The lyrics 1956 to present
-
toris wrote:
Yankeefan2 wrote:
toris wrote:
Firstly, Happy New Year All.
My understanding of songwriting is that original composers get all the credit... regardless of whether the song is enhanced by a solo guitarist... or the drummer... or whatever... that's their job to do that...
There is a many a song which is defined by the signature guitar (hello Andy Summers and Brian May), which has not allowed that guitarist to get a songwriting credit... and many bands whose "sound" is defined by the guitar.
That's why I respect bands that give equal songwriting credit to all the members of the band.
The solo to My Love is gorgeous... but I don't think it warrants a songwriting credit. That song would have hit number one without it.... the essence of writing that song, in my mind, is far greater than the resultant solo... the solo came from the song, not the other way around.
A song can be defined by signature guitar solo but the question is who wrote it. In your example, did Summers or May write the solo or did the main composer of the song write it, there is a difference IMO. The original composer still can give songwriting credit to the people who came up with the solo especially if it is a "signature" part of the song.
I think in most cases the composer of the song does not write the solo tabs... that's seen as the job of the lead guitarist... they expect the guitarist to perform his or her interpretation... it's always been the job of the lead guitarist to come up with a brilliant solo... that is their job... this being said, I do 100 per cent agree that if the guitarist has contributed something special, that defines that song, they should be given co-credit.... but... that is not the way the songwriters work... they present the work and they expect the other members of the band to enhance their offering.... I am not saying that is right... it's just the way the music business works...
There are many songs by the Beatles where the solo/rythym guitar is very much part of the song. But it has not influenced the final writing credits of the original composer/s. Some of the great licks in great Beatles songs written by Paul or John were the imagining of George... he wasn't given the lick... he came up with it... but he didn't get a songwriting credit. And on a few occasions, vice-versa.... I'm not saying it is right, though.
I do believe that a guitarist (or even someone on a tambourine) who contribute something that is INTEGRAL to the song should get a credit... they key word being INTEGRAL... something that defines the song.
For example, Rock Lobster... if my mate, Kanye, wrote that song and I was the one who came up with the terrific riff... I'd be peeved not to get a songwriting credit.
Another One Bites The Dust... Taylor Swift, well written... Taylor... but I wrote the definitive bass... do you think she is going to give me a songwriting credit? I deserve it.
Silly Love Songs... now if Paul just wrote the song and I had come up with the magnficent bass line... for that, I would be expecting a songwriting credit.
My Love... a great solo... wonderful... but, for me, it doesn't define the song. No songwriting credit needed. In my opinion.
Which is why I love a band that gets together and splits the credits evenly... I might be wrong, but I think U2 do this... I reckon that is excellent.
Read link below which is interesting and basically agrees with the points you made above. I do think that Paul should have done what the Rolling Stones do and have given Henry a fee for his solo while not actually giving him songwriting credit.
https://lawyerdrummer.com/2017/03/what-constitutes-songwriting/
-
^ Interesting article. Never knew some bands split songwriting credit equally among all members!
-
That's a great article, indeed.... it puts things in perspective....
Musicians are a special breed.... protective of their own creativity... as they should be... no wonder there is so much friction within bands. Especially when it comes to songwriting credits.... which is essentially the 'big money' issue.
Without even referencing particular songs or artists-----
If I was a lead guitaritst... and I've just delivered the greatest solo guitar I could muster, I'd probably be wanting some kind of credit.
On the flipside, if I'd written the song... painstakingly worked out every chord... I'd be pissed off if the lead guitarist (who delivered a 25 second solo on my three and a half minute song) expected a writing credit.
I guess it all comes down to the relationships within the people in the band....
But... not an easy one to define.
-
Yankeefan2 wrote:
I do think that Paul should have done what the Rolling Stones do and have given Henry a fee for his solo while not actually giving him songwriting credit.
Given that Paul was brassic at the time and living off Linda's money, I'm not sure he would have voluntarily given Henry a fee even if he wanted to.
-
toris wrote:
That's a great article, indeed.... it puts things in perspective....
Musicians are a special breed.... protective of their own creativity... as they should be... no wonder there is so much friction within bands. Especially when it comes to songwriting credits.... which is essentially the 'big money' issue.
Without even referencing particular songs or artists-----
If I was a lead guitaritst... and I've just delivered the greatest solo guitar I could muster, I'd probably be wanting some kind of credit.
On the flipside, if I'd written the song... painstakingly worked out every chord... I'd be pissed off if the lead guitarist (who delivered a 25 second solo on my three and a half minute song) expected a writing credit.
I guess it all comes down to the relationships within the people in the band....
But... not an easy one to define.
I agree it is not easy but in the end, I think some kind of fee for providing a solo is a nice middle ground.
-
Kestrel wrote:
Yankeefan2 wrote:
I do think that Paul should have done what the Rolling Stones do and have given Henry a fee for his solo while not actually giving him songwriting credit.
Given that Paul was brassic at the time and living off Linda's money, I'm not sure he would have voluntarily given Henry a fee even if he wanted to.
Paul was what? By the time My Love came out (1973) Paul wasn't living off Linda's money! That was just in late 1969 and early 1970. Then he made his own money from McCartney and subsequent solo albums.
-
NJR wrote:
Kestrel wrote:
Given that Paul was brassic at the time and living off Linda's money, I'm not sure he would have voluntarily given Henry a fee even if he wanted to.
Paul was what? By the time My Love came out (1973) Paul wasn't living off Linda's money! That was just in late 1969 and early 1970. Then he made his own money from McCartney and subsequent solo albums.
Where does the expression Brassic come from?
slang Having little to no money; broke or poor. The term comes from rhyming slang in which "boracic" is short for "boracic lint," which means "skint" (having little to no money). "Brassic" is a slang pronunciation of "boracic." Primarily heard in UK.
I think your right about the timing of Paul's money woes but its also worth remembering that all of Paul's earnings from record sales during his early solo and Wings career went straight into Apple which was effectively tied up in red tape owing to the ongoing legal situation. And that wasn't sorted out until late 1974. Paul would have been earning money from publishing though (which is probably a good reason why he didn't consider paying Henry) which was independant from Apple.
-
Strangely, this coincides with the period where Linda was all of a sudden gifted with the amazing ability to co-write such songs as Uncle Albert, Heart of the Country, Dear Boy, Another Day, etc.... Monkberry Moon Delight... what a delight...
A coincidence, I am sure!
-
toris wrote:
Strangely, this coincides with the period where Linda was all of a sudden gifted with the amazing ability to co-write such songs as Uncle Albert, Heart of the Country, Dear Boy, Another Day, etc.... Monkberry Moon Delight... what a delight...
A coincidence, I am sure!
Ha ha ha ha ... this was good for my morning grin
-
Kestrel wrote:
NJR wrote:
Kestrel wrote:
Given that Paul was brassic at the time and living off Linda's money, I'm not sure he would have voluntarily given Henry a fee even if he wanted to.
Paul was what? By the time My Love came out (1973) Paul wasn't living off Linda's money! That was just in late 1969 and early 1970. Then he made his own money from McCartney and subsequent solo albums.
Where does the expression Brassic come from?
slang Having little to no money; broke or poor. The term comes from rhyming slang in which "boracic" is short for "boracic lint," which means "skint" (having little to no money). "Brassic" is a slang pronunciation of "boracic." Primarily heard in UK.
I think your right about the timing of Paul's money woes but its also worth remembering that all of Paul's earnings from record sales during his early solo and Wings career went straight into Apple which was effectively tied up in red tape owing to the ongoing legal situation. And that wasn't sorted out until late 1974. Paul would have been earning money from publishing though (which is probably a good reason why he didn't consider paying Henry) which was independant from Apple.
No wonder I never heard the word!
This explains the whole mess.
http://www.abbeyrd.net/paullawsuit.html
Apparently they each borrowed money, leaving an IOU!
Paul did credit Linda on the songs on Red Rose Speedway so they would at least receive 1/2 the profits/royalties.
I still don't understand why their solo albums profits wouldn't be their own.
-
NJR wrote:
I still don't understand why their solo albums profits wouldn't be their own.
It does seem unfair doesn't it? I think it was John who said in an interview that he could just sit back, do nothing, and collect 25% of the money made by the other three. Thankfully all four were having a lot of commercial success in the early seventies so when they did split the kitty four ways, it ended up being fairly even anyway.
-
Writing “Eleanor Rigby” By Paul - October 18, 2021