WENN

The famed songwriter vows to never sell her song catalogue, saying that parting ways with the publishing rights to her tunes would be like selling her soul.

Jan 31, 2021
AceShowbiz – Diane Warren has vowed never to sell her song catalogue, admitting that doing so would be like “selling my soul.”
While a host of big names, including Neil Young, Bob Dylan, and Stevie Nicks, are among those who have recently made the decision to part ways with the publishing rights to their tunes, songwriter and performer Warren insists she’ll never join their ranks.
She reflected on the current trend during an interview on the Rolling Stone Music Now podcast, revealing that she’s “friends” with Hipgnosis Songs boss Merck Mercuriadis, and, “He knows that’s a non-starter. It would be like selling my soul, and that’s not for sale.”
Despite her adamance, Warren added that she can understand why other people are selling their catalogues.

  See also…

“I get it,” she continued. “I mean, times are hard. And if you need the money, publishing is so valuable. Truly one of the most valuable assets, I guess, in the world is a great song. But yeah, I’m not interested in selling.”
Last year, it’s announced that Diane Warren’s music would be featured in a new musical “The Right Girl” about Harvey Weinstein scandal. It is set to revolve around the career fall-out that one of the victims, Louisette Geiss, endured after she was allegedly assaulted by the mogul.
The show is expected to be directed and choreographed by Tony Award winner Susan Stroman while the cast include “Glee” alum Jenna Ushkowitz.
“Though the story is fictionalized, almost all of the dialogue, lyrics and situations came directly from these contributors and publicly reported stories,” Geiss said in a statement. “Our goal, from day one, has been to amplify and honor these women’s stories, and encourage audiences to help them change the world.”

You can share this post!

Next article
Rod Stewart and Son Agree to Plea Deal to Settle Battery Case

Related Posts More

The Irish singer’s shaved head was as much a part of her identity and allure as her sound.It was the bald head that became the avatar of a million dreamy rebellions; the shaved pate that bridged the gap between the angry and the sublime. It is almost impossible to think about Sinead O’Connor, the Irish singer whose death was reported on July 26, or her work, without thinking about her hair. Or lack of it.Without thinking about the striking curve of her shorn skull on the cover of her 1987 debut album, “The Lion and the Cobra,” her face below caught mid-scream; the nakedness it seemed to convey in the 1990 video of “Nothing Compares 2 U,” as her blue eyes brimmed with tears; the purity of the line on the cover of her 2021 memoir, “Rememberings.” Which contains an entire chapter entitled “Shaving My Head.”It was effectively her signature — in a 2014 story in Billboard Ms. O’Connor, 56 when she died, identified herself as “the bald woman from Ireland” — along with her Dr. Martens and torn jeans, and it followed her throughout her life, just as much as her ripping up the photo of the Pope on “Saturday Night Live” in 1992 did. Even in the few periods when she grew her hair back, she was often referred to as the “formerly bald” Sinead O’Connor. And as such, she was an integral part of the renegotiation of old stereotypes of gender, sexuality, rebellion and liberation that is still going on today.“I just don’t feel like me when I have hair,” she told The New York Times in 2021.Now that female baldness has become more common, has become a badge of identity for women such as Ayanna Pressley, the representative from Massachusetts who went public with her alopecia in 2020, and X González, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student (then known as Emma) who became a campaigner for gun control, not to mention the Dora Milaje of “Black Panther,” it can be hard to remember how extraordinary it was when Ms. O’Connor emerged. “Shaving my head to me was never a conscious thing,” Ms. O’Connor told Spin in 1991. “I was never making a statement. I just was bored one day and I wanted to shave my head, and that was literally all there was to it.”Independent News and Media/Getty ImagesBut that seeming repudiation of her own porcelain beauty in the wake of a spate of teen pop queens, at a time when armoring yourself in a helmet of big hair was a big thing and shaving your head was still largely seen as a punishment, was as much of a statement of singularity as her sound. Perhaps, it was also the first sign of the controversial politics to come, including refusing to play the national anthem before her concerts and stenciling the logo of Public Enemy into the side of her head at the 1989 Grammys when the show’s organizers declined to televise the first-ever award for Best Rap Performance.She offered various explanations of the choice. All the stories come down to the same thing in any case, which was a refusal to cater to traditional definitions of “pretty” as established by the male gaze as long ago as Rapunzel and Lady Godiva.In shearing her head “she was literally shearing away a false narrative,” said Allyson McCabe, the author of “Why Sinead O’Connor Matters.” In 1991 Ms. O’Connor told Spin, “shaving my head to me was never a conscious thing. I was never making a statement. I just was bored one day and I wanted to shave my head, and that was literally all there was to it.” However, she also said, “The women who are admired are the ones that have blond hair and big lips and wear red lipstick and wear short skirts, because that’s an acceptable image of a woman.” And, “Because I have no hair, people think I’m angry.”In a 2017 TV interview she told Dr. Phil that it was because during her abusive childhood her mother had compared her with her sister, who had long red hair, unlike Sinead. “When I had long hair, she would introduce us as her pretty daughter and her ugly daughter,” Ms. O’Connor said in the interview. “And that’s why I cut my hair off. I didn’t want to be pretty.”The cover of Ms. O’Connor’s memoir.Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, via Associated PressA still from her music video for “Nothing Compares 2 U.”In the interview she also said, “It’s dangerous to be pretty, too, because I kept getting raped and molested everywhere I went,” and “I did not want to dress like a girl. I did not want to be pretty.”In her memoir, she wrote that she was working on her first album in London, and had been told by a male music executive she should grow her (buzzed but not shorn) hair long and start to dress more like a girl. The next day she went to a barbershop and had it all shaved off.During the period after the “S.N.L.” appearance, when she was rejected by the music industry and revealed she had been diagnosed as bipolar, Ms. O’Connor’s bald head was taken as a sign of instability (just as it was later with Britney Spears). The fact that she continued shaving her skull for the rest of her life suggested it was, rather, a sign of selfhood.The first time she looked in the mirror after that visit to the barbershop, she wrote in the book, “I looked like an alien.” Another way to put it, however, is she looked like the woman she became. And in becoming that woman — in giving herself that permission — she helped extend it to us all. More

Seven conductors share what it’s like to lead Anton Bruckner’s monumental symphonies, and why they resonate today.Bruckner, Bruckner, everywhere.There was a time, as recently as three or four decades ago, when this composer was a relative rarity, especially outside Central Europe. His reputation preceded him. He was a religious man alien to the modern world, the author of monumental symphonies that many listeners found monumentally dull.He was a provincial, uncouth, hardly a sophisticate like Brahms or Mahler. There was the forbidding editorial history of his nine (or is that 11? 18?) symphonies, and the lingering unease at his adoption by Nazi propagandists. If Bruckner was never exactly absent from the repertoire, he was long its resident eccentric.Even if some listeners still struggle with this music, though, there has always been a band of Bruckner devotees among scholars, critics and musicians. “There is no doubt that if people once grow fond of Bruckner, they grow very fond of him,” the editor of Gramophone magazine said nearly a century ago. And lately, more and more people seem to have grown very fond of him indeed.Performances of Bruckner’s symphonies seem more common than ever, and not just because this year is the 200th anniversary of his birth. Recordings come out constantly, with offerings that include fresh takes on period instruments and entire cycles from our most esteemed ensembles. It used to be that Bruckner had to be programmed with Mozart to draw a crowd; now he carries enough weight to bring Messiaen or Ligeti along with him. Attitudes have changed; clichés have quietened. Observers once talked of the “Bruckner Problem.” Now, we live in the Bruckner Moment.Conductors have played a major part in this transformation. Many of those working today are not just fond of Bruckner, but truly love his scores. For some, a performance of one comes close to a transcendent experience. Gone are the days when Bruckner was the preserve of the grizzled, graying maestro: Yannick Nézet-Séguin, for example, recorded the Seventh when he was just 31. Studying the music earlier in their careers, conductors have more opportunities to perform it; as technical standards have risen, even unheralded orchestras can give persuasive accounts of works that once posed challenges.So, what is Bruckner’s music like to conduct? Why do his symphonies, the expression of a deep Catholic faith, resonate so loudly in an increasingly secular age? How have these long, complicated works grown so remarkably in stature while our attention spans have become so brief? In interviews, seven conductors offered their thoughts; here are edited excerpts from those conversations.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

In late January, Lonnie Holley was scheduled to perform at a concert in Tulsa celebrating the 50th anniversary of Bob Dylan’s “Blood on the Tracks” as part of a lineup that included Elvis Costello and Lucinda Williams. Holley, 75, a venerated visual artist whose work has been displayed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., has been singing and playing keyboards for much of his life, but only started releasing his music publicly in 2012. Initially, he didn’t want to go.“He was terrified,” Matt Arnett, Holley’s manager, said. “He’d never sung a cover song. Lonnie’s never even played a Lonnie Holley song twice.”Holley’s approach to music is both extreme and extremely simple. His performances, whether live or recorded, are all improvised in the moment. He’s made a half-dozen hypnotic, soulful, genre-bending albums, including a new one, “Tonky,” which will be released on March 21, but the material has only ever been played the one time it was recorded. Arnett eventually convinced Holley to play the Dylan tribute, and Holley tweaked his approach slightly, using Dylan’s songs as a jumping-off point for his own idiosyncratic performance.Holley has been singing and playing keyboards for much of his life, but only started releasing his music publicly in 2012. Kendall Bessent for The New York Times“I get lost in thought when I’m onstage,” Holley said during an interview in Atlanta on an early February afternoon. “My thing is I got so much going on in my brain.”Holley is tall, with a regal bearing and a gentle voice. His long gray hair was pulled back in braids, a collection of beaded necklaces hung around his neck and his round-framed glasses were perched on his forehead in the manner of an absent-minded professor. He was sitting on a couch at the Grocery on Home, a tiny former community grocery store in the city’s Grant Park neighborhood. Arnett initially bought the Grocery as a place to live, then repurposed it in 2010 into an intimate music venue.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Terms were not disclosed. The parties had been arguing over the payment of legal fees and James P. Spears’s financial oversight as his daughter’s conservator.More than two years after a judge ended the conservatorship that had given James P. Spears control of his pop star daughter’s life, Britney Spears and her father have settled their outstanding legal dispute over the payment of his legal fees and his management of her finances.The terms of the settlement were not disclosed in court filings made by both parties in Los Angeles Superior Court on Thursday. But the two sides had been at odds over the size of Mr. Spears’s legal fees and questions about his oversight of her money as conservator.Ms. Spears’s 13-year-long conservatorship, which began in 2008 after a series of public breakdowns, was terminated in 2021. Her father, who served as one of her conservators for its duration, had been seeking court approval for more than $2 million in fees to multiple law firms he had hired in that capacity. He had also sought payment of his current lawyer’s ongoing legal bill.Ms. Spears’s lawyer, Mathew S. Rosengart, had objected to the fees.Mr. Rosengart argued that, in particular, his client should not have to pay her father’s current legal bills, asserting in court papers that Mr. Spears had paid himself $6 million, improperly surveilled his daughter and engaged in financial misconduct during his tenure.Mr. Spears has denied any wrongdoing. He held control over both Ms. Spears’s financial and personal affairs until September 2019, when he resigned as her personal conservator citing health issues, and was replaced by Jodi Montgomery, a professional in the field. A lawyer, Andrew M. Wallet, served as a co-conservator of her estate until he resigned in 2019.Alex M. Weingarten, a lawyer for Mr. Spears, said he could not discuss the terms of the settlement because they are confidential but he agreed that the parties had resolved all outstanding issues. One of the filings stated that his client “is fully and finally discharged as Former Conservator of the Estate.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More