Boards > Lifestyle > NEWS: Love Sells Shares of Nirvana Catalog

Buster_Bluth

Los Angeles, CA

January 2004

APR 02, 2006 09:12 AM

CheshireCat said:
We can thank Michael Jackson for putting the Beatles in commercials.....I think she may just do what she said....keeep the integrity of the music. She could have done much much more with it by now....unless she has just been lazy........still she can never get a album like live through this written again sinc the writer is dead.

Christ, is it too much to ask that people actually click the fucking links in the story. You know, the ones that say Michael Jackson was not solely responsible for the Beatles being in commercials, and that he couldn't stop the songs from being in those commercials?

And by "couldn't stop" it you meant "convinced Capitol to let them use it" right?

Michael Jackson agreed to license the words and music of "Revolution" to Nike for a 1987 shoe commercial, but he had to persuade Capitol Records, owner of the tune's North American recording rights, to allow use of the actual record.

Tayler

HOPEFUL

United Kingdom

APR 02, 2006 09:13 AM

NakedJayson said:
The sooner we get that music out of the hands of that psycho the better.

she could have well milked Nirvana for all it's worth and made a serious amount of money, anything she has done with the music has been for Francis so people should give the lady a break.
Their are far worse people in the world! Bush......

and while i'm on the subject, someone get that damn dumbarse military woman away from our easily influenced members of parliament please before we get dragged off to more pointless fighting

[Edited on Apr 02, 2006 5:16PM]

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH

April 2004

APR 02, 2006 09:16 AM

Buster_Bluth said:

PointBlank said:

CheshireCat said:
We can thank Michael Jackson for putting the Beatles in commercials.....I think she may just do what she said....keeep the integrity of the music. She could have done much much more with it by now....unless she has just been lazy........still she can never get a album like live through this written again sinc the writer is dead.

Christ, is it too much to ask that people actually click the fucking links in the story. You know, the ones that say Michael Jackson was not solely responsible for the Beatles being in commercials, and that he couldn't stop the songs from being in those commercials?

And by "couldn't stop" it you meant "convinced Capitol to let them use it" right?

Michael Jackson agreed to license the words and music of "Revolution" to Nike for a 1987 shoe commercial, but he had to persuade Capitol Records, owner of the tune's North American recording rights, to allow use of the actual record.

None of this would've happened had John and Paul not wanted to avoid paying taxes on their royalties. George decided to play by the rules and now who's laughing? Well, now who would be laughing were he alive...

Tayler

HOPEFUL

United Kingdom

APR 02, 2006 09:18 AM

malmuud said:

oyaji said:

Iggy said:
"...to figure out exactly the best way to go about exposing his music to a new youth culture to a new generation."

yes...through advertisments....

The Beatles were used to sell shoes...I wonder what Nirvana will be used to sell....

Heroin?

Oh, I'm sorry, you said what WILL the songs be used to sell, not what HAVE the songs been used to sell...

Methadone?

duh! Lithium!!!!!

kobe

Providence, RI

March 2003

APR 02, 2006 10:37 AM

Cash said:
Jesus Christ, people...it's not like they're going to use the Mona Lisa for toilet paper. It's Nirvana. Sure, I loved them growing up. I have their cds...and still enjoy them. For fuck's sake, though...pick your battles.

What makes the Mona Lisa more important to the culture of the world?
People should fight for whatever they fuckin' believe in. Obviously the music means something to a lot of people! But, I guess b/c it's not status quo "Mona Lisa" art (By the way, The Mona Lisa wasn't anywhere near DaVinci's best works), then it' not worth fighting for?
Your diatribe reeks of ignorance.

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH

April 2004

APR 02, 2006 11:07 AM

kobe said:
(By the way, The Mona Lisa wasn't anywhere near DaVinci's best works)

You had me until your artsier-than-thou aside.

Hooraydiation

Boston, MA

October 2005

APR 02, 2006 11:16 AM

Clov said:

kobe said:
(By the way, The Mona Lisa wasn't anywhere near DaVinci's best works)

You had me until your artsier-than-thou aside.

Your diatribe reeks of ignorance. That Mona Lisa doesn't even have eyebrows. If DaVinci was so great, why couldn't he draw eyebrows?

Buster_Bluth

Los Angeles, CA

January 2004

APR 02, 2006 04:53 PM

Clov said:
None of this would've happened had John and Paul not wanted to avoid paying taxes on their royalties. George decided to play by the rules and now who's laughing? Well, now who would be laughing were he alive...

True but I wasn't trying to say how dastardly Michael Jackson was for licensing the song (I mean, he's got the publishing and he might as well make it work for him; like PB said, at least he never totally pimped out the catalog) rather the point I was making was that PB was all irate about people not reading the linked stories but his point was kind of meaningless.

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

APR 02, 2006 05:23 PM

Buster_Bluth said:

Clov said:
None of this would've happened had John and Paul not wanted to avoid paying taxes on their royalties. George decided to play by the rules and now who's laughing? Well, now who would be laughing were he alive...

True but I wasn't trying to say how dastardly Michael Jackson was for licensing the song (I mean, he's got the publishing and he might as well make it work for him; like PB said, at least he never totally pimped out the catalog) rather the point I was making was that PB was all irate about people not reading the linked stories but his point was kind of meaningless.

My point was that, despite what everyone says, MJ is hardly the only person responsible for "Revolution" being in commercials.

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH

April 2004

APR 02, 2006 05:26 PM

PointBlank said:

Buster_Bluth said:

Clov said:
None of this would've happened had John and Paul not wanted to avoid paying taxes on their royalties. George decided to play by the rules and now who's laughing? Well, now who would be laughing were he alive...

True but I wasn't trying to say how dastardly Michael Jackson was for licensing the song (I mean, he's got the publishing and he might as well make it work for him; like PB said, at least he never totally pimped out the catalog) rather the point I was making was that PB was all irate about people not reading the linked stories but his point was kind of meaningless.

My point was that, despite what everyone says, MJ is hardly the only person responsible for "Revolution" being in commercials.

I thought that was my point.

I'm so confused.

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

APR 02, 2006 05:27 PM

Clov said:

PointBlank said:

Buster_Bluth said:

Clov said:
None of this would've happened had John and Paul not wanted to avoid paying taxes on their royalties. George decided to play by the rules and now who's laughing? Well, now who would be laughing were he alive...

True but I wasn't trying to say how dastardly Michael Jackson was for licensing the song (I mean, he's got the publishing and he might as well make it work for him; like PB said, at least he never totally pimped out the catalog) rather the point I was making was that PB was all irate about people not reading the linked stories but his point was kind of meaningless.

My point was that, despite what everyone says, MJ is hardly the only person responsible for "Revolution" being in commercials.

I thought that was my point.

I'm so confused.

My name has "Point" in it.

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH

April 2004

APR 02, 2006 05:28 PM

PointBlank said:

Clov said:

PointBlank said:

Buster_Bluth said:

Clov said:
None of this would've happened had John and Paul not wanted to avoid paying taxes on their royalties. George decided to play by the rules and now who's laughing? Well, now who would be laughing were he alive...

True but I wasn't trying to say how dastardly Michael Jackson was for licensing the song (I mean, he's got the publishing and he might as well make it work for him; like PB said, at least he never totally pimped out the catalog) rather the point I was making was that PB was all irate about people not reading the linked stories but his point was kind of meaningless.

My point was that, despite what everyone says, MJ is hardly the only person responsible for "Revolution" being in commercials.

I thought that was my point.

I'm so confused.

My name has "Point" in it.

Wait, what?

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

APR 02, 2006 05:29 PM

Clov said:

PointBlank said:

Clov said:

PointBlank said:

Buster_Bluth said:

Clov said:
None of this would've happened had John and Paul not wanted to avoid paying taxes on their royalties. George decided to play by the rules and now who's laughing? Well, now who would be laughing were he alive...

True but I wasn't trying to say how dastardly Michael Jackson was for licensing the song (I mean, he's got the publishing and he might as well make it work for him; like PB said, at least he never totally pimped out the catalog) rather the point I was making was that PB was all irate about people not reading the linked stories but his point was kind of meaningless.

My point was that, despite what everyone says, MJ is hardly the only person responsible for "Revolution" being in commercials.

I thought that was my point.

I'm so confused.

My name has "Point" in it.

Wait, what?

All your points is belong to me.

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH

April 2004

APR 02, 2006 05:33 PM

PointBlank said:

Clov said:

PointBlank said:

Clov said:

PointBlank said:

Buster_Bluth said:
Clov said:
None of this would've happened had John and Paul not wanted to avoid paying taxes on their royalties. George decided to play by the rules and now who's laughing? Well, now who would be laughing were he alive...

True but I wasn't trying to say how dastardly Michael Jackson was for licensing the song (I mean, he's got the publishing and he might as well make it work for him; like PB said, at least he never totally pimped out the catalog) rather the point I was making was that PB was all irate about people not reading the linked stories but his point was kind of meaningless.

My point was that, despite what everyone says, MJ is hardly the only person responsible for "Revolution" being in commercials.

I thought that was my point.

I'm so confused.

My name has "Point" in it.

Wait, what?

All your points is belong to me.

I know, right?

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

Los Angeles, CA

January 2004

APR 02, 2006 09:12 AM

HOPEFUL

United Kingdom

APR 02, 2006 09:13 AM

Cleveland, OH

April 2004

APR 02, 2006 09:16 AM

HOPEFUL

United Kingdom

APR 02, 2006 09:18 AM

Providence, RI

March 2003

APR 02, 2006 10:37 AM

Cleveland, OH

April 2004

APR 02, 2006 11:07 AM

Boston, MA

October 2005

APR 02, 2006 11:16 AM

Los Angeles, CA

January 2004

APR 02, 2006 04:53 PM

New York, NY

November 2004

APR 02, 2006 05:23 PM

Cleveland, OH

April 2004

APR 02, 2006 05:26 PM

New York, NY

November 2004

APR 02, 2006 05:27 PM

Cleveland, OH

April 2004

APR 02, 2006 05:28 PM

New York, NY

November 2004

APR 02, 2006 05:29 PM

Cleveland, OH

April 2004

APR 02, 2006 05:33 PM

Humptulips, WA

September 2003

APR 02, 2006 07:32 PM