Author Topic: The Beatles  (Read 33248 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5894
  • :boxing:
  • Respect: +20
The Beatles
« Reply #90 on: October 21, 2004, 12:23:32 PM »
0
Quote from: meatwad


and i may be wrong, but i think michael jackson only owns the rights to later beatles songs, and the beatles lost the rights to their early songs a while ago


I heard that Michael Jackson bought the rights to a lot of Beatles songs, as well.  I think it's pretty stupid, but hey, if I had the money, and was ugly as sin, I guess owning Beatles songs rights would be the thing going for me.
"As a matter of fact I only work with the feeling of something magical, something seemingly significant. And to keep it magical I don't want to know the story involved, I just want the hypnotic effect of it somehow seeming significant without knowing why." - Len Lye

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +639
The Beatles
« Reply #91 on: October 21, 2004, 12:30:09 PM »
0
My understanding is that Michael Jackson slyly acquired the copyrights to the entire Beatles library, much to the dismay of his ex-friend Paul McCartney. I also hear that despite much pleading, he refuses to sell any of them back. Does this mean that he can overdub the masters with his own voice? Are we liable to see copies of "Abbey Road" with five people crossing the street and mysterious falsettoes throughout?

StraightDope replies:

Come on. Think of the Sgt. Pepper cover, with all the boys in uniform. Michael Jackson would fit right in.  (Although you'd want the guy missing the glove to be Paul.) Don't worry, no musical travesties are going to happen, or at least they're not going to happen as a result of Jackson owning the Beatles library.

What Michael Jackson bought for $47.5 million in 1985 was the publishing rights to 159 or 251 Beatles songs, depending on who's counting. To maybe oversimplify a complicated business, publishing rights are basically the sheet music rights. When Paul McCartney wanted to print the lyrics to "Eleanor Rigby" and other Beatles classics in the program for his 1989 world tour, he discovered he'd have to pay a fee to Michael Jackson. The owner of the publishing rights (hereinafter the publisher) also gets a royalty when someone plays a Beatles song on a jukebox or the radio or does a cover version of a Fab Four tune. Particularly in the case of elevator music, to which, let's be frank, a lot of Beatles tunes are well suited, this can earn the publisher some serious cash.

But there are a couple things the publisher can't do. The first is to mess with, or license the use of, Beatles recordings. Michael Jackson agreed to license the words and music of "Revolution" to Nike for a 1987 shoe commercial, but he had to persuade Capitol Records, owner of the tune's North American recording rights, to allow use of the actual record. Most likely he'd have to do the same to overdub said record with his own voice, although he might get away with including a snippet in a musical collage, something even John Lennon did that has now become impossible to control.

Another thing the publisher can't do (in the U.S. at least) is prevent somebody from recording a cover version of a song the publisher owns. Usually the would-be cover artist and the publisher work out a deal on royalties. However, if negotiations fail, U.S. law allows the cover artist to make and market the recording anyway provided he pays a stipulated (and fairly stiff) royalty to the publisher.

The point is, being a publisher doesn't give you all that much control over the songs you own; mainly it gives you the right to the profits they earn. You don't even get to keep all of that; typically you have to give 50% to each song's composer(s), one reason not to feel too sorry for Paul McCartney and the estate of John Lennon. Another reason is that McCartney, despite having gotten skunked out of his own songs, contrived to buy the rights to 3,000 others, including the Buddy Holly catalog, and reportedly is worth $600 million. Not that he's happy, of course. Paul's mad at Michael Jackson not merely because he lost control of the Beatles library but also because Jackson won't discuss giving McCartney a higher composer's royalty for the old tunes.

The last reason not to feel sorry for Paul is that if he got skunked it's his own fault. In the 60s, to avoid confiscatory British taxes, he and Lennon turned their publishing rights over to newly-organized Northern Songs, a publicly-held company in which they owned sizable but apparently not controlling blocks of stock. In 1969 music mogul Lew Grade launched a takeover bid for Northern Songs in which he offered seven times the stock's original offering price. Lennon and McCartney, feuding as usual, were unable to organize an effective defense and the company was sold out from under them. This made them even more fabulously wealthy than they already were, since their stock was now worth seven times as much. However, they were still pissed on account of, you know, the principle of the thing. The Teeming Millions can surely sympathize.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does Michael Jackson still own the publishing rights to the Beatles song catalog?

With a little help from our friends -- the urban legends site Snopes.com, Cecil Adams' Straight Dope column, and Yahoo! News -- we found the answer to your question.
Back in 1963, the Beatles gave their publishing rights to Northern Songs, a company created by their manager, Brian Epstein, and a music publisher, Dick James. Northern Songs went public in 1965, and John Lennon and Paul McCartney each had 15% of the company's shares, while Dick James and the company's chairman, Charles Silver, held a controlling 37.5% of shares. In 1969, James and Silver sold Northern Songs and its assets to the Associated Television Corporation (ATV).

In 1985, ATV's music catalog was sold, and Michael Jackson was the high bidder. Jacko paid a reported $47 million for the publishing rights to somewhere between 159 to 260 Beatles songs. A decade later, Jackson and Sony merged their music publishing businesses. Since 1995, Jackson and Sony/ATV Music Publishing have jointly owned most of the Beatles songs.

While the Jackson-Sony collection includes practically all of the Beatles' greatest hits, they don't have every little thing. Paul McCartney bought the rights to "Love Me Do," "Please, Please Me," "P.S. I Love You," and "Tell Me Why." Northern Songs never owned these early tunes, so they weren't included in the ATV deal.

In the past few years, the media has speculated that Jacko may need to sell the Beatles' rights to pay for his extravagant lifestyle and mounting legal costs. Sony reports that Jackson used his half of the Beatles' catalog as collateral for a loan from the music company. If Jackson defaults on the loan, Sony has the right to buy his share. In 2001, Jackson stated: "The Beatles catalogue is not for sale, has not been for sale and will never be for sale." But who knows? Maybe he'll try to take a sad song and make it better by cashing in.
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

mogwai

  • Guest
The Beatles
« Reply #92 on: November 10, 2004, 09:17:47 AM »
0
Beatles classic voted worst song

The Beatles' 1968 song Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da has been voted the worst song ever in an online poll. The track was on the band's White Album - which is often regarded as one of the best albums ever made. It was rated as being worse than former footballer Paul Gascoigne's Fog On The Tyne in a Mars survey of 1,000 people. In third place was Meat Loaf's 1993 hit I'll Do Anything For Love, while 5ive, Cliff Richard, Vanilla Ice and Steps were also in the top 10. Three of the songs on the list are sung by footballers, including the 1987 song Diamond Lights by Glenn Hoddle and Chris Waddle. Liverpool's Anfield Rap, featuring John Barnes, also makes the top 10. Ian Edwards, lecturer at the Academy of Contemporary Music, said: "Admit it or not, most of these are songs that we liked when they first came out. "That is the nature of pop music as a part of fashion. Songs are popular at the time, but times change and often this results in embarrassing additions to your record collections. "It is interesting to note that they were nearly all hits." A spokesman for Mars said they asked voters to base their answers on the song's merits, not their opinions of the bands.

TOP 5 'WORST' SONGS
1. Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da - The Beatles
2. Fog on the Tyne - Gazza and Lindisfarne
3. I'll Do Anything For Love - Meat Loaf
4. Diamond Lights - Glenn Hoddle and Chris Waddle
5. We Will Rock You - 5ive featuring Queen

grand theft sparrow

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • NO SLEEP TIL BROKER!
  • Respect: +7
The Beatles
« Reply #93 on: November 10, 2004, 01:03:50 PM »
0
I would have picked Octopus' Garden over Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da.  That song makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.   :shock:

cine

  • Pretttttyyy, Pretttyyyyy Pretty Good
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Respect: +281
The Beatles
« Reply #94 on: November 10, 2004, 01:05:07 PM »
0
Quote from: hacksparrow
I would have picked Octopus' Garden over Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da.  That song makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.   :shock:

I love both of those songs.  :(

The Perineum Falcon

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
  • Respect: +16
The Beatles
« Reply #95 on: November 10, 2004, 04:14:16 PM »
0
Quote from: Cinephile
Quote from: hacksparrow
I would have picked Octopus' Garden over Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da.  That song makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.   :shock:

I love both of those songs.  :(

You're not alone, man.
We often went to the cinema, the screen would light up and we would tremble, but also, increasingly often, Madeleine and I were disappointed. The images had dated, they jittered, and Marilyn Monroe had gotten terribly old. We were sad, this wasn't the film we had dreamed of, this wasn't the total film that we all carried around inside us, this film that we would have wanted to make, or, more secretly, no doubt, that we would have wanted to live.

ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5894
  • :boxing:
  • Respect: +20
The Beatles
« Reply #96 on: November 10, 2004, 06:10:13 PM »
0
People actually hate Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da?

I knew elitist asses existed, but I thought we all posted on Xixax.  

(Then again, hacksparrow didn't like Octopus' Garden...)
"As a matter of fact I only work with the feeling of something magical, something seemingly significant. And to keep it magical I don't want to know the story involved, I just want the hypnotic effect of it somehow seeming significant without knowing why." - Len Lye

grand theft sparrow

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • NO SLEEP TIL BROKER!
  • Respect: +7
The Beatles
« Reply #97 on: November 12, 2004, 10:06:26 AM »
0
Quote from: Walrus X
I knew elitist asses existed, but I thought we all posted on Xixax.  

(Then again, hacksparrow didn't like Octopus' Garden...)


Blackadder: Baldrick, you do know what irony is, don't you?
Baldrick: Yeah, it's a bit like "goldy" and "bronzy", except it's irony.

I'm going back to the Radiohead thread.

meatwad

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Respect: +1
The Beatles
« Reply #98 on: November 18, 2004, 10:50:14 PM »
0

cine

  • Pretttttyyy, Pretttyyyyy Pretty Good
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Respect: +281
The Beatles
« Reply #99 on: November 19, 2004, 02:08:22 AM »
0
Quote from: meatwad
The Grey Video

Yeah, that *was* pretty gray..


100 thread replies!

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +639
The Beatles
« Reply #100 on: April 16, 2005, 06:53:01 AM »
0
The Beatles Could Bail Out Jackson
The beleaguered pop star's financial salvation may lie in selling his share of the Fab Four's songbook. But there's no sign yet of a deal.

When Michael Jackson bought the publishing rights to the Beatles catalog for $47.5 million two decades ago, he said the song he coveted most was "Yesterday." In those brighter times, his own troubles seemed so far away.

But today is another matter.

Jackson not only is standing trial for alleged child molestation, but he also faces debt so crushing that his handlers are pushing him to shed a substantial stake in the Fab Four's fabled songbook — something the self-proclaimed King of Pop said he would never do.

Although speculation has long swirled about whether Jackson eventually would be forced to part with an asset valued at as much as $500 million, rumors of a possible sale have gained velocity in recent days as the singer's representatives have leaked word of their renewed efforts to keep creditors at bay.

There's general agreement that no deal is imminent. But a consensus is building among Jackson's advisors and others in the recording industry that he may have no other way to pay an estimated $270 million in Bank of America loans he has used to underwrite his famously lavish spending.

The clock is ticking. The potential of Jackson's defaulting on those loans could be greatly increased should he be found guilty by the jury now hearing testimony in Santa Maria. With his recording career on the slide for years, Jackson's only other way to generate quick cash would be to hit the concert circuit overseas, where he remains popular.

"If there's a conviction," said Los Angeles entertainment lawyer Jeffrey Light, "he loses his ability to go out and make meaningful money as a live performer because he'd be in jail."

The Beatles songs jointly owned by Jackson and Sony Corp. through a separate entity — Sony/ATV Music Publishing — represent a treasure trove of music by the songwriting team of John Lennon and Paul McCartney that generates vast sums every year through licensing and royalty deals. Since the Beatles landed on U.S. soil in the early 1960s, no group has enjoyed such sustained success.

"This band changed music forever," said Scott Francis, president of BMG Songs North America, another power in the publishing field. "There are always new uses for these songs. New generations are being introduced to this catalog all the time."

When a song is used in a commercial, film, television show, stage performance, video game or cellphone ring tone, a licensing fee is paid. That revenue is split between the songwriter and the publisher. So every time "Can't Buy Me Love" is used, for example, half the money goes to McCartney and the Lennon estate, with the rest going to Sony/ATV.

Under one scenario being floated by Jackson's representatives, he would reduce his interest in Sony/ATV from 50% to 15%. The money he'd make by selling a 35% stake would repay his debts and give him $10 million in cash upfront, while still assuring him a stream of about $10 million a year from the catalog, according to one of the singer's changing cast of business advisors. Jackson would also receive a one-time $10-million payment.

"He has been reluctant to face reality," said the advisor, who acknowledged that Jackson had rebuffed previous overtures to sell. "But it's getting to the point something needs to be done, and he needs to accept that."

For Jackson, however, owning the publishing rights to the Lennon/McCartney songs has always been more about emotion than money.

Indirectly, Jackson got the idea of buying the Beatles catalog from McCartney himself. It was the early 1980s, and the two were in London working together on a record. After eating dinner at McCartney's home, the former Beatle showed Jackson a bound notebook filled with song titles McCartney owned. Among them were hits by artists including the late Buddy Holly. Jackson was intrigued. He peppered McCartney with questions about how he could get into the game.

Soon after, Jackson talked to his attorney, John Branca, about buying the copyrights to songs he loved. He snapped up a collection of Sly Stone songs and Dion's "Run Around Sue." Making it clear he wanted to buy songs only if they had personal meaning for him, Jackson passed on valuable catalogs when the music didn't move him. But in September 1984, when Branca told him that the ATV catalog was available, he jumped on it.

ATV was an entertainment conglomerate that in 1969 had purchased Northern Songs, a publishing company established by the Beatles. The catalog was huge — it included 4,000 songs — but the more than 200 Beatles songs were the most valuable in the bunch, worth an estimated two-thirds of the catalog's value.

ATV was then owned by Australian tycoon Robert Holmes a Court. His company, Bell Group, negotiated with Jackson for 10 months. The process was so laborious and complicated that some insiders began calling it "The Long and Winding Road."

When the deal was done in August 1985, Jackson had triumphed over several other suitors, including London-based Virgin Records and New York real estate tycoon Samuel J. Lefrak.

In 1995, looking to deal with money problems that were surfacing even then, Jackson went from 100% owner to 50% owner after merging ATV with Sony's publishing arm. The deal also gave Jackson a 50% stake in new songs added to the company's catalog. That's why Jackson now profits from the tunes of Destiny's Child and other young acts, much to Sony's chagrin.

Branca, who negotiated the Sony/ATV deal, declined to comment on any changes that may be in the offing.

The Sony/ATV catalog generates an estimated $80 million in annual revenue, half from Beatles songs. Although the Beatles songs may be the Hope diamond of music publishing, the ATV collection of songs has plenty of other jewels. They are as varied as Bob Dylan's classic "Blowin' in the Wind" and Will Smith's "Gettin' Jiggy Wit It."

Other famous names in the catalog include Garth Brooks, Joni Mitchell, Stevie Nicks, System of a Down, Stephen Stills, Sarah McLachlan, Neil Diamond and Sade.

Jackson's financial problems could be a blessing for Sony, which has grown frustrated with having to share so much money with the singer from publishing rights obtained since the merger. That includes the Acuff-Rose and Tree Publishing catalogs, the two biggest country music publishing houses.

With no deal on the near horizon, music industry insiders Friday were left to ponder who might make a run at Jackson's holdings. Most said they'd be surprised if Sony did not have some sort of contractural clause giving it the inside track.

Several high-placed executives at Sony said they had no knowledge of the proposal that Jackson's advisors were pushing. The company had no official comment Friday.

A publishing business veteran who worked with Jackson in the past said Friday that there would be no bigger symbol of the severity of Jackson's plight than if he said goodbye to the Beatles.

"It would be very clear proof he is totally destroyed financially," said this former associate. "He would do anything except that."
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Two Lane Blacktop

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Respect: 0
    • http://www.owlstretching.com
The Beatles
« Reply #101 on: April 16, 2005, 08:10:53 PM »
0
Quote from: MacGuffin
The Beatles Could Bail Out Jackson
The beleaguered pop star's financial salvation may lie in selling his share of the Fab Four's songbook.


He should just parcel 'em out a few at a time on eBay.  I bet I could afford "The Fool On The Hill" or "Getting Better" if I sneaked a bid in late.

2LB
Body by Guinness

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • on the not-face of it
  • Respect: +774
Re: The Beatles
« Reply #102 on: April 06, 2006, 01:16:24 PM »
0
i already made up my mind, but i'd like to hear your collective thoughts on this anyway.. i have two double features to choose from.

A Hard Day's Night + Help!

or

Yellow Submarine + Magical Mystery Tour

i've seen all except Magical Mystery Tour, because it sucks, and precisely for this reason i think i should probably see it eventually. i've chosen the first pair cos i've seen and liked them (Help was a long time ago), the added gimmick of the big screen is the basis for choosing sure-shots. MMT would look shit anyway cos it was made for TV, and i'm over Yellow Submarine. does MMT have any redeeming qualities?

ps. getting high for the second pair is not an option.
under the paving stones.

mogwai

  • Guest
Re: The Beatles
« Reply #103 on: April 06, 2006, 01:23:36 PM »
0
definitely the first feature films even though 'help!' seriously freaked me out on the first viewing. i've later come to accept it as just a movie and that it's so bizarre. imagine of what could happen if you fed a marijuana hungry band and later shoot some stuff with them high? that's 'help' in a very clear nutshell!

Ravi

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4867
  • Respect: +88
Re: The Beatles
« Reply #104 on: April 06, 2006, 01:34:13 PM »
0
Help! is kind of a stupid movie, but I have seen it countless times anyways.  Its a lot of fun though.  And of course, AHDN is a very good film.  I'd go with the first double feature.  Hard to believe they're from the same filmmaker.

I think I've fast-forwarded through a lot of MMT.  Whatever I've seen of it was pretty bad.  The song numbers are cool, particularly I am the Walrus and Hello Goodbye.  Lots of nonsense, but you have to see it if you're a Beatles fan.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy