Posted on 02/07/2016 9:43:21 AM PST by WilliamIII
Donald Trump has been blowing up the old traditional GOP certainties left and right, and this week he overturned another one. In what seemed like an embarrassing rebuke, on February 1, Adele told the Republican front-runner that he didn’t have her permission to use her songs at his massive campaign events. Adele might just be the world’s most popular singer at the moment, and any normal candidate would have folded his tent, chastened. Not Trump. At his rally in Little Rock, Arkansas two days later the crowd of thousands listened to Adele’s “Skyfall†before Trump’s helicopter landed. A day after that, in Exeter, New Hampshire, Adele’s “Rolling In the Deep†could be heard blaring behind the candidate when he made his entrance
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/donald-trump-2016-music-gop-213603#ixzz3zVOI1tu9
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
There it is. So sorry lefty music singers. Going after Trump is not like going after poor college kids downloading free and copying your music is it. LoL.
It is another “I PAID FOR THAT MICROPHONE” moment?
Never mind my previous. I kept reading down the thread and found your research.
An artist doesn’t have to sign a contract with a music company that allows people like Trump to buy the right to use the artists music. Artists who sign such a contract have no grounds to complain
That’s was some mighty fine logical reasoning. I was grasping to verbify the hypocrisy of the singers but couldn’t quite stretch the decaying neurons around it. I will use that tonight with some liberals at a party.
Still disagree. I think it’s a matter of optics, at least for me. Funny thing I never knew Adele had such a great voice till I heard one of her songs played at a Trump rally. :)
Doesn’t Rush still have to pay the royalties on his intro song to the Pretenders favorite charity?
consider the paradox. Liberals and certain courts assert that a Christian baker can be heavily fined for refusing to sell a specially created work of art due to his objections to the content and purpose of it, but the same type of liberals support a liberal musician refusing to allow their work of art from being used due to their objections to purpose of it. Likewise in the case of musicians or other artists for hire being compelled to make a work of art promoting what they object to.
Excellent catch.
Why is it that LIBERALS are the ones who want to control what others do, except when it involves sex or murdering babies?
For the money the guys has.... he should have some talented singer songwriter write and record a song for his campaign..... Why keep using people’s songs... people who don’t want you to use them?
If you like a lefty’s music, buy a used CD and they won’t make any more money from it. Ha ha ha ha.
Why can’t Trump pay an artist to create original music for him? If I was running that’s exactly what I would do.
The agreement isn't with the record company, it's with ASCAP and BMI. And Trump is free to use the music. The artist is also free to make it clear that he's using it without his or her permission.
“He ought to use the “DX†theme song. I’m sure WWE would be OK with it.”
Fitting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snW-5AHxYTA
Here we go with the name calling. Your so delusional that you think that in trash because I disagree with you? Wow. How third grade of you
Legally, he doesn’t need her permission. He merely has to pay her the standard royalty rate via ASCAP or BMI, whichever one happens to license her music - the same way a radio station doesn’t have to get an artist’s permission to play their songs, as long as they pay the royalty. That’s the law. The jerk is the artist who tries to assert a right he or she doesn’t have, for publicity.
The real Irony of this situation is that a Tacoma based tribal casino has the rights and is using this song in their ads, so instead of being part of a political backdrop, it's being used to lure the mathematically challenged, the dream chasers, and the lost into parting with their hard earned or in many cases government provided money.
Good case of this is with Bruce Springsteen who is one of the best songwriter/performers this nation has ever produced. And I think you needed to have been to one of his four-hour concerts in the 1970s and 80s to really understand that. Unfortunately he started polluting his concert performances with political statements in between songs (Bono from U2 did that also) and I never had a desire to buy a Springsteen concert ticket again.
However, if not for the politics, I think Springsteen would be a favorite here on FR because his songs speak to Americana and the quality of his songwriting and performances are unassailable.
Point is, Trump HAS her permission, because she agreed with the legal arrangement that allows him to purchase the rights.
True.
People don't want a President who is so easily pushed around by a pop singer. Good for Trump for standing firm on something so minor.
If he backed down, he would be elevating Adele to the level of business tycoon or Presidential candidate.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.