Is Paul McCartney Justified in being upset with Michael Jackson for owning the Beatles Catalog?

Question

Before you answer please consider the following:
The Beatles willingly sold their music into public shares in the London Stock Exchange. When the company that they sold their music to decided to sell the catalog, Paul wanted to buy his music back but since there were other songs from other bands included in the catalog, he couldn't come up with the money to buy it whereas Michael Jackson could.

Someone else: trust me I know the story, and I'm glad that you know how to copy and paste. But you have to understand that it doesn't matter, they sold the music bottom line. If you sold your house, even if it was under poor advice to do so, you do not have the right to take back that house from the new owners at any time you please. The same is true for Paul, bottom line is he sold the music, and couldn't afford to buy it back.

Answer 1

no. paul mcCartney didn't even bid on them. plus many other people had owned them before michael and he never got upset about those. and michael's version of "come together" totally crushes that snooze-fest the Beatles call a song.

Answer 2

Michael Jackson is a twit.

The original question in in error - Lennon & McCartney were screwed by their music publisher, Dick James into selling their songs. Remember this was 1963, and nobody thought these songs would still be around nearly fifty years later. No songwriter today would sign a deal like that.

At any rate, the company the songs were "sold" to (Northern Songs) was on the London Stock Exchange, but the Beatles themselves owned large chunks of the stock. In 1969, Dick James was fed up with the band's seemingly 'druggy' lifestyle, and sold his majority interest to Lew Grade (ITV), without offering the shares to the band first. So they had no chance to purchase their own songs. Many years later, Grade sold the shares, and Jacko won the bidding war. No songs from other bands were involved. McCartney already owns lots of other people's songs, including Buddy Holly, and standards like "Autumn Leaves".

I wonder how all the Jacko fans would feel if the shoe was on the other foot, and McCartney owned "Billie Jean" and "Thriller"?

At any rate, Jacko sold most of his interest in the songs to Sony some years ago to finance his degenerate lifestyle.

Answer 3

I think it's their business,I don't care what they're going to do with the Beatles Catalog.The only thing I know is that Michael is right and Paul can go screw himself! Since Michael could afford buying the catalog then why not do so?Michael is always right!!! ;)
WE LOVE U MICHAEL!!!

Answer 4

I frankly do not understand how the Beatles could possibly
sell their catalog to anyone. They must not be all that smart.
Sorry, no offense to anyone. I suppose Michael is just a lot smarter than many people give him credit for.
I Cr 13;8a

Answer 5

I am a little disapointed in Michael to be honest. But that was his choice, I don't really know the full details but I wish they could get on because 'The Girl Is Mine' is an AMAZING record xx

Answer 6

Maybe someday for Christmas or something Michael will give it to Paul as a gift. But it is his choice.

Answer 7

I love Michael with all my heart, but this has always saddened me. I, personally could never do that. But that's just me. He said it was just business, but he was very young at the time and maybe other advisers led him to make that decision.

Answer 8

I say - GO MICHAEL. McCartney can't have everything he wants all the time, now now now.

Hope to see you in Vegas at Caesar's Palace taking Celine's place soon, Michael! It would be worth a yearly trip if you were there. Vegas loves you!

Answer 9

Yeah, I didn't expect that from Michael.

I actually think Paul McCartney has EVERY right to be bitter.

Answer 10

THAT IS SAD BUT IF MICHAEL CAN MAKE BETTER OFFER AND HAS MORE MONEY MORE POWER TO HIM . GO MICHAEL GO YOUR THE BEST.

♥♥♥ I BELIEVE IN YOU MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON♥♥♥