Is a Beatles Song Worth $250K? ('Mad Men' Thinks So)
SodaHead TV
2012/05/08 23:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
214 votes
|
|
49% | |||
|
221 votes
|
|
51% | |||
If the Beatles aren't the most popular band on earth, you'll be hard-pressed to pick another. But you might have noticed that you don't often hear their music on TV. That's because studios have to pay big bucks for the rights to play them, and more often than not, it's just not worth it. "Glee" pulled off a Beatles episode of covers in 2010, but they didn't play the original songs. This week, "Mad Men" threw frugality to the wind and blew $250,000 on one song.
In this week's episode, "Lady Lazarus," Don Draper tried to get a better understanding of '60s youth by listening to the new Beatles album, "Revolver." Producers felt it would be worth $250,000 to actually play the last song on the album, "Tomorrow Never Knows." Creator Matthew Weiner told The New York Times, "It was always my feeling that the show lacked a certain authenticity, because we never could have an actual master recording of the Beatles performing." Well, now it does. Was it worth it? (Don Draper would probably say yes.)
In this week's episode, "Lady Lazarus," Don Draper tried to get a better understanding of '60s youth by listening to the new Beatles album, "Revolver." Producers felt it would be worth $250,000 to actually play the last song on the album, "Tomorrow Never Knows." Creator Matthew Weiner told The New York Times, "It was always my feeling that the show lacked a certain authenticity, because we never could have an actual master recording of the Beatles performing." Well, now it does. Was it worth it? (Don Draper would probably say yes.)
Some music producers in Hollywood get $100,000 for merely mixing a song that has already been recorded...
What makes The Beatles different is that they were musical revolutionists. They were the ones that got us out of the elementary dreadful doo-wop doldrums and into pop music styles that young and old could understand and enjoy. I hated that doo-wop music. Even though it was before my time, I understand it was designed for 5 year olds. .
but i dont think theyre wort h that much....
Under the 1975 copyright laws (as stupid as they are), the song, copyrighted in 1935, is covered for 75 years or until 2010. BUT, the Copyright Extension Act of 1998 (thank the entertainment industry for that one) extended copyright another 20 year to 2030.
Currently, the song is owned by Warner Music Group. And just for the record, according to several sources, the WMG pocketed over 2 MILLION Dollars in 2008 alone, from the royalties.
In the UK and EU, the song goes PD 1 Jan 2017.
I think about everyone agrees that Yoko Ono ruined the band, & the band disolved shortly after her introduction. This was truly devastating to those who loved them.
Each song was a separate masterpiece, different & unique. Not cookie cutter songs that all sound the same. Think how truly rare their talent was as a group to write every song in a completely different sound, & each song set a new standard for the world of music.
They'll never be surpassed.