Rolling Stones...

[Justiceforcedave]

I'd take Bon Jovi... probably wouldn't ever pay to go to a gig and never seen em.

[The Nal]

that's just reminded me that I saw a TV advert the other day that uses .....!!! .... Hawkwind's 'Masters of the Universe'.

They're all at it. Heard two ads with Blur songs last night.

[GlastoSimon]

I think they'll play HRC! No London date, gap in the schedule, would make sense.

Who was the other act announced for Slane Castle today? There was meant to be two if I recall...

[the wonderwhy]

I think they'll play HRC! No London date, gap in the schedule, would make sense.

Who was the other act announced for Slane Castle today? There was meant to be two if I recall...

Only announced one so far. No indication of a 2nd yet, although they've obviously still go plenty of time to do so

[The Nal]

I think they'll play HRC! No London date, gap in the schedule, would make sense.

Who was the other act announced for Slane Castle today? There was meant to be two if I recall...

Yeah there wasn't. One only.

And I take back what I said about the tickets. Ticket are 80 euros + Ticketbastard butter and jam.

[DVG81]

http://www.nme.com/news/the-rolling-stones/66892

If I am able to secure a ticket somehow and for some reason these jerks play I am beginning to think that I would give them a miss.. I kinda liked them before and would have definitely wanted to see them at Glasto but everything since has put me right off.

[The Nal]

http://www.nme.com/n...ng-stones/66892

If I am able to secure a ticket somehow and for some reason these jerks play I am beginning to think that I would give them a miss.. I kinda liked them before and would have definitely wanted to see them at Glasto but everything since has put me right off.

They're really pushing it. I saw an ad for the tour on WWE wrestling last week.

Edited October 30, 2012 by The Nal

[Redwinevino]

They're really pushing it. I saw an ad for the tour on WWE wrestling last week.

That's something else

http://www.wwe.com/inside/watch-rolling-stones-50th-anniversary-show-on-pay-per-view-26063487

They're hosting the PPV for a sold out gig

[Role Model]

A lot better than Beyonce or Jay-Z.

Seriously? It's 2012, come on, move with the times a little bit.

[jimmyt]

Seriously? It's 2012, come on, move with the times a little bit.

Err....Beyonce was the last person to perform on the Pyramid, as things stand, therefore still acceptable as a reference point to compare a potentially controversial booking to, surely?! She was rubbish, too.

[The Nal]

Seriously? It's 2012, come on, move with the times a little bit.

Whats 2012 got to do with it?

can't imagine Jon blow job being any better than Beyonce, or Jay-Z tbh.

Oh they're all shit yeah.

[dirty_dog]

if glastonbury only moved with the times then springsteen, stevie wonder and Neil Young wouldn't have headlined, nor would have Blur.

[beodeejay]

Yeah they always play it.

Slane is shite venue. A nightmare to get to and home from, poorly organised and the bars/toilet situation is a disaster.

That won't play too well with the £200 a tciket brigade. Big one off shows aren't festivals, and my experience of them is that people are less tolerant of "shite" ... and in a way, it's a fair point.

For an enormo-tour, they play one day festival gigs simply so that the stage/band/crew fixed costs are played to 30/40/80,000 and not about 12 / 15,000 like many arena gigs.

So it's all about the money - and of the Stones put £100 - £200 on the tickets, as they surely will, people will not want to queue 20 mins to use an already-full turdis, or wait 45 mins to buy a £5 pint, then have a total mightmare journey too. Maybe not a good venue for their demographic ??

For all the Stone roses gig was a cash-cow, we went to heaton park, had a couple of beers ( plus our own 'supplies') and saw about 5 hours of decent live music for less then £70 each.

[mrtourette]

if glastonbury only moved with the times then springsteen, stevie wonder and Neil Young wouldn't have headlined, nor would have Blur.

But even though they may not have been current in the years they played they were still reveread as a credible and influential act. Bon Jovi are neither current nor relevant due to being influential on today's current acts.

[The Nal]

I have huge issues with Blur being a "credible act". Most of their set in 09 has been used in ads. Can;t help hearing Blur and thinking "thats the British gas theme", "oh thats that car ad song" etc.

I don't care what anyone says, flogging songs off for ads to the highest bidder and hearing the songs on TV ads completely ruins the songs (and the band) for me. I'd feel like a right tit singing along to any of them. And I like Blur. But Damon needs to realise that these songs meant a lot to people and hes pissed all over his fans loyalty by cheapening the songs.

Check out the amount of songs Blur have sold the rights off to. Its fucking insane.

Decent band. Yes. Credible? No sir.

Edited October 31, 2012 by The Nal

[mrtourette]

If you choose to entirely judge a band's 'credibility' by that then yes that's a fair assessment for you to come to.

[The Nal]

If you choose to entirely judge a band's 'credibility' by that then yes that's a fair assessment for you to come to.

Not entirely no, but for me its a huge judgement.

Whats even worse is that Blur didn't start off as that type of band. They really only started flogging of their music to any old whore when they started breaking up in the late 90s. At least if they started off as a Rhianna type then people would know what they're getting.

But look at that list - Nike, Coke, Renault, Chanel, Miller and a fucking dog food TV ad!!

I'm sure when Damon wrote the lyrics to Parklife he secretly had dog food in mind. And "all the people" who listened to it and cherished it through the years presumably understood the dog food reference.

Fucks sake.

Edited October 31, 2012 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

Check out the amount of songs Blur have sold the rights off to. Its fucking insane.

what you're missing from your rant is how the music biz works. Then again, I might be wrong with my belief that it works as I say below (does anyone kmnow for sure t say either way?)....

It's very normal for bands to sell the publishing rights to their songs. I believe that this means that the person who buys the publishing rights is able to sell the use of the songs they hold the rights to, without need to ask the band.

If that's right, it means that it's not the band selling the songs for TV ads and the like.

Of course, they've sold the rights to their songs initially so they do have a place in the chain, but publishing rights is where many bands make the most money thast they make from their music. If I'm piecing together the various bits I was told correctly, it means that a very minor band might be able to get several hundred thousand quid for the song rights to an album, when there's absolutely no chance of earning that amount via album sales.

Only once have I had dealings with someone who owned the publishing rights to a song (not for efests, but for it's much smaller sister site egigs). A minor band was interviewed, and the guy who did the interview thought it would be a good idea to put the interview online as audio - so he cut the words about, and mixed in some audio from their new single (which very few people bought) around the words, and it sounded great.

So i checked out how much it would cost to use it like that with the guy who owned the publishing rights, and was told something like £400. I pointed out to the guy that I could buy copies of the physical single and give that away free to anyone who might listen to that particular interview and it would have cost me less!

[mrtourette]

Not entirely no, but for me its a huge judgement.

Whats even worse is that Blur didn;t start off as that type of band. They really only started flogging of their music to any old whore when they started breaking up in the late 90s.

But indie music only really came in demand for advertising in the late nineties, when students who listed to indie music in the early nineties got into positions in the industry to make those decisions, maybe they've always been 'that sort of band'. They were certainly never anti-promotion or popularity in any other way, they were on telly as much as they could be in the early days. Also remember that they went through a phase of being very unpopular before Parklife so it may have been they they would have jumped at the chance for more promotion, but that nobody wanted to use them.

I would consider Blur to be a more credible band in their later years, when they were being far more experimental with their sound, influences and their songwriting process, than in their early years when they were baggy-by-numbers and letting their record company influence their name and sound to make them more popular. A lot of that can be put down to experience and age and their naiivity when young I guess, but I don't think they changed as a band regarding marketing and promotion, just the opportunities around them changed.

I don't disagree that using songs on adverts may hit a band's credibility (although I think as with most of these discussions we're basing that and judging artists on outdated concepts of credibility or even the outdated concept that it matters or even exists in the same way that it used to) and that if you're suggesting they wrote songs to be deliberately lowest-common-denominator then a band like Blur would fin that hard to defend at times, but I don't think they suddenly changed into some greedy money-making conglomerate.

[The Nal]

Lets go to the top example so. In the case of Michael Jackson buying the Beatles rights. He outbidded Macca and Yoko in the mid 80s for the Beatles rights (despite Macca being the one who advised him to get into buying the rights to music!) and consequently sold "Revolution" to Nike for a TV ad campaign. McCartney later tried to sue him.

"Revolution meant something to people. It wasn't just about a pair of trainers."

And he expresses what I'm saying perfectly here about bands who started off always doing commercials, like Buddy Holly (no issue with it) vs bands who never did them but whos music was used way after the fact (like the Beatles under Jacko ownership)

"It kind of spoils them a little for me".

Edited October 31, 2012 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

Lets go to the top example so. In the case of Michael Jackson buying the Beatles rights. He outbidded Macca and Yoko in the mid 80s for the Beatles rights (despite Macca being the one who advised him to get into buying the rights to music!) and consequently sold "Revolution" to Nike for a TV ad campaign. McCartney later tried to sue him.

And he explains what I'm Im saying perfectly here. "It kind of spoils them a little for me".

Yet many of the acts you;'re slating have done nothing different - they've sold the rights to a third party, and then have no control over what that third party does with the songs.

Are the Beatles lacking credibility because MJ sold song rights for an ad?

[mrtourette]

what you're missing from your rant is how the music biz works. Then again, I might be wrong with my belief that it works as I say below (does anyone kmnow for sure t say either way?)....

It's very normal for bands to sell the publishing rights to their songs. I believe that this means that the person who buys the publishing rights is able to sell the use of the songs they hold the rights to, without need to ask the band.

If that's right, it means that it's not the band selling the songs for TV ads and the like.

Of course, they've sold the rights to their songs initially so they do have a place in the chain, but publishing rights is where many bands make the most money thast they make from their music. If I'm piecing together the various bits I was told correctly, it means that a very minor band might be able to get several hundred thousand quid for the song rights to an album, when there's absolutely no chance of earning that amount via album sales.

Only once have I had dealings with someone who owned the publishing rights to a song (not for efests, but for it's much smaller sister site egigs). A minor band was interviewed, and the guy who did the interview thought it would be a good idea to put the interview online as audio - so he cut the words about, and mixed in some audio from their new single (which very few people bought) around the words, and it sounded great.

So i checked out how much it would cost to use it like that with the guy who owned the publishing rights, and was told something like £400. I pointed out to the guy that I could buy copies of the physical single and give that away free to anyone who might listen to that particular interview and it would have cost me less!

A similar situation (and to bring this back on topic) would be when The Verve used a Stones sample for one of their songs (Bitter Sweet Symphony?) they had to hand over all of some of the publishing rights for the song as part of the deal, and then when the song was used for an advert (car? I'm thinking Vauxhall maybe) The Verve had no say in it, actively tried to prevent it and got no money from it.

Edited October 31, 2012 by mrtourette

[The Nal]

Are the Beatles lacking credibility because MJ sold song rights for an ad?

Totally different. The Beatles lost their back catalogue due to poor and naive business decisions (not by the band themselves). They didn't sell it. I already said Macca tried to sue Jacko to stop him using it. So no is the answer to your question.

Also, anyone that sells the rights to their music off to the highest bidder with no regard for whats its used for after is a fool.

Would you sell Efestivals to Gary Glitter and give him carte blanche with it?

A similar situation (and to bring this back on topic) would be when The Verve used a Stones sample for one of their songs (Bitter Sweet Symphony?) they had to hand over all of some of the publishing rights for the song as part of the deal, and then when the song was used for an advert (car? I'm thinking Vauxhall maybe) The Verve had no say in it, actively tried to prevent it and got no money from it.

You're right yeah but that wasn't the Stones. It was the Stones legal team in New York. Silly of the Verve using it without permission anyway.

Regarding Blur - take Tender for example. A song many people adore (although not me). A song many people have cried listening to, had "moments" with loved ones, played at weddings, funerals, got people together, got people through break ups etc. Are people going to argue that when that song pops up on a fucking bank advert or a Gateway computer ad it doesn't lessen or cheapen the song and therefore the experiences (mentioned above) around the song?

We're not dealing with Billie Jean or Bad here. They don't mean a fucking thing to people. They're just good pop songs.

Although "Bad" at a funeral would be pretty cool I have to say.

Edited October 31, 2012 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

Totally different. The Beatles lost their back catalogue due to poor and naive business decisions (not by the band themselves). They didn't sell it. I already said Macca tried to sue Jacko to stop him using it. So no is the answer to your question.

The Beatles sold the rights and pocketed the cash. The rights holder then sold the song for an ad.

Exactly the same, Blur probably* sold the rights and pocketed the cash, and the rights holder then sold the songs for ads.

Also, anyone that sells the rights to their music off to the highest bidder with no regard for whats its used for after is a fool.

Like the Beatles did!!!!

Would you sell Efestivals to Gary Glitter and give him carte blanche with it?

nope ... but I once turned down the best part of a million quid for the glasto site which came before efests.

What I might do isn't relevanrt here. What's relevant here is that you're giving two different attitudes to two different bands* who did the exact same thing with their songs.

(* as I've said, I'm not certain it's the case with Blur; but it is the case with most bands whose songs are used in ads, and I'm sure there's one on your list of hated bands who did nothing different to The Beatles).

Edited October 31, 2012 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

Any examples of music diminishing the product it advertises? Gary Glitter songs advertising football matches comes to mind.

And who cares if songs advertise products anymore, as long as it's not an immoral product? Bands need to make money.