Slightly disturbing 'Don't Stop' cover for Honda ad

[tango87]

This might be the weirdest use of 'Don't Stop' yet - hundreds of disembodied children's heads, singing a cut-up, acapella version for a Honda ad... This article explains it, and has the clip:

http://www.thedrive.com/news/7484/ho...-fleetwood-mac

Apparently, the children are supposed to be hydrogen cells.

[Macfan4life]

I thought it was cute. Honda has deep pockets. I wonder how much Christine got paid for the use of her song.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by Macfan4life

I thought it was cute. Honda has deep pockets. I wonder how much Christine got paid for the use of her song.

Didn't she sell off all her publishing? If so, wouldn't that mean she'd get nothing, now?

[Macfan4life]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

Didn't she sell off all her publishing? If so, wouldn't that mean she'd get nothing, now?

I forgot about that. If that is true then you are correct.

[jbrownsjr]

That was really cool!!

[TrueFaith77]

ugh. kids.

[bombaysaffires]

I believe as the songwriter she always gets songwriting royalties but if she's no longer the publisher she does not get the publishing royalties. Any music lawyers out there please weigh in.

[Nathan]

That was weird.

Thanks for sharing though.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires

I believe as the songwriter she always gets songwriting royalties but if she's no longer the publisher she does not get the publishing royalties. Any music lawyers out there please weigh in.

I've always been confused by the different types of royalties.

Several years ago, I asked Bob Welch about royalties, and if a company had to get permission to use a song(if memory serves, a company had used Sentimental Lady), and here's what he wrote to me:

~No, the publishers don't have to ask permission...although it's considered courteous if they at least run it by you. I'm not the "publisher" of Sentimental Lady. I own the "writers share" which is 50% of all income from the song. On other songs , like Ebony Eyes for example, I own 3/4 of the song ; the 50% "publishers share" is split 50/50 between me and EMI Music. If I owned Sentimental Lady 100% , I could turn down any given commercial if I wanted...because I would be the publisher, and the advertiser must get whats called a "sync" liscence . As far as the amount of money...it all depends on the specific deal. For example , supposedly Led Zepplin sold "Rock And Roll" outright (100%) to Cadillac for $1,000,000.00. The more well known any given song is , the more money it's worth. Sentimental Lady is pretty far up in the ranking since it was a top 5 "hit" , and is still played. The lowest price for a song like that is usually from $35,000.00-$50,000.00 and up. It also depends on the budget of the company that's doing the advertising. The writer and publisher also make money from the "performance societies" ,i.e. ASCAP and BMI every time the commercial is played. If it's played (shown) a lot nationwide , or worldwide , this can really add up . Basically , the publishers called us up and said that ask.com was "maybe" gonna' use the song. Then we heard nothing for a month...and then a friend called us up to say she'd seen it. So much for "being in the loop " ;-) Bob Welch~

[Macfan4life]

When Everywhere was used in that pony commercial there was an article stating that Christine loved the commercial but saw little money from it since she sold her publishing or some other rights to her music. She did get something for use of the song but it was only a tiny fraction. I am getting ready for work so I don't have time to google the article.

[bombaysaffires]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

I've always been confused by the different types of royalties.

Several years ago, I asked Bob Welch about royalties, and if a company had to get permission to use a song(if memory serves, a company had used Sentimental Lady), and here's what he wrote to me:

~No, the publishers don't have to ask permission...although it's considered courteous if they at least run it by you. I'm not the "publisher" of Sentimental Lady. I own the "writers share" which is 50% of all income from the song. On other songs , like Ebony Eyes for example, I own 3/4 of the song ; the 50% "publishers share" is split 50/50 between me and EMI Music. If I owned Sentimental Lady 100% , I could turn down any given commercial if I wanted...because I would be the publisher, and the advertiser must get whats called a "sync" liscence . As far as the amount of money...it all depends on the specific deal. For example , supposedly Led Zepplin sold "Rock And Roll" outright (100%) to Cadillac for $1,000,000.00. The more well known any given song is , the more money it's worth. Sentimental Lady is pretty far up in the ranking since it was a top 5 "hit" , and is still played. The lowest price for a song like that is usually from $35,000.00-$50,000.00 and up. It also depends on the budget of the company that's doing the advertising. The writer and publisher also make money from the "performance societies" ,i.e. ASCAP and BMI every time the commercial is played. If it's played (shown) a lot nationwide , or worldwide , this can really add up . Basically , the publishers called us up and said that ask.com was "maybe" gonna' use the song. Then we heard nothing for a month...and then a friend called us up to say she'd seen it. So much for "being in the loop " ;-) Bob Welch~

thanks. this is what i thought-- you always have to pay the artist/creator of the song *something* every time it's used, but the publisher is the one who owns the rights to the song i.e. they control who can use it, play it, etc. So the publisher decides whether to let a company use a song in an advertisement, not the artist. If, like Bob cited in his reply, the songwriter keeps some or all of his/her publishing rights, they are involved in the decisions about ads etc. If not, the outside publisher gets to make all the decisions. So Michael Jackson owned the Beatles publishing rights, so he and he alone could decide whether to allow a company (to pay) to use a Beatles song in a commercial.

This is like Christine-- she sold those rights to someone for a big wad of cash up front (that person/group was betting on what they could sell her songs for in commercials etc going forward and paid her accordingly). Now they own those rights (not the songs but the rights to use them) and can put them in any goofy commercial they want. She will still get, as Bob notes, a certain much smaller percentage as the writer. So the tradeoff for the artist is do you hold on to those rights and hope to find people who want to use your music in ads over the years, or do you sell the rights off to a bigger entity and take the wad of cash now. Christine clearly felt she was out of the music biz at that point (Lindsey's infamous "burning her bridges") and wanted to take the money and run back to Kent and put all that money into renovating her big house.

And, as Bob notes, she would still get performance royalties from BMI or ASCAP who monitor radio stations and commercials etc and track for an artist how much their song(s) get played and they get $ for each play. So Christine would have made money off all the continuing radio play of Rumors etc.

[paleshadow]

Floating heads are always weird, especially when they're children. Still, it's a much better version than the Elton John one.

[singertobe]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

[dontlookdown]

I loved it.
It's my least favorite Fleetwood Mac song so it was great to hear it arranged in a different way.
Great advertising.