I Don't Get What the Big Deal is (Kurt Cobain in GH5)

So they made him playable in game so what. Jimmi Hendrix was in the last game and no one complained then and now we have The Beatles Rock Band and no one is moaning about John Lennon and George Harrison having playable avatars. So what is so different about Kurt Cobain?

Also isn't Johnny Cash in it as well?

Yea but wasn't cobain's whole personality about hating all the big corparations and everything and he couldn't take it any longer so he killed himself and he would have been really angry at activision for using him in game.Not sure if i'm accurate but i think that's whats going on.

It's because something he wouldn't do or approve of if he was alive today. It goes against his character and everything he stood for. By Activevision creating that 3D model it was like a big middle finger to his grave.

It's because something he wouldn't do or approve of if he was alive today. It goes against his character and everything he stood for. By Activevision creating that 3D model it was like a big middle finger to his grave.

jasonharris48

That's what I don't understand. What makes people think they know what he would or wouldn't do? They don't know him, just what he stood for. That doesn't mean he wouldn't allow something to be done here and there, stop acting like you know him.

[QUOTE="jasonharris48"]

It's because something he wouldn't do or approve of if he was alive today. It goes against his character and everything he stood for. By Activevision creating that 3D model it was like a big middle finger to his grave.

Raikoh_

That's what I don't understand. What makes people think they know what he would or wouldn't do? They don't know him, just what he stood for. That doesn't mean he wouldn't allow something to be done here and there, stop acting like you know him.

[QUOTE="jasonharris48"]

It's because something he wouldn't do or approve of if he was alive today. It goes against his character and everything he stood for. By Activevision creating that 3D model it was like a big middle finger to his grave.

Raikoh_

That's what I don't understand. What makes people think they know what he would or wouldn't do? They don't know him, just what he stood for. That doesn't mean he wouldn't allow something to be done here and there, stop acting like you know him.

I do know because he has said it over and over again how he didn't want to be part of the corprate mechanism of the music industry. Just as jason mentioned.

You never know though, because it was the 90's he was in a rock band if he wasn't moody depressed and gritty he wouldn't be famous. And isn't that a little hypocritical that you say he hates all the big corporation and money makers when he himself is supporting/supported by them? To be honest if he was alive today, he would probably be a cleaner cut straight headed person now, admitted to rehad a few times sure but isn't that just the pattern all celebrities go through? In the end I bet he would have thought it kinda cool to be in a video game along with his music, and based on the subject matter of the game I don't think it is tacky at all.

Think about this for a second as well, if he maintain the same personality today he would be considered emo. What you think about that?

Woah - the irony. Nevermind was on Geffen lol

I'm sure if Cobain hadn't have offed himself he would've gotten over his little teenaged hatred of "evil corporations" eventually. And perhaps Love would still be making her own music instead of living off his corpse. As far as Activision is concerned, contracts were signed, everything is above board, Love was probably too drugged up during negotiations, or maybe off getting plastic surgery badly done somewhere at the time, and has only just realised this is something she can whore some attention from.

You;re right I don't know and I'm not acting like I do. Why don't look at past interviews with him. Heck even his old band mates say the same thing and I'm pretty surethey knowhim and was close tohim especially the drummer Dave Grohl.

jasonharris48

[QUOTE="jasonharris48"]

You;re right I don't know and I'm not acting like I do. Why don't look at past interviews with him. Heck even his old band mates say the same thing and I'm pretty surethey knowhim and was close tohim especially the drummer Dave Grohl.

Caddy06_88

I don't know if kurt wanted to be represented as a video game character to get exposed to a younger generation of kids. It is good if they know the story behind him so they don't go crazy with drugs with a gun in the same room but. I think this is a bad way to remember him.

I do know because he has said it over and over again how he didn't want to be part of the corprate mechanism of the music industry. Just as jason mentioned.

Tom-Servo

And why did he sign a contract to major music like DGC?

I don't see what the bid deal is either, Johnny Cash is in their too why is no one complaining about this. Oh yeah, because he wasn't a whinny little an-hero.

Yea but wasn't cobain's whole personality about hating all the big corparations and everything and he couldn't take it any longer so he killed himself and he would have been really angry at activision for using him in game.Not sure if i'm accurate but i think that's whats going on.

InfiniteRespawn

It's because something he wouldn't do or approve of if he was alive today. It goes against his character and everything he stood for. By Activevision creating that 3D model it was like a big middle finger to his grave.

jasonharris48

[QUOTE="jasonharris48"]

It's because something he wouldn't do or approve of if he was alive today. It goes against his character and everything he stood for. By Activevision creating that 3D model it was like a big middle finger to his grave.

Godly_Cure

Please don't tell me love gave the okay? I bet she was so out of it at the time lol.jasonharris48

I'm not a big Nirvana fan at all, but even I understand what the big deal is. Nirvana was signed by a label, but that's just how it goes. If you want your music to be heard, you sign on with a label. It's not like there are many other options. There was no Internet back then. Besides, lots of bands are/were in a constant struggle with their label. Geffen wanted to change Nevermind's cover, for example, but finally yielded because Cobain wouldn't have any of it.

Nirvana + Activision (the embodiment of destructive capitalism - read Kotick's latest interview)...smells like corporate spirit.

As for Jimi Hendrix, he didn't live in the same world we live in, this generation didn't grow up with Jimi Hendrix, this generation doesn't know much about Jimi Hendrix and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this generation probably doesn't really care much about Jimi Hendrix (after all, nobody in this thread managed to spell his name right) so I don't see how is that relevant in any way. Perhaps if Jimi was in a detergent commercial back in the 70's lots of his fans wouldn't be happy either.

I'm not a big Nirvana fan at all, but even I understand what the big deal is. Nirvana was signed by a label, but that's just how it goes. If you want your music to be heard, you sign on with a label. It's not like there are many other options. There was no Internet back then. Besides, lots of bands are/were in a constant struggle with their label. Geffen wanted to change Nevermind's cover, for example, but finally yielded because Cobain wouldn't have any of it.

Nirvana + Activision (the embodiment of destructive capitalism - read Kotick's latest interview)...smells like corporate spirit.

UpInFlames

I kinda agree with the OP. The man is dead, so it really doesn't matter "what he would think". He whored himself out to the music industry long ago and has had his music exploited for money ever since.

Understandable, but again, SOMEONE on his behalf must have signed off on his likeness being used in the game. This is like people getting pissed off at EA solely for getting sole rights to licensed Football games. There are always two sides to these agreements, and the people representing the other side are just as guilty of the outcome of events as those on the 'bad' side of the agreement, IMHO.

Does Cobain's appearance go against what he was about personally/musically? I'd agree to that, but again, speaking from a purely legal side of things, not only did Activision likely secured the rights in advance, but Love (or whoever signed off on it), were just as complacent in signing off on something that they knew Cobain himself might not want to engage in.Skylock00

I'm not trying to argue the legal side, I am interested in that in the slightest. I would agree with most people that Love probably didn't read the fine print. Although it is also possible that she was mislead as to what the contract actually infers. It's not uncommon. Large corporations + army of corporate lawyers - not really candidates for the church choir, right?

Personally, I find the very concept of someone owning rights to use other people's work, their likeness, their very personality inherently despicable. Fat, greedy business men getting rich off of someone's talent and creativity 20 years after the fact especially those who had no involvement in it whatsoever makes my stomach churn.

I'm not trying to argue the legal side, I am interested in that in the slightest. I would agree with most people that Love probably didn't read the fine print. Although it is also possible that she was mislead as to what the contract actually infers. It's not uncommon. Large corporations + army of corporate lawyers - not really candidates for the church choir, right?

Personally, I find the very concept of someone owning rights to use other people's work, their likeness, their very personality inherently despicable. Fat, greedy business men getting rich off of someone's talent and creativity 20 years after the fact especially those who had no involvement in it whatsoever makes my stomach churn.

What about The Beatles in the most recent GH/RB (whatever)? Someone had to own the rights to Lennon and the other guy (totally blanking), otherwise their faces could be slapped onto anything. Lennon's Dish Detergent, Lennon's Favorite Apples and so on. While the rights to a likeness can be abused, it also protects someone from being perceived as endorsing a product they may nothing about.muthsera666

I believe Yoko Ono holds some sort of rights concerning Lennon. Don't know about Harrison. As for the songs, that's a mess. Most of it is owned by Apple (no, not the Steve Jobs Apple), but I believe EMI and possibly some other labels have their hand in it as well.

In a perfect world, the artist's work would become public cultural property following their death without the possibility of use for commercial purposes.

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]What about The Beatles in the most recent GH/RB (whatever)? Someone had to own the rights to Lennon and the other guy (totally blanking), otherwise their faces could be slapped onto anything. Lennon's Dish Detergent, Lennon's Favorite Apples and so on. While the rights to a likeness can be abused, it also protects someone from being perceived as endorsing a product they may nothing about.UpInFlames

I believe Yoko Ono holds some sort of rights concerning Lennon. Don't know about Harrison. As for the songs, that's a mess. Most of it is owned by Apple (no, not the Steve Jobs Apple), but I believe EMI and possibly some other labels have their hand in it as well.

In a perfect world, the artist's work would become public cultural property following their death without the possibility of use for commercial purposes.

So, do you have a problem with Yoko Ono holding the rights to her husband's life's work?muthsera666

Lennon wasn't alone in The Beatles. I have a problem with anyone holding the rights to anyone else's hard work and talent - especially Yoko Ono in regards to The Beatles. Leeches and vultures.

It's because something he wouldn't do or approve of if he was alive today. It goes against his character and everything he stood for. By Activevision creating that 3D model it was like a big middle finger to his grave.

jasonharris48

And you can speak for him, eh?

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]So, do you have a problem with Yoko Ono holding the rights to her husband's life's work?UpInFlames

Lennon wasn't alone in The Beatles. I have a problem with anyone holding the rights to anyone else's hard work and talent - especially Yoko Ono in regards to The Beatles. Leeches and vultures.

I guess I don't understand why you don't believe holding rights to something is important.muthsera666

Because we value the concept of private property.

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]

I guess I don't understand why you don't believe holding rights to something is important.

Because we value the concept of private property.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]

I guess I don't understand why you don't believe holding rights to something is important.muthsera666

Because we value the concept of private property.

With the consent of the owner.:|

But if no one holds the rights, then it's okay for anyone to use their life's hard work and talent. If you create a new and improved toaster and name it after yourself, but don't copyright it, then anyone else can manufacture and sell it. I guess I don't understand why you don't believe holding rights to something is important.muthsera666

What I'm saying is pretty simple. The artist alone should own the rights to their work.

Instead it's the complete opposite, everyone except the original creator owns the rights - even during their lifetime. Don't you find it a bit unfair that the vast majority of artists don't own their work? It's basically impossible to get a deal without signing rights over to a label and the artist gets a 10-12% cut (which is considered a good deal). Film-makers don't own their films, musicians don't own their music and game makers don't own their games. Instead it's owned by some jerk in a suit that contributed absolutely nothing to the piece. I'm not saying holding rights is not important (frankly, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion), I'm saying that the model is basically the opposite of what it should be.

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]But if no one holds the rights, then it's okay for anyone to use their life's hard work and talent. If you create a new and improved toaster and name it after yourself, but don't copyright it, then anyone else can manufacture and sell it. I guess I don't understand why you don't believe holding rights to something is important.UpInFlames

What I'm saying is pretty simple. The artist alone should own the rights to their work.

Instead it's the complete opposite, everyone except the original creator owns the rights - even during their lifetime. Don't you find it a bit unfair that the vast majority of artists don't own their work? It's basically impossible to get a deal without signing rights over to a label and the artist gets a 10-12% cut (which is considered a good deal). Film-makers don't own their films, musicians don't own their music and game makers don't own their games. Instead it's owned by some jerk in a suit that contributed absolutely nothing to the piece. I'm not saying holding rights is not important (frankly, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion), I'm saying that the model is basically the opposite of what it should be.

The muscians need to stop signing their lives away to the recording industry and promote their own music then. No one forces them to sign the dotted line.

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]But if no one holds the rights, then it's okay for anyone to use their life's hard work and talent. If you create a new and improved toaster and name it after yourself, but don't copyright it, then anyone else can manufacture and sell it. I guess I don't understand why you don't believe holding rights to something is important.UpInFlames

What I'm saying is pretty simple. The artist alone should own the rights to their work.

Instead it's the complete opposite, everyone except the original creator owns the rights - even during their lifetime. Don't you find it a bit unfair that the vast majority of artists don't own their work? It's basically impossible to get a deal without signing rights over to a label and the artist gets a 10-12% cut (which is considered a good deal). Film-makers don't own their films, musicians don't own their music and game makers don't own their games. Instead it's owned by some jerk in a suit that contributed absolutely nothing to the piece. I'm not saying holding rights is not important (frankly, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion), I'm saying that the model is basically the opposite of what it should be.

The muscians need to stop signing their lives away to the recording industry and promote their own music then. No one forces them to sign the dotted line.MarcusAntonius

While I agree, it's simply the state of the world we currently live in. I mean, I have the utmost respect for the likes of Godspeed You Black Emperor who completely own their own music (and who on one occasion blew off Oliver Stone's offer to feature their music in Any Given Sunday, :lol: ). But that's why they're on Kranky and that's why they tour when they manage to raise enough funds for the fuel costs. For things to change, we need the system to change which won't happen that easy. Also, most bands sign on while they're still in their teens or early 20's. They're still young and naive and probably don't give it that much thought, they just want people to hear their music. I can't really fault them for that. If I had to guess, I'd say that most bands become disillusioned with how the industry works through the dealings with their own label only after they sign on.

But your point stands especially today when there are many ways to get your music out there. It's a completely different situation than it was only 10 years ago. Radiohead took the step in the right direction, I think.

I'm not trying to argue the legal side, I am interested in that in the slightest. I would agree with most people that Love probably didn't read the fine print. Although it is also possible that she was mislead as to what the contract actually infers. It's not uncommon. Large corporations + army of corporate lawyers - not really candidates for the church choir, right?

UpInFlames

What else do you expect the record labels to do, agreement wise, when they're investing X amount of money for the recording/promotion of someone's music? They can't just let the artist hold full rights to the recordings right then and there, because then they'd have no basis to earn money in the first place. Is it unfair that most artists don't own the right to the master recording of their own music? Perhaps not, but is it fair for a company to invest millions of dollars into someone and not have an means of turning a profit?Skylock00

Snatching the rights out of the artists hands is not a necessary means of turning a profit at all. As far as I know, contracts are signed for a number of years or a number of records. Personally, I would agree to the same cut (10-12%, even a smaller one if necessary) and the label can gobble up the rest. The profit margins are the same during the same period of time. But by keeping the rights, I prevent the label from hoarding the money after the contract expires and I am free to do with my music what I want. I can license the music to the same label under the same terms (perhaps re-negotiated depending on the results of my previous records' success) or change labels in which case the original label ceases any promotion such as commercials, tours and even manufacturing and distribution.

What I'm saying is pretty simple. The artist alone should own the rights to their work.

Instead it's the complete opposite, everyone except the original creator owns the rights - even during their lifetime. Don't you find it a bit unfair that the vast majority of artists don't own their work? It's basically impossible to get a deal without signing rights over to a label and the artist gets a 10-12% cut (which is considered a good deal). Film-makers don't own their films, musicians don't own their music and game makers don't own their games. Instead it's owned by some jerk in a suit that contributed absolutely nothing to the piece. I'm not saying holding rights is not important (frankly, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion), I'm saying that the model is basically the opposite of what it should be.

[QUOTE="Skylock00"]What else do you expect the record labels to do, agreement wise, when they're investing X amount of money for the recording/promotion of someone's music? They can't just let the artist hold full rights to the recordings right then and there, because then they'd have no basis to earn money in the first place. Is it unfair that most artists don't own the right to the master recording of their own music? Perhaps not, but is it fair for a company to invest millions of dollars into someone and not have an means of turning a profit?UpInFlames

Snatching the rights out of the artists hands is not a necessary means of turning a profit at all. As far as I know, contracts are signed for a number of years or a number of records. Personally, I would agree to the same cut (10-12%, even a smaller one if necessary) and the label can gobble up the rest. The profit margins are the same during the same period of time. But by keeping the rights, I prevent the label from hoarding the money after the contract expires and I am free to do with my music what I want. I can license the music to the same label under the same terms (perhaps re-negotiated depending on the results of my previous records' success) or change labels in which case the original label ceases any promotion such as commercials, tours and even manufacturing and distribution.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]The muscians need to stop signing their lives away to the recording industry and promote their own music then. No one forces them to sign the dotted line.UpInFlames

But your point stands especially today when there are many ways to get your music out there. It's a completely different situation than it was only 10 years ago. Radiohead took the step in the right direction, I think.

Bands like Radiohead get it. (though the mere sound of their music makes me want to off myself like in The Happening). The traditional model of the recording industry is coming apart. With P2P so prevalent, artists have newer ways to remain independent of the major labels.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]The muscians need to stop signing their lives away to the recording industry and promote their own music then. No one forces them to sign the dotted line.MarcusAntonius

But your point stands especially today when there are many ways to get your music out there. It's a completely different situation than it was only 10 years ago. Radiohead took the step in the right direction, I think.

Bands like Radiohead get it. (though the mere sound of their music makes me want to off myself like in The Happening). The traditional model of the recording industry is coming apart. With P2P so prevalent, artists have newer ways to remain independent of the major labels.

EDIT: On a side note, Kotick just keeps on digging himself a deeper hole, PR wise.

The main reason why most record companies/labels will hold the rights to the master tracks of an artist's song is simple - they were the ones that paid to make it happen in the first place. They either own the recording studios, or rented it out on behalf of the artist. They paid the engineers, session musicians (if needed), producer(s), and such to make the tracks the way that they are...for all intents and purposes, they have every right to hold onto those master tracks for as long as they want, because just as one can argue that the company is exploiting the artist's talent for money, the artist is, to a degree at least, exploiting the company's connections and financing to get their song(s) turned into the highly polished tracks that they are.Skylock00

I get what you're saying and I even agree to an extent (labels definitely should get a return for their faith and support), but at the end of the day, labels can shove their studios, engineers and producers up their ass if it weren't for the band. The label provides the condiments, but the band provides the meat. Then there's also the fact that a lot of musicians sound even better live than in the studio - once again I have to mention Radiohead.

While we're on the subject, did you ever see Daft Punk live or heard Alive 2007? I hated Human After All, but live it's ****ing brilliant.

I get what you're saying and I even agree to an extent (labels definitely should get a return for their faith and support), but at the end of the day, labels can shove their studios, engineers and producers up their ass if it weren't for the band. The label provides the condiments, but the band provides the meat.Then there's also the fact that a lot of musicians sound even better live than in the studio - once again I have to mention Radiohead.

While we're on the subject, did you ever see Daft Punk live or heard Alive 2007? I hated Human After All, but live it's ****ing brilliant.

UpInFlames

That part's debatable, to be honest, and differs from band to band. Sometimes having the right producer/engineer at the helm of a project is as important as the band themselves in terms of crafting out the right sound in the studio.Skylock00

I agree that it differs from band to band, but without downplaying the importance of a good producer (you could totally notice when Radiohead stopped working with Nigel Godrich, then there's Primal Scream who change producers for each record in order to meticulously flesh out the sound they're going for), but even if the producer is at the helm, he is being steered by the band. They tell him what they want and he then proceeds to make it happen (or not). The ideas, the talent, the vision...still all coming from the band. He is just an instrument and a great song is a great song regardless if it's played with an electric or an acoustic guitar (to get back on the subject somewhat, I actually preferred Nirvana unplugged).

[QUOTE="Skylock00"]That part's debatable, to be honest, and differs from band to band. Sometimes having the right producer/engineer at the helm of a project is as important as the band themselves in terms of crafting out the right sound in the studio.UpInFlames

I agree that it differs from band to band, but without downplaying the importance of a good producer (you could totally notice when Radiohead stopped working with Nigel Godrich, then there's Primal Scream who change producers for each record in order to meticulously flesh out the sound they're going for), but even if the producer is at the helm, he is being steered by the band. They tell him what they want and he then proceeds to make it happen (or not). The ideas, the talent, the vision...still all coming from the band. He is just an instrument and a great song is a great song regardless if it's played with an electric or an acoustic guitar (to get back on the subject somewhat, I actually preferred Nirvana unplugged).

[QUOTE="Raikoh_"]

[QUOTE="jasonharris48"]

It's because something he wouldn't do or approve of if he was alive today. It goes against his character and everything he stood for. By Activevision creating that 3D model it was like a big middle finger to his grave.

Skylock00

That's what I don't understand. What makes people think they know what he would or wouldn't do? They don't know him, just what he stood for. That doesn't mean he wouldn't allow something to be done here and there, stop acting like you know him.

[QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="Raikoh_"]

That's what I don't understand. What makes people think they know what he would or wouldn't do? They don't know him, just what he stood for. That doesn't mean he wouldn't allow something to be done here and there, stop acting like you know him.

RedNemesis42

Again, why do people choose to speak for Cobain in such a manner? Did you know him personally?

[QUOTE="jasonharris48"]

It's because something he wouldn't do or approve of if he was alive today. It goes against his character and everything he stood for. By Activevision creating that 3D model it was like a big middle finger to his grave.

MarcusAntonius

And you can speak for him, eh?

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="jasonharris48"]

It's because something he wouldn't do or approve of if he was alive today. It goes against his character and everything he stood for. By Activevision creating that 3D model it was like a big middle finger to his grave.

jasonharris48

And you can speak for him, eh?

I had read it in fact, same concept applies.