Printable View
While I agree that it is a sloppy, lazy way of handling this, and may be a little misleading, it doesn't upset me quite like it does Soda. And I agree that I doubt that these artists would sign their name to something that didn't accurately reflect their views. If they did, then shame on them.
It takes a lot of time to write a good letter, can't blame Don and Joe for signing a form letter when it says exactly what they want it to say, it saves them a lot of effort. I bet lawyers write letters for musicians all the time.
Contact Music is the one who made it looks like they wrote it themselves, and they probably did it accidentally because they didn't read it carefully.
No harm done right, that's the way they feel, who cares if they actually wrote it themselves or not. I don't see the big deal.
Short piece on the tour and HC:
http://www.express.co.uk/entertainme...um-Of-All-Time
Maddens me that big-name newspapers can't spell people's names right. Here we get Glen instead of Glenn Frey (well at least they didn't spell it Frye) and Lyndsey instead of Lindsey Buckingham. Grr.
SS
xx
http://sshh-sshh.blogspot.co.uk/2014...-in-glory.html
I'm with you, SS. How about some quality control? Don't they have editors, even if the author can't be bothered to do a modicum of research on his subjects?
Definitely didn't research any reviews of shows so far, or elected to go ahead hint, twice, that there could be evidence of bad blood on stage. Good grief. What is in their heads? Maybe they prefer titillation over truth, or perhaps their usual readers prefer it.
The tour is not only showcasing Hotel California. I wish some people would stop acting as if that is the only album the band ever made. And as for Walsh 'suffering the loss of Felder' he has been 'suffering' since 2001. That is 13 years. It isn't llike it just happened, although again you would never know it with some people.
But it is the Daily Express, which is right down there with the Daily Mail in terms of lack of credibility & tendency to sensationalise.
And the writer is supposed to be a fan as well and no doubt has a press release in front of him with the correct spelling on it ...Quote:
Originally Posted by sodascouts
SS
xx
http://sshh-sshh.blogspot.co.uk/2014...-in-glory.html
It looks like 1/2 way through her article she learned out to spell Glenn's name which is just sloppy copy editing. She looks like she's stuck in the friction of the 80's. Did she not see in the doc where they reunited with the 90's?? Did she not know there is a new guitarist named Steuart Smith that fills Don's part and does it well?
She's just a "spin doctor" at work...
I just want to return quickly to the subject of the letters I was complaining about before. I just saw an article where LaPolt stated that Don did modify the letter she provided him. This made me curious, so I went back and compared letters. Before I had simply read Don's and Joe's (which were the first two letters) and noted they were identical. This time, I went back and read over the others as well. Sting's is also identical to Don's. However, these three have additions which you do not find the form letter signed by the others.
After comparing those with Don's, I would say about a third of his letter is in his words, and there are several minor phrasing changes (ie "as you know" becomes "as you are aware"; "I have the right to say no" becomes that the change "strips me of the right to say 'no'"). The "I fear it is a harbinger to the dissolution of copyright protection in the United States, rendering copyright more an economic utility rather than a true property right" which Contact Music attributed to Joe Walsh was actually one of Don Henley's additions.
It's easy to infer from what LaPolt has said that the reason Don, Joe, and Sting have identical letters is because Joe and Sting signed the "Henley" version. While I wish Don had just cast aside her letter and written his from the ground up instead of mixing his words with hers, I give him kudos for taking the time to at least make some changes. None of the other artists bothered.
I realize not many people care about this, but I feel compelled to clarify in fairness to Don.
I believe the article is refering statuatory licencing which allows you to use an artist's work without permition if inform them of your intent within 30 days of producing but prior to the release of your interprtation as well as paying a licencing fee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_license.Quote:
Originally Posted by secret squirrel