producer/mixer finally goes insane

the shoe · Post by **the shoe** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:56 am

go an email shot from waves about maxxvolume. in it producer/mixer yoad nevo tells us all "when i needed to mix 7 singers on sugababes vs girls aloud's "walk this way" and i wanted to do justice to their individual voices, i turned to maxxvolume"

jesus wept - do justice to their indivdual voices, some people will do/say anything for money.
justice would be pulling the faders down you silly billy.

Patch · Post by **Patch** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:04 am

I swear to God! Every time I even hear the NAME of that version of the song I just wanna lift up my monitor (and here at work, it's a HEAVY CRT monitor) and bring it crashing down over my head...

HOW THE HELL did they get permission to cover a Run DMC classic?!? Jam Master Jay is turning in his grave.

elektrovert · Post by **elektrovert** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:10 am

Total Rubbish!

totally dissapointed in the sugababes, their stuff is usually quite fresh, that track is just awful though.

absolute tripe!

leedsquietman · Post by **leedsquietman** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:42 am

HOW THE HELL did they get permission to cover a Run DMC classic?!? Jam Master Jay is turning in his grave.

errr, I think that he might have needed permission from Aerosmith actually (Tyler/Perry), given that they wrote the song and collabed with Run DMC in their COVER version !

jeskola · Post by **jeskola** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:44 am

I'm embarrassed to say i quite liked the tune they did called push the button.
And yer, did i mention the white one is ultra tidy .

compositeone · Post by **compositeone** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:47 am

Patch wrote:
HOW THE HELL did they get permission to cover a Run DMC classic?!? Jam Master Jay is turning in his grave.

It was for charity wasn't it?

Not that it makes it ok, just I think that's why they probably let them.

hambone1 · Post by **hambone1** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:50 am

All profits went to charity.

I bet Jam Master Jay was pleased about that.

popslut · Post by **popslut** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:12 pm

Patch wrote:
HOW THE HELL did they get permission to cover a Run DMC classic?!?

You don't need permission to record a cover version.

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:14 am

popslut wrote:
Patch wrote:
HOW THE HELL did they get permission to cover a Run DMC classic?!?
You don't need permission to record a cover version.

Uh? Guys from Aerosmith were on that cover, and yeah, you do need permission.

Johnisfaster · Post by **Johnisfaster** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:36 am

popslut wrote:
Patch wrote:
HOW THE HELL did they get permission to cover a Run DMC classic?!?
You don't need permission to record a cover version.

you don't need permission to record a cover version.... but you most certainly need permission to sell the recording of the cover version.

elektrovert · Post by **elektrovert** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:54 am

You don't need direct permission for that either most of the time, as long as you fill in the correct form from www.mcps.co.uk and pay the royalties.
And as long as you don't add any extra lyrics or change the basic song structure.

Johnisfaster · Post by **Johnisfaster** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:02 am

elektrovert wrote:You don't need direct permission for that either most of the time, as long as you fill in the correct form from www.mcps.co.uk and pay the royalties.
And as long as you don't add any extra lyrics or change the basic song structure.

true true but now we're just arguing the symantics of what was meant by "permission"

how do you spell symantics anyway? :shrug:

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:05 am

Johnisfaster wrote:
elektrovert wrote:You don't need direct permission for that either most of the time, as long as you fill in the correct form from www.mcps.co.uk and pay the royalties.
And as long as you don't add any extra lyrics or change the basic song structure.
true true but now we're just arguing the symantics of what was meant by "permission"

how do you spell symantics anyway? :shrug:

"Semantics"... but that's semantics...

Johnisfaster · Post by **Johnisfaster** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:07 am

I knew I had it wrong, I was just way to lazy to look it up on dictionary.com

pulsoc · Post by **pulsoc** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:32 pm

Johnisfaster wrote:
elektrovert wrote:You don't need direct permission for that either most of the time, as long as you fill in the correct form from www.mcps.co.uk and pay the royalties.
And as long as you don't add any extra lyrics or change the basic song structure.
true true but now we're just arguing the symantics of what was meant by "permission"

how do you spell symantics anyway? :shrug:

Actually permission means getting the go ahead. Elektroverts comment means if you pay royalties you don't need permission. So the artist doesn't have veto ability, but can only helplessly accept the ckecks as they roll in.

I wonder about you sometimes.