Latest on MJJC

BBC 'pulls Paul McCartney's Michael Jackson impersonation'

thanks elusive, nice explanation.
Still I dont like them calling him jack* though. Because it has the wa*ck* connotation and I know there are many who use it to show disrepect to him. And, Mike himself doesn't like it.
 
ilovemjj4ever said:
thanks elusive, nice explanation.
Still I dont like them calling him jack* though. Because it has the wa*ck* connotation and I know there are many who use it to show disrepect to him. And, Mike himself doesn't like it.
Click to expand...

yeah i dont really like the name. its not something id use myself. but it only offends me when others use it as an insult because most articles that use the term arent meaning it as disrespect its just a name that gets used here alot and papers are well known for shorting names after all it saves paper space.
 
Mike himself has said he doesn't want to be called Jack# - that's why I doesn't like it.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
yeah i dont really like the name. its not something id use myself. but it only offends me when others use it as an insult because most articles that use the term arent meaning it as disrespect its just a name that gets used here alot and papers are well known for shorting names after all it saves paper space.
Click to expand...

Mabey that's just Paul being cute. He does have a rather odd sence of humor (I'm the same way).

But then again, I'm sure he wouldn't like people calling him mick. I'm sure he's have a problem with that.
 
Hess said:
Mike himself has said he doesn't want to be called Jack# - that's why I doesn't like it.
Click to expand...

yes..once MJ makes the request himself, there are no excuses. and the media can't say they didn't see his interviews.
 
I don't get it; Paul would have to pay 'someone,' to sing his songs whether it was mJ or not! And the guy didn't even BID on the collection, because his ego felt that it wasn't worth fighting for. He wanted to leave the 'Beatles' legend behind and move forward.

Wish he'd stop being such a baby and face the fact that Michael tried to get him to bid, yet he was the one who actually made the mistake and bad judgement.

As far as the 'race' issue is concerned, I don't think that it's the issue of being 'racially ignorant' that's fueling the BBC to cut the interview, it's that fact that Paul was actually mocking MJ, and that's offensive to some viewers as it is. Although, it would have proved that McCartney has a chip on his shoulder. He'd look like the ignorant man he can be, and lod only knows, that would prove his ex-wives statements about his character even more. Let the past go, YOU made the mistake, accept it and move on. Don't be bitter for those who are more wiser with handelling your work.
 
Yeah, I don't understand it. The other musicans aren't bitter and causing a fuss; bob Dylan, KC and Sunshin Band..I think..etc about Mike having their music....why can't Paul just cool it.

Stop with the nonsense. Everyone knows you wrote those songs, everyone knows you're a Beatle, everyone knows you....be greateful that someone like Michael has taken the care and consideration with your music and is handling it with care and taste. The guy who had it before...can't remember his name...treated it like crap, he allowed it to go into shambles. YOKO ONOis hapy that Michael is taking care of the Beatles catalouge. Just be greatful for the opportunity you were given, count your blessings and move on. Let Michael do what he's always done best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dri
also..it's not like Paul isn't still getting paid for the performance of his songs. money is still coming back to him. so i don't know where his resentment is coming from.
 
*~MJ Loves MJ~* said:
Yeah, I don't understand it. The other musicans aren't bitter and causing a fuss; bob Dylan, KC and Sunshin Band..I think..etc about Mike having their music....why can't Paul just cool it.

Stop with the nonsense. Everyone knows you wrote those songs, everyone knows you're a Beatle, everyone knows you....be greateful that someone like Michael has taken the care and consideration with your music and is handling it with care and taste. The guy who had it before...can't remember his name...treated it like crap, he allowed it to go into shambles. YOKO ONOis hapy that Michael is taking care of the Beatles catalouge. Just be greatful for the opportunity you were given, count your blessings and move on. Let Michael do what he's always done best.
Click to expand...

Great post mj loves mj *stands & applauds*
 
Originally Posted by *~MJ Loves MJ~*
Yeah, I don't understand it. The other musicans aren't bitter and causing a fuss; bob Dylan, KC and Sunshin Band..I think..etc about Mike having their music....why can't Paul just cool it.

Stop with the nonsense. Everyone knows you wrote those songs, everyone knows you're a Beatle, everyone knows you....be greateful that someone like Michael has taken the care and consideration with your music and is handling it with care and taste. The guy who had it before...can't remember his name...treated it like crap, he allowed it to go into shambles. YOKO ONOis hapy that Michael is taking care of the Beatles catalouge. Just be greatful for the opportunity you were given, count your blessings and move on. Let Michael do what he's always done best.
Click to expand...


Thank you!!!!

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
 
Well I gotta admit, if my "friend" bought my songs instead of letting me do it I'd be pretty pissed lol.
 
I actally wouldnt mind it if my friend did that...actally i would feel honured and happy they brought cuz they liked it :)
 
8701girl said:
I actally wouldnt mind it if my friend did that...actally i would feel honured and happy they brought cuz they liked it :)
Click to expand...

If it was the other way round (Paul bought Michael's songs) would you still feel the same? Just wondering.
 
I wouldnt know how mike would feel...that would be hes business
But i was just saying how I would feel if a friend did that to me
 
actually, i think Mike did Paul a favor. first of all he did say he would buy Paul's music, to his face. the fact that some people don't take MJ seriously when he says something, is something MJ can't do anything about. secondly, in that interview with Howard Stern, Paul repeatedly reminds me that he doesn't know anything abuot business. he admitted that his accountant handles all that, and he didn't want to go into talking about it. Michael, businesswise will take care of Paul's music, better than Paul would. MJ arranged it so that Paul would still get paid. that's the law, anyway.
and no one...but no one, would ever do the kind thing that MJ did, by arranging that the songs would be well taken care of..and any mileage that they could obtained, would be had. it benefits Paul, tremendously. paying a fee so i could stay rich, isn't such a bad thing. i would love for MJ to do me that favor, if i didn't believe in my own compositions as much as MJ did. but then, i'm not Paul, so i can't be in his shoes.
 
yeh i agree

paul should just be happy he is still getting paid and just get on with his life
...its getting quite tireing hearing him whinge bout it all the time.
 
Well, it's easier to say when something we didn't spend a late night creating is hugely popular around the globe.

I'm not saying Paul didn't create his own misfortune by allowing his works of art to slip into someone else's control, but I can see why he's sad about the situation.

What I can't figure out is why he didn't just plunk the cash down when he had the chance.
 
Superstition said:
Well, it's easier to say when something we didn't spend a late night creating is hugely popular around the globe.

I'm not saying Paul didn't create his own misfortune by allowing his works of art to slip into someone else's control, but I can see why he's sad about the situation.

What I can't figure out is why he didn't just plunk the cash down when he had the chance.
Click to expand...

sometimes, it's easier to see the money you have, or the money someone offers you, and say..'i don't wanna give this money up. i need this money now.' it happened with coca cola and mcdonalds. somebody created the formula, and someone else with business sense offered a one time large looking fee for it..or perhaps smaller, but large looking to the recipient, and they took the money or held onto the money, in Paul's case. seeing the big picture, and having faith in your talent was secondary.

lol...it's like gambling. you don't care about whether a sports team wins or loses...but if you are betting on that team..suddenly, you care a lot. there's just something about quick easy money, and money that is already in your posession. it's just the rare person that can see past that.
 
mo_rizwan said:
Explaining the reasoning as to why the impression could possibly be deemed offensive or unsuitable for broadcast, the source continued: "They say it's a 'trans-racial impression' - that's what they say in a memo - and even by Macca that is beyond the pale."
Click to expand...

so if it had only been offensive to Michael, that would have been ok, an individual is up for the offering cause they are isolated in their indignation and the offense taken, and would be sluffed off with a get over yourself, but if it involves whole groups... well then, they don't wish to be offensive. interesting logic.
 
Wow...I'm glad to see Michael getting support, though I am rather shocked o_O

I understand why Paul is still bitter about this, but he had his big share of fault...he should start taking responsibility for his own acts and stop acting like a victim.

Thanks for posting :)
 
mo_rizwan said:
sirpaul1214170cxt5.jpg



31 December 20080
BBC 'pulls Paul McCartney's Michael Jackson impersonation'

The BBC has pulled an interview with Sir Paul McCartney in which the former Beatle did a "trans-racial impression" of Michael Jackson, it has been claimed.

Sir Paul is said to have talked in a high-pitched Jackson-style voice when asked about the singer, which BBC managers decided could prove offensive.

A Corporation source told the Daily Mail: "McCartney started to reply in this high-pitched J*cko voice, and apparently it was very funny. But the BBC - deeply nervous, perhaps because of the Jonathan Ross-Russell Brand affair - has declined to broadcast the interview."

Explaining the reasoning as to why the impression could possibly be deemed offensive or unsuitable for broadcast, the source continued: "They say it's a 'trans-racial impression' - that's what they say in a memo - and even by Macca that is beyond the pale."

Sir Paul and Jackson used to be friends, but fell out when Jackson outbid the Liverpudlian for the rights to most of the Beatles' back catalogue. Jackson bought the rights for £33 million ($48m).

The purchase soured their friendship.

Sir Paul later said: "You know what doesn't feel very good, is going on tour and paying to sing all my songs. Every time I sing Hey Jude, I've got to pay someone."

Source: Telegraph
Click to expand...

I didn't know Mr Mccartney was a racist!
 
I think this atittude from BBC is very suspicious but is in good sense.Pay attention.

Recently, the spokeperson of MJ, Dr.Tohme, said it was negotiating with a TV station.Perhaps could be the BBC station. So the station decided to take the interview cuz MJ could not like this and desist to appear on BBC.

It was on the BBC that showed the news about Peruvian shamans where they said that MJ will be more stronger than ever.

Suspicious, huh?
 
^ self serving. suspicious? no, they are like all other media. they pick people off one at at time, then pretend to be sensitive. yeah... whatever.
 
friend said:
so if it had only been offensive to Michael, that would have been ok, an individual is up for the offering cause they are isolated in their indignation and the offense taken, and would be sluffed off with a get over yourself, but if it involves whole groups... well then, they don't wish to be offensive. interesting logic.
Click to expand...

yes..interesting and frighteningly common logic.
 
This whole thing is bizarre in many ways. The BBC are extremely overly-sensitive at the moment about causing offense due to recent incidents with their presenters but I fail to see how a mimicking a high pitched voice is "trans-racial" or could be offensive...it sounds ridiculous to me.

That said, you can bet that any major boo-boo made by Saint Paul will immediately be played down or unreported by British press, he's God to many.
 
Cyborganna said:
I didn't know Mr Mccartney was a racist!
Click to expand...
Paul isn't racist. Paul's idol is Little Richard. Paul even went down to Lagos to record an album in the 1970s where he and Linda (his wife) was robbed at gunpoint by local bandits, yet he had nothing bad to say about being there. He's done much campaigning for equal rights, animal rights, landmines and other things. I don't know what that article means by "trans-racial".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top