(no subject)
May. 29th, 2019 08:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatCourtesy of yourlibrarian -- The True Story of Copyright Piracy: Why the Verve will Only Start Getting Royalties Now on Bittersweet Symphony.
Wow. Just wow. You might have to be a former copyright specialist to appreciate this. I don't know. Or know struggling supporting artists and how important copyright is to a lot of them. They survive off the royalties.
"For all of the traditional recording industry's claims of how important copyright is for "supporting artists," the most egregious examples of legacy industry folks screwing artists over tend to involve copyright -- and especially cases involving sampling. The law around sampling is particularly stupid, and has been for decades. Musicians can pay a compulsory license to cover a song, but if you just want to sample a bit, that's a whole different story. And even if you try to do it right... well, copyright will fuck you over. Perhaps the most egregious example is what happened with the Verve's hit song Bittersweet Symphony. Unless you've lived under a rock for the past two decades, you've heard this song. And you may have heard variations on the story of how it used a sample from the Rolling Stones, who were then credited as co-songwriters, giving them a cut of the publishing (which has become a common practice these days when songs are sampled). At least that was the story I initially heard years back. But the full story is truly despicable, and it's back in the news now because, more than two decades later (also, two decades too late), the Rolling Stones have given back the rights. We'll get to that in a second. Because the background here is worth understanding.
There are a few different versions of the story floating around -- and not all of the details match. But at the very least, the Verve's Richard Ashcroft wrote the song Bittersweet Symphony, and the recording used a barely noticeable sample of a recording by the Andrew Oldham Orchestra. That recording was an orchestral cover of the Rolling Stones' song The Last Time. Andrew Oldham had been an early manager of the Stones, and the Andrew Oldham Orchestra was a side project (that sometimes involved the Stones themselves). The sample that the Verve wanted for Bittersweet Symphony wasn't even the same as the Rolling Stones song. It was part of the original arrangement for the Oldham Orchestra, apparently done by composer David Whitaker, who is credited in none of this. Also, the opening violin solo that is so iconic and so identified with Bittersweet Symphony is not actually from that sample. It was done by the Verve themselves, designed to flow right into it the part with the sample.
Oh, and here's the real kicker: the Rolling Stones totally copied the song "The Last Time" in the first place -- from a 1955 gospel track by the Staple Singers, called This May Be The Last Time, which itself was based on some traditional gospel songs. The Rolling Stones nowadays totally admit they copied the Staple Singers song. Keith Richards said:
"We didn't find it difficult to write pop songs, but it was VERY difficult - and I think Mick will agree - to write one for the Stones. It seemed to us it took months and months and in the end we came up with The Last Time, which was basically re-adapting a traditional gospel song that had been sung by the Staple Singers, but luckily the song itself goes back into the mists of time. I think I was trying to learn it on the guitar just to get the chords, sitting there playing along with the record, no gigs, nothing else to do. At least we put our own stamp on it, as the Staple Singers had done, and as many other people have before and since: they're still singing it in churches today. It gave us something to build on to create the first song that we felt we could decently present to the band to play..."
So... the Stones copy a recorded version of a traditional song, and then their manager makes an orchestral version of that song, arranged by David Whitaker. A few decades later, the Verve comes up with Bittersweet Symphony, and correctly licenses the sound recording from Decca Records. However, as the song was coming out, another former Rolling Stones manager, Allen Klein, who owned all the publishing rights on early Stones' recordings, insisted that they needed to license the composition as well, which he controlled. But, of course, remember, the "composition" that Klein controlled was basically a cover of a public domain gospel song (and the Stones' lyrics). But none of that was what the Verve was using. It was using Whitaker's arrangement and Oldham's recording (properly licensed from Decca)."
Apparently it gets worse and worse...
Oh dear.
Here's The Official Music Video of Bittersweet Symphony by the Verve
And, I can't resist...this is hilarious... Screen Rants take on the GoT pitch meeting -- aka what happens when the writers are bored of their current project, and just want to rush the ending and move on to greener pastures, such as writing Star Wars movies instead...so all logic goes out the window. Good news, Star Wars is a bit harder to screw up. It's like Star Trek. Lots of branches.
Wow. Just wow. You might have to be a former copyright specialist to appreciate this. I don't know. Or know struggling supporting artists and how important copyright is to a lot of them. They survive off the royalties.
"For all of the traditional recording industry's claims of how important copyright is for "supporting artists," the most egregious examples of legacy industry folks screwing artists over tend to involve copyright -- and especially cases involving sampling. The law around sampling is particularly stupid, and has been for decades. Musicians can pay a compulsory license to cover a song, but if you just want to sample a bit, that's a whole different story. And even if you try to do it right... well, copyright will fuck you over. Perhaps the most egregious example is what happened with the Verve's hit song Bittersweet Symphony. Unless you've lived under a rock for the past two decades, you've heard this song. And you may have heard variations on the story of how it used a sample from the Rolling Stones, who were then credited as co-songwriters, giving them a cut of the publishing (which has become a common practice these days when songs are sampled). At least that was the story I initially heard years back. But the full story is truly despicable, and it's back in the news now because, more than two decades later (also, two decades too late), the Rolling Stones have given back the rights. We'll get to that in a second. Because the background here is worth understanding.
There are a few different versions of the story floating around -- and not all of the details match. But at the very least, the Verve's Richard Ashcroft wrote the song Bittersweet Symphony, and the recording used a barely noticeable sample of a recording by the Andrew Oldham Orchestra. That recording was an orchestral cover of the Rolling Stones' song The Last Time. Andrew Oldham had been an early manager of the Stones, and the Andrew Oldham Orchestra was a side project (that sometimes involved the Stones themselves). The sample that the Verve wanted for Bittersweet Symphony wasn't even the same as the Rolling Stones song. It was part of the original arrangement for the Oldham Orchestra, apparently done by composer David Whitaker, who is credited in none of this. Also, the opening violin solo that is so iconic and so identified with Bittersweet Symphony is not actually from that sample. It was done by the Verve themselves, designed to flow right into it the part with the sample.
Oh, and here's the real kicker: the Rolling Stones totally copied the song "The Last Time" in the first place -- from a 1955 gospel track by the Staple Singers, called This May Be The Last Time, which itself was based on some traditional gospel songs. The Rolling Stones nowadays totally admit they copied the Staple Singers song. Keith Richards said:
"We didn't find it difficult to write pop songs, but it was VERY difficult - and I think Mick will agree - to write one for the Stones. It seemed to us it took months and months and in the end we came up with The Last Time, which was basically re-adapting a traditional gospel song that had been sung by the Staple Singers, but luckily the song itself goes back into the mists of time. I think I was trying to learn it on the guitar just to get the chords, sitting there playing along with the record, no gigs, nothing else to do. At least we put our own stamp on it, as the Staple Singers had done, and as many other people have before and since: they're still singing it in churches today. It gave us something to build on to create the first song that we felt we could decently present to the band to play..."
So... the Stones copy a recorded version of a traditional song, and then their manager makes an orchestral version of that song, arranged by David Whitaker. A few decades later, the Verve comes up with Bittersweet Symphony, and correctly licenses the sound recording from Decca Records. However, as the song was coming out, another former Rolling Stones manager, Allen Klein, who owned all the publishing rights on early Stones' recordings, insisted that they needed to license the composition as well, which he controlled. But, of course, remember, the "composition" that Klein controlled was basically a cover of a public domain gospel song (and the Stones' lyrics). But none of that was what the Verve was using. It was using Whitaker's arrangement and Oldham's recording (properly licensed from Decca)."
Apparently it gets worse and worse...
Oh dear.
Here's The Official Music Video of Bittersweet Symphony by the Verve
And, I can't resist...this is hilarious... Screen Rants take on the GoT pitch meeting -- aka what happens when the writers are bored of their current project, and just want to rush the ending and move on to greener pastures, such as writing Star Wars movies instead...so all logic goes out the window. Good news, Star Wars is a bit harder to screw up. It's like Star Trek. Lots of branches.
no subject
Date: 2019-05-30 02:43 pm (UTC)We saw a similar dynamic, I think, with Buffy: SMG wanted out; so did EC; NB had substance abuse problems; ASH had a foot out the door even in S6; Joss was done.
It may be that it's just very hard to run a demanding dramatic series for that long.
no subject
Date: 2019-05-30 05:02 pm (UTC)I don't know -- Grey's Anatomy has gone on for 15 years, General Hospital for 56 years, granted these are soaps. And they change show-runners.
But, Game of Thrones was only 13 episodes per season for the first three years, then it went to 10 episodes, then 7, then 6. Compare that to Buffy with 22 episodes per season and seven seasons, or Six Feet Under, or The Americans...(6 seasons, 13 episodes per season and one of the best finales ever),.
Also, it would have been easy enough to work around the actors -- kill them. Do you have any idea how much these folks were getting paid per episode? Between $100,000 to $500,000 per episode. Think about that for a minute. The writers were being paid close to $600,000 per episode.
And, I know a lot of professional actors who'd have given ANYTHING to have gotten on that series. It's not hard to continue a drama like GoT. If Kit Harrington can't cut it at $500,000 per episode, kill Jon Snow off and put in another character. Same with Ayra and Sansa -- kill them off. It's a brutal world -- Martin certainly did that to characters.
no subject
Date: 2019-05-30 05:08 pm (UTC)Also, the problem I have with whiny Hollywood actors -- is this:
That's it. And their performances are heavily edited.
The tough part is in television shows ...and film they often film the same line a 100 times until the lighting is right. That's the hard part, redoing it and redoing it.
no subject
Date: 2019-05-30 05:33 pm (UTC)Sorry replying by email, so can't edit to add - ugh.
Anyhow, the difference between a show like GOT and Buffy (and Angel for that matter) is budget. GoT had a billion dollar budget or very close. HBO gave them anything they asked for. They even had a hands off attitude, no notes, fee reign. Also they could film "anywhere". In addition -- they were given extra time to do it -- need two years? Take it. Need more time? No problem. Do you know how hard that is to get in television? 90% of television shows have notes, tight production schedules and tighter budgets. Whedon would have killed to get that for Firefly or Buffy. Granted they were to a degree hands off, but not that hands off. And he had a tight budget, tight schedule -- an episode a week. And he had to break rules to make it good -- he worked weekends, at half cost, and didn't tell the studio or network. D+D had an unlimited budget, two years, and source material, not to mention access to the original creator to aid them.
So..with all that? It is laughable how many huge errors they made in editing alone. I mean two years, six episodes, and they made those mistakes? Mistakes that could have easily been corrected?
It's not the same as Happy Days jumping the shark -- it went on too long or the inaccuracies in Greys or even Buffy, those shows had 22 episodes, tight schedules, and no time. Nor is it the same as Rod Sterling getting burned out on Twilight Zone -- he was writing 22 episodes a year...ugh.
I'm not angry, I'm just highly amused.
no subject
Date: 2019-05-30 08:04 pm (UTC)As for killing off characters, I doubt that would have worked. The story up through S7 made that impossible for Dany or Jon and even Arya or Sansa would have generated a huge outcry.
no subject
Date: 2019-05-30 10:38 pm (UTC)Well, yeah, I think they got burned out on the story, didn't know how to finish it and rushed it. We agree on that.
IDK -- I think they jumped the shark and should be reamed for it. And I'm glad they are. With any luck they will be shut out of the emmy's, there are other far worthier shows that are deserving of recognition this year.
But I won't watch anything else they do, and I certainly wouldn't hire them or trust them to write another series.
YMMV.
no subject
Date: 2019-05-30 09:46 pm (UTC)The Beatles specifically hired Klein to head up Apple Corps., which was bleeding cash since its formation in 1968. Klein swiftly turned the company around, despite Paul McCartney's highly vocal objections to Klein's methods (and suspicions that Klein's hand was permanently grafted to the till). Klein's presence may have been one reason why Paul left the group in 1970.
For the most part, Lennon, Harrison and Starr were happy to have a pet shark in shark-filled waters... until they sued Klein in the mid70s, thinking "maybe Paul was right after all." Harrison was particularly incensed that Klein failed to register the Concert for Bangladesh as a UNESCO charity, forcing a staggering $10 million into receivership for over a decade.
There are so many stories about Klein and the Stones, the Beatles, ABCKO, stories that could fill a book. (Several books, in fact.)
no subject
Date: 2019-05-30 10:44 pm (UTC)So, the Stones really weren't responsible, so much as Klein.
no subject
Date: 2019-05-31 12:19 am (UTC)If you have the time, read about how Klein might have personally pocketed $1.14 from every copy of the Concert for Bangladesh LP
and...
How Klein managed to switch sides in the plagiarism suit over "My Sweet Lord" just to fuck with Harrison (and get paid, of course).
He really was a piece of work.
Oh yeah.
ETA: Lennon and McCartney actually lost control of their catalogue when Brian Epstein's brother sold off a majority share of Northern Songs in 1968. Klein actually tried to get it back for them (a rare instance when John and Paul were on the same page)--but failed. The songs remained with ATV until Michael bought the catalogue. Michael (you gotta laugh) got the idea from Paul, who'd bought out the Buddy Holly catalogue and other songs he'd loved from his youth in Liverpool.