h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think we meant the Stones. Of course John doesn't need any money. Though Paul could do a bit of profit if only Michael Jackson would give him his songs back...

~Irving

I don't think Paul is short of a dollar, but yes it would be good if wacko jacko wasn't in control of the beatles stuff.

At least he hasn't bought out his own beatles cover album. I guess we can be thankful for small mercies

Last I heard Michael Jackson had sold them to Sony, who, being a record company, are very unlikely to want to sell them back.

He probably needed the money to pay of the parents of little boys...

Who knows who Sony will end up merging/being taken over by. I guess when we hear beatles songs being used to advertise washing machines or soft drink we will be able to work it out

If he was going to sell, why didn't he sell to Paul!?!? I thought they were supposed to be friends?

Paul had a chance to buy it all years ago but wouldn't pay the asking price as it was over what he thought was the market value (i think it was Lord Grade or Grey or something like that???)

Maybe Jackson did a deal so Sony would still put out his records...

Why exactly waw Paul forced to sell?

I don't know if he ever owned the rights i think the record/publishing company owned them, or maybe it had something to do with the debacle at Apple

The rights were always owned by Northern something-or-ther, I've forgotten, as part of tgheir original contract. But Northern went bankrupt, and it's assits were bought by Lord Gray/Grey etc, including the rights. And Paul did refuse to spend much money on them, expecting no-one else to be interested. Big mistake!

He spent the money buying the rights to Chuck Berry and various others instead

Going back a bit I have to add that 'Octopuss's Garden' is one of my favourite tracks from that album. Who cares if it doesn't fit in with the rest of the album? It's just a 'feel-good song'

Another thing, it annoys me greatly to hear The Beatles referred to as a boy-band. They actually had talent. They wrote and performed their own songs, and broke new ground musically. Boyzone and Backstreet Boys don't even come close.

You are very right. The Beatles were great, and the Backstreet Boys are horrible...

Who called the Beatles a boy band? The Monkees, now they were a boy band.

~Irving

I don't know, the other person said it. I was just agreeing that they weren't a boy band...

Good to see these forums coming back to life.

~Irving

yes-- i see that you've visited my homepage-- makes me feel special

I suppose that after this new autobiographical thing that Paul George and Ringo are releasing comes out, this article will need updating...

~Irving

oh are they doing more. neat. guess i'll spend some money when it comes out. but actually i don't care about the beatles THAT much...