Why We Are Subjected to Beatlemania, Again
I love the Beatles, don't get me wrong. I worship and adore. Paul McCartney in concert is a religious experience. But I'm over it. I'm over Beatlemania. I want it to stop. Why? Why now? Ah, a little thing called sound recording copyright.
In 2012, the Beatles first recorded single, "Love Me Do," will enter the public domain. Originally released in 1962, under the UK copyright law a sound recording no longer belongs to the artist who recorded it after 50 years. Some big name artists and record company advocacy groups lobbied to get an extension to mirror the United States 95-year term. In April of this year, the European Union approved an extension from 50 to 70 years, however, the U.K. and member states have balked at it and the proposal has gotten lost in the political shuffle.
So of course the Beatles, and more specifically their label group EMI, want to exploit the recordings as much as they can before it becomes public property and can be used free of charge.
It begs a larger question, what is the use of copyright in today's world?
Consumer advocates are against copyright extension because they feel it stifles creativity, stunts innovation and punishes public use of art. If Ringo Starr can continue to profit from recordings made 50 years ago, he'll never record a new song ever again! The entire point of copyright protection is to create and profit for only a set period of time and then let the public enjoy it for free. Of note is that once recordings enter the public domain, artists can also use their recordings for free and not have to pay or license them from the record companies.
Back in the day, record companies used the sales and profits of back catalog to fund and develop new artists. Today, most labels are loosing money hand over fist because consumers don't want to spend $15 on round, little disks.
Back catalog is the saving grace for the embattled music industry to boost their profit margins -- between the Beatles and Michael Jackson, EMI and Sony, respectively, are having relatively good years.
However, the copyright of a song is valid for the life of the author plus 70 years. Ironically, the Beatles don't even own their songs, Michael Jackson's estate does (Jackson purchased the Beatles catalog in 1985 out from under Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono). Poor Jackson is raking in money all over the place. People are even taking bets on who will be the largest selling act of 2009 -- Jackson or the Beatles. It's beyond bizarre.
So now we are stuck with Beatlemania. A last ditch effort to make as much money off of the Beatles' sound recordings as humanly possible. We are even stuck with the game "The Beatles: Rock Band." According to published reports, the Beatles' remastered catalog and the game could generate approximately $1.6 billion, which is more that the gross domestic product of some countries.
John Lennon, George Harrison and Michael Jackson must be looking down on us quoting Shakespeare (whose works are in the public domain) and saying, "What fools these mortals be."
Follow Tamara Conniff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tamarastar
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Please buy as mich Beatlemania as you like and please buy the beatle rock band games; Prince, Paris and Blanket love their dad and the beatle's music. The children cannot wait until Beat It and Thriller go gamers.
I love Tamara's articles; they create such stimulating conversations on HP; it and style section give us a break from the ugliness of political scene of today. Well it time for me to go back and yell at the rethug liars, teabagger, deathers, birthers, cheats, tricksters, and, etc...
an aside: I a sked Roger is it true Keith Moon did this?? that.. & i' tried t o go into specifics.. he looked at me.. whispered.. anything you heard about Keith.. was true..
I went.. oh.. lol. I never asked him another question.. ..I liked roger.. he's ok..
Quote Pt 1:
"Well, it's a wonderful thing. Through the course of this tour I've noticed how many young kids there were out in the audience, 9, 10, 11 years old, and they were air drumming and air guitaring all these parts to not only to those songs, but to a lot of the songs. Through those games they've been introduced to our music, and from there their parents have just taken it to the next level. It's an amazing thing to view that from the perspective of standing on a stage playing those songs and looking at these young kids getting off on it in such a great way. I'm so hopeful for the future of music because we've gone through a very difficult period, where it's become a lot more poppy and there's been a magic taken out of music, and I hope it's starting to come back. I think a lot of these young kids that start out with Guitar Hero and Rock Band are developing an interest in music and learning how to really play the songs. That is a very hopeful thing for the future of music.
Quote part 2:
I think it's always great to be able to play a real instrument. These games, these are just controllers. But it sparks something. There's nothing that's quite as exciting as learning to play your first song or figuring out the chords to a song and taking it to the next level and then of course learning to play it well enough that you can start writing your own music. It's just such a wonderful way to express yourself and be creative."
-Alex Lifeson
Rush
well, it had made me cool with my great nephews and neices. I can finish all the words to the secret language they think they are speaking (Beatle lyrics)
One thing, I may be able to remember the words but I cannot dance dance dance all night long anymore.
Its so obvious that this current 'mania' is entirely concoted, nobody cares about the Beatles anymore. America is so far beyond that "The Fool on the Hill" tune it can't even be sung ironically. The worst part is the complicity of the media in the scam trying to gin-up enthusiasm. Local news stations resurrecting dessicated Beatles stories, feigning enthusiasm in mind-numbingly dull Ringo Starr inverviews. Are we really so easily manipulated?
Conceding that all big entertainment events are accompanied with "concocted" media interest, whether it's the Super Bowl or the next Harry Potter movie, it must also be said that all the PR and advertising in the world can't force people to buy a product they don't want. And the early results say that people who like video games and like the Beatles love this product. (And it's ludicrous to suggest the band's unwavering popularity is a media scam: the Beatles have sold 28 million albums since 2000, second only to Eminem over the past decade. If a band "nobody cares about" can move 28M records in 9 years, it's scary to think of how much they'll sell when people start caring again.)
From USA Today:
"First-day sales surpassed our forecast," says Game Crazy vice president Rob MacNaughton. The Beatles-themed Rock Band "is helping to reinvigorate the music genre. We're seeing more families come in to purchase this game, as it bridges the generation gap and exposes video gaming to a broader audience."
An even bigger spike for the game should kick in during the holidays.
"The launch is really targeted at gamers," says Van Toffler, MTV Networks Music Group president. "The second round will go toward 'gifters' — wives buying for husbands and moms buying for kids."
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2009-09-10-remastered-beatles_N.htm
really, why don't say that over t he annual Elvis revival..
By contrast, the Michael Jackson posthumous sales spikes were entirely spontaneous!!!
I don't know what planet you're on. My kids love The Beatles. They've listened to them with me for years, and then really took interest after seeing "Across the Universe." My 7 year old will watch anything with The Beatles in it. All 4 of my little girls can identify each member of the band. They even love the old Beatles cartoons.
We're a Beatle loving family. Get over yourself, man. Nobody needs to "gin-up enthusiasm." Kids of all generations love The Beatles, and they always have.
If you really think no one cares about the Beatles, then why do thye occupy 9 out of the top 10 spots on Billboard?
Because they finally came up with properly remastered digital recordings?
MikeDu: Waiting for the Beatle Bubble To Burst, Year 45
Your title "Musical Expert Judge" contradicts your opinions. If you are victimized into suffering through Beatlemania again, perhaps you could ask those greedy corporate monsters to kindly remove the gun from your head . Then you can continue making all those stars who will most certainly leave a cultural legacy as great as the Beatles.
"If Ringo Starr can continue to profit from recordings made 50 years ago, he'll never record a new song ever again!"
Have you heard Ringo's solo stuff. This is blessing.
Sorry Tamara, but I have to disagree. Every time I see The Beatles Rock Band spot on TV it makes me feel good inside and hopeful that a new generation exposed to The Beatles' message of peace and love can accomplish things that we couldn't. The Beatles' music is timeless. They were the Mozarts of the 20th century. With all due respect, I'd take what The Beatles accomplished between 1965 and 1970 over a million P. Diddys.
The Mozarts of the 20th century? They ripped off rockabilly and repackaged it with a boy band image that was more palatable to mom and dad. Heady stuff.
That's exactly what I thought when I first heard Magical Mystery Tour. The ripped-off (?) rockabilly riffs just shout out to anyone who wants to hear it.
What they did was FAR beyond "ripping off rockabilly", little one. Obviously, music history is not your strong point.
Who do you think is better?
Yeah. Because all those screaming girls were just doing that to impress Mom.
The Beatles are the most over-hyped band in history. Their music was not boundary-pushing and retains its mediocre sound to this day. All they were is popular. Yes, I understand how important that is, but it doesn't change the fact that they weren't musical geniuses, and it's frustrating to watch them be treated as such.
And the whole constant re-releasing of the catalog is just sad. I feel sad for anyone going out and buying darn-near-identical versions of songs that they very likely already own. That's pathetic gullibility and it makes me cry a little to think of people that dumb. Same goes for anyone willing to shell out money for that "special edition" Rock Band set of instruments. The game plays the same on any model of guitar. Paying $50 over base price for a Lennon-like guitar is worthy of pity.
You just embarrassed yourself big time. This is the worst take I've ever read. If you don't think everything after the Ed Sullivan years was boundary pushing then you know nothing about music. kthxbye.
Lol, I'm being told I embarassed myself by someone who CHOSE "ticklemonster2" as their screen name? The irony...
The Beatles were pop music only, especially when their fame reached levels at which they could put out albums of random noise and still have it reach the top of the charts.
And the points about the overpriced Rock Band instruments remainly incredibly valid. Pay more for an instrument with no discernable differences other than appearance? That's a scam, plain and simple.
Red alert . You questioned the legacy of the baby boomers. Now every baby boomer who can manage to operate a computer coupled with an aol account will chime in to remind you of how they revolutionized absolutely everything and how they are now revolutionizing retirement. Report to the re-education facility where you will be forced to listen to Wings until your ears bleed. May god have mercy on your soul.
LOL. Thanks for the heads-up, au6553.
Hilarious, you are funny!
Why so serious mon? If people want to spend their money on music they love, why should you cry.
What music do you deem worthy of your money?
And to suggest the music of the Beatles was not boundary pushing? If you were listening to the radio back then, it should have been quite clear just how unique the sound was, especially when compared with other popular music of the day. Back then, groups would release albums of 3 minute songs; maybe 12 or so per album. One or two would be okay, the rest filler. Beatles albums; same length and number of songs, but most were winners. Local am radio would have countdowns of the days' most popular songs (or the week, month, whatever). It was common for the Beatles to have several songs at the top of these lists. They were popular not because of hype, but because they were good. This all must be taken in the context of the times.
Your proclamation that they were not musical geniuses; I think you may be unqualified to make that assessment.
How many albums have you sold?
If you think Paul McCartney in concert is a religious experience then you aren't a Beatles fan. Sorry.
A religious experience like a good-old-fashioned goat sacrifice.
better than that.. toots..
y
The only god actively being worshipped in corprate boardrooms is Mammon. So long as cash can be made to flow by means of ownership of a work of art, those who take home massive piles of cash will fight tooth and nail to see to it that their offsprings will lead lives of indolence filled with drug and alcohol abuse.
Concentration of assets is one of those human inventions like religion that gives small comfort to a few but exploits the many bringing with it untold misery for most of humanity.
After thousands of years of having mostly cultures in which the wealth is concentrated and religion bows down before it and thereby fostering misery, we have come to accept that such stupidity and viciousness is the proper order of the universe.
Copyright was created to give an artist some respite and allow sufficient resources to continue creating more art. It is now a mechanism which bathes in cash corporate interests far more than it soothes and comforts the artists whose labor and genius produced it.
This notion that copyright "stifles creativity" is baloney, and an insult to working artists.
Irving Berlin, Richard Rodgers, George Gershwin, Stephen Sondheim, Lennon & McCartney, Paul Simon, Pete Townsend, Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan, and Elton John are just a few top songwriters who owned extremely valuable copyrights while still in their early to mid-20s.
Far from stifling creativity, their copyrights allowed them to devote themselves exclusively to their passions instead of doing hack work to pay the rent. And we're all richer for it. Where would our culture be if important popular artists didn't have the financial freedom to spend months or years working on ambitious, commercially risky projects? (Would "Porgy and Bess," "Sweeney Todd," or "Pet Sounds" exist if their authors didn't have the artistic freedom afforded by the copyrights of "Swannee" or "West Side Story" or "California Girls"?)
And there are thousands of less spectacular examples of artists of all kinds whose successful copyrights bought them years of artistic freedom, years in which they were free to explore the limits of their talent and do their very best work without interruption or compromise.
Anyone who says an annuity like a valuable copyright is a bar to creativity doesn't know what drives artists to be artists in the first place.
Yes, they're driven to be alive after they're dead so they can create Sweeney Todd.
"70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first"
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
Copyrights last far too long. Originally created to stimulate the arts, they now serve to stifle creativity.
Here's a thought-experiment: cut the life of a copyright to five years. See if the production of works falls off. If it doesn't, that means the copyright period was too long.
You write a song, you own it. You invent a product you own the patent. Why does the public have the RIGHT to the product of an artist's labor? If you build your house, should I be able to move in in five years?
There is nothing, or next to nothing, new in music. If every modern musician (corporation) is granted infinite copyright, then it becomes more and more difficult for a new musician to create something. Every time a new creation comes around, it will be attacked for copyright infringement.
We've already seen the absurdity that comes from this. John Fogerty was sued for his solo album on the ground that his songs sounded too much like Creedence Clearwater Revival.
Why should the public not be able to sing any song they hear? Why should the public not be able to apply any invention they learn about? Why should a writer or inventor be able to PREVENT anyone from doing whatever they want to?
The answer lies in the Constitution: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Writers and inventors have no God-given RIGHT to prevent others from using their ideas. The RIGHT is granted by the public, for the good of the public, and can be taken away by the public when the public believes it is in their best interest.
I totally disagree with this article. I think the emergence of The Beatles coming back into our collective thoughts and wallets is a great thing. Why? Because the music is dead. Creatively and business wise. If I was a current artist right now, wouldn't I be a little worried that the top selling artist of 2009 is a dead pop star and a rock band from the 60's? Current artists have lost innovation and have lost the interest of music buyers.
I work in the industry, and I am happy that today's kids are being exposed and introduced to the genius of The Beatles. Look at all the great artists and groups they have inspired over the years (Led Zeppelin, Q-Tip, Prince, etc) and I rather have a kid be inspired by John Lennon than Lady Gaga. Their catalog holds substance, wonderment, experimentation and dreams. Can you say the same for say...T-Pain? I just hope that in 5 to 10 years that a musical prodigy, actually playing an instrument, can produce a piece of music that will inspire, jam and uplift a generation, and I bet some of that discovery will be from a Beatles song....and not Lady Gaga.
Q-Tip?
Regarding T-Pain, I do like his part in "I'm on a Boat."
That is all.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
