The biggest secret in the music industry

[Bilbo]

The issue is that the writer of a song, say Morrison and Moondance (assuming he wrote it ), gets his royalties not only from his version but every other version. Now for Moondance that is 1,000s of versions. But for a tune like, say, that Wet Wet Wet thing that went mental (I feel it in my fingers, la la la). The original was mildly successful and went awaty whilst the remake was massively massive. And yet the original songwriter gets the lion's share of the royalties.

PS I really don't care about any of this

[SteveK]

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1389282005' post='2332327']
The issue is that the writer of a song, say Morrison and Moondance (assuming he wrote it ), gets his royalties not only from his version but every other version. Now for Moondance that is 1,000s of versions. But for a tune like, say, that Wet Wet Wet thing that went mental (I feel it in my fingers, la la la). The original was mildly successful and went awaty whilst the remake was massively massive. And yet the original songwriter gets the lion's share of the royalties.

PS I really don't care about any of this
[/quote]
I can see how you may think that it's unfair, and I do know that Reg Presley thought he had won the lottery when WWW covered his song.
I personally think its unfair that it can take me weeks, and sometimes months, to write a song that is ultimately crap and doesn't stand a hope in hell... while others can write a multi million selling classic in 10 minutes

[flyfisher]

Yeah, but poor old Reg (obviously not 'poor' in a financial sense ) blew it all on UFOlogy didn't he?

Still, his money so fair play to him.

[Bilbo]

I think that is the point. Some arranger can spend four times the time it takes the writer to put the song together and to make it presentable and then the songwriter gets all the kudos. SOme songs seem to fall from the ether (I have done them in 30 minutes from conception to recorded) whilst others are agonised over for weeks months or even years. But they all have the same 'market' value. There is a lot of luck involved, I think (althought the harder we work at it, the luckier we get).

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1389282005' post='2332327']
The issue is that the writer of a song, say Morrison and Moondance (assuming he wrote it ), gets his royalties not only from his version but every other version. Now for Moondance that is 1,000s of versions. But for a tune like, say, that Wet Wet Wet thing that went mental (I feel it in my fingers, la la la). The original was mildly successful and went awaty whilst the remake was massively massive. And yet the original songwriter gets the lion's share of the royalties.
[/quote]

But the WWW version wasn't really in any way superior (or even very different) to the original. It was just a more modern recording by at the time popular band that featured in a successful movie. As others have said without the original song there would have nothing in the first place and if the covering artist/producer/film soundtrack organiser thinks that their contribution adds something extra to the original song they can negotiate for royalties or a one-off payment as they think appropriate.

[skankdelvar]

Where a songwriter's sole income is from speculatively writing and selling songs I don't detect any unfairness in the system. For every song that 'sells' there may be a hundred gathering dust on a shelf.

But even when they 'sell' a song, the songwriter's income is deferred (unless they take a fee). They may have written the best song in the world but their chances could be scuppered by a poor interpretation, record company incompetence, inadequate promotion, radio station indifference or just plain bad luck. Either way, they get nothing until (a good while after) the product sells.

By contrast, pretty much all the other participants are remunerated for a specific, discrete task. They are offered a job and can decide whether to take it on the terms offered.

The recording studio and personnel get paid according to their rates; the session players, arrangers and producers are (usually) on a fee; the performer enjoys income from live appearances; the management skims off the top and take kickbacks; crikey, even the performer's [i]dealer[/i] gets cash on the nail.

By contrast, the professional songwriter's back in his attic, hoping for some royalties one day and chopping out more ditties. It must be a very uncertain and insecure form of self-employment.

Edited January 9, 2014 by skankdelvar

[lowdown]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1389287993' post='2332439']
The recording studio and personnel get paid according to their rates; the session players, arrangers and producers are (usually) on a fee; the performer enjoys income from live appearances; the management skims off the top and take kickbacks; crikey, even the performer's [i]dealer[/i] gets cash on the nail.
[/quote]

Not to mention all the Dog & Duck Bands getting wedged up for covering the songs.

Edited January 9, 2014 by lowdown

[paul_5]

[quote name='lowdown' timestamp='1389295335' post='2332576']
Not to mention all the Dog & Duck Bands getting wedged up for covering the songs.
[/quote]

in the case of 'moon dance' for example…