Michael Jackson Dead?????

[uwe]

I don't think Jackson had a happy life - be it childhood, adolescence or manhood. He probably didn't have a childhood and adolescence, period. He had his demons.

I once had a client who managed Jacksons' affairs in Germany. According to him, Jackson would promise everything to everyone and rescind his promises on the next day after having talked with someone else. Horrible businessman.

I don't think his musical talent can be a serious issue. Bob Dylan - probably not a member of the MJ fan club and not known to dish out compliments on other musicians lightly - once said that he had never heard someone sing harmony like Jackson did when he heard a Dylan demo in the studio. Apparently, Jackson heard a few notes and then developed a harmony part from scratch making it up as he sang along.

And when I left the office this early morning (had some lengthy work to do), I admit that I sat down first with one of my Gibbies and played Billy Jean a little before turning off the lights.

Uwe

[Denis]

1) Does McCartney get his songs back now? I think Paul was able to buy them back awhile ago, one can only hope.

I think Sir Paul does get the Beatles song rights back since Jackson is dead.

Jackson overshadowing Farrah's demise reminds me of the week James Brown's death made the news for an hour or so - the week Reagan died.  I just heard on the radio that the lead singer from The Seeds died, too.

Farrah was much prettier than Jackson was though!

Ole Sky was definitely a strange one too, but those old songs from The Seeds were terrific!

[Dave W]

The only way Paul would get anything back upon Jackson's death is if Jackson willed it to him. There's no automatic reversion of rights. And Jackson wasn't the sole owner of the Beatles' catalog anyway, since he merged his company with Sony's music publishing company years ago.

This Business Week article talks about what might happen. I'll bet lawsuits are being prepared right now.

[uwe]

I never understood what was wrong with MJ and not PM obtaining these rights. MJ moved quicker and paid a higher price (as he could then afford), Paul was his usal thrifty self and hesitated. And then lamented. While my Höfner gently whines.  And I never heard that he planned to give the rights of the Buddy Holly catalogue (which he bought and owns) back to the Holly heirs either. Equal standards please among triple-digit-multi-millionaires that need our compassion.

[Dave W]

He didn't just buy the catalogue, he bought a publishing company that owned the catalogue. Nothing ethically wrong with that, I've never heard any doubt that the company (ATV Music) did own the rights. And IIRC long after Jackson merged it with Sony's music publishing company, he then put up his share as collateral for a big loan from a major bank. Long story short, I don't think Paul will have any claim.

[uwe]

"He didn't just buy the catalogue, he bought a publishing company that owned the catalogue."

Share rather than asset deal then, when are you enrolling for law school, Dave? 

[Dave W]

Share rather than asset deal then, when are you enrolling for law school, Dave? 

No thanks, my social status is already low enough as is. 

[OldManC]

ATV owned what had been under the Northern Songs banner back in the day. Anything from 1968 or so was published under Apple and not part of ATV. The Beatles or their heirs still own that publishing AFAIK. The acrimony over the ATV publishing stems from when it was being sold in the 80's. I'm going from memory and don't want to look it up but from what I remember, ATV's owner approached Paul first and offered him first refusal at a far lower price than what Jackson ultimately paid. Paul approached Yoko, ready to do the deal with her as partner. Yoko, knowing that John's death would allow her to claim his share eventually, told Paul it was too much money and I think persuaded him to try and deal. Jackson, awash in Thriller cash at the time, swooped in and seized the opportunity, having learned from Paul that "Publishing is where the money is". And Uwe, you are exactly right about Paul's other holdings. He got beat at his own game and I have a hard time working up any grief over that fact.

I've sadly learned the hard way that money has a way of flowing to those most responsible in their stewardship over it. Jackson's irresponsibility in insisting on living a lifestyle he could not afford led to him losing that publishing and everything else. He 'owned' the Beatles publishing in name only. Sony, BofA and many others have owned a claim on those holdings for a while now. He's almost lost them outright a few times when he couldn't make payments on his loans. He (or his people) seemed able to save them each time, but always by leveraging those holdings even further. He's reported to be in debt $400 million or more. I'm not sure that the resultant uptick in MJ sales (though it will be large) is going to cover $400,000 by the time everyone's fingers are out of the pie.

I do feel sorry for his kids though. Unless one of MJ's family or hangers-on can figure out a way to make a buck off those kids, they'll end up with nothing...

[lowend1]

No thanks, my social status is already low enough as is. 

Ah, you're a car salesman...

[Dave W]

George, take a look at Amazon's Top 25. As of this hour, the top 15 sellers (and 19 of the 25) are all Michael Jackson or Jackson 5. And not a one of 'em was up there before yesterday. Sustained sales might be enough to pay off creditors. OTOH some creditors may already have the right to some of those new proceeds.

It may or may not be enough to make his kids rich, but maybe someday they'll at least be able to afford a balcony to dangle their own kids over.

[Hornisse]

I understand that he had some 100 unrecorded songs that he left his kids. 

[godofthunder]

Ok I'll be the stick in the mud. Aside from some work(thanks to stellar writers, session players and producers) with the J5 There isn't anything from his career I care for................ (GOT ducks and runs for cover). I am sad he died so young. His questionable behavior with young boys more than creeps me out. People hold him up as some kind of super talent, not that he didn't have talent but................................... oh I'll just shut up.

[lowend1]

I understand that he had some 100 unrecorded songs that he left his kids. 

He apparently has also left a mountain of debt ($.5b), plus they aren't sure whether the people who bought tickets for the "comeback" shows will get their money back. One source called it "the biggest mess this business has ever seen".

[Pilgrim]

I'm thinking that for a certain generation - one younger than most of us - he was "Elvis".  A bright light, huge hits, shifted the way a category of music was played - then flamed out.

The main difference to me was that Jacko put his weirdness on display for a LOT longer than Elvis did.  I've heard that toward the end, Elvis wasn't functional at all...I don't know, I don't care to study it.  I do know that when Jacko stared changing faces and getting into legal trouble, I tuned him out.  But the display visible aroudn the world means that he was pretty important and even iconic to a lot of people.  I'm just too old to appreciate it.

[Dave W]

I don't think it's age. I'm old enough to remember young Elvis, and I never understood the public outpouring of grief, much less the continuing worship of him. Music does affect people very personally and both Elvis and Michael have many adoring fans. I understand their grief, I just don't get all the public part of it.