Rolling Stones...

[Wooderson]

Very selective with your ire here as ever Ollan. But yet you'll defend Lydon's appearances as having basis or even merit. You get a bee in your bonnet about bands/genres you don't like and defend those you do.

Business is business at the end of the day.

[The Nal]

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

No they didn't. Lennon read about the sale the next morning in the papers! He didn't agree to it and knew nothing about it. Read up about "Northern Songs". Harrison even wrote a song about how pissed off he was about it

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

No Blur own their music along with EMI. Who they sell it to is their decision. That wasn't the case with the Beatles.

And who cares if songs advertise products anymore, as long as it's not an immoral product?

Me. And millions of others.

Very selective with your ire here as ever Ollan. But yet you'll defend Lydon's appearances as having basis or even merit. You get a bee in your bonnet about bands/genres you don't like and defend those you do.

Business is business at the end of the day.

Bollocks chief. Business is business isn't the reason people love music. You know what music I like. I don't have many in my record collection who sell to the highest bidder.

How would you feel, as a big fan, if Garcia was alive and Grateful Dead songs started popping up on Coke and fucking dog food ads? Scarlet Begonias/Fire on the Mountain for example? Just after the "call 1890 - 69 69 69" ads at 1am? Would you still love the song as much? Would you still be hunting for 180 gram vinyl boxsets online and getting them shipped over from America? Honestly? Wouldn't impact your perception of the band at all? Lessen or cheapen it?

P.S. Lydon used all the money from that butter ad to get the band back together. And we saw the benefits ourselves. Great new album and tour. Also, Lydon didn't sell his music. Maybe he has but not the the extent Blur have. He sold his own persona.

Edited October 31, 2012 by The Nal

[Wooderson]

Who knows what commercial practises a band or their management/label have agreed to or persued? Isolating those that have had their music featured on ad campaigns is irrelevant. Leftfield's "Phat Planet" was _enhanced_ I would argue following it's presence in that badass Guinness advert. Suited it perfectly and the imagery associated was unique and compelling.

If seeing Iggy on an insurance advert ruins your impression of him as an artist, tough. He's either skint or a greedy fucking bastard. Doesn't change a thing about how cool his records are or how manic/inspired he is as a performer.

James Brown didnt make a cent from his back catalog being torn asunder for 2 generations. Do we deny the credibility of the vast swathes of hiphop/dance music that profitted/benefitted from this? No.

[eFestivals]

No they didn't. Lennon read about the sale the next morning in the papers! He didn't agree to it and knew nothing about it. Read up about "Northern Songs". Harrison even wrote a song about how pissed off he was about it

It might have been sold without their knowledge, but it was sold on their behalf and they got the cash for it.

No Blur own their music

Are you 100% sure? they'd be a rare band if they do. The vast majority of bands sell the publishing rights to their songs.

You mentioned EMI. Might it be that EMI Publishing own the songs rights? Most record companies have a publishing rights arm that often (but not always) owns the song rights for the bands on that label.

Again, Blur and the Beatles business dealing are completely different.

Nope, it's really not.

Once a band sells their publishing rights they lose their rights over how their songs are used.

Yesterday we talked about a Hawkwind song being used in an ad. Do you think Hawkwibnd sold that themselves? I don't know for sure, but i think it's very unlikely; it was more likely sold by a 3rd party rights holder.

I don't actually feel much different to you about sings being sold in this way. I'm merely trying to draw your attention rt the fact that in the vast majority of cases it's not the band who sells the song for an ad (tho of course it's a down-the-line consequence of a decision they have made themselves).

Edited October 31, 2012 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

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.

I think you're factually wrong here.

Wasn't it Loog who benefitted from The Verve's doings and not The Stones? I'm sure it was a Loog composition and not a Stones one that was used, wasn't it?

(I know that Loog was doing Stones songs, but the bit that The Verve used was a bit that wasn't from a Stones composition).

[eFestivals]

just googled ... and it was Loog.

It is based on music from an Andrew Loog Oldham adaptation of a Rolling Stones song, "The Last Time"

Although the song's lyrics were written by Verve vocalist Richard Ashcroft, it has been credited to Keith Richards and Mick Jagger after charges by the original copyright owners that the song was plagiarized from the Andrew Oldham Orchestra recording of The Rolling Stones' 1965 song "The Last Time".

Originally, The Verve had negotiated a licence to use a sample from the Oldham recording, but it was successfully argued that the Verve had used "too much" of the sample.[13][14] Despite having original lyrics, the music of "Bitter Sweet Symphony" contains bongo drums sampled from the Oldham track, which led to a lawsuit with ABKCO Records, Allen Klein's company that owns the rights to the Rolling Stones material of the 1960s. The matter was eventually settled, with copyright of the song reverting to Abkco and songwriting credits to Jagger and Richards.

So there you go - your heroes have flogged the rights to their siongs too, and they have no control over them being used in ads.

They're c**ts like Beyonce.

[eFestivals]

it was a Stones song (The Last Time) that Andrew Oldham re-recorded with strings.

The Verve's mistake was not asking for permission before they released it.

wrong on both counts. see above.

[eFestivals]

no, The Verve tried to use/steal it without permission

you've even quoted that it was The Last Time... what's wrong?

The Verve had permission before they used it, as that quote I've made (which is from Wiki) makes clear.

And yes, i know it was The Last Time, but it was a Loog adaptation of that song, so very different - which is why they didn't need The Stones (rioghts holders) permission to use the song in the first place.

Things went tits up for The Verve because they used more than what was considered fair.

and The Beatles publishing issue is what Nal said. It's very different to most acts situation.

It was sold, and the band benefitted with money. So where's the difference?

The issue is really one of the amount it was sold for, not that it as sold. It's a regular occurance, that a band signs a deal that they're happy with when they're not big, which looks very shit when they are big.

With The Beatles, they personally put their songs into Northern Songs, and then personally sold Northern Songs as a tax avoidance scam - money money money money!!!!

They're pissed off with hindsight. They were very happy at the time.

But hey, lets re-write history to make money grabbing gits look like something different.

Edited October 31, 2012 by eFestivals

[The Nal]

If seeing Iggy on an insurance advert ruins your impression of him as an artist, tough. He's either skint or a greedy fucking bastard. Doesn't change a thing about how cool his records are or how manic/inspired he is as a performer.

It does change how cool his records are. They don't mean as much to me. But Iggy didnt use his music on that ad so slightly different.

James Brown didnt make a cent from his back catalog being torn asunder for 2 generations. Do we deny the credibility of the vast swathes of hiphop/dance music that profitted/benefitted from this? No.

Again, diluting the convo a little there. Sampling is a whole other kettle of fish. Sampling without permission is different to selling a song thats sacred to million for a dog food ad. And dont lie, you know the significance of "dog food". (sorry private joke folks - and nothing to do with Wooderson smearing Winalot Prime on his ballbag as some of you may be thinking!)

It might have been sold without their knowledge, but it was sold on their behalf and they got the cash for it.

Which they didn't want! They actually sued people to stop them getting the money in favour of getting the music back.

Are you 100% sure? they'd be a rare band if they do. The vast majority of bands sell the publishing rights to their songs.

Im open to correction, but Ive never heard anything to suggest Blur dont own their music and rights to their music. A Blur song doesn't appear on an ad without them oking it first. They're heavily involved in any greatest hits, boxsets etc and if they didnt own the rights you wouldve heard about it.

I don't actually feel much different to you about sings being sold in this way. I'm merely trying to draw your attention rt the fact that in the vast majority of cases it's not the band who sells the song for an ad (tho of course it's a down-the-line consequence of a decision they have made themselves).

I know. And Im not making a sweeping "any band who sells their music are off the artistic register" statement either. Each case is unique.

So there you go - your heroes have flogged the rights to their siongs too, and they have no control over them being used in ads.

They're c**ts like Beyonce.

The Stones aren't sacred to me. Really great rock and roll band but a comedy number these days.

With The Beatles, they personally put their songs into Northern Songs, and then personally sold Northern Songs as a tax avoidance scam - money money money money!!!!

They're pissed off with hindsight. They were very happy at the time.

But hey, lets re-write history to make money grabbing gits look like something different.

Yeah Neil, you read the first few lines of Wikipedia and now you're an expert!

They weren't happy at the time. they tried to stop it within 30 seconds of Lennon hearing about it.

Read more about it, how naive the band and Epstein were about it and how it was set up and you'll know the full story. Its not comparable to being offered x amount of money for a dog food ad and saying "yes". Not comparable at all.

Edited October 31, 2012 by The Nal

[Wooderson]

I don't mean to dilute the convo. If anything you are, seperating Iggy and his music is a little bit much for me to accept understand. With other examples there is clear ambiguity about the rights and approval path for music to be used in adverts. Unless the Iggster is being coerced into his appearance at gunpoint there is no such ambiguity. He is skint (and then its completely justified in my book) or he is a greedy bollix (which is no surprise to me given his line of work).

Theres a difference of opinion here about how an act chooses to profit from their work.

As mentioned in the Leftfield advert example (and there are a billion more parallels from the movie world) I can quite happily and easily separate the experience of listening and enjoying a piece of music song in different contexts. Im a not a dumb vessel that cannot make the distinction. Nor am I so sensitive that I spit the dummy out and WAH WAH away about a bands "credibility loss".

Thats not to say I'm completely immune to over-commercialisation or exploitation of a fanbase's equity or goodwill however. U2's recent dalliance with Blackberry is a thoroughly unpleasant example. Yoda in the Vodaphone advert is another thing that grinds my gears... whereas hearing "Sabotage" in Star Trek made absolutely perfect sense.

[eFestivals]

Which they didn't want! They actually sued people to stop them getting the money in favour of getting the music back.

The songs were sold with their knowledge (just correcting my earlier error), and as a tax avoidance scam - they very definitely wanted the money!!!!

They could have bought the songs back, but they didn't then want to spend the money it would have taken to buy the songs back. Again, they went for the money!!!

It's always about the money. They sold on the cheap and then wished they hadn't - but that's their fault, no one elses!!!

Im open to correction, but Ive never heard anything to suggest Blur dont own their music and rights to their music.

Be corrected.

http://www.emimusicpub.com

A Blur song doesn't appear on an ad without them oking it first.

It's possible, but unlikely.

They're heavily involved in any greatest hits, boxsets etc and if they didnt own the rights you wouldve heard about it.

It's not quite the same thing. When a band is still with a label that has control of their song rights, the band and label tend to work together.

If Blur moved to another record company, then you'd see the control they don't have.

[The Nal]

Thats not to say I'm completely immune to over-commercialisation or exploitation of a fanbase's equity or goodwill however. U2's recent dalliance with Blackberry is a thoroughly unpleasant example.

That ruined the gig for me. "Thanks to Blackberry". WTF Bono?!

Yoda in the Vodaphone advert is another thing that grinds my gears...

Not mine really. Movies are a different thing.

whereas hearing "Sabotage" in Star Trek made absolutely perfect sense.

As above. Was a great use of the song. But using a piece of art to enhance a piece of art is different to using a piece of art to sell a product. Ive no real issue with songs being used to enhance TV shows, movies, football highlights etc.

Yes I know a movie/TV show is sold and is a product etc but movies and shows can also be sacred to people. Ads cant be. Or shouldn't be anyway. I dont have an issue with it.

The songs were sold with their knowledge (just correcting my earlier error), and as a tax avoidance scam - they very definitely wanted the money!!!!

They could have bought the songs back, but they didn't then want to spend the money it would have taken to buy the songs back. Again, they went for the money!!!

It's always about the money. They sold on the cheap and then wished they hadn't - but that's their fault, no one elses!!!

Neil, the original deal was signed on their behalf by a naive Epstein. They were 21 year old scousers in 1963 who were told this is what was needed to be done. Its not comparable.

Be corrected.

http://www.emimusicpub.com

Nothing there to say they don't own their music. I already said they are signed to EMI who would look after their publishing rights. Its a joint venture as you also say below. Totally different to what you're talking about which is selling the rights to a third party company and having no control over what they do with it.

It's not quite the same thing. When a band is still with a label that has control of their song rights, the band and label tend to work together.

It's possible, but unlikely.

I disagree.

But back to my original, simpler, point. I only chose Blur as someone mentioned them as one of the more credible lot.

Blur fans - does the fact they've sold their music to any old whore with a product to flog cheapen Tender, Parklife, Charmless Man, Song 2, The Universal, Theres no Other Way etc? Do you still love the lyrics to Tender the same way?

Think back to that time you first met your missus, that glorious summer when your eyes met across the crowded bar (or some equivalent cheesy scenario but you know what I mean!) when Tender was playing in the bar. Is it still "our song" now that its been used to sell dog food in Australia? Or is it a little bit cheap now as a result?

I honestly can't listen to The Universal for example, without thinking about British Gas. I even get a visualisation of the ad when I hear it. So, job done Blur and British Gas. It worked!

Hope you bought a nice car with it Damon.

Edited October 31, 2012 by The Nal

[mrtourette]

I love The Universal, and it didn't change the song one bit for me when they started using it for a British Gas ad. The song and the feelings I have for it and that are connected to it for me remain the same, probably because they were cemented into me well before the advert. I'm sure that will mean that i'm not a proper music fan but so be it. It didn't change my opinion of Blur because neither they nor I had them down as having any kind of punk ethos or being against 'the system'. They released singles, did interviews and photo shoots, appeared on the telly, etc. so they've always played the game and this is just a continuation of that. Sure not every band does it and yes if they don't then it's to their credit, but this is one of the biggest British bands in the last twenty years, there shouldn't be any kind of assumption that they're anti-establishment in any way.

I don't have any doubt that they have internal or personal politics and values that I agree with and that's where their credibility comes from for me, but as far as the band goes I don't see any real harm in doing adverts. When they start distancing themsleves from their audience and fans and pulling stunts like (on topic reference only) The Stones then I'll question it, but again from my view of them as individuals and artists I don't think that's likely at the moment so is probably why the advert thing doesn't bother me. In essense as a fan of twenty years I know more about them other than just what adverts their music is on so it's not that important.

If a band were being hypocritical about that sort of thing then yes it would be a game-changer and would affect my opinion of them, but that's not the case here. I don't begrudge them what they do because they've never said that they're against that, and to me they're still the same band in that regard, not a band that suddenly decided to try and cash in when they started to break apart. I guess I'm saying that if I felt let down by a band because a decison they made went against their values (and values of their's that I shared or that attracted me to them) it would affect how I heard their music in the future (and probably all music not just the song in question). If you felt let down by Blur and their perceived change into band that were just cashing in then I guess I could understand all of their music tasting a bit sour to you, but I don't find that just one particular song is cheapened. Shed Seven letting The Link use Speakeasy and changing the words to "at The Link it's easy" is possibly the most laughable example, but even that didn't bother me because I know enough about them to know that I love them and their music and to be sure that the money would have been used in a way that benefits them and their ability to continue to make music, other than just pure greed.

It may have been OK for Lydon to do those cringeworthy butter ads because it's what made the new PIL record, but how can we possibly judge the motivations of others when we don't know them? For all we know there could be an equally good reason for doing it, it may have paid for all of Albarn's forays into musicals and African collaberations or Graham Coxon's solo stuff. Now they may have been whimsical or indulgant ventures while Lydon's reliance on the money was more essential, but I don't think that makes it any less artistically viable or deserving.

Edited October 31, 2012 by mrtourette

[eFestivals]

Neil, the original deal was signed o their behalf. They were 21 year old scousers in 1963. Its not comparable.

The 1963 deal they still owned - thy put their songs into Northern Songs, which they part-owned (along with their management).

In 1965 they floated Northern Songs as a public company - as a tax avoidance scam. So, for the money!!

As a public company, anyone could buy any of the shares that were put up for sale. When shares were put up fr sale they chose not to buy them, instead choosing to keep their money in preference to getting the song rihts back.

ATV then tried to buy all of Northern Songs. The Beatles wouldn't match ATV's price, so ATV ended up with the songs ... which of course is yet another case of the band choosing to keep the cash they had rather than own their songs.

They sold their songs for the money!!!!! Just because they didn't much like others owning their songs doesn't change the fact that they sold their songs for the money!!!

Nothing there. I already said they are signed to EMI who would look after their publishing rights.

Not quite.

EMI Publishing is nothing to do with the record company (tho it grew out of it, and might still be ultimately owned by the record company [tho I don't think it is, I think it's just recently been sold seperately to the record company following the EMI meltdown under Guy Sands]). The point is that it's a totally distinct business from the record company.

Its a joint venture as you say below. Totally different to what you're talking about which is selling the rights to a third party company and having no control over what they do with it.

EMI Publishing is a 3rd party company. In all practical terms, it's merely a coincidence that it shares a name with their record company.

Whether EMI Publishing (EMIP) holding the rights it's a 'joint venture' I don't know. It's possible that the rights sale that Blur made to EMIP allowed them to retain some influence over what uses could be made with the songs (from what i've just read, that appears to be the case - but it's an unusul case it that's correct).

But back to my original, simpler, point. I only chose Blur as someone mentioned them as one of the more credible lot.

It's possible that they are. But if they are I reckon that's the result of them getting very big very quickly. They've still allowed lots of their songs to be used for ads.

That aside, it's certain that The Beatles are not; they sold all their rights for the money!!!! It's hindsight which has pissed them off - but still not enough for them to give up their

cash in hand to get the songs back on the numerous occasions they could have got them back.

[The Nal]

I'm sure that will mean that i'm not a proper music fan but so be it.

No! Not at all!! I'm merely pointing out what things I value in music. Not judging anyone at all here.

It didn't change my opinion of Blur because neither they nor I had them down as having any kind of punk ethos or being against 'the system'. They released singles, did interviews and photo shoots, appeared on the telly, etc. so they've always played the game and this is just a continuation of that. Sure not every band does it and yes if they don't then it's to their credit, but this is one of the biggest British bands in the last twenty years, there shouldn't be any kind of assumption that they're anti-establishment in any way.

I never thought they were anti establishment really.

I don't have any doubt that they have internal or personal politics and values that I agree with and that's where their credibility comes from for me, but as far as the band goes I don't see any real harm in doing adverts. When they start distancing themsleves from their audience and fans and pulling stunts like (on topic reference only) The Stones then I'll question it, but again from my view of them as individuals and artists I don't think that's likely at the moment so is probably why the advert thing doesn't bother me. In essense as a fan of twenty years I know more about them other than just what adverts their music is on so it's not that important.

See thats the difference I suppose. Being a fan of a band for 20 years who then do it would make me go the opposite way. It would bother me even more.

If a band were being hypocritical about that sort of thing then yes it would be a game-changer and would affect my opinion of them, but that's not the case here. I don't begrudge them what they do because they've never said that they're against that, and to me they're still the same band in that regard, not a band that suddenly decided to try and cash in when they started to break apart.

They never said they were pro that either. And they did start to cash in when they were breaking apart in my opinion.

It may have been OK for Lydon to do those cringeworthy butter ads because it's what made the new PIL record, but how can we possibly judge the motivations of others when we don't know them? For all we know there could be an equally good reason for doing it, it may have paid for all of Albarn's forays into musicals and African collaberations or Graham Coxon's solo stuff.

I agree but not in Blurs case. They've done too many and sold to many records to need the cash for musical projects. Record companies worship the ground Albarn walks on and he gets constant support.

Neil - Seriosuly read up about The Beatles. They tried lots of times to buy it back but were outbidded. By Lew Grade, then ATV, then Michael Jackson.

I have no issue with them floating the company to avoid paying a higher rate of tax. thats a different convo anyway.

Edited October 31, 2012 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

PS - Nal, it's EMIP that owns the Blur songs, not Blur. That can be easily seen by who owns the copyright to the songs.

They might have retained some control over the songs via a separate contract with EMIP.

[The Nal]

PS - Nal, it's EMIP that owns the Blur songs, not Blur. That can be easily seen by who owns the copyright to the songs.

They might have retained some control over the songs via a separate contract with EMIP.

I really doubt Blur have no control over their music regardless of where the rights sit.

[mrtourette]

I really doubt Blur have no control over their music regardless of where the rights sit.

I would probably agree with that to some extent, either that or they're reasonably happy with what's being done with their music. They're outspoken enough to raise it if it was an issue.

From what I understand (very little) about the music industry (even less) it's very rare for a band to completely own the publishing rights to it's own music, unless they get big enough and have enough weight to throw around to re-negotiate ownership during their career when the contract is up for renewal (I believe that this is what REM did when they signed their last record/puiblishing deal, although that could be completely wrong). I always thought that giving away publishing rights was part of getting your foot in the door and initially signed, although if you have an understanding label or some bargaining ground at the start you can negotiate some clauses (ie yes you own the publishing rights and make the most money from our songs but we still need to ruber stamp all releases and commercial usage).

Edited October 31, 2012 by mrtourette

[eFestivals]

I really doubt Blur have no control over their music regardless of where the rights sit.

As i've said, I've read some stuff today which suggest - just suggests - that they do retain some control.

But as I've also said, that makes them very unusual. It's far more usual for a band to sell the rights to their songs, because it's a big and quick pay-day, often of much more money than the band will ever earn via other means.

[1waveydavey]

So I have followed all of this very carefully, ownership of songs, the new music model, who has the final say on whether a song is used or not and one question remains...

Are we any wiser about the Rolling Stones playing at Glastonbury or not?

[eFestivals]

Are we any wiser about the Rolling Stones playing at Glastonbury or not?

nope, and we won't be for a while yet I think.

It appears to be the case that Glasto will get their answer sometime in December, or perhaps even in January.

[russycarps]

I am just amazed to learn people sit in their armchairs watching adverts on telly!

[BlackHole2006]

Richard Branson appearing in the Virgin adverts is one thing that really pisses me off. How dare he!

[mrtourette]

I don't have an armchair, I don't deserve such luxury for watching adverts.

[The Nal]

I don't think it's unusual at all. It's just that when it comes to it, most artsits are happy with the money. Tom Waits is the only artist I can think of who has declined to use any of his songs in ads. He even sucessfully sued when a 'sound-alike' of him was used in one ad.

I'm sure Tom isn't unique in having a say in what happens with his songs

Neil Young?

Love this Waits quote though: "If Michael Jackson wants to work for Pepsi why doesn't he just get himself a suit and an office in their headquarters and be done with it".

His attitude is a huge reason why I've become a little obsessed with hi over the last few years. Although the flipside of him not doing ads is that he charges a lot for his gigs.