Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Heart Lash Out at McCain Campaign's Use of "Barracuda"

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Link


“Sarah Palin’s views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song ‘Barracuda’ no longer be used to promote her image. The song ‘Barracuda’ was written in the late ’70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women. (The ‘barracuda’ represented the business.) While Heart did not and would not authorize the use of their song at the RNC, there’s irony in Republican strategists’ choice to make use of it there.”


I thought I'd post this since it seems like a little less heavy than some of the more recent topics. Just goes to show you should probably consult the artist before using their songs in such a public forum.




posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Ha! This is not the first time that the G.O.P. has attempted to co-opt an artist's song for a campaign. And it's not the first time that the artist has rejected the usage. If I were so shallow as to vote for Dems based on which musicians' music is allowed, then I'd never vote Republican.

D - Stevie Wonder [!!!], Bruce Springsteen, Fleetwood Mac, to name a few

R - er, Trace Adkins?...

Of course, I'm not so shallow. I won't vote for McCain/Palin because Sarah Palin sounds like Jean Lundegaard from 'Fargo'; i.e. her voice grates like Freddy Krueger on a chalkboard.

That, and the fact that their party has driven so much of our great country into the ground. Fight more wars and the poor!

Flame on.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Typical elitist leftist.

The song was purchased by someone at one time, and if they choose to play it at a convention, or at a backyard BBQ, there should be no difference. There is no commercialization in that. People buy music to be entertained. That is all it was used for.

I am sick of Hollywood, Rock Stars, Community Organizers etc., thinking they are so important that we should stop and listen to their infinite wisdom because they can act, sing a song, or organize a protest.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Democrats didn't ask permission to use Brooks and Dunn's Only in America song either.


Neither Cook nor Brooks & Dunn's record label had been told "Only In America" would be used.


source



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
What is the real hypocrisy to me is the Heart was most definitely payed for the use of the song lol. No way anyone much less the GOP can use a copyrighted work in a public forum without the express use and more times then not, payed permission of the artists. Lol, this statement is ding batty to say the least. Uhm, you go Heart! Lol!



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to RRConservative...

I agree. I couldn't care less what Puff Daddy Diddy Pop thinks about Darfur, or how the Dixie Chicks feel about the Bush regime.

Thanks for the attempt at name-calling. So sorry to have upset you, although it appears that it's never to difficult for someone on ATS to get you all fired up. Stay mad--you'll live longer...


[edit on 9.5.2008 by ItsTheQuestion]

[edit on 9.5.2008 by ItsTheQuestion]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Star and flag!

I heard this song after McCains speech last night and my jaw dropped!!!

First, I'm a huge Heart fan. Grew up listening to them when I was young and still love them

Second, I know what the song is supposed to mean and I KNEW that it they would have a problem with it being used in that context.

Obviously they used the song because Sarah was nicknamed barracuda at some point.

What I don't like is when people don't' actually LISTEN to songs and assume to know the meaning and use them out of context (or trash them). This is exactly what they did.

Kinda like when everyone had a conniption fit about Pat Benetar's song: "Hell is for children" DUH! If they had actually listened to the song they would have seen it was about the horrors of child abuse.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13


What I don't like is when people don't' actually LISTEN to songs and assume to know the meaning and use them out of context (or trash them). This is exactly what they did.


Just curious about something, in light of your observation.

Do you think the Obama campaign realized "Born in the U.S.A." was an anti-American song when they used it after Obama's speech, or do you just think they were clueless?



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Just to for everybody to read, here are the lyrics. Not sure why anybody would want to use this song...

Barracuda

So this aint the end -
I saw you again today
I had to turn my heart away
Smiled like the sun -
Kisses for real
And tales - it never fails!

You lying so low in the weeds
I bet you gonna ambush me
Youd have me down down down down on my knees
Now wouldnt you, barracuda?

Back over time we were all
Trying for free
You met the porpoise and me
No right no wrong, selling a song-
A name, whisper game.

If the real thing dont do the trick
You better make up something quick
You gonna burn burn burn burn it to the wick
Ooooooh, barracuda?

Sell me sell you the porpoise said
Dive down deep down to save my head
You...i think you got the blues too.

All that night and all the next
Swam without looking back
Made for the western pools - silly fools!

If the real thing dont do the trick
No, you better make up something quick
You gonna burn burn burn burn it to the wick
Ooooooohhhh, barra barracuda.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Typical elitist leftist.

The song was purchased by someone at one time, and if they choose to play it at a convention, or at a backyard BBQ, there should be no difference. There is no commercialization in that. People buy music to be entertained. That is all it was used for.

I am sick of Hollywood, Rock Stars, Community Organizers etc., thinking they are so important that we should stop and listen to their infinite wisdom because they can act, sing a song, or organize a protest.


perhaps you guys dont understand how royalties and licensing works. If you want to buy a cd, and play it, thats ok. If you buy a CD, then use one of those songs in a public arena, say to thousands of people... that's not ok, unless you got permission and paid (if needed).

Sorry, but the spin stops here, neocons.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


I am not a neocon but how about this



Political campaigns often take the position that they only need a performance license from BMI, ASCAP or SESAC to play a song at a live event, said entertainment attorney Bob Sullivan.

Those organizations pay songwriters and publishers for public performance of their songs at live events and on television and radio.


source

Personally, the people who are complaining are probably looking for their next 15 minutes of fame.

I guess the spin does stop here.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by jam321]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist

Originally posted by RRconservative
Typical elitist leftist.

The song was purchased by someone at one time, and if they choose to play it at a convention, or at a backyard BBQ, there should be no difference. There is no commercialization in that. People buy music to be entertained. That is all it was used for.

I am sick of Hollywood, Rock Stars, Community Organizers etc., thinking they are so important that we should stop and listen to their infinite wisdom because they can act, sing a song, or organize a protest.


perhaps you guys dont understand how royalties and licensing works. If you want to buy a cd, and play it, thats ok. If you buy a CD, then use one of those songs in a public arena, say to thousands of people... that's not ok, unless you got permission and paid (if needed).

Sorry, but the spin stops here, neocons.


FYI I have never been a liberal...ever. So I can't be a neocon.

The CD or song was paid for at one point or another. By your explanation there are private party DJ's breaking the law everyday. If I buy a CD and choose to entertain with it, what is the limit of my entertainment?



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
perhaps you guys dont understand how royalties and licensing works. If you want to buy a cd, and play it, thats ok. If you buy a CD, then use one of those songs in a public arena, say to thousands of people... that's not ok, unless you got permission and paid (if needed).

Sorry, but the spin stops here, neocons.


Not exactly.

There are companies, ASCAAP and BMI, who keep track of public playing of songs. They then pay the royalties to the publishing company, which might or might not be the artist who wrote the song. Usually publishing rights are owned by publishing companies.

So the public playing of a song is fair game as long as the people playing the song have paid their dues to ASCAAP or BMI.

So yes, the spin stops here.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Wow, Heart is still around? I thought they died? Guess I was wrong, it was just their popularity that did.

They are all hypocrites.

Heart, etc, gets their panties in a bunge because the RNC is using their song and didn't ask permission. Fine, that is the law, but don't need to get on that high horse. They'll sell the rights to their music to Nike, Adidas, Microsoft, Ford, etc.

You know, sell out to The Man that they are "fighting" against!



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
They are all hypocrites.

Heart, etc, gets their panties in a bunge because the RNC is using their song and didn't ask permission. Fine, that is the law,


I don't think it's the law at all. Radio stations play songs all the time without asking permission for each song. I'm pretty sure that a venue like a convention center would pay BMI or ACAAP a fee to play any songs published through ASCAAP or BMI.

So basically, unless there is something else going on, Heart is full of crap about the GOP needing permission. I would guess that a political party filled with hundreds of lawyers probably knows more about legalities of this than Ann or Nancy Wilson.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Yeah I guess I really do NOT understand the issue of royalties and I have never seen anything say you could use music for this purpose, and not that purpose. Even if such a law exists I would not think the artist can refuse such a royalty based on the political slant of the venue. That in itself would be discrimination based of political bias (no different from age, sex, race) This is pretty lame that Heart would even chime in on the issue at all. This has all sort of negative implications which are very bad for the American people, and it makes me sick.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mapsurfer_
Yeah I guess I really do NOT understand the issue of royalties and I have never seen anything say you could use music for this purpose, and not that purpose. Even if such a law exists I would not think the artist can refuse such a royalty based on the political slant of the venue. That in itself would be discrimination based of political bias (no different from age, sex, race) This is pretty lame that Heart would even chime in on the issue at all. This has all sort of negative implications which are very bad for the American people, and it makes me sick.


Could be that Heart wants to make sure people know how to buy the song on iTunes. I'm guessing they'll make more money this year than in the last 20 combined.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Nancy Wilson were quited in that Rolling Stone Article saying


I think it’s completely unfair to be so misrepresented. I feel completely f*cked over.


and


The Republican campaign did not ask for permission to use the song, nor would they have been granted that permission.


Well, its like this... do radio stations ask for permission? is permission required? Paying for a song, either buying the CD, a .99 cent itune, or even paying the royalty.. pretty much gives us a right to use the song in whatever context we see fit. To what extent is "permission" part of sales. Nancy Wilson thinks she can impose a "Terms of Use" caveat??? You got to love it when these dried up people demonstrate their ignorance.
Yah, let em sue the RNC and put their money where their mouth is.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Hmmmm.

So tell me this. All those kids at schools in talent shows doing their little performances to music from a CD should NOT be allowed to?

What about try outs for American Idol? Do all those auditioning have to get permission from the artist to sing and butcher their songs?

What about high school football games where they play music before, during, after games?

How is it any different? Can anyone explain the difference, because I really dont know.

To me, sounds like some bitter has-beens have their panties in a bunch.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Democrats didn't ask permission to use Brooks and Dunn's Only in America song either.


Neither Cook nor Brooks & Dunn's record label had been told "Only In America" would be used.


source





So the Dems did the SAME THING.




"If this song had been utilized in a campaign commercial that was broadcast on TV or radio, then clearly permission would need to be obtained from the publisher first," Sullivan said.


The end.

[edit on 9/5/2008 by greeneyedleo]





new topics




 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join