[HN Gopher] Hit songwriters ask pop stars to stop taking credit ...
___________________________________________________________________
Hit songwriters ask pop stars to stop taking credit for songs they
didn't write
Author : mellosouls
Score : 268 points
Date : 2021-03-31 12:55 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| bioinformatics wrote:
| Who's taking claim for WAP?
| SamBam wrote:
| Several people, all listed at
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAP_(song).
|
| The song has topped numerous charts, for instance Pitchfork and
| Rolling Stone's best song of 2020. Why wouldn't they want to
| take credit?
| StavrosK wrote:
| For the next reason Alan Smithee exists, possibly:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Smithee
| Kaze404 wrote:
| I'd be proud even if it wasn't a massive hit. It's an
| insanely catchy song, performed by two women who deliver the
| lines perfectly, on top of a very creative production (I
| especially like the repetitive "there's some hoes in this
| house" line that plays throughout the entire song).
|
| I don't think it's fair to the people involved to paint it
| something it's not just because the sexual language makes you
| uncomfortable.
| Rule35 wrote:
| fwiw, it's not the sexual imagery that bothers most people,
| it's the degradation they hear in the rest of the song.
|
| "Hoes in this house" for example.
|
| Sex is natural, calling women whores is not. One is a fine
| thing for a kid to see, the other is problematic and
| requires you to explain that their language shouldn't be
| repeated, that it's probably indicative of depression or
| systematic oppression of women, etc.
|
| Nothing in the song appears to be feminine empowerment as
| they defend it by saying - it's just soft-core porn
| masquerading as music. Porn is porn and when made without
| harm is a lifestyle choice, it's the masquerade that makes
| it icky.
| youngNed wrote:
| that line is actualy a sample from a 1992 song, so
| presumably frank ski got a cut:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IHUl8CwCvI
| Kaze404 wrote:
| Interesting, I had no idea. Thank you :)
| TwoBit wrote:
| Seems primarily like Cardi B's writer started it and Cardi B
| modified it.
| bena wrote:
| You know what he's about. He's just a boring old culture
| warrior who has to inject his personal politics into every
| situation while simultaneously decrying how everything is now
| political.
| asphaltycode wrote:
| Or it's a joke
| bena wrote:
| What makes it a joke? Why is it funny? Explain to
| everyone why no one wanting to take credit for WAP is
| funny.
|
| I don't think there's a reason that doesn't circle back
| to my original assessment of the guy.
| asphaltycode wrote:
| Because the lyrics are amazingly vulgar and are
| inappropriate for most conversations.
| farfacy wrote:
| All the people who created WAP are not listed in this link.
| On Spotify, WAP's credits list
|
| Performed by
|
| Cardi B, Megan Thee Stallion
|
| Written by
|
| Austin Owens, Belcalis Almanzar, Frank Rodriguez, James Foye
| iii, Jordan Thorpe, Megan Pete
|
| Produced by
|
| Ayo & Keyz
|
| We can compare this to a Kpop song called IDEA that 2 of the
| same people who wrote WAP worked on
|
| Performed by
|
| Taemin
|
| Written by
|
| Adrian Mckinnon, Austin Owens, James Foye iii, Jimmy Claeson,
| Moon Seol Ree, Tay Jasper
|
| Western stars are extremely dishonest about their input into
| their music.
|
| Korean TV giving credit to the songwriters
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4wOjOEcRZg
| msrenee wrote:
| Maybe I'm just pissy from being subjected to 60 hours a week of
| top 40 radio for the last month at work, but I don't think any of
| them deserves a dime. In fact, I think they owe me something for
| pain and suffering.
|
| I swear I'm not a music snob. 6 months ago when I heard this
| batch of songs the first time, I thought some of them were pretty
| catchy. Although I don't know that anyone will argue this was a
| great year for music. But I heard that "go out with a bang" song
| at least 4 times yesterday. About a week ago, I finally listened
| to the lyrics and started to like it a little. Then I heard it 20
| more times and I'm over it.
| andrewzah wrote:
| - This is an issue due to large corporations owning many radio
| stations across the US.
|
| - This is an issue due to music labels being unable or
| unwilling to take risks.
|
| - Regardless if you like the music or not, people need to be
| fairly paid for their work. Musicians/Labels should not be
| strong-arming/bullying songwriters into taking credit for their
| work (and thus receiving royalties for work they did not do).
|
| 2020 was a _great_ year for music, but not if you only listen
| to the radio...
| msrenee wrote:
| The artists listed in the article are the same ones I have to
| listen to all day, which is why I thought my whining was
| relevant. I know there's good music out there and I've got it
| on my phone. I just didn't have my headphones charged
| yesterday and hit a wall listening to the same songs.
|
| I don't listen to the radio on my own time. I've just been
| working with guys who cycle through 3 stations that all play
| the exact same songs.
| andrewzah wrote:
| Have you tried getting better coworkers? /s
|
| One possible solution is to see if there are independently-
| run stations in your area. I live near a university, so
| there is a student-run station that explicitly is not
| allowed to play top-charting songs. So I get some good
| music discovery, and awkward banter from new djs. If you
| have access to a computer, then you have access to
| basically any station. soma.fm is pretty good.
|
| It definitely is frustrating to see the same songs on the
| radio over and over, but that's really an issue from
| iHeartRadio (formerly Clear Channel) owning stations across
| the country. Boycott iHeartRadio if you can.
| aethertron wrote:
| Sorry to hear this is inflicted on you. What industry sector?
|
| (I used to work in an office doing web development with music
| on all day. Didn't mind it then. Now I work at home in
| silence.)
|
| https://pipedown.org.uk/ this is a worthy campaign.
| msrenee wrote:
| It's manufacturing I guess you'd call it. It normally doesn't
| bother me. Most everyone here has a good variety they listen
| to. It's just the two I'm working with right now who are
| apparently ok with listening to top 40 stations all day long.
| It's largely my fault. I could have said something, but I was
| in a pissy mood to start and I tend to come off nastier than
| I mean to when I'm in a mood.
| nano-erud wrote:
| What surprises me the most is that that shitty "music" you hear
| nowadays is written by someone. I thought it was made by a
| computer or something. But if I think about it... it is logical,
| surely a computer makes better music.
| kube-system wrote:
| Art is indisputably subjective.
| apercu wrote:
| It feels like in order to have this conversation intelligently,
| we all need to me on the same page about how royalties work, and
| the difference in royalty types (at least mechanical vs
| performance royalties).
| tnolet wrote:
| Even more, this is all slightly different (or completely
| different) based on region, country etc.
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| From the comments I've read so far, I'd say next to nobody here
| knows the split difference between record contracts and
| publishing contracts.
|
| Here's how it was when I studied this 15 years ago.
|
| In a traditional _big four_ record contract, the _artist_
| (which for a band like Korn is five people), the record label
| gets 92% and the artist gets 8% (to split between them), but
| that 's only on domestic (US) sales. On international sales the
| split is worse at 96%/4%. The artist would typically also pay
| for any damaged product, which mattered more in the case of
| shellac records as they are more brittle and broke more often.
|
| For a publishing contract there's more variance in the split
| but it would typically be more like 60/40.
| runevault wrote:
| It isn't necessarily how they work. It's that people are
| wanting cuts from both pies instead of only the pie for the
| work they did.
| apercu wrote:
| There's a lot of nuance here, though. Say that the song kicks
| around and kicks around a bunch of artists refuse it and then
| eventually an artist makes some changes to it and
| personalizes it, records it and makes it big. All of a
| sudden, because of the promotion behind that artist or
| whatever, the song has a lot of value. And the artists wanted
| points before they invested the time or whatever in to it.
|
| I'm not saying that its right, only we always want to
| simplify things that aren't really simple.
| dundercoder wrote:
| I have two music albums out, and I don't ever hesitate to tell
| people when I wrote, co-wrote, or re-arranged a song.
|
| It never made me feel less accomplished to admit when I didn't
| write something.
|
| That said, most of the time people just assume I wrote them all,
| unless they recognize the cover's original.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I mean, I have sympathy for the writers, but I also don't believe
| that it's necessarily equitable that a songwriter receives all
| the money when a song is played on the radio but the performer
| receives nothing (that is my understanding, please correct me if
| I'm wrong).
|
| Consider the case of "I Will Always Love You", written and
| originally performed by Dolly Parton but made globally famous by
| Whitney Houston. I mean, Parton is a pretty legendary songwriter,
| but let's be honest, the only reason that song was played over
| and over on the radio was Houston's voice. When Houston died and
| the song was again put in rotation on the radio, is it really
| fair that Parton received all the benefit of that and Houston's
| estate nothing?
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| The Bodyguard soundtrack could have been recorded without
| Houston.
|
| It could not have been recorded without Parton.
| cmiles74 wrote:
| In this case the writers are talking about "publishing" rights
| which are distinct and separate from the sound recording (I
| believe those are called the "master" rights).
|
| ----
|
| Copyright is split into two main sections: copyright in the
| song (known as publishing rights) and copyright in the sound
| recording (known as master rights). The publisher only deals
| with the publishing right, which is the songwriting side and
| includes the music and lyrics.
|
| Traditionally, a record label will own the master right, which
| is basically the right to use a particular recording of that
| song, but if you're a self-releasing artist or producer then
| you will most likely own this right yourself.
|
| https://dittomusic.com/en/blog/music-publishing-explained-fo...
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| In the US a performer still receives nothing when the song is
| played on the radio, all the royalties go to the writers:
| https://soundcharts.com/blog/radio-royalties#why-
| songwriters...
| handelaar wrote:
| No. This is a subtle difference but a _very_ important one.
| In the US, the performance right on broadcast radio is not
| collected at all. The publishing rights are collected on.
|
| That's really not the same thing as "publishers take all
| the money".
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Yes, what you've written about broadcast vs. publishing
| rights on the radio is correct, but what I wrote "In the
| US a performer still receives nothing when the song is
| played on the radio, all the royalties go to the writers"
| is still 100% correct (I made no mention about the source
| of the rights), so I'm not sure why you started your
| comment with "No."
| zambal wrote:
| Performing artists can also collect performance royalties, but
| I think am/fm radio is excluded from this and I don't know how
| much it is in comparison to songwriter royalties.
| bluedino wrote:
| >> is it really fair that Parton received all the benefit of
| that and Houston's estate nothing?
|
| According to a quick Google search, Houston made over $30
| million from the Bodyguard soundtrack, and millions more after
| her death.
| juskrey wrote:
| Songwriting is akin to salary: writer gets paid every time, non
| depending if the song was a complete failure, while all the risk,
| organization and marketing is on the pop star.
|
| So I guess the answer is no.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Actually they don't. There may or may not be a publishing
| advance, and a lot of songs do the rounds on spec.
| lordnacho wrote:
| A lot of people seem to be taking a legalistic or moralistic view
| on this. Along the lines of "copyright works like this" or
| "people should get credit for what they do".
|
| The economic view would be something like:
|
| - There's a pie to be split, often beforehand. Some players are
| in better negotiating positions than others. Sadly, if you don't
| know a lot of performers, you'll have a hard time getting a
| bigger slice from the one that shows up.
|
| - It's not actually relevant who is on the document as a
| "writer". This is simply a thing to be negotiated over so that
| the performer is incentivized to do the recording. It's the same
| thing as putting up sales tax on a purchaser of goods, legally
| the buyer is paying x% extra, but economically the buyer and the
| seller actually split the bill according to negotiating power.
|
| - What will happen if it's enshrined that only the person who
| actually wrote the piece gets his name on it? Well there will be
| other things to bargain over. For instance, maybe you get your
| name exclusively on the song, but you put it in a company and the
| performer gets a piece of the company.
| exactlysolved wrote:
| This seems like a reductive view which is based on ignorance of
| how songwriting royalties work.
|
| Songwriting credit is copyright in the music and lyrics of the
| song. Artist credit is copyright in a specific recording of a
| song.
|
| So if you write a song which is a great song, and Arianna
| Grande records a lackluster version which nobody likes that
| much, but then several other artists pick up on the fact that
| it's a great song and record their own highly successful
| versions, then the songwriter would do very well from this, but
| Arianna Grande wouldn't share in the later success of the cover
| versions.
|
| If Arianna gets a 30% writers credit just for putting her own
| 'vibe' on the original recording, then she participates in the
| upside of the cover versions, even though they might have been
| successful despite her rather than because of her.
| karaterobot wrote:
| The writers are trying to affect their negotiating power by
| introducing a new element into the contract process: social
| pressure.
|
| Heretofore there's been a gentleman's agreement about writing
| credits which benefited the artist, and that's largely been
| enforced by the reality that artists (and publishers) need
| writers less than writers need them.
|
| But, what does a pop artist in the 21st century need more than
| anything in order to succeed? Their image on social media. The
| underlying threat here is the class issues, and the tactical
| deployment of the gig economy (song writers driving Ubers) was
| not accidental.
|
| When the word "exploitation" starts getting thrown around, and
| comparisons to how black artists were treated in the early
| years of the music industry start getting made, the pressure on
| artists and their representation will grow, and the dynamics of
| the contract process will change. That's what the writers are
| hoping will happen, anyway.
| mmatoscom wrote:
| LMAO why dont they sing themselves? Sorry as it seems the lyrics
| are nothing without the artist performing it, just letters in
| your notes.
| motogpjimbo wrote:
| Songs wouldn't get played on the radio without sponsors placing
| adverts on the station. Maybe we should cut the sponsors in as
| well?
| triceratops wrote:
| Why don't actors just make a movie without a script? They're
| just words on paper.
|
| Why doesn't an orchestra just start jamming, with no score or
| sheet music? It's just notes on paper.
|
| Why don't construction workers show up on a jobsite and start
| hammering without waiting for plans? It's just lines on paper.
|
| Why don't...you get the idea.
| mmatoscom wrote:
| Not really.....
| mmatoscom wrote:
| Man, writers will never be famous as artists. They accepted
| market as it is, good luck now complaining
| pumaontheprowl wrote:
| That's not an equivalent analogy. It's the exact opposite in
| fact. The equivalent analogies would be:
|
| Why don't screenwriters just film their own movies? Why don't
| composers just form their own orchestras? Why don't
| architects just build their own skyscrapers?
|
| The screenwriter example should make it obvious why these
| song-writers' complaints are baseless. A movie filmed by
| amateur videographers with no editing experience, no acting
| talent, and no marketing is not going to achieve mainstream
| success no matter how good the writing is. Meanwhile movies
| with terrible writing rake in huge numbers at the box office
| just because they have big name actors and top-of-the-line
| production quality (ex: the Avengers). This is because the
| script isn't particularly important to the success of the
| movie. Hence why the script writer doesn't get paid a large
| percentage of royalties.
|
| If the quality of song-writing was a key determinant in the
| success of a song, the song-writers would have leverage to
| negotiate better royalties. But it isn't, so they don't. If
| you don't like it, stop listening to pop music. There are
| plenty of struggling artists playing their own compositions
| in dive bars on friday nights that would love your support.
| mmatoscom wrote:
| THIS!!!!
| triceratops wrote:
| > Meanwhile movies with terrible writing rake in huge
| numbers at the box office just because they have big name
| actors and top-of-the-line production quality (ex: the
| Avengers)
|
| You sure it's just that? All the DC superhero movies also
| have big name actors, top-of-the-line production quality,
| heavy marketing and merchandise tie-ins. Yet those movies
| have been largely duds. They don't have the same resonance
| in contemporary popular culture as the Marvel movies. Or
| ratings by moviegoers and film critics. They're generally
| considered dour, stodgy, weirdly paced, illogical, or
| lacking soul.
|
| The scripts for the MCU movies won't win any film awards
| with the "ivory tower film snob"-type of moviegoer. But
| they're outstanding examples of the craft of screenwriting
| _for their genre_. And I 'm speaking as someone who
| generally finds superhero movies and comic books, including
| the Marvel ones, kinda tedious. I don't listen to pop music
| either.
|
| The MCU movies have wit, humor, sentiment, perfect pacing,
| and a tone appropriate to the characters (Guardians of the
| Galaxy movies are silly and playful, Captain America movies
| are more serious, Thor movies have an epic/Shakespearean
| feel). They do a good job of staying faithful to the source
| material while still being comprehensible to casual
| watchers. You think elves do all that? It takes serious
| writing skill, and every screenwriter isn't capable of it.
|
| > A movie filmed by amateur videographers with no editing
| experience, no acting talent, and no marketing is not going
| to achieve mainstream success no matter how good the
| writing is.
|
| "Professional movie-making requires multiple specialists"
| is not breaking news to anyone. The topic of discussion
| here is one of the specialists don't want to share credit
| with people who weren't involved in their work. Would it be
| OK if an actor demanded a makeup artist credit because they
| ran a comb through their own hair on set once?
| emodendroket wrote:
| This story is about them attempting to do exactly what you
| suggest.
| [deleted]
| mfer wrote:
| Why does Google or Microsoft pay coders to write software.
| Their work is nothing without the big company bringing it all
| together and the brand?
|
| Are you saying that the song writers should give their work
| away for free?
|
| The credit is tied to the method the song writers use to be
| paid for their work. This is coupled to pay. When an artist
| puts their name on the song lyrics they are taking pay from the
| people who wrote the lyrics.
| mmatoscom wrote:
| > Are you saying that the song writers should give their work
| away for free?
|
| They have been paid already, byt fame is for the artist, have
| ypu been living under a rock? Do I need to draw?
| jwandborg wrote:
| Imagine trying to sing lyrics you don't know to a tune you
| don't know.
| mmatoscom wrote:
| Exactly
| andrewzah wrote:
| - Consistently coming up with good melodies/hooks along with
| lyrics is fairly difficult to do time and time again.
|
| - Without writers/composers the artists would have nothing to
| perform. It goes both ways.
|
| - They're not asking for all the revenue. They're asking to be
| fairly paid for their portion of the writing. The artists still
| get their portion, as does the label, etc. They're also asking
| artists to not take credit for writing that they did not do.
| emodendroket wrote:
| That cuts both ways, doesn't it? Without any songs what does it
| matter how beautiful your voice is?
| mmatoscom wrote:
| Actual success singers are your answer
| emodendroket wrote:
| No idea how that answers my question.
| mmatoscom wrote:
| I mean shitty singers fucking rich
| emodendroket wrote:
| If "shitty singers fucking rich" it sounds like maybe
| songwriters do deserve a lot of the credit for hits!
| pumaontheprowl wrote:
| This is like saying Taylor Swift's grocery store deserves a
| cut of her royalties because she wouldn't be able to sing if
| she starved to death.
|
| Song-writers get paid poorly because there is more supply of
| pop songs than demand for them. Taylor Swift's grocery store
| doesn't get a cut of her revenue because Taylor Swift could
| easily just switch to another grocery store. The same as she
| could easily switch to another song-writer (or write her own
| songs).
| emodendroket wrote:
| They do get a cut of her royalties, when she goes there to
| buy food. I'd question your assertion that one songwriter
| is just as good as another when we consider how many hits
| can be attributed to the same people if you actually check.
| intrasight wrote:
| My opinion is that they shouldn't care and in fact have no basis
| to complain. I consider it "work for hire", and they are being
| paid handsomely for their work. Do we developers complain when,
| if we work for Apple, that Apple takes credit for our work?
| Eszik wrote:
| Have you read the article? "Credit" here is not meant as
| recognition, it's meant as retribution. Performers put their
| name down as writers/producers despite being no part of the
| songwriting process, taking a cut from the writer's revenue,
| and additionally get revenue for their performance + merch,
| concert tickets, etc.
| [deleted]
| pjc50 wrote:
| > they are being paid handsomely for their work.
|
| I think the complaint is that they _aren 't_ being paid
| "adequately", but without actual numbers it's hard to tell. I
| suspect few of them are making SV developer salaries.
| intrasight wrote:
| I suspect that the average is much higher than an SV salary.
| And the standard deviation is much higher too. More like in
| sports.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Well, sure, but the median is probably quite low.
| intrasight wrote:
| Again - similar to sports. Is somewhat of a "winner take
| all" market.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| no, but maybe we should
| intrasight wrote:
| Is simple. Just remove "work for hire" from your contract.
| triceratops wrote:
| Have you read their contract?
| Rule35 wrote:
| If you're being taken advantage of because of X it's a
| safe bet you don't have an anti-X clause in your
| contract...
| gh-throw wrote:
| "Other workers are trying to get a better deal than me and
| should cut it out" is one of my least-favorite opinions on
| labor matters.
| nonsince wrote:
| The entire point is that they're not being paid handsomely,
| they're being taken advantage of. Did you even read past the
| headline?
| intrasight wrote:
| Most pop hits are written by a dozen middle-aged Scandinavian
| men. I'm sure they are paid very handsomely.
| psychometry wrote:
| Again, try reading the article before commenting.
| intrasight wrote:
| I've read plenty on this topic. Believe me, those writers
| who reliably put out hits have NO problem paying their
| rent.
| emodendroket wrote:
| They claim writers are struggling to pay their rent, so I think
| the premise that they are being paid handsomely is in dispute.
| EveYoung wrote:
| Even if developers don't get direct credit, just having these
| big names in their CV increases their value massively.
| intrasight wrote:
| I'm sure these songwriters put those big names on their CVs
| too
| cestith wrote:
| Most songwriters write songs then shop them around. They're not
| typically freelancers writing a song for an act for pay.
| They're like small software shops writing source code, and then
| the company that licenses that code, compiles it, and sells it
| is wanting a copyright on the source and royalties on other
| licenses sold.
| intrasight wrote:
| You get whatever you and your legal team negotiate. Just like
| in any other business contract.
| cestith wrote:
| Yes, and when you regularly ask too much of the other party
| in those negotiations they band together and ask you to
| stop. Much like what's happening in the story.
| Rule35 wrote:
| Then they go on twitter and make it into a moral
| imperative to demonize you. Just part of negotiations.
| psychometry wrote:
| >they are being paid handsomely for their work
|
| Seems like someone didn't read the article...
| taylodl wrote:
| I wonder if Max Martin or Dr. Luke have these issues? Is it a
| matter of the larger the stable of artists and hits you have in
| your portfolio then the more negotiating power you have? I'm just
| curious, I honestly don't know.
| mountain_peak wrote:
| According to "The Song Machine" [0], track-and-hook has largely
| replaced singer/songwriter for top hits. The book details how
| Dr. Luke (a very talented guitar player) himself works with a
| ProTools tech to lay down beats, chord progressions, and
| instrumentation, then outsources the melodies to "hook
| writers/topliners" - the working song is sent to ~20 topliners
| and they aren't compensated whatsoever unless their hook is
| selected for a song. Also, virtually all the lyrics are
| outsourced to lyricists, and so on. It's funny that, in turn,
| the producers themselves seem to outsource much of the
| songwriting - it's turtles all the way down!
|
| [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28789721-the-song-
| machin...
| rsync wrote:
| I haven't read the piece, but the headline:
|
| "Hit songwriters ask pop stars to stop taking credit for songs
| they didn't write"
|
| ... makes me think of this Don Draper quote:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77Y6CIyyBcI
| racl101 wrote:
| I always wondered why we reward vapid pop star hacks who can't do
| anything without a freaking team of people doing everything for
| them.
|
| Like Britney Spears for example, can't play instrument, can
| barely sing, can barely dance, needs a choreographer, can't write
| music nor lyrics.
|
| And I'm not talking about Britney Spears now, I'm talking in her
| prime.
|
| All she really brought to the table was her looks and ok singing
| ability and the ability to move to someone else's choreography.
|
| No innovations of her own. Little inherent talent. And then in
| mid 2000s she put on some weight and then couldn't even do the
| choreography well and she always needs some backup vocals in live
| performances and what you hear on the CD is all super processed
| vocals.
|
| In general, pop stars since then are just conduits for the
| efforts of more talented people.
|
| Sure, you got the few talented ones like Michael Jackson and
| Paula Abdul (who, though not a great singer, a world class
| choreographer). But the rest of them ... same crap.
|
| I'd rather see an ugly old haggard dude who looks like Lemmy
| perform songs that they wrote and composed on their guitar.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Michael Jackson wasn't talented. He had a choreographer.
| khazhoux wrote:
| The 2009 MJ documentary shows he was supremely talented.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson%27s_This_Is_It
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Of course he was. I was just reusing OPs same argument that
| britney's use of a choreographer is evidence that she is
| talentless
| renewiltord wrote:
| Well, because I like the finished product. Big fan of the
| Britney songs. Great end product. I don't need John Williams to
| have grown the tree and cut the wood to make the guitar that he
| plays Asturias on.
| akdor1154 wrote:
| Vietnamese pop music is really interesting in that songwriters
| will normally be credited alongside the artist at the start of
| music videos.
|
| I wonder if we could ever see this in the west.
| vagrantJin wrote:
| Well, a lot of heartache and nonsense could be avoided ny paying
| songwriters fairly but could a song written for Arethra Franklin
| havethe same effect when sung by say Solange Knowles?
| layoutIfNeeded wrote:
| Seriously, who even listens to pop music these days??
| CPLX wrote:
| Downloading Tik Tok will quickly disabuse you of any delusion
| that popular music has faded as a crucial driving force in the
| culture.
| danaris wrote:
| "Nobody goes there anymore! It's too crowded!"
| vardaro wrote:
| The majority of music listeners. It's designed to resonate with
| the lowest common denominator and capture the widest net
| possible.
| cestith wrote:
| Do you know why it's called "pop music"?
| globular-toast wrote:
| Interesting to read this as from my British point of view, I
| thought the opposite was true: songwriters took the lion's share
| while musicians got relatively little.
|
| Thinking about The Beatles, for example, Paul McCartney is way
| richer than Ringo Starr. The common wisdom is it's because he
| wrote the songs and Ringo was just the drummer.
|
| Also there's the example of the song "Bitter Sweet Symphony"
| where members of the Rolling Stones claimed songwriting credits
| and took all the song's royalties [0].
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Sweet_Symphony
| Simulacra wrote:
| Wow I had no idea this was taking place. It reminds me a little
| of the fight hollywood screenwriters have fought to get equal
| billing and recognition. I always assumed that the writer got the
| most money!
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Yeah, writers have been kinda screwed. That goes for
| screenwriters, too, but I think they have actually done a
| fairly good job of standing up for themselves.
|
| The one relationship that immediately springs to mind, when I
| think of this type of thing, is Elton John and Bernie Taupin.
|
| I understand that they split up for a while, and that Elton
| John's music lost its lustre during that period.
|
| Although I like some of Elton John's work, I am not enough of a
| fan to speak in more than a fairly vague sense. I just remember
| people complaining about it, when it was happening.
|
| Keith Reid was also given top billing, for Procol Harum. He
| usually showed up in group photos.
| skystarman wrote:
| The EJ and Taupin collaboration is one of the greatest in pop
| music history, only Lennon/McCartney exceeds the quality and
| quantity of hits the team produced.
|
| I'm sure it's not as cut and dry on every song necessarily
| but Elton writes the music and Taupin writes the lyrics. Of
| course EJ performs the songs.
|
| Neither would be what they are without the other, certainly,
| the same as Lennon and McCartney's solo work was great but
| didn't come close to their collaboration.
|
| Anyways just want to point out EJ isn't one of the
| "manufactured" pop artists who had others write his songs for
| him. He's a true artist and musician in his own right even
| though Taupin is obviously hugely important to his success.
| dcanelhas wrote:
| Maybe in Christopher Nolan's case that may be true. Even in the
| rare case of an original script i doubt that the writers get
| any significant slice of the pie. It would be interesting to
| know more about how the film industry pays its contributors.
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| Screenwriters have a good union and are paid pretty well for
| movies that get made. Not star money, and usually not
| director money, but more than just about any other roles.
| Their residuals can also be substantial for a successful
| show/movie.
|
| They also have very prominent credits, second only to the
| director (notice it's the second to last in opening credits
| or second if it's closing credits).
|
| Their biggest issue is all the unpaid work they get asked to
| do. They can do months and even years of work without any
| compensation with projects that aren't really moving forward.
| runevault wrote:
| I don't remember all the details but as a long time listener
| to Scriptnotes (if the industry of screenwriting for
| Hollywood interests you highly recommended) it gets pretty
| complicated. First people get paid for the initial draft.
| Then they can get paid for rewrites (many contracts come with
| provisions to give the writer some number of drafts back and
| forth with the studio/director). Sometimes these can be
| negotiated into yet more drafts if things are close and the
| studio is happy with the writer.
|
| More commonly, at some point a different writer is brought in
| to update it, sometimes heavy rewrites, sometimes just
| tweaks. Once it gets filmed, the writer's guild has a process
| of arbitration to determine who gets credit, based on roughly
| who is believed to have contributed the most original
| material. The person or persons who are considered the
| primary creators get residuals based on % of money made
| (actual money made not the Hollywood accounting bullshit).
| herbertl wrote:
| You may like this piece!
| https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/03/26/the-song-machi...
| peapicker wrote:
| This is an excerpt from Seabrook's book, which is pretty
| good, I've read it.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Song-Machine-Inside-Hit-
| Factory/dp/03...
| hristov wrote:
| This unfortunately has been a long used tactic in the music
| world. In the old times it was sharpie producers putting their
| names as writers for songs of poor black artists, so they (the
| producers) can get royalties in addition to their usual fees. Now
| it is the singers taking advantage of the songwriters and
| composers.
|
| It is all evil but it kind of shows who has the negotiation
| leverage. Todays pop music scene is all about creating a
| celebrity image consumers want to identify with. Once said image
| is created the actual music is not that important. So the writers
| do not get much credit.
| HiroshiSan wrote:
| As a huge fan of blackpink I highly recommend you check out the
| documentary they have on Netflix. It became obvious after
| watching it that the genius behind blackpink is Teddy Park, who
| was also behind another massively successful girl group 2NE1.
|
| I've thought about it slightly and without Teddy Park there is
| no blackpink, but without the individual members each bringing
| their own flavour to the group, there is no blackpink either.
|
| If you're familiar with the concept art industry, this is
| essentially just character design but with living people.
|
| We are being fed a story, Katy Perry and Ariana Grande are good
| examples of this.
| hashkb wrote:
| With these types of "manufactured" performance groups I don't
| think there's any question that they are not composers. The
| Lady Gaga case (she promotes herself as a composer /
| guitarist / pianist) is much more of an intentional mislead,
| in my opinion.
| zikzak wrote:
| I have no dog in this fight and am not even really a fan
| but always thought Gaga was a legit artist. Do have any
| proof she's not?
| jahnu wrote:
| Performers who don't write or produce their own material
| are still artists and are as legitimate as any others!
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| These days a lot of them can't actually sing without
| autotune to clean up their caterwauling.
| parenthesis wrote:
| Yes, I'm not complaining that Tina Turner or Diana Ross
| didn't write the songs they sang (with the odd
| exception).
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| I'd say they are performers not artists. The girl running
| Photoshop is an artist, the HP LaserJet that prints it
| out isn't. We don't consider choir members to be artists,
| but if it's just one voice we assume they are?
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Members of the choir are _performing_ artists. They make
| artistic choices related to the actual _performance_ of
| the song, like _how_ to sing the words written on the
| page.
| spoonjim wrote:
| If Jascha Heifetz and Murray Perahia aren't artists then
| your definition is theatrically absurd.
| 1980phipsi wrote:
| Now you're just getting into a war about what art is.
| jrace wrote:
| The performance is the art. In your analogy printer = PA
| system.
|
| Who doesn't consider choir members to be artists?
| anonAndOn wrote:
| Stefani Germanotta is a singer, songwriter, musician, actor
| and dancer of EGOT caliber. She's not just a pretty face,
| the lady has mad skillz.
| mewse-hn wrote:
| Lady Gaga has chops and is a real artist. This is a video
| of her performing an original composition in college:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM51qOpwcIM
| hashkb wrote:
| No argument there. Does she credit her songwriters? Is it
| well known that she doesn't write 100%? Or does that not
| matter to anyone because she's so awesome?
| lenzm wrote:
| > "I have worked with and written with some UNREAL
| artists who let me into their lives to create with them
| who deserved their credit and publishing, ..."
|
| I think most people think she falls under this category.
| farfacy wrote:
| Why isn't there a question about manufactured performance
| groups not being composers? There are manufactured
| performance groups that are composers and they look just
| like Blackpink. An example of such a group is GI-DLE
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I66oFXdf0KU
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3szNvgQxHo
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Katy Perry found success as a songwriter before she found
| success as a singer, and has written songs for Britney
| Spears, Kelly Clarkson, Selena Gomez, and Nikki Minaj, among
| others. (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/katy-
| perry-wr...) Most of her own songs are co-written in studio
| with her collaborators on the song (meaning the feat artist
| and the producers), with each collaborator pitching in or
| more of the hooks or verses.
|
| Ariana Grande has written a few of her own songs (though none
| of these were released as singles).
|
| Perhaps you meant that neither Katy Perry or Ariana Grande
| are _composers_ (who write the instrumental portion of the
| song)?
| harrisonjackson wrote:
| I think they mean "Katy Perry" and "Ariana Grande" are
| fictional characters as the public knows them. They are
| characters played by two artists and supported by
| media/storytelling.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| This reminds me a bit of what I've heard about pro
| wrestling. There's a bit more story and theater to pro
| wrestling, but a lot of times the characters' personality
| derives from the person 'playing' them, with the knob
| turned to 12.
| Balgair wrote:
| For others wondering about this style of entertainment,
| it's called 'kayfabe'
|
| "Kayfabe, in the United States, is often seen as the
| suspension of disbelief that is used to create the non-
| wrestling aspects of promotions, such as feuds, angles,
| and gimmicks in a manner similar to other forms of
| fictional entertainment. In relative terms, a wrestler
| breaking kayfabe during a show would be likened to an
| actor breaking character on-camera."
|
| Outside of the entertainment industry, politics is an
| obvious example, though wikipedia states:
|
| "It has long been claimed that kayfabe has been used in
| American politics, especially in election campaigns,
| Congress, and the White House, but no evidence of actual
| usage of kayfabe in Washington has ever been uncovered.
| In interviews as Governor of Minnesota, former wrestler
| Jesse Ventura often likened Washington to wrestling when
| he said that politicians "pretend to hate each other in
| public, then go out to dinner together.""
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayfabe
| bmohlenhoff wrote:
| Bingo; This "appeal to the court of public opinion" strikes me
| as a last resort due to a lack of negotiation leverage.
| iams wrote:
| > putting their names as writers for songs of poor black
| artists, so they (the producers) can get royalties
|
| Why do you need to be a writer to get royalties. Would the
| producers not be able to ask for a royalty regardless?
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Record producers are not entitled to royalties unless they
| have songwriting, composer, or performance credits on a song.
| Essentially, they're the guys who bring everyone together and
| make sure a song comes out at the end.
|
| Many record producers do participate in the songwriting or
| composition process and are credited for that work (for
| example, Jay-Z), but the vast majority don't (for example,
| Glen Wallachs, co-founder of Capital Records).
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Some producers do get "points" just for production, even if
| they don't get a full writer credit.
|
| Production can mean anything and everything from project
| management, sound design, co-writing, arranging to hands-on
| instrumental parts - to turning up once a week and saying
| "Sounds great. Carry on."
|
| The split depends on the producer/artist agreement.
|
| Session musicians don't usually get points even though they
| may literally write their parts. In publishing terms a song
| is melody+lyrics, and everything else is work-for-hire
| arrangement.
|
| This often gets renegotiated because it's clearly nonsense.
| But that's the starting point.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| No, the law, and more importantly, the guilds (here, the
| SGA and SCL), are quite strict on these points.
|
| A producer cannot "negotiate" creative credit if they did
| not earn it, because the guilds will not allow it.
|
| If a producer wants writing credit, they must _earn_ the
| writing credit by performing creative activities as
| specified by the guild rules. Project management and
| other "producing" activities do not count. Note however
| that the creative contributions of session musicians
| under WFH arrangements are generally attributed to their
| employer--i.e., to the producer, and SCL rules generally
| apply to determine the creative contribution the producer
| may claim for the work of session musicians.
|
| Co-writing and arranging are not "producing" activities,
| they are writing and composition activities which can
| qualify for songwriting and composing credit. Few
| producers participate creatively in their songs, but the
| ones that do tend to be the more famous ones (like Dr.
| Dre, Jay-Z, Dr. Luke, etc.) and are use usually artists
| in their own right.
| ganoushoreilly wrote:
| It's broken down of there is X royalties then A, B, C, D each
| have percentages. In this Case Say producers are A, they're
| getting a cut that's established, but now they're taking a
| percentage of D. So in this instance they're expanding their
| ownership through pressure of taking a cut from someone else.
| adam0c wrote:
| here's an idea, why don't they stop writing songs for all these
| fuck tard talentless factory "pop" stars?
| andygcook wrote:
| As someone who grew up with the advent of the world wide web and
| got my start coding on Geocities, I very much appreciate the
| choice to add a scrolling marquee and visit counter towards the
| bottom of the site.
| Sileni wrote:
| Geocities, Angelfire, and Maxpages. GIFs everywhere.
| Backgrounds tiled with GIFs. If it didn't sparkle in some way
| that distracted from the content of the page, you weren't doing
| it right.
|
| What a time to be alive.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| Never underestimate the pro-capitalist apologists of HN. This
| forum would insist that Milli Vanilli did nothing wrong and were
| simply "smart business men."
| smabie wrote:
| Who are you responding to?
| dang wrote:
| Please don't post cheap ideological flamebait to HN.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| Btw the opposite side thinks that HN is dominated by your side
| (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que..
| .).
| dfxm12 wrote:
| _They added that composers were often subjected to "bully tactics
| and threats" by artists and executives who wanted to take a share
| of the songwriting royalties._
|
| Ultimately, I wonder where the money ends up between the artist
| and the executive.
|
| This article (not the pact's message) seems to be unfairly
| framing this as writers vs artists, but the real bad guy could be
| some suit at UMI or EMG...
|
| It sucks for the writers all the same, but don't misplace your
| anger.
| Wohlf wrote:
| After a certain level of fame, the artists are CEOs of their
| own brand.
| croutonwagon wrote:
| Labels have been cooking the books and running dirty schemes
| since forever. Hell even Pink Floyd wrote a song about it.
|
| I would not be shocked in the slightest if a few artists are
| increasingly also starting to throw their weight around and
| that is gaining some traction and becoming more of a norm as
| well. Thats also not new, ranging from the inane (no brown
| m&m's back stage) to stuff like this.
|
| I think a lot of people would be shocked to learn that
|
| 1. Many artists dont write their own songs
|
| 2. Many bands dont perform in their own studio albums and often
| use hired guns/session musicians
|
| 3. A lot of 1&2 are actually a relatively small number of
| people with a pretty prodigious output.
|
| People like Max Martin, Ryan Tedder, Sia Furler, Dr. Luke,
| Bonnie McKee in the current sphere/conversation.
|
| But even going back to Elvis...Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller
| are the actual writers for Hound Dog, Jailhouse Rock etc. And
| theres some for other Genre's, Motown had their own with Lamont
| Dozier and Brian and Eddie Holland. Otis Blackwell, Prince
| Nelson Rogers etc etc.
|
| This revelation happened for me when i started getting into
| playing music. Over the years I have gained appreciation for
| those that dont really need to deal with 1 and 2, but that
| takes a very special type of talent and dedication.
| ganoushoreilly wrote:
| The m&m's story might be misrepresented here. The true story
| is that they had extremely complicated rigging for their
| stage show. By putting the M&M's into the contract (a canary
| of sorts) they were able to ensure that it was read.
| Otherwise they knew immediately there could be problems.
|
| https://www.insider.com/van-halen-brown-m-ms-contract-2016-9
| exactlysolved wrote:
| Is this really the true story?
|
| I see that claim a lot and it's obviously a nice story. But
| isn't it quite likely that they were just acting like
| obnoxious rock stars, and they made up the story later when
| they didn't like being legendary for being assholes
| anymore? Or are we just taking their word for it?
| bmohlenhoff wrote:
| Everything can be a conspiracy if one tries hard enough.
| exactlysolved wrote:
| Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not
| no evidence except the word of the person denying a story
| which paints them in a bad light.
|
| If true, it is very surprising. Surely in most venues the
| people responsible for back stage hospitality are not the
| same people responsible for lighting, electrics, sound
| installation and stage safety? Isn't it quite likely that
| one of those teams would have met the requirements
| perfectly, and the other would have cut corners? How
| about the situation where extremely professional and
| scrupulous venues do all the important things right but
| resent having to sort M&Ms for overpaid stars? Wouldn't
| it have made more sense for Van Halen to have their own
| electrical inspectors who would check safety and
| reliability of the installation? How do other touring
| rock groups make sure everything is set up correctly? How
| did Van Halen come up with this particular canary test
| among all others?
|
| Is it really that conspiratorial that an extremely famous
| 20 year old acted like a dick, and that at age thirty he
| made up a story to cover up his youthful dickishness?
| Rule35 wrote:
| Your assertion that they were dicks is funny. Even if
| they just didn't like brown M&Ms if they were paying for
| the venue then surely it was no different than expecting
| their personal luggage to be carried to the dressing
| room, or having banners hung. Why is this request so
| egregious that it's dickish but having the right brand of
| sparkling water is not?
|
| > Surely in most venues the people responsible for back
| stage hospitality are not the same people
|
| They all get paid from the same pool. It's the boss
| they're testing, not the stage hand.
|
| Does the boss treat every requirement like a requirement
| and have it done seriously or do they pick and choose
| based on what they think is important and surprise the
| artist?
| exactlysolved wrote:
| The original story has been told for around 50 years with
| the widely noted implication "this was dickish behavior -
| they didn't have any particular preference for non-brown
| M&Ms but just wanted to mess with the people waiting on
| them". Even the 'debunkings' invariably recognize this
| interpretation of the original story.
|
| Obviously part of the reason this story gets told a lot
| is because a lot of people, many of them management
| consultants who charge by the day for nuggets of catchy
| wisdom like this one, love the idea that organizations
| have a homogenous culture and the same ones that skimp on
| the buffet preparation also skimp on the rigging safety.
| Actually, this is complete fantasy. It's perfectly
| believable to think that the same boss makes sure the
| artists have everything in their dressing room they want,
| no matter how demanding, but thinks that they won't check
| the bigger, critical but more expensive stuff.
| croutonwagon wrote:
| While I've heard David Lee Roth's argument here. I'm not
| sure I buy it. For one, the rider itself somewhat had a
| Streisand effect of its own. So it wasn't much of a canary
| once it was public knowledge.
|
| And two. Most large touring acts have all sorts of heavy
| equipment. Zepp, Skynyrd had enourmous amounts of stuff.
| Even to date, RHCP has a boat load of gear they lug around
| because like many they don't use a venues PA, they use
| their own gear because it's quintessential to their tone.
| Hell the Grateful Dead had a wall of sound.
|
| All that is to say....sure that could be a reason. May even
| have been the reasoning to start out. But I'm not sure I
| buy it personally. That band was also known for
| their.....persona. Especially with David Lee Roth.
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| Songwriters getting the short stick is an old fact in the
| 'industry'. (There's a Songwriter's Hall of Fame - ever seen it's
| inductees on TV?)
|
| Back in the rock'n'roll era, with the new 'teenager' category
| raining allowances on labels, label-owners often got a co-writer
| credit on songs. (And then there was the vinyl shipped 'off the
| books'.) They also typically grabbed up publishing rights.
|
| Since streaming began: I've seen figures like $2 per 1000 streams
| for big-name artists. I've never seen figures _mentioned_ for
| songwriters. At one time a top-10 hit might be covered by dozens
| of big names (each a potential revenue source for decades) -
| today stuff comes & goes _quickly_.
| jaywalk wrote:
| I'd argue that the producers/composers are far more important to
| pop songs today than the writers.
| nerdponx wrote:
| That's beside the point. The _performers_ are starting to
| demand a portion of the revenue stream that should be going to
| "people who aren't the performers".
| jaywalk wrote:
| Would there _be_ a revenue stream without the performers?
| stdbrouw wrote:
| That's a classic rent seeking argument, where people make
| money depending on how easy it is for them to sabotage
| something as opposed to how much they contribute.
| nerdponx wrote:
| No? But the point of the article is that the performers
| already have their own revenue stream.
| yellowapple wrote:
| Would there be a revenue stream without something to
| perform?
| godshatter wrote:
| I don't have an opinion on the ethics of this one way or
| the other, but the pop stars should be responding by
| asking why the songwriters signed the particular contract
| they are complaining about in the first place if they
| felt so strongly about this.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| Would there be a performer without something to perform?
| zambal wrote:
| I think in the context of music, composer and writer are
| essentially the same, but maybe you meant specifically text
| writer?
| jaywalk wrote:
| Yes. I was thinking more along the lines of songwriter ===
| lyricist.
| [deleted]
| Hamuko wrote:
| MusicBrainz has a relationship top-level called "writer" and
| under there are more specific relations "composer",
| "lyricist", "librettist" and "translator".
| [deleted]
| runevault wrote:
| Do you also believe software developers should take a smaller
| cut/salary to pay more to sales, because without sales selling
| the product it is worthless? That's the equivalent to the
| argument you are making.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| The music business has been massively "democratized" last few
| decades.
|
| Now anyone can record high quality music at home. Anyone can self
| publish their music for the world to enjoy. Both were unthinkable
| a few decades ago.
|
| But there are still a few gatekeepers, and gatekeepers will
| usually charge for opening their gate. Why wouldn't they?
|
| A megastar can choose to record any of dozens of equally good
| songs. Whoever they choose will sell 100x more. So in one sense
| it's fair they get a share of the money they create by adding
| their fame and talent to the song.
| goto11 wrote:
| Performer _do_ get a share.
|
| The question is if performers should get _songwriting_
| royalties for songs they didn 't write.
| cataphract wrote:
| > A megastar can choose to record any of dozens of equally good
| songs. Whoever they choose will sell 100x more. So in one sense
| it's fair they get a share of the money they create by adding
| their fame and talent to the song.
|
| I don't think this is actually true, at least if you define
| "good" as "likely to be a hit". There's a reason top pop
| performers go for songs written by songwriters with a proven
| track record, the most famous of which is perhaps Max Martin.
| Not anyone can write (and produce) songs that consistently
| appeal to whatever the public preferences of the day are. And
| no one wants to take unnecessary risks.
| andrewzah wrote:
| "Now anyone can record high quality music at home."
|
| Eh, to an extent. Audio production is a highly involved
| process. Few people have the equipment and knowledge to mic
| instruments & track sound properly, mix audio properly, apply
| professional-level production, master the tracks properly,
| master the album properly... It's not as easy as having a
| computer and some software.
|
| You can get a pretty good sound at home now for sure but for
| professional albums you still need a decent professional
| studio. And even at home, getting good mics and hardware is
| still quite costly.
|
| "A megastar can choose to record any of dozens of equally good
| songs."
|
| There are famous or well-known (in the industry) songwriters
| that get chosen time and time again because they can
| consistently produce hits.
| compiler-guy wrote:
| My macbook pro and a decent USB microphone can produce far
| more professional demos than the Beatles could produce in
| 1964. If you listen to, say, the Lost Lennon Tapes, a high-
| school student can do higher-quality production today, based
| purely on youtube how-to videos.
|
| Sufficient for a pro album ready for radio play? Probably
| not. But good enough to monetize on youtube? All day long.
| paublyrne wrote:
| There is a lot more to making good quality recordings then
| having good equipment. There's arrangement, mic placement,
| room acoustic treatment, mixing and EQ, mastering.
| compiler-guy wrote:
| Never said their wasn't. But there can be no doubt that
| both the equipment and the knowhow is vastly more easy to
| access today than it was then.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| "Anyone" was a poor word choice. I meant more "any supremely
| talented musician".
|
| A few decades ago, even the greatest talents in the world
| needed a recording contract to reach a large audience, and
| that went through a few large companies.
|
| Today that still helps to get the best equipment and the best
| people working on your stuff. But you can also record in a
| home studio with better tech than The Beatles ever had access
| to.
|
| Not a flat playing field at all, but I think a fair amount of
| people do come up that way.
|
| As for the best songwriters... I don't really know the
| business, and I don't want to pretend to. You're probably
| right for the Megahits. Maybe I'm right for the filler
| tracks?
| andrewzah wrote:
| "A few decades ago, even the greatest talents in the world
| needed a recording contract to reach a large audience, and
| that went through a few large companies."
|
| Ah yeah, this I do agree with. With today's tech it's
| relatively easy to get youtube/soundcloud-grade quality.
| It's not super cheap but one can get by with a decent
| camera, a decent usb interface like a scarlett 2i2, and a
| mic or two depending on the instrument.
|
| It's never been easier to get discovered thanks to
| soundcloud, youtube, instagram, etc. Very different from
| having to play gigs at the right places (sometimes for a
| long time!) and hope one gets discovered by someone there.
| I was thinking more of professional studio albums.
| tarsinge wrote:
| Having the power to bully does not justify bullying. They could
| negotiate the contract differently. Taking credit for something
| they didn't do is fraud, no matter how the market tolerates it.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Agreeing to share the song writing income _is_ negotiating
| the contract differently.
| woofyman wrote:
| Change a word. Get a third.
| anm89 wrote:
| Entering the modern commercial music industry to then complain
| about having to share credits is like getting a software
| developer job and be upset that you are expected to write code.
|
| At the end of the day, the singer brings in 100x more value to
| the table because what ever genetic lottery they won combined
| with whatever they did to capitalize on that means millions of
| people with poor taste want to throw money at them for the
| illusion of them being a musician. The song writers are much more
| replacable then the "face" in this scheme regardless of where the
| talent lies.
|
| Anyway point being, don't get into commercial music if you don't
| like it. There are plenty of ways to maintain artistic integrity
| as a trade off for money but these writers choose to sell out
| instead. So don't sell out and then whine about not being able to
| keep your integrity.
| blfr wrote:
| Are pop songs inherently valuable? Artistically they're not
| usually interesting but in the market sense, would people listen
| to them without the massive marketing push?
|
| I strongly support distribution of profits in the relation to the
| value being created. While it is absolutely possible, even
| commonplace, for organizations to exploit their workers and other
| smaller orgs, I also suspect that value in "hit" songs is created
| elsewhere: in production, marketing, name recognition of the
| singer, etc.
| [deleted]
| vardaro wrote:
| Yes, they're valuable because they capture many listeners and
| generate revenue. It doesn't need to interesting for it to be
| valuable.
|
| Plenty of interesting music flies under the radar. Even without
| the massive marketing push some artists get, the same artists
| would still rise to the top producing familiar song structures
| the average listener can recognize.
| analog31 wrote:
| I'm not an IP lawyer, but I have a handful of patents. As a
| patent lawyer explained to me, the list of inventors on a
| patent should be strictly based on whether somebody actually
| invented something or not. It's not like an academic paper,
| where everybody on the team gets to be an "author."
|
| In my view the same thing should apply to songwriting. The
| current standard is, you wrote a song if you wrote the melody
| or the words. Sometimes those are two different people.
|
| If you added value in other ways, add your name to some other
| contract specifying distribution of proceeds.
|
| The songwriting is extremely valuable, otherwise just write
| your own damn songs.
|
| As an aside, "inherent value" is a mushy concept that seems to
| defy any meaningful description.
| pumaontheprowl wrote:
| If you do that, then performers will just exert their power
| in other ways (by reducing royalties for song-writers).
|
| Fundamentally, this is happening because the quality of the
| song-writing isn't really all that important to the success
| of a pop star. Marketing, production quality, and sex appeal
| are more important. It's really not that hard to write a
| 4-chord song about breaking up with your boyfriend.
|
| If song-writers think they should be getting rich off these
| popular songs, there is nothing stopping them from performing
| the song themselves. They don't do that though because they
| know they'll make more money letting Taylor Swift sing it.
| blfr wrote:
| OP is primarily about money, not credit.
|
| _The songwriting is extremely valuable, otherwise just write
| your own damn songs._
|
| If it's so valuable, how can these companies find "hit"
| writers for PS100 a piece? While it is entirely possible for
| something of immense artistic or technical value to not be
| priced commensurately on the market, I've heard these songs,
| this is not the case here.
| exactlysolved wrote:
| Because the hit writers who are working for $100 a piece,
| are expecting that if their song gets picked up, they will
| share in its success through their publishing royalties.
| Kaze404 wrote:
| Why do you not think pop songs are artistically interesting?
| nemo44x wrote:
| It's all aesthetics to be sure but a lot of pop music doesn't
| take risks. Song structures are formulaic as are chord
| progressions and the notes used for melodies.
|
| How many hit songs use the same I-V-vi-IV progression? It
| works is why but it isn't interesting to a discerning
| listener.
|
| It seems like a lot of pop music is more like fashion than
| music. Image leads and after removing the stylistic facade
| you see the same underlying infrastructure. There are
| exceptions to the rule of course.
|
| Nirvana was an interesting pop music band because many of
| their songs used weird progressions. "Smells Like Teen
| Spirit" shouldn't work according to therory, but it obviously
| does.
|
| And then of course how pop music is mixed and mastered today.
| Almost no dynamic range because of the "loudness wars".
| Kaze404 wrote:
| That's fair criticism, but I don't think it makes pop music
| any less artistic. There's something to be said about music
| that goes beyond the listener's ears and also taps into
| fashion, make-up trends, viral dances and that kind of
| stuff. That's where the risk is, and while it's paid off in
| the past (like Lady Gaga, David Bowie, etc), there's also
| numerous cases where it didn't as much (Ava Max, Viktoria
| Modesta).
|
| I also believe there's artistic value in music that
| understands it's just ear-candy and doesn't try to be
| something else. In a world where so many people are trying
| to score a hit with the same chord progression for example,
| the ones that succeed stand out in other factors, and in my
| opinion it doesn't matter if it's some catchy verse on the
| refrain or something about the performer like Lady Gaga's
| provocative performances back in the early 2010s.
| nemo44x wrote:
| It is what it is - it is popular for a reason. It doesn't
| require effort from the listener and as you pointed out
| it lets people identify with a culture, etc. there's a
| reason most people stop seeking out new music in their
| mid-20's. Popular music is mainly a youth product which
| lets each cohort draw cultural boundaries from previous
| generations.
|
| What's great about modern info tech is it makes it easier
| to explore artists of your youth that you never knew
| about. You can get really deep which makes it feel like
| now music is still being made for you.
|
| It isn't like there aren't infinite other styles for
| people that want it. Jazz is a great example of
| "musicians music" - lots of interesting ideas get
| explored there and dissonance is used which you rarely
| find in pop.
|
| They actually have software that helps crank out hits
| nowadays. It's an interesting time to be a songwriter in
| Nashville.
| rgifford wrote:
| A friend of mine decided to pursue music production around the
| same time I started in software engineering. We're both 20
| somethings. We swap war stories now and then.
|
| I get to hear about how he's working with his mentor to do vocal
| production on a track getting pitched for Maroon 5, The
| Chainsmokers, etc. Sometimes the tracks take -- the artist likes
| them and decides to move forward. Usually they don't and it's a
| lot of getting your hopes up for nothing. These major artists
| have lots of songs getting thrown at them on any given day. To
| date some of my friends biggest credits are vocal production
| credits on a couple billboard top 100s. A single track will have
| 50 names on it between writing, production, studio performance,
| etc.
|
| My friend's mentor is late 30s and mainly does songwriting. He's
| been trying to do a solo thing but just isn't marketable.
| However, just recently he "made" it with a feature on a top 100
| song and a couple songs picked up by major artists. The checks
| cleared this last year but the songs came out a couple years ago.
| He went from "how do I pay rent" to 7M literally over night. He
| moved to WA to dodge CA income tax. My friend has been able to
| tie a couple big checks together over the years, but it's been
| tough. One year it's 100k, the next it's 20k and all from ads and
| random tv shows.
|
| I'm consistently shocked when talking with my friend just how
| little music matters in the music industry. The people who make
| the most look good, sound good, and hell they're crazy talented.
| But they aren't the people who've written the lyrics or the
| melodies that define our culture. We probably can't name those
| people.
| ryantgtg wrote:
| Anecdote: My dad was in the music industry in the 80s, and he
| knew song writers. He joked about how funny it was to hear, for
| example, a (male) friend singing a demo of "Like A Virgin."
| saurik wrote:
| > My friend's mentor is late 30s and mainly does songwriting.
| ... He went from "how do I pay rent" to 7M literally over
| night.
|
| > The people who make the most look good, sound good, and hell
| they're crazy talented. But they aren't the people who've
| written the lyrics or the melodies that define our culture.
|
| I am confused by the story: isn't the person who made the big
| bucks here a person who "mainly does songwriting"?
| wombatmobile wrote:
| > I am confused by the story: isn't the person who made the
| big bucks here a person who "mainly does songwriting"?
|
| The law says the songwriter is entitled to songwriting
| royalties.
|
| In practice, famous artists' managers negotiate with poor
| unknown songwriters to take a percentage of the songwriters
| royalty by pretending that the artist co-wrote or wholly
| wrote the song.
|
| This is made possible by supply and demand, and asymmetrical
| market access.
|
| Famous artists can sell millions of recordings, even if the
| songs aren't so great. They have long queues of songwriters
| trying to offer them material for that reason.
|
| Great unknown songwriters can't sell great songs unless they
| are recorded by someone famous or connected, because nobody
| will hear them.
|
| To resolve these dynamics and make deals, mangers since
| ancient times have made talented unknown songwriters offers
| they can't refuse: Give away a percentage of the songwriting
| royalty (by crediting an artist for co-writing or writing the
| melody or the lyric) in exchange for jumping ahead of other
| talented unknown songwriters in the queue to get to market.
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _famous artists ' managers negotiate with poor unknown
| songwriters to take a percentage of the songwriters royalty
| by pretending that the artist co-wrote or wholly wrote the
| song._
|
| That might not be strictly necessary, because in the U.S.,
| there's such a thing as a performer's copyright in the
| (recorded) performance itself, separate from the
| songwriter's copyright in the song. [0]
|
| [0] https://www.ip-watch.org/2014/11/24/us-courts-
| recognise-new-...
| wombatmobile wrote:
| That's a different issue occurring downstream from the
| contractual arrangement for the songwriting credits.
| globular-toast wrote:
| > A single track will have 50 names on it between writing,
| production, studio performance, etc.
|
| This is something I've noticed more and more lately. The list
| of credits on everything is _huge_. I happened to see an
| episode of _Family Guy_ the other day. I haven 't regularly
| watched it for years, but noticed on this one there were
| literally minutes of credits at the beginning. It went on and
| on and on. I don't know why this is or what it means, but it's
| interesting.
|
| > I'm consistently shocked when talking with my friend just how
| little music matters in the music industry. The people who make
| the most look good, sound good, and hell they're crazy
| talented. But they aren't the people who've written the lyrics
| or the melodies that define our culture. We probably can't name
| those people.
|
| I don't think this is a new phenomenon by any means. I was
| reading the other day about The Beatles and how, when they
| became big in the USA, the professional songwriters of the time
| were worried because these guys wrote their own songs.
| Apparently it was almost unheard of at the time.
| dv_dt wrote:
| I thought songwriters had some sort of union or industry group
| that went to bat for them? The article and this discussion
| makes it sound that doesn't exist.
|
| edit: hmm, ASCAP and Songwriters guild are a couple names that
| come up... though this might be something of a dispute within
| different groups within ASCAP..
| wombatmobile wrote:
| There is nothing to bat for i.e. no royalties until the song
| has been sold.
|
| No song can be sold in significant number until it has been
| recorded by a famous artist backed by a well resourced record
| company.
|
| By the time a song has been sold in significant numbers, it
| is too late for ASCAP or the Songwriters Guild to act,
| because the song has already been credited to an artist who
| didn't actually write it, because the songwriter signed away
| his or her rights in order to bootstrap the song.
|
| You may think "that's not fair", and you may be right, but
| the difficulty is that a famous artist can make as much money
| selling a song that is not quite as good as a "great" song,
| and the supply of OK songs far exceeds the supply of "great"
| songs.
|
| What even is a "great" song? It is difficult to tell, and
| even more difficult to prove, until it has been recorded by a
| "great" artist, and bought by millions of fans of said
| artist.
|
| By that point, a contract exists crediting the "great" artist
| with writing or co-writing the song. This contract can be
| defended in a court of law by an ordinary lawyer working for
| a "great" record company, or better still, by a "great"
| lawyer working for a "great" record company.
|
| When it comes to greatness, the medium is the message.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > He moved to WA to dodge CA income tax
|
| WA is closing that loophole. They just passed a gigantic
| capital gains tax.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Fascinating, can you share which song(s) he "made it" with?
| tohnjitor wrote:
| Nice try, California department of revenue
| renewiltord wrote:
| "Actually, we're called the CA Franchise Tax Boa- ahh fuck"
| asah wrote:
| so you're saying it he needed a little sweetness in his life?
| (ducks)
| Johnny555 wrote:
| _He moved to WA to dodge CA income tax_
|
| If he waited for the big check before he made that move, CA
| will find him - it's not where you live when you got the check,
| it's where you live when you earned it.
| taeric wrote:
| If it is royalties coming in, things have to get complicated.
| They could have seen that it was going to be good, and then
| moved.
|
| In which case... I am genuinely curious what the legal rules
| are.
| thanhhaimai wrote:
| +1, moving intentionally to avoid this is asking for a lot of
| trouble, especially for a bill that large. I hope he
| consulted his financial advisors.
| vmception wrote:
| > I hope he consulted his financial advisors
|
| and if he did, he'd learn that 5 minutes of estate planning
| makes it ridiculously easy to avoid having any trouble,
| especially for a bill that large
|
| so if you know, you know
|
| if you don't, then you might find yourself bombarded by
| misinformation regarding the music industry, and state
| taxes on a programming forum
| Johnny555 wrote:
| What is the 5 minute fix that would allow someone to
| escape tax liability for income earned (but not yet
| received) while working in California?
| ryandrake wrote:
| No kidding! CA's tax man is among the most aggressive I've
| ever encountered. If you move to the Sahara desert to try
| to avoid paying, they'll have someone waiting in a sand
| dune to jump out and hand you the bill as you walk by.
| Varriount wrote:
| Perhaps it's naive of me, but I can't help but look down on
| this kind of behavior. I know that tax money is rarely spent
| in the most efficient way possible, but (ideally) the point
| of taxes is that they go to benefit the general public.
| Moving just so one doesn't have to pay as much, after
| (presumably) living in the state for some time feels selfish
| and greedy.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Some states actually have laws specifically to prevent
| this.
|
| For example, if you work remote for a company based in NY,
| PA, CT, DE, AR, or NE; your income is taxable in that state
| regardless of where you live or work. This is known as a
| "convenience of the employer" test. In fact, before a
| certain SCOTUS ruling you couldn't even claim a refund on
| that tax for your residence state's tax return (and even
| after, that refund is taxable).
|
| California is already considering a wealth exit tax that
| would apply 10 years worth of tax nexus to anyone who
| leaves the state. I'd complain about this more, as it goes
| against the whole concept of freedom of movement... but the
| US already does the same thing. Emigrate from the US and
| you'll still be expected to pay US taxes on foreign income.
| I've heard there's a rule that exempts you from said taxes
| if you spend the entire tax year outside the US. Some
| people also take the really risky step of throwing out
| their US citizenship... which is actually grounds to be
| permanently banned from entering the US for any reason if
| they find out that you did so for tax purposes.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > it goes against the whole concept of freedom of
| movement
|
| Freedom of movement is free as in _libre_ , not free as
| in _gratis_. "You owe taxes if you leave" isn 't a
| violation of freedom of movement.
| jdmichal wrote:
| I worked for a company based in NY and had to certify
| every year that I worked in NY state for less than 10
| days a year. If I couldn't make that certification, then
| I would have owed the state taxes.
| pests wrote:
| In the case of Americans outside the US... You can write
| off foreign taxes paid up to a limit on the American
| side.
| sneak wrote:
| Yes, but not the income so taxed, beyond the foreign
| earned income exclusion, which is relatively low.
| kbenson wrote:
| > Emigrate from the US and you'll still be expected to
| pay US taxes on foreign income.
|
| That's because you still have U.S. citizenship. You can
| give that up and not be taxed, as I understand it.
|
| Also, it looks like there are provisions to give you
| exclusions on your foreign income,if you have any.[1]
| That seems sane to me, if you live their the whole year
| and that location is your tax base, then you can exclude
| all the income from their in your U.S. taxes. But living
| elsewhere won't protect you from U.S. taxes if you still
| have the benefit of U.S. citizenship and make a lot of
| money from the U.S.
|
| California considering a wealth exit tax seems a bit
| different on first glance, but I could see it making
| sense if it's somewhat similar in use. If you make your
| money from California and continue to after moving from
| there to elsewhere, that money being eligible to be taxed
| by California because otherwise it's extracting the
| benefit of California's laws and markets without paying
| into the system that provides them.
|
| 1: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-
| taxpayers/fore...
| shard wrote:
| > it looks like there are provisions to give you
| exclusions on your foreign income,if you have any
|
| The foreign income exclusion is not that high, especially
| if you are a mid career tech worker ($107,600 for 2020),
| and you will be double taxed on amounts above the
| exclusion. But at least you can skip California state
| taxes if you count as a nonresident.
| kbenson wrote:
| I guess that's the decision to make. Do you pay extra to
| keep your U.S. citizenship active, or do you renounce
| citizenship to pay less?
|
| I'm sure different people will have different ideas of
| what that's worth, but it's available as a choice. People
| that opt not to renounce citizenship have obviously
| decided it's worth it to not do so, whether that be
| keeping future options open, or because they know they
| plan to return. $100k is a lot of money, even if in many
| locations its less than a mid-career tech worker salary,
| so I'm not sure I have any objections to this.
| ljf wrote:
| As a Brit, I can work wherever I can find work (and
| legally work) around the world, earn a fortune and not
| pay any tax in the UK, /and/ keep my citizenship. I only
| would pay tax to the UK on income I earn here (which in
| itself leads to all kinds of strange and dodgy scenarios
| in terms of people avoiding paying taxes here)
| alpha_squared wrote:
| This is ultimately political and comes down to
| perspective and opinion. As a citizen, you benefit from
| many things of your home country regardless of whether or
| not you reside there. Such as, for example, your home
| country's ability to exert pressure on the government of
| where you reside when you're unjustly arrested/detained.
| There's also access to the consulate of your home country
| and all services you have access to from the resident
| country. All of that stuff is funded somehow and it can
| seem unfair that only those who live within the home
| country's borders fund those things while those who
| reside elsewhere get to take advantage of it all without
| paying anything into it.
|
| For Americans, for better or worse, its very large stick
| (the military) affords its citizens all sorts of benefits
| while traveling/living abroad.
| FooHentai wrote:
| There's also the behaviour it incentivises - if you've
| moved abroad and intend to stay there long term, secure
| citizenship there and renounce your American citizenship
| to avoid double taxation.
|
| The USA isn't exactly hurting for new citizens and it's
| probably desirable to have expats incentivised to
| deliberately relinquish their passports.
|
| Mind you I'm looking at this from the perspective of here
| in New Zealand, where there's regular media stories about
| Australia deporting NZ citizens who moved over there as
| kids and ended up criminals. There's no incentives to
| relinquish an NZ passport so Australia can revoke their
| citizenship, deport, and they become NZs problem.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| _if you've moved abroad and intend to stay there long
| term, secure citizenship there and renounce your American
| citizenship to avoid double taxation_
|
| That should be "intend to stay there forever", since
| renouncing your USA citizenship is typically permanent,
| once you renounce citizenship, it's difficult or
| impossible to regain it.
| vmception wrote:
| If you've ever driven to a different county to get cheaper
| gas, or chose a house in a certain municipality to get a
| lower property tax, or purchased nearby for a lower sales
| tax, or didn't compute it yourself to send to your state
| after an online purchase, it's the exact same thing.
|
| This has been reinforced by the Supreme Court who could
| find no distinction between any socioeconomic class
| optimizing their tax burden, no matter how accessible the
| privilege becomes for some.
|
| > Perhaps it's naive of me,
|
| I think it would be considered naive to elevate the greed
| of the state over the greed of an individual. Your current
| train of thought doesn't seem to factor it in at all, it
| seems more like "if this kind of authority asks, because I
| respect it, I must comply" which makes me wonder where the
| limits are. Any state? Any due process outcome? Any
| percentage? Would you consider to read the state's law to
| discover that you are not subjected to the payment in many
| circumstances that you can create? To me, thats where the
| naivete lies.
|
| My current thoughts on taxes are that the state
| incentivizes certain kinds of transactions. And if you
| don't engage in those kind of transactions then the state
| taxes a percentage of the remainder. The percentage of the
| tax being a deterrent, as it would prefer you put your
| money to use in other ways so that you never pay it.
| Spending, investments, etc. Which this logic its not about
| imagining that you are passively paying for roads and
| schools (you aren't, you are paying interest on the funds
| the state borrowed from the international markets to pay
| for the roads and schools that were already going to be
| paid for regardless, the ones that would be neglected would
| still be neglected). This is most directly seen with the
| old healthcare fine: if you don't have healthcare through
| an employer and don't pay for the affordable care act plan
| then you pay a $1,000 tax. They are incentivizing you to
| shift capital to certain areas of the economy, with the
| fallback being the state. This will be a more productive
| way for you to think of all transactions with the state.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| It really depends on your priors. If you think California
| is lighting the money on fire or taxes are theft, it is
| pretty easy to justify.
| Lammy wrote:
| Have you ever worked for a Delaware corporation in a state
| other than Delaware?
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| I would allow them to move to avoid paying less, but put a
| 15 year time limit on moving back.
|
| If you move back before, you pay the original tax?
|
| The same for corporations who move to the lowest taxed
| country.
|
| Apple wants to pay Irish tax rates, then pack up CEO, CFO,
| and all employees in management positions and move to
| Ireland and Zoom. Your troops can stay here.
|
| (Your first few big pay days should be exempt from all
| taxes though, especially if you can prove your were poor,
| or middle class in the previous 10 years? I've never felt
| it was fair for a guy whom got lucky in business, or life,
| having to pay a big tax; especially if they were scraping
| by in previous years. Am I saying the poor unemployed guy
| who one the lottery shouldn't have to pay any tax on that
| first lottery win in life, or business---yes. Our social
| safety net is so terrible here, it can't be an excuse to
| tax new found wealth. America does not help out it's poor
| well enough to tax those first few big pay days.)
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| Of course it's greedy, but on the other hand wouldn't you
| be crazy to not try to get out of paying millions in taxes?
| Johnny555 wrote:
| Though it's not millions in this case, the top marginal
| tax rate in CA is 12%, so he's saving at most $850K if
| this was a one-time $7M payment.
|
| Not sure that 12% is worth picking up my family and
| moving to another state if that's the only reason to
| relocate. CA and WA weather and lifestyle is much
| different than what he saw in Southern California (I'm
| guessing that's where he lived since he was in the music
| industry).
|
| I made that move (from SF Bay Area to Seattle) about 5
| years ago (but for work, not taxes), and I'm thinking
| about going back to CA for the milder winters.
| vmception wrote:
| You only have to relocate for a maximum 6 months and 1
| day. As in, your US address needs to be in the lower tax
| state.
|
| So, if its after June when your windfall hits, that
| particular option is removed and you have to focus on
| offsetting deductions.
|
| But it resets January 1, every year :)
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| 850k is worth moving to another state for a year,
| especially if this is not repeatable income, but that's
| just me.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| I think it'd have to be more than a year if you really
| want to escape taxation. If you leave the state, earn
| $7M, then move back a year later, California is going to
| be taking a close look at when you actually earned that
| money.
|
| Though moving is easier and cheaper for a single person
| living in an apartment than someone with a family and
| house.
| sushid wrote:
| If it's legit, why does it matter? Presumably that
| person's song took off and they were able to forecast
| that they'd make $X, which was worth the move to WA.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| If he's moving to escape taxation, it's not legit (in the
| eyes of the Franchise Tax Board), and if he did the work
| while he was living in California, they're going to want
| (and almost certainly will get) their share.
| Varriount wrote:
| No, because (again, ideally) those taxes are going to be
| used to benefit the common good.
|
| Trying to get out of paying them would be like saying,
| "of course I should get help from everyone else for
| education, housing, infrastructure, etc., but goodness
| forbid I actually return the favor later on so that
| others get the same benefit!"
|
| Anyway, it's not like such taxes take away so much of
| your earnings that you're left with a pittance. At some
| point you have to ask yourself, "is the amount of
| happiness I gain from keeping this amount of money worth
| more than the various things it will be spent on, and the
| benefit it will give to others?"
|
| (I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode, "The Last of The
| Red Hat Mamas, where Mr Burns pledges to donate money to
| a children's hospital, but then uses it extend his own
| life instead - by 10 minutes[0])
|
| It's a sign of the sad state of things that taxes are
| treated more like throwing money away, than being a
| resource used for the common good.
|
| [0] https://youtu.be/-Icbia3fDuY?t=45
| whycombagator wrote:
| > I get to hear about how he's working with his mentor to do
| vocal production on a track getting pitched for Maroon 5, The
| Chainsmokers, etc. Sometimes the tracks take -- the artist
| likes them and decides to move forward. Usually they don't and
| it's a lot of getting your hopes up for nothing
|
| This lines up with stories I've heard from a friend who had
| some success in the music industry (2 gold records), was signed
| to a major label, then dropped so went into song writing.
|
| It's a hyper competitive industry to operate in
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| I have a few friends in the business and they are basically all
| broke except for one. Music is like the game industry. Hits
| based and there are far more talented people pursuing it than
| there are hits. Being talented isn't enough, you need to be
| well connected, good looking, lucky, etc. The internet has made
| it better than ever to carve out a niche and get a few thousand
| fans, but it's still hard to get people to choose you over the
| millions of other things screaming for attention.
| offtop5 wrote:
| The music industry is much worse in my opinion. If you spend
| half your life learning to program so you can make games, you
| can always give up at 38 and start working on boring
| enterprise software.
|
| If You're a 38-year-old self-taught musician you can't
| exactly walk into a company and get a job.
|
| I still make music as one of my main hobbies, but I've
| accepted that no one will ever know who I am, and I'll never
| make a single cent. There's nothing in the world like making
| a song for your friends though.
| jfengel wrote:
| That is precisely the story of a close friend. It really
| messed her up for several years. She was genuinely
| amazingly talented but her band never managed to be in the
| right place at the right time.
|
| She did land on her feet, after literally going all the way
| back to college as a freshman. (She was fortunate to have
| the resources for that.)
|
| Best anecdote though, on the 18 year olds who she
| befriended in the program: "The good news is they think I'm
| 28. The bad news is they think that's old."
| sorokod wrote:
| In what way are they "crazy talented" if they dont author the
| lyrics or the music? Is it meant cynically to describe the
| situation where the performer is just packaging for someone
| else's talant?
| hammock wrote:
| They kind of say: "look good, sound good."
|
| Having worked in this industry myself, is it definitely a
| talent to have good stage presence, good presence in front of
| a videocamera, photogenic and modeling skills. Not to mention
| charisma when dealing with radio and TV interviews, fanbase,
| etc.
|
| It's also a talent to sing well, to sing consistently, to be
| able to channel inflection and emotion on command in a studio
| or on a stage.
|
| There is more to being a pop star than the songwriting.
|
| (Note I'm saying all this while still holding huge respect
| and value for the songwriters and producers themselves. I'm a
| total music fan.)
| sorokod wrote:
| But that was always the case. I have the (perhaps
| incorrect) impression that over time, pop performers
| perform someone else's materials more and more.
| aspaceman wrote:
| I would argue that it has waxed and waned. 50s most music
| was written by a composer. Have a songwriter behind a big
| name like Frank Sinatra. 60s has a surge of bands
| producing their own music in a smallish crew (Beatles,
| Beach Boys). But then arena rock was tightly controlled
| by the industry, but then Nirvana and grunge got big.
| philmcc wrote:
| It wasn't really always the case. If you scroll back, so
| to speak, a generation or so, the further and further you
| get, the less necessary it was to win the trifecta of
| being Attractive, A Dancer, and a Live Performer. Let
| alone songwriter. There's only so many people that are
| all 4 and you know all of them by name.
|
| You could be VERY plain looking, and unable to dance at
| all, and chart in in 1965.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Fred Astaire's original audition allegedly was noted as:
| "can act, can sing, can dance a little."
| mywittyname wrote:
| Being able to dance, sing, and play an instrument at the
| level expected by 10s of thousands of people, each paying
| hundreds of dollars per ticket is pretty damn talented. To be
| able to keep up that level of performance, basically every
| day, for almost a year, while sleeping in a bus and eating on
| road is crazy levels of talent.
| khazhoux wrote:
| Maybe singing, dancing, playing instruments, overall
| performing, or even producing?
| mettamage wrote:
| I think it was meant in the way that performers need to be
| talented in singing, performance, charisma and dancing. Stuff
| like that. Singing well isn't easy, doing all of these things
| is way harder still.
|
| Disclaimer: I have perfect pitch since I was a kid, can hold
| a note when singing, made a lot of music as a kid (guitar and
| electronic), had some singing lessons and yet I'm at best a
| fun karaoke singer to listen to when you're drunk.
| [deleted]
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| Alternatively:
|
| "Pop stars ask for share of future revenue from covers of songs
| they make famous."
|
| "Producer who brings amazing sound to good lyrics asks for share
| of future revenue."
| S_A_P wrote:
| It seems as though this is not a well understood issue from
| reading the comments here. This isn't artists doing interviews
| and saying "I wrote this". The problem is that the artists are
| bullying their way into getting points for the song writing
| credits (publishing royalties) when they had little(change a word
| in the lyrics) or no input into the song.
|
| I fully support artists getting as much of the live
| performance/merch/appearances money as they can. If they did not
| write a song they should not be getting paid for songwriting. All
| of the justifications in the article dating back to Elvis Presley
| show how long the business has been slimy.
| samfisher83 wrote:
| If Rihanna sings your song it might have a much greater chance
| of being a hit.10% of a million dollars is better than 100% of
| 10000 dollars. You just have to do the math and figure if its
| worth it or not.
| strunz wrote:
| Yes, this is well covered in the article.
| dehrmann wrote:
| I always thought the artists make token edits to the songs so
| they can keep up the charade of writing their own songs for
| marketing reasons.
|
| Someone told me "Taylor Swift writes her own songs." Sure, but
| when you look at the songwriters on 1989, over half of them
| were at least co-written by the song writer with the most #1
| hits after McCartney and Lennon.
| Ntrails wrote:
| Looking at Folklore on wikipedia Antonof or Dessner are on
| most of the tracks. Do I think she took a couple of Indie
| music people to help her write/produce etc songs in a new
| style? Clearly. Does that actually mean she just added a word
| here and there though?
|
| Trying to infer whether on not Taylor Swift writes her own
| songs based on consistent collaborators seems odd to me.
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| Swift writes her own music. She works with collaborators and
| producers but she writes her own music. Dessner sent her
| instrumental tracks that she turned into folklore (writing to
| track), it was similar with Antonof. This isn't a marketing
| charade, she's literally a songwriter first.
|
| She has included song-writing voice memos that show the
| progression of how she wrote certain songs on 1989 and the
| documentary "Miss Americana" clearly shows her songwriting
| process (as does this collection of clips from an AT&T promo
| she did for Reputation https://youtu.be/I4WlSnWtkt8).
|
| Liz Rose, who co-wrote some of Swift's earlier songs
| (including the much-loved, "All Too Well"), described the
| process of working with her as editing [1], something all of
| her other collaborators have said too.
|
| There are a lot of pop stars who get a writing credit for
| doing very little on a track but Taylor Swift isn't one of
| them. If anything, she's been quite clear that her success is
| directly tied to her songwriting. Her voice alone (especially
| as a teenager) wouldn't have made her a star. It was her
| songs, paired with her voice and her personality that made
| everything work.
|
| [1]: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/bp/swift-
| collaboration--...
| WalterBright wrote:
| There are a lot of rock singers whose talent isn't actually
| singing. Neil Young, for example. His songwriting and
| arrangements are so good one doesn't notice he doesn't have
| a good voice for singing.
| emodendroket wrote:
| I looked this up and while some of her older hits were just
| credited to her, a really impressive number of them were co-
| written by Liz Rose, who I've never even heard of.
| spoonjim wrote:
| Could it be a pseudonym for someone whose image would
| suffer if they were seen to be writing Taylor Swift songs?
| apetresc wrote:
| No... just Google "Liz Rose"
| emodendroket wrote:
| No, she's a very successful country songwriter. Can't see
| why she wouldn't want the association.
| spoonjim wrote:
| What if it's someone like Eminem?
| emodendroket wrote:
| Well you can search for her on Google and find her photo
| and tons of personal details. So I consider that
| unlikely.
| vagrantJin wrote:
| > I looked this up and while some of her older hits were
| just credited to her
|
| Haha. "Some". I think if we dove deeper we'll find that
| number shockingly close to zero.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| She wrote her whole third album alone.
| emodendroket wrote:
| Two of six tracks on her first album. Didn't check the
| others.
| aantix wrote:
| This parallels my entire experience with comp-sci and "group"
| projects.
| andrewzah wrote:
| This is a large reason behind why I switched to programming
| after receiving a bachelors in media arts. I've had bad
| experiences with people claiming work they didn't do, and
| getting away with it because they knew people.
|
| ...and programming pays better, anyhow.
| TuringNYC wrote:
| My favorite was in grad school -- six weeks into a final
| project, the professor emailed us "we noticed one of your
| assigned group member's name was missing from the project
| mid-term report". We were all like huh? What 5th group
| member? This person was assigned to our random group at week
| 0 and had never bother to even introduce himself in five
| weeks! Free rider galore.
| tolbish wrote:
| Well now I'm curious. How was the situation resolved?
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| One of the most fair way to handle group projects grading was
| in my capstone business management course. At the end, the 6
| of us each had to (privately) rank everyone else according to
| their contribution, and the assessment by your peers was 20%
| of the grade for the project.
|
| Because someone _had_ to come in last place, it eased a lot
| of the tension and created a much more pleasant group
| dynamic:
|
| - The free-rider(s) were perfectly okay with jumping on the
| grenade, filling the last-place spot, and knocking 20% off
| their final grade in exchange for doing very little work and
| still passing the class.
|
| - The lazier people who _did_ care about their grade were a
| bit more motivated to contribute than they otherwise would
| 've been.
|
| - The go-getters who wanted to ace the class felt like they
| were fairly compensated for doing most of the heavy lifting.
| mettamage wrote:
| I wonder how a group of pure go-getters would fare on a
| grade structure like this.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| We had a fairly similar grading program in my IT capstone
| project. The professor made it clear that if a group had
| either a total grifter or was an all-star team exceptions
| could be made. We had to give lots of presentations and
| question and answer sessions. It was generally pretty
| clear to the entire class which students were slackers
| and couldn't answer questions and which ones knew their
| stuff.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| >> If they did not write a song they should not be getting paid
| for songwriting.
|
| What does "write the song" mean though? You hear lots of remix
| and cover versions of famous songs which are obviously
| derivative works, but what if that happens before the song is
| ever published? What if a song writer creates a song
| specifically for an artist? Do these stylistic influences count
| for writing credit? The line is not well defined.
| antasvara wrote:
| I think the line is pretty well defined. If a songwriter
| writes a song specifically for an artist, that doesn't
| indicate any less skill and definitely doesn't mean the
| artist added anything meaningful. That song could have just
| as easily (as in the Elvis example) been recorded by another
| artist. That's akin to saying that I took inspiration from
| the Harry Potter books, so I should give JK Rowling a cut of
| my book deal.
|
| As for remixes and covers, I'd say that if there was a change
| made that significantly altered or changed the song, it would
| be considered involvement. It seems that from the article,
| remixing or changing the song to the point where you would
| consider it substantially different is enough for a share of
| publishing revenues.
|
| Bottom line is that while it's still subjective, most
| musicians and songwriters would have no trouble recognizing
| if someone else had a substantial impact on the final
| product.
| toss1 wrote:
| >>That's akin to saying that I took inspiration from the
| Harry Potter books, so I should give JK Rowling a cut of my
| book deal.
|
| Yup, just to be clear in that case, if you are writing
| about the characters JKR created, with their attributes,
| personas, and/or backstories, you are fully expected to
| license the characters and pay royalties to JKR. You are
| specifically utilizing her copyrighted works for profit,
| even if you don't use a single line of pre-existing
| dialogue.
|
| This is why we don't have a million non-Disney Mickey Mouse
| stories, media, videos, etc. - Disney owns the copyright on
| not only the specific prior works but also the characters.
|
| No question, influence and creative origin count, and
| should be compensated.
| vasco wrote:
| Mickey mouse went to the store. On the way there he
| slipped on a banana peel and fell.
|
| No royalty paid.
| egypturnash wrote:
| Start making money off of that and Disney will come
| knocking.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I think there are clear cases where someone did or didn't
| write a song, but there are also very blurry areas in the
| middle (and these areas are where the debate actually
| matters). My impression is that it's not uncommon for
| people at many stages in the audio engineering and music
| production to change things that may or may not be
| considered part of "writing the song."
| mc32 wrote:
| It'd be like movie producers taking a cut from film scores
| or songs because they influenced the score or music.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Or like Gene Roddenberry writing some cheap lyrics to the
| Star Trek theme so he'd get a 50% split of the publishing
| with composer Alexander Courage.
|
| The lyrics were never used. Because the lyrics were never
| _supposed_ to be used.
| emodendroket wrote:
| In fact a number of hits were originally composed with a
| different artist in mind who declined.
| DanBC wrote:
| It's about paying people for the work they do.
|
| This page has a reasonably accessible description of who does
| what and why they get paid:
| https://www.openmicuk.co.uk/advice/music-royalties-
| explained...
| rob74 wrote:
| However I think being able to say "I (co-)wrote this" also
| plays a part - especially in Elvis' time, actual singer-
| songwriters were probably held in greater esteem than artists
| that were just "parroting" songs others wrote for them, so
| giving the impression that they were involved in writing the
| songs may have been important from that perspective too...
| analog31 wrote:
| Indeed, and it goes back before Elvis. Screwing popular
| songwriters of their royalties has been a fixture of the music
| business since time immoral. From what I've read, Jelly Roll
| Morton's publisher added his own lyrics to Morton's
| instrumental tunes, to get a cut of the royalties. And it goes
| back before the recording industry. Before the phonograph, the
| "music business" was sheet music, there were "stars," and sheet
| music composers experienced all of the shenanigans that we
| associate with the music business today.
| arp242 wrote:
| Gene Roddenberry added lyrics to the theme song of the
| original Star Trek series - which were never actually sung in
| the opening credits - just so he could get part of the
| royalties.
|
| The entire system seems incredibly open to bad faith abuse.
| oytis wrote:
| > since time immoral
|
| I like this typo.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Me too - but what would it mean? A long time or a short
| time?
| ggm wrote:
| "You can leave your hat on"
|
| "You don't have to put out the red light"
| nyczomg wrote:
| I assume it means a time length for as long as the times
| have been immoral.... So perhaps it means since the dawn
| of mankind?
| beambot wrote:
| _Time immemorial_ : "extending beyond the reach of
| memory, record, or tradition, indefinitely ancient,
| ancient beyond memory or record."
|
| _Immoral_ : "an agent doing or thinking something they
| know or believe to be wrong."
| globular-toast wrote:
| Freudian slip maybe.
| gen220 wrote:
| An interesting correlation is that songwriters used to be
| popularly-famous. Cole Porter, George Gershwin, Irving Berlin
| stick out.
|
| But I can't confidently name a single songwriter from the
| last 50 years, aside from the ones that were predominantly
| popular performers and recorded-music artists (Roger Waters,
| Lennon/McCartney, James Taylor).
|
| To me, not knowing any better, this suggests that songwriters
| had more economic self-determination within the music
| industry, which translates into influence and cachet, in the
| 1920s than they do in the 2020s.
|
| Today, again as an outsider, it seems like publishers and
| managers have an outsized influence, because they control the
| economics more than any other entity in the system.
| parenthesis wrote:
| It depends how well-known you have to be to be well known,
| but for some level of well-known, off the top of my head:
|
| Leiber and Stoller, Ashford and Simpson, Nile Rodgers and
| Bernard Edwards, Rod Temperton, Diane Warren, Desmond
| Child, and Max Martin are well known songwriters from more
| modern times.
|
| However, their hits are _much_ better known than they are,
| compared to the great American songbook guys. Although
| there are other very successful songwriters from that era
| with less name recongnition, for example, Johnny Mercer or
| Harry Warren.
| offtop5 wrote:
| At least in hip hop, if you have a falling out with your
| ghost writers they'll make an effort to expose you.
|
| For example Quentin Miller here wrote tons of songs for
| Drake. https://genius.com/artists/Quentin-miller
|
| Ghost producing is also a thing, I've heard stories of a
| producer getting $700 or $600 for fairly popular track
| because the the actual song is credited to someone else.
|
| Hell, in hip hop it's not unheard of for bigger artist to
| outright steal ideas and concepts from underground artists.
| Then you can remake the song as your own, and if you decide
| to reach back and compensate the original artist that's
| okay but as far as I can tell you'll very rarely get into
| legal trouble.
|
| Case in point
|
| https://www.bet.com/music/2018/06/26/childish-gambino-
| this-i...
|
| It's so easy to become successful if you just steal ideas
| from people
| iams wrote:
| It's not like 10% of sales goes to the song writer, so the
| artist changing a word means that the artist gets and
| additional 1% and the song writer only 9%. Surely at the point
| of producing a contract everyone negotiates the split and signs
| the contract if they are happy with the deal.
| exactlysolved wrote:
| Sorry, but this is wrong. First of all the rates for
| publishing royalties are standardized and typically wouldn't
| be renegotiated on a song-by-song or project-by-project
| basis. So it _is_ very similar to '10% of sales goes to the
| song writer'.
|
| Equally important is the fact that a share of publishing
| means a share of all sorts of royalties which aren't
| negotiated case by case. For example for playing the song on
| the radio, in restaurants, on TV shows, etc. But even more
| insidiously, it applies to cover versions. So if Elvis
| Presley gets a 50% songwriting credit, he will then take 50%
| of the portion due to the songwriter on any version recorded
| or played live by anyone (who hasn't added the 'Presley
| magic'), at any time in the future.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Few people are ever happy with a contract. That's why it's a
| contract in the first place. If everyone were happy, there'd
| be no need to make breaking the terms of one actionable.
| S_A_P wrote:
| Think of it as separate pies. Album sales will be split into
| at least 3 pieces. Album sales are the first pie. Firstly the
| label will have to recoup cost of production, sample
| clearance, video production etc to recoup. The producers and
| songwriters will likely get paid here as well, but the artist
| will get paid only after it recoups. Fuzzy math comes into
| play here and 10 million selling albums may never recoup...
|
| Next there is the mechanical royalties that come from radio
| play, streaming, licensing agreements, etc. Those largely go
| to the owner of the composition(e.g. songwriter) from 25% up
| to 90ish percent depending on the publishing deal.
|
| The live performance aspect is where the artist can rake it
| in if they play things smart. The live show largely goes to
| the artist(* _as long as there is not a 360 deal in place*_ )
| They can charge what they can get, and sell merch at the
| show. If they produce their own merch they can probably net a
| nice profit. If they let a merch company "handle it for them"
| they will see 10 cents on the dollar or less. Artists can get
| into trouble if they make their shows too big and would only
| break even/run at a loss.
|
| 360 deals are a particularly insidious anti artist beast.
| Basically the label throws their might behind the artist and
| gets a large cut of ALL aspects of the money they make being
| an artist.(live shows,merch, everything) I suspect many of
| the big names at least start out in a 360 deal these days,
| and may have negotiating power once they become Taylor Swift,
| Lady Gaga or Ariana Grande.
|
| Songwriters probably have the least negotiating power in this
| situation. When an artist has 50 songwriting teams throwing
| tracks their way, a suboptimal deal may _have_ to be accepted
| just to have a shot at making the album. While I am not
| saying songwriting is not a talent(it most certainly is),
| unfortunately more people have said talent than there are
| A-List stars.
| teknopaul wrote:
| Everyone loves the free market up the point of monopoly. Same ol
| story different bizniz. IMHO since the fall of the Wall
| Conservatives have stopped bothering to justify the free market
| as providing for all and have adopted Monopoly as a right of the
| rich. As if they earned their monopoly. The truth is more that
| government corrupt^M^M^M lobbying, has permitted it.
| reedjosh wrote:
| If it were a truly free market the entire music business would
| have to collapse or adapt as copyright wouldn't be a thing.
|
| I personally just try to exit the whole system. I love
| https://freemusicarchive.org/.
|
| I would love it if culture wasn't driven by pure profit and
| homogenized into bland predictability.
|
| FMA also provides a way to donate directly to artists.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-31 23:01 UTC)