mr x wrote:Once again, if you believe that the Magic Hat #9 is not a direct reference to the Beatles song, you need to put down the bottle. And there is no real need for further 'conversation'.
As far as the Zappa incident, I remember it well. Are you sure you understand it? Permission to use references to Frank were required. Does Frank have legal powers above other musical artists?
I had no idea it was a reference to a beatles song. I dislike the music, and I think it's pretty unrealistic to think that "everyone" should acknowledge that this is an intimate reference too, theft, and infringement upon whatever song you're talking about.
Also, on tour at magic hat, sometimes it's part of their shtick to mention that it was indeed Alan's 9th recipe (at least some of the better tour guides throw that in there - even though they are fewer and further between .... but that's not the point). I lived a stones throw from the brewery when I was in Burlington, so I've only visited/been marketed too upon that fact dozens of times when visiting the brewery with friends from out of town.
Also, we would all be nieve to think that there are not other beer brands out there, who's names may or may not have been inspired or influenced by a song or its lyrics. Again, from a legal standpoint, in most cases, it would be moot (note all of the properly laid out points about the Zappa Estate in posts prior for an exception and the reasons there of).
Maybe Stone Brewing Co. should be considered sleezy for stealing the Stone from Rolling Stones.
Finally. It's a pretty duche move to continually repeat, "you should all put down the bottle" - just because a few people do disagree with you, and are willing to try and explain their points in different manners, as apposed to just repeating the same weak point incessantly.
Just saying.
