Don't start it again...

Quote
daspyknows

Quote
Chris Fountain

Quote
PinballWizard23
I never liked when entertainers get political and even more so when they try to ram a msg down your throat at a concert you paid big money for tickets to see. Risk alienating 50% of your fans.

Was at a Springsteen show a few years ago and he went on a political rant that pissed a lot of attendees off and got a pretty wicked boo followed by people heading for the doors.

Agreed - politics and music should be kept separate.

Music from the 60's has always been political. If you don't like it, you can vote with your wallet. I won't go see Kid Rock, Ted Nugent or Big and Rich for that reason.

"vote w/ your wallet"...that's the (lame) creed of corporations every time they do something people don't like.

It falsely purports that individuals have actual power in the face of massive corporations and/or bands...

that might work for your Local Crap Band....but, it means nothing to a company like Coke or a band like Pearl Jam who are essentially "too big/popular to boycott"....

I love Pearl Jam, but I always get annoyed when Eddie starts telling me how I should vote.

If bands/musicians wanna address an ISSUE they feel strongly about, then do it....but, don't dive into Partisan Politics.

...and I'd prefer they avoid doing it from the stage. I came to hear the music, not listen to political drivel.

just my opinion....

Quote
stickyfingers101

Quote
daspyknows

Quote
Chris Fountain

Quote
PinballWizard23
I never liked when entertainers get political and even more so when they try to ram a msg down your throat at a concert you paid big money for tickets to see. Risk alienating 50% of your fans.

Was at a Springsteen show a few years ago and he went on a political rant that pissed a lot of attendees off and got a pretty wicked boo followed by people heading for the doors.

Agreed - politics and music should be kept separate.

Music from the 60's has always been political. If you don't like it, you can vote with your wallet. I won't go see Kid Rock, Ted Nugent or Big and Rich for that reason.

"vote w/ your wallet"...that's the (lame) creed of corporations every time they do something people don't like.

It falsely purports that individuals have actual power in the face of massive corporations and/or bands...

that might work for your Local Crap Band....but, it means nothing to a company like Coke or a band like Pearl Jam who are essentially "too big/popular to boycott"....

I love Pearl Jam, but I always get annoyed when Eddie starts telling me how I should vote.

If bands/musicians wanna address an ISSUE they feel strongly about, then do it....but, don't dive into Partisan Politics.

...and I'd prefer they avoid doing it from the stage. I came to hear the music, not listen to political drivel.

just my opinion....

One could argue that in the end everything is politics, but that is not a useful notion. What it comes down to for me is that music, and art in general, shouldn't be a propaganda outlet for some party or candidate. Likewise, it should also not be about who NOT to vote for. I for one am glad that I never fell for artists like Bruce Springsteen with his fake lower working class attitude, Tom Petty, Pearl Jam or any of those others mentioned in the thread. Except I do rather like R.E.M. and Patti Smith (her not so much anymore these days), so I found their activities and tours against certain presidential candidates cringeworthy. If you need rockstars to tell you who to vote for, you probably have no business with voting anyway.

Quote
Chris Fountain
Did Bill Clinton pay BMI for the song "Don't Stop" (Fleetwood Mac)??


Terrible Song anyway.

I don't think Fleetwood Mac had a problem with Clinton playing their song since they reunited to play at his inaugural ball in 93.

Quote
DGA35

Quote
Chris Fountain
Did Bill Clinton pay BMI for the song "Don't Stop" (Fleetwood Mac)??


Terrible Song anyway.

I don't think Fleetwood Mac had a problem with Clinton playing their song since they reunited to play at his inaugural ball in 93.

I think Beto O'Rourke used Happy, btw.

99.9% of the protests were not violent, just concerned citizens making themselves heard. But as always, the looting is what is shown over and over.

Quote
Koen
99.9% of the protests were not violent, just concerned citizens making themselves heard. But as always, the looting is what is shown over and over.

They always say that, dont they.

Political posts will be deleted. Also quotes of political posts.

Bjornulf

This is, in my opinion, a political thread, why not close it (why start it in the first place)?

Quote
Koen
99.9% of the protests were not violent, just concerned citizens making themselves heard. But as always, the looting is what is shown over and over.

The public gets what the public wants.
The violence gets shown more because that’s what people want to watch instead of watching peaceful protests.
If you had one tv channel on September 11th showing someone talking about how tragic the days events were and another tv channel showing people jumping to their certain death out of burning buildings then you know which one would have higher ratings.

Nate

Quote
SomeGuy

Quote
DGA35

Quote
Chris Fountain
Did Bill Clinton pay BMI for the song "Don't Stop" (Fleetwood Mac)??


Terrible Song anyway.

I don't think Fleetwood Mac had a problem with Clinton playing their song since they reunited to play at his inaugural ball in 93.

I think Beto O'Rourke used Happy, btw.

I read that he's a huge Clash fan and he used Clampdown from London Calling as his campaign theme song.

Just one (or two) line: I don't think I have ever seen such bad political leadership all over the world as it is now. It was bad before also. But not so consistently bad.
All the rotten eggs have risen to power all over the world at the same time! What shall we do? Enroll in a doomsday sect?

Quote
SomeGuy
This is, in my opinion, a political thread, why not close it (why start it in the first place)?

This thread is very on topic, because it is about The Rolling Stones. It is not political, because it is about licensing and legal terms of using their music for the purpose of promotion or campaigns.

Bjornulf

Quote
bv

Quote
SomeGuy
This is, in my opinion, a political thread, why not close it (why start it in the first place)?

This thread is very on topic, because it is about The Rolling Stones. It is not political, because it is about licensing and legal terms of using their music for the purpose of promotion or campaigns.

As a long time user of this forum (which I find invaluable as a great Stones resource), my purpose for originally posting this thread- was as you stated (and pretty straightforward)-it was about the Rolling Stones and the whole idea of licensing and legal terms of using their music for the purpose of promotion or campaigns. My intention was not to create controversy and/or open up a political debate. I purposely chose to keep my own particular views at a minimum and let the article speak for itself.

As I stated early on page 1 of this thread- should this turn inappropriate, become off-topic, become nasty and/or heated- then I stand by words- close it down!!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 00:37 by Sighunt.

Quote
bv

Quote
SomeGuy
This is, in my opinion, a political thread, why not close it (why start it in the first place)?

This thread is very on topic, because it is about The Rolling Stones. It is not political, because it is about licensing and legal terms of using their music for the purpose of promotion or campaigns.

Well ok. The thread is not political, I guess I got opinions of myself, other participants and the Stones mixed up a bit, sorry.

The short answer is that a political rally will typically use the venue's license from a performance rights organization.

If you are so inclined the long answer:

[www.jstor.org]

Note that you cannot publish this or parts of it.

Quote
SomeGuy
One could argue that in the end everything is politics, but that is not a useful notion. What it comes down to for me is that music, and art in general, shouldn't be a propaganda outlet for some party or candidate. Likewise, it should also not be about who NOT to vote for. I for one am glad that I never fell for artists like Bruce Springsteen with his fake lower working class attitude, Tom Petty, Pearl Jam or any of those others mentioned in the thread. Except I do rather like R.E.M. and Patti Smith (her not so much anymore these days), so I found their activities and tours against certain presidential candidates cringeworthy. If you need rockstars to tell you who to vote for, you probably have no business with voting anyway.

Why is a musician any different from anyone else making an endorsement. For me I have no issue with it and making my own decision anyway. An artists political views are of value in regards to how I relate to them as people and generally the fans of artists I agree with politically are people I would rather be around at a show. To each his or her own but I personally will support artists I agree with and not support artists I personally disagree with. I do not need to agree with everything, Roger Waters for example but I would never go see Ted Nugent even though he was talented at one point because I don't want my money going into his pocket.

I don't deny any artist having the right to entertain their political view, of course. They are perfectly free to discuss those with their friends, as I do with mine. Works of art however, should not be propaganda for someone's political agenda. I prefer, say, Honky Tonk Women to, say, Rice Krispies, to use an analogy.

But, to each his own. I can separate the artist's creation from his or her view. I play R.E.M. records, Blondie, Iggy Pop, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Masters Of Reality, Beatles, Pink Floyd, you name it, and I dont give a sh*t about their political views, or not. It would be rather tiresome if I had to check their views every time and burn their records when they suddenly said something I don't agree with.

ASCAP Says Donald Trump Campaign Can’t Use Any Rolling Stones Songs In Its Repertory, Following BMI’s Lead

ASCAP says that Trump won’t be allowed to use any of the Stones’ songs in its repertory either – a playlist that includes “Start Me Up,” “Emotional Rescue,” “Waiting on a Friend” and “Angie.

[deadline.com]

I remember this from Mick in 2016
what has changed?
[twitter.com]

That was great of Mick to address the question in person like that. Thanks Mick.

(yeah i realize it was a few years ago, still...)

jb

Quote
artedm
I remember this from Mick in 2016
what has changed?
[twitter.com]

Guess he was mistaken!

Quote
SomeGuy
Works of art however, should not be propaganda for someone's political agenda.

The whole point of art, though, is that there's no "should."

Quote
artedm
I remember this from Mick in 2016
what has changed?
[twitter.com]

Seemingly what has happened is that, after all, there is some legal power to prevent the unwanted use, something BMI, and ASCAP as well, has now come up with. Seemingly Jagger wasn't awere of that in 2016, and like wasn't anyone else either at the time when the issue was discussed, and not only regard to Stones music.

I read an article listing different cases in using music in political propaganda along the years in America, starting with Springsteen's "Born In The USA" and Reagan in 1984, and almost without a expection, the thing has been that people stopped doing that if an artist showed such a will (didn't want politicians to use their music). It was all good manners like, the politicians appreciated the opinion of the artists. Reagan did that, Clinton did that, etc. Before Trump there was only one big forerunner in showing not such appreciation, Sarah Palin.

So it's not about good manners and morals anymore, it is 'see you in court'.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 12:25 by Doxa.

Charlie is the first.

The Stones on Trump's election.

Quote
DGA35
Guess he was mistaken!

You have it! See the following, especially the highlighted part:


USING MUSIC IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS: What You Should Know
Guidelines prepared by ASCAP

Executive Summary:
Music use requires planning and securing the appropriate permissions. ASCAP has put together this list of Q & As to help you navigate your way to campaign success through the proper use of music.



Q: What is the value of music in a political campaign?
A: Music possesses a unique power to inspire, motivate and energize a campaign. And music has been used in campaigns since the founding of our country . George Washington effectively used "God Save Great Washington" (a parody of "God Save the King" ), Franklin Roosevelt used "Happy Days Are Here Again" (written by ASCAP members Milton Ager and Jack Yellen), Dwight Eisenhower used "They Like Ike" (written by ASCAP founding member Irving Berlin) and President Barack Obama used "Signed, Sealed, Delivered I'm Yours" (written by ASCAP member Stevie Wonder) just to name a few of the Presidential campaign success stories.


Q: What is the issue and why are music use guidelines important?
A: It has become increasingly significant for political candidates in the public spotlight to conduct their campaigns within the copyright law. Recent controversy over unauthorized music use has created unwanted negative publicity for candidates that want to do the right thing but many times require clarification on the legal obligations relating to music use. Knowing these guidelines is good for all involved .


Q: If a campaign wants to use a song in a campaign commercial, what permissions does it need?
A: This kind of use may involve rights such as synchronization of music with video and the possible use of the master sound recording. The campaign will need to contact the song's publisher and possibly the artist's record label to negotiate the appropriate licenses with them. And remember, campaign videos containing music that are posted on the Internet also require these licenses. Once the commercial has been produced, the TV and radio stations, and any web sites that transmit the commercial must hold a public performance license.


Q: What is ASCAP and what is its role?
A: ASCAP is the country 's first and largest performing right organization , representing over 10 million musical works from over 525,000 songwriters and composers , and by extension , their music publishers. ASCAP represents the non-exclusive public performance right for these works , responsible for licensing their public performance on radio, television, cable, satellite, the Internet, on mobile devices and in venues and establishments . We track the use of music, identify the content owners and distribute the appropriate royalties. ASCAP is a not-for-profit membership organization dedicated to protecting our members' rights and obtaining fair compensation for the public performance of their copyrighted musical works .
ASCAP provides an important income stream for members and allows music users an efficient and effective wa y to obtain the necessary permission to perform music for their business or their other public communication needs.


Q: What licenses does a campaign need to play music at campaign events?
A: First, while many venues have proper "public performance" licenses, as a general rule the licenses for convention centers, arenas and hotels exclude music use during conventions, expositions and campaign events. If a campaign is holding many events at dozens of different venues, it may be easier for the campaign itself to obtain a public performance license from ASCAP (and possibly one or both of the other two U.S. performing right organizations if the music is licensed through one of them) . This would guarantee that, no matter where you have a campaign stop, it would be in compliance with copyright law.


Q: If the campaign events are properly licensed, can the campaign still be criticized or even sued by an artist for playing his or her song at an event?

A: Yes. If an artist does not want his or her music to be associated with the campaign , he or she may be able to take legal action even if the campaign has the appropriate copyright licenses. While the campaign would be in compliance with copyright law, it could potentially be in violation of other laws. Specifically , the campaign could be liable under any of the following claims:

"Right of Publicity", which in many states provides image protection for famous people or artists.
The "Lanham Act", which covers the confusion or dilution of a trademark (such as a band or artist name) through its unauthorized use.

"False Endorsement" where use of the artist's identifying work implies that the artist supports a product or candidate.

As a general rule, a campaign should be aware that, in most cases, the more closely a song is tied to the "image" or message of the campaign , the more likely it is that the recording artist or songwriter of the song could object to the song's usage in the campaign.


Q: How can the campaign protect itself against these other claims?
A: If a campaign wants to eliminate any of these claims, particularly if the campaign wants to use a song as its theme, they should contact the management for the artists and/or songwriters of the songs in question and obtain their permission. In addition to permission from management, a separate negotiated license maybe required by the publisher of the composition , and if used, the record label that controls the master recording.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Charlie is the first.

The Stones on Trump's election.

First at what?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Charlie is the first.

The Stones on Trump's election.

First at what?

Commenting.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Charlie is the first.

The Stones on Trump's election.

First at what?

Commenting.

When was the interview done? Both Mick and Keith have commented earlier.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Charlie is the first.

The Stones on Trump's election.

Just for the record: The above Youtube link is from 2016, it is an AP press report from the opening of the Stones exhibition in New York Nov 2016.

(15 Nov 2016) THE ROLLING STONES SAY THEY WERE 'SHOCKED' AND 'MYSTIFIED' BY DONALD TRUMP'S ELECTION

Speaking at the launch of a New York exhibition detailing the history of the Rolling Stones, singer Mick Jagger said "everyone outside the U.S. is kind of mystified" by the American election result.

"That was quite mind-blowing watching from England," echoed bandmate Ronnie Wood, at the event, Monday (14 NOVEMBER 2016). "We were all shocked and stunned with the Brexit thing and so I thought, 'Nothing's going to shock me now. For all I know Trump's going to get in.' Sure enough he did (laughs). It was like, OK, there will be some changes made (laughs). Hopefully they'll be good ones."

Drummer Charlie Watts also predicts changes under a Trump presidency.
"I don't think he's going to be as radical as he was coming in to it, making a big thing," mused Watts. "I think a lot of what he says is going to be tempered down because if it isn't it's going to be a hell of a bloody ride for four years (laughs) but we'll see. It might be good. I don't know.

"I actually don't like politicians or politics," he continued. "We've got to have them but I don't like them. I've never liked a politician in my life. I've never voted for anyone. I don't believe them (laughs). So I've never voted for any of them."

Watts isn't the only Stone to be anti-politics. The band's legendary guitarist Keith Richards refused to comment on the new U.S. president.
"It's a blank spot to me man, I'm telling you. I ain't going there (laughs)."
The Stones have submitted numerous artifacts from their 50 year history to "Exhibitionism - The Rolling Stones" - an exhibit that debuted at Industria in New York City on Saturday after launching in London earlier this year.
It includes colorful tour outfits, Jagger's lyric book, Keith Richards' 1963 diary, Watts' toy drum kit and various photographs, from posters to magazine covers.

The exhibit runs in New York through March 12, 2017.

Bjornulf