Millionaire socialist musicians do not understand the capitalist system that has served them so well... An example of that is Donald Trump's use of Queen's anthem, We Are The Champions, at the Republican National Convention. It worked for Trump in two ways; it was a perfect fit for the WWF-like entry Trump made just as his nomination was complete. "We are the champions, we beat the establishment!"
And two, it caused an uproar over the performance rights of the writers of the song. Who then looked close-minded as they complained that they would not have given Trump, who they consider a homophobe, the rights even if he had asked. The band demanded the RNC 'cease and desist' from any further use of their song, because the Trump campaign organization had not asked for or received permission to use it.
I raise this issue because every election cycle we hear rich, socialist musicians bellyache about conservatives using their music during rallies and conventions. This year a bunch of lefty artists, often ones worth millions who sing about and venerate socialism, while practicing the purest form of capitalism there is, complain that Republicans are using their music without their consent, and that they do not approve of that because Republicans are racist and hateful.
You never hear them tell conservatives not to buy their albums though, do you? Which means they value conservative's money when it serves them, but dismiss them if they publicly enjoy their music.
New Queen lead singer Adam Lambert tweeted, "If your politics party spends decades treating gay people as second-class citizens, guess what: You don't get to use Freddie Mercury's music at your convention."
Wrong. It is not your private property anymore.
Licensing your art is a purely capitalist way to make a living. Millionaire musicians seem to forget that along with the enormous amounts of royalties comes some compromises. Once you license your songs to ASCAP or BMI, you forfeit the ability to restrict specific parties from playing your songs.
It is no longer purely your song. It is part of a performance contract, in which both parties have rights. Ironically, the licensing program is almost a collective, because it allows the public, other musicians, and the venues, to 'share' the music, while protecting the artists and helping them to collect residuals on their work.
When an artist releases a new recording, they sign an agreement with ASCAP, or BMI, or other licensing organizations to manage the use and compensation of the song. At that point, the artist no longer has the power to pick and choose who plays the music, as long as the terms of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), or one of the three other licensing organizations are being met, they cannot simply deny a person of a political movement the use of the music. Venues like the convention center in Cleveland, pay thousands of dollars in annual performance rights fees so they can have clients play any music they want when holding conventions in their building.
Marketing, like freedom, is a two way street. Artists have to decide, do I want to maintain maximum control over my art, or do I want maximum return on my investment, my talent, by sharing it with the world?
You can't have it both ways Adam.