>I know the Stones were
>>sampled for Bittersweet Symphony but that deal was crazy.
>The
>>Rolling Stones got all of the royalties for that song,
>didn't
>>they?
>
>Yep. And The Verve can't ever perform it again or put it on
>any of their greatest hits albums.
>
>And they didn't even sample the Rolling Stones proper. They
>sampled a cover of "Time is On My Side" by the London
>Philharmonic.
>
>But other people have sampled the Stones too.
>

Yet another reason I've never been a fan of The Stones.

>>Any other groups or solo artists who are really reluctant to
>>license their songs?
>
>Sampling or licensing for movies/TV shows/commercials?
>
>For the former, I'd imagine almost all of them are cost
>prohibitive these days. Unless you have a HUGE major label
>budget.
>
>But of the artists who were notoriously costly back in the
>'90s, once sample clearances became a money maker, were James
>Brown, The Crusaders, Barry White, most of the Stax artists,
>etc.

I meant sampling, but the info you dropped was good to read. It's interesting you mention Brown and the Stax artists because there was that period of the early 90's where everyone was using James Brown samples. And then Isley Brothers and Barry White samples in the mid 90's. And they just kind of vanished. I'm sure part of that was simply trends moving on but I guess the financial aspect curtailed sampling of those artists.

I can't blame the old school artists for wanting to get paid tho. (within reason) Keeping their rates low would have been great for the community of musicians and the artistry, but the original musicians deserve to be compensated for their work.

Although I wish there was some sort of pre-negotiated sliding scale which sampling producers could work from to prevent issues like The Stones from monopolizing their music. That just doesn't seem in the spirit of art, especially since The Stones' whole image is built off of stealing the essence of Black blues artists, to the best of my knowledge.