Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Stones are pulling Brown Sugar from their playlist for their US tour.

Is this a disgusting racist sexist song or a tongue in cheek condemnation of Slavery and the treatment of black women?

The lyrics

Gold Coast slave ship bound for cotton fields
Sold in the market down in New Orleans
Skydog slaver knows he's doin' all right
Hear him whip the women just around midnight
Brown Sugar, how come you taste so good
Brown Sugar, just like a young girl should
Drums beatin' cold, English blood runs hot
Lady of the house wonderin' when it's gonna stop
House boy knows that he's doin' all right
You should have heard him just around midnight
Brown Sugar, how come you taste so good?
Brown Sugar, just like a young girl should
Brown Sugar, how come you dance so good?
Brown Sugar, just like a black girl should
I bet your mama was a tent show queen
And all her boyfriends were sweet 16
I'm no school boy but I know what I like
You should have heard them just around midnight
Brown Sugar, how come you taste so good
Brown Sugar, just like a young girl should
I said, yeah, yeah, yeah, wooo!
How come you, how come you dance so good
Yeah, yeah, yeah, wooo!
Just like a, just like a black girl should
Yeah, yeah, yeah, wooo!
Source: Musixmatch

 

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-14/rolling-stones-cut-brown-sugar-from-tour-over-slavery-lyrics/100537974

The Rolling Stones have cut Brown Sugar from their US tour, at least for now, in the wake of criticism over its lyrics referring to slavery.

Key points:

  • Lead singer Mick Jagger said in 1995 that he "never would write that song now"
  • The lyrics reference beating and having sex with young slaves
  • The song has been described as "gross, sexist, and stunningly offensive toward black women"

The song, officially released in 1971, opens with the lyric "Gold Coast slave ship bound for cotton fields" and references beating enslaved people, and sex with young enslaved women.

"You picked up on that, huh?" Keith Richards told the Los Angeles Times in a recent interview, when asked about the song's absence at the British band's stadium shows.

"I'm trying to figure out with the sisters quite where the beef is. Didn't they understand this was a song about the horrors of slavery? But they're trying to bury it. At the moment I don't want to get into conflicts.

"I'm hoping that we'll be able to resurrect the babe in her glory somewhere along the track."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a classic.

I don't think that the song in any way legitimizes slavery, or the treatment of slaves by masters, but rather exposes the fact that not only were white men raping young black girls, but also that the lady of the house was taking advantage of the "house boy". It was a white supremacy thing, not for the song writers, but for what they were writing about.

 It still goes on today. If you don't believe it you're brain washed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Snaggletooth said:

greate songue.............               :)

And I would expect people hear and feel what bitter condemnation of slavery and racism this song is.

It may be that I expect too much of people

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

No-one can understand what Jagger is singing anyway - his voice is just another instrument.

Don't publish the lyrics and no-one will know any better.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

No-one can understand what Jagger is singing anyway - his voice is just another instrument.

Don't publish the lyrics and no-one will know any better.

Kinda like "Louie Louie" or "Blueberry Hill".....

The Stones song "Tumbling Dice" is another one with mystery lyrics. It took me about 25 years to hear that there was a "Fever in the funk house now"....

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that from the article, Keef says he doesn't understand the problem, and Mick says he wouldn't write it today and also he didn't know WTF he was on about.

All true. 

It IS a great song. One of the best and my affection for it probably colours my interpretation more than it should.

It's also an appalling song through todays lens.

Still, if we pulled all the truly great songs and art and statues from our playlists and museums and art galleries, simply because they were racist, sexist or involved minors, we'd all be condemned to listening to Karen Carpenter, hanging pictures of dogs playing poker on our walls and putting tasteful gnomes in our gardens. :)

However, seeing as these lyrics were from the same great talents that gave us "Under My thumb"

(dropped from their playlist AFAIK)  I wouldn't believe either of their apologies.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, ShortForBob said:

It's interesting that from the article, Keef says he doesn't understand the problem, and Mick says he wouldn't write it today and also he didn't know WTF he was on about.

All true. 

It IS a great song. One of the best and my affection for it probably colours my interpretation more than it should.

It's also an appalling song through todays lens.

Still, if we pulled all the truly great songs and art and statues from our playlists and museums and art galleries, simply because they were racist, sexist or involved minors, we'd all be condemned to listening to Karen Carpenter, hanging pictures of dogs playing poker on our walls and putting tasteful gnomes in our gardens. :)

However, seeing as these lyrics were from the same great talents that gave us "Under My thumb"

(dropped from their playlist AFAIK)  I wouldn't believe either of their apologies.

 

Hey! What's with the gnome hate? Flamingos are the only acceptable lawn ornament.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Stones started out as the Anti-Beatles - the band for mothers to worry about.

Now they are self censoring their back catalogue out of some sort of political correctness?

They have gotten old.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

The Stones started out as the Anti-Beatles - the band for mothers to worry about.

Now they are self censoring their back catalogue out of some sort of political correctness?

They have gotten old.

Maybe their girl fans just got older.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Navig8tor said:

Great song, the PC crowd are just adopting a slash and burn attitude to anything socially or racially inappropriate these days which itself smacks of a deep seated intolerance does it not?

Depends on the song. Under my thumb always made me squirm.

Living doll's another. 

Brown Sugar is as squirmy as they come on many fronts. BUT. it is a great song. :)

Black Betty? Great lyrics adapted by Leadbelly. Sad song.

 

Ram Jam? fucking awful steal by a bunch of white boys with no understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Navig8tor said:

Great song, the PC crowd are just adopting a slash and burn attitude to anything socially or racially inappropriate these days which itself smacks of a deep seated intolerance does it not?

It seems that if the Stones are choosing to self-censor, the so-called "PC crowd" isn't doing a damned thing.

It'd kind of like when the Dr. Seuss estate pulled a couple books last year on it's own, without being asked, and all the snowflakes lost their collective shit.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

It seems that if the Stones are choosing to self-censor, the so-called "PC crowd" isn't doing a damned thing.

It'd kind of like when the Dr. Seuss estate pulled a couple books last year on it's own, without being asked, and all the snowflakes lost their collective shit.

Good point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Next up.
Is George Harrison's While My Guitar Gently Weeps really about slavery???

Discuss.

 

I look at you all see the love there that's sleeping While my guitar gently weeps I look at the floor and I see it needs sweeping Still my guitar gently weeps. I don't know why nobody told you How to unfold your love I don't know how someone controlled you They bought and sold you. I look at the world and I notice it's turning While my guitar gently weeps With every mistake we must surely be learning Still my guitar gently weeps. I don't know how you were diverted You were perverted too I don't know how you were inverted No one alerted you. I look at you all see the love there that's sleeping While my guitar gently weeps Look at you all Still my guitar gently weeps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ShortForBob said:

The Stones are pulling Brown Sugar from their playlist for their US tour.

Is this a disgusting racist sexist song or a tongue in cheek condemnation of Slavery and the treatment of black women?

The lyrics

Gold Coast slave ship bound for cotton fields
Sold in the market down in New Orleans
Skydog slaver knows he's doin' all right
Hear him whip the women just around midnight
Brown Sugar, how come you taste so good
Brown Sugar, just like a young girl should
Drums beatin' cold, English blood runs hot
Lady of the house wonderin' when it's gonna stop
House boy knows that he's doin' all right
You should have heard him just around midnight
Brown Sugar, how come you taste so good?
Brown Sugar, just like a young girl should
Brown Sugar, how come you dance so good?
Brown Sugar, just like a black girl should
I bet your mama was a tent show queen
And all her boyfriends were sweet 16
I'm no school boy but I know what I like
You should have heard them just around midnight
Brown Sugar, how come you taste so good
Brown Sugar, just like a young girl should
I said, yeah, yeah, yeah, wooo!
How come you, how come you dance so good
Yeah, yeah, yeah, wooo!
Just like a, just like a black girl should
Yeah, yeah, yeah, wooo!
Source: Musixmatch

 

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-14/rolling-stones-cut-brown-sugar-from-tour-over-slavery-lyrics/100537974

The Rolling Stones have cut Brown Sugar from their US tour, at least for now, in the wake of criticism over its lyrics referring to slavery.

Key points:

  • Lead singer Mick Jagger said in 1995 that he "never would write that song now"
  • The lyrics reference beating and having sex with young slaves
  • The song has been described as "gross, sexist, and stunningly offensive toward black women"

The song, officially released in 1971, opens with the lyric "Gold Coast slave ship bound for cotton fields" and references beating enslaved people, and sex with young enslaved women.

"You picked up on that, huh?" Keith Richards told the Los Angeles Times in a recent interview, when asked about the song's absence at the British band's stadium shows.

"I'm trying to figure out with the sisters quite where the beef is. Didn't they understand this was a song about the horrors of slavery? But they're trying to bury it. At the moment I don't want to get into conflicts.

"I'm hoping that we'll be able to resurrect the babe in her glory somewhere along the track."

 

In hindsight, a trifle too satanic.    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ShortForBob said:

It IS a great song. One of the best and my affection for it probably colours my interpretation more than it should.

Quite the dilemma for you - torn between a great piece of music that your admit you like and your overwhelming need to appear woke.

But you have nailed it. The best way to facilitate change for the descendants of those who were cast into slavery is for white middle class people to virtue signal on social media.

Well done you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Quite the dilemma for you - torn between a great piece of music that your admit you like and your overwhelming need to appear woke.

But you have nailed it. The best way to facilitate change for the descendants of those who were cast into slavery is for white middle class people to virtue signal on social media.

Well done you.

And the rest of my post?

"Still, if we pulled all the truly great songs and art and statues from our playlists and museums and art galleries, simply because they were racist, sexist or involved minors, we'd all be condemned to listening to Karen Carpenter, hanging pictures of dogs playing poker on our walls and putting tasteful gnomes in our gardens"

It might surprise you how "unwoke" I am about the destruction of politically "unwoke" art and literature.

Not that you'd know anything about it.:rolleyes:

I'd put money on you being one of the would be Bill Henson burners.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

The stones?  Who cares? 

You mean besides their few hundred million fans?

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, ShortForBob said:

And the rest of my post?

"Still, if we pulled all the truly great songs and art and statues from our playlists and museums and art galleries, simply because they were racist, sexist or involved minors, we'd all be condemned to listening to Karen Carpenter, hanging pictures of dogs playing poker on our walls and putting tasteful gnomes in our gardens"

It might surprise you how "unwoke" I am about the destruction of politically "unwoke" art and literature.

Not that you'd know anything about it.:rolleyes:

I'd put money on you being one of the would be Bill Henson burners.

Who the fuck is Bell Henson? Your entire post is virtue signaling. You should just Paint it black. Anyway who gives a fuck about words to pop songs? No one really knows what they are saying.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I googled him. Seems he takes photographs and puts them in galleries so self absorbed middle class housewives can feel superior about themselves when they post on facebook about attending. Anyway Meli, haven't you got countries you don't live in to complain about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the scifi world the big publishers don't let a book go to print unless it has gay stuff in it.  I don't need this shit in everything I read and everything I watch on TV.  I don't read scifi to get a dose of gender whatever.  I'm really not all that interested in where people stick their dicks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, quod umbra said:

Is George Harrison's While My Guitar Gently Weeps really about slavery???

I think he was actually saying "catarrh".

And no, it wasn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

I googled him. Seems he takes photographs and puts them in galleries so self absorbed middle class housewives can feel superior about themselves when they post on facebook about attending. Anyway Meli, haven't you got countries you don't live in to complain about?

I'm not done complaining about the one I live in yet.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

In the scifi world the big publishers don't let a book go to print unless it has gay stuff in it.  I don't need this shit in everything I read and everything I watch on TV.  I don't read scifi to get a dose of gender whatever.  I'm really not all that interested in where people stick their dicks.

The dragon riders in McCaffery's  bisexuality was pretty subtle 40 years ago.

Sci Fi  is intended to be the future. So the present is just catching up.

Enjoy :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ShortForBob said:

The dragon riders in McCaffery's  bisexuality was pretty subtle 40 years ago.

Sci Fi  is intended to be the future. So the present is just catching up.

Enjoy :D

No, it is the LGBTMBS forcing authors to shoehorn gay stuff into places it does not belong.  If it is an organic part of the story, that's fine.  If authors are forced to add gay crap into their stories in order to get them published it is not fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

No, it is the LGBTMBS forcing authors to shoehorn gay stuff into places it does not belong.  If it is an organic part of the story, that's fine.  If authors are forced to add gay crap into their stories in order to get them published it is not fine.

It's an interesting observation and a bit of a conundrum. 

Many of the rainbow community used to get really pissed off at the lack of Rainbow content in books, now just as many get pissed off with the token gay couples in everything just as much as anyone.

We now put rainbow stickers on this material both fiction and non fiction even in the teen fiction. This actually  annoys our gay staff. Simply because they acknowledge that curious teens that are not out, wouldn't be comfortable borrowing a book with a rainbow on it. I agree.

It's not necessarily the LGBT community driving this, a lot is simply the publishers and media thinking they know what sells.

Things come in wave's, remember when every novel in the eighties had to have a gratuitous sex scene?

Most were so bad they were laughable.

Then you'll have a spate of teen books about the protagonist dying of cancer.

Or  putting recipes in books.

It will settle down.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

No, it is the LGBTMBS forcing authors to shoehorn gay stuff into places it does not belong.  If it is an organic part of the story, that's fine.  If authors are forced to add gay crap into their stories in order to get them published it is not fine.

Look at the last half of Heinlein's output, back into the 60's. Polyandry, pansexuality, it's all there. Time Enough For Love really came out of the closet that way, but science fiction for eons has been out in front of current mores. You think "Slipstick Libby" was hetero male? Look at it through modern eyes. It hasn't just been science fiction, it has been social progress fiction in many ways.

Don't let your allergy to anything except missionary position between a man and a woman cloud your perceptions. It's been out there for decades.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

In the scifi world the big publishers don't let a book go to print unless it has gay stuff in it.  I don't need this shit in everything I read and everything I watch on TV.  I don't read scifi to get a dose of gender whatever.  I'm really not all that interested in where people stick their dicks.

This is absolutely false, but you keep on thinking it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

No, it is the LGBTMBS forcing authors to shoehorn gay stuff into places it does not belong.  If it is an organic part of the story, that's fine.  If authors are forced to add gay crap into their stories in order to get them published it is not fine.

No on is forced to add any gay sexuality into anything to get it published. That's literally not how the publishing industry works.

Taking it out is the norm, it's only a fairly recent phenomenon where you can put in as much as you want.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

In the scifi world the big publishers don't let a book go to print unless it has gay stuff in it.  I don't need this shit in everything I read and everything I watch on TV.  I don't read scifi to get a dose of gender whatever.  I'm really not all that interested in where people stick their dicks.

"Tell us your favorite writers are Larry Correia, Brad R. Torgersen and Vox Day without actually saying it..."

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

 it's all there.

I don't care if it's there, if the author wants to make that stuff part of the story that is fine.  What I am not OK with is authors being required to add things to their story by the publishers, if they don't it doesn't get published.  I don't need to read about gay issues in every single book I read.  I don't need to watch things about gay issues in every tv show I watch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ShortForBob said:

It will settle down.

In the meantime an entire generation of media are being ruined.  It isn't much different than the 90's Judge Dread movie, now all restaurants are Taco Bell.  Commercials  should not become part of the story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

In fact, I don't need to see straight people making out on TV either.

You must be old like me . .  . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

You must be old like me . .  . 

In programming you keep the business logic separate from the other logic.  If I want to watch porn I can go watch porn, I don't need to see it in actual stories.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

Didn't covid kill off most of those geezers?  Average age of a stones fan is like 84.

Hope you die before you get old.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

In the scifi world the big publishers don't let a book go to print unless it has gay stuff in it.  I don't need this shit in everything I read and everything I watch on TV.  I don't read scifi to get a dose of gender whatever.  I'm really not all that interested in where people stick their dicks.

 

Fingers.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

Look at the last half of Heinlein's output, back into the 60's. Polyandry, pansexuality, it's all there. Time Enough For Love really came out of the closet that way, but science fiction for eons has been out in front of current mores. You think "Slipstick Libby" was hetero male? Look at it through modern eyes. It hasn't just been science fiction, it has been social progress fiction in many ways.

Don't let your allergy to anything except missionary position between a man and a woman cloud your perceptions. It's been out there for decades.

True. But it was either little more subtle or had some merit other than, Julio easing his engorged member into some innocent maidens tender concha.

Memorable even

David Brinn "Pink?” At first he thought he had imagined it. But the words repeated, a little louder. “Pink?

I'll leave you hanging :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

In the meantime an entire generation of media are being ruined.  It isn't much different than the 90's Judge Dread movie, now all restaurants are Taco Bell.  Commercials  should not become part of the story.

really? My generation was simply ruined I tell ya :D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2021 at 7:18 PM, B.J. Porter said:

It seems that if the Stones are choosing to self-censor, the so-called "PC crowd" isn't doing a damned thing.

Nope , 

obviously feeling the heat from the PC crowd .

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2021 at 7:30 PM, ShortForBob said:

Best quote from the article.

The song, officially released in 1971, opens with the lyric "Gold Coast slave ship bound for cotton fields" and references beating enslaved people, and sex with young enslaved women.

"You picked up on that, huh?" Keith Richards told the Los Angeles Times in a recent interview, when asked about the song's absence at the British band's stadium shows.

"I'm trying to figure out with the sisters quite where the beef is. Didn't they understand this was a song about the horrors of slavery? But they're trying to bury it. At the moment I don't want to get into conflicts.

"I'm hoping that we'll be able to resurrect the babe in her glory somewhere along the track."

 

Current culture is definitely hilarious.

We will fix the world by making Superman Gay, Captain Marvel a woman, and Captain America Black.  We'll remake Saved by the Bell but make the cast Black.

Too bad they can't come up with some original heroes and story lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile Snoop makes millions portraying himself as a pimp. :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, justsomeguy! said:

I think he was actually saying "catarrh".

And no, it wasn't.

Oh no? How can you be so sure?
Surely I am not the only one who has made that observation.

As for the guitar. There is some speculation that the version on The White Album is Harrison playing guitar, not Clapton. That while Clapton was brought into the studio and laid down a good deal of material for the song, that none of that actually made it to the White Album version.....

There is also a good deal of speculation that the bass may not be McCartney. Not going into details on that but I do know that when a studio musician would be brought in to do some work on a song, if they were paid Musician's Scale, they would not be credited on the album. Standard practice really. You were given the choice, receive royalties, but no scale if you opted for that, or take the money up front and be ineligible for royalties....thus no credit.
Frankly I do not think McCartney did that bass track or more aptly the only bass track used.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Oh no? How can you be so sure?
Surely I am not the only one who has made that observation.

As for the guitar. There is some speculation that the version on The White Album is Harrison playing guitar, not Clapton. That while Clapton was brought into the studio and laid down a good deal of material for the song, that none of that actually made it to the White Album version.....

There is also a good deal of speculation that the bass may not be McCartney. Not going into details on that but I do know that when a studio musician would be brought in to do some work on a song, if they were paid Musician's Scale, they would not be credited on the album. Standard practice really. You were given the choice, receive royalties, but no scale if you opted for that, or take the money up front and be ineligible for royalties....thus no credit.
Frankly I do not think McCartney did that bass track or more aptly the only bass track used.

Who, then?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Oh no? How can you be so sure?

Because it really doesn't matter.

Lyrics can actually distract us from the important part, the music.

Unlike here:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, quod umbra said:

Oh no? How can you be so sure?
Surely I am not the only one who has made that observation.

As for the guitar. There is some speculation that the version on The White Album is Harrison playing guitar, not Clapton. That while Clapton was brought into the studio and laid down a good deal of material for the song, that none of that actually made it to the White Album version.....

There is also a good deal of speculation that the bass may not be McCartney. Not going into details on that but I do know that when a studio musician would be brought in to do some work on a song, if they were paid Musician's Scale, they would not be credited on the album. Standard practice really. You were given the choice, receive royalties, but no scale if you opted for that, or take the money up front and be ineligible for royalties....thus no credit.
Frankly I do not think McCartney did that bass track or more aptly the only bass track used.

See the right attribution. 

 https://musicindustryinsideout.com.au/session-musicians-know-rights/

 Flat fee means the musician signs away any rights to the work's future earnings, but his or her work must still be credited.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mark K said:

See the right attribution. 

 https://musicindustryinsideout.com.au/session-musicians-know-rights/

 Flat fee means the musician signs away any rights to the work's future earnings, but his or her work must still be credited.  

Ummmm, no.
You have included a cite from Australia. Rights to music varies from country to country. And accreditation varies from country to country.
Further, say you worked on a song that was a hit and were paid scale. In the UK you are not entitled to royalties. That same song, recorded, produce, published, same, same, same, in the US you may well be due royalties and not due royalties in the UK.... now say that song is then used by a different artist, a cover of the original. In the UK you are not due anything unless you held the rights to the song, but under US law, you are, even though you were just a studio musician who worked on the project decades earlier, got paid scale and was not credited on the album jacket.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, justsomeguy! said:

Because it really doesn't matter.

Lyrics can actually distract us from the important part, the music.

Unlike here:

 

So you are saying if My Guitar Gently Weeps was an instrumental, it still would have been a hit on billboard?
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Ummmm, no.
You have included a cite from Australia. Rights to music varies from country to country. And accreditation varies from country to country.
Further, say you worked on a song that was a hit and were paid scale. In the UK you are not entitled to royalties. That same song, recorded, produce, published, same, same, same, in the US you may well be due royalties and not due royalties in the UK.... now say that song is then used by a different artist, a cover of the original. In the UK you are not due anything unless you held the rights to the song, but under US law, you are, even though you were just a studio musician who worked on the project decades earlier, got paid scale and was not credited on the album jacket.

 

I specifically stated that a scale session musician is not in line for royalties. Did you read my post? 

  I referred to attribution, which you specifically stated a session musician does not get. Says here it's a little different in the UK but only on notation of individual tracks. Says the right of attribution is still there though. It's pretty well standardized between the UK and the US on artist's rights. 

 https://musiciansunion.org.uk/working-performing/recording-and-broadcasting/engagements-as-a-session-musician-or-featured-artist#crediting

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Who, then?

- DSK

Who then what???

You mean the actual bass player? Like I said, not going into details but it ain't all that hard to figure out I suspect. I'll give you this hint and you can work on it from there. In the notations about WMGGW, the vast amount written about that song, it is commonly stated that the instrument used was a Fender Jazz Bass with flat wound strings, for at least one of the bass tracks (the latter part may also be a clue).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mark K said:

 

I specifically stated that a scale session musician is not in line for royalties. Did you read my post? 

  I referred to attribution, which you specifically stated a session musician does not get. Says here it's a little different in the UK but only on notation of individual tracks. Says the right of attribution is still there though. It's pretty well standardized between the UK and the US on artist's rights. 

 https://musiciansunion.org.uk/working-performing/recording-and-broadcasting/engagements-as-a-session-musician-or-featured-artist#crediting

Ummmm, no. Although UK law has I believe changed a bit since 1969. 
I do happen to know that The Crown set up a commission to look into artists that may have been due accreditation and royalties. Two very celebrated cases of the results of that regarded Pink Floyd. Clare Tory was finally credited for Great Gig In The Sky and paid royalties. As well the orphanage choir that was used in recording The Wall received a royalty settlement. However, in that latter case they could not identify any individuals who actually sang on The Wall. So Pink Floyd paid one million pounds (IIRC) to the actual orphanage to be used for child services.

Anyhow, those listed on the album jacket in many instances are NOT the actual people laying down the tracks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Ummmm, no. Although UK law has I believe changed a bit since 1969. 
I do happen to know that The Crown set up a commission to look into artists that may have been due accreditation and royalties. Two very celebrated cases of the results of that regarded Pink Floyd. Clare Tory was finally credited for Great Gig In The Sky and paid royalties. As well the orphanage choir that was used in recording The Wall received a royalty settlement. However, in that latter case they could not identify any individuals who actually sang on The Wall. So Pink Floyd paid one million pounds (IIRC) to the actual orphanage to be used for child services.

Anyhow, those listed on the album jacket in many instances are NOT the actual people laying down the tracks.

    So what's your point? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mark K said:

    So what's your point? 

I thought that would be obvious.
That things in the music industry are rarely what they appear to be. That what people think of a band or artist isn't necessarily reality. Not by along shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

I thought that would be obvious.
That things in the music industry are rarely what they appear to be. That what people think of a band or artist isn't necessarily reality. Not by along shot.

I know what you mean. Some even thing George was writing about slavery when he did "While My Guitar Gently Weeps".  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mark K said:

I know what you mean. Some even thing George was writing about slavery when he did "While My Guitar Gently Weeps".  

Yeah because no one in the whole wide world would see;

I don't know why nobody told you
How to unfold your love
I don't know how someone controlled you
They bought and sold you

I look at the world and I notice it's turning
While my guitar gently weeps
With every mistake we must surely be learning
Still my guitar gently weeps

and not think it may be a slave reference. Nobody.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Yeah because no one in the whole wide world would see;

I don't know why nobody told you
How to unfold your love
I don't know how someone controlled you
They bought and sold you

I look at the world and I notice it's turning
While my guitar gently weeps
With every mistake we must surely be learning
Still my guitar gently weeps

and not think it may be a slave reference. Nobody.

 Yes, but anyone besides yourself? Probably not. Unfolding love is not an issue with slavers. Except the kind that are paid, like certain types of Russian hookers.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ShortForBob said:

remember when every novel in the eighties had to have a gratuitous sex scene?

No but I obviously didn't read the same Mills and Boon drivel that you did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

In programming you keep the business logic separate from the other logic.  If I want to watch porn I can go watch porn, I don't need to see it in actual stories.

Some porn movies have story lines. Why only yesterday I watched one where a young lady was working as a pizza deliverer...

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Mark K said:

 Yes, but anyone besides yourself? Probably not. Unfolding love is not an issue with slavers. Except the kind that are paid, like certain types of Russian hookers.  

you are giving weight to a single line whilst ignoring the three surrounding/following it.
Are chains and control not the tools of slavery?
At the same time you seem to ignore George Harrison's emerging social conscientiousness, or finding his feet on the subject.

Don't know anything about russian hookers, so I shall defer to your expertise on that subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

In the meantime an entire generation of media are being ruined.  It isn't much different than the 90's Judge Dread movie, now all restaurants are Taco Bell.  Commercials  should not become part of the story.

Demolition Man, not Judge Dredd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

Some porn movies have story lines. Why only yesterday I watched one where a young lady was working as a pizza deliverer...

Well well, that's quite a coincidence. Just the other day I was acting in a porn movie and the plot, such as it was, involved a pizza delivery lady.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

you are giving weight to a single line whilst ignoring the three surrounding/following it.
Are chains and control not the tools of slavery?
At the same time you seem to ignore George Harrison's emerging social conscientiousness, or finding his feet on the subject.

Don't know anything about russian hookers, so I shall defer to your expertise on that subject.

Chains? WTF? There are no "chains" in that song. Also that word "conscientiousness" does not mean what you apparently think it means.

We must have delivered you a pizza with the wrong kind of mushrooms on it........

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well well, that's quite a coincidence. Just the other day I was acting in a porn movie and the plot, such as it was, involved a pizza delivery lady.

- DSK

God I hope it wasn’t the same one. The strap on she used on the guy when he asked where his extra sausage was was friggin huge! :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

God I hope it wasn’t the same one. The strap on she used on the guy when he asked where his extra sausage was was friggin huge! :) 

Yeah, my stunt double did not like that scene. But I thought you'd appreciate my putting that in for you, after the bastard was in another movie with your sister

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yeah, my stunt double did not like that scene. But I thought you'd appreciate my putting that in for you, after the bastard was in another movie with your sister

- DSK

Again.

 

 

Fuck I love this place!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Who Says “Pinball Wizard” Is The Clumsiest Song They Ever Wrote

When rock and roll group The Who came out with the rock opera Tommy, the track “Pinball Wizard” became a massive hit. As it turns out, guitarist Pete Townshend admitted that they only wrote the song so that they could impress and win over music critic Nik Cohn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

R.E.M. Thinks “Shiny, Happy People” Is A Fruity Pop Song For Kids

“Shiny Happy People” was on the 1991 album Out of Time and was the single for the record. The song also features Kate Pierson of the B-52s and peaked at No. 10 on the Billboard Hot 100. Although the song was a hit, the band wasn’t at all satisfied it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Left Eye Felt That TLC’s “Creep” Sends The Wrong Message To Women

When “Creep” came out in 1994, it was incredibly successful topping the charts at No.1 and taking home a Grammy for the Best R&B Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocals. Yet, one member of TLC was not thrilled with the song or the message that it projected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple Minds Resented “Don’t You (Forget About Me)”

Simple Minds became popular after “Don’t You (Forget About Me)” was featured in John Hughes’ 1985 classic film The Breakfast Club. The song went on to become No. 1 in the United States. The downside for the song to Simple Minds was that it was written by someone else and didn’t sound anything like the music that the band makes themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Madonna Nevers Wants To Hear “Like A Virgin” Again

Although Madonna’s “Like a Virgin” is one of her greatest earlier hits, in an interview, she admitted that she might not ever be able to sing the song again — that is unless someone pays her a large sum of $30 million — and even then it’s unlikely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pretenders Didn’t Even Want “Brass In Pocket” To Be Released

“Brass in Pocket” was a 1979 single by The Pretenders. It was the band’s first big hit and remained at No.1 on the UK singles chart for two weeks, No.2 in Australia, and No.14 in the United States. Before the song was even released, lead singer Chrissie Hynde was not a fan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LB 15 said:

Simple Minds Resented “Don’t You (Forget About Me)”

Simple Minds became popular after “Don’t You (Forget About Me)” was featured in John Hughes’ 1985 classic film The Breakfast Club. The song went on to become No. 1 in the United States. The downside for the song to Simple Minds was that it was written by someone else and didn’t sound anything like the music that the band makes themselves.

I think it was written with Billy Idol in mind, but he passed on it 

Link to post
Share on other sites