Re: Kate spotting (Utah Saints)

[Bennett <mcelwee@cc.uow.edu.AU>]

jondr@sco.COM (Karen Silkwood's car) writes:

>katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris n Vickie) writes:
>>  Two saving graces:
>>   1: They _did_ ask.

>Given the rash of lawsuits concerning techno tracks that obviously rip off
>other tracks, I'm not surprised.  (ref: apotheosis "o fortuna" and smart-e's
>"sesame's treet" and probably a dozen others).

The "Sesame's Treet" lawsuit was not about the music, for which permission
was given, but about the cover of the record, which featured Oscar the Grouch
smoking a joint or something equally shocking... of course, the track itself
_is_, in fact, crap.

>Besides, wasn't Kate reported to have actually liked their track?

I thought so.  Or did her record company (or whoever owns the song (doesn't
she?)) not ask her?  Or was she prepared to compromise her artistic integrity
for money?  Wait, I didn't say that...Seriously, who does own Kate's songs?

As for whether the Utah Saints track (which I won't call a _song_ so as not
to offend anyone) is any good or not, I always apply the Duke Ellington
criterion when purchasing music: "If it sounds good, it _is_ good."  And it
sounds good to me.

-- 
== Bennett ================================== mcelwee@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au ==
|               Vodka.  Buy it for you.                                     |
|                       Buy it for your dog.                                |
=============================================================================