23 Jun 2009
10 Sep 2008
05 Sep 2008
That's a great way to deal with it.
pill · 10:49 a.m. · September 10, 2008
holy crap, i never realized how cute nancy wilson was in her youth.
acb · 11:07 a.m. · September 10, 2008
brucescott · 11:27 a.m. · September 10, 2008
Slight clarification - the Republican Party didn't obtain a license just for "Barracuda." They paid ASCAP a blanket fee that covers ALL songs in the ASCAP repertory, and "Barracuda" is one of them...so they're pretty much covered for any rally that they might want to hold, wherever they are held. The law's on the Republicans' side. And I am on acb's side regarding Nancy Wilson. Hotty McHotsterpants.
narfish · 11:38 a.m. · September 10, 2008
McCain/Palin obtained the correct license to use the song "Barracuda," all legally and above-board. I personally disagree with Nancy Wilson's original comment, that Governor Palin does not speak for American women - becuse I feel she very much speaks for me, a WORKING mom, juggling career, home, husband, children, church, school, sports, and everything that goes along with it - without losing her deep and abiding dedication to her faith. Go Barracuda!!
knarahs · 1:49 p.m. · September 10, 2008
I didn't know flagrant abuses of power, censorship, aerial hunting, believing global warming is a farce, lying during speeches ("Bridge to Nowhere!!"), supporting a non-binding referendum that denies same-sex couples health benefits, and dismissing the importance of sex education when your 16 yr. old is pregnant are characteristics representative of being an American Woman. Now I know.
brucescott · 2:29 p.m. · September 10, 2008
How can YOU disagree with Nancy Wilson's comment? Are you Nancy Wilson? She said SHE feels completely f**ked over, are you saying she doesn't? Are you saying she doesn't have the right to state her opinion that SHE doesn't feel Palin represents women in America?
I didn't even write this song, but I happen to love Heart and I love this song, and I feel insulted they're using it without the blessing of the artist, regardless of the licenses. Now if McCain starts using "Magic Man" when he's introduced on the campaign trail, I'll be in serious danger of losing my lunch.
Gabi Porter · 2:45 p.m. · September 10, 2008
When an artist affiliates with a PRO they give up the right to be choosy about who performs their songs ... personally I could care less if Nancy Wilson is a republican or democrat but the fact that she is basically saying that her music is good for some people and not for others, promoting inequality .... if she wanted to censor the use of her music then she should not have affiliated with a PRO at all (of course then she would miss out on all those royalty payments) ... can't have it both ways Nancy .... the way that they are handling this issue is not about the song, it's another way for them to feel like they are "sticking it" to the republicans ... quite childish if you ask me ....
nycgirl1980 · 11:12 a.m. · September 11, 2008
Oh come on nycgirl, you're just being silly. No one's telling anyone they can't listen to whatever they want.
What the Wilsons are saying is that they don't want their legacy permanently entwined with Ms. Palin's. Heart was busy breaking glass ceilings when Sarah was still in beauty contests, this song in particular was their big break through into a genre traditionally dominated by guys. I applaud them for trying to maintain the slightest bit of control over their creation.
And I am confused by the assured declaration that they have no rights over who uses the song. I understand that playing a song in a stadium is one thing but using it as a theme, essentially as an advertisement for a product, seems like it would raise other legal issues. I'm pretty sure that some owner of the song would have to sign on if the song were to be used to promote a car, so why not an ideology?
nycguyseekssame · 5:35 p.m. · September 11, 2008
of course to use a song in a commercial that is a different story, there are different licenses needed for that, hence further permission is need. That is not the case here .... for the public performance of their music then no, they can't pick and choose who uses their song ... the license obtained from the PROs for this particular use is a blanket license, for any song in their respective catalogs ....
and yes, maybe their legacy is now tainted, but not by Sarah Palin using the song, much more to the inappropriate and obnoxious way that they handled the situation. It's time for Heart to grow up.
nycgirl1980 · 11:01 a.m. · September 12, 2008
I'm guessing your Palin fan, you have a similar way of not addressing a question.
Unlike you, I can only speak for myself. When I watched Ms. Palin's screed at the RNC and heard one of my favorite songs from childhood used as her theme song I had a moment of real disappointment: something that always mademe smile and held a great deal of personal significance had been assigned a new, sour, angry association.
And again, Heart was really breaking ground in a male dominated world, this song has earned a familiarity and carved a niche in our culture that the Republicans tried to use place their product.
I was grateful when The Wilson's spoke out, trying to reclaim their legacy from what McCain once called an
nycguyseekssame · 12:09 p.m. · September 12, 2008
Can someone explain to me "when an artist affiliates with a PRO"? What does that even mean? There are some people around here who have a really strange understanding of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
Gabi Porter · 12:39 p.m. · September 12, 2008
I'm a life long fan of Heart, listened to it in High School, saw Heart with every tour when it wasn't really cool to be into a
Outofcontrol · 7:16 p.m. · September 13, 2008
I'm a life long fan of Heart, listened to it in High School, saw Heart with every tour when it wasn't really cool to be into a "Girl" Rock band. Music often flows best from Rebellious instincts and adolescent idealism but the wilson sisters should have grown out of infantile behavior long ago.
Anne, Nancy, still love ya but grow the heck up!
nycguyseekssame · 11:55 a.m. · September 15, 2008
Seriously, I'm still waiting for an explanation to my earlier question, but this raises new ones... WHAT is infantile about claiming ownership to intellectual property? Whether it's legal ownership or moral ownership? If that crazy, lying woman is laying claim to THEIR song as her theme song, that goes above and beyond the blanket license they've purchased from ASCAP. That, it could be argued successfully in a court of law, is marketing a brand, and goes WAY beyond the ASCAP general license.
Gabi Porter · 12:07 p.m. · September 15, 2008
PRO = Performance Rights Organization
is that what you wanted to know?
BrandonRoss · 12:33 p.m. · September 15, 2008
Sorta kinda... but it was more of a rhetorical question. I'm really just puzzled as to why people think this is OK, and that the band doesn't have a right to protest. Since when was having an opinion verboten in this country, especially if something directly affects you? Seems obvious to me that this kind of use of a song goes well beyond the idea of public performance that ASCAP/BMI collect for. How many millions of impressions was that? I mean playing a song as intro music for the Vice Presidential candidate at the Republican National Convention is not like playing a song on a jukebox at a bar.
Sorry, this woman just makes me see purple spots when I read about the corruption and deception and high school cronyism (literally, not figuratively) of her short history as Governor of Alaska. I'm not always this vitriolic.
Gabi Porter · 5:19 p.m. · September 15, 2008