Bet they're kicking themselves now

[BigRedX]

11 minutes ago, knirirr said:

This article describes something that seems to me to be appropriate for the thread:

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/6231899/Hank-Marvin-We-should-have-taken-Harrisons-advice-and-sung.html

 

For those who don't subscribe to the Torygraph, could you give us the gist of the article?

[Rich]

5 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

Most of the time if you are hired as a session musician, you are there simply to play. And get paid a one-off fee simply for playing.

 

Errm yes, I know. I've been doing this music malarkey long enough to have realised that. 

[MacDaddy]

1 hour ago, Grimalkin said:

 

The article may be online but I think it was in Q magazine. So maybe not. It exceeded his expectations, put it that way.

 

I wouldn't mind my expectations being exceeded in that way! 😆

[Grimalkin]

11 minutes ago, MacDaddy said:

 

I wouldn't mind my expectations being exceeded in that way! 😆

 

It's not what you know, it's who you know.

[mikel]

7 hours ago, Barking Spiders said:

Just wondering about big mistakes bands, individuals and companies have made especially when turning something down thinking it wasn't going to do much biz. The bloke who turned down The Beatles is probably the most obvious one. I just tuned into Planet Rock briefly and heard how Herbie Flowers was paid just £17 as a flat payment  for laying down the bassline to Walk on The Wild Side while Lou Reed must have been raking it in due to its often being sampled especially on Can You Kick It by a Tribe Called Quest, which is one of the best known and most played tracks in hip hop.

Walk on the Wild Side has an upright and an electric bass. Apparently when one slides up to the note the other slides down. Hence the sound. If you are a session musician you get the going rate. 

[knirirr]

3 hours ago, BigRedX said:

 

For those who don't subscribe to the Torygraph, could you give us the gist of the article?

 

I don't subscribe to it either (nor do I have any plans to do so) and was able to read the whole thing. Here's some of the text:

 

With hits like Apache, Kon-Tiki and Dance On, The Shadows remain the most successful instrumental band in British music history.

However, their career could have taken a very different turn if they had listened to Harrison.

Marvin encountered the Beatles guitarist in 1965 shortly after The Shadows released Don't Make My Baby Blue, a rarity for them because it featured vocals.

He recalled: "I bumped into George Harrison in Abbey Road studios and he told me how much he loved the single. 'Take my advice,' he said, 'forget about being an instrumental group and follow up on the vocals.'

"We didn't. We were idiots. Nice boys, but idiots. I remember we talked about it after I'd had that conversation with George - can't remember the substance of the debate but with hindsight we probably didn't apply very sound reasoning."

[bartelby]

4 hours ago, Rich said:

 

 

Would that be Eddie Han Valey now?  

 

FFS! Dyslexia strikes again!

🤦‍♂️

[bass_dinger]

6 hours ago, Grimalkin said:

..... they asked him to sing that little part on the intro.....

If I remember rightly, he sung "I want my MTV " to the tune of "Don't stand so close to me" in the outro. 

[Nail Soup]

18 hours ago, BigRedX said:

Which AFAICS is entirely Andy Summer's fault for not asking for a share of the songwriting on that particular song in the first place. There are other songs on the album (and other Police albums) that he is credited or co-credited as writing. At the time of writing it probably wasn't immediately noticeable what an important part of the song the guitar was going to be. After all traditionally songwriting credits go to the lyricist and whoever come up with the vocal melody. Not that this arrangement is applicable these days.

Have to disagree here. Not Summers fault, it's the fault of the systems which determines payment. When a snippet is taken out of context of the song, credit should go (at least partly) to who composed the snippet, not wholly to who composed the song.

 

And asking for a share of the songwriting credits "in the first" place is only possible for originals situation were the songwriter takes the song to the band or players. 

 

 

[BigRedX]

2 hours ago, Nail Soup said:

Have to disagree here. Not Summers fault, it's the fault of the systems which determines payment. When a snippet is taken out of context of the song, credit should go (at least partly) to who composed the snippet, not wholly to who composed the song.

 

And asking for a share of the songwriting credits "in the first" place is only possible for originals situation were the songwriter takes the song to the band or players. 

 

The "systems" merely distribute the songwriting royalties according to the wishes of the songwriters and their publishing contract(s). Any "injustice" has nothing to do with them.

 

Since both other members of the Police have song writing credits and co-credits for song songs on all the albums (mostly on the less good songs - so it is obvious what a talented songwriter Sting was at the time), we can only assume that at the time of writing the guitar riff wasn't considered important enough to the overall sound of the song to warrant Andy Summers getting credit. Also it's not as though he was a young naive musician at the time, and didn't realise the importance of getting a writing credit. What did surprise me was how few credits Stuart Copeland gets; I would have thought that with his brother managing the band he would have been able to negotiate better split for himself at least.

 

This is why anyone who thinks they are contributing a major part to the writing of a song should insist that their contribution is recognised.

 

And also why for the last 30 years every originals band I have been in, has split all the writing credits equally between the members of the band at the time the song was written. That was there are no disagreements, especially over the choice of which songs to record and release, since whatever we choose everyone benefits equally.

[jezzaboy]

Re Every breath. I either read or saw an interview with Andy where he said that it was indeed his riff and that he was quite happy with the deal that him and Sting came to over it`s use. I don`t think Andy is at the poor house knocking on the door.

[Dad3353]

[Nail Soup]

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

 

The "systems" merely distribute the songwriting royalties according to the wishes of the songwriters and their publishing contract(s). Any "injustice" has nothing to do with them.

 

Since both other members of the Police have song writing credits and co-credits for song songs on all the albums (mostly on the less good songs - so it is obvious what a talented songwriter Sting was at the time), we can only assume that at the time of writing the guitar riff wasn't considered important enough to the overall sound of the song to warrant Andy Summers getting credit. Also it's not as though he was a young naive musician at the time, and didn't realise the importance of getting a writing credit. What did surprise me was how few credits Stuart Copeland gets; I would have thought that with his brother managing the band he would have been able to negotiate better split for himself at least.

 

This is why anyone who thinks they are contributing a major part to the writing of a song should insist that their contribution is recognised.

 

And also why for the last 30 years every originals band I have been in, has split all the writing credits equally between the members of the band at the time the song was written. That was there are no disagreements, especially over the choice of which songs to record and release, since whatever we choose everyone benefits equally.

I think you are missing my point.

The songwriting is irrelevant in certain cases. If you wrote the bit of the arrangement that is being used, you should get credit/payment even if it's not a significant component of the song.  The system needs to be changed to not focus on the songwriter. The song-writer focus of the system is wrong, not Andy Summers or whoever.

 

Imagine if a band writes a song... let's say the singer wrote it. The original version released has no guitar solo. But live the guitarist does an improvised solo - different each time. There is no way that can be considered part of the song using current standards of defining a song.  A few bars of one instance of that solo then get used for a TV theme tune... then IMO the guitarist should get all or shared credit/cash.

 

Or a reggae version of a Beatles song with a completely different bassline. The bassline is used for something else... bass player should get credit, without having to get the song recredited to Lennon/McCarney/Shakespeare.

 

 

[ThirteenDevils]

Back when Red Bull was a small start up company a friend of ours who had a wine import business turned down the chance to become the UK distributor. error! 

[mikel]

The credit/money split is usually agreed between the band members, unless it is a solo artist session musicians. Or it could get ridiculous. "I decided to hit the cowbell on that beat, in that middle 8, soI want credit and more money." 

[Grimalkin]

I always wondered if "Ready" Freddie Washington was paid a flat fee for what he contributed to Patrice Rushen's: "Forget Me Nots". Turns out he was credited as co-writer, which is only good and right considering what the line does for the track, it's where it's at.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpHwfckZ7SU

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Washington_(bassist)

[chris_b]

The difference has always been between writing the song, arranging the song and playing on the song. Arrangers get paid per arrangement and writers get their deals, sometimes flat fees and sometimes percentages and session players get their rate. Apparently A list players in the US got 2 times the rate.

 

The problem writers are now seeing in the US, is publishing companies have opened up a lucrative revenue stream by suing writers of hit songs for using parts of arrangements, chord structures, rhythms etc.  Up to now these have never been deemed "original" and have never been protected by copyright.  The US jury system is being use to change these "rules" and start awarding co-writing credits and spurious royalties where they were never awarded before. These publishers have discovered a new way to make millions.

 

A few years ago, the US session players were given a chance to get a slice of the royalties if they could prove they played on a record. An extra pension payment that came too late for many of them.