Jump to content

2016 DCI CD Set


Recommended Posts

When looking at the DCI website/store, the 2016 Top-12 DVD's/BluRays have a very specific list of the cuts made to shows due to licensing considerations.

(For those who don't know, The Academy lost the use of the Main Theme from A Corpse's Bride when Tim Burton refused the licensing....and The Cavaliers lost their use of the advertising jingles near the end of their show.)

But, when looking at the product description for the Top-25 CD Set, all that is said is: "This CD may contain performance edits."

Can anyone who purchased and has received the CD's confirm what, if any, cuts they recognize? Are the two cuts from the DVD/BluRay listed above also missing from the audio only recordings or was that a sync rights issue that only affected the synced video's? Are there audio cuts to additional shows? Are corps 13-25 complete and intact?

In the past, DCI has always listed the cuts made to the CD's as detailed and as completely as the current description of the 2016 video products. The "may contain cuts" verbiage is a little vague. Intentional?

I know Tom Blair popped in to the video discussion from a few weeks ago and provided great insight into the problems and process involved there that led to the eventual cuts. Tom, if you are still around......is there anything you can share with us in regards to the audio media?

Thanks to all in advance for any information shared!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the opening Tim Burton music is actually not cut from the CD, only the videos in Academy's show. I listened to the whole set of CD's that I purchased a couple weeks ago, and I don't remember any cuts other than maybe the Cavies jingles section?? Don't quote me on that, I'll have to listen again...but, I think for the most part, shows are in their entirety on the CD set, including the Fix You section of the Troopers and Pacific Crest shows, etc.

I'll try and listen again to see if I catch any cuts that I am not mentioning after the first listen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Academy's opening bit and Cavaliers whole opener are all that I can remember offhand. Cavies go straight from the "we are men" intro to "Get in line."

Mike

The Cavaliers opener? I wasn't aware of any issues there. Can anyone confirm??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cavaliers opener? I wasn't aware of any issues there. Can anyone confirm??

The poster is incorrect. The only thing missing from Cavaliers' recording are the jingles in Lollapalooza (the rest of the scoring under the jingles is still there).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was pleasantly surprised that the Tim Burton section was not cut from The Academy. The cut on the blu-ray feels so weird so I'm glad it was only a synch rights issue so that we can at least still listen to it unedited.

So, following up between this and my original question (and maybe this should be a separate forum post?)........

I understand the various levels of licensing necessary to procure, and I understand and support an artist/composer deciding against allowing the use of their product if they so chose....often claiming that anyone else's re-imagining of their work takes away from or destroys their original art or it's intent........BUT,

IF you have already signed off on the rights to arrange, perform and make audio recordings of your work, what possible angle/benefit is there to the artist to then not also sign off on the sync rights? Why is it ok to allow the changes to be made to your work and for it to be performed, viewed by spectators at live performances and be recorded and released for sale in audio form, but THEN decide that no one should see it ever again after it has happened? What makes that step such a severe one? Why is having the audio product on the market and preserved for multiple uses throughout history acceptable/agreeable but a video record of the exact same thing not??

Is there any chance that the artist/composer doesn't truly understand all the various levels of licensing and what they mean? How much involvement by the artist vs. the lawyers?

In the specific case of Tim Burton and his Corpse's Bride product, and I know I am asking the impossible in trying to recruit answers explaining someone else's thought process, why would it be agreeable to see the Academy arrange and perform your product, create and sell audio recordings of the end result but then draw the line at anyone being able to see the visual of the exact same performance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, following up between this and my original question (and maybe this should be a separate forum post?)........

I understand the various levels of licensing necessary to procure, and I understand and support an artist/composer deciding against allowing the use of their product if they so chose....often claiming that anyone else's re-imagining of their work takes away from or destroys their original art or it's intent........BUT,

IF you have already signed off on the rights to arrange, perform and make audio recordings of your work, what possible angle/benefit is there to the artist to then not also sign off on the sync rights? Why is it ok to allow the changes to be made to your work and for it to be performed, viewed by spectators at live performances and be recorded and released for sale in audio form, but THEN decide that no one should see it ever again after it has happened? What makes that step such a severe one? Why is having the audio product on the market and preserved for multiple uses throughout history acceptable/agreeable but a video record of the exact same thing not??

Is there any chance that the artist/composer doesn't truly understand all the various levels of licensing and what they mean? How much involvement by the artist vs. the lawyers?

In the specific case of Tim Burton and his Corpse's Bride product, and I know I am asking the impossible in trying to recruit answers explaining someone else's thought process, why would it be agreeable to see the Academy arrange and perform your product, create and sell audio recordings of the end result but then draw the line at anyone being able to see the visual of the exact same performance?

I am no expert on copyright law. However, IIRC from discussions in years past, particularly of Madison using Empire State of Mind and the issues related to that, audio recordings and audio/visual recordings are governed by separate copyright laws. And paying rights holders for the license to sell A/V recordings can sometimes be exorbitantly more expensive than for just audio. I believe DCI already breaks even at best on the media products they produce so when it comes down to it the choice is to either cut out part of a performance or to leave that group out entirely. We may not like it but the first option is obviously much better.

I may be wrong though. Hopefully someone with more knowledge of the inner workings of copyright l aw can explain better than I.

To address the question about the artist or composer not understanding, often the copyrights to music from a movie, like Corpse Bride, are not held by the composer but by production company like Warner Bros, Disney etc. Tim Burton may very well support the use of his music but if the rights are held by a large corporate conglomerate you can bet all they care about is squeezing every penny out of it that they can.

Edited by Beckham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...