Pissed off Stevie interview; Can't believe I've never seen this

[petep9000]

The whole arguement thing back then always made me sort of scratch my head anyway. The whole point of 'TimeSpace' was to be a retrospective of her solo work, not of her FM contributions. Weird too, only 3 years prior in an interview promoting the green 'FM Greatest Hits' package she said "well it would be ridiculous for me to put out a Greatest Hits album, I haven't had enough hits." But, I'm digressing.

Modern wanted Timespace to sell and sell big. That's why they dragged in Bon Jovi and whatisname from Poison. So, it just seems so inconsistent that a long-buried 'cult' FM song, a b-side, would even be considered for this package. No 'Rhiannon'? No 'Dreams', which was the only #1 single for the band? No 'Gypsy' or 'Seven Wonders'? Why would she have thought that 'Silver Springs' would have made sense in 1991? She's said in interviews that her real talent (I guess, besides songwriting and singing) is sequencing albums (!). So with 'Whole Lotta Trouble', 'Love's a Hard Game to Play' and other clunkers, she was going to weave in 'Silver Springs' in there? Shudder.

Well, it all worked out in the end. She dropped the pills, made up with Mick (the 'great love of her life') came back big in '97 and got to hear a live version of 'Silver Springs' get some airplay.

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by petep9000

The whole arguement thing back then always made me sort of scratch my head anyway. The whole point of 'TimeSpace' was to be a retrospective of her solo work, not of her FM contributions. Weird too, only 3 years prior in an interview promoting the green 'FM Greatest Hits' package she said "well it would be ridiculous for me to put out a Greatest Hits album, I haven't had enough hits." But, I'm digressing.

Modern wanted Timespace to sell and sell big. That's why they dragged in Bon Jovi and whatisname from Poison. So, it just seems so inconsistent that a long-buried 'cult' FM song, a b-side, would even be considered for this package. No 'Rhiannon'? No 'Dreams', which was the only #1 single for the band? No 'Gypsy' or 'Seven Wonders'? Why would she have thought that 'Silver Springs' would have made sense in 1991? She's said in interviews that her real talent (I guess, besides songwriting and singing) is sequencing albums (!). So with 'Whole Lotta Trouble', 'Love's a Hard Game to Play' and other clunkers, she was going to weave in 'Silver Springs' in there? Shudder.

Well, it all worked out in the end. She dropped the pills, made up with Mick (the 'great love of her life') came back big in '97 and got to hear a live version of 'Silver Springs' get some airplay.

I'm sort of a new fan, but still have no real good excuse for not noticing this fact before. You are totally right - SS on Timespace would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Which makes me think my theory works - that she was really mad at Mick about his book confessions because I doubt that "relationship" really happened...

[skuncles]

The relationship between Mick and Stevie was in fact very real and did happen. As for "Silver Springs" being on "TimeSpace" as was mentioned, it would have made no sense. Stevie does own the song, well her mother owns it, but if she wanted to she could have redone it (as she did in '97). The difference between track and song was also brought up. This is a very easy thing to understand, look at the Beatles for instance. Capitol Records owns all the recorded music of the Beatles. Michael Jackson owns the copyrights to the songs. What this means is if someone wants to put a Beatles song in say a diaper commerical, they have to go thru Michael Jackson, who because he is not making any money these days will allow the advertiser to use the song. You'll note though that it's not the original Beatles version, the reason being that Capitol Records owns the recording and they don't let those out to anyone. So if Stevie wanted to use the original Mac version of "Springs" she would have to go thru the label, if she wanted to redo the song herself, she would just have to get permission to release her updated version. Being the songwriter or owner of the copyrights has it's perks because regardless if it's the recorded track or a new performance you get a cut of the profits. Ask Dolly Parton about "I Will Always Love You", she made a ton from Whitney Houston's recording of the song.

[Dreamz19]

Originally Posted by CADreaming

I'm sort of a new fan, but still have no real good excuse for not noticing this fact before. You are totally right - SS on Timespace would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Which makes me think my theory works - that she was really mad at Mick about his book confessions because I doubt that "relationship" really happened...

Actually Stevie has admitted that she had a relationship with Mick. She even went as far as to say that he was one of the great loves of her life. Also, she has mentioned that "Sara" and "Storms" was based on their relationship.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by skuncles

if she wanted to redo the song herself, she would just have to get permission to release her updated version.

She wouldn't even have to get permission in the United States. If you do, then that's preferable, because you can negotiate the cost with the owner, but if you can't get permission, as long as you pay the rather exorbitant standard fee, you can record the song without permission, use it for audio only, that is. If you wanted to use it in a movie or commercial or something or use it with another art form (like interpretive dance), then you'd have to get permission to synch it with something else.

Michele

[David]

Originally Posted by GlennGlenn

I have the distinct feeling that Stevie doesn't own the song?

That would be a rotten, tyrannical society & state if that were true. It's one of the most essential, important principles today: If you write something (song, novel, poem, &c.), you own it. You own the fruits of your thinking. You own what you create (although copyright itself expires several decades after the creator's death). I consider this fundamental right (not copyright per se) both a property right & a moral right, for the two are interconnected. (Some would say the two are essentially one.)

[skuncles]

If you write a song you only own it if you hold the publishing rights. Paul McCartney does not own any of the Beatles songs, Michael Jackson does. So anytime someone records "Yesterday" Jackson makes money, Paul sees nothing. Most songwriters today publish the songs themselves and therefore own the songs. Stevie owns all of her songs published thru Welsh Witch music. "Silver Springs" is published thru Barbara Nicks Music, but was under Gentoo Music at the time it was written. All of the Mac songs at the time were controlled by Gentoo, at some point Stevie must have bought the song from them or was given the song.
Take Paul McCartney's advice to Michael Jackson, if you ever hear of a publishing house selling off it's inventory, buy it up. McCartney did this for Buddy Holly's songs and tried to do it with the Beatles songs, but Jackson outbid him. The two are no longer friends, go figure!

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by skuncles

If you write a song you only own it if you hold the publishing rights. Paul McCartney does not own any of the Beatles songs, Michael Jackson does. So anytime someone records "Yesterday" Jackson makes money, Paul sees nothing.

No, the songwriters still get 50%. Publisher gets half and the songwriter gets half. So, in this case Michael Jackson (or Sony might have purchased some of it from him) gets 50% and the Beatles get
50%. The difference is that Jackson gets to say whether you can put Revolution in a Nike commercial and Paul doesn't. But Paul still profits from the use.

As mentioned, Paul owns Buddy Holly's catalog and he even owns that classic song, "Over the River and Through the Woods to grandmother's house we go. The horse knows the way to carry the sleigh through white and drifted snow . . . "

You know, Sonny Bono was only in Congress a short time, but he was responsible for the copyright extension law that got passed. Michele

[David]

Originally Posted by skuncles

If you write a song you only own it if you hold the publishing rights.

It's a complex cornucopia of cohesive & sometimes cunning cupidity. If I write a song -- & by writing it down somewhere I establish its existence & tangible form -- I automatically hold copyright. I am free to sell that copyright to a publishing outfit, but am free not to, as well. The Copyright Law of 1976 grants me, the song writer & establisher of tangible form for that song, copyright protection, even if I don't publish or register it.

www.answers.com/topic/copyright?cat=biz-fin

This is interesting:

"Copyright ownership and ownership of the material object in which the copyrighted work is embodied are two entirely separate legal entities. Furthermore, transfer of an object and transfer of the copyright to that object are separate, independent transactions, neither of which, by itself, has any effect on the other."

Let's discuss this!

[dnightshade]

I think there was alot more to that whole feud than we'll ever know. Despite what was said, I doubt it was entirely about $$$. Stevie's mom didn't need the cash; none of them really did. I agree w the person who said it was about power. We're talking about two very big egos here. I also think there's still a smoldering passion between Stevie & Mick. Not necessarily a sexual passion but a passion of personalities. I think there's some unfinished shizz between the two that was brought to the surface regarding this song. Just MO.

[blackroses]

Several people in this thread have mentioned that she was angry at Mick because of what he wrote in his book. I have not read the book, so I'm just curious exactly what he said in the book that would have made her so angry. Does anyone know?

[petep9000]

Nothing so shocking. Here are some highlights:

Stevie and Mick had a passionate love affair

Stevie and the band did alot of cocaine

Lindsey bent Stevie over a car hood when she was being a bitch to him during the 'Tango' sessions (or, after the sessions and the album was released and he decided he wasn't touring), and was going to belt her.

Stevie and Don Henley had a passionate affair

Stevie did alot of cocaine

Stevie spun out of control during a spin on the 'RAL' tour, and flew off the stage (anyone got a vid of this?)

that was about it..

[blackroses]

Well, that brought to my face. It's really nothing that Stevie has not told us herself, straight from her own mouth, except for the part about her spinning off the stage. That's pretty crazy. I would love to see a video of it too. I guess she wasn't hurt?

[David]

Originally Posted by blackroses

Several people in this thread have mentioned that she was angry at Mick because of what he wrote in his book. I have not read the book, so I'm just curious exactly what he said in the book that would have made her so angry. Does anyone know?

It's time to start marshaling evidence.

In the Aug. 11, 1991, edition of Datebook, Stevie says:

"It (the fight with Mick) has nothing to do with all the other things we could have broken up over. I didn't even get mad at him about his book. Last December, as we were wrapping up the tour, when I introduced the band, I would say 'the fabulous Mick Fleetwood, drummer extraordinaire & best-selling author!' I was trying to help him sell the damn book!"

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by David

It's time to start marshaling evidence.

In the Aug. 11, 1991, edition of Datebook, Stevie says:

"It (the fight with Mick) has nothing to do with all the other things we could have broken up over. I didn't even get mad at him about his book. Last December, as we were wrapping up the tour, when I introduced the band, I would say 'the fabulous Mick Fleetwood, drummer extraordinaire & best-selling author!' I was trying to help him sell the damn book!"

ROFLOL!!!!