laughing gravy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2015
- Messages
- 907
about fucking time https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48380600
Urbam hymns is a quality album, tho drugs don’t work is my fav verve song not bssabout fucking time https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48380600
You may feel differently if it was your music being sampled....Do they get their half of the earnings back then, or is it just future royalties? Personally, I think it shows a ridiculousness of the copyright system that someone can write a song, have someone else do a different arrangement of it, have that arrangement sampled for a completely new song, and claim all of the writing credits on that work over 50 years after the original song was written. And let's be honest, probably originally written with a lot of 'influence' from artists who weren't lucky enough to benefit from the generous copyright systems that those in the late 50s and early 60s enjoyed.
I doubt it. If I wrote a song and someone sampled it (to the point, let's be honest, that it's unrecognisable from the original) to make a new song, I certainly wouldn't then claim to be the sole writer of the new song and expect all of the royalties. A writing credit, fair enough. But the only writing credit? In the music industry, someone sampling or even innocently writing something that in part resembles a past song by an established artist, they often are able to take all of the royalties from the song. That would be like a photographer having their picture used in the newspaper without their permission and being awarded all of the sales income from that issue of the newspaper. Obviously in theory, there could be a fine line between a cover and a sample, but I think in this case, to claim that the Stones wrote this song and deserve all of the income it generates is clearly bollocks.You may feel differently if it was your music being sampled....
You may feel differently if it was your music being sampled....
Even the original 50/50 split was overly generous to the Stones. To then claim 100% was ridiculous. And it seems that Jagger and Richards agree. It's a shame they didn't tell their manager to wind his neck in 20 years ago though.I doubt it. If I wrote a song and someone sampled it (to the point, let's be honest, that it's unrecognisable from the original) to make a new song, I certainly wouldn't then claim to be the sole writer of the new song and expect all of the royalties. A writing credit, fair enough. But the only writing credit? In the music industry, someone sampling or even innocently writing something that in part resembles a past song by an established artist, they often are able to take all of the royalties from the song. That would be like a photographer having their picture used in the newspaper without their permission and being awarded all of the sales income from that issue of the newspaper. Obviously in theory, there could be a fine line between a cover and a sample, but I think in this case, to claim that the Stones wrote this song and deserve all of the income it generates is clearly bollocks.
Even the original 50/50 split was overly generous to the Stones. To then claim 100% was ridiculous. And it seems that Jagger and Richards agree. It's a shame they didn't tell their manager to wind his neck in 20 years ago though.