4 ms·

Apparently he is unstinting in collecting royalties on the works in question: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/tribe-called-quest-lou-reed-got

Apparently he is unstinting in collecting royalties on the works in question: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/tribe-called-quest-lou-reed-got-all-the-money-for-can-i-kick-it-71760/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/tribe-call... And he did, after all, play them in concert, though condescendingly (and perhaps realizing that if he did not, future earnings from performances would come to reflect how well-regarded his preferred works are.) In aggregate, his behavior looks to me to be petty and entitled, rather than high-minded.

penneallagricia 3y ago
> he is Was. He died years ago. Show some respect and at least learn that before going on finding evidence to support your claim that "his behavior is petty and entitled". You clearly don't know who you're talking about
- mannykannot 3y ago
  That was, indeed, a careless mistake on my part, but it does not alter the facts behind this discussion.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    "facts"
    - mannykannot 3y ago
      The facts are his behavior, in performance and in relation to royalties.
coldtea 3y ago
>Apparently he is unstinting in collecting royalties on the works in question And your point is? Just because he didn't like some of his previous work anymore, or didn't appreciate the shallow focus on "past hits", he should have forfeited his publishing rights for those songs going forward? This is some next level entitlement. >And he did, after all, play them in concert, though condescendingly Damned if you do, damned if you don't. He haven't signed any contract that he'd play those songs. He haven't made any promise to play those songs. He didn't feel like playing those songs. He wanted to focus on more recent and less obvious stuff than past hits parade, as if he's in some tribute band. Some in the audience still insisted on the hits. Is it not enough that he accepted that demand and played them. Did he also have to like it or put on a fake smile? This is some next level entitlement.
- mannykannot 3y ago
  > He should have forfeited his publishing rights for those songs going forward? Of course not - it's a fact emphasizing his willingness to hawk those works in the marketplace.

penneallagricia 3y ago

> he is Was. He died years ago. Show some respect and at least learn that before going on finding evidence to support your claim that "his behavior is petty and entitled". You clearly don't know who you're talking about

mannykannot 3y ago
That was, indeed, a careless mistake on my part, but it does not alter the facts behind this discussion.
- coldtea 3y ago
  "facts"
  - mannykannot 3y ago
    The facts are his behavior, in performance and in relation to royalties.

coldtea 3y ago

>Apparently he is unstinting in collecting royalties on the works in question And your point is? Just because he didn't like some of his previous work anymore, or didn't appreciate the shallow focus on "past hits", he should have forfeited his publishing rights for those songs going forward? This is some next level entitlement. >And he did, after all, play them in concert, though condescendingly Damned if you do, damned if you don't. He haven't signed any contract that he'd play those songs. He haven't made any promise to play those songs. He didn't feel like playing those songs. He wanted to focus on more recent and less obvious stuff than past hits parade, as if he's in some tribute band. Some in the audience still insisted on the hits. Is it not enough that he accepted that demand and played them. Did he also have to like it or put on a fake smile? This is some next level entitlement.

mannykannot 3y ago
> He should have forfeited his publishing rights for those songs going forward? Of course not - it's a fact emphasizing his willingness to hawk those works in the marketplace.