| | | |
Sly Witt
|
7/16/2009 2:48:25 PM
---- Updated 7/16/2009 2:56:05 PM
Paul McCartney on Letterman Show last night
For those of you out of the states, pmac was the featured guest on the David Letterman show last night. The show is taped in the old 'Ed Sullivan Theatre', which is where the Beatles made their US debut in '64.
I was ready to be underwhelmed but found myself feeling like a kid watching paul and his boys standing on the marquee of the theater outside playing "get back" to the gathering crowds in the streets of NY. He even had a Vox amp behind him. It was almost like the last 45 years hadn't happened. All that was missing was J,G,&R.
I'm still a hopeless fanboy. I thought it was really cool.
|
|
Bryon Tosoff
|
7/16/2009 2:52:46 PM
Magic still lingers
|
|
|
7/16/2009 4:10:43 PM
I tivoed that. It was good. Paul was funny too.
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
7/16/2009 6:25:07 PM
I thought Paul was very funny as well.....I enjoyed it. David seemed a little out of sorts, and I thought his questions were quite Lame. Paul Must have been thinking "I have answerd these a million times, lets just have some fun" he also said he does not know the History as well as the fans....
I loved it when Dave said he has been trying for the last twenty years to get him on the show, and asked if there was a problem.. Paul dead panned " I don't like the show Dave" :)~
|
|
Richard Scotti
|
7/16/2009 9:47:27 PM
I was hoping that Dave would have asked Paul if he had heard anything from MJ's estate about arranging for the Beatle publishing rights to be returned or sold back to Paul. I thought MJ left those rights to Paul in his will but it may have been just a rumor like so many others in the case. For the record: How did MJ get the rights in the first place? If Paul owned them to begin with, doesn't he have the right to refuse to sell them? Does that mean that anybody can buy anybody else's publishing rights even? I just don't get it. If a Beatle doesn't own his songs who can?
|
|
The Man With No Band
|
7/17/2009 1:15:35 AM
Richard ... if I remember right M.J. and his lawyers aquired the rights through either a smart business move or a sneaky deal ... depending on who you favor ...
... and for all the Yoko Ono trodders ... I believe the deal was made while negotiating some deal between Yoko and Michael ... Most think Yoko was unaware of exactly what her lawyers were doing ....
Anyway ... I always thought Paul was a hypocrit about it ... he moaned about it big time ... but look in his portfolio and you will find he owns many publishing rights from other musicians and some movie rights as well ...
Paul dropped the ball and wasn't paying attention ... should have been mad at himself not M.J. .....
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
7/17/2009 3:12:58 AM
He did not drop the ball, he got out bid!
He along with John lost the publishing rights early in The Beatles Career, Dick James was a shrewed bastid.
He was trying to get them back, but Michael was at the top of his earning power and nailed them down. This after Paul gave him the advice to invest in Music Publishing.
Yes Paul owns Buddy Holly's catalog, along with many show tunes. I don't think he is a hypocrite, he wanted his songs back...nothing wrong with that.
|
|
Kevin White
|
7/17/2009 3:30:12 AM
Not at all ... but ownership is distinct from authorship.
|
|
|
7/17/2009 4:14:32 AM
I read an interview with Paul somewhere back then that said Yoko (who considers herself a shrewd businesswoman) insisted that the Beatles inc. should hold out for a cheap deal and this is when MJ jumped on it and bought the rights.
|
|
The Man With No Band
|
7/17/2009 4:20:19 PM
"Yes Paul owns Buddy Holly's catalog, along with many show tunes. I don't think he is a hypocrite, he wanted his songs back...nothing wrong with that."
So .... do you think Paul feels bad about those he out bid ?
Do you not think any members of the crickets would like to own their own songs ?
Michael did nothing Paul wouldn't do to someone else .... Paul is a hypocrite ...
He considers himself a businessman and he got burned ... Paul dropped the ball
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
7/17/2009 4:36:45 PM
---- Updated 7/17/2009 4:40:24 PM
Sam, I can always count on you to swoop in and take issue with me on some issue :) We are AC-DC Brother.
Sure, I am sure Buddy Holly if he were alive would like to own the rights, and would feel bad if he got "Out Bid" (Once again "he did not "drop the ball") I don't think would feel Bad, but I do believe he treats the songs with reverence, and pays the songwriters well. After all, he is also one of them.
Paul wanted them as an investment, but even more so he wanted them because they were his songs. Who could fault him for that???
I really don't know what the issue here is, Paul said he did not harbor any ill feelings towards Michael... He did state he thought he could negotiate with Michael to get a better deal for the Songwriter as he was "underpaid for years" (Although Michael owned the Rights, Paul still gets a cut) He said he was disappointed when Michael ignored him and stated "It;s just Business Paul" Paul thought that Michael being a writer and artist would "get it" and do right by the Beatles...He was wrong. He said they then drifted apart, but there was no ..in his words "Big Dust Up". This was all covered in the Letterman interview.
It is all covered here
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/16/mccartney.letterman.appearance/index.html
Glad you are back Sam, If I don't disagree before you leave again :), I will see you on the other side. Be safe, and take care.
Jeff
|
|
Richard Scotti
|
7/17/2009 4:58:21 PM
What pisses me off is hearing Beatle songs and "new" arrangements of Beatle songs used in commercials like the Target ad (Hello, Goodbuy????) and many others. Who is letting these songs be used in TV commercials, Paul, Yoko, or MJ?
Or is the publishing company allowed to do this on it's own. It just infuriates me because it runs counter to everything the Beatles symbolize to me. Everytime I hear a another Beatle song in a commercial I cringe. When Nike used "Revolution" wasn't it MJ who let them do that? Well at least that was the original version being used.
But these Beatle songs where their lyrics are being changed ---that would make John roll over in his grave (if he was in one!) I guess it would make his ashes roll over.
|
|
The Man With No Band
|
7/17/2009 4:58:47 PM
Hey Jeff .... I had to pop in ... I miss our little spars ... it's good brain food ... :)
Yes Paul says it's no big deal now .... but at the time (1984/85) he sure didn't feel that way ... he and M.J. made amends and even played together in the coming years ...
When the Beatles lost the pub. rights,(1963) it was maybe the best way for them to go ... they still got payed well and eased their tax burden ...
and yes James was the shrewd one ... but when ATV came up for sale and M.J. payed a little over 47 million, Paul dropped the ball ... and yes I do believe Yoko and her attorneys were partly to blame ...
But in 1984 Paul could have covered 47 million like I could pay a ten dollar bar tab ... especially if Paul and Yoko could have worked together ...
All I'm saying is after wanting his songs for oh so long .. presumably since 1963 ... his effort to obtain them was rather lack-luster and way to lack-luster to throw his little boy fits ...
I assume it probably was a good lesson for him and probably made him a better business man .. so he probably got the best end of the deal anyway ...
I also assume John has been watching, and can't help but see him getting a good laugh over the whole ordeal ... :)
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
7/17/2009 7:12:01 PM
---- Updated 7/17/2009 7:15:26 PM
Richard the Publisher makes those choices.... and yes Michael Jackson escalated the advertising...
Here is an interesting tidbit :)
Paul McCartney, meanwhile, was also keenly aware of the ATV holding. One account claims that McCartney had made it known to the owners that he would be willing to top any best offer by 10 percent. However, McCartney is also on record saying that at one point he was offered the catalog for a price of £20 million (pounds). But McCartney was hesitant to make that deal on his own, since it might be perceived by Beatles fans as a “Paul McCartney grab” of John Lennon’s property, and he didn’t feel comfortable with that. So he called Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono, and asked her if she wanted to split the bid at £10 million each. That arrangement did not work out for whatever reason, and McCartney appeared to drop out of the process. Michael Jackson, however, really wanted the catalog, and especially the Beatles’ songs, and he set about on a careful and thorough business course to acquire it.
|
|
Kevin White
|
7/18/2009 12:34:06 AM
Paul buried Michael ...
That's what ACTUALLY was said on "Strawberry Fields"
True story!
|
|
| |
�2015-16 IndieMusicPeople.com All Rights
Reserved
| |