|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 113 responses total. |
otaking
|
|
response 78 of 113:
| 
Mar 9 19:54 UTC 1999 |
The Whitney Houston song from the Bodyguard soundtrack. Ugh.
And IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
will always love you.
Celine Dion - All By Myself. "Don't want to be all byy myself. All by myself.
All by myself. All by myself. Dont wanna be all by myself."
Can the song get any more repetative?
|
bruin
|
|
response 79 of 113:
|
Mar 10 00:47 UTC 1999 |
RE #78 Actually, the Celine Dion song you mentioned was a cover of a mid
1970's song by Eric Carmen called "All By Myself."
|
cloud
|
|
response 80 of 113:
|
Mar 10 02:29 UTC 1999 |
The Last Noel. That's a repetative song. Almost every hymn in the
Presbiterian Hymnal, with a few exceptions.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 81 of 113:
|
Mar 10 02:51 UTC 1999 |
Wasn't it "The First Noel"? Or is this the Christmas song you sing right
before the apocalypse?
|
lumen
|
|
response 82 of 113:
|
Mar 10 22:39 UTC 1999 |
resp:79 Eric Carmen, hmmm? I *knew* I'd heard that song before. I grew
up on a lot of 70's and 80's lite rock; I suppose my parents chose it on
the radio pretty often to calm us kids or themselves down.
resp:78 "I Will Always Love You" was another cover, too. Dolly Parton
wrote the song for _The Little Best Whorehouse In Texas_, and it was a
much more wistful, tender, and gentle song. Whitney Houston bought the
rights to the song when she recorded it for _The Bodyguard_ soundtrack,
and turned it into the 90's power ballad mess it is today.
By the way, I heard a rumor that Parton asked Houston once if she could
sing the song one more time for a charity concert. Houston flatly
refused, claiming the song was hers to keep. I wonder if that's true,
because I would have slapped the bitch. (This legal thing about music
is going out of hand.)
|
flem
|
|
response 83 of 113:
|
Mar 11 03:11 UTC 1999 |
I'm sure I've heard a version of that song with a man singing it. I
have no idea who it might have been, though.
|
cloud
|
|
response 84 of 113:
|
Mar 11 03:32 UTC 1999 |
Who do you think it should have been?
<Garth Brooks, Bob Segal...heh heh)
|
bruin
|
|
response 85 of 113:
|
Mar 11 03:34 UTC 1999 |
RE #82 Dolly Parton originally recorded "I Will Always Love You" in 1973 or
1974. The version on "The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas" was recorded with
a noticeably different arrangement.
|
katie
|
|
response 86 of 113:
|
Mar 11 04:34 UTC 1999 |
Linda Ronstadt recorded it, also.
You don't need permission to perform or record any song that has been
previously recorded.
|
cloud
|
|
response 87 of 113:
|
Mar 12 05:16 UTC 1999 |
seriously? Wow, that's a bit odd.
|
bookworm
|
|
response 88 of 113:
|
Mar 12 06:56 UTC 1999 |
I absolutely detest the song from Old Navy's new comercials.
|
senna
|
|
response 89 of 113:
|
Mar 12 17:16 UTC 1999 |
To perform it, no. To make money off of it, yes.
|
katie
|
|
response 90 of 113:
|
Mar 13 06:31 UTC 1999 |
Don't need permission to make money off it. You just need to pay your license
fees (7.1 cents per song per copy pressed, not sold) if you record it.
|
senna
|
|
response 91 of 113:
|
Mar 13 13:09 UTC 1999 |
Then how did Keith and Mick make anything off of Bittersweet Symphony?
|
katie
|
|
response 92 of 113:
|
Mar 13 14:50 UTC 1999 |
That was sampling, wasn't it? That's not the same as covering a song.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 93 of 113:
|
Mar 13 19:50 UTC 1999 |
But apparently they did get sued out of a lot of their profits from that
particular song. Someone else will probably know the details better'n I do.
|
senna
|
|
response 94 of 113:
|
Mar 14 07:59 UTC 1999 |
So if you take an entire song, it's fine, but if you take only part of it...
we have strange laws. Then again, maybe not, since a cover is creditted to
its original performers, which samples are still credited to the person who
did the sampling.
|
katie
|
|
response 95 of 113:
|
Mar 14 15:03 UTC 1999 |
Covering a song is fine, and usually appreciated by songwriter. But copying
a song or parts of a song, and passing it off as your own is not. When you
cover a song, you're not supposed to alter it without permission, either.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 96 of 113:
|
Mar 14 20:31 UTC 1999 |
The alteration is the key. Bittersweet Symphony was a significant
alteration of the original, and permission was therefore required. The
re-made covers were not "alterations" needing permission, and therefore
could be recorded and released under the compulsory license scheme. BTW,
Senna, 2 Live Crew did a remake of Pretty Woman that was a significant
alteration, and permission was requested and denied. However, the US
Supreme Court ruled that it was parody, for which permission is not
required. More confused now?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 97 of 113:
|
Mar 14 21:57 UTC 1999 |
Also, in Bittersweet Symphony, it was sample taken directly from someone
else's recording. Had they rented their own orchestra and recorded their own
version of the string part, I don't think it would've been an issue.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 98 of 113:
|
Mar 15 06:30 UTC 1999 |
I think orinoco's closest to the correct answer -- the salient issue in
the Verve vs. Rolling Stones fight over "Bittersweet Symphony" was the
unauthorized use of a significant amount of material from a Rolling Stones
recording (had the Verve re-recorded the portion used they probably
would've had to pay for performance rights for the Stones' song but that's
much different than using the actual Stones recording..)
|
cyklone
|
|
response 99 of 113:
|
Mar 15 12:52 UTC 1999 |
I'm not sure that's right. By sampling (rather than re-recording), the
Verve simply violated two copyrights rather than one. Not having heard the
original, I can't say how much Bittersweet Symphony differs. But there is
the possibility that it would not have been similar enough to obtain a
compulsory license, even if an orchestra was hired. However, I think you
are right about paying to re-record. Even if a compulsory license is not
available, organizations such as Harry Fox often have the authority to
license in the manner you suggest (and the Stones seem to be quite willing
to license their stuff, at least of late).
|
jazz
|
|
response 100 of 113:
|
Mar 15 13:31 UTC 1999 |
Does anyone know how long the sample is? I'd heard that current law
on sampling had a minimum length before legal action could be taken.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 101 of 113:
|
Mar 15 21:19 UTC 1999 |
I'd be interested in hearing if there is; it sounds like one of those
copyright myths that makes the rounds in the music community and on the net.
|
senna
|
|
response 102 of 113:
|
Mar 17 06:15 UTC 1999 |
What consists of alteration? Rage Against the Machine remade Bruce
Springsteen's "The Ghost of Tom Joad," but reworked the music quite a
bit. It's quite brilliant, and the lyrics are still the same. Would
that require permission?
|
