|
|
Post by rick on Apr 1, 2021 5:25:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Apr 1, 2021 9:00:00 GMT -5
I could be mistaken about this, but, given the fact that Paul, both solo and with Art Garfunkel, recorded for Sony (and CBS) in the past, it seems like a good fit here.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Apr 1, 2021 20:33:25 GMT -5
I could be mistaken about this, but, given the fact that Paul, both solo and with Art Garfunkel, recorded for Sony (and CBS) in the past, it seems like a good fit here. I'm less certain that it's a good fit, as it's Paul's songwriting catalog, rather than his recorded output as a solo artist and with Art Garfunkel. Sony-ATV is the largest music publisher in the business. And can anyone say antitrust? Sony-ATV owns a large number of music publishing catalogs, including the Lennon-McCartney catalog. Any dreams Paul McCartney had of buying back the Northern Songs-Maclen Music catalog he and John had is gone forever and out of reach. The Michael Jackson catalog is another publishing interest they acquired. Sony-ATV also owns the 1960s and 1970s music publishing powerhouse Screen Gems, which published the Gerry Goffin-Carole King catalog and the Barry Mann-Cynthia Weil catalog, certain Beach Boys titles, Jan and Dean, almost all of the Monkees' catalog, songs written for Elvis Presley but not published by his companies. The number of publishing companies they have acquired is a large number. When Sony was CBS known as Columbia and Epic Records, they owned a few publishing companies already, but nowhere near what they own now. Largess is not a good thing. Universal is another music publishing giant, as is Warners. These three companies are likely to keep copyrights going into perpetuity. Not for the benefit of the songwriters but for the benefit of the companies, The amount of money the companies are spending to acquire these copyrights is contingent on recouping their money during the 78 year term allowed after a songwriter's death before entering the public domain. All of the songs of songwriters like Irvin Berlin, Cole Porter and George and Ira Gershwin should be in the public domain as those writers died long before the copyrights were extended to the lifetime of the composers plus 78 years. They have never been in the public domain and likely never will be. As a songwriter myself, I have always been opposed to term limits for creative works while the songwriters and artists are still living. The lifetime of the author plus 78 years was and is a fair deal. And since the Supreme Court divas have declared that corporations are people too, how long does one think Sony-ATV as a corporate person will live? Same for the Universal and Universal, and any other music publisher that thanks to the Supremes, qualify as people too. Their lifetimes could extend into centuries. Songs may never go out of copyright, even though they should have. |
|
|
|
Post by rick on Apr 3, 2021 22:49:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Partridge on Apr 6, 2021 1:29:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Apr 6, 2021 22:50:40 GMT -5
This sort of reminds me of Beatle fans who get all up in arms when someone dares challenge the superiority of the Beatles. Beatle fans think no other artist has made it to the plateau they are on or surpassed it or will surpass it. The Beatles are infallible, sort of like the Pope is infallible. To say Paul Simon is an also-ran to Bob Dylan, is that fair and accurate? Or just personal taste? I remember when Paul Simon was in the same league as Bob Dylan, Brian Wilson, John Lennon and Paul McCartney and others. When did he fall out of favor? A hundred years from now, no one may remember any of these people and whatever music contributions they made will be diminished. I sort of remember that was the sad state of affairs for the old standards of the 20s through 40s, and people like the Gershwins, Hoagy Carmichael, Oscar Levant, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Jerome Kern, Cole Porter and others were becoming forgotten to history as their songs became less and less played. Linda wasn't the first to tackle the old standards songbook. Others had done it before her and those attempts mostly went unnoticed. Linda revitalized the era briefly, later on followed by Rod Stewart and Barry Manilow, but now those songbooks and their songwriters seem to be on the fade again. This time, I think there will be no Linda nor Stewart or Manilow to to give the genre another boost. In music, there is no such thing as an artist or band who is superior or infallible. Someone will eventually come along to bump those who are the plateaus they're at now. The best chance is for the artists and songwriters to keep making new fans long after they have retired or have passed on. For those who think people shall keep remembering Bob Dylan but that Paul Simon was an also ran, one thing to remember is critics are poor prophets when it comes to those the public will remember. More often than not, the critics choose the very ones who will be forgotten. |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Apr 7, 2021 8:49:30 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker:
It's very difficult to know what to make of the future or how the past will be remembered when it comes to music; and I think it has a lot to do with how everything that we used to think of as Art has now become a singularly cold-blooded corporate business in which everything is measured by dollars, downloads, and quarterly business reports. To a certain extent, money and business have always entered into it (in Elvis' case, of course, because of who he had as a manger, it was sometimes quite disastrous); but at least the artists themselves were highly creative entities, as were the artists and groups that covered them. In those days, the music made money because it was good to start with, it wasn't a case of the music being good because it made money.
In our time and place right now, however, I can perhaps name maybe only a couple of songs (fewer than I can count on my hand) that I think I'll be able to remember ten years from now. Of course a lot of it has to do with our age versus the current one; but I don't think too many of the "songwriters" out there are making much of an effort to even try to come up with anything memorable.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Apr 7, 2021 20:22:54 GMT -5
It's very difficult to know what to make of the future or how the past will be remembered when it comes to music; and I think it has a lot to do with how everything that we used to think of as Art has now become a singularly cold-blooded corporate business in which everything is measured by dollars, downloads, and quarterly business reports.
One thing I've always gone by, so far as who or what will be remembered is that the prognosticators rarely, if ever get it right. In Hollywood's so called golden days, the works of the Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy, the Three Stooges and others were scoffed at ever having any kind of lasting appeal. People just wouldn't go for their antics, which the prognosticators felt were dumb. Oh, but how they cheered this drama or that drama as having lasting appeal. Fast foward 50 years and it was Hollywood's comedies that resonated with people than the dramas. Certain dramas are still remembered with fondness and rightly so, but it was the comedies and those who starred in them that people remembered.
To a certain extent, money and business have always entered into it (in Elvis' case, of course, because of who he had as a manger, it was sometimes quite disastrous); but at least the artists themselves were highly creative entities, as were the artists and groups that covered them. In those days, the music made money because it was good to start with, it wasn't a case of the music being good because it made money.
I don't think a lot of artists ever thought about their art still being valuable four, five or six decades after it was recorded and released. I know they didn't envision new technologies coming along and renewing interest in the artists. I knew about the CD in the 70s and I knew it would make the long playing album obsolete. I didn't see the advent of MP3s and downloads doing away with the CDs. And I don't know what the next invention coming will be that will make the MP3s and the downloads obsolete.
With Elvis's manager, his soul must be rotting in hell with what he did to Elvis, and I can only hope he is green with envy over how much artists are getting for their catalogs. And I hope he realizes just how short he sold Elvis out for. After he sold Elvis's back catalog in 1973 to RCA for a grossly low sum, he probably realized the error of his ways after RCA licensed 20 songs to Brookville and those 20 songs compiled on two albums and the cheapest cover you ever saw, sold ten million copies. RCA recouped the money they paid to Elvis and the "poor ol' Colonel" (as he always referred to himself as) for the 711 songs Elvis had recorded up to that time.
In our time and place right now, however, I can perhaps name maybe only a couple of songs (fewer than I can count on my hand) that I think I'll be able to remember ten years from now. Of course a lot of it has to do with our age versus the current one; but I don't think too many of the "songwriters" out there are making much of an effort to even try to come up with anything memorable.
There are singer-songwriter-musicians who try to make memorable songs. I think the MonaLisa Twins make some very memorable original music and some interesting covers too. Evansence has some good tunes, but I don't see another Elvis, another Beatles, Beach Boys, Linda and others. Mike Nesmith once said he didn't think there would ever be another Monkees, but not for the reasons one might think. He was speaking about various music phenomenons and he said they occur once in a lifetime and don't repeat. He said society would probably see something similar that society would regard as being the same but said it wouldn't be. And with the advent of the MP3s and downloads, I think he was and is correct in his observation.
Billboard once ran an article about the cast of Glee I think surpassing the number of chart entries Elvis had, but the phenomenon that was the cast of Glee on chart entries didnt involve things like 45s or LPs or tapes or even CDs, but downloads. Nothing tangible. Elvis's sales all involved hard copies, something you could hold in your hand. Billboard has complained they never had a bias against Elvis and they don't know where his fans and the public get such an idea, but they never mentioned if the cast of Glee had outsold the Beatles or other acts who made up the Billboard charts. Of the Elvis singles that were not million sellers, not a one sold less than 500,000 copies. And Elvis's singles tally was thought to be somewhere above 100 million. Suspicious Minds alone has sold 50 million copies worldwide. And I don't know that those whose sales are limited to MP3s or downloads can boast of that many sales. But, I don't think it's all that hard to make a case against Billboard having a bias against Elvis, despite their protests to the contrary.
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on Apr 14, 2021 4:39:24 GMT -5
|
|
