It seems to me that, just because someone wrote the lyrics and the body of the song, they automatically get all the credit (with the exception of Macca and Lennon who, at some point, made a pact to share the credit despite who might have actually wrote it).
What about when Ringo would come up with a fluent drum accompaniment? If it was a Paul song, maybe he didn't figure out how the drums should be, but Ringo came up with a riff.
--why doesn't Ringo get a credit for it?
Or what about when George comes up with something while fiddling with the lead guitar? Surely his solos are unique to him, not invented by either Lennon or McCartney.
well when it comes to the crediting its generally who came up with the original chords and lyrics (idea) and whatever comes after that like drums, arrangements,weird sounds is the next process.
what about all the bands that put all there names to every track is it right to give them all credit when really its only one of them sitting at home writing the original song ideas down while the rest get nights off to party,relax and then come put a quick guitar part or whatever over it ?
remember its the original ideas that matter everything else after that is icing on the cake, if the original idea is poor then it dont matter how you dress it up its still gonna be poor, and for that alone the the credits should go to the person/persons sitting thinking it up.
if an architect designs a home, and then when its built, painters and decorators come into the house, it would still be credited to the architect.
I see what youre argument is coming from but the most input in lennon/mccarntey songs come from lennon and mccartney, and to give equal credit to all of them would be wrong as it wouldnt be true, and the same goes for any harrison songs, and it wouldnt look right if it was credited as lennon/mcartney 75% Harrison 15% starr 10% if you know what a mean?
We've discussed this elsewhere, but George and Ringo got a percentage point or two each of songwriting credit on each song for their contributions to the Lennon/McCartney songs written for Dick James publishing (Later Sony/ATV).
It seems to me that, just because someone wrote the lyrics and the body of the song, they automatically get all the credit (with the exception of Macca and Lennon who, at some point, made a pact to share the credit despite who might have actually wrote it).
What about when Ringo would come up with a fluent drum accompaniment? If it was a Paul song, maybe he didn't figure out how the drums should be, but Ringo came up with a riff.
--why doesn't Ringo get a credit for it?
Or what about when George comes up with something while fiddling with the lead guitar? Surely his solos are unique to him, not invented by either Lennon or McCartney.
Isn't that bullshit?
I just TOTALLY agree with this above. I've often thought about that. I think Macca was the most guilty of this kind of thing...don't get me wrong, I love the guy, but he could be a rapacious s.o. b. especially when it came to George...I mean, good example to me is how George enhanced Paul's "Paperback Writer" with that great guitar riff(that I bet my last dime Harrison invented)(just an educated guess)
I think Macca was the most guilty of this kind of thing...don't get me wrong, I love the guy, but he could be a rapacious s.o. b. especially when it came to George...I mean, good example to me is how George enhanced Paul's "Paperback Writer" with that great guitar riff(that I bet my last dime Harrison invented)(just an educated guess)
No argument there. He practically writes George out of his bio, so the Beatles become a Lennon/McCartney act. (The worst offence is the quote about how Yellow Submarine had "only two new Beatles songs", but there are many other examples.) Paul was always the most worried about his public image, but his hysteria over being overlooked is irritating given his history and unfair to the other people who helped him along the way.
It has always annoyed me how John and Paul both go to great lengths to clarify how much of a Lennon/McCartney song is Lennon or McCartney (80/20, 50/50, whatever)-- as if no one else has ever contributed to this song. Since they wrote most of the Beatles originals, it gives the impression that the other Beatles really were standing around doing nothing. Their body of work pre-, during- and post-Beatles puts the lie to this (as do the session tapes), but the public perception is that the Beatles are Lennon, McCartney... and some other guys. I think Paul has actively worked hard to build this perception, so that view might in fact win out in the historical record.
Quoted from fendertele
remember its the original ideas that matter everything else after that is icing on the cake
I started a diatribe on this statement the other day; let's see if I can be more focused today. To me, ideas are the least of an artistic effort. In writing, you can't copyright an idea, only the expression of it. Music is all about expression. That's why you have separate copyrights for the music and the arrangement. Paul can copyright his song "Paperback Writer", but it could well be a lame effort without the appropriate music to make the idea fly. It's a matter of taste, of course, but compare Badfinger's "Without You" to Harry Nilsson's-- the expression, the arrangement made Nilsson's version into a worldwide hit. I love Badfinger but, come on guys, that version of the song has none of the emotion that made Nilsson's soar.
All you've got to do is choose love. That's how I live it now. I learned a long time ago, I can feed the birds in my garden. I can't feed them all. -- Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone magazine, May 2007
For all I know, Ringo might be a yogi disguised as a drummer! - George Harrison
no what you propose is the bull mess...take for instance you can't always get what you want by the stones...the choir made that song better.....should the back ground singers be listed too???or the sound man?the influence?websters dictionary for the language?the photographers who shoots the album cover?why not the people that sired the band?the producer? take a clue from chuck berry having his stuff released...he has alan freed listed on credits because the guy produced them...he did not help write them...if you give a credit to everyone that helped you couldn't read a label....thats what linear notes are for...then you got the wanna get paids...even if they help a little don't they deserve something??no i say.... it is liking making a mop better.....did you invent the mop?no,you only improved it....no big deal i say...you'll recieve your credit if you personally follow thru...thru self all things are realized!! then what if they don't wanna be mentioned and then later do?????????? i think the conception of the rough origins should get the credit...i never thought of john as being totally involved with get back,that was pauls thing..why should john get credit?other than law mandated...paul busted his a**.... the core should get the credit...
No argument there. He practically writes George out of his bio, so the Beatles become a Lennon/McCartney act. (The worst offence is the quote about how Yellow Submarine had "only two new Beatles songs", but there are many other examples.) Paul was always the most worried about his public image, but his hysteria over being overlooked is irritating given his history and unfair to the other people who helped him along the way.
It has always annoyed me how John and Paul both go to great lengths to clarify how much of a Lennon/McCartney song is Lennon or McCartney (80/20, 50/50, whatever)-- as if no one else has ever contributed to this song. Since they wrote most of the Beatles originals, it gives the impression that the other Beatles really were standing around doing nothing. Their body of work pre-, during- and post-Beatles puts the lie to this (as do the session tapes), but the public perception is that the Beatles are Lennon, McCartney... and some other guys. I think Paul has actively worked hard to build this perception, so that view might in fact win out in the historical record.
I started a diatribe on this statement the other day; let's see if I can be more focused today. To me, ideas are the least of an artistic effort. In writing, you can't copyright an idea, only the expression of it. Music is all about expression. That's why you have separate copyrights for the music and the arrangement. Paul can copyright his song "Paperback Writer", but it could well be a lame effort without the appropriate music to make the idea fly. It's a matter of taste, of course, but compare Badfinger's "Without You" to Harry Nilsson's-- the expression, the arrangement made Nilsson's version into a worldwide hit. I love Badfinger but, come on guys, that version of the song has none of the emotion that made Nilsson's soar.
yeah but Harry Nilsson's version is still credited as written by Pete Ham/Tom Evans, and thats why i was saying the credits should go to the person or persons who sat and cam up with the original idea, as without the original idea the rest would never came about, without paul sitting writing paperback writer george wouldnt have been able to have written the same guitar line to that identical song ?
Guys, sorry, I wasn't clear. I'll try again briefly-- because I'm supposed to be working!
1. Copyright for song. Legal thing. Winner (writer) takes all. Goffin-King, Lieber-Stoller, Pete Ham/Tom Evans, Lennon/McCartney, etc etc. I'm not trying to change the legal definition of copyright.
2. Performance or musical arrangement. Legal thing. Artist adds his unique contribution to an existing work. Anyone performing anything in their own way, anywhere. It's recognized as a unique contribution, so you get $$ for it.
I think the fuss is this thread is entitled "Songwriting credits" and there's all kinds of credit. There's the legal stuff above, and there's also monetary or personal acknowledgement. Paul gave the guy $$ who came up with "Obladi-Oblada" because it was his phrase. He didn't legally have to; he wanted to acknowledge the guy for the phrase (or perhaps he was trying to head off a lawsuit; who knows? I don't think the English are as litigious as Americans, who are obsessive about it).
It seems to me that, just because someone wrote the lyrics and the body of the song, they automatically get all the credit... What about when Ringo would come up with a fluent drum accompaniment? ... --why doesn't Ringo get a credit for it?
Credit doesn't have to be put on the copyright or paid in $$. It can be a written thing, like the acknowledgement section of a book. I know it can read like an Oscar speech, but it's where the author acknowledges all those "little people" who helped make the book a success. Some musicians try to list all their contributors on their album notes, for the same reason. It's civilized. It's polite. It's fair to acknowledge the folks who've helped contribute to your success.
The "credit" that bothers me is the complete lack of acknowledgement of the other 2 Beatles to Lennon/McCartney songs. I'll state that the distinctive sound was what made most of these songs a hit ("Elanor Rigby" being a good example of a song that stood on its own without the Beatles "sound"). It annoys me that, in all their interviews, John and Paul say "I did this and I did that" and "that one's all mine" and never acknowledge the others' contributions. Did I just miss it? I see Ringo getting credit for the terms "Hard Day's Night" and "Tomorrow Never Knows". That's about it.
George tells this story in "I Me Mine" as a joke--how he'd come up with this chord progression, showed it to John, and John nicked it for his next song! George does the tune, John does the words, the credit goes to Lennon/McCartney. We don't even know what song this is, because George and John don't tell us. The early, working, growing Beatles weren't particularly concerned. It's only after they got to squabbling that they got so anal about establishing credit.
Does this type of acknowledgement matter? Well, let's ask John. I count 2 separate diatribes in his last Playboy interview against George for not acknowledging John in his book. You all know the quote:
Quoted from John Lennon
I was hurt by George's book, 'I, Me, Mine' ...so this message will go to him. He put a book out privately on his life that, by glaring omission, says that my influence on his life is absolutely zilch and nil. In his book, which is purportedly this clarity of vision of his influence on each song he wrote, he remembers every two-bit sax player or guitarist he met in subsequent years. I'm not in the book."
What John complains about is not literally true. I can find no sax players in the book, and the two-bit guitar players are Clapton and Hendrix, among hosts of other singers and players who happen to factor into the song in any number of ways. (There's no "clarity of vision" in the book, either-- more a random "here's what George said into Derek's microphone that day while they happened to be drinking tea". It was a vanity publication of his scraps of lyrics put into a nice leather book; that's what George says in the intro and that's all it was intended to be.)
George's 'I, Me, Mine' had come out only 2 months before John was interviewed, which was why the hurt was so fresh in John's mind. And he was hurt. He wanted George to say more about John's influence than he did. (George doesn't say much about anybody's influence; Bob Dylan, who George adores, got 2 mentions in the whole book, as opposed to a dozen for John.) In a later interview, George says that what John was really annoyed about was not getting credit for the lines he contributed to "Taxman". Considering George mentions his mom and Ringo each contributing a line of lyric, I think this was a valid complaint on John's part (of course, we have no way of knowing if other contributors were passed over; many of these song notes (such as "Taxman"s) are 2 lines long).
Should George have acknowledged John? Absolutely! It would have been polite and fair. But... should John and Paul have also acknowledged George? I have to say, "Absolutely" again. Was George deliberately writing John out of his book in revenge for all those snubs over the years? First, John isn't written out more than anybody else (I still think George's wives get first dibs on feeling snubbed if they want to) and second, I doubt it. George's tone is amused, the Beatles business well behind him. He relates some happy as well as crabby anecdotes of the Beatles, and mentions Paul affectionately as "our Paul" (earlier that year George had written him an encouraging note while he was in the Japanese jail). At this time, George wasn't in the middle of any drama. He was busy working on his new album and funding The Life Of Brian. I think John wasn't in his mind much because they hadn't had any personal contact (save occasional phone calls) since 1974.
John wasn't asking for money from George. What he wanted was the simple acknowledgement of his contribution. I think that's fair and right. And I wish that John and Paul in turn could have been gracious enough to acknowledge the contributions of their fellow band members.
All you've got to do is choose love. That's how I live it now. I learned a long time ago, I can feed the birds in my garden. I can't feed them all. -- Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone magazine, May 2007
For all I know, Ringo might be a yogi disguised as a drummer! - George Harrison
No argument there. He practically writes George out of his bio, so the Beatles become a Lennon/McCartney act. (The worst offence is the quote about how Yellow Submarine had "only two new Beatles songs", but there are many other examples.) Paul was always the most worried about his public image, but his hysteria over being overlooked is irritating given his history and unfair to the other people who helped him along the way.
It has always annoyed me how John and Paul both go to great lengths to clarify how much of a Lennon/McCartney song is Lennon or McCartney (80/20, 50/50, whatever)-- as if no one else has ever contributed to this song. Since they wrote most of the Beatles originals, it gives the impression that the other Beatles really were standing around doing nothing. Their body of work pre-, during- and post-Beatles puts the lie to this (as do the session tapes), but the public perception is that the Beatles are Lennon, McCartney... and some other guys. I think Paul has actively worked hard to build this perception, so that view might in fact win out in the historical record.
Hari, I agree...in reading the book again, Paul's conspicuous insecurity about songwriting credit becomes a glaring annoyance--especially when this insecurity seems totally unwarranted. Paul's legacy is secure, yet he feels an almost neurotic need to constantly remind us of his greatness among the pantheon of rock gods that it begins to make one of the greatest composers of the 20th century look petty. I began to tire of his constant "80/20 me/John, 70/30 John/me" equations, although the book has many high-points when his out of control ego wasn't involved.
I started a diatribe on this statement the other day; let's see if I can be more focused today. To me, ideas are the least of an artistic effort. In writing, you can't copyright an idea, only the expression of it. Music is all about expression. That's why you have separate copyrights for the music and the arrangement. Paul can copyright his song "Paperback Writer", but it could well be a lame effort without the appropriate music to make the idea fly. It's a matter of taste, of course, but compare Badfinger's "Without You" to Harry Nilsson's-- the expression, the arrangement made Nilsson's version into a worldwide hit. I love Badfinger but, come on guys, that version of the song has none of the emotion that made Nilsson's soar.
Yes, I always loved the passion of the Nilsson version of this Pete Ham's classic. Harry definitely made it his own--now one of his two great signature songs (along w/ "Everybody's Talking")
(loved Harry's "The Point" music, as well as his earlier music such as "I Guess The Lord Must Be in Nyc").
I just TOTALLY agree with this above. I've often thought about that. I think Macca was the most guilty of this kind of thing...don't get me wrong, I love the guy, but he could be a rapacious s.o. b. especially when it came to George...I mean, good example to me is how George enhanced Paul's "Paperback Writer" with that great guitar riff(that I bet my last dime Harrison invented)(just an educated guess)
well paul enhances george's something with his bass part.... where is the official credit for that? should be a harrison/mccartney credit? no?
actually most of george's beatles songs have great bass contributions from paul...
paul was such a rapacious s.o.b that he actually took the time and effort to make george's beatles songs all that much better
a little off-topic, but is George's "I, Me, Mine" autobiography worth reading?
We'll sneak this in quick...
I try to read most Beatles books in the library first, if I can. Then, if I like them, I buy them. So see if you can find IMM in the library. Seriously, it takes an hour to read; George summarizes his entire life in about 50 pages. I found it interesting, but because it's such a stream of consciousness thing, it helps if you know what else is going on at the time, to put it in context.
All you've got to do is choose love. That's how I live it now. I learned a long time ago, I can feed the birds in my garden. I can't feed them all. -- Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone magazine, May 2007
For all I know, Ringo might be a yogi disguised as a drummer! - George Harrison
i like the way a lot of bands do it and put all the band members names to there songs,but as ive said it is understandable if the person who has sat for days or weeks coming up with the idea and working on it till its done wants lone credit next to the song.
I've actually felt that George Martin got blatantly snubbed for songwriting credits on certain (if not many) songs -- two that come to mind are In My Life, in which he did the piano solo (I think that was his basic composition), and Benefit of Mr. Kite -- the funky psychedelic part in the middle with all the jumbled up sound effects (I think it was Mr. Kite, anyway).
The idea that 'we all know who did what, so it doesn't really matter who got credit' is beside the point. Songwriting credits = $$$ to those credited.
There was a discussion on whether George Martin should get songwriting credits for Yesterday, last year. We also discussed the matter in the Fifth Beatles section: http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/m-1140552856/
I've actually felt that George Martin got blatantly snubbed for songwriting credits on certain (if not many) songs -- two that come to mind are In My Life, in which he did the piano solo (I think that was his basic composition), and Benefit of Mr. Kite -- the funky psychedelic part in the middle with all the jumbled up sound effects (I think it was Mr. Kite, anyway).
The idea that 'we all know who did what, so it doesn't really matter who got credit' is beside the point. Songwriting credits = $$$ to those credited.
I don't agree with this hypothesis. The song is basically the lyrics and the music to go with it. If somebody comes up with a guitar or piano solo or a recognizable riff that does embellish the song, it is an arrangement. It is not the song itself.
I've actually felt that George Martin got blatantly snubbed for songwriting credits on certain (if not many) songs -- two that come to mind are In My Life, in which he did the piano solo (I think that was his basic composition), and Benefit of Mr. Kite -- the funky psychedelic part in the middle with all the jumbled up sound effects (I think it was Mr. Kite, anyway).
The idea that 'we all know who did what, so it doesn't really matter who got credit' is beside the point. Songwriting credits = $$$ to those credited.
Mustard, soloists don't get songwriting credit for writing a solo, no matter how 'intricate' it is. In a band, the lead guitarist (or keyboard player, etc.) usually "writes" the solo, but is rarely given writer's credit because it isn't considered integral to the song (regardless of how "good" or distinctive it is). One of the reasons why is because a solo is often considered improvisation, and the song structure must already exist in order for the improvisation to exist. Another soloist might go in a completely different direction with the solo, and yet it might be just as effective. An Arranger also doesn't get songwriting credit for arranging, even though arranging is "writing". George Martin contributed, as all producers do, and may have played piano and perhaps should have gotten credit for performing the solo (assuming he hasn't) but it's inappropriate to give him songwriting credit for contributing a piano solo.
There was a discussion on whether George Martin should get songwriting credits for Yesterday, last year. We also discussed the matter in the Fifth Beatles section: http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/m-1140552856/
George Martin arranged the string section. To the best of my knowledge, he didn't have a hand in writing the song (Please correct me if I'm wrong). Someone who arranges a string section wouldn't get songwriting credit because the song structure, in it's entirety, must exist before the string arrangement can exist. The string arrangement, (or guitar solo, or sax solo, or keyboard part) is entirely dependent on the song, which is why the contributers of such do not automatically get song writing credit. They contribute, and their contribution is noted elsewhere, but well think of it like this: If Paul played 'Yesterday' live in concert, accompanied by just his guitar, minus the strings, would you still expect to see George Martin's name on it?
The answer would be no. Because George Martin didn't write the song, he arranged the string section.
I don't agree with this hypothesis. The song is basically the lyrics and the music to go with it. If somebody comes up with a guitar or piano solo or a recognizable riff that does embellish the song, it is an arrangement. It is not the song itself.
This is entirely correct. That's why the contributors of such do not automatically get songwriting credit.
LOL. I read the preceding posts, which were perfectly clear to me, and you obviously misunderstood, and I wonder if you intentionally go through life being thick?
LOL. I read the preceding posts, which were perfectly clear to me, and you obviously misunderstood, and I wonder if you intentionally go through life being thick?
JJS, as the person you quoted is no longer on the forum I'm going to leave your unnecessarily rude comment here for others to judge you by. Please refrain from speaking to people like that in the future. Thank you.
I just want you to reassure him - talk to him, make him see the error of his ways. Then I'll hit him.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Buttmunker
Male
Female
BlueMeanie
Logged
