Gainsbarre Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 Does anybody relize who owns the rights to the Happy Birthday sing and the theme song from I love lucy. Sir paul mccartney. Do you know who owns the rights to Blackbird or any other beatles song, Micheal Jackson (or he used to) Yeah Paul has a music publishing company called MPL. It's the largest independent music publishing company in the world. In the late 70's, when he signed a huge record deal with Columbia records, as part of the deal, he got chunks of their publishing. So he owns a lot of old songs like Stormy Weather, plus all of Buddy Holly's stuff. He also owns quite a few Broadway Musicals like Grease, Hello Dolly, A Chorus Line, Guys & Dolls, Annie, La Cage Aux Folles, The Music Man, How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying, You're A Good Man Charlie Brown. All those musicals would still be pulling in a lot of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted March 16, 2008 Author Share Posted March 16, 2008 Yeah Paul has a music publishing company called MPL. It's the largest independent music publishing company in the world. In the late 70's, when he signed a huge record deal with Columbia records, as part of the deal, he got chunks of their publishing. So he owns a lot of old songs like Stormy Weather, plus all of Buddy Holly's stuff. He also owns quite a few Broadway Musicals like Grease, Hello Dolly, A Chorus Line, Guys & Dolls, Annie, La Cage Aux Folles, The Music Man, How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying, You're A Good Man Charlie Brown. All those musicals would still be pulling in a lot of money. He was so smart with businness and music, but so dumb with the women. It's ashamed becasue even at 64 he could probaly have any women in the world, just becasue he Sir paul mccartney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandra Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 ...and what can you say about Michael Jackson? He closed his 'Neverland'. Does this mean he's broke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted March 16, 2008 Author Share Posted March 16, 2008 ...and what can you say about Michael Jackson? He closed his 'Neverland'. Does this mean he's broke? No, but he's still a wierdo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 He was so smart with businness and music, but so dumb with the women. It's ashamed becasue even at 64 he could probaly have any women in the world, just becasue he Sir paul mccartney. I think he just made a really bad choice with Heather Mills You know I watched a show about her, and before she was married to Paul, apparently she had been engaged 6 times...and each time she never went through with the marriage, but used the engagements to drum up publicity for her in the various British newspapers and TV media. They had a journalist on saying that she was always hitting them up for publicity, but the minute she got with Paul McCartney, then she refused to speak to them. Then there was that other incident in the 90's when Heather Mills was going for job interviews with newspapers and magazines pretending to be an English journalist who also happened to have the name Heather Mills. She was rocking up to interviews with a portfolio filled with this other woman's articles. It was discovered when a guy working for a TV channel interviewed Heather Mills and happened to mention it to his wife later that night, and his wife, it just so happened, was actually friends with the other Heather Mills. But I do believe she was a bit of a gold-digger, and I think she married him more for the fame and money than because she was in love. And she was pretty keen to have a child with him, and that's a good way to guarantee a steady flow of superstar income. I mean half of the divorce proceedings were about how much Macca would have to pay in child support. And it was millions and millions of pounds. I mean are you kidding me?? She needs £20m to bring up a child??? I'm sorry, but she was gold-digger But other than that, you had Linda McCartney, and okay she may not have been good-looking and not everyone liked her that much, but Paul must've been they were together for so long, so as far as he is concerned he mustve done all right there And before that it was Jane Asher, and she was a very classy girl. But she wanted a career, whereas at the time I think Macca wanted a traditional wife who was going to sit on the farm with him and make dinner, and I don't think that was Jane's cup of tea. She wanted to persue her acting career. Ironically, in the end, she became more well-known for her Cake-decorating skills and cook books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cactus Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Does anybody relize who owns the rights to the Happy Birthday sing and the theme song from I love lucy. Sir paul mccartney. That's an urban myth. Snopes. It is owned by the Summy-Birchard Co, a division of AOL Time Warner. The annual royalties are reported to be up to $2 million. With the internet as it is these days, and Google, it's really easy to check your facts. Give it a go next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 With the internet as it is these days, and Google, there is really no excuse for such ill-informed posts as yours. Sorry but that's the truth. Next time, take a minute (it only takes a minute) and check your facts. Take it easy, mate, it's not exactly that important... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cactus Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 If people took more pride in being informed about the facts, the world would be a better place. Rather than propagating rumours as fact. You've got to start somewhere.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 If people took more pride in being informed about the facts, the world would be a better place. Rather than propagating rumours as fact. You've got to start somewhere.... I'm sure if you'd just nicely pointed it out to Pb, he would've taken your information on board. I don't think nut slap was necessary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzzoso Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 You know what. In my OPINION, LED ZEPPELIN, as a whole should be worth more than hundreds of millions of dollars. Even though they have not been around since 1980, they still sell millions of tapes/records/cds/dvds every year. Millions a year. How much of that that gets spread around to each estate I have not any idea. 100 years from now Led Zeppelin will still be selling millions of dollars worth of music a year. That is their impact and their legacy. 100 years from now they will be considered the Bachs and Beethovens of OUR time. Does anybody really disagree with this statement. Anyway, I do not know what each estate is worth today but whatever it is they ALL deserve it and millions more. Long Live the MIGHTY LED ZEPPELIN!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Bonzo left £856,00 in his will, though no instructions on how it was to be divided up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsj Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 the rich lists always seem to pair jimmy and robert as being roughly equal in the estimate of their wealth. i thought planty sold his rights to zeppelin in the early 90s? if so how is he as wealthy as jimmy, or is he making a good income from his solo career? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rulo0801 Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 I don't understand how if Page is worth 70 million pounds, Eric Clapton is worth roughly the double, 140 million pounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzldoc Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Slightly more than I, give me a decade or so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Slightly more than I, give me a decade or so I think the boy's could buy a round or two Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Slightly more than I, give me a decade or so Only slightly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humbucker Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 I don't understand how if Page is worth 70 million pounds, Eric Clapton is worth roughly the double, 140 million pounds. EC has put out more records, toured more and erred on the commercial side with his material, therefore making more money. It's not how much you rate someone above anyone else, it's how much that person has amassed in financial terms. RB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZepFanatic Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 To bad for John Paul Jones that ITTOD didn't sell as well as say, Symbols did. Or that he got shafted by not getting credit for helping to write Stairway (I've read he helped Jimmy arrange parts of it and wrote some little bits here and there) or Kashmir (where he scored, arranged, and wrote the entire end section, even according to Jimmy in an old interview...but Bonham gets a credit and JPJ does not...??) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireOpal Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 the rich lists always seem to pair jimmy and robert as being roughly equal in the estimate of their wealth. i thought planty sold his rights to zeppelin in the early 90s? if so how is he as wealthy as jimmy, or is he making a good income from his solo career? I've heard that rumour too, persistently (that Robert sold his share) - dunno if it's true though. Also heard from a solid source that Jimmy purchased Bonham's and Peter Grant's shares when they passed on. So one would assume that Page is much wealthier than Robert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zachman Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 plant sold his royalties rights in the 80's and page receives the majority of them these days ..however plant has the right to veto any song into a movie or a soundtrack such as dazed and confused.. page said ok but plant said no which wasnt a good idea imop since it was a totally different song but at the same time based on jake holmes song..but you get my point he doesnt make money off of zeppelin albums he may have sold it cuz of bonzos death.. some people say cuz of lawsuits but i think thats hogwash.. i think he felt bad making money off of bonzos death right or wrong thats what i think it was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsj Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 if he didnt want to make money from bonzo why did he *sell* his shares, ergo, make money from the very thing you say he wanted to avoid? i'd like to know what year he sold his share, was it before or after the box set came out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Masson Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 They seem to have more money than I do. Bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PennyLane Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Does it really matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireOpal Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 if he didnt want to make money from bonzo why did he *sell* his shares, ergo, make money from the very thing you say he wanted to avoid? i'd like to know what year he sold his share, was it before or after the box set came out? Long before the box set. Supposedly it was in the early 80's -- around '82 or '83, as Robert was starting his solo career. Legend has it that he was doing it to make a fresh start, move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsj Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 an admirable decision. however, a costly one, given the ressurgence in the late 80s and 90s: box sets, page & plant, DVD, HTWWW, SRTS etc and last years shennanigans. i suspect he's not too bothered really. he seems comfortable in himself these days and still has a fair bob or two anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.