Off Topic A New Low
- Thread starter Angelicnumber16
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Do you actually know? Would you be privy to contracts? Bands will be paid according to their contracts and in line with who they are signed with be that Bristols Invada records v major in Virgin.
To make out it’s a ploy could hold water. Kirsty McCall’s mother was not told to **** off but the nasty right wing were.
What is a nonsense is a record being offensive and homophobic on one BBC channel but not on another.
I'll forgive you cus your Welsh, but you've lost the plot..........literally.... I might not read or believe everything on mainstream, but you struggle to keep up on this forumIt’s a film about someone living of a Christmas song royalties. Because you don’t read mainstream media I will forgive your dafty comeback without knowing
If you look back, It was me defending the royalties and it was me that brought it up...
..talk about lockdown.....they should lock you up!! 
Cool, will I notice thoughI'll forgive you cus your Welsh, but you've lost the plot..........literally.... I might not read or believe everything on mainstream, but you struggle to keep up on this forum
If you look back, It was me defending the royalties and it was me that brought it up...
There is becoming to much joviality on this board it need s to stop this is a serious football forum in the middle of a serious pandemic …
Well all you have to do is google to find out how much royalties are paid out by Radio 1. Assuming 3 plays per day for 4 weeks or so that’s £12.5k in royalties for the artists as a whole. That’s before it splits with MacColl, before the record company takes any, before other band members take any.
Again, in the grand scheme of things, getting a couple more airplay’s by supposedly getting more PR by renouncing the term ***got, is not worth it. It’ll end up at a few hundred quid each most likely. Pointless. People are just being cynical because they don’t like and can’t accept what the band themselves did.
It’s a topic I have discussed with one of the owners of the Bristol based record label I mentioned. Money is paid via performing right societies in varying means. The sums are negligible but also lucrative. Large sums can be made and publicity stimulates these sales. The Pogues simply raising their heads and uttering a noteworthy **** off to a nasty right wing commentator is good publicity. Notably it was not directed at the Mother of the deceased Kirsty McCall who does not favour censoring lyrics.
You make a sweeping generalisation about people’s views. The Pogues did not ask for the lyrics to be censured on all record stations or support that. It was a political decision by the BBC. It’s a nonsense that a record can be homophobic on one radio station but not on another ran by the same organisation. More nonsense upon nonsense.
Last edited:
Yeah but there are 100s if not 1000s of music tracks out there that ALL people could find offensive, but won't ever be played because there either old or crap.
This particular track has been highlighted because it is guaranteed to be played 100s of times every year for 3 weeks. How ever much they are paid in royalties, it's extra bunce in their pockets......best for them to keep it in the spotlight for them don't you think?........do you think they really care now, but didn't then, that to the few it might cause offence?
I personally think that it's been pointed out by the few and then everyone (look at me
changing the world people) decided to jump on it (as they do) making it a big deal, most not even bothered about it before....In the great scheme of things it's hardly life changing....Personally, I think it should be left alone..that's how it was written & performed, why change it? I think that's why it winds some of us up, those that want to change history..History is there so we can learn by it, defeats the object by trying to delete it IMO......There are, I'm sure, plenty of things we could all find offensive....we should learn to educationally point it out but then move on....it's a good strength to have I think..
Whilst I normally defend you, on this one you are sort of correct regarding royalties. However you are basing this on one radio show. Now if you multiply it by all local and national radio stations that £12.5k increases. Then if you multiply it by the countries in the world it increases even further. It’s a money pit for The Pogues and the estate of Kirsty MacColl.
Below shows that the figure is approx £400k a year
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/how-much-really-earn-artists-17465895
"It's arguably the greatest Christmas song of all time, and became an instant classic when it was released back in 1987.
With the timeless duet between Kirsty MacColl and Shane MacGowan, 'Fairytale of New York' has remained an iconic song throughout the years and recently overtook 'Last Christmas' to become the most played Christmas song of the 21st Century.
It's estimated that the track earns The Pogues £400,000 per year in royalties (although Shane MacGowan has been tight-lipped when asked in interviews about how much the song earns him)."
Not exactly naff all as Rob puts it is it? Nice little earner if you can get it and it's a wonder why they wouldn't want to keep it in the limelight!!
Fair enough then, probably wrong on that one. I still stand by the fact that releasing music for the most part makes very little these days versus previous decades. That said I probably underestimated just how big the song is, I suppose it will get played on every radio station regardless of genre or age group. It spans a range of stations more so than other songs doesn’t it.
My point still stands to an extent though. If you’re earning that, I doubt a tweet disowning the lyric will make a huge difference to its airtime. Which is what the original point was on.
My point still stands to an extent though. If you’re earning that, I doubt a tweet disowning the lyric will make a huge difference to its airtime. Which is what the original point was on.
You make a very valid point.
So why not allow the section of society liable to be most affected/offended to decide? and not as usual the metropolitan elite white middle class liberals for a change.
In the past that section of society has made the most noise about matters like this and other issues and very often with the section of society it most affects, being embarrassed.
On the point of royalties ask a few jobbing musicians about how difficult it is to claim their royalties, especially from the dear old BBC, even the organisation who should be fighting for them don't give a **** and less than helpful.
On the subject of the words within the song, has proved to upset people. It was played last year on Gavin and Stacy with Bryn and Nessa singing it. There was a lot of complaints so based on that it’s been seen to upset a few.
To me I’m not bothered about the words because I’m not homosexual. And that is probably the reason why some on here think it’s not an issue because it don’t impact on their life’s in anyway.
However it seems to me that a few are more upset about the removal of some words.
To me I’m not bothered about the words because I’m not homosexual. And that is probably the reason why some on here think it’s not an issue because it don’t impact on their life’s in anyway.
However it seems to me that a few are more upset about the removal of some words.
Ah right so if there are enough complaints action is taken? Does that/should that apply in every single instance?
I don’t know how it works. All I know is this song caused complaints to the BBC last year.
Oh my goodness, what a crazy mixed up thread, I do not get on much, mostly weekends, thank goodness!. It reminds me of a whirlpool I saw in Bolivia after a massive storm, just a mass of trees vegetation and mud swirling around with nowhere to escape! I fear any comment I make, and there is a few, would just prolong the agony
Got to say that I must be one of the few that detest it!! Never liked it from day one.
Oh my goodness, what a crazy mixed up thread, I do not get on much, mostly weekends, thank goodness!. It reminds me of a whirlpool I saw in Bolivia after a massive storm, just a mass of trees vegetation and mud swirling around with nowhere to escape! I fear any comment I make, and there is a few, would just prolong the agony
The problem is the lines are blurred and those are lines stretched to suit agendas on any given day, it is a total minefield. We are fast approaching the time when only people from one section of society will be able to make jokes about that section of society that they hail from and so on.
The BBC let Jo Brand off of the hook over her battery acid 'joke', just imagine if it was black left wing politicians that were being targeted, that 'joke' would have been classed as a hate crime and the person who uttered that 'joke' in public or in this case BBC radio 4, would almost certainly have been charged, again there should be no distinction, it is either ok or it's not ok.
The Jo Brand incident would have caused an absolute outrage, no doubt...
Apparently, we need to play lots of catch up before it all balances out!!
The Jo Brand incident would have caused an absolute outrage, no doubt...
Apparently, we need to play lots of catch up before it all balances out!!
The irony is Pritti Patel was the recipient of a letter signed by 30 labour MP's including of course Diane Abbott, accusing her of 'gas lighting', it's ok for her and the other 29 and even Lewis Hamilton to do it but it's not ok if you happen to be a tory MP.
Back in October the labour deputy leader Angela Rayner called a tory MP 'scum' during a debate, she belatedly apologised but refused to withdraw the comment, there is more than enough hatred in the world without those who rule us stirring it up like this.
Priti Patel has accused a group of Labour MPs from ethnic minorities, including Diane Abbott, of being “racist” for objecting to her comments about her own experiences of discrimination.
More than 30 MPs wrote to the home secretary earlier this month to accuse her of “gaslighting” minority communities by speaking in a Commons debate on the Black Lives Matter protests about the racismwhich she had suffered as a young woman.
But Ms Patel today accused them of using stereotypes about the way ethnic minority women should behave.
She told Sky News’ Sophy Ridge on Sunday: “They clearly take the stance and the position that I just don’t conform to their preconceived idea or stereotypical view of what an ethnic minority woman should stand for and represent.
“In my view that in itself is racist. So it’s very disappointing and I’ve made it quite clear I’m not going to dignify that letter any further.”