Who are Thee Skulls - Printable Version

Who are Thee Skulls - Printable Version

+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Who are Thee Skulls (/showthread.php?tid=4982)

Who are Thee Skulls - jontaylor - 12-21-2004

ya, came across this on the bestbuy site. Maybe not relevant to the hip, but check out the last track of this album.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=222788&skuId=12887584&type=product

- scottitude - 12-21-2004

Yeah, this about as non-Hip as it gets. Nuthin but disco...er...acid...er...house...er...club...er...whatever the kids are calling the same monotononous 120 beat-per-minute recycled dance drivel that drove me to smokin' weed in the parking lot at school dances / discos / clubs, etc.

It's as Tragically Hip as those eBay searches that turn up "tragically hip skirts", as in skirts that are 'hip', and tragically so. :roll:

The deejays...I mean artists call themselves Red Flag. I found a little info here, for anyone who's interested.

- lord brazle - 12-21-2004

scottitude Wrote:...that drove me to smokin' weed in the parking lot at school dances / discos / clubs, etc.

Sounds familiar.... Smile

I listened to the clip of that last song
and I don't get what the Tragically Hip have to do with it.
No Hip lyrics nor Hip music discernible there...

*sniffs* I smell a lawsuit.

- Billy - 12-22-2004

lord brazle Wrote:*sniffs* I smell a lawsuit.

What sort of lawsuit?

- clearlyentranced - 12-22-2004

Billy Wrote:
lord brazle Wrote:*sniffs* I smell a lawsuit.

What sort of lawsuit?

:roll: Because they called it a "Tragically Hip remix"

:thumb: Confused

cratch:

- Billy - 12-22-2004

Thehip21 Wrote:
Billy Wrote:
lord brazle Wrote:*sniffs* I smell a lawsuit.

What sort of lawsuit?

:roll: Because they called it a "Tragically Hip remix"

:thumb: cratch:

So what, if they haven't used any of their music, what's the issue?

You mean you can't use an artists name in a song, be it in the name or the actual song itself?

- PurposelessPlay - 12-22-2004

Maybe Michael Nesmith is suing the Tragically Hip for stealing their name from his movie? haha

I don't foresee any legal action on this one.

- lord brazle - 12-23-2004

Billy Wrote:
Thehip21 Wrote:
Billy Wrote:
lord brazle Wrote:*sniffs* I smell a lawsuit.

What sort of lawsuit?

:roll: Because they called it a "Tragically Hip remix"

:thumb: cratch:

So what, if they haven't used any of their music, what's the issue?

You mean you can't use an artists name in a song, be it in the name or the actual song itself?

I don't think that someone shouldn't be allowed to use an artist's name in a song. In fact it's done quite a bit and is commonly referred to as "name-dropping". It's a device used to attract fans or acolytes of a particular band or artist. Another similar device used is "the duet", but that's relative to specific duets. The point I would like to stress is that the song, as far as I can see, contains no Hip lyrics nor Hip music but is referred to as a "Tragically Hip remix". The link to this album made it onto this site for the sole reason that it says this. This band is essentially attempting to draw Hip fans to their music by mentioning them. Why else would they call it a "Tragically Hip remix"? I can see no other reason why.

If I was somewhat famous in the recording industry and was well-known as "Lord Brazle" and somebody released an album that had a song labelled as a "Lord Brazle remix" I would listen to the song, for starters, to see if they were using any of my music or lyrics in the song (much like my fans might too) without my permission. If there wasn't any I would still demand that they remove my name from their album. I never asked to be associated with them in any way or form. Now if the Hip indeed know about this then me mentioning this is out the window completely. But if the Hip don't know, then they can have issue with it and technically sue them.

I'm 100% positive that the first record label that signed on the Hip (MCA? If I'm not mistaken?) would've bought a copyright for the name "Tragically Hip" for purely business purposes. They didn't have to buy it from Michael Nesbith because he wasn't using it as a property. And the copyright for it has probably been passed through the other labels that the Hip have signed onto. Hell, for all I know, Gord himself owns the name "Tragically Hip". But the point is that I can't release an album with the band-name "Nestle Quik" because it's considered a property and is copyrighted, trade-marked, well-known as chocolate-milk mix, etc. But I can call my band "The Klingons" because it's not a property. I would just be paying homage to Star Trek.

But in a court of law, this would look like a relatively unheard of band trying to use the name of an established band in order to make money and they can be sued for it.

And you can't say that they are calling the mix "tragically hip" in reference to it being "hip and tragically so" as a despcription of the mix itself because they have it capitalized. It's denoting the name "Tragically Hip."

- PurposelessPlay - 12-25-2004

Merry Christmas All

But technically isn't our favourite band called "The Tragically Hip?"

ie. If Red Flag did a song with the band on their CD it would say (with THE Tragically Hip)

And technically wouldn't a song title be capitalized whether it be "(Kitchen Boogie Mix)" or "(Radio Edit Remix?)"

- lord brazle - 12-26-2004

Are you one of The Skulls? :wink:

PurposelessPlay Wrote:But technically isn't our favourite band called "The Tragically Hip?"
ie. If Red Flag did a song with the band on their CD it would say (with THE Tragically Hip)

Technically? True. But I think we all know that the "the" is in the wind. I know I myself flip between using the "the" and not using it. The forum we're in now is called "Tragically Hip Discussion". No "the". If they did do the song with the Hip then they would've put "with the Tragically Hip" but it doesn't say this which leads me to believe it has nothing to do with the Hip. They have a bunch of other songs listed there that say "with so-and-so"...

PurposelessPlay Wrote:And technically wouldn't a song title be capitalized whether it be "(Kitchen Boogie Mix)" or "(Radio Edit Remix?)"

True again. But why call a mix by the name of an established band if it has nothing do with the band? It's entirely possible that they too watched Elephant Parts and used the Nesbith concept of the "Tragically Hip" when making the last song and called it that and it has nothing to do with the band we all love... but why do something like that?

I mean, you're right; people do name mixes and the examples you provided above are clear proof that they would be capitalized etc but it would be the same as if we were to start a band, release an album and have a song on it called "Lance And The 'Base (Guns And Roses mix, with Stephen Dame)"... we called it "Guns And Roses mix" because you had a t-shirt with a gun on it and I had a bouquet of roses sitting on the table or something. But "Guns And Roses" is an already established band. You know what I'm saying?

Even if the Hip can't sue them (which I believe they can) it still doesn't make sense to name a mix after a band that has nothing to do with the song and (as far as I can tell) aren't in the song or any of their music sampled.

You know, just thinking about it, this entire debate could be bunk because I haven't listened to the whole song. There could be an entire verse at the end of it that talks about Gord Downie for all I know.

But my reasoning is running on assumptions.

1. That the Hip have nothing whatsoever to do with the song. They aren't mentioned in it and the song itself has no lyrics or music derived from The Hip.

2. That the band is relatively unknown (I've never heard of them at least) and they have a song on their album called "Tragically Hip mix" and there is an already established band by this name.

3. The Hip have their name ("Tragically Hip") in some way copyrighted or trade-marked or whatever for business dealings.

4. And that the Hip did not give them permission to use their "property".

These 4 points are basically what I have assumed (which I probably shouldn't have) and if these 4 are indeed the case then the Hip can technically sue, but I don't know if any of these are in fact true so I don't know for sure if they can sue or not.

*I just defenestrated my entire argument didn't I?* :lol:

- Moosehead - 12-27-2004

lord brazle Wrote:Hell, for all I know, Gord himself owns the name "Tragically Hip". But the point is that I can't release an album with the band-name "Nestle Quik" because it's considered a property and is copyrighted, trade-marked, well-known as chocolate-milk mix, etc. But I can call my band "The Klingons" because it's not a property. I would just be paying homage to Star Trek.

Of course, Gord did call his album "Coke Machine Glow." And there is a notice on the back album cover stating that Coke is a registered trade mark of the Coca-Cola Company Smile