Michael Jackson verses Beatles:Come together better version

[ampersand]

The woman performed in freezing winds while the front row was submerged in 2 feet of water. You can't get more badass than that. She joked that her outfit was the most clothes she had ever worn onstage.

Hah, the jones beach theater show. I work there, luckily not in the completely flooded VIP section that night. Stevie Nicks sounded really great from what I was able to hear.

 

[The Chairman]

Hah, the jones beach theater show. I work there, luckily not in the completely flooded VIP section that night. Stevie Nicks sounded really great from what I was able to hear.

You heard well.

 

[Mac_Hine]

The Beatles version wins no effing contest! It touches Michael Jackson's version all over the place and later has to settle out of court!

 

[Tangled Web]

Ha! That's naaaasty.

 

[Spider-Bite]

The musicians still had a say in their contract. So it wasn't some investor 100% say, musicians 0%.

And they agreed to this. They agreed to give other people the rights to their music in exchange for money. a piece of paper was put in front of them saying "by signing here you authorize so and so to do such and such with your music." They all signed it.

Quit being a dumbass bringing up suing. No one, except you, has mentioned it. Lay off the Law and Order. It's a great show, but too much of it isn't good.

I rarely watch it. I'm merely using that to prove that Mj had the right to do that, and you can't refute my actual points. Or deny that they agreed to this.

I know that if Paul was able to have obtained the rest of the rights to the 200 songs that he wrote with Lennon, he'd be splitting 100% of the royalties with Yoko, instead of splitting 50%.

Paul will have the rights soon.

And since the Beatles wouldn't use the band's music in commercials, since that wasn't the point of their music, the commercial that Paul complained about wouldn't have existed.

Paul proved he's willing to sell out just like everybody else. He sold out when he signed the contract, and he sold out when he started appearing in commercials. And when he gets the rights back, those songs will appear in more commercials. Paul is only pissed because he wanted more money.

****ing hell Shirley. Think.

And the reference to the dead dog wasn't about some silly internet debate that's meaningless. It was a referring to something that's more enjoyable to spend time with.

It was an attempt to insult me, but I turned it around pretty good. You were trying to insinuate that it's easier to communicate with a dead dog.

The reality is they signed the piece of paper, and you know it. You know he had the right to do this. Just like all those Jackson 5 songs you hear in commercials all the freaking time. Michael does not own the rights to those songs. I don't know who does, but their name isn't Jackson. And you don't hear Michael Jackson complaining about it, do you?

This really is ridiculous. The Beatles gave people permission to do with their music as they please. And if that wasn't true people would be getting sued for copyright infringement. This is a fact, that is undeniable. Because that's what the law says, and anybody who says differently is lying.

 

[logansoldcigar]

All I said was that they were the sum of their parts and that they weren't all that great as individual musicians. I didn't say what they did wasn't groundbreaking for the time (in fact, I indirectly pointed out some of the things they did that WERE groundbreaking at the time). And, sorry, but Slash is a mediocre guitarist at best. He's not BAD, but he's not a virtuoso by any means. They are all pretty much nothing without each other, as the projects they've done since GNR broke up have all illustrated.

jag

what Slash is is a vibe player. People pick up a vibe when they listen to him, a groove.
the Polar opposite to Steve Vai, Technically brilliant, and as boring as hell on the second listen.(which means stuff like "Album", the PIL album that he played on, take on a different dimension second time round

People underestimate how important the vibe is when listening to and immersing oneself in music. another example of a great vibe player (and criminally underrated guitar player and all round musician) is Stevie Ray Vaughan.

Try listening to some Jah Wobble for some quality vibey music (start off with Visions of You, the song he did with skinead o'connor. its a nice groovy entry point)

 

[jaguarr]

what Slash is is a vibe player. People pick up a vibe when they listen to him, a groove.
the Polar opposite to Steve Vai, Technically brilliant, and as boring as hell on the second listen.(which means stuff like "Album", the PIL album that he played on, take on a different dimension second time round

People underestimate how important the vibe is when listening to and immersing oneself in music. another example of a great vibe player (and criminally underrated guitar player and all round musician) is Stevie Ray Vaughan.

Try listening to some Jah Wobble for some quality vibey music (start off with Visions of You, the song he did with skinead o'connor. its a nice groovy entry point)

Ahhh, but SRV was a vibe player AND a technical virtuoso. The two aren't mutually exclusive. I don't know if I'd call Stevie underrated by any means, either. He's revered as the pinnacle of electric blues playing here in the states.

Another guy who's a full blown vibe player but still has great technical ability is Angus Young. Jimmy Page also fits that description. There are plenty of players out there who do both equally well. Then there are guys like Slash who get by on vibe and feel alone. He's got a great ear for riffs, though, and THAT is his talent, not his guitar playing. As for Vai, yeah, a lot of his stuff is horribly boring after the first listen. I will say that, having seen him perform live, the guy definitely has the vibe and feel when he wants to use it. It's a shame he doesn't record that aspect of his playing more often, really.

jag

 

[Tangled Web]

And when he gets the rights back, those songs will appear in more commercials. Paul is only pissed because he wanted more money.


The reality is they signed the piece of paper, and you know it. You know he had the right to do this. Just like all those Jackson 5 songs you hear in commercials all the freaking time. Michael does not own the rights to those songs. I don't know who does, but their name isn't Jackson. And you don't hear Michael Jackson complaining about it, do you?

This really is ridiculous. The Beatles gave people permission to do with their music as they please. And if that wasn't true people would be getting sued for copyright infringement. This is a fact, that is undeniable. Because that's what the law says, and anybody who says differently is lying.

Of course you don't hear MJ complaining. Do you think anybody would show him sympathy?

 

[The Chairman]

Of course you don't hear MJ complaining. Do you think anybody would show him sympathy?

Sadly, no.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Of course you don't hear MJ complaining. Do you think anybody would show him sympathy?

His horrible image aside, no they woudln't considering how much music he owns the rights to. When you own half the Beatle's music it's hard to get sympathy for not having the rights to the Jackson 5. The Jackson 5 wasn't that big. They were successful, but they didn't have legendary status like MJ had as a solo artist or the Beatles had.

And he doesn't just own Beatle's music. He owns his own music, and many other artists. He even owns Eminem's music. These musicians all agreed to give other people control over their work. They signed a piece of paper giving them permission to use it for whatever they want, including commercials, so it doesn't matter who made the music. All that matters is who owns it. This includes the Beatles. They agreed to this.

 

[Addendum]

Point out exactly where in the contract it states that.

Paul McCartney doesn't have to make any more money. He's already made enough from the Beatles, Wings, and his solo career. The commercials he did or will do for Starbucks was simply part of the agreement he made with Starbucks, in return for them selling his latest CD. Nothing more, nothing less. If that contract wasn't made, Sir McCartney wouldn't be plugging the benefits of the Caramel Macchiatto and a 6 dollar sandwich.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Point out exactly where in the contract it states that.

Paul McCartney doesn't have to make any more money. He's already made enough from the Beatles, Wings, and his solo career. The commercials he did or will do for Starbucks was simply part of the agreement he made with Starbucks, in return for them selling his latest CD. Nothing more, nothing less. If that contract wasn't made, Sir McCartney wouldn't be plugging the benefits of the Caramel Macchiatto and a 6 dollar sandwich.

dude you know if it didn't say that in the contract, than they would have been guilty of copyright infringement. There was no clause preventing the music from being used in a commercial.

 

[Addendum]

And neither do you know for sure.

And when the Beatles broke up, the stateside version of the label they were on, EMI-Capitol, released several albums to cash in on the Beatles. Only one of them was approved by the band.

Other bands have done the same thing with cash-in albums that the label puts out after they leave a music label.

So with regard to a band's music appearing in commercials, I'll the take the word of the band over some nameless person in an ad agency who thinks using a particular song to hock their product is such a nifty idea

 

[Spider-Bite]

And neither do you know for sure.

And when the Beatles broke up, the stateside version of the label they were on, EMI-Capitol, released several albums to cash in on the Beatles. Only one of them was approved by the band.

Other bands have done the same thing with cash-in albums that the label puts out after they leave a music label.

So with regard to a band's music appearing in commercials, I'll the take the word of the band over some nameless person in an ad agency who thinks using a particular song to hock their product is such a nifty idea

What exactly do you mean by approved? Are you telling me that the Beatle's actually claim to have never signed over the rights to their music?

If what you were saying is true than people would be getting sued, and MJ wouldn't have the rights to the music.

it's like so. If you make a painting and I offer you 10,000 dollars in exchange for the painting and the right to do whatever I want with it, and you take the 10,000 dollars and say deal, than you gave me the right.

You know this is true. At this point in the argument, there is no way for you not to realize this. You know what copyright infringement is.

 

[Addendum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction)

Here's a better example: lets say that you have a record label, and that I have a band of my own. My band signs to your label and releases several albums. Over the course of time, things sour. My band doesn't renew the contract with your label, and we sign to another record label. You then release some "greatest-hits" or "best-of" albums after my band signs to another label and has an album out on the new label. I or my band-mates, through either the internet and/or interviews let the fans know that the recent "greatest-hits" album you released is simply an attempt by your label to cash-in and is not officially recognized by the band.

Essentially, you're simply releasing fanfiction

 

[Spider-Bite]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction)

Here's a better example: lets say that you have a record label, and that I have a band of my own. My band signs to your label and releases several albums. Over the course of time, things sour. My band doesn't renew the contract with your label, and we sign to another record label. You then release some "greatest-hits" or "best-of" albums after my band signs to another label and has an album out on the new label. I or my band-mates, through either the internet and/or interviews let the fans know that the recent "greatest-hits" album you released is simply an attempt by your label to cash-in and is not officially recognized by the band.

Essentially, you're simply releasing fanfiction

It depends on the original contractual agreement we signed. Who has the right to do what with it? What were the terms. Terms are laid out for who will have the ability to do what at that moment and again when our contracts aren't renewed.

Just like Sony has the right to make Spider-Man movies, but Marvel has the right to Spider-Man movie merchandising. They can let Burger king do it if they want.

 

[Addendum]

And the band can say, "hey don't waste your money on the cash-in attempt by our old label"

 

[Spider-Bite]

whatever the nail in the coffin? If MJ didn't have the right to let target make that commercial than either MJ or target would be guilty of copyright infringement and they aren't. They aren't guilty because they have the right, and they never would have had that right, if the Beatle's hadn't given the power to make that decision to somebody else. If I record a song right now, and somebody else wants to make profit off it, I have to agree to let them. If you record a song, I can't just take it and stick in a commercial unless you gave me permission or all out gave me the right to do whatever I want with it.

As of right now MJ has the rights to the music. Paul should just be glad that at least it's in the hands of a worldwide legendary musician instead of some corporate fatcat.

You said yourself. Paul has to do starbucks commercials with his music in exchange for his album being produced or promoted. Well he signed the contract, and now he has to do it.

 

[Addendum]

And that's the only reason he did it.

As for music in commercials, the ad agency can't willy-nilly put whatever music they want into a commercial. They have to get permission. Sometimes it's from the artist or band, sometimes it's from the label.

However, the artist or band can certainly express their displeasure if their music appears in a commercial when the label says yes, while the band says "what's the point?"

I guess that latter part keeps flying over your head

 

[Spider-Bite]

And that's the only reason he did it.

As for music in commercials, the ad agency can't willy-nilly put whatever music they want into a commercial. They have to get permission. Sometimes it's from the artist or band, sometimes it's from the label.

However, the artist or band can certainly express their displeasure if their music appears in a commercial when the label says yes, while the band says "what's the point?"

I guess that latter part keeps flying over your head

That's your argument? That's why were debating? didn't you say Mj didn't have the right to do it in the first place? Of course Paul has the right to say he's unhappy about it. It's his constitutional right to say whatever he wants. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I just see no point in me or you being mad about it being used in a commercial. It's not hurting anything, and it's exposure for Paul. For one thing that Ipod commerical is totally making me check out Paul's new album because that "dance" song sounded awesome.

 

[Addendum]

That's your argument? That's why were debating? didn't you say Mj didn't have the right to do it in the first place?

Learn to read.

Paul has every right to use his music that he created and performed in a commercial if he chooses to do so.

With the Beatles music, that was music he, Lennon, Harrison, and Ringo created and performed. They decided not to use their music in a commercial, especially after Lennon died. All Michael Jackson did was purchase the rights to it and then use it in commercials.

2 different things