During a discussion with Andrei Lityagin, the producer and founder of the Mirage group, it was explained that Margarita Sukhankina has been barred from performing the group’s classic hits. The reasons reflect changes in her voice over time, with the belief that her current vocal character no longer matches the material that defined Mirage’s early identity. The producer emphasized that the voice shape now diverges from the group’s recognizable sound, making performances of those songs inconsistent with Mirage’s branding and image.
Lityagin noted that Sukhankina does not hold the rights to perform Mirage’s compositions. He described the legal matters as ongoing and persistent, stressing that the dispute has matured into a longstanding issue. The founder indicated that lawsuits have been filed not only against the former group member but also against organizers of concerts where the group’s greatest hits were performed, highlighting the broad scope of the actions involved and the complexity of enforcing rights in live music events.
According to Lityagin, the process involves separate lawsuits for each party, a tactic he described as necessary given the country’s vast geography and the difficulty of locating violators. He drew a historical parallel, suggesting that the current disputes resemble tensions seen in the 1990s, when concert organizers connected to Sukhankina quickly shifted blame to one another. This comparison underscored the persistence and complexity of protecting intellectual property in the live performance landscape. [Attribution: Mirage group spokesperson]
Public discussions earlier featured Valentina Talyzina urging Pugacheva to publicly acknowledge a public mistake, following the example set by her namesake. The reference demonstrates how debates over performance rights and public accountability have long been a topic of discussion within the music community. The discourse touches on artist control, brand integrity, and the responsibilities of event organizers when a legacy catalog is performed in public venues. [Attribution: public discourse on performers’ rights]
The case highlights how the management of a legacy act must balance artistic evolution with brand consistency. For fans and cultural observers in North America, the situation illustrates the broader questions surrounding who holds authority over a classic catalog and how disputes are resolved when performances take place outside a fixed band lineup. It also reflects how legal pathways intersect with artistic reputation, concert promotion economics, and the ongoing negotiation of rights in the international music market. The scenario serves as a reminder that changes in lineup or voice can ripple through branding decisions, licensing processes, and the viability of touring the most enduring hits. [Attribution: industry analysis]