Anyone who knows me in any way knows my stance on so-called "tribute acts". They're bullshit.
I, like any working musician, have played other people's music. It's kinda how being a working musician operates. My classically trained musician friends routinely perform the works of the great composers; Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, etc. Anyone who's played in a bar band in the past 60 years has probably played at least one song by The Rolling Stones or Chuck Berry.
Nothing wrong with that. Never has been.
But at what point did folks switch from doing covers to paying "tribute" to another act, essentially creating entire commercial enterprises built around imitating the identity, appearance, sound, and presentation of established performers (aka FAMOUS BANDS)?
OK, say you really, really like U2 (I'm sure someone does). You know that you're highly unlikely to reach their level of success. So, you do the next best thing: pretend you ARE them!
You get the sound just right. You adopt the look. You become a poor man's wannabe version. And, most importantly, you're available at a drastically discounted rate compared to the original.
No harm in that, right?
Wellllll...maybe.
Here's something that seems to get overlooked in all this musical impersonation.
Major musical acts are often businesses unto themselves. We're talking corporations, trademarks, copyrights, merchandising operations, licensing agreements, and brand identities worth enormous amounts of money.
KISS, Queen, AC/DC, The Rolling Stones, and others aren't merely names of musical groups. They're commercially valuable brands. Somebody owns those names. Somebody owns those logos. Somebody has spent a considerable amount of time and money establishing, promoting, and protecting those identities.
Where's the lawyers when ya need them?
These so-called tribute acts have built themselves a nice little imitation economy. They can earn money by reproducing an identity that somebody else spent decades creating and establishing.
And apparently, we're supposed to applaud this.
At what point does the original artist receive compensation for the years of hard work that created the identity being sold? Or is it somehow OK to rip them off as long as you call it a tribute?
Now, before somebody starts screaming about copyrights and licensing, let's get something straight.
Venues generally pay licensing fees to organizations like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, which handle public performances of copyrighted musical compositions. That's how songwriters and publishers receive royalties when their songs are performed.
Fine. That's how the business works.
But those licenses don't give you carte blanche to use somebody else's trademarks, logos, artwork, or commercial identity.
Playing a Rolling Stones song is one thing. Dressing up like Mick and Keith, copying their stage presentation, plastering recognizable Stones imagery all over your advertising, and selling tickets based on how convincingly you can impersonate them is quite another.
And THAT'S where things get interesting.
You see, trademarks exist to protect commercial identities. Copyrights protect creative works. And in certain circumstances, even a performer's name, likeness, and recognizable persona may have legal protections.
Now, not every tribute act is breaking the law. Simply identifying yourself as a tribute to a particular band doesn't automatically constitute infringement. But there are limits, and those limits can become really expensive to test.
And we're not talking about somebody playing "Johnny B. Goode" at the corner bar.
We're talking about businesses whose primary commercial attraction is their ability to reproduce somebody else's established identity.
Think about that for a moment.
There are even OFFICIAL tribute bands!
Queen's Brian May and Roger Taylor created Queen Extravaganza, an officially sanctioned Queen tribute act. The Musical Box, which recreates early Genesis performances, has operated with authorization and support from Genesis and Peter Gabriel.
So now we have officially authorized imitations competing in a marketplace filled with unofficial imitations.
Is this what music has become?!
And what happens when the owners of those valuable musical brands decide they don't particularly appreciate the competition? Especially if they've already licensed somebody else to do the impersonating?
Imagine the legal mayhem!
But perhaps we should take this whole concept outside the music business for a moment.
THE WORLD'S PREMIER BURGER KING TRIBUTE RESTAURANT!
For years, Pittsburgh's South Side had a rogue faux Burger King restaurant operating on Carson Street. A restaurant presenting itself as Burger King while operating outside the company's authorization.
Now, imagine the proprietor simply declaring that his establishment wasn't REALLY a Burger King.
It was a TRIBUTE to Burger King!
"We're not pretending to BE Burger King! We're simply recreating the entire Burger King experience for people who appreciate the original!"
Think that would've satisfied Burger King's legal department?
How about a McDonald's tribute restaurant? Same golden arches. Same clown. Same menu. Same general appearance.
But don't worry! We're not McDonald's!
We're paying TRIBUTE to McDonald's!
Or perhaps my favorite idea...
THE PAUSE THAT REFRESHES! A COCA-COLA TRIBUTE BEVERAGE!
Imagine somebody producing a soft drink with the familiar red label, distinctive white lettering, and packaging designed to look remarkably like Coca-Cola.
Same general appearance. Same marketing appeal. Just a different manufacturer.
"But we're not ripping off Coca-Cola! We're celebrating their contribution to the beverage industry!"
Yeah. Good luck with that.
I somehow doubt the folks at Coca-Cola would be overwhelmed by the sincerity of the gesture.
Of course, there's a legal difference between openly acknowledging that you're imitating something and deliberately misleading consumers into believing you're the original. But calling something a tribute doesn't magically exempt it from trademark or copyright law.
And that's the point.
At what stage does admiration become imitation? When does imitation become a commercial enterprise? And when does that enterprise begin exploiting an identity that somebody else created, developed, and paid to establish?
More importantly, why does the music business seem so comfortable with a practice that would raise immediate questions in so many other industries?
I understand nostalgia. I understand enjoying familiar music. Hell, I've spent a substantial portion of my life playing songs written by other people.
But I never felt the need to pretend I was Chuck Berry.
When did playing somebody else's music stop being enough? When did we decide we needed somebody else to pretend to be the people who played it?
Comments
Post a Comment