I heard Elvis Costello wanted 2 do a renake of POP LIFE but was denied even though i think he was on the same label W.B. True???

pickle said:

Elvis Costello DID do a cover of Pop Life. Search for it, it aint hard to find.

I think this song is great, especailly the Xtended version found on Ultimate.

Elvis Costello wanted to do a cover version with altered lyrics. That's what Prince denied.

Legally, anyone is allowed to cover anyone elses music, as long as you give the original composer his/her due credit and pay the royalties if you intend to "sell" it. Elvis Costello could have released his alternate version if he really wanted to and there is nothing Prince could have done about it... but there is generally an unwritten law among musicians that you ask permission first (which Prince obviously declined).

toejam said:

Yep. Plus if you alter the music or words in any way you definatly need permision.

althom said:

Exactly right, substantially altering the lyrics or melody means you have to get permission and pay proper fees/royalties directly to the song's copyright holder. Since Elvis wanted to change the lyrics, he had to get Prince's permission.

.
[Edited 9/27/06 19:36pm]

ElCapitan said:

So Prince got permission to change the lyrics (and title) of I Can't Make You Love Me? I've always been curious about that. And Every Day Is a Winding Road too.

Efan said:

Has to be a significant change. "U" instead of "You" probably not significant enough (although it wouldn't hurt to get permission just in case).

Couldn't have been that hard to get permission from Sheryl Crow.

also spme major lables will not put a cover on their lable with out getting the OKAY from the owner. that is one reason you do not see more prince covers.

ElCapitan said:

I was thinking more about when he changed the line to "just hold me close between your thighs." Maybe that's not a big deal either, but I always felt it cheapened the song a lot. Anyway, since he's always guarded his own work so closely, I've been curious how he went about changing that song, "One of Us," and "Winding Road"--even though he didn't change them all that much.

Interesting. SOme questions:

1. WHen your band plays a cover in a live venue, is that permission and roylaty free?

2. who's to say what "altering the music" really means? changing the chords a little, bending hte melody, doing some subsitutions here and there.... it's all improv. how can they tell?

GaryMF said:

1. Yes, royalty free. You do not need to pay royalties or get permission to play a song live - even if you're getting paid for the gig. Although if you intend to "sell" it (ie. a live album/DVD etc.) then you need to pay the fees.

2. You need a good lawyer to figure that one out

toejam said:[quote]

GaryMF said:

are you sure? i understand that any public performance requires a 3 to 7 dollar royalty. not that it is something they police to closely. but i understand that even when the waiters sing "happy birthday" at restaurant they are legally required to pay the royalty.

SlamGlam said:[quote]

toejam said:

It's the venue (restaurant/bar/concert hall) that has to pay when a licensed song is performed in a public, usually for profit, setting. They often pay a blanket fee to perform or play any song licensed by one of the licensing agencies.

If a restaraunt doesn't want to pay a blanket fee just because every so often they sing "happy birthday" (which is technically a licensed song) they'll sing something else that ain't licensed.

I would suggest the following for a good overview of alot of these issues.

http://entertainment.hows...alties.htm


.
[Edited 9/28/06 21:40pm]

Very interesting.

If your band plays a rest or club, you assume they ar paying the roylaties to Ascap or bmi?

what if you play a private party or something?

GaryMF said:

that is almost always free