|
|
Post by SusieFierce on Oct 24, 2011 21:22:57 GMT -5
Recently posted on AO: Statement from AO Web crew on BFM (posted on AO): "AO Web Crew: Re: Official Feedback/Moderation Thread updated Ok everyone, here is the official word on "Beg For Mercy". We would have liked to say something sooner, but "the wheels of justice turn slowly", as Flash recently said in an email. "Beg For Mercy" is a song recorded LONG before idol. It is NOT a new song, it has just been packaged as a new song. It was recorded before his contract with RCA/19/Sony so we have no control over it. The person who owns the rights has chosen to sell it, and they are technically within their rights. However, we will say it again, this is NOT an official release, and it is not a new song by any means. Please spread the word. The AO Web Crew" Would the old saying, "No shit, Shakespeare?!" be appropriate here! :  LOL, first thing I said, "Whew! They are on the cutting edge aren't they??" The only thing I thought was mildly interesting (as Cassie pointed out) is the fact that they said they had no control over the material recorded before he was under contract with RCA. I've long suspected this, but still kind of sucks to hear them seem to say they have no legal recourse in this case. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 21:24:22 GMT -5
Oliver Golddstein has a few songs on Kelly Clarkson's album. Hmmm, I wonder which ones?! BTW, I pre-ordered Kelly's album from Amazon and mine has not arrived yet, even though it came out today. Usually Amazon pre-orders arrive early. I am taking note so I have my bases covered for Adam 2!  |
|
koshka
Member
Posts: 1,626
Location:
|
Post by koshka on Oct 24, 2011 21:31:31 GMT -5
Would the old saying, "No shit, Shakespeare?!" be appropriate here! : LOL, first thing I said, "Whew! They are on the cutting edge aren't they??" The only thing I thought was mildly interesting (as Cassie pointed out) is the fact that they said they had no control over the material recorded before he was under contract with RCA. I've long suspected this, but still kind of sucks to hear them seem to say they have no legal recourse in this case. But yet there are iTunes ads that get pulled and the fact that this same material has been pulled being released before. It's all pretty strange. |
|
|
|
Post by durberville on Oct 24, 2011 21:33:40 GMT -5
Would the old saying, "No shit, Shakespeare?!" be appropriate here! : LOL, first thing I said, "Whew! They are on the cutting edge aren't they??" The only thing I thought was mildly interesting (as Cassie pointed out) is the fact that they said they had no control over the material recorded before he was under contract with RCA. I've long suspected this, but still kind of sucks to hear them seem to say they have no legal recourse in this case. but if they have no legal recourse....who is getting the album removed from Amazon et al....and HOW?  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 21:33:45 GMT -5
LOL, first thing I said, "Whew! They are on the cutting edge aren't they??" The only thing I thought was mildly interesting (as Cassie pointed out) is the fact that they said they had no control over the material recorded before he was under contract with RCA. I've long suspected this, but still kind of sucks to hear them seem to say they have no legal recourse in this case. But yet there are iTunes ads that get pulled and the fact that this same material has been pulled being released before. It's all pretty strange. And if RCA has no recourse, then why did they want to know about ads and stuff that fans were finding? |
|
|
|
Post by Q3 on Oct 24, 2011 21:36:52 GMT -5
There is no standard schedule for announcing and promoting singles at RCA. I do not have any idea where the Adam's single will be released in January is coming from. Can someone fill me in? Although anything is possible with an album release -- and there are lots of considerations including financial planning at RCA/SEM -- I would be very surprised by a January single -- that would miss the post-Christmas single sales. What about the album though? I see that it's not listed in "Coming Soon" on Amazon anymore after reappearing under the Universal DOD label or whatever, over the weekend. So confusing, it's like a game of Whack-A-Mole...  Whack-A-Mole You are right. It has disappeared again. And the single is burning up the charts at #6062 on MP3 downloads. The AO statement makes it appear that they are saying Adam can legally do nothing about the release. Or is it saying that RCA can do nothing about the release? If that is the case, I am puzzled why it disappeared, reappeared in a different guise, then is gone again? Could it be that Malcolm expected Adam fans to embrace it, and when they posted such negative comments everywhere it was for sale that he was surprised? Realized it was not the golden goose he had thought it was? Did he intend for it to be broadly embraced by die-hard fans and casual fans alike but did not anticipate it being largely ignored? Or do you think that there is more legal wrangling still going on behind the scenes and it will be reanimated once more like a zombie? In any case, other than being an irritant to Adam, it looks like BFM, in whatever incarnation, is pretty much a non-issue. And at present, it looks like it will not be on retail end caps for the holiday gift buying season. Or, crossing fingers, even on the big online stores. (Well, the single, yes, but, one would have to search for it knowingly, and I don't imagine many people are going to go online and search for a new single from Adam to gift to their Adam-fan friends and family.) I expect it to return in some new form. Since Malcolm clearly owns the recording masters and that is now confirmed by AO.com/RCA, there are only three possibilities: 1. It gets released before Adam #2 -- Holiday 2011 (there is still time). 2. It gets released at the same time as Adam #2. (The Take One strategy -- a shadow album.) 3. It gets released next summer -- as Citizen Vein. I am hoping for #3 -- which could only happen if Adam makes a deal with Malcolm Welsford. (The only other scenario I can come up with is that it is not release because Adam buys the recording masters. That would be such a waste of money IMHO and Adam is way to smart to do that, This is so implausible and inconsistent with how Adam has treated Take One.) |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 21:41:47 GMT -5
Nowhere. We are just discussing timelines aand possible things that might (but hope don't) happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Q3 on Oct 24, 2011 21:42:27 GMT -5
But yet there are iTunes ads that get pulled and the fact that this same material has been pulled being released before. It's all pretty strange. And if RCA has no recourse, then why did they want to know about ads and stuff that fans were finding? JMHO -- they were trying to divert fans from blasting radio stations and retailers with emails, comments and tweets. So they gave them a task. Customer Containment strategy. And it worked. Note: The Q102 database issue is a Clear Channel database issue and they know about it. Adam fans are blasting lots of radio stations about it. (FYE is no longer on the Clear Channel Adam Lambert discography but BFM is there.) Please do not send any more emails and tweets. |
|
|
|
Post by whatyasay on Oct 24, 2011 21:42:42 GMT -5
No, No reihmer ... don't change it. That may be as close as I get to sex for a long time ... but ahhhh, the memories. LOL. seriously funny! 
|
|
|
|
Post by cassie on Oct 24, 2011 21:45:27 GMT -5
But yet there are iTunes ads that get pulled and the fact that this same material has been pulled being released before. It's all pretty strange. And if RCA has no recourse, then why did they want to know about ads and stuff that fans were finding? My guess is while they have no recourse about it being released, they can go after the slimeballs for false advertising if the bottom feeders promote it as Adam's current or new music. Didn't they say that they only wanted that type of wording or promo reported? As for announcing it, pulling it, announcing it again.... could it be that the fine print of the promotional material is being scrutinized, and when in doubt about what will be considered legal, they pull it until they can modify it slightly to avoid legal action? Or possibly that certain backers saw the negative comments and reaction, pulled out, and other backers had to be found? Who knows. |
|
