It’s not necessarily the licensing FEES, it’s whether the owner of the rights will release the song at all, for any price. Musicians are understandably protective of how their music is used. I promise there are tons of musicians who would never allow their music to appear in a video game, for ANY price. I can tell you right now that there will never, ever be a Beatles song in any Guitar Hero. Nor will there ever be an Eagles song. There are probably many more.
If you noticed, even the groups and labels that HAVE allowed songs to be used will only allow cover songs to be used, NOT the original. So even in the cases where they will license the song, they are only licensing a COVER of the song, and not the original music. There are only a handful of original versions of songs in the Guitar Hero series. Now this may change somewhat over time. More groups will see the benefit of allowing their music to be used. But not all will.
You might want to replace “in time” to “now.” With the release of Guitar Hero III and Rock Band, most of the songs have gone from covers to originals.
This happened because many bands and the record labels realize there’s plenty of money in games like GH and RB. In fact, nearly every week since the games have been released, Billboard has an article highlighting a song that was included in either game that is now selling like mad on iTunes.
Any snobbery bands have over Guitar Hero and the like is over. They may not understand video games, but money is what they want.
Sam Stone, great post! I specifically wanted to comment on this:
I just heard on the radio yesterday that The Outlaws of “Green Grass and High Tides” fame (which happens to be in Rock Band) are suddenly going back on tour. I don’t know for sure if the two are related, but I can say that I didn’t know anything of the song or the band before the game came out, and I’m sure I’m not the only person who falls into that category.
When my roommate bought Guitar Hero III, I decided the worst song in the entire game was Poison’s Talk Dirty to Me. A miserable excuse for a song with poor orchestration, unlistenable lyrics, and an awfully written chorus. Fortunately, I’d never heard the thing before, and aside from having to play it once at each difficulty I’d never have to hear it again . . .
. . . until . . .
. . . it showed up on the radio this weekend!!! Gah! That which had been properly relegated to music oblivion now walks among us. God have mercy on our souls!
The good songs are mostly still covers. I don’t have Rock Band so maybe someone else can comment on that game, but in Guitar Hero III, songs by Pat Benatar, Poison, Foghat, Social Distortion, Kiss, Mountain, Alice Cooper, Cream, Heart, The Who, Black Sabbath, ZZ Top, Santana, White Zombie, Stevie Ray Vaughn, and others are covers. In fact, looking at the list it appears that it’s the older groups who are allowing covers but not original recordings. Lots of new groups apparently don’t have the same problem.
Although Aerosmith didn’t seem to mind. Hence they get an entire game devoted to them. Which is fine by me.
Which may have something to do with the age of the bandmembers themselves. I remember reading an article about the LotRs video game where the younger cast members were delighted to be in a video game and the older cast members didn’t get it. So younger bands may just think its cool to actually have their own recordings used, while older bands may think “whatever.”
It may also be a case where the master recordings are no good anymore. See “Cult of Personality” and “Anarchy in the UK” in Guitar Hero III. Both songs are original recordings that were redone by the groups because the “original” original recordings were unusable.
It is also my understanding that, in some cases, at least, the tracks were mixed together in a way that made them inseparable for Rock Band. So if, for example, you have your drummer in the game make a mistake, only the drum portion of the song should drop out. But if the drum and vocals are on the same track in the master, there’s no way to make that happen. My hearsay understanding is that it was more common for the instrument tracks to be mixed together in older recordings, but since I don’t have any independent knowledge of that, it could be bogus.
What’s most perplexing for us is why the Coheed & Cambria song that was part of the original Rock Band soundtrack had the master track, but a recently released downloadable track by them is a cover. I haven’t heard any official word on why that would be. I wonder if the two songs were done under different record labels. Does Rock Band/Guitar Hero need permission from the labels as well as the artists?
My understanding, thanks to MTV’s industry clout (or whatever’s left of it), is that Rock Band (Harmonix/MTV Games) was able to get permissions for original band recordings more easily than Guitar Hero (Neversoft/Activision) since MTV works so closely with the recording industry.
Yes. I’m not sure who has ultimate say in whether a song is included as a master track or a cover, or even who has final say if a song is included at all, but both the label and the artist are both involved.
JayRx1981 is also correct on the reason why Rock Band has a higher percentage of master tracks than Guitar Hero. However, Guitar Hero’s name brand recognition and ridiculous sales will likely close that gap for any future GH games.
BTW what was that downloadable track? I played Welcome Home and it was a lot more fun than I expected, bowdlerized lyrics aside. (It also helps that it isn’t my favorite Co&Ca song, and one that I like to sing along with anyway. If it were one of my top 5 I wouldn’t enjoy it as much as it would ruin the song for me after awhile.)
So in that vein, I’m hoping it’s Ten Speed, or Gravemakers & Gunslingers
There are a lot of misconceptions about the legal rights involved in Guitar Hero (and other things) in this thread.
[ul][li]Weird Al gets permission from the artists and labels as a courtesy only. Parody is protected under copyright law, and he does not legally have to get permission.[/li][li]The makers of music video games do not have to negotiate for the rights to the songs they include in the games. They have to secure the rights to cover the song, and pay appropriate royalties, but those rights and the rates they pay are mandatory under US law. It’s not like they have to gather around a boardroom table and hash out a detailed agreement with the musicians. They just sent a legal document and a check every once in a while. A songwriter cannot prevent you from making your own cover of a song, and they can’t prevent you from making your own cover of a song and putting it in a video game, either. All they can do is require you to pay a certain amount to them for each copy made (as specified in law).[/li]In the case of original recordings, the game producers would have to negotiate for mechanical reproduction rights with whoever owns them. That might be the bands, and it might be a label.[/ul]
It’s not quite that simple. Artists also have ‘moral rights’ to their songs which they can use to block use of the song in any way. For instance, if the KKK decides to use “Knights in White Satin” as their theme song, the songwriter can take them to court and stop them from using it, even if they’re willing to pay all licensing fees.
Also, for a song to be used in a commercial for a product, don’t the creators of the song have to approve? Or can I use “Let it Be” as the jingle for my product by simply paying appropriate licensing fees?
Putting a song in a video game is a little different than playing it on the CD player in a bar or using it in a movie soundtrack - especially if you’re ripping the song apart and playing the tracks separately. I don’t know if it rises to the level of a ‘moral rights’ issue, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the lawyers for these games decided that it was better to be safe than sorry and only use tracks when they can secure explicit permission from the creators.
If this were true then why wouldn’t Activision/RedOctane load up a Guitar Hero sequel with all of the songs fans want. GH players have been screaming for more Ramones and Green Day (any Green Day) since the beginning. And still nothing.
Plus, look at the Romantics lawsuit against Activision for making a cover that they thought was “too close” to the original even though Activision got all of the needed clearances. While it may not be legally “needed”, the artist is involved, at least partially.
There are a couple reasons why they might not do that, even in the absence of rights problems. But I stand corrected by you and Sam. While there might not be concrete legal reasons that they need the rights, they probably negotiate just so they can keep from getting sued.
