I was watching a movie music discussion with the Coen Brothers and they mentioned that they wanted to use a David Bowie song in one of their films and he asked for hundreds of thousands for using one fucking song? wow. Greedy bastard. Shame on you David.

Hendrix Estate is awful as well. Why be so greedy?

2freaky4church1 said:

I was watching a movie music discussion with the Coen Brothers and they mentioned that they wanted to use a David Bowie song in one of their films and he asked for hundreds of thousands for using one fucking song? wow. Greedy bastard. Shame on you David.

Hendrix Estate is awful as well. Why be so greedy?

The Beatles are the worst. £500,000 - according to Questlove.

Militant said:

The Beatles

They were guaranteed $10 million for Rock Band plus profits after the game broke even for Viacom.

Well, I expect that Prince would do the same as well!! I lost all respect for Prince when he became all about the Almighty $$$$!!!

[Edited 6/29/15 12:16pm]

PurpleSpirit319 said:

Well, I expect that Prince would do the same as well!! I lost all respect for Prince when he became all about the Almighty $$$$!!!

[Edited 6/29/15 12:16pm]

Nonsense.

Prince has shown time and time again that his art is more valuable than monetary fees.

For example - he has REGULARLY turned down the use of his songs in movies where he doesn't approve of the content - violent movies, sexist movies, etc.

He's also declined certain rappers from sampling his songs for the same reason. Ja Rule was declined from using "Pop Life" and he turned down Snoop as well, who ranted at him about it on YouTube.

In the last 18 months alone, Prince has performed at least two charity shows for absolutely no fee. Shows that generated huge amounts of money for the charities in question.

Glee wanted to do a Prince episode - he said no, but allowed them to use just one song. A whole episode would have been a huge payday for him.

Ummm. he can charge whatever the hell he wants. It's HIS material . How would you lose respect for someone deciding they would rather not license a song unless they get paid big for it.
I respect him for teh amazong body of work he has and the fact that if he sells out it is worth it. Thats called business. Sheesh.

Militant said:

2freaky4church1 said:

I was watching a movie music discussion with the Coen Brothers and they mentioned that they wanted to use a David Bowie song in one of their films and he asked for hundreds of thousands for using one fucking song? wow. Greedy bastard. Shame on you David.

Hendrix Estate is awful as well. Why be so greedy?

The Beatles are the worst. £500,000 - according to Questlove.

Mad Men got a discount for "Tomorrow Never Knows". It only cost them $250,000 to license the song back in 2012: http://blogs.wsj.com/spea..._news_blog

It's still a lot of money.

2freaky4church1 said:

I was watching a movie music discussion with the Coen Brothers and they mentioned that they wanted to use a David Bowie song in one of their films and he asked for hundreds of thousands for using one fucking song? wow. Greedy bastard. Shame on you David.

Hendrix Estate is awful as well. Why be so greedy?

Why is it with musicians people think some businessmodels shouldn't apply?

Music is also a normal job for them and if he can ask this amount of money for a song, why not?

It's the way the market works.

Or should he ask less money because we're talking about music here?

When Conan was losing the Tonight Show he played a Beatles song on the show just to cost NBC money, what a cost! Prince wouldn't clear his song for one of the Designing Women dvd sets so he blows too.

2freaky4church1 said:

I was watching a movie music discussion with the Coen Brothers and they mentioned that they wanted to use a David Bowie song in one of their films and he asked for hundreds of thousands for using one fucking song? wow. Greedy bastard. Shame on you David.

Hendrix Estate is awful as well. Why be so greedy?

.

when a movie can rake in multi millions of dollars a few hundered thousands isnt that big of cut.

I see nothing wrong with this.We have to remember that,this is a business,after all.If you're an artist and someone wants to use one of your songs in a movie,you should try to get as much money as you can.

2freaky4church1 said:

I was watching a movie music discussion with the Coen Brothers and they mentioned that they wanted to use a David Bowie song in one of their films and he asked for hundreds of thousands for using one fucking song? wow. Greedy bastard. Shame on you David.

Hendrix Estate is awful as well. Why be so greedy?

If you have somethin of value, and you want it to continue to be valued, you dont license often, and when you do you want to associate yourself properly and charge through the nose for it, precisely because you don't license often, so when you do, it should be worth it on every level.

It doesnt make him greedy, it make him smart.

SoulAlive said:

I see nothing wrong with this.We have to remember that,this is a business,after all.If you're an artist and someone wants to use one of your songs in a movie,you should try to get as much money as you can.

...Exactly and Amen Bruh.....David Bowie can ask for High-6-figures becuz he's David Fucking Bowie...He's not asking for a Check he doesnt deserve...

When he acted in Labrynth, he demanded 400k for each testicle.

mynameisnotsusan said:

Pfftt...Prince got a $100,000 for the one word sample of Tennessee. http://www.riffraf.net/20...tennessee/

Yeah, but he got that much because Arrested Development didn't ask for his permission to use "Alphabet Street". So that's on Arrested Development, not Prince.

bluegangsta said:

tatocorcu said:

bluegangsta said:

When he acted in Labrynth, he demanded 400k for each testicle.

Worth every penny, as they were the undeniable stars of the film...

Those tomatoes were rated as 33% fresh - each.

When Carol Burnett came out with the 1st DVD set of her show ( "The Best Of ...") the music skits and performances weren't included. Why? Ms. Burnett said, it was too costly. Her DVD box-set would've have cost a couple of hundrend dollars. Speed forward a couple of years and all of Burnett's shows are on DVD now, unedited. I'll assume "her people" were able to negotiate a payment - the recourd companies, publishers and artist- they could live with.

It's business, as Sould mentioned.

====================================

[Edited 7/2/15 5:30am]

I guess Bowie enjoyed the

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

Small film makers cannot afford to buy expensive songs like that. The artist already wrote the song years ago, the fucking song is not worth the money!

Bowie is a douch.

KingSausage said:

The Coen Brothers suck ass anyway. He should've charged even more, and allowed them to use only Too Dizzy or The Laughing Gnome.

Now that's funny.

2freaky4church1 said:

Small film makers cannot afford to buy expensive songs like that.

surely,they could find some "cheaper" music to use? There was a recent biopic on Jimi Hendrix and the Hendrix estate wouldn't allow the filmmakers to use his classic music.The movie was still made and released.

Coen Brothers are one of our top artists. bah.

Minnesota makes greats suckas.

Space Oddity fuck ass bitch.

You should write some music for them, 2freaky. Do your part to fill the gap left by that money grubbing teabag.

mynameisnotsusan said:

Pfftt...Prince got a $100,000 for the one word sample of Tennessee. http://www.riffraf.net/20...tennessee/

Thanks for posting this! I don't think I ever knew what happened with their "Alphabet St" sample clearance.