25 ms·
Hit songwriters ask pop stars to stop taking credit for songs they didn't write
- Simulacra 6y agoWow 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!
- dcanelhas 6y agoMaybe 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.
- runevault 6y agoI 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).
- TigeriusKirk 6y agoScreenwriters 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.
- ChrisMarshallNY 6y agoYeah, 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 6y agoThe 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.
- herbertl 6y agoYou may like this piece! https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/03/26/the-song-machine https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/03/26/the-song-machi...
- peapicker 6y agoThis 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/0393353281 https://www.amazon.com/Song-Machine-Inside-Hit-Factory/dp/03...
- jaywalk 6y agoI'd argue that the producers/composers are far more important to pop songs today than the writers.
- nerdponx 6y agoThat'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 6y agoWould there be a revenue stream without the performers?
- nerdponx 6y agoNo? But the point of the article is that the performers already have their own revenue stream.
- yellowapple 6y agoWould there be a revenue stream without something to perform?
- godshatter 6y agoI 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 6y agoWould there be a performer without something to perform?
- stdbrouw 6y agoThat'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.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y agoI 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?
- cmiles74 6y agoIn 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-for-musicians/ https://dittomusic.com/en/blog/music-publishing-explained-fo...
- hn_throwaway_99 6y agoIn 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-are-paid-instead-of-artists https://soundcharts.com/blog/radio-royalties#why-songwriters...
- handelaar 6y agoNo. 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".
- hristov 6y agoThis 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 6y agoAs 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 6y agoWith 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.
- dfxm12 6y agoThey 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.
- croutonwagon 6y agoLabels 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 6y agoThe 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 https://www.insider.com/van-halen-brown-m-ms-contract-2016-9
- teknopaul 6y agoEveryone 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 6y agoIf 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/ 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.
- bioinformatics 6y agoWho's taking claim for WAP?
- SamBam 6y agoSeveral people, all listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAP_(song) 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?
- Kaze404 6y agoI'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.
- youngNed 6y agothat line is actualy a sample from a 1992 song, so presumably frank ski got a cut: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IHUl8CwCvI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IHUl8CwCvI
- Kaze404 6y agoInteresting, I had no idea. Thank you :)
- Rule35 6y agofwiw, 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.
- mmatoscom 6y agoLMAO why dont they sing themselves? Sorry as it seems the lyrics are nothing without the artist performing it, just letters in your notes.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mfer 6y agoWhy 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 6y ago> 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 6y agoImagine trying to sing lyrics you don't know to a tune you don't know.
- mmatoscom 6y agoExactly
- emodendroket 6y agoThat cuts both ways, doesn’t it? Without any songs what does it matter how beautiful your voice is?
- mmatoscom 6y ago
- intrasight 6y agoMy 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?
- pjc50 6y ago> 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 6y agoI suspect that the average is much higher than an SV salary. And the standard deviation is much higher too. More like in sports.
- jonnycomputer 6y agoWell, sure, but the median is probably quite low.
- intrasight 6y agoAgain - similar to sports. Is somewhat of a "winner take all" market.
- dec0dedab0de 6y agono, but maybe we should
- intrasight 6y agoIs simple. Just remove "work for hire" from your contract.
- layoutIfNeeded 6y agoSeriously, who even listens to pop music these days??
- danaris 6y ago"Nobody goes there anymore! It's too crowded!"
- cestith 6y agoDo you know why it's called "pop music"?
- CPLX 6y agoDownloading Tik Tok will quickly disabuse you of any delusion that popular music has faded as a crucial driving force in the culture.
- vardaro 6y agoThe majority of music listeners. It's designed to resonate with the lowest common denominator and capture the widest net possible.
- andygcook 6y agoAs 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 6y agoGeocities, 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 6y agoNever underestimate the pro-capitalist apologists of HN. This forum would insist that Milli Vanilli did nothing wrong and were simply "smart business men."
- smabie 6y agoWho are you responding to?
- dang 6y agoPlease don't post cheap ideological flamebait to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html 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&query=by%3Adang%20sjw&sort=byDate&type=story&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
- blfr 6y agoAre 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 6y ago[deleted]
- analog31 6y agoI'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.
- blfr 6y agoOP 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 £100 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 6y agoBecause 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.
- S_A_P 6y agoIt 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.
- aantix 6y agoThis parallels my entire experience with comp-sci and "group" projects.
- andrewzah 6y agoThis 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 6y agoMy 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.
- msrenee 6y agoMaybe 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 6y ago- 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 6y agoThe 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 6y agoHave 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.
- taylodl 6y agoI 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 6y agoAccording 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-machine https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28789721-the-song-machin...
- rsync 6y agoI 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77Y6CIyyBcI
- BurningFrog 6y agoThe 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 6y agoPerformer do get a share. The question is if performers should get songwriting royalties for songs they didn't write.
- tarsinge 6y agoHaving 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 6y agoAgreeing to share the song writing income is negotiating the contract differently.
- cataphract 6y ago> 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 6y ago
- apercu 6y agoIt 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 6y agoEven more, this is all slightly different (or completely different) based on region, country etc.
- runevault 6y agoIt 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 6y agoThere'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.
- yakshaving_jgt 6y agoFrom 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.
- lordnacho 6y agoA 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.
- karaterobot 6y agoThe 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.
- exactlysolved 6y agoThis 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.
- dundercoder 6y agoI 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.
- adam0c 6y agohere's an idea, why don't they stop writing songs for all these fuck tard talentless factory "pop" stars?
- woofyman 6y agoChange a word. Get a third.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nano-erud 6y agoWhat 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 6y agoArt is indisputably subjective.
- juskrey 6y agoSongwriting 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 6y agoActually they don't. There may or may not be a publishing advance, and a lot of songs do the rounds on spec.
- vagrantJin 6y agoWell, 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?
- rgifford 6y agoA 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 6y agoAnecdote: 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.”
- BitwiseFool 6y agoFascinating, can you share which song(s) he "made it" with?
- tohnjitor 6y agoNice try, California department of revenue
- lowbloodsugar 6y agoAlternatively: "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."
- racl101 6y agoI 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.
- renewiltord 6y agoWell, 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.
- oh_sigh 6y agoMichael Jackson wasn't talented. He had a choreographer.
- khazhoux 6y agoThe 2009 MJ documentary shows he was supremely talented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson%27s_This_Is_It https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson%27s_This_Is_It
- oh_sigh 6y agoOf course he was. I was just reusing OPs same argument that britney's use of a choreographer is evidence that she is talentless
- anm89 6y agoEntering 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.
- 8bitsrule 6y agoSongwriters 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.
- akdor1154 6y agoVietnamese 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.
- globular-toast 6y agoInteresting 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Sweet_Symphony
- TheMagicHorsey 6y agoThis demand ignores the economics of songwriting. The thing in short supply is not catchy tunes and beautiful lyrics. The thing in short supply is the attention of an audience in a world full of distractions. A popstar brings you attention. You bring them the hit song. You will get a smaller share of a huge pie in return. If you wish, you can take a 100% share of a tiny pie and keep your artistic author's integrity. That's the tradeoff.
- musicale 6y ago> Change a word, get a third :D