scottycatt

Jul 4 2009, 03:32 AM

There were rumors circulating that Michael had more than one will, but I don't think anything has materialized from that story.

The point I was trying to make about Paul is that he seems to be *rewriting* the actual version of history as regards his feelings toward being outbid by Michael. He seems to have a habit of doing this, as evidenced by that bit in Anthology in which he tries to share credit (pass blame) for having been the mastermind behind Magical Mystery Tour.

As much as I love Paul, it does seem to me that his recall of actual events can become rather elastic at times, in order to cast himself in a more favorable light. I certainly understand Paul's not wanting to say anything negative about Michael right now, but to claim that he wasn't bothered long-term by that whole song ownership thing just isn't born out by other statements he's made in numerous interviews.

Why couldn't he just pass along some complimentary statements about MJ's abilities as a performer and showman and let it go at that? I just don't think he's being straightforward, that's all. That bugs me.

DCBeatle64

Jul 4 2009, 05:43 AM

I think in fairness to Paul he might just be in the habit of doing what the rest of the majority of the world has done in reaction to Jackson's death or when anyone dies...forgetting about the negative and doing the dignified respectful thing of publicly letting it go. I do also remember especially in recent years he has been more relaxed about the situation than he was back in the 80's

scottycatt

Jul 4 2009, 08:37 PM

DCBeatle64

Jul 4 2009, 05:43 AM

I think in fairness to Paul he might just be in the habit of doing what the rest of the majority of the world has done in reaction to Jackson's death or when anyone dies...forgetting about the negative and doing the dignified respectful thing of publicly letting it go. I do also remember especially in recent years he has been more relaxed about the situation than he was back in the 80's

Yeah, Dani, what I was trying to say was that I can understand if Paul wanted to just say something nice about Michael and leave it at that. Totally understandable. I'm just bugged that he didn't stop there, but went ahead with saying he wasn't bothered for long by that whole song catalog episode. He didn't need to add that last bit, especially as it contradicts things he's said for quite awhile.

scottycatt

Jul 5 2009, 12:47 AM

I'm not following you. 2006? What are you referring to? :unsure:

This is the specific bit that has me bugged.

For a couple of months I was miffed, like anyone would be. But I soon got over it. I said, 'You know what, I've got enough.'"

I recall him in interviews years later still making some not-so-flattering remarks about Michael's supposed underhanded tactics.

I suppose I could Google and find these interviews, but I won't bother. It's not worth it and I don't mean to belabor the point. I still stand by my comments.