Todd Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 The people who are fine with the clean versions are the only civil people in this thread. Those of you who are against it, calling Green Day sellouts are being wayyy over dramatic. Calm it down. It really does not matter at the end of the day. If you don't like the idea of a clean version, then just buy the explicit version. Maybe some people prefer the clean version... Ever thought of that? Ok, let me rephrase myself... Have respect for Walmart when it comes to their stance on explicit music. Yes, I agree the respect for Walmart as a whole is another animal. If all the clean versions have different lyrics instead of bleeps, like KTDJ, I'll get a clean version just to have variety. Having the explicit version of KTDJ and the clean version is no different than having hold on and the alternate harmonica version, or having 409 and 409 unmixed version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissawebster Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Can I just say that, whatever side you take, I love that my favorite band is one whose fandom actually has discussions like this? I agree! Smart fans are the best fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather. Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Yeah, it's more about the general ideas than about the specific things. It's about what it represents more than about what it actually is. Billie Joe has a way of giving specific examples to illustrate general concepts (without explaining that it is, in fact, the concept, and not the thing, that he is referring to) Like what he said about Steve Jobs. It was his inarticulate, uneducated, crude way of describing something he didn't really have the words for. Anyway, you could even think of this (if you wanted to) as a noble attempt by Green Day to keep physical CDs alive. If Walmart is sadly one of the only stores willing to sell CDs anymore, then maybe Walmart is not the enemy but one of the few friends Green Day has? (I'm not sure if I believe what I just wrote, but it's worth thinking about ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayfabe Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 GEEKS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Femme Gauche Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Yeah, Warner doesn't have absolute total control over every aspect of the records once they're produced. I know you want to blame all this on Warner and make Green Day totally and completely blameless, but it is just not the way Green Day works. They have never worked that way. They have always maintained some kind of control over the music. And if they don't and it's all been just a PR image they've presented to their fans, then it's even more hypocritical when one of them says in an interview just last week that he has Rob Cavallo's left nut in his pocket. Either he does or he doesn't. They need to make up their minds which image they want to present to the world and then own it, good and bad. 'Cause right now, they are not being consistent. It isn't a matter of either Green Day having total control over the music and marketing or Warner having total control. Most likely, it is a mutual partnership where both parties make concessions. In this case, Green Day agreed to these concessions. Making excuses for Green Day while blaming Warner completely is unnecessary. Nobody is saying explicitly that it was solely Warner or that Green Day played no role in it. I personally still do not think it is such a terrible thing if they did play a part in it, but the fact is that Warner could have gone ahead anyway - that that is in the realm of possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabeeb Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Green Day and Wal-Mart? Oh dear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather. Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Yeah, Warner doesn't have absolute total control over every aspect of the records once they're produced. I know you want to blame all this on Warner and make Green Day totally and completely blameless, but it is just not the way Green Day works. They have never worked that way. They have always maintained some kind of control over the music. And if they don't and it's all been just a PR image they've presented to their fans, then it's even more hypocritical when one of them says in an interview just last week that he has Rob Cavallo's left nut in his pocket. Either he does or he doesn't. They need to make up their minds which image they want to present to the world and then own it, good and bad. 'Cause right now, they are not being consistent. It isn't a matter of either Green Day having total control over the music and marketing or Warner having total control. Most likely, it is a mutual partnership where both parties make concessions. In this case, Green Day agreed to these concessions. Making excuses for Green Day while blaming Warner completely is unnecessary. Not that this is important, but when Billie mentioned having Rob's left nut in his pocket, he wasn't saying it in the context of Rob being pussy-whipped. He was saying it because Rob would've given up his balls to make this record. Nothing to do with control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Femme Gauche Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Like what he said about Steve Jobs. It was his inarticulate, uneducated, crude way of describing something he didn't really have the words for. Yes, that is exactly what I was thinking about as well. Anyway, you could even think of this (if you wanted to) as a noble attempt by Green Day to keep physical CDs alive. If Walmart is sadly one of the only stores willing to sell CDs anymore, then maybe Walmart is not the enemy but one of the few friends Green Day has? (I'm not sure if I believe what I just wrote, but it's worth thinking about ) Well remember, they have vinyl now too . But really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissawebster Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I get what you meant by suffering, but personally I think it's a little subversive anyway to sell records as "clean" which really are anything but. So true. That's a point I didn't even bring up, but marketing these albums to kids is a bit creepy and disturbing. I mean, can you imagine letting your eight year old kid listen to "It's Fuck Time"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Yeah, Warner doesn't have absolute total control over every aspect of the records once they're produced. I know you want to blame all this on Warner and make Green Day totally and completely blameless, but it is just not the way Green Day works. They have never worked that way. They have always maintained some kind of control over the music. And if they don't and it's all been just a PR image they've presented to their fans, then it's even more hypocritical when one of them says in an interview just last week that he has Rob Cavallo's left nut in his pocket. Either he does or he doesn't. They need to make up their minds which image they want to present to the world and then own it, good and bad. 'Cause right now, they are not being consistent. It isn't a matter of either Green Day having total control over the music and marketing or Warner having total control. Most likely, it is a mutual partnership where both parties make concessions. In this case, Green Day agreed to these concessions. Making excuses for Green Day while blaming Warner completely is unnecessary. Green Day has complete control in the music, never said they didn't . All I said is that once it's recorded, it belongs to the label, the label owns it. This is fact in music. So Warner could have gone to Green Day and said, "hey, we're putting this in Wal-Mart, so we can either bleep everything out or we can record a censored version." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Femme Gauche Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 So true. That's a point I didn't even bring up, but marketing these albums to kids is a bit creepy and disturbing. I mean, can you imagine letting your eight year old kid listen to "It's Fuck Time"? No, but a twelve year old? They're going to know what's up, but their parents probably won't be cool with them buying a record that says "explicit content". And they're about to come into their own. It's Beej or Beebs... which would you rather they choose? ETA: Also, that kind of subversion is exactly the way that artists deal with a market that requires they make sacrifices of this nature. ETA 2: Kind of like the way (communist) Diego Rivera was commissioned to do some pro-industry frescoes by Henry Ford and he did the frescoes, but they sympathized with the worker rather than the corporation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdpony Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Wow, this thread is on fire. There's something I will never understand, why do some people take what the band does so seriously? I mean, remember that even though they love music, and they're a band that has taken a lot of risks, in the end it's business, and not everything they do is a personal decision. So why be should somone get upset over the fact that they're sellling an explicit version and the fact that they're selling it at walmart? it's a good marketing decision and I'm sure a lot of parents will purchase the explicit version for themselves, or for their young children. The more sales the better, it means the band is still profitable and the label will keep them around for a while. Whatever problem they had with Walmart in the past, it's over now. And if they're ok with this, in the end it's their music, why should I be bothered. They've done this quite a few times actually. Billie Joe wished Steve Jobs would die, and said he hated technology and now he has an iphone, a twitter account and an instagram account and I don't see too many people complaining about that or calling him a hypocrite. In the end, it's all about the music and the love you have for the band, these things are just business and paperwork for them. We can't be 100% happy with every decision they make. For example I really don't like the fact that Oh Love is a single, but that doesn't mean I'm not gonna buy the album. I think I would only be bothered if they started selling really expensive albums or really expensive concert tickets or if they started being asses to their fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteTim Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Yeah, it does. But that's okay, Billie Joe does it, your grandma does it, I do it. But because they're so big and probably don't even worry about this stuff, it is our job as a responsive fanbase to remind them when they do wrong. But you're right, in the end, none of this really even matters; it's just good for us to be aware of events like this. Right, but if they did anything like that without the band's consent they could kiss a huge cash cow goodbye. So realistically, they wouldn't do anything like that if the band was actually against it. Not really since the band under contract the band cant just get up and leave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissawebster Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Not that this is important, but when Billie mentioned having Rob's left nut in his pocket, he wasn't saying it in the context of Rob being pussy-whipped. He was saying it because Rob would've given up his balls to make this record. Nothing to do with control. Thanks! I didn't realize this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteTim Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Yeah, Warner doesn't have absolute total control over every aspect of the records once they're produced. I know you want to blame all this on Warner and make Green Day totally and completely blameless, but it is just not the way Green Day works. They have never worked that way. They have always maintained some kind of control over the music. And if they don't and it's all been just a PR image they've presented to their fans, then it's even more hypocritical when one of them says in an interview just last week that he has Rob Cavallo's left nut in his pocket. Either he does or he doesn't. They need to make up their minds which image they want to present to the world and then own it, good and bad. 'Cause right now, they are not being consistent. It isn't a matter of either Green Day having total control over the music and marketing or Warner having total control. Most likely, it is a mutual partnership where both parties make concessions. In this case, Green Day agreed to these concessions. Making excuses for Green Day while blaming Warner completely is unnecessary. Again Warner OWNS the recordings and the rights they can do WHATEVER they FEEL like doing (I work for Warner Bros who owns the recording label i work in the home video department) GD has leeway because their producer is a higher up executive at the label so Warner has always gicen GD free range (which they dont so with alot of artists) but if Warner changes people and those people arent GD fans then all this wouldnt happen they can easily take oh love and have Diddy remix it and add 50 Cents and Justin Biber without GD even knowing but the people at the label respects em and gives em leeway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissawebster Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Not really since the band under contract the band cant just get up and leave They can leave once the contract on the album trilogy is up, and if it's really bad, they can leave before the contract is up. Contracts are broken all the time. If Warner bullies them into doing every single thing their way and they don't like it or get fed up with it, they absolutely can (and have in the past) leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Again Warner OWNS the recordings and the rights they can do WHATEVER they FEEL like doing (I work for Warner Bros who owns the recording label i work in the home video department) GD has leeway because their producer is a higher up executive at the label so Warner has always gicen GD free range (which they dont so with alot of artists) but if Warner changes people and those people arent GD fans then all this wouldnt happen they can easily take oh love and have Diddy remix it and add 50 Cents and Justin Biber without GD even knowing but the people at the label respects em and gives em leeway Thank you for giving some more insight to a point I have been trying to get through peoples' heads for three pages now. Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather. Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 They can leave once the contract on the album trilogy is up, and if it's really bad, they can leave before the contract is up. Contracts are broken all the time. If Warner bullies them into doing every single thing their way and they don't like it or get fed up with it, they absolutely can (and have in the past) leave. When in the past have they left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteTim Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 They can leave once the contract on the album trilogy is up, and if it's really bad, they can leave before the contract is up. Contracts are broken all the time. If Warner bullies them into doing every single thing their way and they don't like it or get fed up with it, they absolutely can (and have in the past) leave. Lmao leave for free? no they can not they can not turn in albums but they cant release music legally on another label without getting an release form from Warner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissawebster Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Again Warner OWNS the recordings and the rights they can do WHATEVER they FEEL like doing (I work for Warner Bros who owns the recording label i work in the home video department) GD has leeway because their producer is a higher up executive at the label so Warner has always gicen GD free range (which they dont so with alot of artists) but if Warner changes people and those people arent GD fans then all this wouldnt happen they can easily take oh love and have Diddy remix it and add 50 Cents and Justin Biber without GD even knowing but the people at the label respects em and gives em leeway I guess this is the part you're missing. Yes, the label owns the music legally to an extent, but they don't own Green Day. If the label did whatever it wanted to Green Day's music without regard to what the guys in the band wanted, they would lose one of their most successful, money-making bands on their label. Because the band can walk away. And they have walked away in the past. And one of the main reasons they walked away and did their own thing last time was because they had a falling out with Rob Cavallo, so being friends with the Chair of Warner Bros doesn't really mean anything when it's Green Day. They still maintain a decent amount of artistic control because they're simply too big to bully. Legal ownership is irrelevant. When in the past have they left? Didn't they not work with Rob Cavallo on 21st Century Breakdown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteTim Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 All of thier albums have been released on Warner when did they leave? You know NOTHING bout contracts or ownership... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Femme Gauche Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I guess this is the part you're missing. Yes, the label owns the music legally to an extent, but they don't own Green Day. If the label did whatever it wanted to Green Day's music without regard to what the guys in the band wanted, they would lose one of their most successful, money-making bands on their label. Because the band can walk away. And they have walked away in the past. And one of the main reasons they walked away and did their own thing last time was because they had a falling out with Rob Cavallo, so being friends with the Chair of Warner Bros doesn't really mean anything when it's Green Day. They still maintain a decent amount of artistic control because they're simply too big to bully. Legal ownership is irrelevant. Didn't they not work with Rob Cavallo on 21st Century Breakdown? They bear no ill will against Cavallo. They just decided to take the music in a little different direction. Cavallo did not produce Warning, either (if I recall correctly? I think they produced it themselves). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissawebster Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Lmao leave for free? no they can not they can not turn in albums but they cant release music legally on another label without getting an release form from Warner Once a contract is up they don't have to sign another one. They don't have to work with Warner to produce the next album. Warner may have the music at this point, but that doesn't give them ownership of all future music unless Green Day agrees to that in a contract. I can't imagine them agreeing to that and locking themselves into a record label for eternity. And if they left, Warner would still have to pay residuals on record sales, so no, they wouldn't be leaving for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteTim Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Didn't they not work with Rob Cavallo on 21st Century Breakdown? I think you dont know the difference between producer and a label... GD can always work with a producet for every album if they wanted to labels dont really have in house producers Rob is a special case but even Rob has worked without non Warner artists A label is juat a company who pays for the album and distributes it... Warner released 21ston Century... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissawebster Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 They bear no ill will against Cavallo. They just decided to take the music in a little different direction. Cavallo did not produce Warning, either (if I recall correctly? I think they produced it themselves). Okay. I knew something had happened where they didn't work with Cavallo. Honestly, I wish they'd self-produced the album trilogy. It would have been more honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.