NOT The biggest secret in the music industry

[chris_b]

When Sting bought Roxanne to the band it was a rhumba!

Copeland and Summers knocked it into the shape we all know.

Hardly hired hands.

[gjones]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1389368405' post='2333473']
I disagree. Copeland and Summers' styles are too distinctive.
[/quote]

And I'm sure they would both 100% agree with you

[uncle psychosis]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389356354' post='2333184']
I'm not convinced about 'right and proper' but it is consistent, which is why I find it curious that we're generally happy to slag off bankers' bonuses while admiring Noddy Holder for making half a million, or whatever, every Christmas on the back of something he did 30 odd years ago.
[/quote]

The reason I object to Banker's bonuses is because quite often they are based on complete and utter fantasy accounting and they get paid out on the basis of hideously short-cited and short-term targets rather than any kind of long term worldview.The year Lehman Bros went bust they owed less than they had paid out in bonuses that year! Don't even get me started on the concept of giving someone a massive pay-out to no longer work for you either...

At least Slade can demonstrate the continued success of their work, year after year. You can't say that about the likes of Fred Goodwin.

[skankdelvar]

It seems to me that the issue of sidemens' fees is a murky one. Was it not the case that Mr Matthew Fisher recently obtained 40% of the back royalties for Whiter Shade Of Pale even though his noodlings were clearly derived from a couple of Bach basslines? No matter; their Lordships gave him the thumbs-up.

In any event, this whole copyright issue is occluded by issues of 'fairness' and 'appropriate reward'. But what's the alternative? A reversion to the system of patronage, where authors, artists and musicians solicited funds from the Great and Good? Or from Princes and Dukes? Or The Church?

It would be amusing to watch a queue of BassChat's Godless, lefty musos trying to hawk their ditties at the Vatican's back-door. I imagine His Holiness would enjoy having the handwringing bleaters on the end of a string:

'Well, yore Majesty, you gave all that cash to Michelangelo and ... er ... Vivaldi. Bung us a ten-spot and I'll do you a song about how awful the world is.'

The current system is eminently democratic insofaras it rewards merit in direct proportion to the public's enjoyment. It should be extended to all aspects of life.

Edited January 10, 2014 by skankdelvar

[Dad3353]

It's perhaps just as well that truck drivers, spot welders and sundry other industries have not (yet..?) cottoned on to 'earning' a life-long revenue for work already achieved and paid for.

[Sammers]

Heh, was reading about this song the other day!

Here's another article that explains the current situation. Well I say current purely based on the publishing date haha;

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/sting_puff_daddy_andy_summers_and_the_case_of_the_misplaced_bajillion_dolla

[FinnDave]

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1389359718' post='2333255']
Some people seem to be very much undervaluing signwriting here,
[/quote]

A good friend of mine is a signwriter, I am sure he'd agree with you!

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389372874' post='2333546']
It's perhaps just as well that truck drivers, spot welders and sundry other industries have not (yet..?) cottoned on to 'earning' a life-long revenue for work already achieved and paid for.
[/quote]

Amount of people who will pay a truck driver to do a journey he's already done and been paid for: [b]0[/b]
Amount of people willing to pay to hear 'Every breath You Take' multiple times: [b]Lots[/b]

[Dad3353]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1389373099' post='2333553']
Amount of people who will pay a truck driver to do a journey he's already done and been paid for: [b]0[/b]
Amount of people willing to pay to hear 'Every breath You Take' multiple times: [b]Lots[/b]
[/quote]

...and that makes it right. OK, then.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389373693' post='2333559']
...and that makes it right. OK, then.
[/quote]

Reality can be a harsh mistress.

[UglyDog]

Dad, would you still be convinced that royalties were the work of Satan if you had written Bohemian Rhapsody or Imagine?

[Dad3353]

[quote name='UglyDog' timestamp='1389373819' post='2333566']
Dad, would you still be convinced that royalties were the work of Satan if you had written Bohemian Rhapsody or Imagine?
[/quote]

...and not only royalties..! That there 'Satan' has one hell of a lot to answer for, imo and e..!
To answer the question honestly: yes I would, but I'm not as money-oriented as most, I think. In any case, that changes nothing from a moral standpoint. If I replied differently, that would only indicate that I'm as 'bad' as everyone else.
I'd have less of a problem with this if I could understand what reasoning allows one person's hour's work (ie: part of their life, gone...) to be 'worth' more than another's. To my mind, paying all these sums means someone else is being sold short. The value of money is not artificial, it's someone's time (their life...) being undervalued. No, it's not only royalties...

[TimR]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389372874' post='2333546']
It's perhaps just as well that truck drivers, spot welders and sundry other industries have not (yet..?) cottoned on to 'earning' a life-long revenue for work already achieved and paid for.
[/quote]

But they do. If their work lasts a lifetime, they should be charging such. Single one offs that last forever but are enjoyed by many should get more reward than something you knock out day after day and only one person gets the benefit for maybe 5 years before additional work is necessary.

[Jus Lukin]

-

Edited February 19, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[BigRedX]

Dad3353, stead of wasting your time arguing unsuccessfully against the royalty system for songwriters, why don't you get out there and write some songs of your own?

[Jus Lukin]

-

Edited February 19, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[Earbrass]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389374465' post='2333581']
I'd have less of a problem with this if I could understand what reasoning allows one person's hour's work (ie: part of their life, gone...) to be 'worth' more than another's.
[/quote]

The "reasoning" is done by the consumer of the product of the person's work - how much is it worth to them? Some people will produce nothing worthwhile with their hour's work, while others will produce something a lot of people want. In general, one isn't paid for one's time but for what that time produces.

[skankdelvar]

[i](Edit for: Concise version above. Nice work, Mr Fatback.)[/i]

Well, the simple answer is that people don't actually buy other peoples' time. They buy a product or a service from which they expect to derive [i]an outcome[/i].

Rather than peoples' time or lives being undervalued, it is the case that some outcomes are viewed as more valuable than others. Hence Mr Sting would get a lot more for an hour's work singing for one person than a plumber would get for his plumbing. But reverse the situation and I doubt Mr Sting would get more than the plumber's rate if he turned up at one's door to fix that leaky tap.

Now there's the question of time and customers. At a gig, Mr Sting is able to have thousands of customers in the room at any one time. The plumber has only one.

Additionally, Mr Sting can generate money in more than one place at one time [i]and in his absence[/i] - e.g. when his music is played on the radio or TV or on countless gramophones up and down the country. Each of these 'sales' is microscopically less than he might charge to appear in one's front room but it all adds up.

Thus, in any one hour, Mr Sting can generate more income than a plumber without his (Sting's) customers feeling they have been overcharged or sold short. If they're happy, he makes his money.

Is he more important or valuable than the plumber? Not at all, for the plumber's customer is probably happier when his tap is fixed than someone who has just listened to a Sting song.

But the plumber has only one customer who expects to pay about £40-80 for a fixed tap (ymmv) and he has competitors who keep prices low. OTOH Mr Sting has millions of customers he doesn't have to visit and isn't in a competitive market for identical services.

So it's not a case that people are undervalued (bad thing) but that different circumstances create different results (good thing, unless insanity is to prevail)

Hope this clears it up

Edited January 10, 2014 by skankdelvar

[Dad3353]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1389375146' post='2333592']
Dad3353, stead of wasting your time arguing unsuccessfully against the royalty system for songwriters, why don't you get out there and write some songs of your own?
[/quote]

What makes you think I don't..?

...and why the 'either/or'..? Cannot one be right [i]and [/i]artistic..?

[Dad3353]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1389375671' post='2333600']...Hope this clears it up [/quote]

Indeed, and I have been somewhat aware of all this for some time now. The OT was the apparent 'unfairness' of this wonderful system most here seem to be supporting; I was merely indicating that, imo, the whole lot, baby, bathwater and talcum powder, are wrong, and deserve jettison. That's all. I realise that it's like waving sausages at vegetarians; such is my wont. Sad..? Quite so...

Edited January 10, 2014 by Dad3353

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389375694' post='2333601']
What makes you think I don't..?
[/quote]

It is a fact known to every schoolboy that drummers generally do not write songs. Those few offerings which spring to mind mostly comprise the works of Mr Sandy Nelson and Mr Cosy Powell.

Only the mentally negligible would instance Mr David Grohl, for his submissions can be characterised as mere 'words and chords'. Mr Peart wisely restricts himself to lyrical input and opinion is sharply divided as to their merits.

On the whole, drummers should confine themselves to hitting things and fiddling with those funny little keys they carry around with them; better to leave the 'heavy lifting' to the melodically qualified.
[color=#ffffff].[/color]

Edited January 10, 2014 by skankdelvar

[UglyDog]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389375993' post='2333605']
The OT was the apparent 'unfairness' of this wonderful system most here seem to be supporting;
[/quote]
OK, leaving aside the Sting/Summers argument -- to whom is the royalties system, as it stands, 'unfair'? Who is being penalised if the scribbler is paid per unit shifted rather than by the hour? The artist certainly isn't. So who is? In a nutshell, why exactly is it unfair and who is it unfair on?

[Dad3353]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1389376582' post='2333613']
It is a fact known to every schoolboy that drummers generally do not write songs. Those few offerings which spring to mind mostly comprise the works of Mr Sandy Nelson and Mr Cosy Powell.

Only the mentally negligible would instance Mr David Grohl, for his submissions can be characterised as mere 'words and chords'. Mr Peart wisely restricts himself to lyrical input and opinion is sharply divided as to their merits.

On the whole, drummers should confine themselves to hitting things and fiddling with those funny little keys they carry around with them; better to leave the 'heavy lifting' to the melodically qualified.
[color=#ffffff].[/color]
[/quote]

Ah... So you [i]have [/i]heard my stuff, then..? Hmm...

[TimR]

If everyone's time is equal. How do you work out how much a 10mile taxi ride is worth?

It takes a half hour if the taxi drivers time but saves the passenger 2.5 hours of walking time.

What about the doctor who diagnoses something in a 5minute consultation that results in the patient living many more years.

Surely there is wiggle room or I think it's called barter.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1389356855' post='2333197']
Aren't their motives a bit different, though? The general assumption - correct or not - seems to be that the bankers who receive these huge bonuses are simply making money-for-the-sake-of-money, and that they are driven by greed, and the knowledge that if they make the bank richer, the bank will make them richer.

Much as I can't stand Slade, most people might assume that Noddy, on the other hand, wrote that song more for the love of the music he was making, and probably didn't envision that people would still be singing along to it at the office christmas party 30 or 40 years later.

I'm sure that both assumptions are gross oversimplifications, but it might explain that particular quirk of popular opinion.
[/quote]

Who really knows their motives though? I'm sure plenty of artists only do it for the dream of becoming ludicrously rich, as I'm equally sure the opposite applies and they do it purely for the love of their art.

I'm in no way trying to to condone bankers but I am interested in the inconsistencies about how we judge these sorts of things. Perhaps there's a bankers forum somewhere where they all think that banking bonuses are perfectly fine but it's unfair that countless musicians are millionaires from a few hours work 30 years ago?

I guess my point is that we all have different points of view but true fairness can only really be attained when things work the same way for everyone no matter from which perspective they are viewed from. Anything else is one rule for some and another rule for others - which is generally only deemed acceptable if you happen to be a beneficiary.