Music Copyright Cases: Bitter Sweet Symphony (Why The Rolling Stones owned Richard Ashcroft's song)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 มิ.ย. 2021
- Music Copyright Cases: Bitter Sweet Symphony (Why The Rolling Stones owned Richard Ashcroft's song)
One of the biggest songs of the '90s is without a doubt "Bitter Sweet Symphony" by The Verve.
From the opening few bars of strings, it's instantly recognisable and transports you back to the brit-pop heyday.
The Verve weren't newcomers, by the time "Bitter Sweet Symphony" and the accompanying album "Urban Hymns" was released they had been going nearly 10 years, released 2 other albums, and had broken up once already and reformed.
The success of "Bitter Sweet Symphony" should have been their crowning glory, but instead, it leads to one of the biggest injustices in the music business that took over 20 years to resolve and resulted in a bitter sweet victory for the writer.
This is the story of why Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones owned 100% of a song they didn't write and how the real writer, Richard Ashcroft, got it back. - บันเทิง
![กินอาหาร ถูก vs แพง!! จานละ 500,000 vs จานละ 50!! [Ver. 2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FF_HppKg4vs/mqdefault.jpg)
This is one of the best explanations of the bitter sweet symphony story I’ve heard !
Thanks for watching and commenting, glad you liked it. I watched your video where you remade the track, thought it was ironic the only copyright claim was from the sample. I really like the one where you removed the sample! I wish I had seen it when I was making this video. I originally uploaded it a year ago but had to change it a bit.
except its wrong ,. there are three samples in this song and since they run concurrently the sample lasts closer to 13 seconds. which also adds to the issue. basically the band used too much of another song, without clearing the rights with the right people or working out the details with oldham, they had to pay everyone and basically didnt write the song
Well, it's wrong, the stones did not own the rights to the early stuff. Okay, so when they finally got him back after all the years of fighting to get them back as soon as they got the right back, they then told the band he is your rights back after 22 years, it had nothing to do with mcjagger at Keith Richards. They did not own the rights to the song. It was owned by the manager who took it from them when they were younger. Look it up, that's why Keith Richards and Mick Jagger gave it back to those guys. They did not take it from him. And say we're keeping it and all the money like they needed the money
ABCO is a concrete example as to why record companies collapsing isn't a bad thing.
+10
Klein made terrible stereotype of self hating Jew and the future signing using only gentile gentlemen and woman instead of ruthless chosen self hating non-gentile schysters.
A 4 second sample - give me a break- when Bittersweet Symphony got televised it was like an electric vault through the atmosphere - perfectly matching the social mileau - a song that was written produced and performed with all the tensions of its time - and Richard sung it with impeccable style passion and anger, cutting across every cliched vibed the stupid radio presenters were spouting - a classic visceral timeless musical brilliance and a moment i will never forget- i remember thinking - so this is what truth to power muscially sounds like
Well done Richard, Well done you folks, this has made my day, i'm gonna play it - i still love it to this day-
When I heard the Verve weren't getting any royalties for Bitter Sweet and Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were I stopped listening to it. If I heard it in the car I'd change the station or turn it off. I made sure I didn't select listening to it on platforms like this and others. Now it has been reversed I listen to it where I can. Very happy to heard the rights have been given back to this awesome song.
it wasnt reversed. abkco and oldham kept their money.
Allen Klein is the music industry's most successful con man
I reckon Morris Levy has a shot at that title too 🤔
that would be david geffen
Chas Chandler, Colonel Tom Parker, Stan Polley, Alan Douglas... the end is listless.
@@WalterDiamond chas chandler isnt the villain in the hendrix story
Morris Levy was likely even worse. "AllMusic described him as "a notorious crook who swindled artists out of their owed royalties." Levy falsely took writing credit in order to receive royalties-enriching himself at the expense of many of his signed artists, especially black R&B artists. The FBI suspected that Levy had used the Roulette Room as a front for Vincent Gigante, allegedly the boss of the Genovese crime family and that Levy had had ties to organized crime for 20 years."
So glad you put this out, I've been racking my brains for all these years, trying to work out what the hell the song had to do with "The Last Time", thank you;
"It's not about the money...".
Of course it's about the bloody money, and Richards and Jagger don't seem as magnanimous about making a deal where they surrender any future rights and earning to Ashcroft--but they keep the money made on the song to date... Very cool song, too...
Didn't they, the stones, in their youth - Rip every poor American black guys shtick.
And shamelessly.
All the time? Like Gimme Shelter or Coming Down Again or Scarlet sound just like?...................
knowing ABCO maybe Keith and Mick didn't see any monies either
@@mySelf-yx4hw Couldn't be ruled out...
I don't like the Verve or the Stones but I know of Klein as a crook from my reading about the Beatles. I just wanted to say that this is a very well resarched and presented video. Well done.
Yeah, Klien is the bad guy, but anyone that let's a bad guy get away with it is complicit...so perhaps had Klien not got involved Mick and Keith may never had sued, but once Klein secured the 100% credit they happily cashed the cheques.
If Mick and Keef were 30 years younger, I bet they would still hold onto the rights and credits. But they're now in their twighlight years (RIP Charlie), have zillions in the bank yet still play to sold out stadiums, so they want to be seen as the good guys! 🤔
Sorry to be so cynical, but the music business is so dirty... 🤑😵
Great video 👍
Has to be the most ironically named song of all time.
Well done Richard Ashcroft because they took the music of the Staple Singers. Congratulations Richard on a billion views.
I went to see The Stones in Manchester in the tour before last. Richard Ashcroft supported them and played BSS. I can imagine back stage Keith saying to Mick, “ Listen! They’re playing our song!” Mick to Keith “ Kerching!”
It seems to me that the Staples Singers' song This May Be the Last Time was more than an Inspiration, it was a full blown lift from it, regardless whether it was in the public domain or not. Yep, it was about the money. I guarantee Richards and Jagger wouldn't have pursued this if it wasn't a huge hit for The Verve.
I'm willing to bet a deal with the staples or their rights holders was made long ago. When the stones cover songs they give credit and pay rights holders I've never heard the staples complain contrast that with Harrison and he's so fine...
Keith Richards was quoted in an interview admitting they claimed authorship of an existing song, "This may be the last time" by way of it being "traditional" which many artists have done over the years, however the more honest ones, don't credit it to their own name. Pete Seeger's band The Weavers often recorded covers of folk songs that were out of copyright and they would credit them as written by "Paul Campbell" to differentiate them from the songs they had actually written from scratch.
So actually no, when the stones cover songs they don't always give credit or pay the rightsholders, and they're more than happy for people to think they wrote songs that they didn't.
@@Traxploitation Thank you ..what other songs in their catalogue fall into this category? And why do you think the Staple singers didn't litigate at the time? They did after all work with a publisher I assume. Much respect to you.
@@blondeboywilson9221 I think perhaps the Staples Singers didn't register their arrangement as a new composition as the Stones did...and claimed no authorship at all. So wouldn't have "standing" to sue the stones.
"Love in Vain" and "Stop Breaking Down" also fall into this category, both Robert Johnson songs that the band thought were public domain so attempted to register them as new works authored by them however a 2000 court case ruled that the songs were 100% written by Robert Johnson and any revenue derived from the composition should be paid to his estate.
Even more despicable when you know that Richards and Jagger acknowledge that they themselves blatantly ripped off The Staple Singers, yet had the greed to take credit and a $hit load of money from The Verve. Still, better late than never. Great video as always.
Not the Stones, I don't think they even owned the song. Their former manager is the one who made it a huge fight.
It was their manager that sued The Verve, NOT The Stones, watch the video again and pay attention!
@@trendmassacre8423 Try practicing what you preach before mouthing off. I never stated the Stones sued Ashcroft. As of a 1997 settlement with Klein, The Verve gave Jagger and Richards songwriter credits, so they profited very nicely off the song for 20 years before signing over the rights in 2019.
As far as the Staple Singers go…didn’t you watch the video?
You didn’t watch before commenting eh? You gotta hate it when that backfires on you Jade D.
Thank you for your time and effort, in this regard....
Music executives are the greatest evil in music production.
It's a terrible business. A lot of people don't survive it.
Just what I needed thank you
4 seconds bruh....🤦🏾
Let that sink in....
its a loop so its over 11 seconds and there is a second sample from the recording looped over the first, so they were doomed , you cant use that much of someone elses song and not pay up. thats the rules now and has been for a while
I just want to say, the way you describe and relay the facts is brilliant.
Thank you
Thank YOU! 😀
I am glad he got his song back. I never quite understood this whole saga but now I see thhe claim of copyright was clearly abusive. Sad it took so long to settle down.
The fact that Paul McCartney hated Allen Klein is a massive plus for Sir Paul (in my books).
Well, he hated "The Rutles" at first. Taken Linda a while to change his mind. Ironically, it's was Linda's father whom Macca wanted to manage The Beatles, thus automatically disliking Klein. As horrible as Klein actually was.
I'm a big John Fogerty and original CCR fan. I'd love an up to date vid on John Fogerty's
courtroom stories over the music he created also.
It's coming. Fogartys court room tales are crazy...not many people have been sued by...themselves!!!
@@Traxploitation or sued because they sound like themselves.
I don't recall Steve Perry being sued for sounding like Journey.
ty.
he also got succesfully sued for stealing from little richard
The violin's make the hook great anyway not the sample parts. Richard makes the song legendary... that voice is chilling and beautiful at once.
Thanks for the thorough and concise explanation that even a Dummy like me can understand. :) I've been a Rolling Stones fan since the early '60's and this was a horrible stain on them in my eyes, but I feel better now realising that none of this injustice would of happened without the greed of Klein inserting himself. I never saw any connection between the Stones and this song. I just do not hear or see it. I definitely see a connection between "The Last Time" and the Pointer Sisters' song though. ;)
You're welcome. So glad u liked it. 😁
Jagger Richards must have been wondering in the mid 60’s why they spent money on an orchestral version. It eventually paid off for them though.
They didn't spend any money on it.
It's not their album. It was Andrew Oldham's.
Best explanation I've heard so far! Mentions what I heard with my own ears: hearing BSS and Oldham back-to-back, the Verve version sounds like it's just a cover. But paying close attention, it's clear the Verve version adds its own elements to the music itself, not just the lyrics. They sampled very little, then just looped it.
What a mess over 4 seconds of music. The only fair outcome is either The Verve get their stolen money back, or if the Rolling Stones want their cut, then they too should give a fair cut to the Staple Singers for their own sampling. You have to be fair to all parties, afterall.
the staples singers had no claim and nothing was sampled, the verve looped this sample to the point where they HAD to give credit to the original writers under law, they were not being magnamous, and the fact that they didnt clear it with the publishers was just stupid and cost them. its a shame but if you are going to use someone elses work make sure you have permission.
The irony I suppose is that there's another track on the album which you'd think would have triggered legal action - "The Rolling People" which is lift of The Aphrodite's Childs track "The Four Horsemen". Either Vangelis, Demis Roussos and the rest of the band weren't aware of it, or they simply didn't care.
Great Point!
Could be either, I like to think it's that they didn't care. Copyright wasn't meant to limit how much u can be influenced by another work..
It was meant to prevent illegal copies of the actual song being sold 🤷♂️ we've gone way beyond that and risk stifling creativity if every similar sounding sound is litigated.
@@Traxploitationtake alook at Marvin Gaye's estate suing Robin Thicke over blurred lines resembling got to give it up to you and their bogus win crippled the industry more
I already covered that story at the time, th-cam.com/video/HYgwAQmS5WE/w-d-xo.html
I want to point out though. This case wasn't the Gaye Family Vs Pharrell. It was actually Pharrell Vs Bridgeport Music (Bridgeport Music are well-known copyright trolls, and they acquired the publishing rights to Got to Give It Up) The Gaye family didn't sue Pharrell, Pharrell filed for "declaratory relief" he wanted a judge to legally declare "blurred lines" to be a wholly original work, which would prevent anyone from suing him in the future. It's only at this point that the Gaye Family, along with Bridgeport Music counter-sued. The Gaye family are constantly portrayed as money-grubbing when they have initiated exactly 0 court cases. They countersued in this case, and the case against Ed Sheeran was brought on behalf of the co-writer of "Let's Get It On" not Marvin Gaye.
Fortunately, the verdict has had no lasting effect on anyone except those directly involved, in fact similar cases such as the Katy Perry "Dark Horse" case, went the other way (eventually, on appeal).
Every time there's a high profile copyright case people always say its going to kill the industry. They've literally been saying that since the mid 1800's when copyright laws began to include music....but it never really does. It will take more than one case at state level, in just the USA, to have a lasting effect on the global music industry. The blurred line case went the way it did due to the conduct of Pharrell, Robin Thicke and his lawyers. They constantly made serious mistakes! They never tackled the issue head on, "yes, we made a song that sort of sounds like a marvin gaye song, but not in any way that infringes copyright" instead they tried to argue the songs didnt sound the same at all...which was major error in strategy.
What a Bitter Sweet Ending
Fascinating.
As an Indie Kid I am so happy to see an artist I love and admire featured here, great explanation of this situation which I didn't actually know had now been resolved so that was wonderful. I would love to hear about more Indie bands, as a black person I have been really interested in somehow telling the story of black British people who are involved in Indie and also looking at a history of BAME involvement in Indie music, we are so readily overlooked in this genre and I find that being a black Indie artist means facing a double prejudice, rejection from white people and rejection from black people too. If David Bowie was black would he have been as popular and legendary as he is now? Would Paul Weller? I feel this is why Sister Rosetta Tharpe has been largely forgotten, she was just too white for black audiences and too black for white audiences too! As for Mick and Keef giving Richard any money ha! Chance would be a fine thing, Mick didn't want to give L'Wren money for her failing business and he was sleeping with her and as for Keef well I think we all know his money's going *sniffs* lol! Great video, keep 'em coming! Love what you do.
I agree with most of what you say. Especially the Indie scene that is rife with subtle prejudíce. But that streches way back to the sixties with the attitude towards Jimmy Hendrix by the established musicians who expressed racist platitudes because theyt felt threatened at the time and it carried on into the punk scene as well, but more by the people looking on than within the scene.
During the 70s you felt there was a real musical apathied in the UK which was never really acknowledged, but you could see it in the clubs, the musical divergence of tastes and in the way promoters would "balance" predominately white groups that featured black members.
I am a big fan of Sister Rosetta Tharpe, I collect anything from her early 78s on. But you are incorrect about her audience. She had a significant black gospel audience. They were her bread and butter.
The blues scene populated by white students in the UK during the sixties loved her, but one gets the uneasy impression this was more due to the fascination of watching the unusual sight of an elderly black woman in furs (bought from the money earned from her black audience) playing an electric guitar.
In actuality, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, like many early black pioneers of rock & roll are pigeon-holed into footnotes of musical history because of the audiencl demands from the "music of menace" of that time ...it was easier to peddle a pretty white guy impersonating black menace to a white audience ...than the real thing.
Definitions of prettiness were very clear back then and you new who could "stick around" and who they wanted to "get back"
I know my explanation would tend to diminish white Rock & Roll to a glorified ministral show, but if thats what it really is, "it is what it is."
This song is one of the BEST songs ever made, no really.
That Klein was a monster and sadly the blueprint for all these monsters like Puffy
NOW
Oh for sure, but Klein wasn't the first of his kind. Those kind of people have been in the industry since the outset. He was just a stage in the evolution...
If you could have pictures in dictionaries is certain that aside the explanation of the word bloodsucker a photo of Allan Klein would be pressed.
Your channel deserves a million plus subscribers.
Why?????
Western copyright law is absolutely broken. Despite being a rulings-based country, the Japanese actually have a really awesome provision that allows the artist final say with any of their work, even if specific aspects have the rights held by another party. The idea that an artist can overrule a record company's decision about sampling is something that would do the western music world a lot of favors, since a number of artists will actually give permission readily but the record companies decide otherwise because rights to the master recordings supersede authorship itself.
That's not unique to Japan.
I'm a songwriter, I have over 500 songs published. I get to veto any usage I don't agree with.
I've already instructed my publisher to turn down any ad syncs for alcohol or gambling. 🤷♂️
The idea that artists don't have control of their music is a fallacy.
Often, they've just waived those rights. In Europe some of those rights cannot he waived, transferred or negotiated. America has the worst copyright protections for creators though...and some of those rights don't exist.
When I heard Bittersweet Symphony and heard about the alleged THE LAST TIME connection my thought was this song, Bittersweet HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAST TIME. It is obviously a case of sharks like KLEIN. But also Jagger- Richards taking any money from it is wrong….and IF ONLY THEY HAD LEFT OFF THAT STRING SAMPLE ! Richard Ashcroft wrote the song it is in no way plagiarized.
plagiarized. Richard Ashcroft didn't write THAT STRING SAMPLE !
@@mrsatire9475 yeah that is where he made the mistake of using that arrangement…Jagger or Richards certainly didn’t write that either… ABCO and lawyers made the money in the end.
Allen Klein is the sole instigator for this.
How greedy can you get and how much money do you need or want? Morally bankrupt people who will use loopholes to benefit unfairly.
Yeh they wrote the words. The tune. The violins. The arrangement. But it’s OURS!
🙄 right!? It was ridiculous.
This is the only coherent explanation of the situation I’ve ever heard.
❤❤❤
WTF! They wanted to inject a 4 sec sample? Glad he gets his song back in his name. The irony of the title track is amazing/
Allen Klein was a rat bastard.
This was almost as messed up of him as when, during a lawsuit against George Harrison over the resemblance of "My Sweet Lord" to "He's So Fine", Allen Klein grabbed the rights to the latter and immediately switched sides in the suit.
Allen Klein, that is all you needed to say.
I did not know this was a cover version
Cos it's not. 🤷♂️
A cover version is when the song is performed with the lyrics and topline melody mostly unchanged.
Anything else is, at best, an interpolation.
Ashcroft is bang on - its not always about the money.
Well damn. It really been a Bittersweet Symphony!
Finally can understand what happened with that song. Thanks for the informative video.
You're welcome 😊
Well done - at last, have been talking about this for 20 years, at the time keith or mick didn't open their big fat mouths - disgusting - well researched and well executed - keep up the good work
Really funny coincidence, 2 song with famous sample top the chart; the one is 'ill be missing you', the second one is this song
Actually more than 2
Will Smith's Men In Black made number one...and is entirely based on a sample of Forget Me Nots by Patrice Rushen.
Another Mr Smith, James Todd Smith aka LL Cool J went to number 1 with Ain't Nobody, based on a sample of Chaka Khan's song of the same title. 🤓
Yeah, true. I mean, one screen shoot from this video show rhat show became #1 and #2 at the same time
This channel is freaking, so, amazing!
Thanks so much 🙏 glad u like it
Let’s all put butter sweet on our music streaming players on silent repeat over night
Nah lol. That just dilutes how much money everyone gets 🤦♂️ as there isn't a per stream payment it's prorata as a percentage of all streams.
If you like the song, why put it on silent? Just listen to it. 🤷♂️😁
It is so annoying that in an educational context extracts (that would last no more than a few seconds) can not be used. Scrub that, the law does allow it. It is so annoying that frivolous copyright claims can be used to stop extracts (that would be no more than a few seconds) be used in an educational video.
That has been my struggle on this channel. 🤷♂️ sometimes even a 3 second clip gets flagged.
Even with this, the five videos of yours I have watched today are extremely informative. Thank you. I hope one day the copyright trolls spewing out claims with zero legal basis are banned.
This one of the greatest channels on TH-cam!
thank you
one of the hardest things to get is an artist's permission because the entities that are supposed to be able to contact the artist are protecting their entitled blanket licenses..
.
Now you can do the men at work/ land of under story!😉🤞
Like this? th-cam.com/video/UODO2O5k_94/w-d-xo.html
It’s hard to believe how complex that scenario is. Klein sounds like one shady character
I wonder what the legal barriers Issey Cross's BitterSweet Goodbye had to pass sampling the orchestra piece from the Verve's Bitter Sweet Symphony.
Good question!
And not straight forward. The song actually samples Luude's remix of The Verve. Unless a specific derivative license is granted a remix is just an extension of the original track. So, as that track was released in 2022 the writer would be Ashcroft.
As Issey Cross' song is based on a sample of that remix its likely she has no song writing credit on her own track...
It took me a while to cross check this as it turns out there's over 20 compositions registered with the title "Bittersweet Goodbye". And even more still called "bittersweet goodbyes"
But eventually I did find the registration, the Issey Cross song is listed as being entirely composed by Richard Ashcroft. Interestingly though, they (Luude and Issey Cross) haven't yet registered the sound recording, which they will have some ownership of.
Thank you for this abundance of Information, thank you for responding 🙂
I think the Keith Richards quote is more in support of The Verve. As in "if they've written a better song than ours, they should keep the royalties" especially if you take the full quote in to account. ABKCO owned this rights to The Rolling Stones songs and were the one's keeping it from The Verve. When Allen Klein died, his son organised for the rights to be handed over to The Verve. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards actually had no say in the matter prior to Klein's death as he was the actual owner of the mechanical rights.
Richards quote was anything but in support of the Verve.
You literally had to change what he said to make it mean that. That's not what he said... That's what you want it to mean.
In the same interview he gleefully boasts about using copyright loopholes to claim songs they didn't write. This isn't a one off situation. Also, Klein died in 2009, if he was the only reason they were credited as 100% writers then why did it take more than a decade and for Ashcroft to have to ask...for it to be corrected....and why did they not return past royalties? 😕 Sorry, not buying that version at all. There's nothing to support it whatsoever, and everything suggests the contrary.
@@Traxploitation I think your way off with what you think happened here. According to Richard Ashcroft all monies the Stones derived from the song were passed to him. This was never anything to do with Jagger and Richard's anyway.
Don't see how what Richards said could be construed in any way as supportive of The Verve.
I always thought Jagger & Richards were dicks for this, but I'm glad to know the true story.
Don't worry, there's plenty other reasons why someone might think they're dicks 🤷♂️😆
@@Traxploitation LOL - true
They were & still are, since they never refused that deal and never returned the money they stole with The Verve's song. What they did was vile.
The funny thing is I think multiple songs on Richard Ashcroft's solo album from the early 2000s were far better. I listened to that a lot back then, and never even had that The Verve album.
Done esome homework here. Great documentation of events. Should be on TV this...
Thanks 😀 😊
I always thought that the violin melody line was part of the Oldham Orchestra sample, but I've just listened to the song WITHOUT the sample (in another TH-cam video: th-cam.com/video/J3QtMMFoYy8/w-d-xo.html ), and everything that makes "Bittersweet Symphony" a classic is intact. It's unfortunate the sample was ever used, as I'm sure the song still would have been a hit.
You missed a really important part of that Keith Richards quote: “I'm out of whack here, this is serious lawyer shit. If the Verve can write a better song, they can keep the money.” He’s basically saying that the Allen Klein situation is not something he wants to get into and (in a blunt sort of way) for The Verve to move on and write a better song that Klein can’t get his hands on.
Seems like the only part I "missed" is your interpretation. 🤷♂️ I don't think he saying anything other that what the words mean. "IF the Verve can write a better song"...(the if implies he thinks they DIDNT write the song) they can keep it...(implying that they don't deserve credit for the song) it's pretty clear what he means. 🤷♂️
I know for some fans of their music its hard to accept that they would do something like this...but the facts speak for themselves. For decades they happily collected money for the song...and seemingly only gave it back once its earning potential had reduced. Most songs earn the bulk of their money in the first 10 years. So giving it back after over 20 years is a hollow gesture, especially as they didn't pay any of the royalties back.
@@Traxploitation Yes, indeed. A tawdry gesture by M and K, really.
Ashcroft has praised them in interviews though 🤷♂️
@@rickygallagher1677 he was being magnanimous. 🤷♂️ 🤦♂️
Which came first - This MAy be the Last Time, or Last Train to Clarksville?
The Staples Singers version of "This May Be The Last Time" predates "Last Train" by about 12 years, but the song itself is much older.
It helps explain why there are so many bad jokes about killing lawyers and the black aura that surrounds the business end of music deals.
Bitter Sweet Victory I guess?
For sure!
That was actually the title of the blog I wrote that this is based on 😁
As soon as you said the name Alan klein it all made sense
Yeah it's like that with him...as soon as he's involved, you know someone somewhere is getting ripped off. 🤷♂️
The person to blame for this story isn't Mick and Keith, or even Alan Klein--- its the Verve producer and the band itself for not doing their own legal due diligence. They should never have used the Stones sample as it was --- they should have hired an arranger to orchestrate a variation beyond copyright infringement. As a result Richard Ashcroft had to pay Mick and Keith millions of $$. Now he will get some royalties finally for himself, but he made a huge mistake due to his own ignorance.
Ultimately, yeah.
The real mistake, was not clearing the composition for the sample. They only cleared the sound recording. They only realised after it was a hit and by then had a weak bargaining postion.
How hip hop artists deal with sample copywriting? The older tracks was filled with samples. And I think they never dealt with this buzz that the verve had to deal . They could be greater as Oasis and Klein just flushed their chance with this manuever.
hip hop artists created a massive "buzz" when sampling became apparent. Much of changes in copyright law and legal precedence were established by hip hop sampling cases.
Biz Markie vs Gilbert O'Sullivan in 1991 was the first of many huge cases.
2 Live Crew vs Roy Orbison
Vanilla Ice Vs Queen and David Bowie...
Mc Hammer Vs Prince.
All these cases were very expensive career threatening lawsuits.
The actions of Jagger and co killed one of the most promising British bands of a generation.
They will never be forgiven.
With their money, Jagger and Richards can just throw up their hands and walk away...it would be like suing Fort Knox for a torn dollar bill. After all, if you have a torn bill or most of the bill, the bank will exchange for you, no prob.
It seems that this Klein guy is just as evil as Saul Zaentz, the manager of Creedence Clearwater Revival.
You should cover The Jam's "Town Called Malice" and "I want you to" by Weezer
There wasn't actually a court case tho right? Still a good suggestion, I wasn't aware of the Weezer song...I always get them confused with Wheatus anyway🤷♂️😆
I guess I could do an espiode on copyright cases waiting to happen?
I'd add Bob Marleys Buffalo Soldier and the theme from the Banana Splits 🤔😁
@@Traxploitation I figured it out years ago and Googling other people are like What the Heck. But you put up the "Land Down Under" having started on a game show. Why not do a short or a quick hit on "Are they the same"? Weezer would have been Jam fans. I figured it might make for an interesting "mystery" video for you. I love both songs. I've seen Weezer three times. Heck, Weezer just charted with cover of "Africa"
I'll bet Kieth Richards' initial reaction on hearing the song was "cheeky bastard" leading to his snarky comment. I'd also bet a pound to a penny that if Ashcroft could have negotiated direct with Richards and Jagger to begin with a reasonable deal would have been agreed from the get go. This was all about one man: Kline. Does the music business really need the likes of Kline? Hmm. Still, it's nice to see matters were settled equitably and by all accounts amicably in the end. Urban Hymns is one hell of a good record.
😮
It should have been co credited to Jagger-Richards-Ashcroft from day one , even though they didn't even write the sample of course , but legally that was the logical compromise . Throw Klein into the mix however and you get a one-sided outcome. The sample makes the song , take it away and it loses so much and just sounds like regular Urban Hymns dreariness.
To my perception, the slowed down and rhythmically re-assembled verse melody of "The Last Time" one hears in the David Whitaker arrangement equals the vocal melody that Richard Ashcroft is singing in "Bitter Sweet Symphony". Makes me wonder if this really never was subject to the legal debate. But definitely, the credit should go to David Whitaker, whose majestic treatment still impresses today.
deep in the jungle...
You'd think that the stones would have been supportive instead of assholes... but...
Not really - they have a long history of squeezing every last cent out of every use of their music, and Jagger was a student at the London School of Economics before he was a rockstar. Sure, Klein certainly made matters worse - as he made pretty much everything he touched worse - but the Stones are cutthroat businessmen.
Quite ironically, Ashcroft's whole style and performance was heavily influenced by Jagger himself, at times it seemed like a parody (inculding the drug abuse). I never understood why he couldn't let go of this Jagger-obsession of his. He is a really great singer and songwriter all by himself.
After the Northern Soul Album, the band finally disbanded one of the reasons being Ashcroft's jagger-esque drug-fueld ambition to hit big. After that they ceased to be a "band" and continued to be a "Ashcroft-Band". I found it quite unfortunate, 'cause Nick McCabe's equal contribution as a guitarist was great. But ego's are quite stubborn.
So in a sense the biggest hit single on the new album (after the forced split) being "owned" by "Jagger/Richards" is a dream becoming a nightmare ;)
Klein got his claws into The Kinks as well😫 Tried it The Who too, but was less successful.
I still don't see the comparison between the Verve and the Stones.
Copyright laws kill creativity. It's not the musicians, it's the lawyers. If they had lawyers sneaking around the delta during the birth of the blues only one blues song would have made it out alive.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment 🙂
I can totally see why you would think that.
There's plenty of problems with the current application of copyright yes. But as for it "killing creativity" people have been saying that since 1831 when the US Copyright act was first amended to include musical compositions and since then we've had nearly 200 years of creativity...over 100 million new songs, many more new genres and styles of music.... With only a tiny fraction of those songs having any legal issues
Almost all copyright cases happen AFTER the song has been created and released. So it doesn't kill creativity, it just diverts the money away from some creators, which is still bad but hasnt stopped the spng getting made.🤔
Klein was slippery heel.
Let's not mention Led Zeppelin and their poaching.
Lol. Not YET anyway 😏
Or ac/dc who just steal from themselves. As every album sounds the same.
LOL, and people love them for it!
Didnt think the stones got anything from abkco since they sued Klein in the early 70s and lost.
Even if they didn't get anything from ABKCO, as a publisher they can't control the writers share. That is collected and distributed by performing rights organisations (PROs) like ASCAP or PRS.
So they would have still recieved a ton of cash over the years for the composition with or without ABKCO paying what they owe.
Cuz the stones don’t have enough dough
The most unfair thing I think I've never seen!
I was aware of these issues from way back, and thought the same as you've presented here.. it seemed blindly obvious to me that the string arrangement sounds nothing like the original version of the Last Time, regardless of the fact that it was based on the copyright, and always wondered why that wasn't tested in court.. im pretty sure a court would have agreed, and hence the only issue was the use of the original master recording, and hence.. a fee to Decca and the guy that actually wrote THE MUSIC.. David Whitaker. As Decca were happy to do it, none of this nonsense would've occurred.. it took a crook named Klein to achieve all that.. as for Mick and Keef, who knows how much they made, but ima thinking it was substantial, so by this point.. its no big deal cash wise, as the most of the money has been made.. their gesture may well be sincere.. but you cant be cynical enough about the music "biz". Beyond all this nonsense is one of the most beautiful tunes ever written.. and Richard Ashcroft should be well compensated for it, he earned it.. for the rest of us, the music is all that matters.
Nicely put!
The Stones suing someone for plagiarism, you can't make it up.
IKR lol. But their fans are having trouble accepting it.
There’s always a greedy you know who in every story involving a lot of money
Sadly, thats very true.
Anything with Allen Klein has been very destructive for the music world. Richards has unfairly made certain claims on the song, while he himself admits to having used The Staples Singers' material as an example. Dated more than 30 years ago. Not nice, Keith. You don't need that money. Then on top of that, there's an arrangement by Roger Whittaker that gets no credit at all. Shame! That must take so many years and puts a huge burden on the members of the band, in this case Ashcroft. I hope things like this are resolved more quickly and humanely. If there is someone who wants to make quick money by changing little, then it is simple. Then a claim follows. This one will no doubt be expected.
I think it’s pretty clear what the issue is here, “klein”!!!!
This probably led to the bands break up. Bitter sweet is the opening track to urban hymns, and no other verve albums were released after it. There isn’t a person on this planet who could connect the verve song with the stones song. But the Andrew Oldham version or whatever the hell it’s called is clearly what the verve stole
They should have re-released it without the sample as “Bittersweet Symphony (Richard’s Version)” 😂- but seriously this is one of the most tragic and sickening music industry stories of all time. Scummy as fck and I’m so glad Richard got the rights in the end.
What happens with the Staple Singers?
I love the Stones but you guys have got to give him his money back…. He needs it and you definitely don’t!
I’m a massive stones fan I would not have ever known , I have everything up to undercover by the stones ( official records) but that’s just greedy thank god attitudes have changed and BIG artists are less greedy , most of the stones early work is ripped from Chuck Berry , a black man I hope he got his dues , but the verve are a proper band PLUS their are only so many riffs , cord arrangements out their basically everybody nicks off everybody, read any Beatles book you will hear all about Klein but they lost Eppie
This shouldn't harm your enjoyment of the music, but it's clear we need to separate the art from the artist sometimes... 🤔
The strings were not by andrew? did the musician creator get any money???
A little but not much...