Anyone know what Yoko Ono does with all that $? Work for peace?

[wakemewhenitsover]

Or hoard it? What about Paul? Are these people doing great things secretly? I hope so. Or are they hypocrites? Imagine how much good Yoko could do if she donated the royalties for just the song "Imagine" to a peace organization...

[Dirty Hippie]

1. I believe she does support peace causes. As for Paul

he is very active in animal rights causes.

[emulatorloo]

4. and McCartney also anti-landmine activism, and music education too

Yoko does her fair share. Just google Yoko and Activism or Charity. Same w McCartney.

[Deja Q]

7. Humans are animals too. Less refined ones these days.

[bryant69]

2. I think both are doing stuff; but I think neither wants the limelight

At least not for that.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. Just from a glance

at a google search for Yoko + Donation comes up with quite a few hits. Seems Yoko actively supports a lot of different groups and causes.

[deutsey]

5. Here's one specific thing Yoko is doing for peace

http://www.yoko-ono.com/#peace

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/2315665.stm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_15_28/ai_n6260689

[Deja Q]

6. Paul is rather obvious, isn't he?

Of course, did he ever agree with Lennon's philosophy in the first place?

And I thought Michael Jackson owned the rights to all the Beatles songs. :(

[karynnj]

8. Paul spoke of Vietnam and Civil Rights in the same set

of interviews where John said the famous "the Beatles are bigger than Christ". Paul was hanging around with the leftish intellectuals in London who he knew through Peter Asher. He partially funded one of the alternative newspapers. Part of the difference was that Paul would say things in a polite, well mannered way and look innocent.

Lennon, of course, became very political when he and Yoko were in NYC. At the same time, Paul and Linda, other than animal rights, became less political. Lennon's political thoughts made it into his songs far more often than Paul's did to his.

In recent times, Paul has been very involved with banning landmines, animal rights and music education. On the latter, he has been very involved with a Liverpool based school of the performing arts. In conjunction with his current tour he has some relationship with Fidelity Investiment that is in support of an effort to support music in the schools.

[JHB]

9. Jackson has (had?) publishing rights.

For your clarification:

-------
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.
------- more at:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a951027.html

back in June CNN was reporting he might have to sell them to raise cash, but I don't know how all that shook out.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/08/news/newsmakers/jackson_loan/?cnn=yes

[ScreamingMeemie]

10. And what are we doing as a society, along with posting on a message

board. I know I could do more. :hi:

[onehandle]

11. "These people?"

Fascinating post.

"These people" are poor compared to corporatist families.

What does Rush do with his millions?

[FredScuttle]

12. And this is any of our fucking business....why?

For all the abuse Yoko's endured in her life, she can make piles of $100 bills around her mansion to roll around in as far as I'm concerned. Unless she's releasing a song entitled "Rich Rock Widows - Give Your Fortunes To Charity!", I don't see how you can call her a hypocrite.

BTW, "Imagine" is the official song of Amnesty International.

[kskiska]

13. She's made sure John's son Julian doesn't get any

In Cynthia Lennon's book she tells of how when the Beatles first began making money John set up a small trust fund for Julian and any future children he might have. The money in there was a pittance compared to what he later accumulated, something like $40,000. When John died, Yoko made sure she got her son Sean's share of that fund, despite all the millions she had already.

Julian has said that whatever possessions of his father he owns, he had to buy at auctions. I hope that when Yoko dies, her son will do the right thing.

[wakemewhenitsover]

15. That's terrible! Does Cynthia explain why Yoko is so ungenerous w/Julian?

[kskiska]

16. That's just the way she is.

She forced her way into John's marriage, even to the point of getting into their car with them, and moving into his house when Cynthia was away. When Cynthia arrived home, Yoko (in Cynthia's bathrobe) was sitting there with John and the two of them just looked at her.

Julian says that everyone thinks he's set for life because of his father, but actually, he's got nothing.

[wakemewhenitsover]

17. I checked out her charitable work for peace and it's $50,000.

Which is pocket change. She set up one prize and got tons of publicity. Really shocking when she's worth over a billion. To me, this is total hypocrisy. Why not work for gun control after what happened to John? Only I ever heard of her doing was donating his shattered glasses for a billboard, which cost her nothing.

[blogslut]

18. I see

that Yoko hating is still in fashion.

[H2O Man]

19. Yoko is a nice lady.

The baloney on this thread isn't true. And it's no one's business what she does with her money.

[blogslut]

20. I dig it

Just noticing how once again, a strong woman is such a threat to "some people".

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

14. WHATEVER THE HELL SHE WANTS!

I'll be happy whatever she does, just so's I don't have to listen to her "sing".


Go ahead and remain asleep...