Heart condemns McCain-Palin use of 'Barracuda'

[Mike]

ST. PAUL, Minnesota (CNN) — Blasting through the Republican convention hall is the 1977 hit "Barracuda" by rock band Heart.

It's a shout-out to Sarah Palin. When she played basketball in high school, the soon-to-be Republican vice presidential nominee earned the nickname "Sarah barracuda" for her fierce competitiveness.

Some of her opponents revived the "Sarah barracuda" nickname after she became mayor of her hometown, Wasilla, in 1996, defeating a three-term incumbent.

UPDATE: Ann and Nancy Wilson of Heart said Thursday night that Universal Music Publishing and Sony BMG have sent a cease and desist notice to the McCain-Palin campaign over their use of 'Barracuda.'

"We have asked the Republican campaign publicly not to use our music. We

hope our wishes will be honored," the group said in a statement that said they "condemn" the use of the song at the Republican convention.

© 2008 Cable News Network

[Steel2Velvet]

What's the world coming to when musicians litigate the intent, by placing restrictions upon who may listen, to their music? I might better empathize if Heart was willing to financially compensate each and everyone at that convention who purchased any of their music in the past.

Seems fair that if Heart Inc. accepted income for their music based on sales and not ideology, they gave up the right to assign their own politics to the listener of that music.

[TheLizard]

I disagree there. If I wrote something, and the person used my writing to support something that not only am I against, but the writing itself is against, I would be extremely angry and do anything I could to stop it being used in that sense, regardless of the fact that the piece is on the free market.

[Mike]

If I was Palin, I would, the next time a national media source was in my face, ask all her supporters to sing the song whenever she appears. Heee-heee, that would really piss them off. This would make it a bigger issue than if they had just kept their mouths shut!

[RonJonSurfer]

I can't believe that one person who heard Barracuda being played at the RNC thought, "Wow, I didn't know Ann and Nancy Wilson were Republicans?" As a matter of fact, I'm not sure that the record company PR machine didn't use this protest as a method to remind people that Barracuda is by Heart and subsequently sell a few more copies of a 30 year old album.

[Mike]

I can't believe that one person who heard Barracuda being played at the RNC thought, "Wow, I didn't know Ann and Nancy Wilson were Republicans?" As a matter of fact, I'm not sure that the record company PR machine didn't use this protest as a method to remind people that Barracuda is by Heart and subsequently sell a few more copies of a 30 year old album.

No way, you think they would stoop to such levels, just to promote themselves..to make money?

[RonJonSurfer]

Way!

[Batman]

They should have remembered that Heart are from Seattle, WA and probably aren't down with the GOP

[bazooka]

I can't believe that one person who heard Barracuda being played at the RNC thought, "Wow, I didn't know Ann and Nancy Wilson were Republicans?"

Just like I couldn't believe that when I nominated The Pretenders' My City Was Gone to the Top Ten, or even suggested that it had cool bass, it was found to be guilty by association with Rush Limbaugh's radio program.

Besides, Republicans shouldn't be allowed to use anything cool. It runs contrary to their platform.

[Kevin]

What's the world coming to when musicians litigate the intent, by placing restrictions upon who may listen, to their music? I might better empathize if Heart was willing to financially compensate each and everyone at that convention who purchased any of their music in the past.

Seems fair that if Heart Inc. accepted income for their music based on sales and not ideology, they gave up the right to assign their own politics to the listener of that music.

^ Agreed -100%.

[Lucky]

They (and other artists) just need to get over themselves. It's a song, it doesn't infer anything. You'd think that as women, they'd be happy to have a song of theirs associated with a strong woman. I thought it was clever.

[Batman]

I can understand why they'd be upset but I think writing an anti-McCain/Palin song might be more meaningful

[scott]

http://www.slate.com/id/2199492/&GT1=38001

there's that answer

[bazooka]

They (and other artists) just need to get over themselves. It's a song, it doesn't infer anything.

I so disagree.

Use of an artist's work implies an endorsement.

It's a damned catchy rock song, used for the same reason popular songs are used in any advertising: it stays in the listener's mind.

What I find amusing is that boosters will latch on to something like the nickname connection, and not take any notice of lyrics or the story of a song.

[Steel2Velvet]

Well, Bazooka, if you ever find yourself in the position to create - and are subsequently paid for - a piece of art (no matter the medium) and decide you want to police just how that art is presented by a legal purchaser - you are going to be one busy policeman; with much less time to produce more art.

I suspect the Wilson's are making a political statement and not an artistic one.

[scott]

I think the irony of certain songs being used by certain politicians is delicious.

They don't pay attention to the story behind the song, or what it means, just one catchy little line or word or connection.

A lot like Raegan using 'Born in The USA'

Now, the Wilsons' might just be making an attempt to boost up some sales right now, or they were unaware that there are clauses that can be signed by the artist in the whole ASCAP thing that prohibit politicians from using their tunes without explicit permission.

[JumboXL]

Tom Petty, in 2000, threatened the Bush-campaign with legal action on hearing that they intended to use his "I won't back down" for the Republican campaign. (http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=1070) .

Tom being the intellectual owner of the songtext had every right to do so, in my opinion, just as the Wilson sisters do now.

Bill Clinton is forever connected to "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow" by Fleetwood Mac. If an artist finds such a connotation an unattractive perspective, so let him he/she determine the artistic fate of his/her artifact and take appropriate action.

Mick Jagger sank deep in my esteem after allowing Microsoft launch Win98 using "Start me up". Says a real veteran Stonesfan!

[Lucky]

I suspect the Wilson's are making a political statement and not an artistic one.

Exactly.

[Mike]

I think the irony of certain songs being used by certain politicians is delicious.

They don't pay attention to the story behind the song, or what it means, just one catchy little line or word or connection.

A lot like Raegan using 'Born in The USA'

Now, the Wilsons' might just be making an attempt to boost up some sales right now, or they were unaware that there are clauses that can be signed by the artist in the whole ASCAP thing that prohibit politicians from using their tunes without explicit permission.

I think that people are so naive when they here a song, they don't really consider the "meaning" but rather the "fundamental implication" based on the title or the chorus. Songs are a powerful form of subliminal conditioning, most artists know this, that's why they get so upset.

This might be a good time to add THIS LINK from last February when Carl gave an interview about this very subject.

A couple of years ago I attended a performance of school children singing Beatles songs. It really amused me to consider the "actually meanings" of these songs as the youngster sangs them so innocently, songs about drugs and sex. If they only knew that these songs were not innocent at all.

[Shawna]

Martina McBride's "Independence Day" was written about domestic violence. And here's how songwriter Gretchen Peters says about what's happened with it:

Conservative radio talk show host Sean Hannity started using the chorus of this song as his introduction music in 2001. Regarding Hannity playing this song, Peters has this to say: "They have to pay me every time they play it, and I don't have any control over whether they play it or not. I can't make them stop. I don't agree with the guy on anything. But they do pay me. I guess I feel it kind of puts me in slightly better position to support the causes I believe in. I know that he's using it, I know he's completely disregarding what the song's about. It has nothing to do with patriotism or anything like that. But that's an old story. That's a really old story. I think it was Reagan who used 'Born In The U.S.A.' for his campaign song. And I wanted to say, Hey, have you listened to that song? It's about the Vietnam War - hello? So that goes on all the time. And I just figure, as long as they pay and that gives me the wherewithal to support causes that I believe in, it all works out in the end."

[bazooka]

I suspect the Wilson's are making a political statement and not an artistic one.

Which is their right.

Legally, which is an entirely different matter, they may not be entitled to limit their work's use.

Well, Bazooka, if you ever find yourself in the position to create - and are subsequently paid for - a piece of art (no matter the medium)...

What makes you think I haven't been in that position?

The fact that I sell a piece, does not preclude me from "bitching" about what is done to it.

[Ombre Vivante]

I disagree there. If I wrote something, and the person used my writing to support something that not only am I against, but the writing itself is against, I would be extremely angry and do anything I could to stop it being used in that sense, regardless of the fact that the piece is on the free market.

Bingo. If the art was under public domain, it's a totally different scenario, but the artist has the final say as to whether their music can be used to promote someone or something. If I was an artist, I would not want my art to be associated with trash like palin. Pure and simple. Heart is totally awersome

[Shawna]

the artist has the final say as to whether their music can be used to promote someone or something.

"They have to pay me every time they play it, and I don't have any control over whether they play it or not. I can't make them stop.

Why would a well-respected Nashville songwriter say this if it wasn't true?

[Ombre Vivante]

Why would a well-respected Nashville songwriter say this if it wasn't true?

It depends who owns the rights to the song. Example: if I wanted to use clips of a Luis Bunuel movie in a movie I want to make, I'd have to contact the Bunuel estate for permission. If I use it without their permission, they can file a civil lawsuit and sue my pants off. I don't know who else shares the song's rights that hannity can use it in his show. I'm thinking the recording company she works for worked out this deal, and one of the things is that she gets paid.

The gist of it all is that the republicrats don't have the rights/permission to use "Barracuda" to promote palin and her poppycock polyticks, or to even play it in the hall (because that counts as a public performance). Radio stations already have those permissions and individuals can play them on their personal boomboxes, iPods, cassette players, etc. Those cases only take common sense to know they're not part of the whole "public broadcasting and performance" the way "Born In The USA," "More Than A Feeling," and "Barracuda" were used.

Haha. Anyone notice that it's the republicans that usually get nailed for this? It's as if "coolness" cannot be associated with those a**clowns at all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_copyright#Exclusive_rights

Edited September 8, 2008 by Guest
naughty word.

[bazooka]

It depends who owns the rights to the song ... I don't know who else shares the song's rights that hannity can use it in his show. I'm thinking the recording company she works for worked out this deal ... Radio stations already have those permissions

http://www.slate.com/id/2199492/&GT1=38001

there's that answer

" [smaller]A spokesperson for the Republican Convention said the event did have an ASCAP license separate from the one for sports.

Assuming the licenses were all in order, the Wilson sisters probably don't have much legal recourse. But it would be a much different story if the campaign had used the song in an ad or a promotional video.[/smaller]"

-------------

And more about Rush Limbaugh and My City Was Gone.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5923659/really_randoms_chrissie_hynde_ricky_martin_jimmy_page

[smaller] from poster[/smaller] frogan [smaller] on ask.metafilter.com [/smaller]

"This isn't covered by ASCAP/BMI/SESAC/Harry Fox licensing, despite what others have said. That licensing is intended to cover a work's performance for entertainment purposes, such as a radio station or a nightclub. That licensing does not cover Limbaugh's usage of the song as the daily, fully recognizable intro to a syndicated radio show -- you're not playing the song for its entertainment value, you're playing the song as a symbol of the entertainment that you produce.

However, many times, an artist will look the other way when it comes to intros and bumpers and whatnot, especially when a radio station cuts a popular song into a bumper or self-promotional commercial that runs while the song is still a hit.

That's what probably happened here -- Limbaugh's producers gambled (and succeeded) that they could get away with it for many years, and are only now paying a nominal licensing fee after the song has become integral to the show."