Solomon Linda&The Evening ( The First Version ) - Mbube

Solomon Linda And The Evening Birds Original Version, The Lion Sleeps Tonight (El león duerme esta noche) 1939
http://www.coldtype.net/Assets/pdfs/Jungle.pdf

Category:

Music

Tags:

• Solomon
• Linda
• The
• Evening
• Birds
• Mbube
• 1939
• Lion
• Sleeps
• Tonight
• wimoweh
• capella
• zulu

[MrROYALGAR]

Cruel and sad! But i thanks to you for show it to us. Now i will think in Solomon and his family every time that i've hear this song. From Costa Rica, central américa, thankyou grandmagrumpy!

[stanibol]

@fluffytom82

good on you, Someone has to defend truth. Where truth is recognised and acknowledged, it generally has the effect to prevent more blood from being spilled.

[Arkraven51]

The original melody wasn't written by Solomon Linda. It was what could be considered a Zulu fok song. He did bring the song to the world though.

[buddablz]

@buddablz $3,000 a year isn't bad considering that the corporation makes way more than that. How much do the Tokens earn a year in royalties from the song to which they have the greater influence? Yeah, a whole lot more than $3,000 a year not counting the cash it took for Disney to gain the rights to use it. Lion King continues to print money on Broadway and 3D.

[buddablz]

@buddablz Dickens provision which they have won wouldn't have been effective anytime prior to 1987. As for Disney, in the last 20 years who has brought the song to its highest impact in pop culturally relevancy? Ace Ventura? Disney was the largest target but that doesn't mean their the only one. Nobody reading an article is going to care about how much a pop folk group had to pay. I'm sure record companies have to pay out royalties as well. $15 million to settle the error and $3,000 a year.

[buddablz]

@buddablz They were proud of the song's influence but lived in poverty for decades. They never thought to challenge it. What brought their lawsuit was a dedicated lawyer and a Rolling Stone journalist who wanted to help his family. They're not sitting in a Bentley right now. The money was set up for a trust. The Charles Dickens provision wasn't made for an easy paycheck. It was to ensure the creator's family wouldn't live in poverty while companies rake in millions.

[buddablz]

@buddablz Many corporations fight over ownership when it's time to reassess ownership. As was the case with Superman: in the 70s roughly 30+ years after his inception DC wanted to make a new arrangement with the creators. If they relinquish their control they could get the credit that they had been fighting for. But it's totally within the families rights' to challenge it again 30+ years later. DC did it first. With Linda's family, it's not about greed. They weren't aware they could do anything.

[buddablz]

@fluffytom82 An idea is contagious and spreads wildly like a disease with its influence. It doesn't matter if you only brought up the germ of the idea. For example, explaining the concept of the Harvard Connection to a would be partner. You can't easily just say "eat it up for eternity" After a certain amount of years the rights can be challenged by the family and be totally within their right to do so. Many corporations have to renew copyrights to keep them from the public domain.

[fluffytom82]

(cont.) If my grandfather would have created Superman and would have sold it to Marvel, I would be sad now because my grandfather has made a wrong choice. But I would not sue Marvel. They obtaines the character rightfully and it is not my job to alter my grandfather's decisions. That's called respect.

But hey, you americans sue Whirlpool because it isn't mentioned in the manual that you shouldn't put a cat in the washing machine. Your relation with the law is different than ours.

[fluffytom82]

@buddablz But why didn't they do it before? Why did they wait until a company like Disney used the song? Right. Because they knew that they might get a shitload of money from Disney, and not from Makeba or The Weavers or anyone else. In my eyes they don't do it "out of respect" for Solomon Linda, but out of greed. Out of pure selfishness.

[buddablz]

@buddablz Many things factor in: shortsightedness of the creator, bad contract, or no idea the profit that a property can have in a new medium. The families of these creators don't need to suffer.

[buddablz]

@fluffytom82 Not exactly. Intellectual property is different than a car. The family acted under the Charles Dickens provision. This allowed them to renegotiate the terms of royalties 25 years after the his death. Even if the creator made a mistake of producing a record with no royalties provisions.

Imagine if your grandfather wrote the Lord of the Rings, Superman, or created most of the Marvel characters? Properties ranking in millions but they made a bad deal. You wouldn't sue? They sure did!