# Sir Paul mounts legal action!



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Interesting article about selling, splitting up, reselling, and maybe reclaiming the right to the Beatles' music. Lots of money involved!

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-35860868


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

He just comes off as a greedy b*****d. He already has more wealth than he or his children could spend in several lifetimes. He should have thought about control way back when he sold the rights years ago. I don't care one way or another as I am no longer a fan of the Beatles and especially of Paul.

Kevin


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Kevin Pearson said:


> He just comes off as a greedy b*****d. He already has more wealth than he or his children could spend in several lifetimes. He should have thought about control way back when he sold the rights years ago. I don't care one way or another as I am no longer a fan of the Beatles and especially of Paul.
> 
> Kevin


Out of curiosity why the change of opinion on Paul and the Beatles? Oh and I agree he comes off as greedy and he should have thought about it way back when..


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Fugue Meister said:


> Out of curiosity why the change of opinion on Paul and the Beatles? Oh and I agree he comes off as greedy and he should have thought about it way back when..


All I can say is tastes change. When I was a tween I loved the Beatles and as a teenager I liked the Beatles but other music caught my attention. There's also not a single Beatles album I can say I liked every piece of music on. They are way overrated as composers in my opinion. I've honestly tried to listen to Beatles again since they are now on Spotify and no matter how hard I try I cannot sit through an entire album. I recognize that Sgt. Peppers is an important album and was influential, in many respects, and without it progressive rock might have taken longer to develop and come to the forefront. I find the White album almost entirely unlistenable and only the 2nd side of Abbey Road even worthy of any commendation. Let it Be was just the nail in a coffin of a band that was washed up a couple of years earlier. George Martin was the real genius behind their music and without him they would not have gone as far as they did.

Now as to Paul I will admit that in the past he had good melodic sensibilities but he really hasn't written anything in 40 years worth shelling out money for. His association with the Beatles is really the only legacy he has because Wings wasn't all that good of a band. Most of his writing today just makes me feel sorry for him and even more sorry for those who buy his albums. Now if you disagree with me that's fine but if I were to never hear another Beatle song in my life it would be no loss.

Now I will add one other thing to these comments in that I have heard some classical arrangements of some of their music or solo instrumental that has breathed new life into some of their old worn out tired tunes and that's something I can do on occasion, but sit down and listen to a whole Beatle album, or worse one of Paul's albums? I'd rather not waste what little precious hours of music listening I have left.

Kevin


----------



## Mayerl (May 5, 2008)

Kevin, I could not agree more with what you have to say. I'm pleased you give full credit to the late George Martin without whom The Beatles would have been merely a nine-day wonder. 

For me the rot set in when Lennon started to think of himself as an intellectual, when McCartney thought he was a musician (a mis-apprehension he still labours under), when Harrison thought he was sitting on God's right hand and when Ringo Starr stopped giving a toss. 

David


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Above two posts: quite sad, really. I grieve for your loss. Youthful dreams shattered: always a tragedy.


----------



## Mayerl (May 5, 2008)

And that remark must surely win the award in the "Most Offensively Patronising" category. Welcome back to the Nursery!!


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Strange Magic said:


> Above two posts: quite sad, really. I grieve for your loss. Youthful dreams shattered: always a tragedy.


Don't grieve for me! I've gained far more than I have lost. I would much rather spend an hour or two listening to new discoveries in classical or jazz than waste time on Beatles albums with songs I have heard well over a hundred times in my lifetime. Some things are just best left in the past.

Kevin


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Mayerl said:


> And that remark must surely win the award in the "Most Offensively Patronising" category. Welcome back to the Nursery!!


I nominate this as post for the whole year 2016, not to be beaten by anyone.:tiphat:
Do you mind if I borough it sometime:lol:


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Never liked the Beatles. I wonder why people get so worked up over half assed lullabies that weren't even (entirely) written by them.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Morimur said:


> Never liked the Beatles. I wonder why people get so worked up over half assed lullabies that weren't even (entirely) written by them.


Good old Morimur! I can still rely upon you.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Kevin Pearson said:


> He just comes off as a greedy b*****d. He already has more wealth than he or his children could spend in several lifetimes. He should have thought about control way back when he sold the rights years ago. I don't care one way or another as I am no longer a fan of the Beatles and especially of Paul.
> 
> Kevin


Hi Kevin. Unless I'm wrong, McCartney never had 'rights' to the Beatles catalogue as such - collectively he and the other Beatles had a minority shareholding in Northern Songs, whose share majority were sold to Lew Grade's ATV organisation in 1968/69 by Dick James and Charles Silver without the Beatles even being privy to the deal. Lennon and McCartney then sold what they had in order to safeguard future royalty payments which were only ever going to be payable if they had either the controlling interest in Northern Songs or no shares at all. Harrison also sold his but had by then wisely set up his own publishing company. Starr hung onto his which, in the great scheme of things, amounted to less than 1% of the issue. After John Lennon's death McCartney and Yoko Ono then tried to buy the music side of ATV but, I gather, were not allowed to make a joint bid. And by the time Michael Jackson snaffled them up in the mid-80s there was nothing McCartney could do about it whether he wanted to or not.

I know the latest developments can be seen as opportunism on the part of McCartney but I'd still rather see the songs owned by someone who actually composed a fair proportion of them instead of being subsumed by one large corporation or another.

Apologies in advanced if I have got any of this wrong.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Its not enough to be a multi-millionaire in these days of austerity. One simply _must_ become a billionaire!


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Well, I liked the Beatles and thought they wrote some great music I still enjoy 
But money will always chase more money.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> Hi Kevin. Unless I'm wrong, McCartney never had 'rights' to the Beatles catalogue as such - collectively he and the other Beatles had a minority shareholding in Northern Songs, whose share majority were sold to Lew Grade's ATV organisation in 1968/69 by Dick James and Charles Silver without the Beatles even being privy to the deal. Lennon and McCartney then sold what they had in order to safeguard future royalty payments which were only ever going to be payable if they had either the controlling interest in Northern Songs or no shares at all. Harrison also sold his but had by then wisely set up his own publishing company. Starr hung onto his which, in the great scheme of things, amounted to less than 1% of the issue. After John Lennon's death McCartney and Yoko Ono then tried to buy the music side of ATV but, I gather, were not allowed to make a joint bid. And by the time Michael Jackson snaffled them up in the mid-80s there was nothing McCartney could do about it whether he wanted to or not.
> 
> I know the latest developments can be seen as opportunism on the part of McCartney but *I'd still rather see the songs owned by someone who actually composed a fair proportion of them instead of being subsumed by one large corporation or another.*
> 
> Apologies in advanced if I have got any of this wrong.


Yes, though it would be even better if they were in the public domain.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Wood said:


> Yes, though it would be even better if they were in the public domain.


BAAAHAHA! 'Sir' Paul's head would explode.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Wood said:


> Yes, though it would be even better if they were in the public domain.


They will be, after the term of the copyright expires.  I think the right to profit from ones own intellectual property is an important one and there are few areas where this has been more systematically abused than in the world of popular music.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> They will be, after the term of the copyright expires.  I think the right to profit from ones own intellectual property is an important one and there are few areas where this has been more systematically abused than in the world of popular music.


This is why the Doors were savvy in an age of music biz naivety - they registered their own publishing company (and strengthened their position further by affiliation to ASCAP) even before signing with Elektra, although Elektra were run on more artiste-friendly lines than most labels of the time and presumably had no problem with the band actually owning their own music.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> They will be, after the term of the copyright expires.  I think the right to profit from ones own intellectual property is an important one and there are few areas where this has been more systematically abused than in the world of popular music.


For sure. Going a bit off topic, I understand that the vast majority of copyrights are held by about three companies, so for those, I don't feel much sympathy. If the recording artists are dead, I would like to see the music in the public domain.

Also, for those who are receiving public money, such as modern composers working for universities, I would also think that there is a strong case for their work to be in the public domain.

Overall though, it seems to be in a mess. Every time I download something from YT, I either feel guilty or smug, or anywhere in between. There should surely be a better system than there is at the moment.


----------

