Well, the whole, “They’re his, he deserves them, how dare they take it away” was just annoying. Like how DARE Paul McCartney want control of his own work?
It’s not so much the money. It’s having to hear “Getting Better” as a Phillips jingle. It just doesn’t feel right.
I still have to wonder what’s *preventing * MJ from selling these songs off to the highest commercial bidder? When you start listing the products that could match up well with one tune or another…it’s another thread I guess.
Maybe there’s a committee system where McCartney and the rest get a vote, but how did “Revolution” and “Getting Better” slip through?
As long as they don’t use the Beatles’ version, any company can pay to use a Beatles’ song with someone else singing. If they are willing to pay the price. I can imagine the more popular songs would cost a fortune and would not be in the budget for most companies. I think “Revolution” (Nike) was a fluke.
If the “Getting Better” campaign used the Beatles’ original recording, I must have missed it; the sone in the Phillips campaign was a soundalike.
The machinations of the Beatles’ business affairs since they broke up has been the great — the only — untold story remaining about them. What I suspect happened—and this really is only a guess—is that sometime in the late 80s/early 90s, the Beatles and Yoko went to EMI and basically muscled them for co-ownership of the Beatles’ masters. Up to then you had a lot of cheesy compilations (Rock and Roll Music, Love Songs) that were released at EMI’s behest without the Beatles’ cooperation, as they were entitled to do as owners of the Beatles’ masters. The licensing of “Revolution” may have been the final straw. (Though I’ve heard rumors that Yoko approved it beforehand, only badmouthing it after all the bad press.) By then the Fabs had finally settled the last of their own internal differences (remember Paul wasn’t there when the Beatles were inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame; the others were suing him), and were able to present a united front to EMI and demand control over the use of their catalog. I further suspect that the prospect of the Anthologies was dangled as bait: “Give us veto power over the masters, and we’ll help you go through the vaults and put together some new releases.” Unfortunately we may never know, unless Mark Lewisohn manages to dig it up for his upcoming definitive Fabs biography. <fingers crossed>
First, he doesn’t want to sell them-there was a rumor (unfortunately, I don’t have a cite,) that when someone gave him money towards his horrendous pile of debt, he tried to use it to buy back the portion that Sony now owns, and was shot down.
Second, they’re mortgaged to the hilt-how many times has he used the catalog as collateral to get a loan to build some wacky new theme park, or fund another tacky-ass shopping spree?
He may just not have what they want. Many companies might want to use Beatles songs in a commercial, but the publishing rights don’t get them that.