Tell Me :
Talk
Bruce absolutely has gotten more vocal about socio- political issues on the last couple tours.
People pay big money to hear him sing and not get some opinion based rant jammed down our throat, it’s not the platform or stage for that. When that shit starts I feel like protesting for my money back. I’m there to get away from all of this nonsense, music, sports and entertainment used to be an escape from all the BS.
Thank you for posting this.
It looks like there is more going on here when trying to interprent the recent statements by BMI and ASCAP. Namely the quote above applies to the cases that are "properly licended". Which is to say that it goes beyond the scope of BMI or ASCAP and their control - it is just up to artists themselves to take legal action if they want. But what BMI and ASCAP has now stated that the artists have a right to prevent their stuff to be played in political campaigns, something which belongs to within the scope of BMI and ASCAP and a licence to play the stuff in the first place.
Like BMI, ASCAP has a Political Campaign License agreement that provides “a blanket license to perform any or all of the millions of compositions in the ASCAP repertory. However, ASCAP members may ask ASCAP to exclude specific songs from a particular political campaign’s license. In that event, ASCAP will notify the campaign of the excluded works.
The Stones seemingly have now used that option - so playing "You Can't Always Get What You Want" in Trump's rallies is not "properly licenced" now.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 15:55 by Doxa.
For a price of course. I edited my post. But still.
I think you have a point there. I think this attitude could be generalized quite much among the 'non-Trumpists'. Surely Trump is a politician by definition and probably many of his political views - and especially doings as a head of the biggest Western country of the world - people don't like or share, but it is the person himself people especially don't like, respect or accept. Who knows what actually his 'ideology' is, if there even is one. Wasn't his claim to power always been that of not being a typical politician (that is, someone having ideological views open for anyone to critizise). People just don't respect the man as a person, and his actual sayings and doings, at all. All those lies, immorality, a lack of empathy, over-blown egoism, a cheap and idiotic salesman rhetorics with some dangerous connotations... I think most of the criticism towards Trump, especially from outside of America, is not directed against Republican Party or conservatism an sich, being 'political' in that sense. Of course in practise it is now, since Trump is, as far as America go, their public spokesman and 'leader' (sad that all of that is now worldwide associated to Trump, and seemingly most of the conservatives in America now are like doomed to live or die with that person).
Surely most of the artists, especially the ones deriving from the 60's revolutionary, 'counter-culture' rock scene, are liberal by nature, and never liked conservative politics (people like Nixon, Reagan or Bushes never been their men), but I think Trump is an expection here; a less colourful person - a 'normal politician' - wouldn't cause such reaction. One could say that it is not 'political' but more like 'personal' in this sense. One could even say that Trump - a TV host with a questionable business career - has made politics such a one man show business act that the actual professionals in that field treat him with the same logic - don't want to be associated with that show. Especially if they have had personal contacts with the guy in show business - like the Stones.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 18:16 by Doxa.
A lot have changed since 2016. A lot. Also, there are four members in the Stones, not just Mick. Re the Atlantic City 1989 stories.
Bjornulf
But where are you going with this, should they just let him use their music to avoid that he gets more attention?
The whole point of my deleted post was that the Stones' reasoning wasn't political.
I did address your points but deleted myself...........Doxa got it though...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 19:25 by EddieByword.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 18:05 by EddieByword.
You're right, Dandy. I'm kind of taking in the whole picture here. Which is politics. About the actual subject: Sure, they can take this to court if that is what they want. Maybe the end result will be a precedent?
Hopefully so. Personally I don't think it's a big thing that he plays some Stones songs at his rallies though. But that is just my personal view.
I quickly delated from my post that quoted Biden part. But still if my post will be delated, I do understand it. But I think there is something overtly non-political in the whole Trump phenomenon (and his criticism), and what the Stones are doing, is a part of it.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 18:22 by Doxa.
For the record, that was precisely the edit I was thinking about right after I posted, but didn't.
That would be someone else's concern, and nothing to do with this thread or with the Rolling Stones. Thank god.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-07-01 01:15 by Doxa.
I guess there is a freedom of creativity in where there is no what one 'should' do as far as the artists go; there can be whatever political aims or whatever if the artists feel like having or something. They are totally free in that sense. But when the question is using already created pieces of art, there are rules (or norms for morally decent people) of conduct. For example, the use of Picasso's Quernica to promote some fascist movement is not alright.
I think mostly the problem is among the conservative people - for them it is simply confusing or annoying that the music or art in general they like is actually done from a rather liberal point of view, and it generally promotes liberalism. So for them it is important to make a firm distinction between art and politics - that of having just an aesthetic pleasure (which means nothing in one's way of life), and something that actually affects on one's way of thinking of life and whatever. But is a dilemma for them, since anyone knows that it is typical that art urges to make people think differently, to change, to criticise the prevailing circumstances, which, by definition, is in contrast to conservatism.
So the reaction, as I've seen for example here, with the conservative block digging the Stones has been: it is just music, entertainment, an aesthetic pleasure - nothing to do with anything else. It is people like them who want to sterilize the Stones, or art in general, from it having any social or political significance. Just it to be an object of contingent aesthetic pleasure, nothing to do with real life. But for many of us, The Stones, and their music, like much of art, mean something much more.
I think this exactly is the problem with the Trump people digging the Stones, or most of rock music or art in general - they have different values to begin with, and that's why - because they love the Stones or Picasso - they want to make art socially or politically irrelevant (to make themselves and their values and set of beliefs somehow coherent and reasonable in order to justify their 'guilty pleasure'). Nothing but a show business, something to be determined only by the means of money. But they are wrong (and if they are honest in the deep of their heart, they know it, even though, for sure, never admit it overtly). The art matters.
I guess the dilemma is like me watching "The Birth of Nation" or "Triumph des Willens" - seeing the greatness of the form and recognizing their originality and siginificance in a movie history, but at the same time understanding that the content totally contradicts with anything I believe or respect. Knowing that all of it is done to serve barbarian politics. But how far that sort of aesthetic tolerance can go - like, I don't feel like listening Gary Glitter ever again - for certain reasons, no matter how good his songs ever might have been (gladly, they were crap). And yeah, I never listen Ted Nugent.
- Doxa
Edited 16 time(s). Last edit at 2020-07-01 04:04 by Doxa.
Fair enough, but you're not factoring the artists wishes into it. It is their music, to licence to whom they wish. If they don't want it used because it shines a political light on something they disagree with, that is their right to do so, more than it would be your right to use it.
In that instance it doesn't matter what you feel.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: June 30, 2020 13:55
The way they laughed speaks volumes. And I like it.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 30, 2020 14:22
Thanks, Ruediger, for the ASCAP guidelines.
I've tried quickly to check some info about these BMI and ASCAP copyright rules in regard to political campaigns. Has the protocal 'always' been the same - that they have these specific guidelines based on law in regard to the use of art in political campaigns - or is is something that due to the heavy pressure lately they've been now constructed for the demand. The thing I remember stressed at the time of 2016 was that of the venue is the one responsible for the rights for the music played, not the political campaign using it. And for that reason, the campaigns are "not responsible" (does that sound familiar, huh?). And the point was that the venues in which the rallies take place, are public places in where they can play whatever they want, if just paying the appropriate technical compensation for the artists. Business as usual. That seemingly was the thing Mick was referring to in that twitter click above.
To me it looks like that now the relationship between a political rally and a venue it takes place, and how the copyrights should go, has been stressed more carefully or at least differently. The campaign should be the one taking care of the copyrights/license, not the venue. Was this rule or guide 'always' there or something adjusted now? Or did BMI and ASCAP just articulated better the 'always existing' copyright rules now?
Had it been 'always' there, it is odd to think that the Stones legal team wasn't aware of that in 2016. Lazy job from that legal team, or actually a show of lazy interest by the Stones - not really having a will to stress the issue further back in 2016 (but there is another explanation for that, see my next post). Seemingly it looks like that both Neil Young and his legal team had more interest and effort there in regard to "Rocking In A Free World". They managed to get their song out of his rallies, since Trump people wanted "to do the right thing", like someone of his campaign said. I don't think that happened just from the Trump campaign being 'nice', but there was more at the stake there. A legal thread maybe (not that thing especially would be a big obstacle for Trumpists). Neil Young's example has been there for years, but it seemingly was not until Tom Petty people took action, which seemingly woke up the Stones and their legal team.
Anyway, I couldn't find any info - although my research was pretty lazy I admit - of the history of these guidelines and rules by performing rights (BMI, ASCAP). I hope someone here does a better job or knows more (where the hell is Rocky Dijon when we need him?
).
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 15:18 by Doxa.
I've tried quickly to check some info about these BMI and ASCAP copyright rules in regard to political campaigns. Has the protocal 'always' been the same - that they have these specific guidelines based on law in regard to the use of art in political campaigns - or is is something that due to the heavy pressure lately they've been now constructed for the demand. The thing I remember stressed at the time of 2016 was that of the venue is the one responsible for the rights for the music played, not the political campaign using it. And for that reason, the campaigns are "not responsible" (does that sound familiar, huh?). And the point was that the venues in which the rallies take place, are public places in where they can play whatever they want, if just paying the appropriate technical compensation for the artists. Business as usual. That seemingly was the thing Mick was referring to in that twitter click above.
To me it looks like that now the relationship between a political rally and a venue it takes place, and how the copyrights should go, has been stressed more carefully or at least differently. The campaign should be the one taking care of the copyrights/license, not the venue. Was this rule or guide 'always' there or something adjusted now? Or did BMI and ASCAP just articulated better the 'always existing' copyright rules now?
Had it been 'always' there, it is odd to think that the Stones legal team wasn't aware of that in 2016. Lazy job from that legal team, or actually a show of lazy interest by the Stones - not really having a will to stress the issue further back in 2016 (but there is another explanation for that, see my next post). Seemingly it looks like that both Neil Young and his legal team had more interest and effort there in regard to "Rocking In A Free World". They managed to get their song out of his rallies, since Trump people wanted "to do the right thing", like someone of his campaign said. I don't think that happened just from the Trump campaign being 'nice', but there was more at the stake there. A legal thread maybe (not that thing especially would be a big obstacle for Trumpists). Neil Young's example has been there for years, but it seemingly was not until Tom Petty people took action, which seemingly woke up the Stones and their legal team.
Anyway, I couldn't find any info - although my research was pretty lazy I admit - of the history of these guidelines and rules by performing rights (BMI, ASCAP). I hope someone here does a better job or knows more (where the hell is Rocky Dijon when we need him?
).- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 15:18 by Doxa.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
PinballWizard23
()
Date: June 30, 2020 14:42
Quote
Stoneage
I never did mind music and politics. I really don't understand people leaving a Bruce gig because he says something political. First of all, Bruce never make long speeches.
Secondly, everyone knows his political stance beforehand. When it comes to politics some names are more credible though. Like Pete Seeger, Tracy Chapman or Joan Baez for instance.
When they speak I listen. Pete is not with us anymore though.
Bruce absolutely has gotten more vocal about socio- political issues on the last couple tours.
People pay big money to hear him sing and not get some opinion based rant jammed down our throat, it’s not the platform or stage for that. When that shit starts I feel like protesting for my money back. I’m there to get away from all of this nonsense, music, sports and entertainment used to be an escape from all the BS.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 30, 2020 14:52
Anyway, what actually is the best thing here for a hardcore Stones fan is hearing that ABKCO and the Stones (Mick and Keith) are co-operating there... Had they done more that we Stones fans would have lived in a happier world...
Actually the most interesting thing here is that ABKCO is also behind it. That's strange because they only are losing money there - the more the Stones catalogue is played, the more they gain. And the way ABKCO has used the Stones material in the past the leading guideline has been that of 'milk any cent you can out of it', having not much - or any - 'moral' concerns. The bad old Allan Klein most likely had just offered more Stones material for Trump people to play in his rallies...
But now they are with the Stones here. Makes me wonder that maybe it was the role of ABKCO holding the publishing rights over "You Can't Always Get What You Want" being reason for not making any legal action in 2016. Mick and Keith's hands were tied if ABKCO wasn't backing them up? But now they do. Could it be that this solely is the reason to explain the differences between 2016 and 2020 policy?
What Mick and Keith has promised back to ABKCO for this deal....?
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 14:58 by Doxa.
Actually the most interesting thing here is that ABKCO is also behind it. That's strange because they only are losing money there - the more the Stones catalogue is played, the more they gain. And the way ABKCO has used the Stones material in the past the leading guideline has been that of 'milk any cent you can out of it', having not much - or any - 'moral' concerns. The bad old Allan Klein most likely had just offered more Stones material for Trump people to play in his rallies...
But now they are with the Stones here. Makes me wonder that maybe it was the role of ABKCO holding the publishing rights over "You Can't Always Get What You Want" being reason for not making any legal action in 2016. Mick and Keith's hands were tied if ABKCO wasn't backing them up? But now they do. Could it be that this solely is the reason to explain the differences between 2016 and 2020 policy?
What Mick and Keith has promised back to ABKCO for this deal....?
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 14:58 by Doxa.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
Sighunt
()
Date: June 30, 2020 14:57
Quote
RuedigerQuote
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.
Thank you for posting this.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 30, 2020 15:54
Quote
Ruediger
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.
It looks like there is more going on here when trying to interprent the recent statements by BMI and ASCAP. Namely the quote above applies to the cases that are "properly licended". Which is to say that it goes beyond the scope of BMI or ASCAP and their control - it is just up to artists themselves to take legal action if they want. But what BMI and ASCAP has now stated that the artists have a right to prevent their stuff to be played in political campaigns, something which belongs to within the scope of BMI and ASCAP and a licence to play the stuff in the first place.
Like BMI, ASCAP has a Political Campaign License agreement that provides “a blanket license to perform any or all of the millions of compositions in the ASCAP repertory. However, ASCAP members may ask ASCAP to exclude specific songs from a particular political campaign’s license. In that event, ASCAP will notify the campaign of the excluded works.
The Stones seemingly have now used that option - so playing "You Can't Always Get What You Want" in Trump's rallies is not "properly licenced" now.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 15:55 by Doxa.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: June 30, 2020 16:05
Quote
PinballWizard23Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
PinballWizard23
If Biden was playing these songs would they take the same hardline position issuing a cease order?
What do you think? On the clip below we can see Mick Jagger and Jeff Beck playing at the White House. For a price of course. Ombama in the front row.
White House 2012.
I don’t have an issue with anyone playing the music. You should be able to play what you want just like they do at all sporting events and pretty
Much all gatherings whether local or large scale.
Again, just because someone plays a song it doesn’t need to be interpreted as political support or politically motivated.
I think Trump likes the music and I’m 100% sure that many in attendance are Stones fans. It is what is is and shouldn’t be a big deal.just my 2 cents.
For a price of course. I edited my post. But still.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: June 30, 2020 17:30
I don't believe so, Eddie. Mr T is the sole politician everyone is picking on. Especially here in Europe. He's the first politician I can think of that is such an open target for criticism.
I have tried to explain earlier, for deaf ears, that there is a danger in this. Because there are groups of people who tends to vote for people which the establishment is against.
But I guess this is a fact that is incomprehensible for many. Still, here, many don't understand how Mrs C lost that election...
I have tried to explain earlier, for deaf ears, that there is a danger in this. Because there are groups of people who tends to vote for people which the establishment is against.
But I guess this is a fact that is incomprehensible for many. Still, here, many don't understand how Mrs C lost that election...
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 30, 2020 17:44
Quote
EddieByword
Maybe not but the Stones' 'history' with trump goes back a long way - long before trump was a 'politician'.
I guess you know the story of the Atlantic City show in 1989. The PPV show that almost never was due to the unwanted presence of trump. The Stones have had a low opinion of trump long before he infiltrated the Republican party and started putting children in cages and suggesting out loud in front of the cameras that injecting disinfectant might be worth 'looking at' as a cure for covid....... (and much more before and since - ie. the Florida villages.
Maybe they just really don't want to be associated at all with his particular brand of heartless insanity and personally I don't blame them.
My reading is, I don't think that's even a political standpoint - In 1989 they saw a completely objectional person in trump and their position hasn't changed (and maybe even hardened because of....... (take your pick) and this detrimental 'association' is getting more National and International coverage which they don't like........................
I think you have a point there. I think this attitude could be generalized quite much among the 'non-Trumpists'. Surely Trump is a politician by definition and probably many of his political views - and especially doings as a head of the biggest Western country of the world - people don't like or share, but it is the person himself people especially don't like, respect or accept. Who knows what actually his 'ideology' is, if there even is one. Wasn't his claim to power always been that of not being a typical politician (that is, someone having ideological views open for anyone to critizise). People just don't respect the man as a person, and his actual sayings and doings, at all. All those lies, immorality, a lack of empathy, over-blown egoism, a cheap and idiotic salesman rhetorics with some dangerous connotations... I think most of the criticism towards Trump, especially from outside of America, is not directed against Republican Party or conservatism an sich, being 'political' in that sense. Of course in practise it is now, since Trump is, as far as America go, their public spokesman and 'leader' (sad that all of that is now worldwide associated to Trump, and seemingly most of the conservatives in America now are like doomed to live or die with that person).
Surely most of the artists, especially the ones deriving from the 60's revolutionary, 'counter-culture' rock scene, are liberal by nature, and never liked conservative politics (people like Nixon, Reagan or Bushes never been their men), but I think Trump is an expection here; a less colourful person - a 'normal politician' - wouldn't cause such reaction. One could say that it is not 'political' but more like 'personal' in this sense. One could even say that Trump - a TV host with a questionable business career - has made politics such a one man show business act that the actual professionals in that field treat him with the same logic - don't want to be associated with that show. Especially if they have had personal contacts with the guy in show business - like the Stones.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 18:16 by Doxa.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
bv
()
Date: June 30, 2020 17:47
A lot have changed since 2016. A lot. Also, there are four members in the Stones, not just Mick. Re the Atlantic City 1989 stories.
Bjornulf
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 30, 2020 17:50
Quote
Stoneage
I don't believe so, Eddie. Mr T is the sole politician everyone is picking on. Especially here in Europe. He's the first politician I can think of that is such an open target for criticism.
I have tried to explain earlier, for deaf ears, that there is a danger in this. Because there are groups of people who tends to vote for people which the establishment is against.
But I guess this is a fact that is incomprehensible for many. Still, here, many don't understand how Mrs C lost that election...
But where are you going with this, should they just let him use their music to avoid that he gets more attention?
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: June 30, 2020 17:51
.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 17:52 by EddieByword.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 17:52 by EddieByword.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
bv
()
Date: June 30, 2020 17:52
Please do not bring Biden into this discussion, or any other politicians. It makes the discussion political. Until Biden or others are banned by The Stones, it is all hypothetical and political, and will be deleted.
I know this is an election year in USA, but we are unable to discuss US politics here. It will just make a of unpleasant posts and bad mood.
Bjornulf
I know this is an election year in USA, but we are unable to discuss US politics here. It will just make a of unpleasant posts and bad mood.
Bjornulf
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: June 30, 2020 17:53
Quote
Stoneage
I don't believe so, Eddie. Mr T is the sole politician everyone is picking on. Especially here in Europe. He's the first politician I can think of that is such an open target for criticism.
I have tried to explain earlier, for deaf ears, that there is a danger in this. Because there are groups of people who tends to vote for people which the establishment is against.
But I guess this is a fact that is incomprehensible for many. Still, here, many don't understand how Mrs C lost that election...
The whole point of my deleted post was that the Stones' reasoning wasn't political.
I did address your points but deleted myself...........Doxa got it though...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 19:25 by EddieByword.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: June 30, 2020 18:00
Quote
DoxaQuote
EddieBywordQuote
PinballWizard23
If Biden was playing these songs would they take the same hardline position issuing a cease order?
Not everything needs to be politicized.
Maybe not but the Stones' 'history' with trump goes back a long way - long before trump was a 'politician'.
I guess you know the story of the Atlantic City show in 1989. The PPV show that almost never was due to the unwanted presence of trump. The Stones have had a low opinion of trump long before he infiltrated the Republican party and started putting children in cages and suggesting out loud in front of the cameras that injecting disinfectant might be worth 'looking at' as a cure for covid....... (and much more before and since - ie. the Florida villages.
Maybe they just really don't want to be associated at all with his particular brand of heartless insanity and personally I don't blame them.
My reading is, I don't think that's even a political standpoint - In 1989 they saw a completely objectional person in trump and their position hasn't changed (and maybe even hardened because of....... (take your pick) and this detrimental 'association' is getting more National and International coverage which they don't like........................
I think you have a point there. I think this attitude could be generalized quite much among the 'non-Trumpists'. Surely Trump is a politician by definition and probably many of his political views - and especially doings as a head of the biggest Western country of the world - people don't like or share, but it is the person himself people especially don't like, respect or accept. Who knows what actually his 'ideology' is, if there even is one. Wasn't his claim to power always been that of not being a typical politician (that is, someone having ideological views open for anyone to critizise). People just don't respect the man as a person, and his actual sayings and doings, at all. All those lies, immorality, a lack of empathy, over-blown egoism, a cheap and idiotic salesman rhetorics with some dangerous connotations... I think most of the criticism towards Trump, especially from outside of America, is not directed against Republican Party or conservatism an sich, being 'political' in that sense. Of course in practise it is now, since Trump is, as far as America go, their public spokesman and 'leader' (sad that all of that is now worldwide associated to Trump, and seemingly most of the conservatives in America now are like doomed to live or die with that person).
Surely most of the artists, especially the ones deriving from the 60's revolutionary, 'counter-culture' rock scene, are liberal by nature, and never liked conservative politics (people like Nixon, Reagan or Bushes never been their men), but I think Trump is an expection here; a less colourful person - a 'normal politician' - wouldn't cause such reaction. One could say that it is not 'political' but more like 'personal' in this sense. One could even say that Trump - a TV host with a questionable business career - has made politics such a one man show business act that the actual professionals in that field treat him with the same logic - don't want to be associated with that show. Especially if they have had personal contacts with the guy in show business - like the Stones.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 18:05 by EddieByword.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: June 30, 2020 18:08
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Stoneage
I don't believe so, Eddie. Mr T is the sole politician everyone is picking on. Especially here in Europe. He's the first politician I can think of that is such an open target for criticism.
I have tried to explain earlier, for deaf ears, that there is a danger in this. Because there are groups of people who tends to vote for people which the establishment is against.
But I guess this is a fact that is incomprehensible for many. Still, here, many don't understand how Mrs C lost that election...
But where are you going with this, should they just let him use their music to avoid that he gets more attention?
You're right, Dandy. I'm kind of taking in the whole picture here. Which is politics. About the actual subject: Sure, they can take this to court if that is what they want. Maybe the end result will be a precedent?
Hopefully so. Personally I don't think it's a big thing that he plays some Stones songs at his rallies though. But that is just my personal view.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 30, 2020 18:19
Quote
EddieBywordQuote
Stoneage
I don't believe so, Eddie. Mr T is the sole politician everyone is picking on. Especially here in Europe. He's the first politician I can think of that is such an open target for criticism.
I have tried to explain earlier, for deaf ears, that there is a danger in this. Because there are groups of people who tends to vote for people which the establishment is against.
But I guess this is a fact that is incomprehensible for many. Still, here, many don't understand how Mrs C lost that election...
The whole point of my deleted post was that the Stones' reasoning wasn't political.
I quickly delated from my post that quoted Biden part. But still if my post will be delated, I do understand it. But I think there is something overtly non-political in the whole Trump phenomenon (and his criticism), and what the Stones are doing, is a part of it.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 18:22 by Doxa.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: June 30, 2020 18:54
Looks like Charlie was right about what has happened: (from above post):
"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)...
~"Love is Strong"~
"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)...
~"Love is Strong"~
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
Chacho
()
Date: June 30, 2020 19:02
Please cut the "Sir Michael" crap! (above)
This is a Rolling Stones forum!
It is Mick; Mick Jagger!
As far as Trump using the music, he should be
sued to no end!
This is a Rolling Stones forum!
It is Mick; Mick Jagger!
As far as Trump using the music, he should be
sued to no end!
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
colonial
()
Date: June 30, 2020 20:12
It would be great to see The Rolling Stones go on all the major TV Stations on prime time news and tell the world how they feel about their music been used like this.
--------------
ColonialstoneNZ
--------------
--------------
ColonialstoneNZ
--------------
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
SomeGuy
()
Date: June 30, 2020 20:23
Quote
AquamarineQuote
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."
For the record, that was precisely the edit I was thinking about right after I posted, but didn't.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
SomeGuy
()
Date: June 30, 2020 20:45
.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 21:31 by SomeGuy.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 21:31 by SomeGuy.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
Marhsall
()
Date: June 30, 2020 23:01
Just curious to see if President Trump isn't allowed to use this song what then would take its place & who decided to use this partifcular piece & the reasoning behind it?
"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"
"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 1, 2020 01:13
Quote
Marhsall
Just curious to see if President Trump isn't allowed to use this song what then would take its place
That would be someone else's concern, and nothing to do with this thread or with the Rolling Stones. Thank god.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-07-01 01:15 by Doxa.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 1, 2020 02:01
Quote
AquamarineQuote
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."
I guess there is a freedom of creativity in where there is no what one 'should' do as far as the artists go; there can be whatever political aims or whatever if the artists feel like having or something. They are totally free in that sense. But when the question is using already created pieces of art, there are rules (or norms for morally decent people) of conduct. For example, the use of Picasso's Quernica to promote some fascist movement is not alright.
I think mostly the problem is among the conservative people - for them it is simply confusing or annoying that the music or art in general they like is actually done from a rather liberal point of view, and it generally promotes liberalism. So for them it is important to make a firm distinction between art and politics - that of having just an aesthetic pleasure (which means nothing in one's way of life), and something that actually affects on one's way of thinking of life and whatever. But is a dilemma for them, since anyone knows that it is typical that art urges to make people think differently, to change, to criticise the prevailing circumstances, which, by definition, is in contrast to conservatism.
So the reaction, as I've seen for example here, with the conservative block digging the Stones has been: it is just music, entertainment, an aesthetic pleasure - nothing to do with anything else. It is people like them who want to sterilize the Stones, or art in general, from it having any social or political significance. Just it to be an object of contingent aesthetic pleasure, nothing to do with real life. But for many of us, The Stones, and their music, like much of art, mean something much more.
I think this exactly is the problem with the Trump people digging the Stones, or most of rock music or art in general - they have different values to begin with, and that's why - because they love the Stones or Picasso - they want to make art socially or politically irrelevant (to make themselves and their values and set of beliefs somehow coherent and reasonable in order to justify their 'guilty pleasure'). Nothing but a show business, something to be determined only by the means of money. But they are wrong (and if they are honest in the deep of their heart, they know it, even though, for sure, never admit it overtly). The art matters.
I guess the dilemma is like me watching "The Birth of Nation" or "Triumph des Willens" - seeing the greatness of the form and recognizing their originality and siginificance in a movie history, but at the same time understanding that the content totally contradicts with anything I believe or respect. Knowing that all of it is done to serve barbarian politics. But how far that sort of aesthetic tolerance can go - like, I don't feel like listening Gary Glitter ever again - for certain reasons, no matter how good his songs ever might have been (gladly, they were crap). And yeah, I never listen Ted Nugent.
- Doxa
Edited 16 time(s). Last edit at 2020-07-01 04:04 by Doxa.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
SomeGuy
()
Date: July 1, 2020 08:01
Edit: why bother.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-07-01 09:16 by SomeGuy.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-07-01 09:16 by SomeGuy.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: July 1, 2020 19:43
Doxa, thank you for the wise words, imo, of course.
~"Love is Strong"~
~"Love is Strong"~
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
Chris Fountain
()
Date: July 1, 2020 21:50
Doxa says:
think this exactly is the problem with the Trump people digging the Stones, or most of rock music or art in general - they have different values to begin with, and that's why - because they love the Stones or Picasso - they want to make art socially or politically irrelevant (to make themselves and their values and set of beliefs somehow coherent and reasonable in order to justify their 'guilty pleasure'). Nothing but a show business, something to be determined only by the means of money. But they are wrong (and if they are honest in the deep of their heart, they know it, even though, for sure, never admit it overtly). The art matters.
A political view has absolute nothing to do with support of candidate whether Democrat or Republican. What is appeasing to the ear, shows no political favoritism. No Scientific or statistical evidence to make such a claim. If speculating, then opinion is acceptable. Minds interested in a genre of music cannot be connected to a political view . For example, I love Bruce Springsteen but do not necessarily agree with his political interests.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-07-01 22:57 by Chris Fountain.
think this exactly is the problem with the Trump people digging the Stones, or most of rock music or art in general - they have different values to begin with, and that's why - because they love the Stones or Picasso - they want to make art socially or politically irrelevant (to make themselves and their values and set of beliefs somehow coherent and reasonable in order to justify their 'guilty pleasure'). Nothing but a show business, something to be determined only by the means of money. But they are wrong (and if they are honest in the deep of their heart, they know it, even though, for sure, never admit it overtly). The art matters.
A political view has absolute nothing to do with support of candidate whether Democrat or Republican. What is appeasing to the ear, shows no political favoritism. No Scientific or statistical evidence to make such a claim. If speculating, then opinion is acceptable. Minds interested in a genre of music cannot be connected to a political view . For example, I love Bruce Springsteen but do not necessarily agree with his political interests.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-07-01 22:57 by Chris Fountain.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 1, 2020 22:04
Quote
Chris Fountain
Doxa says:
think this exactly is the problem with the Trump people digging the Stones, or most of rock music or art in general - they have different values to begin with, and that's why - because they love the Stones or Picasso - they want to make art socially or politically irrelevant (to make themselves and their values and set of beliefs somehow coherent and reasonable in order to justify their 'guilty pleasure'). Nothing but a show business, something to be determined only by the means of money. But they are wrong (and if they are honest in the deep of their heart, they know it, even though, for sure, never admit it overtly). The art matters.
A political view g=has absolute nothing to do with support of candidate whether Democrat or Republican. What is appeasing to the ear, shows no political favoritism. No Scientific or statistical evidence to make such a claim. If speculating, then opinion is acceptable. Minds interested in a genre of music cannot be connected to a political view . For example, I love Bruce Springsteen but do not necessarily agree with his political interests.
Fair enough, but you're not factoring the artists wishes into it. It is their music, to licence to whom they wish. If they don't want it used because it shines a political light on something they disagree with, that is their right to do so, more than it would be your right to use it.
In that instance it doesn't matter what you feel.
Re: Stones threaten Trump campaigns with legal action
Posted by:
Braincapers
()
Date: July 1, 2020 22:10
I despise Trump as much as the next man but even if I liked him I’d understand their decision. Trump is hated by millions around the world. Allowing him to use their songs without complaint looks like tacit support and that’s bad for business.
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
Guests:
1827
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10