PSB V Blaknoisewhitesoul

Message

Guest · #1 Post by **Guest** » Mon 31 Oct 2005, 8:28 pm

I may be able to shed some light on the PSB, Blaknoisewhitesoul 100% royalties issue. Having previously worked with Sony/ATV I have had first hand experience of working with the boys management, but I have also been a fan of Blaknoisewhitesoul since hearing their remixes on American radio stations. Anyway heres the true account of the story:-

Blaknoisewhitesoul wrote a piece of music for their forthcoming single called sometimes.

They then enhanced it by using less than 5% of the lyrics of their favourite PSB song (Not a sample from the original or a cover version) and called it Sometimes with The Pet Shop Boys.

The track was then sent to Dorrell Management for clearance.

Dorrell replied saying the boys were happy for the track to be released.

Udiscs (BNWS record label) then released a promo of the track to radio stations.

Sometimes was playlisted on 5 radio stations.

Dorrell management then forwarded the 100% royalties clause to Udiscs.

Udiscs offered a 50/50 split on the track.

Dorrell maintained their stance of no negotiation and demanded that the track be withdrawn.

I think its a shame that the PSB dont see the long term benefit of other artists paying homage to them by using or remixing their tracks. It can breathe new life into a band and bring a whole new generation of fans to their door (Tears for Fears - Mad World)

One thing is for sure though - they have inadvertantly created one of the most sought after bootlegs of the decade. I can't wait to obtain a copy.

All the best

Tom

Young Offender · #2 Post by **Young Offender** » Mon 31 Oct 2005, 9:27 pm

Thanks for the info!

Naughty Zoot · #3 Post by **Naughty Zoot** » Tue 01 Nov 2005, 3:36 am

Thanks, Tom, for the behind the scenes view.

As this is only the BNWS side of the story, I'm sure there's a bit more involved from the PSB side. However, having said that:

I can't imagine what would make N&C / Dorrell Mgmnt turn up their noses at this project. It seems like a win / win situation for all involved - PSB get exposure to a demographic that proably doesn't pay them much mind & BNWS get a little boost from a group they obviously admire. And it seems to have been handled in a straightforward manner, so why the fuss?

Surely, it can't be about the money. I'm sure it's a nice song but a Multi-Week, Worldwide #1 it isn't, so why not graciously accept however many Euros this modest effort will generate for their 5% contribution & leave it at that.

Again, I only know this side. Plus, I agree that N&C should have the final decision on letting someone make use of their " Intellectual Property " but ____

Honestly, N&C .... this seems rather petty.

joeythecat · #4 Post by **joeythecat** » Tue 01 Nov 2005, 5:05 am

Perhaps they see it as cheapening the music. And granted, in some respects it does. Still, the publicity couldn't hurt, still since we have not heard the song, perhaps it was a wise decision by PSB.
However, I believe it is more of the work of an over zealous person on the PSB camp. And granted, I don't think that PSB paid too dearly for thier usage of samples from ABC, Barry White, or Depeche Mode, Stan Getz, or their blatant usage of Bobby Orlando riffs.
I suppose PSB are the establishment, and these guys were the foolish ones who asked for permission.

Dipso · #5 Post by **Dipso** » Tue 01 Nov 2005, 10:11 am

Was it really just a line or two of lyrics? Demanding a 100% royalty seems a trifle harsh.

Interestingly, Robbie Williams uses the line "to speak is a sin" on one of the tracks on his new album. Something tells me he's not paying anything!

By the way, the British girl group Mis-teeq sampled the baseline to West End Girls for their single Style a few years back, presumably with the Pets' blessing.

Hmm, I suppose there must be more to this story than meets the eye.

Kirk Mack · #6 Post by **Kirk Mack** » Tue 01 Nov 2005, 2:03 pm

Congratulations on learning how to use smilies.....

Young Offender · #7 Post by **Young Offender** » Tue 01 Nov 2005, 9:20 pm

Or maybe Dorell gets a percentage and he was the greedy one?

LOL @ Kirkmack!

DogWater · #8 Post by **DogWater** » Wed 02 Nov 2005, 1:05 pm

We don't know for sure that it's the Boys themselves that made the 100% royalyies demand. That decision could have been made by Dorell or the tracks publishers

Hmmm · #9 Post by **Hmmm** » Wed 02 Nov 2005, 4:32 pm

Well I think its more to do with the publicity than anything else but as Tom verlaine said,

"they have inadvertantly created one of the most sought after bootlegs of the decade."

Will techno buy them all

.

TwizzleUK · #10 Post by **TwizzleUK** » Mon 20 Mar 2006, 11:13 pm

Okay, this song can be heard at http://www.myspace.com/blaknoisewhitesoul (bottom of their four songs). Now, while I like their material, the PSB track is the weakest of the four, and has already been "amended" to feature less of the West End Girls lyric. I have heard the original (now "bootleg") version, and when you consider that the version you can hear at MySpace features only entirely lyrics from 'West End Girls' after editing, and no original lyric, I can see the PSB's publishing company's point.

Two things strike me about this: I don't see Blaknoisewhitesoul's argument that "We couldn't believe that a band as big as the Pet Shop Boys would do this. "It's not like it was a cover - this was a very dark, subversive track in which you'd barely know the Pet Shop Boys lyrics had been used." This is blatantly the lyric to West End Girls, doubly so on the original they tried to get released. Although the music is different, the song (and therefore, it's key hook) would not exist, had 'West End Girls' never been written. Methinks they're stirring it up a bit for publicity purposes.

Despite their seemingly aparrent annoyance with PSB, I don't feel the band have a leg to stand on, considering they are still using the fame of the PSB to gain publicity for themselves - within the song title itself, and in the use (probably illegally) of photographs at their MySpace site(!). How would the band like it if I were to steal their lyrics, and put them to a completely new track? Pretty pissed off, I'd wager.

I think this band needed a cover version to get them some publicity, then didn't like it after being told they needed to credit the song as a cover version. Then, they floated it around the press on a "big band supressing small band" trip, and enjoyed the resulting publicity.

It's all too easy to slag off record companies before considering the arguments, but with this one I'm on the side of the publishers - it's essentially a remix/cover of West End Girls. I think the band may well have done this deliberately to provoke a reaction from the record company, in the interests of extra publicity when it hits the news...

Andy

TwizzleUK · #11 Post by **TwizzleUK** » Mon 20 Mar 2006, 11:17 pm

Oh, and the original (before having some of the vocals edited out) featured much, much more than just 5% of the lyrics to 'West End Girls'!

Andy

Syncratic · #12 Post by **Syncratic** » Tue 21 Mar 2006, 12:04 am

I know that the director of Donnie Darko wanted to use West End Girls in the Sparkle Motion sequence but it was too expensive.

It's funny because I've never heard 'Sometimes With (or without) the Pet Shop Boys' on the radio and only have their word for it about how sought after this song is. The 'buzz' seems to come from their direction, and I'm caring less and less about the circumstances.

As with Vicious, they should develop their own voice and style, and not be afraid to take ownership of their music and production. my space is probably a good arena in which to build up their own following.