RIH 👑KOP 1❤
+reportcred Why do you think there was such an agenda to ruin his name & later such a plot to end his life?
With Michael out of the picture, his kids would be too young to fight these battles & his parents would be too old.
Perfect opportunity to go in for the kill & make the heist.
Now they even want Michael's master recordings on top of it.
His kids haven't yet gotten full control yet. Still too young. The industry is DEVIOUS.
Paul McCartney was given at least two opportunities to purchase the catalog and he turned it down. He was such a little b**** in the public about the situation but he is the one that turn down the business opportunity twice
Why a little bitch? He just said he was surprised by MJ's move, and that they haven't had no more good relationships because Jackson wouldn't respond to his letters. That's it. Paul doesn't need to be a bitch, he is the most talented and versatile musician ever (tied with Prince), he is also the richest today, he doesn't really give a damn...
The rabbit got the masters for once. Let it go.
No that’s why he mad and talked shit about Michael AFTER his death! Jealous snakes really come out of the woodworks after life too.
what shit talking?
What.. LOL I don't think he was jealous to be honest. I don't think you understandhow BIG the beatles were
I don't remember him talking trash about Michael after his death either
@@williebelcher9303 yeah, all these clips are pre Michael's death. And the...comment he gave in light of Leaving Neverland was...vague and judicious enough that I felt he was trying not to raise an eyebrow but really, he knew nothing. But for some reason, no one seems to allow a celeb to say that.
@@sorceress1986 yeah he said he never knew Michael had a darkside
Paul Mccartney says, "Our songs have become commercialized too much". What the hell. The Beatles have been commercialized since 1962. What a joke.
Шоу бизнес это как война или ты - пан или пропал. Майкл сделал ставку выгодную. Но столкнулся с бандитами и при шоу бизнесе как и при власти. Деньги всегда привлекают шакалов. Как заканечивают жизнь многие звезды - жесть. Пол мог выкупит права, не сделал этого. Это мог сделать кто угодно Рискнул Майкл Бизнесмен....
McCarty should've had Mike, Lennoned
Why did Paul sell them in the 1st place
Rumors are going around their was a semi hostile environment on the "Say Say Say" set. You hear Michael's revenge points when he's slighted. The biggest going around is him buying Eminem for his video about his hair catching fire....
How are you upset about Mike buying the catalog and you didn’t want it
I’m not.
Sony music has the Beatles catalog Michael sold it to them
Sony does not, Paul McCartney owns all these rights now and has since 2017. Michael didn't sell anything to Sony, he was dead when that happened. His estate did. Sony basically rented them, they are now all back in the hands of the guy that wrote them. Ob-la-di, Ob-la da!
@@seancurran6727 well that’s news to me I’m just going to what I heard that Michael sold 50 percent of it to Sony for 95 million
So who has control over his estate now?
One more part of the plot that got MJ killed. Yes I said it! And Paul knows what happend.
Paul even knows how to spell happened.......................
Probably buried them with Michael
give back?? of course not! he would sell them to them if they wanted, but that never happened.
No he didnt its one investment keeping him wealthy and paul is still bitter over it
Does it really matter? He's had an amazing life and enough money for 100 lives
no
McCartney had the chance to buy the Beatles songs. But he didn't,,so Michael Jackson did. Great move by Michael. McCartney had no right to get mad at Michael.
Paul never got mad at Michael, fans get mad, fans of both musicians.
McCartney owns all rights to his own songs since 2017 . Try to keep up.
What on earth did MJ want the Beatles music catalogue for? He bought Eminem's to eliminate him. He was unkind about the Beatles so I assume he wanted to eliminate them too, to the best of his ability. He was racist about Elvis saying that he was only called the king because he was white. And he wanted Elvis's catalogue - what was remaining at least.
Thankfully Lisa Marie didn't hand the songs over.
MJ wanted to be the best in the world rather than one of the best. The competition was unbearable for him. A shame because he really was a superb entertainer. Just had some weird stuff attached in too big a way and an awful lot of bitterness. Money may not bring you happiness in real terms but it lets you get a lot of what you think you want, and get away with a lot of what you shouldn't.
Er war und ißt immer noch .
But first let's delay answering the reason why you clicked on
Not right that paul doesn't own his music.
“Beatles” Beat Les did The BEATLES, right beat it for michael, wel Never know…
Why is it such a big thing that Michael bought the beatles catalogue if it wasn't Michael it would of been someone else it was up for sale end off good for Michael buying the catalogue but people was and still is nasty when it comes to Michael shame on them rip Michael jackson ❤
😂
I bet he left them to his kids
The catalog is a curse. The Beatles did some immoral things to obtain such a catalog & ultimately Michael lost his life because of this catalog…it’s cursed.
I know Paul probably didn’t have the funds like Michael but Michael is a businessman when it comes to that side in music so he should have been expecting that Michael wasn’t going to do anything about the Beatles songs and Paul
Not much of a businessman. He died a bankrupt.
@@annoyingbstard9407 early years he was a decent businessman
MJ probably would’ve been better off not buying that catalog..
Would of being killed early either way. His life is very similar to that of Mozart in almost every single way...
Both are:
- 7th child of the family
- Being a performing star at a young age of 5-6
- Being super versitile in every genre of music during their time
- Can memorize a whole piece of music and have all the songs in their head
- Work hard but most important work smart without struggling musically unlike Beethoven
- Had a strict father
- Had a super talented sister
- Short with big eyes and soft voices but can get really aggressive and loud when needed
- Both wore red and became famous for wearing red
- Loves to spend money and are super bad at handling money then ended up in debt
- Childlike and likes to laugh and do pranks
- Both excel for live stage and huge productions with dancers, opera singers, story line (in MJ's time it's music videos, in Mozart's time it's Opera)
- Both died of mysterious circumstances while claiming someone's out here to murder them.
- Both copied/stole ideas of other current artists and made it better and mastered them completely (Mozart copied Haydn's form of classical music composition while MJ copied James Brown and other dancers with Moonwalk...)
- Both dress lavish and glamoursly flamboyantly.
- Both had shitty and useless children but left enough money to feed them for a long time.
catalogue = accusations
Beatles got fuckkkkedddddd
the black version of mike jackson died from a fire.. they replaced hime with the white puedo version
???
@@BehindTheMaskMJjust a troll
7 seconds... and already a mistake, michael jackson i'm sorry but he was not a musician... he was a singer. that's quite different... saying jackson is a singer is like saying hamilton is a car manufacturer.