If you write the (vocal)melody of the song, are you a cowriter of the song?

  • Thread starter Thread starter yetanother
  • Start date Start date
Do like Lennon and McCartney...they agreed to split all the songs they co-wrote 50/50 regardless how much either of them contributed to a song, and in many cases some songs were written just by one of them, but they stuck to their deal, always splitting 50/50...


...then Yoko came along! :laughings:
 
miroslav said:
Do like Lennon and McCartney...they agreed to split all the songs they co-wrote 50/50 regardless how much either of them contributed to a song, and in many cases some songs were written just by one of them, but they stuck to their deal, always splitting 50/50...


...then Yoko came along! :laughings:
Click to expand...

And they all got filthy rich anyway :)
 
Minor notes:

- If you rephrase the original question slightly, it is: "If I wrote part of a song, did I write part of the song?" Well ... yeah.

- How big a "part" of the writing is sufficient to "hold copyright," as they say, is not an obvious or easy question. It has to do with fairly nebulous and not-consistently-thought-out considerations, like distinctiveness and originality. Suggesting that you add a drum roll between the end of the first chorus and the verse probably doesn't make you a co-writer. Giving a suggestion to a songwriter who needs a word to fill the line "a trip to the moon on ---- wings" presumably doesn't either, even if you are clever enough to suggest "gossamer" (anyway, the guy who did exactly that didn't try to collect royalties). On the other hand, I believe there is a case (also involving Cole Porter, though I may be remembering wrong) that held just a rhythmic figure could hold copyright if it were sufficiently distinctive.

- There's quite a bit of history, at least in the early days of rock music, of people being aggressive in claiming copyright based on very minor (if not entirely nonexistent) contributions. Typically, these involved producer-types trying to horn in on royalties as "co-writers" of songs that came from under-sophisticated performers. I think Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers won some litigation, though lots of others just gave up a share of their royalties. This pattern even formed the basis for a little plot-let on "The Sopranos" early in its run.

- If you're going to get into melodies versus chord patterns, your collaborator (as others have suggested) is utterly and compltely backwards. Words and melody are the basic fundamentals that clearly hold copyright. The hard question is whether contributing other things makes someone a co-author. If chord progressions were the whole thing, then every song with a I - IV - V or I - vi - IV - V progression would be in the public domain, which I think would knock out a huge part of the entire rock songbook.
 
But we`re better then them! Shouldn`t we get 60%- 60%?:)
No matter who wrote the song, this is our arrangement as well! 50%-50%. But, I guess he challenges himself to write better songs than me. That`s why it`s probably important for him to see his name only on the song. It`s like when a dog marks his territory. There`s just one problem. It`s not his territory.
miroslav said:
Do like Lennon and McCartney...they agreed to split all the songs they co-wrote 50/50 regardless how much either of them contributed to a song, and in many cases some songs were written just by one of them, but they stuck to their deal, always splitting 50/50...


...then Yoko came along! :laughings:
Click to expand...
 
I found it quite shocking to hear that the vocals don`t play an important role and can`t be copyrighted. I checked and realized that he had no idea what he was talking about.
Even after I sent him a link with the law, he still refused to accept that writing the whole melody for the verse, means cowriting a song! And when you even choose the title of the song and write most of it... The song is a part of me. I spent a lot of time thinking of the lyrics and melody and I know that without my 50% it would have been a different song.

sjjohnston said:
Minor notes:

- If you rephrase the original question slightly, it is: "If I wrote part of a song, did I write part of the song?" Well ... yeah.

- How big a "part" of the writing is sufficient to "hold copyright," as they say, is not an obvious or easy question. It has to do with fairly nebulous and not-consistently-thought-out considerations, like distinctiveness and originality. Suggesting that you add a drum roll between the end of the first chorus and the verse probably doesn't make you a co-writer. Giving a suggestion to a songwriter who needs a word to fill the line "a trip to the moon on ---- wings" presumably doesn't either, even if you are clever enough to suggest "gossamer" (anyway, the guy who did exactly that didn't try to collect royalties). On the other hand, I believe there is a case (also involving Cole Porter, though I may be remembering wrong) that held just a rhythmic figure could hold copyright if it were sufficiently distinctive.

- There's quite a bit of history, at least in the early days of rock music, of people being aggressive in claiming copyright based on very minor (if not entirely nonexistent) contributions. Typically, these involved producer-types trying to horn in on royalties as "co-writers" of songs that came from under-sophisticated performers. I think Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers won some litigation, though lots of others just gave up a share of their royalties. This pattern even formed the basis for a little plot-let on "The Sopranos" early in its run.

- If you're going to get into melodies versus chord patterns, your collaborator (as others have suggested) is utterly and compltely backwards. Words and melody are the basic fundamentals that clearly hold copyright. The hard question is whether contributing other things makes someone a co-author. If chord progressions were the whole thing, then every song with a I - IV - V or I - vi - IV - V progression would be in the public domain, which I think would knock out a huge part of the entire rock songbook.
Click to expand...
 
miroslav said:
Do like Lennon and McCartney...they agreed to split all the songs they co-wrote 50/50 regardless how much either of them contributed to a song, and in many cases some songs were written just by one of them, but they stuck to their deal, always splitting 50/50...


...then Yoko came along! :laughings:
Click to expand...
Ironically, "Revolution 9" exists purely because of Yoko. It was her kind of "music" that John was trying "play", George was the only other Beatle on it, Paul tried desperately to get it thrown off the White album (and as a revenge move recorded a very 'John' song, "Why don't we do it in the road" without John, something for which he was bitter about right up to his death) and hates the piece, yet gets 50% of the 'song' ! That and "Give peace a chance" are really Lennon - Ono songs.

sjjohnston said:
If you're going to get into melodies versus chord patterns, your collaborator (as others have suggested) is utterly and compltely backwards. Words and melody are the basic fundamentals that clearly hold copyright. The hard question is whether contributing other things makes someone a co-author. If chord progressions were the whole thing, then every song with a I - IV - V or I - vi - IV - V progression would be in the public domain, which I think would knock out a huge part of the entire rock songbook.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's melody vs chord pattern. The two exist as unsplittable in my opinion. That's why the OP's co-collaborator was chancing his arm with that ridiculous statement. Having said that though, in reggae, the melody and lyrics are often nothing without the bass part. A few years back I saw Aston "Family Man" Barrett who was the bass player with the Wailers [who morphed into "Bob Marley and the Wailers"] on telly, claiming years of unpaid royalties for his part in all those great songs. He claimed to be the bands' musical director. I would have dismissed his claims but for something that had happened some years before. A whole slew of cassettes came out of Bob Marley demos and many of the songs on the latter Wailers albums had been written years before and were on these demos. I remember being struck by how bland and unoriginal and samey the songs were (this was the mid to late 90s). On a number of them, I'd think it was one song and then it would turn out to be something else. The chord progressions were all so similar though the melodies were there. But when you hear the actual Wailer album versions, the presence of the bassline and drums makes those songs in conjunction with the chord pattern, melody and words. You could remove the organ, guitars and backing vocals (and in many instances the brass) and it wouldn't alter the songs. But the bass........?So Barrett may actually have a point. With 45 kids to support, I hope he was !
sjjohnston said:
- How big a "part" of the writing is sufficient to "hold copyright," as they say, is not an obvious or easy question. It has to do with fairly nebulous and not-consistently-thought-out considerations, like distinctiveness and originality
Click to expand...
This is a key point, which is why the whole topic is a minefield.


guitaristic said:
If you eat a piece of pie, were you one of the people who ate the pie??

Yeah, bad analogy...I know :D
Click to expand...
Bad analogy ? You're too modest !

yetanother said:
I found it quite shocking to hear that the vocals don`t play an important role and can`t be copyrighted.
Click to expand...
The vocals can't be ! I think you mean the lyric and melody.
 
RAMI said:
Having said all that, I think you shouldn't be wasting so much energy and losing sleep over it. What are you worried about? Do you think the song is going to go platinum and he's going to be rich while you starve to death? That's not going to happen. If it's about bragging rights, then just tell everyone that you wrote the song, too.
Click to expand...

This^^^^^^^^^

You have about as much chance of making a penny off this song as having a herd of cows in catwoman suits fall through your ceiling.
 
Well, I`ve had other songs performed in front of 10.000 people. And they were all singing them. It probably won`t go platinum, I agree, but come on, leave the cows alone:) No need to bull y them^^ haha
Greg_L said:
This^^^^^^^^^

You have about as much chance of making a penny off this song as having a herd of cows in catwoman suits fall through your ceiling.
Click to expand...
 
Yes sir, I meant the melody!
grimtraveller said:
Ironically, "Revolution 9" exists purely because of Yoko. It was her kind of "music" that John was trying "play", George was the only other Beatle on it, Paul tried desperately to get it thrown off the White album (and as a revenge move recorded a very 'John' song, "Why don't we do it in the road" without John, something for which he was bitter about right up to his death) and hates the piece, yet gets 50% of the 'song' ! That and "Give peace a chance" are really Lennon - Ono songs.

I don't think it's melody vs chord pattern. The two exist as unsplittable in my opinion. That's why the OP's co-collaborator was chancing his arm with that ridiculous statement. Having said that though, in reggae, the melody and lyrics are often nothing without the bass part. A few years back I saw Aston "Family Man" Barrett who was the bass player with the Wailers [who morphed into "Bob Marley and the Wailers"] on telly, claiming years of unpaid royalties for his part in all those great songs. He claimed to be the bands' musical director. I would have dismissed his claims but for something that had happened some years before. A whole slew of cassettes came out of Bob Marley demos and many of the songs on the latter Wailers albums had been written years before and were on these demos. I remember being struck by how bland and unoriginal and samey the songs were (this was the mid to late 90s). On a number of them, I'd think it was one song and then it would turn out to be something else. The chord progressions were all so similar though the melodies were there. But when you hear the actual Wailer album versions, the presence of the bassline and drums makes those songs in conjunction with the chord pattern, melody and words. You could remove the organ, guitars and backing vocals (and in many instances the brass) and it wouldn't alter the songs. But the bass........?So Barrett may actually have a point. With 45 kids to support, I hope he was !This is a key point, which is why the whole topic is a minefield.


Bad analogy ? You're too modest !

The vocals can't be ! I think you mean the lyric and melody.
Click to expand...
 
Did your buddy file a copyright on the song already?

If not, why don't you file a copyright on the song under your name and let him hire an attorney and try to prove his ownership percent in court? Anyone can copyright just about anything. The copyright office doesn't investigate each copyright application to see if it is an original work or who should be classified as co-writers, they just stamp the paperwork and if there's litigation later, then it gets sorted out.

If it's about bragging rights, then stop using your melody and lyrics with "his" chord progression and just play what he came up with. See if those 10.000 people enjoy "his" chord progression with no melody. Save your voice for one of "your" songs. If he b!itche$ about it then tell him the melody isn't important. Right???
 
yetanother said:
Well, I`ve had other songs performed in front of 10.000 people. And they were all singing them.
Click to expand...
Was that ten or ten thousand ? I kind of hope the latter because otherwise, I see a huge in joke of "Famous Dave" proportions looming menacingly on the horizon.......
 
grimtraveller said:
Ironically, "Revolution 9" exists purely because of Yoko.... [Paul] hates the piece, yet gets 50% of the 'song' !
Click to expand...
True (well, Paul gets 50% of the 50% that doesn't go to the publisher ... so 25% of the total royalty).

Then again, I doubt the royalties for "Revolution 9" are exactly mind-numbingly huge. It's not exactly radio-friendly. They're still more than I'll ever get from any song, but I think they're dwarfed by, say, "Yesterday" (with which John had nothing to do).
 
I'd be curious what this incredible chord progression is.

<----really hopes it is G,C,D - I so need a laugh.
 
Ok, I've got a new analogy.....

If you eat a piece of the cake.......

oh wait :(
 
Ok, I'm no lawyer, so I'll stay out of the copyright discussion...but for the love of God, people...please quote your language ABOVE what you type, ok? Putting it below what you type is just fucking backwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top