Susan Boyle Walks Off 'America's Got Talent'
TMZ has learned Susan Boyle has left Los Angeles in tears after being snubbed by a songwriter who refused to let her sing one of his hits on "America's Got Talent."
Susan arrived to L.A. earlier today to perform the song "Perfect Day" on the show.
Sources connected to the show tell TMZ ... producers needed permission from the songwriter, Lou Reed -- the former lead singer for The Velvet Underground and famous for "Walk on the Wild Side" -- but at the last minute they were informed that Reed refused permission because he isn't a Boyle fan.
When Boyle found out, she dissolved into tears -- unprepared to change her tune for the show.
We're told Boyle went to LAX this afternoon -- still in tears -- and is catching a flight back to London.
"America's Got Talent" refused to comment.
Lou is kind of an ass, huh? (I mean in general.)
Someone
was an ass to not get the rights and/or not tell her that until the day she was supposed to perform it.
I call stunt.
Would they even let her use the song without changing the lyrics?
Maybe he denies the right to use it routinely, only this time it was to someone with emotional problems.
Why would they need to change the lyrics? Too dark?
A vocalist falling apart right before a national broadcast because she can't sing the song she's been working on isn't all
that
far gone. Particularly if the news was given as dramatically as this allegedly was.
(What? We had to go with "Lou Reed doesn't LIKE YOU" and not "Susan, baby, there's a problem and we couldn't get the rights in time...")
Stunt stunt stunt
I feel bad for her. I relate to her story a lot.
What's a little weird is it used to be that a writer couldn't block someone from doing their song as long as they'd paid for the rights. But maybe that was because so many writers didn't own the rights to their publishing back then.
Today I got out the Crosley Archiver and played some of my 45 rpm collection. My very first records were 45s my mom and aunts had from the '50s. My collection includes those as well as stuff I bought myself when it was current ('70s and '80s) and stuff from the '50s and '60s that I've picked up used at record stores and thrift shops.
It's really been at least 10 years since I've played them. I was in too many living situations where I didn't have good access to my record collection and it was a lot of physical hassle to get them on the turntable. It was neat to hear some of them again although my mom was a lot less nostalgic about her old records than I thought she'd be. They had at least a couple records that I thought her uptight '50s parents would freak about including a rockin' black gospel track. But they also had syrupy lily white stuff. In-between were some solid rock and pop tracks including Johnny Otis, Jerry Lee Lewis, and more. But the gems are the things that aren't reissued. Like a track called "Exsanguination Blues".
Not long before I had to move, I took my KLH turntable/radio console in to get fixed. Only one channel was playing. I told myself I wouldn't fix it if it were more expensive than $60 or so. But the guy called me with the estimate at a tense distracted moment so I actually said yes to $150 in repairs. I also bought a Crosley Archiver when the house sold because I mistakenly thought it would semi-automate the process of digitizing my records and tapes. It doesn't. So now I had two turntables. The Crosley would cost nearly $50 in shipping to return to Amazon. But I'd sunk $150 into the KLH. Which would I keep?
Playing all those 45s tonight got me closer to my decision. The Crosley has a CD player, AM/FM radio, cassette and 33/45/78rpm turntable all in one compact unit, including the speakers. My KLH has only turntable and radio and speakers take up more room. Cassette and/or CD players can be used through AUX but also take up more room. However, the KLH has a lot of sentimental value (it was my parents stereo when I was a child). It has a 16rpm speed in addition to the others. And I was pretty sure the turntable quality would be better. While the Crosley has been fine on 12" LPs, it choked on a number of 7" 45s tonight. I'd look at the singles and there'd be no trace of a scratch or scuffing yet they'd skip. I think it's just not as well balanced and able to accommodate individual record differences.
So I will probably sell the Crosley soonish but I really have to find a way to solve my tabletop footprint problems with the KLH and assorted pals.
What's a little weird is it used to be that a writer couldn't block someone from doing their song as long as they'd paid for the rights. But maybe that was because so many writers didn't own the rights to their publishing back then.
Anyone can perform or record a cover without the specific permission of the songwriter, but I'm pretty sure that *broadcasting* that cover on American television is a different kettle of fish.
t edit
It might be that there are set fees for recording a cover version but the broadcast rights are negotiable. So, effectively, the songwriter can prevent the broadcast of a cover by asking a ridiculously high fee for the rights.
The story's been updated: Reed's rep is telling the media that the incident was a matter of song-rights clearance for American television, not Lou's personal objection, and that the clearance issues have nothing to do with Reed himself.
The story's been updated: Reed's rep is telling the media that the incident was a matter of song-rights clearance for American television, not Lou's personal objection, and that the clearance issues have nothing to do with Reed himself.
I did think it a little weird that Lou Reed was personally handling rights permissions for his songs.
