Beck Re-Recording Other Classic Albums And Giving Them Away For Free
from the licensing? dept
Hypebot points out another fun experiment by a popular musician. Beck is apparently gathering random friends, and each week (with little or no rehearsal) they're picking someone else's classic album and re-recording it in its entirety and then giving away a free song from the session. This is the sorta thing that makes tons of sense (Hypebot calls it "a GOOD IDEA") and is something that's fun to do, and can help energize Beck's fans, the fans of the other artists playing along and the fans of the original performers/songwriters, as well. But, of course, there's always a cloud that hangs over any fun music project. Already in the discussion on Hypebot there are questions about royalties and who has to pay whom for what rights. When recording cover songs there are compulsory rates, but even then the matter isn't entirely clear, apparently. And, of course, some people are complaining that this just shows that he's "unoriginal." Of course, that simply shows a near total misunderstanding of the history of music -- which has always been about sharing and recreating the works of others.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: beck, free, licensing, music, recording, royalties
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh man...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh man...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'sharing' is the weak point in the personalities of the RIAA staff
Greed is the totem that RIAA worships daily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a situation doomed to failure, where the performance rights with end up costing Beck way more than any return he might get on the stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you retarded?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Get a grip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They just don't get it
Hearing lawyers debate creative intent and strategy is laughable. It's like an artist explaining why lawyers do what they do. The two are exact opposites and cannot honestly represent each other.
It's a shame that lawyers are given the big stick in this relationship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They just don't get it
In other words, your reliance on broad and vague definitions of words makes your statement completely meaningless. For example, what do you mean by “just create”? Isn’t it rather obvious that “truly creative people” “create”? What is the difference between “truly creative people” and people that are just “creative”? How can we distinguish “truly” creative people from those “not so truly” creative? Is a “creation” still a “creation” if its creator who is “truly creative” had an intention to monetize on his creations? Would such intention make him somewhat less than “truly” creative? And so on.
In any case, I hope you do recognize the difference between “listening to” and “hearing”, on the one hand and “comprehend” on the other? And you do know that the former does not have to be followed by the latter. Nevertheless, you would probably agree with me that “understanding” is a prerequisite for any attempt to “explain” no matter how “laughable” it may seem. And with this in mind try to consider the following:
1.One cannot create something out of nothing;
2.in abstract terms, any process of creation could be expressed as “input-whatever-output”; where “input” and “output” are indicators of some form of interaction between creator and his environment.
3.While simple rules are inherent to even most basic forms of interaction, significantly more complex sets of rules are necessary for the development of more complex interactions.
4.“Legal” rules create a platform for large numbers of such interactions, which take place in every complex society.
In short, in my “input-whatever-output” model, “legal” rules and those who deal with them are concerned solely with “input/output” and do not give a shit about “whatever”.
Contrary to what you may think, any such attempts to “explain” “whatever” which in your opinion are so amusing, many lawyers would probably consider as inappropriate, if not quite dangerous.
As for the “big stick”, again you might be surprised to learn that individuals are very welcome to hold the stick by themselves, but most of them would probably hurt themselves with it. It seems very likely that you would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They just don't get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They just don't get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They just don't get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BECK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
beck who?
jazz covers on internet radio?
betcha it turns into a darknet web 3.0 rubble.
internet radio taxed reg'ed outta being
pat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more like trademark?
What I mean by this is: if Beck records Dark Side or Sgt. Pepper's or something, it's not as if anything he could do could possibly devalue the originals... he could leave the names of the original bands out, and it wouldn't matter, since everyone would know what they were hearing right away. And it would be very hard to argue that Pink Floyd or the Beatles were losing sales because customers who would have bought their albums were opting to buy Beck's version instead, or that they were getting the two confused.
On the other hand, if Beck records an album nobody has ever heard of by an unrecognized artist, I'd be disappointed if he didn't work hard to promote that artist alongside his own work. In that situation I can see the smaller artist deserving some sort of legal recourse to ensure he isn't being muscled out of the picture by someone whose only advantage is their established following.
Of course, I'm sure Beck will be recording well-known albums AND giving full credit, so really there shouldn't be any problem at all -- but I'm sure someone will find one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BECK RE RECORDING
BEATLES RULE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just saying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]