I constantly encounter previously successful, musicians/vocalists/writers who claim they never got paid for their work.Yet on speaking to them further, you hear about the constant parties, the cars, women, men, girls, boys, drink, drugs, nice house etc."But it's all gone now!"

In my day job I work 42 hours per week as a clinical psychologist, assessing mental health. It's not the hardest job. My salary is around 30k p.a. I can live quite comfortably on that. If however I chose to eat my lunch and treat a partner at an expensive restaurant each day and ate out every night along the same lines, my salary would be gone before I got home... so putting it into context. it has to be the same theory for many of these hard done by pop stars who reckon they never got paid. It seems all too easy to blame the person who flogged his guts out to get you your 5 minutes of fame and dared to take a percentage for it.

Which brings me to my next question.Did the Piglets ever get paid?

and I took the losses on all the flops (fortunately making much more on all the hits... like Johnny Reggae!).

artists get the percentage, labels/producers take the rest.

the problem with most artists contracts is: the artists get a (high) advantage (out of which they have to pay for the production etc.) and they never get any royalties.

By artist i mean "real" artist, not session singers who are only paid once (if they are lucky or organised) for their efforts. In this cases the producer (like JK) takes all the risk - and gets all the money (if he's lucky).

Yes but Mike, those musicians were involved in a rock n roll lifestyle, which is not really about staying in watching Corrie....

It would be wrong to suggest (if indeed you do) that short accounting is always down to excess on the part of the artists. There are certainly many naive kids who don't realise they're paying for the limos and the parties.

But there are also many record label "mistakes" and "oversights", and other shenanigans (see Leonard Cohen and Fish very recently). You need eyes in the back of your head... whoever you are.

I wish I could name who this story is about, but I respected him, and I would not want to offend any of the late legends friends or family, as it`s a quote I should not know.
In the financial irregularities hearing, he was asked by the judge, how he had managaged to "lose " a milliom pounds+..
His classic answer was "I had a good time your honour..."
My lot, and we are very division three still, got walloped for over

A good ten years after the thrill of it all, I have received a nice back payment on authors rights. 10 years. And I wouldn't have seen a penny if the wealthier partner didn't have a small fortune to pump into lawyers' fees.

And we're not talking about a rock'n'roll lifestyle. We're talking about some countries authors rights societies over-paying the local publishers and no-one really "noticing" all that time (and not reacting when we noticed for them).

e.g. Saint Etienne's masterpiece "Only love can break your heart" The BBC used the extended intro to advertise forthcoming sports events. Neil Young wrote the song, however the instrumental break was the idea of Messrs Stanley and Wiggs, so if they use the bit you added on, do the royalties go to the original writer of the song ?

No they don't Mike as I sadly discovered to my cost when anyone covers or uses the Oooga Chagga part of Hooked On A Feeling; I make nothing for my idea; Mark James who wrote it as a country song makes it all!

The same on a much smaller scale with our last release, we do not even own the rap, which we wrote, as we attached it to a cover song ,apparently.
Now, this could get really complicated, should we detach the rap, and make it into a different record, does this then get owned by the publisher who`s song we stuck it on in the first place?
A colleague and friend of mine has only just got paid back royalties, for work he did back in the early seventies, purely because he was not credited on the records, a guy bought the back catalogue of the megastar concerned, and found my mates name on the credits, in pencil, and it was all sorted out through Pamra(is that how you spell it?).
I think with the fact that we are all living longer, makes it so important to get the credits on songs right from day one, and re- studio session fees versus points, for players, I am going for both these days.
When and if , I get to 68 years old, I would be surprised to get work, and I reckon any windfall will be precious.

you know certain successful pop producers, especially from the late 80s onwards....well I always thought each song seemed to sound incredibly familiar, even if it wasn't a cover version so...is it a trade secret to get a good old tune, re-write words to fit the tune and then change three notes around in each line ? This gets around having to pay somebody else royalties ?

It must be a real downer JK to have changed a boring piece of music like "hooked on a feeling" into the smash you made, just to line somebody else's pocket. Has it ever happened the other way round ? I've heard a DJ version of something doing the rounds, containing the riff of "Let it all hang out" so even though it's your riff, you didn't write the song so you don't get paid. That stinks!

Can you get round it by releasing the riff on its own as a dance track yourself?

you're idea ha ha,you nicked that ooga chakka bit from Johnny Preston's "Running Bear."

and Mike - we did get paid a huge amount when Wear Your Love Like Heaven used that intro from Let It All Hang Out because though I didn't write it we bought the publishing.

Dammit thats where I knew the "Let It All Hang Out" loop from!

there are no clear cut rules. It is a matter of negotiation power.

Superstar artists can demand publishing royalties if they do a cover version -

but even the most creative artists who change boring songs into hits will get nothing.

This situation is even worse for samples. Here you need a prior release from the label (owner of the sound recording) and the publisher (owner of the song copyright).

I think people are forgetting that there is a very good reason to recording a cover.

The song already has in-built popularity.

Many producers enjoy doing covers because the public are often familiar with the song and so are other record labels and radio/media players.

They're often easier to license-out and make money from.

So I would never resent having to pay the songwriting/publishing fees on covers - even if you do ad your own arrangement or re-write some of the lyrics.

You are still benefitting by going with a cover and you still make plenty of dough from iTunes sales, physical sales, mobile phone downloads etc.

Covers are great and be happy to pay the publishing royalties because the song will often give you a guaranteed return.

It's just like playing the stock market - cover songs are blue chip shares.

David

Though whether Oooga Chagga added to Hooked On A feeling you'd have to ask Mark James.
Or my strange Bubblerock Satisfaction - ask Mick.
But at least they were my own interpretations.
Always valid.
Eva Cassidy's Rainbow was a great cover - she made it her song.
Ditto KIm Carnes and Bette Davis Eyes - she (or, rather, the producer) converted Jackie de Shannon's OK demo into a SMASH.
As Whitney did with Dolly's Always...

I agree one hundred per cent Jonathan - that you should bring your own personality or ideas into a cover to seperate it from say the original but maintain the valuable and worthy attributes of the (original) song within your own version.

Personally I loved what you did with "Sugar Sugar" by
(JK project) Sakkarin.

You turned a sugary bubblegum song into a heavy metal farce with a comical twist .. it was quite brilliant.

What about the picture sleeve .. those gappy teeth !!


It all fitted together so perfectly.