Aled Jones- "Listen, Obey and Be Blessed" (merged)

[moosic]

Hi everyone  

Apologises if this has been started elsewhere, I did scroll through quickly but couldn't see anything. 

 

Friend drew attention to the fact that Alex Jones has a new album out, one song is covering the organisation's "Listen, Obey and Blessed"

 

I can't say for certain that this has been done with permission (especially as other songs on the album are Christmas related), but I'm sad that it has been used without quoting Jehovah's organisation for the original song 😔

Edited November 6, 2020 by Tortuga

[NCC1701]

Not sure where to put this but the Welsh Opera Singer Aled Jones has included the song Listen Obey, and be And Be Blessed in a new Album Blessed.

As usual ignore the comments section.

He has been interviewed about the album and commented on the song.

 

Listen, Obey And Be Blessed – a modern Jehovahs’ Witness Blessing – proved to be an unexpected gem for Aled.

“Ian and I weren’t familiar with this song at all. It was like nothing I had recorded previously– taking me out of my comfort area, challenging my voice, widening my perspective, that’s really what it’s all about”

 

Richard

 

 

link is here 

 

Edited November 6, 2020 by NCC1701

[Dane Rí Rua]

My sis in law sent me this not too long ago,I initially thought it was a joke but nope its legit.

Apparently(obv.3rd hand info)a brother in her hall contacted a friend at world headquarters and they are aware of it...

 

 

[➕👇 ꓤꓱꓷꓠꓵ🎵Tone]

Can a song writer 'block' another person from covering a song?

I tried to find information about his album. All I can confirm is the Title is the same. Has anybody heard the song?

It usually is about money and royalties. I wonder if he pays royalties to the writer.

 

Old (Downunder) Tone

 

 

 

 

[Thesauron]

I am certain the legal department is aware and paying attention to how it is used. If they have given approval, it is a first.

 

How he got it listed as “traditional” beats me. It is not.

[Adam!]

None of our publications, including media are to be used for commercial gain. 

 

The fact that the song in the credits doesn't acknowledge our organisation as the originators of the music is not good for the artist. 

 

And its on a 'Christian' album with 'Silent Night' being the next track on the playlist (at least it is on Spotify) ... would not be surprised if there's a legal claim that follows.

[BLEmom]

Well that is a first!  It’s one thing to sing it on YouTube but to put it on your own Christmas album?!?  Sheesh!

[Thesauron]

None of our publications, including media are to be used for commercial gain. 
 
The fact that the song in the credits doesn't acknowledge our organisation as the originators of the music is not good for the artist. 
 
And its on a 'Christian' album with 'Silent Night' being the next track on the playlist (at least it is on Spotify) ... would not be surprised if there's a legal claim that follows.

Correct. The legal byline should not be “traditional,” but rather “Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of PA” or alike.

[Thesauron]

.

[Shawnster]

1 hour ago, Adam! said:

And its on a 'Christian' album with 'Silent Night' being the next track on the playlist (at least it is on Spotify) ... would not be surprised if there's a legal claim that follows.

Tract List:  https://www.sydneyartsguide.com.au/aled-joness-new-album-blessings-releases-6-november-2020/

 

1. How Can I Keep From Singing? (with Dame Judi Dench)

2. Sunrise Sunset

3. Ave Maria

4. Bless This House (with Susan Boyle)

5. Anfonaf Angel

6. Loving Kindess

7. If I Can Help Somebody / Let There Be Peace On Earth (with Harry Billinge MBE)

8. Vespera (with Libera)

9. Australian Blessing

10. Irish Blessing (with The Priests)

11. Down By The Salley Gardens

12. Song Of Our Maker (with Sami Yusuf)

13. Listen, Obey and Be Blessed

14. Silent Night (with Brian Blessed)

Edited November 6, 2020 by Shawnster

[Shawnster]

2 hours ago, ➕👇 ꓤꓱꓷꓠꓵ🎵Tone said:

Can a song writer 'block' another person from covering a song?

I tried to find information about his album. All I can confirm is the Title is the same. Has anybody heard the song?

It usually is about money and royalties. I wonder if he pays royalties to the writer.

 

Old (Downunder) Tone

 

 

 

 

To record a song for release to the public, a performer must obtain permission from the music publisher of the song and pay a fee, called a mechanical royalty. A mechanical royalty must be paid when songs are reproduced, for example on compact discs or records.

 

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-when-mechanical-royalty-due-28002.html#:~:text=To record a song for,on compact discs or records.

 

 

So, it's OK to sing a song or cover a song at a consert, but if you want to record a song like on an album, you must get permission and pay a royalty fee. 

[TRUTH04]

We need to wait and see what the GB has to say. It's possible they didnt issue any such license or even if they did, they didnt authorize that it be sung on a Christmas album.

It's good to wait. We don't have all the facts. But it will be good to contact the office.

Sent from my TECNO LC6 using Tapatalk

[Adam!]

47 minutes ago, TRUTH04 said:

We need to wait and see what the GB has to say. It's possible they didnt issue any such license or even if they did, they didnt authorize that it be sung on a Christmas album.

It's good to wait. We don't have all the facts. But it will be good to contact the office.

Sent from my TECNO LC6 using Tapatalk
 

There is no need to contact the branch, they are already aware.

[TRUTH04]

There is no need to contact the branch, they are already aware.

Ok. You've call them already.

Sent from my TECNO LC6 using Tapatalk

[EccentricM]

I was just about to post a thread like this.

 

It's a great cover, but beware of the comments section, full of apostasy. But there is a lot of bewielderment by those in the Truth and out over this matter, copyright and so on, and claims that "Watchtower has become part of the Harlot" because of the song being put on a Christmas album, being used to make money for the organisation etc.

 

Clearly there is more to this than meets the eye.

[AH173]

Whoa! Has something like this ever been done in modern history of Jehovah's organization??

 

Word for word is the song.

[Manwithnoname]

Just be very, very , carefull with any links to this.

The two youtube accounts that feature it, are stuffed with apostates in the comments, claiming all sorts of things and posting links and websites and unfortunately a few brothers are engaging in replys to them. 
 

It being marketed as an album promoting a sort of unity of faith between religions, kind of an interfaith album, plus it's being sold at Christmas.

So surely bethel have had 0% input or association in this.

Plus the licence / copyright is shown to a song arranger and 2 music production companys

[Thesauron]

Whoa! Has something like this ever been done in modern history of Jehovah's organization??

 

Word for word is the song.

Yes, there was a radio hit some years ago in a certain country which was a cover of one of our songs. I’m glad they like our material. It is great but, let’s face it, the brothers would never ever allow any of our songs of worship to be tainted by Christmas albums and what not.

[timsimmk]

It's interesting that Aled said in the quote above that he wasn't familiar with the song so it seems that he didn't approach the Society himself and ask to use the song for a Christmas album. It seems that the record label must have sought permission instead. Perhaps they didn't tell the Society what it was to be used for.

 

I'm sure the brothers had the best intentions, we'll just have to see what comes out as there must be many people making enquiries about this.

[Dane Rí Rua]

I got the impression from my sis in law and her source 😆that the they looked for permission(perhaps the record label)off the organisations and they didn't give it,so they went ahead anyways...

Anyways it's all hearsay but it makes sense,perhaps the record label reasoned they would get away with it 

[Thesauron]

I got the impression from my sis in law and her source that the they looked for permission(perhaps the record label)off the organisations and they didn't give it,so they went ahead anyways...
Anyways it's all hearsay but it makes sense,perhaps the record label reasoned they would get away with it 

Imagine how helpful it is to the brothers at the legal department when we respect the copyright ourselves. Now, they can simply mail the company and ask them to remove the track, and perhaps pay fines, if they think that’s the best way to go forward, since no one, really, can legally publish our material elsewhere.

[seagull]

3 hours ago, Dane Rí Rua said:

I got the impression from my sis in law and her source 😆that the they looked for permission(perhaps the record label)off the organisations and they didn't give it,so they went ahead anyways...

Anyways it's all hearsay but it makes sense,perhaps the record label reasoned they would get away with it 

I think we have to wait and see.  On the one hand I find it very difficult to think that formal permission, with or without some commercial royalty agreement, would be given bearing in mind the context of how and where the song is being used.  On the other hand BMG (the publishers) are a large and well established company, and it's equally difficult to think that they would have not done their due diligence to ensure all permissions were sought, let alone have deliberately ignored their obligations.

I know from my own close contacts within the legal department that our brothers are super quick at closing down any unauthorised use of material and do so regularly so I do find it interesting that the content is still up on YT but that in itself is not grounds to draw any conclusions.

Until such time as it is clear what the situation is between the organisation and BMG then I don't think we can do much more than wait patiently and trust our brothers.

Edited November 8, 2020 by seagull

[➕👇 ꓤꓱꓷꓠꓵ🎵Tone]

My quick Google search opened a Pandora's box of woe for producers who wilfully or inadvertently break copyright laws.

There are 7 types of royalties according to YouTube:

Very briefly I learnt it is a legal minefield out there.

First, you cannot stop someone recording your song. As best I can see, you must acknowledge the writer(s). Then there is the royalty fee that must be calculated when releasing the 'Album'.

Secondly, if it is played on things like Spotify and YouTube, a whole 'nother world of 'Digital' Royalties that must be negotiated and paid.

 

Someone above commented that 'Due Diligence' should have been carried out before the album was released. This leads me to conclude it's an innocent error somewhere.

If it was deliberate, it will be discovered.

Either way I'm sure it will get sorted.

I also expect a precedent will be made, if there isn't one already out there...

 

I am sure our Legal Dept will be all over it. Hopefully some money will be made as well.

 

 

Old (Downunder) Tone

 

 

 

[TJam23]

2 hours ago, seagull said:

I think we have to wait and see.  On the one hand I find it very difficult to think that formal permission, with or without some commercial royalty agreement, would be given bearing in mind the context of how and where the song is being used.  On the other hand BMG (the publishers) are a large and well established company, and it's equally difficult to think that they would have not done their due diligence to ensure all permissions were sought, let alone have deliberately ignored their obligations.

I know from my own close contacts within the legal department that our brothers are super quick at closing down any unauthorised use of material and do so regularly so I do find it interesting that the content is still up on YT but that in itself is not grounds to draw any conclusions.

Until such time as it is clear what the situation is between the organisation and BMG then I don't think we can do much more than wait patiently and trust our brothers.

Lets just wait. Hoping this is resolved.

[➕👇 ꓤꓱꓷꓠꓵ🎵Tone]

Some links: