Poor woman! Nice to read that Don was so sweet.
Printable View
Poor woman! Nice to read that Don was so sweet.
Awww, the show must go on!
Just some music business stuff - wonder if this has anything to do with the YouTube crackdown?
From the CMU News Blog:
Don Henley Extends Warner/Chappell Deal
Well - I think this is all pretty confusing. Can any of our members shed some light on this for me? I figured that each of the four current Eagles has a publishing company to represent them for their solo work. However, I also figured the Eagles 'ownership' (Eagles, Ltd.) would have one publishing company to represent the Eagles' catalogue. I know Don and Glenn each own shares of the Eagles' catalogue, but how does it work to have separate publishing companies involved? I don't believe that any one member has exclusive rights to any Eagles song, do they? Also, does this mean that Cass County Music will not be representing Don in the future? :confused:
While admittedly I'm no expert, I think the individual Eagles have had separate publishing entities for a while (Cass County - Don, Red Cloud - Glenn, Jeddrah Music - Tim, etc.), although Cass County and Red Cloud were both overseen by Lisa Thomas Music Services (she'd put "dba Cass County" for Don and "dba Red Cloud" for Glenn).
Each publishing entity is in charge of getting royalties from the music distribution of their client's work. So, let's say Don co-writes a song with Tim, like he did for "Do Something." They each get royalties. Don's publisher takes care of his share, and leaves Tim's publisher to worry about getting Tim's share.
One time, I was e-mailed by a girl who had performed a cover of "Take It to the Limit" and was selling it through MySpace. She was contacted by Lisa Thomas Music Services so that they could collect royalties for Don and Glenn from her. The girl asked Ms. Thomas about what she could do to give Randy his share, and Ms. Thomas gave her an address to write to, but that's it. The girl told me that the address Ms. Thomas had given her wasn't correct and Ms. Thomas couldn't give her any more information except to talk to ASCAP, that they might know. The girl asked me if I knew how to reach Randy because that hadn't worked for her either. Unfortunately, I had to tell her no, and as far as I know she was never able to give Randy his share.
In other words, Ms. Thomas did not concern herself with ensuring Randy got his third - she was working for Don and Glenn. Each Eagle for himself.
Perhaps Don is transferring the administration of Cass County Music to Warner/Chappell from Lisa Thomas Music Services in order to consolidate his royalty gathering. In 1994, Don's publisher for Eagles material was Black Cypress Music adm. by WB Music Corp; after 2000, Don's publisher on Eagles material was listed as "Privet Songs." I am unsure as to whether Privet Songs was administered by Warner/Chappell but it appears it will be now.
So, it seems to me that all of Don's Eagles publishing not currently administered by Warner/Chappell (Cass County for music prior to 1980, Privet Sounds for music after 2001 if that was not under their purview already) will now be transferred to Warner/Chappell administration. The names themselves will remain and simply be written in the same manner as Black Cypress Music - ie, "Cass County adm. by Warner/Chappell Music Corp.") Warner, which was already in charge of getting his royalties for his solo work, will now be in charge of getting royalties for all of his Eagles work. They will not concern themselves with getting royalty shares for any of the other Eagles.
I think that we as fans will see no difference - this is all behind-the-scenes business stuff.
Just to add to the confusion the credits for Inside Job list 'Wisteria Music' for Don's part of the publishing. What happened to that?
Thanks for the response Soda. I understand what you are saying, but doesn't a publisher do more than collect royalties for their clients? What I'm getting at is that I don't see the advantage of different publishing companies representing various members of a band. It seems to me the band would be best served if all members of the band used the same publisher for the work they do as a member of the band. My understanding is that the publishing company also represents the artist in intellectual property matters. So to use the Eagles as an example, what happens if Don and Glenn have separate publishers and there is a disagreement on some intellectual property matter that the two of them share? It seems to me that the Eagle's best interest isn't being represented with two separate publishers who are not on the same page. Using a single publishing company ensures that the Eagles interest as a band is being represented rather than having two companies going in two different directions to represent their individual client's (Don and Glenn) interests. Hope this makes sense because I was having a hard time trying to explain myself.
I thought the publishing company represented the songwriters. As two separate people Don and Glenn each have their own publishing company. They always have had separate companies (so do the others - Wow & Flutter Music & Jeddrah Music). If you go back & look at songbooks or album cover credits the Henley-Frey songs have always been attributed to Cass County Music/Red Cloud Music until LROOE when it changed to Privet Music/Red Cloud. On the song Long Road Out Of Eden, the credit is Privet/RC/Jeddrah to reflect the Henley-Frey-Schmit authorship. This is about songwriting. Their other interests as members of the band are taken care of by their management.
If there have ever been any disputes over 'intellectual property' between Cass County & Red Cloud, the ordinary fan is never going to know about them.
This isn't in the press per se but I thought I'd put it here as I got notified about it through an alert. Apparently these guys haven't heard of the Henley v. Dillard's lawsuit...
The Don Henley
ETA: This is a clothing item being sold by Urban Outfitters (hence the Dillard's Department Store reference).
That took me to Urban Outfitters.
It was intended to. Urban Outfitters is selling a henley-style shirt and calling it "The Don Henley." Dillard's did something similar and were sued by Don for it, so I was saying this company better watch out!
I edited my initial post to make it more clear.
Oh yeah, I smell lawsuit all over that! I guess I missed the Dillards one.
You said it first--but I sure was thinking that also!Quote:
Originally Posted by Prettymaid
This isn't exactly "in the press" but it's a cute website I stumbled across that pokes a little fun at our Don's songwriting (which, of course, we know to be genius)!
Check it out:
The Don Henley School of Songwriting
LOL! That did give me a few giggles. Seeing the 'repetitive' choruses written out like that was pretty funny.
Found another Don mention! It's an article about Mike Campbell of Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. The part where Don is mentioned starts with:
"More than 25 years ago, Petty passed on what turned out to be one of Campbell's biggest co-writes -- Don Henley's The Boys of Summer."
Read more at EdmontonJournal.com
I think we've talked before about how well Tom Petty could have done BOS. :rockguitar:
As for Don Henley's school of songwriting, well, as long as Dr. Betsy endorses it! :hilarious:
Found this cute blog entry about Don:
"Henley Letter Leaves Lasting Memory of an Eagle" - The Wichita Eagle
by Jeff Lutz
Awwww :hug: :heart: :rockon: :cool:
Awww, that was lovely to read!
How about another Awwww! That is just sweet. It is amazing how something that took so little effort on Don's part can turn someone into a lifelong fan.
I can't believe they misplaced that letter!
I know! I mean, seriously, you have a treasure like that and you're so careless with it that you wind up losing it?? Unbelievable! But it's a sweet story nonetheless.
Maybe it's not that they are careless but they just misplace it.
awww, how nice is that of Don! I would have framed that letter. But that's just me.
Which would be careless!!! :brickwall:Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleLady
Another awwww from me also! That was a great read!!
Wow! I cannot imagine misplacing that letter either! It would be framed and hanging on a wall at my house!
She was raised by her mom, Pam and Mark Olson, mostly in Texas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maidstone
LOL - Had to laugh at the '..pompous @%..' bit. It's not much of a stretch to imagine Don coming across like that. :woah: did I just say that? <runs and hides>.
Now, you know, "Anonymous poster" will not put anything out there that has not been thouroughy researched and completely accurate...
Just face the facts, people!
See attached article where Don mentions he has four kids.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/n...usicares_x.htm
I'm a little late with this comment, but I just read the blog and was touched that Don wrote the letter and so quickly, too. And I would have definitely framed the letter, immediately!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooke
Irving just twittered this... interesting reading from "COPYRIGHTS & CAMPAIGNS
BEN SHEFFNER'S NOTES ON COPYRIGHT, FIRST AMENDMENT, MEDIA, AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW, AND POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS"
"Henley, DeVore settle lawsuit; Henley rails against remixes and mash-ups, YouTube, 'dark side' of Internet; songs are not 'toys or playthings' "
Thanks for that, Rhonda. It's funny - there are two 'anonymous' comments at the bottom of the article, with utterly polarized opinions, and yet I can see both sides. There's the 'Henley should stop whining and get over it' camp and the 'it's his right to defend his property' one. I suppose us 'everyday people' will always look at rock stars and think "Oh, you have loads of money - lighten up!" but of course, they had to work hard to get where they are. His songs are his property, and it's a matter of what's right and wrong legally, and according to Don, morally. Even though reading his comments about this doesn't leave me beaming, I completely respect his right to defend what's his.
Well put, Troub. I agree - the copyright issues are complicated matters, that's for sure. There are so many grey areas that it makes it extremely difficult to know exactly where to draw the line sometimes.
I am disappointed that Henley lumps all unofficial YouTube music videos into one big affront to humanity, but I'm not surprised.
Songs are not "playthings" and "toys"... I don't even know what to say to that. Perhaps Henley doesn't mean it to come out the way it sounded - as if a song were nothing more than a piece of property that generates revenue.
Yes, musicians need to put food on the table... but I think it is very telling that almost all struggling musicians welcome YouTube fanvids and the free exposure it gives them.... Exposure that gets them revenue in the long run. Not only do they understand it, they want it. Maybe they know a bit more about what puts food on the table than Henley does at this point - Henley's pantry has been well-stocked for almost four decades.
Henley has been so successful for so long I think he's forgotten that not everyone has an established fanbase; some people still have to get their name "out there" and with the demise of radio and the old-school record companies, the internet is the key. Some struggling musicians have made their careers by singing unauthorized covers on YouTube, the most famous of which is Justin Bieber - but even if you don't care for Bieber, there are other artists who have been helped as well.
One should note that the official videos sticking to the "formula" almost never go viral. It's the fanvids that are going outside the box and they are being rewarded for it by the public who eat these fanvids up. (They eat up the good ones at least - the bad ones go by the wayside, which is as it should be). If these videos have nothing to offer, why are they so popular?
Did people rush to send each other links to Chris Brown's video for "Forever"? No. Why should they? It's the same as 1000 other videos like it.... the guy sings, dances in a club, hooks up with a scantily clad beautiful woman, some special effects get thrown in... snooze. Did they rush to send each other links to the wedding video using "Forever"? Yes.... because that video was more entertaining and more original.
It cost Brown nothing. It demonstrably garnered him revenue. And the problem is...? That fans are being interactive and creative instead of sitting in their chairs listening reverently? That is the only "ethical" way to enjoy music, eh?
I guess we can sing to it, dance to it - but only in private or in a place like a club where the music has been licensed - and even then you better not record it with your digital camera and upload it to YouTube so you can show your friends your moves!
Apparently, the money you paid for that song/album in the first place allows you to listen to it in private, maybe with a few friends you've invited over. With Henley's strict stance, even messing around with his music in private is unethical in principle, even if no one else ever sees it. You're still treating it like a "plaything," after all, and therefore sinning against him as The Artist.
What I really find unfair is that people who do this are getting lumped in with file sharers and music pirates, as if there were no moral distinction between stealing music and engaging with it creatively.
I wish Henley could join those songwriters and musicians who delight in the non-commercial creative ventures their music inspires in others - like his own songwriter Larry J. McNally, for instance, who complimented a video done to the Eagles' recording of his song "I Love to Watch a Woman Dance."
Ironically, Henley himself has engaged in the derivative works he rails against - do you think Fox News or any of the other networks/news channels gave permission for their clips to be flashed behind him while he sings "Dirty Laundry" during an Eagles show? What about the personalities involved - was Sean Hannity's permission sought? Bill O'Reilly? Barbara Walters'?
What about the bloggers and websites shown, such as PerezHilton.com and the Drudge report? Was their permission sought? Have they received any compensation?
What about all those magazines tossed on the pile? Were each of the publishing companies who produced those magazines paid for that? What about the personalities who appeared on the cover of those magazines? Were they paid for the use of their image? Has Sarah Palin received a check?
And look at Henley photo-shopped onto the cover of Time magazine at the end... it's funny and I love it, but was Time paid for the use of their logo? Wouldn't stupid people believe that was an actual cover and therefore falsely associate Time with Henley?
By putting those clips and images to the soundtrack of "Dirty Laundry," Henley is changing their meaning, isn't he? Isn't that transformative? Isn't that what he condemns when it's his music that's being used? It's video and not music and I believe it all falls under "fair use," but it's still "playing" with copyrighted material - something he characterizes as unethical.
I'm not trying to diss Henley here; he sincerely believes in what he's saying and he has his reasons. However, I wish he could understand that it's not as black and white as he perceives it to be.
Some interesting reading:
Soul Music Owes Its Existence to Derivative Work
Bad Copyright Laws Are Killing Jazz and Harming Jazz Musicians
Cut It Up: Copyright, Creativity, and the Global Remix Culture
The above articles do not call for the discarding of copyright law, but for reform of it to make it less strict and stifling to creativity.
And here's a few examples which all call into question the immorality of people uploading themselves singing covers or making non-commercial small-time amateur videos sound-tracked to songs written by others:
Teen Sensation Justin Bieber discovered when manager saw him singing covers on YouTube
Journey's new lead singer discovered when group saw him singing covers on YouTube
YouTube turns Aspiring Singers into Stars
Train links to an unauthorized use of Soul Sister by UVIC on their Facebook and encourages their fans to watch it
Songwriter Larry J. McNally applauds unauthorized video done to Eagles song "I Love to Watch a Woman Dance" which he wrote
Do Viral Music Videos Sell Records?
Chris Brown's sales go up after couple uses his song in their wedding video uploaded to YouTube
Food for thought. I won't presume to say I know I'm right, but I do feel my opinion has a lot of evidence to back it up, and is therefore just as valid as Henley's regardless of the fact that I am "just" a fan.
I adore Don, as everyone well knows......but I 199% agree with absolutely everything you've said! However, I don't think Don will ever notice that there's a flip side to every coin. lol
If he could read Soda's comments, maybe, just maybe, he could begin to have an inkling and understand!
But that probably won't happen. :-(
Soda, that was so eloquent. I agree with it too. Henley's narrow focus on 'copyright' ignores the wider implications and benefits that YouTube offers.
TechDirt adds their two cents (ignore the lame comments after the article):
Don Henley Hates YouTube; Complains That the Government Needs to Do Something