Michael Jackson verses Beatles:Come together better version

[Addendum]

so is he going to criticize starbucks? I didn't even know about that one. I saw him promoting Ipods. Hahaha.
it's the same thing. One guy has the rights, thus has the power. What Mj did is no different than what StarBucks did. It's a corporate world. And Paul is playing in it. Nobody gets to make a album without strings attached. When the Beatles made their music, they knew they were getting involved in the corporate world, and this could happen. And it's no differen today when Paul makes a commercial than it was when the Beatles signed their contracts, or when MJ did that commercial. This is just hypocritical.

Paul could have made less money in exchange for not being in a commercial but he chose to make more money instead, when he's already rich. You really think Paul McCartney couldn't get find somebody to get his album out? He's Paul McCartney. There are countless producers and record labels that would love to sign him.

I'm not saying there isn't anything wrong with Paul being in a commercial. I'm just saying he shouldnt' act all hypocritical. A lot of musicians back in the day got labeled a sell out for doing commercials. Now days it's accepted, but the truth remains, that the original reason for opposing commercials was to gain street cred, and look real, to look like they were thumbing their nose at corporate fat cats. Hammer's career suffered from his commerical he did, but now days all kinds of musicians do it without consequence.

For the benefit of the slow kid, my previous post super-sized.

Paul has every right to use his music that he created and performed in a commercial if he chooses to do so.

With the Beatles music, that was music he, Lennon, Harrison, and Ringo created and performed. They decided not to use their music in a commercial, especially after Lennon died. All Michael Jackson did was purchase the rights to it and then use it in commercials.

2 different things

 

[Spider-Bite]

Paul has every right to use his music that he created and performed in a commercial if he chooses to do so.

With the Beatles music, that was music he, Lennon, Harrison, and Ringo created and performed. They decided not to use their music in a commercial, especially after Lennon died. All Michael Jackson did was purchase the rights to it and then use it in commercials.

2 different things

If MJ didn't have the right to do it, than he would have gotten sued. He had the right. If Paul didn't want the corporate world doing things like this, than he shouldnt' have signed the contract. He agreed to it. He knew that other people would use his material to make money, and if it wasn't MJ, it would have been somebody else.

And whoever spent the money to have the rights to the music has the right to do it. They have the right. Other people spent the money to make the Beatles the Beatles a long time ago, and they sold those rights so they could get money, and the poeple who now own those rights, only bought them to begin with to make money. If it wasn't for this process we never would have heard the name Paul McCartney to begin with.

 

[Spider-Bite]

For the benefit of the slow kid, my previous post super-sized.

Paul has every right to use his music that he created and performed in a commercial if he chooses to do so.

With the Beatles music, that was music he, Lennon, Harrison, and Ringo created and performed. They decided not to use their music in a commercial, especially after Lennon died. All Michael Jackson did was purchase the rights to it and then use it in commercials.

2 different things

Key word. Rights. I'm sorry but your just being silly right now. The only people that have the right to use copyrighted material are the copyright owners. It's fair, and it's the only fair way to do it. Record labels don't invest money if there is no way to make profit. If it wasn't for this kind of stuff the Beatles never would have been famous.

 

[Addendum]

Again for the slow kid

http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp

Did Michael Jackson write the Beatles' music? Did he write the other Lennon/McCartney songs that weren't Beatles songs?

No. He was busy doing the Jackson 5 when the Beatles were creating and making their music.

And all MJ did was outbid the guy who actually created the music, who just wanted to get them back under his company.

 

[The Chairman]

so is he going to criticize starbucks? I didn't even know about that one. I saw him promoting Ipods. Hahaha.
it's the same thing. One guy has the rights, thus has the power. What Mj did is no different than what StarBucks did. It's a corporate world. And Paul is playing in it. Nobody gets to make a album without strings attached. When the Beatles made their music, they knew they were getting involved in the corporate world, and this could happen. And it's no differen today when Paul makes a commercial than it was when the Beatles signed their contracts, or when MJ did that commercial. This is just hypocritical.

Michael was not promoting an album. He put "Revolution" in a commerical to promote sneakers. There is a difference. And it was John's music, not Paul's.

Paul could have made less money in exchange for not being in a commercial but he chose to make more money instead, when he's already rich. You really think Paul McCartney couldn't get find somebody to get his album out? He's Paul McCartney. There are countless producers and record labels that would love to sign him.

Sadly, in this day and age, an artist like Paul would have a hard time getting his album sold without the aid of a major sponsor like Starbucks. It's the sad truth.

I'm not saying there isn't anything wrong with Paul being in a commercial. I'm just saying he shouldnt' act all hypocritical. A lot of musicians back in the day got labeled a sell out for doing commercials. Now days it's accepted, but the truth remains, that the original reason for opposing commercials was to gain street cred, and look real, to look like they were thumbing their nose at corporate fat cats. Hammer's career suffered from his commerical he did, but now days all kinds of musicians do it without consequence.

I don't see the hyprocisy. Michael did it to shamelessly hock a hot product at the time. Paul's doing it to promote his music through a major corporate sponsor that he is obligated to promote.

 

[The Chairman]

Key word. Rights. I'm sorry but your just being silly right now. The only people that have the right to use copyrighted material are the copyright owners. It's fair, and it's the only fair way to do it. Record labels don't invest money if there is no way to make profit. If it wasn't for this kind of stuff the Beatles never would have been famous.

Ha! The Beatles didn't get famous because of profits. They got famous because of their talent, their charisma and their appeal to audiences. You know, the way it should be done.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Again for the slow kid

http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp

to quote that article. "Your song doesn't make any money if nobody uses it."

So I guess Paul will be suing Michael now right? Somehow I doubt it, since according to the law he has the right to do what he did. It's his collection. He owns it, and he has the right to do whatever he wants with it.

 

[Addendum]

But the unemployed kid was in a Wall Street Journal article! He has to know something

 

[Spider-Bite]

Ha! The Beatles didn't get famous because of profits. They got famous because of their talent, their charisma and their appeal to audiences. You know, the way it should be done.

They never would have gotten famous if wealthy people hadn't invested their money with the intention of making money. Your post is not untruthful, but your changing the subject. We never would have heard of the Beatles if it wasn't for people trying to make money.

 

[Addendum]

to quote that article. "Your song doesn't make any money if nobody uses it."

So I guess Paul will be suing Michael now right? Somehow I doubt it, since according to the law he has the right to do what he did. It's his collection. He owns it, and he has the right to do whatever he wants with it.

Who brought up suing? Besides you, no one else.

Paul expressed his opinion, which was negative, about his former friend (MJ) using music that the Beatles wrote.

Pay attention Susan

 

[The Chairman]

They never would have gotten famous if wealthy people hadn't invested their money with the intention of making money. Your post is not untruthful, but your changing the subject. We never would have heard of the Beatles if it wasn't for people trying to make money.

Well es, but your post made it sound like that if it wasn't for record company profits they never would've been famous, which is not true. They needed promotion, but that's HARDLY how they got big.

 

[Addendum]

The main reason that the Beatles got known world-wide, aside from catchy songs, was that they had something called talent.

For current pop acts, that's the main thing they lack

 

[Spider-Bite]

But the unemployed kid was in a Wall Street Journal article! He has to know something

your being inmature. seriously.

The main reason that the Beatles got known world-wide, aside from catchy songs, was that they had something called talent.

For current pop acts, that's the main thing they lack

I'm not saying that isn't true. But I do ask the following question, which your trying to imply isn't true.

If investors hadn't invested their money with the intention of making money, would we know the name John Lennon or Paul McCartney?

Yes or no? It's a simple yes or no question.

 

[Addendum]

The investors didn't write the songs though.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Well es, but your post made it sound like that if it wasn't for record company profits they never would've been famous, which is not true.

yes it is true. If the record companies hadn't invested their money in them they never would have been famous.

They needed promotion, but that's HARDLY how they got big.

They need their album printed on vinyl for one thing. They needed money for stadiums, production, and to be heard. They needed airplay. Nobody sells millions of albums without some money being invested. Nobody.

 

[Spider-Bite]

yes, because the investors didn't write the songs.

I didn't say the investors deserved credit. I said if it weren't for them we never would have heard of the Beatles. They dont' deserve credit for the music, but they do deserve a return on their investment.

And that is not the correct answer to the question and you know it. If nobody had ever invested in them, how would you have heard of them? How would you have been able to buy an album if nobody spent the money to put it on viyl, the radio, or television?

that's like saying we know who spider-man is if Marvel hadn't printed Amazing Fatasty 15, or we all would have saw the spider-man movie even if nobody made it.

 

[Addendum]

Who is this "we"

 

[jaguarr]

But like I said, many great rock stars did not have conventionally good voices. In addition to Dylan, Hendrix often sounded muffled and incoherent, and Janis is the female Dylan. But regardless, you proved me wrong.

Yeah, there are a ton of rock vocalists that are revered who have highly unconventional vocal styles. I already mentioned Bon Scott. Steven Tyler and Ozzy Osbourne are two more. Dylan is one. The list is really, really long. Not really about proving you wrong, by any means. You're certainly partially correct that a lot of famous rock singers are technically deficient but still sound amazing and have made a name for themselves.

Janis, however, was emulating black blues singers. She was breaking technical rules that she knew the boundaries of already (sort of a "you can break the rules if you really understand what they are" thing). I don't know that I'd call her the female Dylan. She was a white girl trying her darndest to sound as black as can be in how she sang. Her purpose was pretty different from what Dylan was looking to do.

jag

 

[Spider-Bite]

Who brought up suing? Besides you, no one else.

Paul expressed his opinion, which was negative, about his former friend (MJ) using music that the Beatles wrote.

Pay attention Susan

If he was truly unhappy about it, he wouldn't be appearing in commericals with his music playing. If somebody truly finds it inappropiate they have a right to feel that way, and to say it publicly, but they dont really have a good reason to be mad. Personally I think it was all an act.

Besides you tried to say he didn't have the right. And thats not true. He paid good money for the right. that's whey they are called "rights."

 

[Spider-Bite]

Who is this "we"

for the moment, it's me you and ANTHONYNASTI.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Michael was not promoting an album. He put "Revolution" in a commerical to promote sneakers. There is a difference. And it was John's music, not Paul's.



Sadly, in this day and age, an artist like Paul would have a hard time getting his album sold without the aid of a major sponsor like Starbucks. It's the sad truth.



I don't see the hyprocisy. Michael did it to shamelessly hock a hot product at the time. Paul's doing it to promote his music through a major corporate sponsor that he is obligated to promote.

Paul would not have trouble getting his album out. And I dont' know how you can't see the hypocrisy. Tell me what was paul mad about precisely with the commercials?

 

[Addendum]

But the thing is, Nancy, Paul appeared in a commercial with his music. He chose to do that when he agreed to the contract with Starbucks.

He and the other Beatles, well the ones that are still living, never had a say with regard to the Beatles' music appearing in commercials.

I never tried to say anything. I said it pretty damn clear. Not my fault if you misunderstand it

 

[Spider-Bite]

But the thing is, Nancy, Paul appeared in a commercial with his music. He chose to do that when he agreed to the contract with Starbucks.

He and the other Beatles, well the ones that are still living, never had a say with regard to the Beatles' music appearing in commercials.

I never tried to say anything. I said it pretty damn clear. Not my fault if you misunderstand it

so what? That's because they don't own the rights to them. They signed the contract making it that way. You can't blame anybody but the Beatles. If a sign a piece of paper giving somebody else permission to do whatever they want with something I made, than I gave them that right.

they did have a say. They made their say, when they signed the contract.

 

[Addendum]

And then 20 years later, Paul attempted to buy the rights to the 180 Beatles songs back.

MJ outbid him for them and lost a friend.

You're just pissed that Paul criticized your idol, Denise

 

[The Chairman]

Yeah, there are a ton of rock vocalists that are revered who have highly unconventional vocal styles. I already mentioned Bon Scott. Steven Tyler and Ozzy Osbourne are two more. Dylan is one. The list is really, really long. Not really about proving you wrong, by any means. You're certainly partially correct that a lot of famous rock singers are technically deficient but still sound amazing and have made a name for themselves.

Janis, however, was emulating black blues singers. She was breaking technical rules that she knew the boundaries of already (sort of a "you can break the rules if you really understand what they are" thing). I don't know that I'd call her the female Dylan. She was a white girl trying her darndest to sound as black as can be in how she sang. Her purpose was pretty different from what Dylan was looking to do.

jag

Stevie Nicks is another one. I saw her last week and she still rocks.