Michael Jackson is a Schmuck for not letting Beatles songs in

[Colombo7]

Michael Jackson is a a**hole for not letting Beatles music into either GH or RB.

[LZ_Reborn]

How do you figure it was his doing?

[Ranryu]

How do you figure it was his doing?
He owns the rights to their songs because he stabbed Paul in the back

[Colombo7]

He owns the rights to their songs because he stabbed Paul in the back
Exactly. that is why he is someone who should be shot. Or should i say one of the many reasons he should be shot.

[TheGreatWhiteDope]

it does suck....

but i mean...they should start with trying to get Alien Ant Farm's version of Smooth Criminal in

...and then sell Jacko on Beatles songs....i mean he does need the money

[GrayInvisible]

The beatles had a song in karaoke revolution

[Colombo7]

yeah. he is practically broke from losing all that money due his trial which he should have been convicted of. But maybe instead of going for beatles go for some John Lennon. There are a couple of his songs that are PERFECT like Nobody Told Me. And some of Pauls latest stuff too.

[Colombo7]

The beatles had a song in karaoke revolution
Really??? I didn't know that. do u know what song???

[Ranryu]

Also, Paul McCartney and Wings had some very good songs (Live and Let Die and Band on the Run immediately spring to mind)

[GrayInvisible]

Really??? I didn't know that. do u know what song???

Twist and Shout

[mind_in_rewind]

From "The Straight Dope"


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.

[defmonkey]

I say one of us dresses like a 13 year old boy and seduce him for some beatles tunes.

Hey, it could happen.

[Dino Ridiculous]

They could put Twist and Shout in that other game because it wasn't one of The Beatles's tracks. It is actually a cover of The Isley Brothers.......

[Ranryu]

They could put Twist and Shout in that other game because it wasn't one of The Beatles's tracks. It is actually a cover of The Isley Brothers.......
Yeah, and covers have their own little set of rules which are very, very confusing

[Colombo7]

They could put Twist and Shout in that other game because it wasn't one of The Beatles's tracks. It is actually a cover of The Isley Brothers.......
Ya the beatles did an amazing job of covering it though.

[Schryverr]

I say one of us dresses like a 13 year old boy and seduce him for some beatles tunes.

Hey, it could happen.

haha roflmao

Sounds like a plan