Clusterheadaches.com Message Board


    
      
        Clusterheadaches.com Message Board
        (http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        Daily Chat >> General Posts >> Tom Scholz Speaks Out
        
(Message started by: brewcrew on Feb 15^th, 2008, 9:03pm)

Title: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by brewcrew on Feb 15^th, 2008, 9:03pm

BOSTON, Feb. 15 (UPI) -- Boston's Tom Scholz has sent Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee a letter asking him to stop using one of his band's songs on the campaign trail.

Huckabee, a former Arkansas govenor, has been using Boston's song "More Than a Feeling" at campaign appearances and rallies and Scholz would like him to stop, the Boston Globe reported Friday.

"Boston has never endorsed a political candidate, and with all due respect, would not start by endorsing a candidate who is the polar opposite of most everything Boston stands for," Scholz said in his letter.

Perhaps trying to soften the blow, Scholz added, "Although I'm impressed you learned my bass guitar part on 'More Than a Feeling,' I am a (Barack) Obama supporter."

The Globe said it could not reach the Huckabee campaign to get their reaction to Scholz's request.

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by George_J on Feb 15^th, 2008, 9:16pm

I'm not a copyright lawyer, nor do I have any particular knowledge of what royalties might be required to be paid when performing copyrighted music, but wouldn't asking permission to use the song have been at least the courteous thing to do?

Seems to me that Tom Scholz isn't making nearly as big a stink about it as he could be.

George

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by brewcrew on Feb 15^th, 2008, 9:23pm

George - I used to be a copyright director for a music publisher, and the only time you need any kind of written agreement is if you're going to print or arrange somebody's copyrighted song. If you're simply going to play it, all you have to do is pay ASCAP or BMI whatever the pre-arranged royalty is. That's what radio stations and jukebox owners do.

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by jimmers on Feb 15^th, 2008, 9:27pm

Boston? Didn't they have like one album? I always thought it was one continuous 40 minute song cut into 12 parts. :-/

As you can see, it wasn't my favorite band. :D

Still doesn't give Huckabee permission to use their music though.

Jimmers

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by brewcrew on Feb 15^th, 2008, 9:36pm

on 02/15/08 at 21:27:22, jimmers wrote:

Still doesn't give Huckabee permission to use their music though.

Actually it does. Scholz published it when he released the album. Now the Huckster is playing a song from it, and as long as he pays the ASCAP or BMI fees, Scholz doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by George_J on Feb 15^th, 2008, 9:38pm

on 02/15/08 at 21:36:15, brewcrew wrote:

Thanks for clarifying that aspect of it, Brew.

Best,

George

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by Jonny on Feb 15^th, 2008, 9:42pm

1976

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IcsVPis1iNs

Brad had an amazing voice, God rest his soul!

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by brewcrew on Feb 15^th, 2008, 9:43pm

Do you think Chrissie Hynde approves of Rush Limbaugh playing her song "My City Was Gone" at the beginning of each and every hour of his show? The two couldn't be more politcally opposite. After confronting him, they came to an agreement whereby Rush donates all the royalties to PETA. How ironic is that?

I think this case was a little different, though, in that Limbaugh had taken a copyrighted song and turned it into his theme song.

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by brewcrew on Feb 15^th, 2008, 9:44pm

on 02/15/08 at 21:42:07, Jonny wrote:

Brad had an amazing voice, God rest his soul!

That he did.

And yes, God rest his tormented soul.

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by Groov on Feb 15^th, 2008, 10:10pm

Boston's drummer was really great. He did a lot of really unique stuff with the drum parts that could have been done simpler and still would have worked.

I know what you're talking about Jimmers. A lot of people thought Boston did one big album and split it up into separate tunes ;;D

The reason they sorta lost favour where I lived at the time was because by the time 3rd stage came along, people expected a different sound or some kinda evolution. 3rd stage sounded like the first 2 records.

I still appreciate them and their polished tunes. Like Rush, they seemed to work very hard on keeping their style homogeneous...so to speak.

Cheers, Dave

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by andrewjb on Feb 15^th, 2008, 10:23pm

:), pc gone bollocks, i 'whistle dixey', not sure i'am a yankee ! andrew.

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by Charlie on Feb 15^th, 2008, 10:36pm

It's too damn hard to have a little fun >:(

Charlie

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by DennisM1045 on Feb 16^th, 2008, 7:05am

I'm not sure what the law says but Irving Berlin used to regularly threaten to sue people for playing his music if he didn't like the arrangement.

See this reference: http://gozips.uakron.edu/~sjk19/Berlin.htm. Read the 3rd paragraph in the Puttin' on the Ritz section.

From the talk I've heard on the topic, Tom is within his rights to ask Huckabee to stop using his song.

-Dennis-

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by Kevin_M on Feb 16^th, 2008, 7:51am

Slightly off-topic, but Brew, do you remember the George Harrison, My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine, lawsuit?

I'm not sure but I think after that, it was ok to use only up to eight bars of a song without paying royalties. It seemed something like that because there are commercials with song parts used and they'll play the same eight bars a few times to sound as if the whole song is playing.

I thought I read Bill Gates paid the Stones $10 million for the song "Start Me Up" to introduce Microsoft '95. When asked, they named some exorbitant amount and he wanted it and paid it.

Makes quite a difference to the artist.

Using Tom Scholz's song seems to also imply his consent in some way and I think can capitalizes on the attraction built by the song he wrote.
Like when GM used Zep's "Rock and Roll" to introduce the new styled Cadillac. The attaction to the song is meant to transfer to the idea and fun of driving the new Cadillac. That's could be just plain marketing of course, but transferring a song's established affinity to a candidates political views can really suck these days, even if the renewed exposure sparks sales again.

I remember hearing Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" when Bill Clinton was campaigning. It was a good fit, good exposure, but also got the implied message Mac didn't mind it's use. This is the impression I think Tom Scholz is wanting to make public, that he is NOT ok with it. As to legal issues, I don't know, but I'd be bugged too.

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by brewcrew on Feb 16^th, 2008, 9:42am

The part of all this that I'm unsure about is the difference between playing a recording for general consumption over the airwaves (or in a night club) vs. adopting it as a "theme song."

Irving Berlin was completely within his rights to refuse a certain arrangement because he owned the copyright. Any arranger would have to secure a print licence agreement. Most are written so that the writer and arranger split their portion of the royalty for each sale.

The "theme song" arena is one in which I have no experience. I was always in the position of seeking print license agreements with the big guys, usually Warner Bros. and Columbia.

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by monty on Feb 16^th, 2008, 10:28am

The Rolling Stones review each proposed use of their songs and usually deny permission - as I recall, it was a big deal when they relented and let Microsoft use it in their commercials (the big bucks were a factor).

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by brewcrew on Feb 16^th, 2008, 10:35am

on 02/16/08 at 10:28:30, monty wrote:

Is there a difference between a band playing a cover version of a song, a radio station playing a song in their rotation, and a company or campaign using a song as their musical theme?

From what I can tell, yes. Cover band and radio station are essentially the same. Both are supposed to submit their playlist to ASCAP and/or BMI (depending on who the original artist is registered with) and pay a royalty. Does this happen all the time? I'd venture to say no. Musical theme - ??? Not enough experience there to say.

As to the Stones, not sure what their deal is. They own the copyright, so it could be that they have very specific demands on how their music is copied. And back to the original theme, I imagine that Tom Scholz doesn't have the same kind of requirements built into his copyright licence agreements, so Huckabee's lawyers probably told him it was okay.

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by monty on Feb 16^th, 2008, 10:40am

Makes sense. Copyright gets complicated.

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by Groov on Feb 16^th, 2008, 12:27pm

on 02/16/08 at 07:51:27, Kevin_M wrote:

Slightly off-topic, but Brew, do you remember the George Harrison, My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine, lawsuit?

I remember that. If I recall right, it was some company that owned the rights to The Chiffons "He's so fine" that that sued. I remember playing both songs and I wasn't convinced they were even that much alike. I'd have a hard time believing that a world-class musician had to plagiarize some has-been group...just my opinion tho.

Not being an expert on copyright laws... I'd think Huckleberry should just stop using the tune if it bothers the writer that much. It's called having good manners.
Besides, Scholz has already been "damaged" by becoming an barak osama obama supporter.

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by Groov on Feb 16^th, 2008, 12:36pm

According to the author of this article, the songs were similar enough to warrant a claim. He cites the unusual-ness of the song structure as the main reason. However, he does go on to say the damages awarded were unfair or incorrect.

Huh, well...I still think George Harrison doesn't need to plagiarize anyone.

Article: http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/mysweet.htm

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by brewcrew on Feb 16^th, 2008, 12:44pm

George Harrison isn't plagerizing anyone anymore. GRHS.

And plagerism can be inadvertant.

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by monty on Feb 17^th, 2008, 9:55am

on 02/16/08 at 12:44:50, brewcrew wrote:

And plagerism can be inadvertant.

Accidental plagiarism is especially a risk with music, where tunes get stuck in the brain - sometimes on a subconscious level. After reading this thread yesterday, my mental jukebox was stuck on Boston.

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by brewcrew on Feb 17^th, 2008, 6:26pm

on 02/17/08 at 09:55:08, monty wrote:

Accidental plagiarism is especially a risk with music, where tunes get stuck in the brain - sometimes on a subconscious level.

That's precisely what I believe happened with the George Harrison/My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine thing. And it layed dormant for a long time.

Title: Re: Tom Scholz Speaks Out
Post by MJ on Feb 18^th, 2008, 1:41am

speaking of music copyrights.

Theres lots of money in them tunes worth fighting over.

Care to sing Happy Birthday.

"The song has been an incredible cash cow. Its use in a single major motion picture can generate $50,000. In 1996, Time-Warner Music estimated the song's revenue at $2 million a year."

Not bad for a 115 year old 4 line tune.

http://www.omnimatter.com/2006/02/happy_birthday_.html