Latest on MJJC

About Michael's purchase of The Beatles songs

Crisstti

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
197
Points
0
Location
Chile
I read that Randy Taraborrelli said that John Branca, called Paul before buying the songs,
and asked him if he was interested in buying them, and that he said he
wasn't. I haven't read the biography, I've read read some people's
comments about it...

Does anyone know if that was indeed the case or if anyone else has said it was?.

It doesn't sound like that was the case from what Paul said about it, he sounded quite upset... what reproach could he have made if he was indeed asked before?.

But then, I kinda get the impression that Paul has implied (or just said) that the main problem was really that he wanted "a rise", that he wanted Michael to pay him more everytime the songs got played or something (not sure how all of that works...), that he would ask him and Michael refused, and that then "Michael wouldn't take my calls any
more". So that makes it sound as if it was Michael the one who actually got annoyed or tired and kind of cut Paul off, and not the other way around...

What do you think?.
 
Here's what George Harrison and Paul McCartney actually said about this (starts near bottom of page):

http://books.google.com/books?id=9SISX2yM-VsC&pg=PA361

This indicates that when Paul realized Michael was willing to pay at least twice the asking price in order to outbid him, he gave up. He and George Harrison say in this book they were angry, thought Michael was a friend. Paul forgave him and spoke highly of him in this interview after Michael's death (starting around 2:00) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT2utvvlHQw
 
They themselves have been having endless problems on getting rightfully paid for their artistry... I think till they founded Apple... but I might be wrong in this. So it's difficult for me to believe that Paul did NOT want to buy that catalogue.
 
Limonali said:
They themselves have been having endless problems on getting rightfully paid for their artistry... I think till they founded Apple... but I might be wrong in this. So it's difficult for me to believe that Paul did NOT want to buy that catalogue.
Click to expand...

He did want to buy it.

Thanks to the people who have posted links... they're very interesting.

I really have to go to study now, but this is what I think we have about it:

- Paul and Michael become friends around 1981 or 1982.
- Michael then, having made a lot of money with Thriller, asks Paul for business advice. Paul recommended music publishing.
I've read in other places that that happened in Paul's house and that Paul just began talking about music publishing on his own, but he has said on more than one occasion that he gave advice to Michael to get involved in the music publishing business.
It was Paul's father in law, Lee Eastman, who got him involved in that business in the early 1970's.
- Michael said to Paul - jokingly, Paul thought - that he was going to buy his songs.
- The ATV catalog went for sale. They offered Paul the songs for 20 million. Paul has said so and the guy who sold them confirms it in that YouTube video.
- About Paul's answer to that offer, Paul has said that he felt it was expensive, but that it'd be worth it. But he felt it would look bad if he had John's songs, so he rang up Yoko and offered her to buy them half and half. She told him she could get them for 5 million (5 million each of the whole thing?, who knows...). Paul wasn't sure but he said OK. So he waited. In the meantime (who knows how long) Michael got them for 50 million.

Apparently Taraborrelli said that John Branca called Paul and Paul said he wasn't going to buy them. I have to say considering what Paul's said about it that doesn't seem to be true.

The guy who had bought ATV and who sold it to Michael said that Paul wasn't interested at the time. He might very well have been talking about his lack of answer to the 20 million offer.

- From the Letterman interview and from other things I've heard him say, it seems the main problem was that Michael refused Paul's requests to "give him a rise". And I get the impression Michael ended up getting annoyed by Paul's insistence and kind of cut him off.

Opinions?.
 
There's a book about Beatles with a whole chapter about the 1985 purchase. I posted a summary of it here on the MJJVault forum. I'll find it and post it here
 
Is it true that the rights to this catalogue will expire in 2018?
 
ReneeM said:
Is it true that the rights to this catalogue will expire in 2018?
Click to expand...

Not sure when, but Paul has indeed said more than once that the rights of the songs will revert back to him in a few years.

It wouldn't be all at once anyway. It'd be greadually, depending on when the songs where released.
 
MJJ Lover xOX said:
Yoko was glad Michael bought it
Click to expand...

She was, and I suspect that is something that made Paul more upset about it. Because he didn't buy them because Yoko said she could get a better deal. And then Michael buys them and she says she's glad. And you know they didn't exactly get along...

You know, there's a rumour in among Beatles fans that Yoko did it on purpose so that Michael would buy them. They did know each other after all. And buying the rights didn't mean the same to Yoko than to Paul. Not only because she didn't write the songs, but because, being that John was dead, the rights would revert back to his estate (Yoko) earlier than to Paul. Many if not all have reverted already. That is why Paul has complained that Yoko makes more money for Yesterday than he does.

(Not that I'm saying I believe the rumour, or that Paul believes it, for that matter).
 
Paul told michael he was going to buy it and outbid Yoko Ono, then michael outbid them both, which hurt paul, i love michael, but i think that was mean, friendship is worth more then anything in the world.
 
comet1 said:
Paul told michael he was going to buy it and outbid Yoko Ono, then michael outbid them both, which hurt paul, i love michael, but i think that was mean, friendship is worth more then anything in the world.
Click to expand...

NO, Paul cannot have told Michael he was going to buy them and outbid Yoko, because his intention was to buy them WITH Yoko.

If Michael knew Paul wanted to buy them, I don't know. There are conflicting stories, as have been posted here.
 
Crisstti said:
Not sure when, but Paul has indeed said more than once that the rights of the songs will revert back to him in a few years.

It wouldn't be all at once anyway. It'd be greadually, depending on when the songs where released.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much. :) I've heard all about the theories that Sony was sabatoging Michael to get the catalogue. I was wondering if that would even make sense since the rights will revert back to the artists in a few years.
 
ReneeM said:
Thank you very much. :) I've heard all about the theories that Sony was sabatoging Michael to get the catalogue. I was wondering if that would even make sense since the rights will revert back to the artists in a few years.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've read about those theories as well...

I'm not sure how the rights thing works. But the rights wont revert to Paul for year still anyway. How much money could be made by having them in the meantime now?, a lot it seems, from what the catalogue is said to be worth. And how much could have been made in the 90's, that is when Sonny was supposed to be sabotaging Michael?. A lot more.

Anyway, what I don't understand is how is that the catalogue is supossed to hold the rights to songs that are older than the Beatles ones, like Elvis' and others... shouldn't they have reverted to the artists or the estates...?
 
Crisstti said:
Yeah, I've read about those theories as well...

I'm not sure how the rights thing works. But the rights wont revert to Paul for year still anyway. How much money could be made by having them in the meantime now?, a lot it seems, from what the catalogue is said to be worth. And how much could have been made in the 90's, that is when Sonny was supposed to be sabotaging Michael?. A lot more.

Anyway, what I don't understand is how is that the catalogue is supossed to hold the rights to songs that are older than the Beatles ones, like Elvis' and others... shouldn't they have reverted to the artists or the estates...?
Click to expand...


I wonder that also. That catalogue also had songs by Little Richard. I read that Michael asked his mother about giving Little Richard his songs back. Supposedly, his mother told him to do the right thing and give Little Richard his songs.
 
the performance rights run out after so many years. so the performer will stop getting royalites from the songs. older artists are trying to get it changed and have the years extended. i read an article about something happening around 2018 like another posters said but paul doesnt get anything back. maybe the article was refering to what i posted above about performance rights cause many times the media have mixed that up with the publishing rights
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top