gmac Posted December 20, 2008 Posted December 20, 2008 If you're hoping to stick two fingers up at the X Factor this isn't a particularly good way of doing it. Simon Cowell has not only said that the Jeff Buckley version is one of his favourite songs of all time but he owns the rights to all 3 versions of Hallilujah so this "protest" is actually plowing money directly into the pockets of the main architects of the show. Plus to the casual observer Jeff Buckley getting to number two doesn't look like a backlash, it looks like the X Factor is so big that it's reignighted interest in a previous cover version of the X Factor single to the extent that that one rocketed up the charts in the wake of the final too. SImon Cowell does not own the rights to the Buckley version, don't believe everything that the Daily Mail prints
BlueStar Posted December 20, 2008 Posted December 20, 2008 SImon Cowell does not own the rights to the Buckley version, don't believe everything that the Daily Mail prints Simon Cowell, public face of Sony BMG and one of their highest earners. Leonard Cohen - Hallelujah© 1988 Columbia Records, now part of Sony BMG Jeff Buckley - Hallelujah© 2007 Sony BMG Music Entertainment Alexandra Burke - Hallelujah© 2008 Sony BMG Music Entertainment I'm sure that will give Cowell and Sony BMG a huge kick in the teeth, having both the revenue from the X Factor and the protest sales pouring into their company bank account. They won't be letting X Factor winners cover popular songs from their back catalogue again in a hurry, that's for sure.
Ashley Posted December 20, 2008 Posted December 20, 2008 Let's all buy the Rufus Wainwright verison then! That's owned by Dreamworks...who I don't think Sony own.
gmac Posted December 20, 2008 Posted December 20, 2008 Simon Cowell, public face of Sony BMG and one of their highest earners. Leonard Cohen - Hallelujah© 1988 Columbia Records, now part of Sony BMG Jeff Buckley - Hallelujah© 2007 Sony BMG Music Entertainment Alexandra Burke - Hallelujah© 2008 Sony BMG Music Entertainment I'm sure that will give Cowell and Sony BMG a huge kick in the teeth, having both the revenue from the X Factor and the protest sales pouring into their company bank account. They won't be letting X Factor winners cover popular songs from their back catalogue again in a hurry, that's for sure. last time I checked Sony BMG was not owned by Simon Cowell though, if you'd said Sony were laughing all the way to the bank about it you would have been right
Pookiablo Posted December 20, 2008 Posted December 20, 2008 This is awesome, think I will also join the bandwagon and download the original! The laughter caused by this thread alone more than merits a purchase!
Ashley Posted December 20, 2008 Posted December 20, 2008 last time I checked Sony BMG was not owned by Simon Cowell though, if you'd said Sony were laughing all the way to the bank about it you would have been right I suppose you could argue that Simon Cowell has caused all this publicity so sony may give him a bigger Christmas bonus... (or other similar rewards)
or else you will DIE Posted December 20, 2008 Posted December 20, 2008 tonight is the last night people! buy it as a gift for friends/family! http://www.7digital.com "Each gift purchased will count as a purchase of the song and added the chart count. There are several campaigns for songs this Christmas, so unfortunately cannot guarantee inclusion on the home page. We have passed your message on to the relevant contact within 7digital. Thanks,7digital Download Support www.7digital.com"
Jimbob Posted December 20, 2008 Posted December 20, 2008 Can't even bear to listen to the Alexandra version of this, it ruins it completely. Already supporting the Jeff Buckley version
McPhee Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 Simon Cowell, public face of Sony BMG and one of their highest earners. Leonard Cohen - Hallelujah© 1988 Columbia Records, now part of Sony BMG Jeff Buckley - Hallelujah© 2007 Sony BMG Music Entertainment Alexandra Burke - Hallelujah© 2008 Sony BMG Music Entertainment I'm sure that will give Cowell and Sony BMG a huge kick in the teeth, having both the revenue from the X Factor and the protest sales pouring into their company bank account. They won't be letting X Factor winners cover popular songs from their back catalogue again in a hurry, that's for sure. Cowell has nothing to do with Cohen and Buckley though. Buckley and Cohen are both on Columbia records, which is now owned by Sony. Cowell is employed by Sony BMG, he has nothing to do with Columbia records (which are a separate company). The money ends up in Sony's pockets, but it goes nowhere near Cowell.
Wesley Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 More to the point the original song wasn't created with some piece of shit television voting show in mind. Which is what Simon Cowell very much has connections to.
Slaggis Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 My college had an assembly based on this song. The religious teacher doing the assembly obviously didn't realise what the song was about, to the amusement of the majority of the Hall. Also, we had a group of Lower Sixers singing it at the end. I actually cried with laughter (I was in hysterics for about 10 minutes), because I was trying to hold it in. It was horrific. I've never heard someone sing so flat in my entire life.
Wesley Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 The religious teacher doing the assembly obviously didn't realise what the song was about, to the amusement of the majority of the Hall. What do you mean?
Slaggis Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 What do you mean? The Jeff Buckley version was played, and she was going on about God. Didn't Buckley state it was about an Orgasm?
Paj! Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 The Jeff Buckley version was played, and she was going on about God. Didn't Buckley state it was about an Orgasm? Well, it isn't even his song. He covered it, and that was his interpretation of it...it's not obviously about orgasming.
Wesley Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 The Jeff Buckley version was played, and she was going on about God. Didn't Buckley state it was about an Orgasm? Oh right, I thought we were talking about the original. I like the original more.. Why isn't this thread called Cohen for Christmas No.1?!!
Fierce_LiNk Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 The Jeff Buckley version was played, and she was going on about God. Didn't Buckley state it was about an Orgasm? There's a lot of religious references in the song, though. So, she's not horrendously wide off the mark.
Slaggis Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 Well, it isn't even his song. He covered it, and that was his interpretation of it...it's not obviously about orgasming. Yes Paj, thank you for pointing that out. *sigh* I'm aware, and that's what I mean. When you hear his version (Or at least when I hear it) I imagine it to be about an Orgasm, like he imagined it to be...as do most of my college, so it seems. Any other version and it wouldn't have been amusing in the slightest, but it just seemed rather ironic for her to choose one that was intended to be sung about an orgasm.
Fierce_LiNk Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 Yes Paj, thankyou for pointing that out. *sigh*. I'm aware, and that's what I mean. When you hear his version (Or at least when I hear it) I imagine it to be about an Orgasm, like he imagined it to be...as do most of my college, so it seems. So, to you, the song is about orgasming. To your teacher, this song is about God. Isn't it a bit reckless to claim she "obviously" didn't have a clue what the song was about? Read the lyrics, listening to it, there's definitely a religious aspect there. It's just interpretation. You shouldn't really ridicule somebody for looking at this song differently to you.
Slaggis Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 So, to you, the song is about orgasming. To your teacher, this song is about God. Isn't it a bit reckless to claim she "obviously" didn't have a clue what the song was about? Read the lyrics, listening to it, there's definitely a religious aspect there. It's just interpretation. You shouldn't really ridicule somebody for looking at this song differently to you. It's not reckless in the slightest. Another teacher actually put their hand up and mentioned it at the end, and she had no idea that that was Buckleys interpritation of the song. "Ridicule" is a bit of a strong word too, tbh. We just found it amusing that someone who is utterly religious (She's totally against sexual education at our college) chose to play the version that is intended to be about an orgasm. That's it. I do apologise for offending.
chairdriver Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 Being a Tori Amos fan, I value songs which can be intrepreted in various ways. *Looks to Professional Widow - some people view it as an attack on Courtney Love, some think it's a deep emotional outpourage of issues to do with her childhood* But yeah, I need Joan As Police Woman's version to get to number 134. I love the fact she is most famous for her lovely debut EP, and for screwing Jeff Buckley.
Wesley Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 When I hear Jeff's version I think of Mushroom Soup.
Fierce_LiNk Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 It's not reckless in the slightest. Another teacher actually put their hand up and mentioned it at the end, and she had no idea that that was Buckleys interpritation of the song. "Ridicule" is a bit of a strong word too, tbh. We just found it amusing that someone who is utterly religious (She's totally against sexual education at our college) chose to play the version that is intended to be about an orgasm. That's it. I do apologise for offending. It is reckless, because the song doesn't have one set meaning. Most songs don't, and a song doesn't always have the same meaning to the person writing it, to the person singing it, or to the person listening to it. Your teacher had a perfectly legitimate reason for saying that the song was about God, just like your reason for saying it was about orgasming is fine, too. Actually, is that even your view, or are you just stating what Buckley said? So, it may be the most "orgasmic" version of the lot, but there's more to the song than just that. As to why she's chosen the Buckley version: Maybe because it's seen by many as the best version. Maybe because she prefers it over the others. I definitely think it's the best version.
Slaggis Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 So, it may be the most "orgasmic" version of the lot, but there's more to the song than just that. As to why she's chosen the Buckley version: Maybe because it's seen by many as the best version. I do see Buckleys version as being about an orgasm, yes. Tbh, now when I hear any version, that's what I feel the meaning behind the song is. (My favourite is Kate Voegles, I love it to bits) Yes, I do see what you're saying when you say that the song has many meanings, and I get that completetely. As I have said, it was just that Buckley had imagined the song to be about an orgasm, she's totally against anything sexually related being in college, and she chose that version to be played. That was all. When I hear Jeff's version I think of Mushroom Soup. I swear now when I hear the song, I'm going to immediately think of Mushroom Soup.
Fierce_LiNk Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 I do see Buckleys version as being about an orgasm, yes. Tbh, now when I hear any version, that's what I feel the meaning behind the song is. (My favourite is Kate Voegles, I love it to bits) Yes, I do see what you're saying when you say that the song has many meanings, and I get that completetely. As I have said, it was just that Buckley had imagined the song to be about an orgasm, she's totally against anything sexually related being in college, and she chose that version to be played. That was all. I know what you mean about the irony there, but aw well, it happens I guess. Shiny Happy People by REM was meant to be about taking drugs, but yet it's seen by so many people as a happy, mindless choon. I just it just depends on how people look at things.
Wesley Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 I do see Buckleys version as being about an orgasm, yes. Tbh, now when I hear any version, that's what I feel the meaning behind the song is. (My favourite is Kate Voegles, I love it to bits) Yes, I do see what you're saying when you say that the song has many meanings, and I get that completetely. As I have said, it was just that Buckley had imagined the song to be about an orgasm, she's totally against anything sexually related being in college, and she chose that version to be played. That was all. I swear now when I hear the song, I'm going to immediately think of Mushroom Soup. Mission accomplished. For me, Cohen's version has religious, peace and triumph emotions. Buckley's gives out a lot of love. Between a man a woman, or robo-woman. I get mixed messages.
Recommended Posts