The Great Al Debate Topic

CatraDhtem · Post by **CatraDhtem** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:54 am

I agree not mentioning the download would be the way to go. Legally you can't force someone to take down a file that they own themselves, but still it's probably best not to rock that boat. As far as they need to know, we all read about it online in blogs and news blurbs.

Post by **Cinnamon** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:10 am

Greg, thank you so much for Mary Gormley's name!

I've been busy googling to try to become a little more informed. There are many moving parts in this equation.

Now I need a little more info before composing or sending a letter...

Atlantic Records Co-Founder Ahmet Ertegun was inducted into the R&RHOF in 1987 and their main exhibition hall is named after him. Atlantic Records has strong ties with the R&RHOF.

We don't know who the voters are and we don't want to alienate any possible future voters.

This is just an impression, but I think Mary Gormley is a mama bear. JB performed a benefit concert that raised funds for an animal shelter named after her dog who passed away last year. So she's not only his A&R person and a friend, she's probably his mama bear, out to protect him.

Can anyone think of anything at all that would be a detriment to JB if Al's song was released?

How would Al's song benefit JB and/or Atlantic?

CatraDhtem · Post by **CatraDhtem** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:36 am

Cinnamon @ Jun 16 2006, 01:10 AM wrote: This is just an impression, but I think Mary Gormley is a mama bear. JB performed a benefit concert that raised funds for an animal shelter named after her dog who passed away last year. So she's not only his A&R person and a friend, she's probably his mama bear, out to protect him.

I believe you're right. One of the articles about that benefit concert referred to her as being in an executive capacity, which is all the better. It seems as if she handles things on the corporate end for James, while his rep at Custard Records is there more in the creative capacity.

Post by **Cinnamon** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:14 pm

This is what strikes me the most:

'James is truly a man of his word,' Mary related. 'His career is now a whirlwind of fame and he is gladly taking the time to perform the 'Snuffy' benefit.'

What do you think of this argument? Here's my draft:

"I was so impressed when I read some news articles about James Blunt, and in particular the worthy benefit concert he performed to raise funds for the "Snuffy"benefit. It was nice to find out that he supports such causes and is a man of his word. It's encouraging to hear that about artists you want to support.

"Weird Al" Yankovic is also such a man. His last album was called Poodle Hat and featured his dog Bela on the cover. Fans have been excitedly awaiting a new album and when Weird Al releases a parody, sales for the person who gave permission generally get quite a boost. You can imagine how great it was to hear that James Blunt was allowing Weird Al to do a parody! What could be a better combination?

Mr. Blunt gave Weird Al permission to do a parody of his song "You're Beautiful". Based on that permission Weird Al spent time, effort and expense recording that parody. Everything was done. With this song, Weird Al's new album was complete and ready for release. Fans were expecting it to happen on June 27.

Now the new album has been put on hold indefinitely. Fans are being told that the James Blunt parody was removed and has to be replaced before the new album can be released. How can that be? James Blunt is known as a man who keeps his word. What happened?

Atlantic Records is what happened. Atlantic Records stopped the parody. Does Atlantic Records want to be remembered as the label who prevented James from being a man of his word when it came to Weird Al? If anyone has dealings with James Blunt in the future, are they also going to get burned? Is this a company or a person people will want to continue to support?

Because Weird Al is a man of integrity who respects James Blunt and Atlantic Records, he apparently isn't going to force the issue. But that just isn't fair. It's not fair to James Blunt, Weird Al, or any of their fans.

Please let James Blunt remain being a man who keeps his word. We've already missed out on being able to buy Weird Als new album by June 27. We've missed the opportunity for a summer concert tour. Please reconsider and allow Weird Al to go forward with his parody so I can remain a supporter of Atlantic Records and James Blunt. Atlantic Records Co-Founder Ahmet Ertegun's last name means living in a hopeful future. I'm hopeful the right thing will be done."

It's only a draft. I'll read it again later. Before it's sent, is there anything inaccurate? Did I go back and add too much fluff? (it was kind of...blunt - hehe) Should the album be called a cd?

Post by **Kevbo1987** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:49 pm

I think that's an excellent letter, Cinnamon. It's very nice, but also forceful. You got the point across without being uncivil. I think it's better to call it an album. It just sounds better than CD.

CatraDhtem · Post by **CatraDhtem** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:01 am

I sent a nice, polite, but still stern two-page letter out into the mail today. I won't bore the group with the whole thing, but here is one excerpt about the unwitting victim folks seem to have overlooked....

And that's what it comes down to, hurting James Blunt. As I said, James gave Al his permission to do the parody, which is his right. But how many people are going to read the news articles that are floating around about this and assume that Atlantic is the one blocking Al's song? In 1996 Coolio became the bad guy by bad-mouthing "Amish Paradise," while in 2003 Eminem was painted in the media as an uppity spoilsport by refusing to let Al produce a video for "Couch Potato," and now this. Seriously, which is a person more likely to believe: "Wow, those people at Atlantic Records are being a bunch of jerks toward Weird Al," or "Wow, that James Blunt sure is being a jerk toward Weird Al?" I fortunately know whom to be outraged at because I do read articles, but some people aren't that resourceful. They'll see "Weird Al's James Blunt parody pulled from album" and think James is the cause of it all, and that's unfair to James. He's the one guy from your side who supported the idea of Al doing a parody, and he's probably going to end up being painted as the bad guy; this year's Coolio. I can't see any train of logic that makes that right for Atlantic to do to James.

WWEgirl · Post by **WWEgirl** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:44 am

Very good, feel the rage of the fans of Al!!!! If that's just a bit of it, I wouldn't mind seeing the whole thing. (I'm a MVD at my school) [Most Valuable Debater] now. Ever since I won my most improved debater's award, lol. But yeah, when you tell them like it is, but politely, they cannot refuse.

Post by **Kevbo1987** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:39 am

That's a very good point to make to them, Greg. You're absolutely right that James Blunt is going to get some bad publicity out of this, and it's excellent that you pointed that out to Atlantic.

Post by **Cinnamon** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:59 am

Kevbo1987 Posted on Jun 16 2006, 04:49 PM
I think that's an excellent letter, Cinnamon. It's very nice, but also forceful. You got the point across without being uncivil. I think it's better to call it an album. It just sounds better than CD.

Thanks for your input

CatraDhtem Posted on Jun 17 2006, 01:01 AM
...here is one excerpt about the unwitting victim folks seem to have overlooked....

Mine's a bit more subtle, but don't worry, she'll get the message - hehe

Good job on your letter, Greg.

CatraDhtem · Post by **CatraDhtem** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:40 am

WWEgirl @ Jun 16 2006, 09:44 PM wrote: If that's just a bit of it, I wouldn't mind seeing the whole thing.

That was one of the more meatier parts of the letter. There's nothing more in it that I haven't said already on the forum and elsewhere, repeating all the usual PR stuff about Al's parodies being badges of honor, usually resulting in higher sales for the original artist, etc. Probably the only other new point I made was that this would be like if Twentieth Century Fox demanded Mel Brooks to pay them royalties for "Spaceballs" after getting George Lucas's blessing.

Thanks for the good vibes, gang!