Heart ask Sarah Palin to stop using "Barracuda"

Politicians are almost as bad as free downloaders for the amount of music they take without permission. When it was revealed that Sarah Palin’s nickname is “Barracuda” it was only a question of time before the classic Heart song of the same name was used for her Vice Presidential campaign. Sure enough, the track surfaced during Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night.

And sisters Ann and Nancy Wilson, who make up Heart, aren’t happy. A statement issued yesterday afternoon says: “The Republican campaign did not ask for permission to use the song, nor would they have been granted that permission. We have asked the Republican campaign publicly not to use our music. We hope our wishes will be honored.”

Unfortunately the song surfaced again last night, after John McCain’s speech, raising the Wilsons’ ire once more. “I feel completely fucked over,” said Nancy. “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.” Heart join Van Halen, John Mellencamp, and Jackson Browne as artists who have issued similar warnings to the Republicans about the use of their songs. [Rolling Stone]
Posted in: HEART
 

30 Responses

September 5, 2008 at 2:28 p.m.

It is sad that these hasbeen musicians can't get over themselves enough to dismiss this as the nothing situation that it is. I am disgusted at Ann & Nancy for their spineless, cry baby attitudes.

You don't see the

September 5, 2008 at 2:48 p.m.

I wouldn't want my life's work being used to market a politician I didn't agree with, can't blame em.

September 5, 2008 at 3:36 p.m.

Spineless? What? Are you kidding? Their actions are the polar opposite of spineless. If I were an artist and my work was being used to promote something I didn't agree with, I'd do the same.

September 5, 2008 at 3:40 p.m.

Yeah it would be spineless if they were opposed to their music being used and they sat their doing nothing.

They at least had the backbone to stand up and say they didn't want their music used.

September 5, 2008 at 3:47 p.m.

on that note, I think the reason everyone plays U2 is because they know U2 won't have a problem with it...and because they have suitable songs and are widely appreciated.

September 5, 2008 at 4:01 p.m.

Just curious why you didn't post my comment.
Is it because I used s--t?
Nancy Wilson dropped the F-bomb in the article
I thought had an important point

September 5, 2008 at 4:01 p.m.

How many times has "We will rock you" (Queen) been used or other songs like it in political arenas. Like it's any reflection of their political views.
I've got published music, and I don't take myself that seriously.
They speak out because they think that the general public cares what there views are? Just like all the actors who feel like they HAVE to voice their political opinions...and the truth is
Nobody gives a S--t!

September 5, 2008 at 4:43 p.m.

Thanks for this article. Ann and Nancy Wilson have been and continue to be strong and inspiring women who have every right to object to their music being used to promote ideas that they don't agree with. Sarah Palin's ideas are not simply objectionable, they are dangerous. She supports oil drilling at the expense of animal welfare, she is against a woman's right to choose, even in cases of rape and incest, and she is pro-gun. Bravo to Ann and Nancy.

September 5, 2008 at 4:54 p.m.

@Kelly - Do you know how much money is made by the surviving members of Queen everytime "We Will Rock You" is played? It's because it's used with permission for the most part, properly licensed, and there are fees paid on it. Heart's point is two-fold a) they don't want their iconic song used to promote the political agenda of a woman they don't agree with (their right and all the power to them), and b) and since you've "got music published" you should appreciate this point even more, the Republican party didn't get permission to use the music, they're not paying for it. If you write and record a piece of music you have the legal f--king right to give permission to use your music to whom you please.

For example, do you know how much money the Verve asks for to license 30 seconds of "Bittersweet Symphony"? $1,000,000.

September 5, 2008 at 5:17 p.m.

palin annoys me. it is not until now that i realize it's because she totally looks like she could be a member of heart.

September 5, 2008 at 6:01 p.m.

@Gabi - First of all I think you're assuming that the surviving members of Queen are paid royalties. I'm not sure who owns the publishing rights. Unfortunately the composer(s) doesn't always hold the publishing rights, and doesn't always control how and when the music is used. Sir Paul McCartney is a good example.
Also, in the music business there is "Compulsory Licensing" which believe it or not, makes it where any one can record and release another artists work. The polite thing is of course to get permission- but it's not required.
Then of course royalties would need to be paid-which is mechanical licensing and usually kicks in at a certain point.
Maybe Ann and Nancy Wilson own the publishing rights to their songs.
As a composer, when you share your music with the world...it's most likely going to get used in ways that you don't approve of all the time. But to me it's kind of like if your a celebrity, the paparazzi's going to take unwanted photos. If you're Tom Cruise, you can't always control the other entities associated with the movie you made. Although you may disagree with them.
I guess what bothers me most this is that...true, she should have requested permission first, but if Barack Obama had used the song...chances are, it would have been fine.
And I also feel like they used it as a chance to express their political opinion...which I don't want to hear. Why is it famous people feel they need to express their political views? Because they know that they have more influence over the public, then say you or I.
Btw, I haven't even decided who I am voting foryet.

September 5, 2008 at 6:57 p.m.

@Kelly Are you for real? If i could choose all the situations my music where to be used, i would. Its the 2008 US election campaign, people take sides, famous people are entitled to share they're opinions as you do, they just get listened more often.

September 5, 2008 at 8:26 p.m.

I'm with Lala. Throw some spectacles on those girls and walah!, Hockey Moms.

September 5, 2008 at 11:46 p.m.

@Kelly - This particular issue has very little to do with publishing rights. The RNC was using the RECORDING of the song, obtaining rights to do so is a separately governed process from obtaining the rights to published works. Record labels and publishing companies are completely separate business entities because if they operated together it would be a conflict of interest. At play here would be whether or not use of the song would be considered fair use of a known work. I don't know if Heart have retained direct control of this particular song, but they have the absolute right to say publicly, "That's my song and it's not ok for you to use it because I don't like you." Whether they have a legal foot to stand on will likely be determined by the recent law suit brought by Jackson Browne for the unsanctioned use of HIS song in similar circumstances.

September 6, 2008 at 4:49 a.m.

@Kadgi- Are you naive? With fame, comes power through exposure...if no other way. If you don't think stars use their fame to support a political agenda-think again. I mean come on, Sean Penn going to Iraq...like he really knows something about what's going on there. And stars have loyal star struck fans, that are easily swayed.
I bet it floored alot of people to find out Adam Sandler is a Republican. Why is it when it comes to politics and religion, people get all idignant, like they're positive they are right.
You knew nothing about Barack Obama a year ago...now he's going to save the country? In one term?
When it comes to political issues, I think most people are naive. They vote for who they like, what party they are affiliated with or their parents, friends,etc
Or sometimes if a candidate is handsome, sexy...whatever.
And sometimes just their appearance is enough to influence how they vote, and whether they like or dislike the candidate. Are you going to tell me Bill Clinton has good character? Yet, they attack Sarah Pahlin's character because she has a 17 y.o. teenage daughter that is pregnant.
America needs to shift it's focus...education is a good place to start.

September 6, 2008 at 10:53 a.m.

hay hart or is it hart less kiss my ass sara the best thing to happon to this country in a long time let her use it stupid

September 6, 2008 at 10:53 a.m.

Alana, Kudos to you girl!!!
Enough said,well said, and lastly, well taken!!!

September 6, 2008 at 11:55 a.m.

Kelly and Gabi, I think you've got the music business side of this confused a little bit. Kelly, compulsory mechanical licensing doesn't come in to this issue at all. That license would be activated if the RNC wanted to record and release its own version of the Heart song, and clearly that isn't happening here. As long as the Republican party is paying for a blanket license via ASCAP (the Performing Rights Organization with which Heart is affiliated), they also have the right to play the music publicly - it's the same method by which venues are authorized to play recorded music in between band sets. And Gabi, it's not entirely accurate that publishing doesn't come into this at all. When the RNC paid its ASCAP license, they effectively paid the writers and publishers of "Barracuda," in whatever recorded incarnation, for the right to play in a public setting, without express approval. The only issue I can detect here was that this was a nationally televised event, and therefore might require a separate synchronization license from the publishers and a master use license from whoever owns the recording...that's the same reason why every TV program that uses pre-existing songs has to "clear" the use of that song with its publisher and master recording owner. But in the case of a live telecast, like the RNC or a sportscast, the use of a song might be considered an "ephemeral" use and not subject to proper licensing for TV.

September 7, 2008 at 10:52 a.m.

I have alot less respect for Heart now. I am very disappointed in them. They could have taken the high road here, yet they come across as greedy people more concerned about copyright law than sharing a great piece of musical art with the world. Actually this was free advertising, and a way to re-launch interest in that song, and in their band. What a bunch of miserable elitist musicians apparently going through some mid life crisis.

September 7, 2008 at 11:56 a.m.

Joe, but if "relaunching interest" in their track comes at the expense of supporting Palin's political agenda, I can't say I blame them for their decision. Free advertising is one thing, endorsing a woman who stands against the Wilson's political and ethical positions and, as Nancy states, "in no way represents us as American women," is not something they signed on for when they wrote the song. I have a great deal of respect for Ann and Nancy. And for the record, Barracuda is still a kick-ass song regardless of whether it's getting current exposure via Palin.

September 7, 2008 at 12:58 p.m.

Well said Joe...Narfish, you are correct, and I was going to say that in my next response. It really is the responsibility of ASCAP/BMI to collect performance royalties...which is sometimes a futile effort. I know they have been going around to clubs the last several years trying to get the club owners and cover bands to pay royalties.
The bottom line is you can't stop the song from being performed...they can threaten...but you'll notice in the article, that even though they had requested it not be played ( they still used it the following night).
Here's an example of Barack Obama using a Brooks and Dunn song at the DMC
http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008/08/only-in-america.html
Although the song was written by a Democrat...it was recorded by a Republican (Brooks) and had been used by the GOP and George Bush. But his response to the writer was ‘You had to endure George Bush using it, so it’s only fair that I would have to endure Barack Obama using it. They didn't freak out.
The point is this happens in both parties all the time...and of course Heart would have to freak out about it, and I can't help it's because they want to draw more attention to the whole thing, or it was a chance for them to publicly state their political opinion.
I mean come on, the song is 30 years old.

September 7, 2008 at 4:12 p.m.

And they also used AC/DC! Seriously they were dancing and stuff to this 'devil' music. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN1TCdoB238

September 7, 2008 at 5:02 p.m.

banjo

September 30, 2008 at 4:13 p.m.

f-ck sarah palin, i am ashamed to be a women because of that piece of sh-t. good for heart

October 1, 2008 at 12:32 p.m.

Celebrities need to get over themselves. I USED TO like Heart. Not anymore.

GO SARAH

October 8, 2008 at 4:24 p.m.

The only problem with this is that the location where the event takes place and the song is played is a huge factor. Venues get blanket licenses from ASCAP and BMI and they pay a certain amount of money to be able to play any song from either of their catalogs. While I feel for the artists and understand where they are coming from. If these songs are being played a speech/debate/etc and the venue has the proper license, then there is no obligation on the part of a campaign to ask permission.

October 8, 2008 at 5:16 p.m.

They have every right to say f*ck you to whoever they want just like we do here. If I were them I'd say the same thing... f*ck you for using my song.

October 14, 2008 at 8:31 a.m.

Wow! You guys are amazing. ASCAP/BMI blanket licenses don't cover television broadcasts. The RNC needed a broadcast license for use of the Heart music on the nationally televised convention event, which requires explicit and specific approval from the songwriters and the publishers. Aside from the mere legalities of the usage, just think how you would feel if your creative work was used to promote and/or advocate a person or issue with which you did not agree, endorse, or even like. You'd feel "f*cked over" too.

October 14, 2008 at 10:41 a.m.

EXACTLY my point, Newscameraguy. Thanks for chiming in. The blanket licenses obtained do NOT cover this kind of use.

October 15, 2008 at 10:20 a.m.

Hey, Gabi!

Again . . . duh! The key here is specific usage. Try to make the leap with me here in this analogy . . . Suppose a filmmaker asks a major artist for permission to use their music in say, in a five-minute short film, which will be entered into a local film festival. If the artist/publisher agrees to the subject matter, permission is often granted at a token fee of only a few hundred dollars. On the other hand, if Big Time Movie Studios asks permission to use that same artist's music, to be included in their next blockbuster theatrical release to be seen on 3,000 screens, that would be a whole different deal.

Back to usage at political rallies . . . If a sponsor plays music at an event at which the event sponsors are not the producers of any televised version of the event (e.g., a political rally), they will only need to clear a venue license. Any news outlets which cover the event, and who would subsequently broadcast a few seconds of video of the event, including any audible music in the background, typically wouldn't need a license of any kind.

The difference with the RNC convention event, is that they were the producers of the televised version of the event. It was their content, and they needed to clear specific licenses for all music played on the air during that broadcast.

Add a comment


 

Prefix Logo

  Site Index RSS
Email or Username: Password: Register
Recent Comments
Forum Posts