i know there's been discussion before about another band called "the features." if i recall correctly, someone found them while looking for features stuff on ebay. i don't really know how or why i found this, but this is a news entry from the website of pete cullen and the features:

"Features discover US counterpart (Apr 04, 2003)
If you are looking for "The Features" (Roger Dabbs, Rollum Haas, Matt Pelham, and Parish Yaw) as opposed to "Pete Cullen and The Features" then the website you want is at http://www.thefeatures.com/
They sound like a thrashy incarnation of Elvis Costello's attractions (hello cheesy organs!), and the singer sounds like a cross between David Bowie and Marilyn Manson. They're also signed to Universal, so there's a distinct possibility of fun, fun legal action! (Wohoo! Can't wait!) Stay tuned, folks..."



i think parrish could take him.

Wow, check out that link. Interesting how their "thefeatures" logo is all one word, lowercase, with the "the" in white and the "features" in yellow. Where have I seen that before?

HaHaHaHa. So true, Keith.

You know, I've never noticed it before, but Matt does sound exactly like Marilyn Manson. How did I miss that?

In reference to the "legal action" that the other Features mention, I'm not sure how that would turn out. Maybe the Features would have to alter their name when working in Australia. Like, in England, the band Suede is called Suede, and it's fine. But when they release records or play in America, they have to go by "The London Suede," because there was already some jazz artist in America that went by the name "Suede."

(Edited by jamiecarroll at 9:26 pm on Aug. 9, 2003)

mmmm...suede. i haven't listened to suede for months. anyways, bowie and manson?? what is that all about? have they actually heard his voice?

off topic, i clicked on this thread because i was just watching a woody allen film called the front, in which he fronts for blacklisted tv writers. i was just at the part when he told a congressional committee to go fuck themselves when i came across this. anyways, i ain't gonna name no names either.

They can be "The Tennessee Features,"

or, as I've said many times before, there can be a battle of the bands a la Alvin & the Chipmunks. The other band will lose and have to settle for Pete Cullen and the Featurettes.

Um... I don't think our band is going to have to change their name. Trust me.

His confidence means that he's not telling us something.

Damn you and your secrets BrianW!!!!!!! I curse you!!!!!! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! (crane up from screaming mouth, fade to black)

{Close-up of face. Cut to surface of dead planet.}

Capt. Da:"KHAAAN!!!"



(Edited by YaDaDaDa at 9:07 am on Aug. 10, 2003)

Yeah, I took their post to mean that they would probably be the ones having to change their name now that our Features were on Universal since having a major label deal means having lawyers and power and whatnot. Plus our Features have been around for a long time now and they've probably trademarked the name.

Actually, both are on Universal. It is doubtful that they have been around as long as our Features, which gives us an edge. That, and BrainW says to trust him.

weird that the same record label would sign two bands with the same name.

I think they're trying to create a monopoly.

Where do you get that they're signed to Universal as well? Is it the line "they're also signed to Universal..."? I take that to mean that in addition to them being named the same as us, they are also on Universal and therefore could now bring some fun, legal action (I'm not saying the band is going to, but just paraphrasing the Aussie band). Not, hey this band is also on Universal, just like us. But maybe you found some info somewhere else that proves they are.

No, but it could be interpreted either way. Now we all see the importance of good grammar skills.

Yeah, that was some pretty lame grammar. I bet their 8th grade English teacher was really a social studies teacher.

Am I the last person who noticed the Features are officially listed on the Universal website? Am I the only person who thinks a sufficiently big deal hasn't been made out of this fantastic news? Is there any chance of jynxing things here?

hey. my eigth grade english teacher was a social studies teacher. what are you trying to say?

Carl, i'm right there with ya man, i was completely unaware it was even remotely close to "official". and yea, i also think that a bigger deal should have been made of this great news... an update on the homepage at the very least... (Not that i think there is anything wrong w/how the site is run- brianw does a great job!)

what the hell? i had no idea. why has this slipped under the radar? i mean, i knew that it was allagedly in the works or whatever, but i had no idea that they were listed on the website.

(Edited by damon at 11:06 pm on Aug. 10, 2003)

Holy smokes, you're right, Carl. This is really good news, right?

Probably no one cares but me, but it was also surprising to see that The Pierces (formerly of Nashville) were also newly signed to Universal.

It's a knock at me.

Wow... It SHOULD be a big deal that they were put on the website... I mean, you'd think that would be the last thing that they'd do... however, until I hear it from BrianW, I'm going to declare it inadmissable in court.

Nope- that is awesome news! I think the gist of the name fight is that the Features are signed, have records out, and have international recognition of being "The Features". Plus some lawyers. I'm pretty sure all of this trumps the Aussie Features, although they do have a fiddler.

Well, prior use takes precedence in court. With prior use only as a defense, territory is important, because your exclusive right to use the name is limited to where you have performed & sold product.

If they other band has proof of having used the name in commerce before our Features, then it will still be ok. Universal will make them a $$ offer to quit using the name. They sign a contract and its all good.

If our Features have used the name in commerce before they other guys, and can prove that they have sold product & performed outside the state, then they can get a Federal Servicemark Trademark for product sales and solve it right there. They can then send a notice to the other band to quit using it and sue if they don't.

Registered band names are actually Servicemarked, since bands are considered to be providing an entertainment service. Your Trademark is for selling product. You really need to get both so that you don't end up with one and the band you are fighting with over the name gets the other.

You can register a Statewide Servicemark if you suck and think you will never perform outside of that state and only require protection from folks trying to encroach on your territory there, or Federal Service Mark if you want to be covered throughout the US and have performed and sold product outside your home state. You can also get a World-Wide Servicemark.

(Edited by poohbear's girl at 2:37 pm on Aug. 11, 2003)

ah. well i suppose he killed two birds with one stone. impressive.

Thank you, girl. I (seriously) have wondered different things about the ins and outs of the music biz, and that's one question answered. I've always wondered how there were two Selfs.

I think it's Selves

There are two Selfs?

There was once much discussion on the Spongebath board about a band called Self. I saw their album at disc exchange a few times, but I knew better than to think that it was the Self I know. Their CD has a sloth on the cover of it. That's about all I remember.

I noticed the Features are no longer listed in the alphabetical listing of bands on the Universal site, but can be still found on the "event finder". Should this concern us?

Update: Okay, maybe this isn't such a big deal. I just did a search by genre and found them under "rock", but not "alternative". They still need to be listed alphabetically, though.

(Edited by carligula at 4:18 pm on Sep. 1, 2003)