Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
HellOnICE

Brooklyn Musician suing Devils

72 posts in this topic

I also liked it when they did Runnin' with the Devil by Van Halen. That was great too.

+1

When you heard that song start, you knew you had about one minute to get to your seat before the lights went out and the video started. And that was back in the Yanni days of awesome pre-game videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps it's been expunged because it was such a terrible playoff season, but two years ago when they used 30 seconds to mars as part of the opening for the flyers playoff series, i thought was the best intro they've ever had - including the Yanni years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever considered that the reason they no longer use any of the "old favorites" is that the $$$ for the license use of those tunes was too expensive?

Regardless of the quality of the tune (and for the record I think that most of the music made in the last 15 years is crap) - they should paid for the use.

The ridiculously stupid "Lars Ulrich/South Park" - "suing for press" stereotype is why music sucks today. Everyone thinks that its OK to use, download, Youtube, or steal any song because its rich artists or record companies getting paid - no harm there.

Or, they feel that since the "starving artist" is getting exposure that its OK. The actual truth is the artist is making less than 10% of any CD sale (at MSRP), and even less on Legal downloads. The only way they truly make income is from licensing use - and that's exactly what's happening here.

Whether its 2012 Symphonic genius or some crap made on a home MAC(which most music today unfortunately is) the artist deserves to be paid for the use of their art the same way average Joe is paid for his 8, 10 or more hours at work each day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the quality of the tune (and for the record I think that most of the music made in the last 15 years is crap) - they should paid for the use.

The ridiculously stupid "Lars Ulrich/South Park" - "suing for press" stereotype is why music sucks today. Everyone thinks that its OK to use, download, Youtube, or steal any song because its rich artists or record companies getting paid - no harm there.

this is a totally ridiculous opinion. yes, it's because of lawsuits that music - apparently all forms of it - is terrible. way to make a gigantic logic jump that associates two completely unrelated things. are you seriously arguing that musicians everywhere are no longer incentivized to make good music because there's a chance that they can't earn millions of dollars from it?

Or, they feel that since the "starving artist" is getting exposure that its OK. The actual truth is the artist is making less than 10% of any CD sale (at MSRP), and even less on Legal downloads. The only way they truly make income is from licensing use - and that's exactly what's happening here.

licensing use is surely a big part of a top musician's income, but if you don't think this lawsuit is an attempt a publicity grab for an unknown band, you're being naive. yes, they deserve to be compensated for the use of the song - the amount they deserve, i don't know. but it's certainly not $30 million or anywhere near that.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a sh!t song and I HATE the video. I purposely avoid sitting down until after that so I dont have to see it. Just awful at what it tries to do. Contrived bullsh!t.

They really need to play up the fact that we're the DEVILS. This a huge advantage for something like marketing. And they produce that rancid fart of an entrance.

And there needs to be some damn fire involved too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps it's been expunged because it was such a terrible playoff season, but two years ago when they used 30 seconds to mars as part of the opening for the flyers playoff series, i thought was the best intro they've ever had - including the Yanni years.

I agree. Being there in person was even better with the RED ALERT stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever considered that the reason they no longer use any of the "old favorites" is that the $$$ for the license use of those tunes was too expensive?

Regardless of the quality of the tune (and for the record I think that most of the music made in the last 15 years is crap) - they should paid for the use.

The ridiculously stupid "Lars Ulrich/South Park" - "suing for press" stereotype is why music sucks today. Everyone thinks that its OK to use, download, Youtube, or steal any song because its rich artists or record companies getting paid - no harm there.

Or, they feel that since the "starving artist" is getting exposure that its OK. The actual truth is the artist is making less than 10% of any CD sale (at MSRP), and even less on Legal downloads. The only way they truly make income is from licensing use - and that's exactly what's happening here.

Whether its 2012 Symphonic genius or some crap made on a home MAC(which most music today unfortunately is) the artist deserves to be paid for the use of their art the same way average Joe is paid for his 8, 10 or more hours at work each day.

I agree for the most part of what you wrote here. The problem is with today's music you cannot sell unless you have some sort of image. Basically you are either slutty (Britney, Rhianna), stale American-party rock (Nickelback, Kid Rock), thug rap/ hip hop or just plain weird (Lady Gaga). There are also a lot of underground bands that are quite terrible as they all really start to blend and sound the same and their image of underground is basically as far as they will go...underground.

Plus all the music you hear on the radio is for younger people, and I am talking about 10-15 crowd. Years ago rock and pop music in general was enjoyed by all ages up till their 50's and even 60's, but now it is all tween crap.

Take Rebecca Black. She got crap for her song Friday but mark my words, if Katy Perry sang that exact same song with the exact same lyrics it would have been a hit. Music is for little kids now and nothing appeals to anyone over 15 or 16 anymore unless you go to independent music shops or online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps it's been expunged because it was such a terrible playoff season, but two years ago when they used 30 seconds to mars as part of the opening for the flyers playoff series, i thought was the best intro they've ever had - including the Yanni years.

+1

Need more efforts like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not at all say most music today is crap, or made on a mac. If you have gone 15 years without listening to good, new music then I am sorry for you. I will certainly say that close to 100% of music on popular radio stations is absolute, sh!tty ass garbage... but i think the only difference between music now and music back in the day is that you have to look harder for great music... but it is certainly out there!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not at all say most music today is crap, or made on a mac. If you have gone 15 years without listening to good, new music then I am sorry for you. I will certainly say that close to 100% of music on popular radio stations is absolute, sh!tty ass garbage... but i think the only difference between music now and music back in the day is that you have to look harder for great music... but it is certainly out there!!

Its not even hard to find, but if regular FM radio is your only outlet, blech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not even hard to find, but if regular FM radio is your only outlet, blech.

there you go, exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Interesting info on the subject as well

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2011/8/22/2377647/new-jersey-devils-lawsuit-black-water-rising-band

The song is licensed by ASCAP, or the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, which works as a sort of middle man between artists like Black Water Rising and venues such as Prudential Center or teams such as the Devils. These organizations purchase "blanket licenses" through ASCAP, and that license grants them the permission to use their entire collection of music in a public setting, such as an arena or over the airwaves.

The band just doesn't like how the devils use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not even hard to find, but if regular FM radio is your only outlet, blech.

Most of the bands I hear online or find as underground music are terrible and quite frankly all sound the same.

But that is another thread....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a BS law suit.. they should be compensated thru ASCAP, just like Quiet Riot or AC/DC gets compensated. I'm not going to criticize their music, but they should be thrilled at getting a break to have their music heard by Devil's fans... by suing they have effectively crapped in their own bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like on their facebook one of the fans was saying the Devils should pay because 30 million is just peanuts to them. :lol: Yes, that makes 30 million a reasonable dollar amount, even if they were being blatantly ripped off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with that guy.

You seem to have missed the point, but that isn't surprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a totally ridiculous opinion. yes, it's because of lawsuits that music - apparently all forms of it - is terrible. way to make a gigantic logic jump that associates two completely unrelated things. are you seriously arguing that musicians everywhere are no longer incentivized to make good music because there's a chance that they can't earn millions of dollars from it?

licensing use is surely a big part of a top musician's income, but if you don't think this lawsuit is an attempt a publicity grab for an unknown band, you're being naive. yes, they deserve to be compensated for the use of the song - the amount they deserve, i don't know. but it's certainly not $30 million or anywhere near that.

Sorry dude - You're out of your element on this one.

It is an absolute fact that the reason why copyright laws were invented. It actually derives from the English Statute of Anne in 1709 - wheras the incentive for creative art (or intellectually stimulated art or property) was in the able to utilize one's creation to develop an income stream. Absolutely, a professional musician or composer (by this I mean trained - not this BS pop stars or bands) needs to commit full-time to improving and generating better craft. If they are spending the majority (or any significant amount) of their time in another line of work to support themselves it takes away from their study and work.

Licensing and Publishing IS the biggest part of a composer or musician's income in today's business. Its not record sales, or downloads, or even touring. The ONLY way composers can earn significant living money from their work is LICENSING. Owning the publishing rights to material is key. Because so many folks believe music should be free - or delude themselves in thinking that illegal download isn't wrong. Or they simply don't care enough to actually stop.

The reason why record companies keep delivering crap is because in their effort to still try to reap a profit in this business they are simply following trends in hopes to capitalize on $$$. They aren't going to take any chances on anything different because there's not enough cash-spending consumers to make it worth while. MAke no mistake the music industry is dying - and its consumer downloading that is killing it. Anybody that thinks that true musicians are going to make music for "the love of the music" is kidding themselves. We're not talking millions of dollars here - we are talking sustainable income. You simply cannot make a sustainable income in this business without having a key foot in Music Licensing. A simple poll on how many folks on NJDEVS.com alone DON'T PAY for 90% of their music will back this up since you like stats. This fact - and the sense that "anyone can do music" through shows like AI is absolutely, unequivocally, reducing the number of choices out there as to different types of music (Regardless of what style/genres you like personally).

To the guy who thinks that ASCAP should pay - ASCAP is a non-profit middle-man society which deals soley with tracking "performance -based rights). This is a synch-related issue as it accompanies I video I believe (tell me if I'm wrong). ASCAP doesn't make any $$$ - they simply charge licenses to performance venues and broadcasting outlets and track and distribute funds based on number of airplay or performance numbers.

I AGREE that the actual amount of $$$ is in question. However, the ROCK is a large venue in addition to MSG being a top-market air station (depending if the song is broadcasted or not) - which alone should up the cost. I'm not saying that they should get a king's ransom, but the uneducated "starving artist", "crap musicians", "Lars Ulrich" banter I've been hearing is unfounded.

Truthfully, its the publishers (those that hold the publishing rights) of the song fighting this battle - not the band at all. They are probably well-happy for the publicity alone. The Publishing Co. stands the most to lose as its sole form of income is the song use.

My previous info is definitely colored by the fact that I am totally uninterested and nauseated by 99% of the music of the last 15 years as there is little variety (cue: the guy that says he listens to a wide variety of music both metal AND rap AND classic rock). The rise of technology has fully contributed to the decrease of musicianship with it. IF the marketplace could change and people made more informed choices about how their dollar actually affects the amount of creativity in our music culture we could affect change (i.e support what they like buy buying that artists music and ZERO CD burns or illegal downloading) than we might see things grow more diverse.

Having said all this ... uhh.... oh yeah - the band song choice was Langenbrunner's - so its his fault.... :whistling:

Edited by DevilinLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not at all say most music today is crap, or made on a mac. If you have gone 15 years without listening to good, new music then I am sorry for you. I will certainly say that close to 100% of music on popular radio stations is absolute, sh!tty ass garbage... but i think the only difference between music now and music back in the day is that you have to look harder for great music... but it is certainly out there!!

This is true, or at least it is in the nyc area where every station is exactly the same. I'm sure other markets have it a bit better

Edited by devlman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not at all say most music today is crap, or made on a mac. If you have gone 15 years without listening to good, new music then I am sorry for you. I will certainly say that close to 100% of music on popular radio stations is absolute, sh!tty ass garbage... but i think the only difference between music now and music back in the day is that you have to look harder for great music... but it is certainly out there!!

Absolutely its out there. There is A LOT of good music out there.

The problem is that the current state of the Music Market (illegal downloading) can't support it - and those musicians will certainly have a nightmare of a time developing a viable career from it.

There were also problems 15 years ago in music diversity but the essential elements that changed the game were:

1. File Compression

2. Internet Download Speed and Consumer Cost

3. Personal Computer Cost and Hard Drive Space

4. Mobile MP3 devices

The argument that - "it helped lesser artist get heard and evened the playing field" - I disagree with. It took away the gatekeepers that determined if the music quality was high enough to get supported by A&R dollars. As quality fell the marketplace became saturated with mediocre music. Very few of these CD BABY artist can support a career without being picked up by major label dollars. With a lot less consumer dollars to go after - the record companies stuck to following trends in money making by jumping on bandwagons (H. Montana, Boy Bands, Pop Starts, etc.)

These things changed the way consumers access music and as a result the way music makes $$$.

Edited by DevilinLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have missed the point, but that isn't surprising.

Oh I saw your point jackass and I know you were being sarcastic. Go back to begging people for ideas/comments on your wanna be in Lou we trust blog as it is as boring as watching paint dry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry dude - You're out of your element on this one.

It is an absolute fact that the reason why copyright laws were invented. It actually derives from the English Statute of Anne in 1709 - wheras the incentive for creative art (or intellectually stimulated art or property) was in the able to utilize one's creation to develop an income stream. Absolutely, a professional musician or composer (by this I mean trained - not this BS pop stars or bands) needs to commit full-time to improving and generating better craft. If they are spending the majority (or any significant amount) of their time in another line of work to support themselves it takes away from their study and work.

Okay, agreed. I don't know why a citation from 1709 is needed, I guess to puff up your credentials.

Licensing and Publishing IS the biggest part of a composer or musician's income in today's business. Its not record sales, or downloads, or even touring. The ONLY way composers can earn significant living money from their work is LICENSING. Owning the publishing rights to material is key. Because so many folks believe music should be free - or delude themselves in thinking that illegal download isn't wrong. Or they simply don't care enough to actually stop.

These sound like two things that aren't related. A musician owns the rights to the music. If the music is illegally used where the music would normally be licensed, that musician has the right to recompense for his or her work. What does illegal downloading have to do with this?

The reason why record companies keep delivering crap is because in their effort to still try to reap a profit in this business they are simply following trends in hopes to capitalize on $$$. They aren't going to take any chances on anything different because there's not enough cash-spending consumers to make it worth while. MAke no mistake the music industry is dying - and its consumer downloading that is killing it. Anybody that thinks that true musicians are going to make music for "the love of the music" is kidding themselves.

Who says the industry needs the massive record companies? There's a huge shift in the way that people are consuming music these days, and no one knows what the fallout is going to be.

And yeah, true musicians will make music for the love of the music, I have no doubt about that. Whether or not it's as good, or the production values are the same, or there's as many people doing it, is another matter.

We're not talking millions of dollars here - we are talking sustainable income. You simply cannot make a sustainable income in this business without having a key foot in Music Licensing. A simple poll on how many folks on NJDEVS.com alone DON'T PAY for 90% of their music will back this up since you like stats. This fact - and the sense that "anyone can do music" through shows like AI is absolutely, unequivocally, reducing the number of choices out there as to different types of music (Regardless of what style/genres you like personally).

This is just totally untrue and again, is completely backwards. I can download any music in whatever genre I like from the comfort of my own home. I don't have to buy an album only hearing one song on the radio, I can sample every song thanks to amazon.

I AGREE that the actual amount of $$$ is in question. However, the ROCK is a large venue in addition to MSG being a top-market air station (depending if the song is broadcasted or not) - which alone should up the cost. I'm not saying that they should get a king's ransom, but the uneducated "starving artist", "crap musicians", "Lars Ulrich" banter I've been hearing is unfounded.

so suing for $30 million dollars makes sense.

Truthfully, its the publishers (those that hold the publishing rights) of the song fighting this battle - not the band at all. They are probably well-happy for the publicity alone. The Publishing Co. stands the most to lose as its sole form of income is the song use.

How do you know this? That seems to be contradicted by this article here:

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2011/8/22/2377647/new-jersey-devils-lawsuit-black-water-rising-band

My previous info is definitely colored by the fact that I am totally uninterested and nauseated by 99% of the music of the last 15 years as there is little variety (cue: the guy that says he listens to a wide variety of music both metal AND rap AND classic rock). The rise of technology has fully contributed to the decrease of musicianship with it. IF the marketplace could change and people made more informed choices about how their dollar actually affects the amount of creativity in our music culture we could affect change (i.e support what they like buy buying that artists music and ZERO CD burns or illegal downloading) than we might see things grow more diverse.

We might see things grow more diverse? The marketplace is incredibly diverse! People's ipods are more diverse than all but the most devoted audiophile's collection would have been 15 years ago. I can't tell if you're an industry insider or a former musician (or both or neither), but your logic strikes me as backwards on most of this issue. The industry is changing - we'll see what happens in ten years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way ASCAP works is a venue like Prudential Center would pay a licensing fee to ASCAP that allows them to play music from the entire library of songs registered thru ASCAP. The musicians would then receive a royalty for every time their song is played, ASCAP cutting them a cheque several times a year. I think this guy seems to be upset that his song was used in the video that was played what, 41 times before Devils games?

I'm not sure if ASCAP failed to pay a royalty due to it's use in video media??

$30,000,000 seems pretty silly... i'm sure the devils could hook him up with some compensation equivalent to what Ozzy gets from the Devils everytime they play crazy train... :D

http://www.ascap.com/members/payment/royalties.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0