+- Music Discussion (https://www.music-discussion.com)
+-- Forum: Community (https://www.music-discussion.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Off Topic Chat (https://www.music-discussion.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: and another question.... (/showthread.php?tid=14440)
and another question.... - CRAZY-HORSE - 24-09-2015
example:
if Sex Pistols went to Dave Gilmour and said they would like to record one of his songs where do they stand if Gilmour says no?
can they go ahead and record the song anyway without his permission?
would Gilmour give the the 'okay' as long as he gets to hear and give his approval prior to release?
now the reason I ask this is because an artist, namely Lulu, went to Paul Weller in the late 1980s and asked if she could record the Style Council track "youre the best thing", Weller said 'no' because she supported Margaret Thatcher and he is a staunch socialist...
is that really a valid reason why he wouldn't let her record it?and...
what would have happened if she recorded it anyway and released it?
also
if an artist covers someone elses song in a concert do they need permission to do so or not?
why should an artist have to get permission to record another person's song anyway, because at the end of the day the writer will be earning money off it it it sells,right?
furthermore,
I can understand when someone like Weird Al creates novelty tunes using other artist's songs that he would need permission because he is changing the song lyrics,melody,tune or whatever.
again.....anyone?
and another question.... - Crudivore - 25-09-2015
It doesn't matter too much what the artist or writer thinks, if an artist wishes to cover a song, they can do so by following the correct channels and by paying royalties or whatever fee they agree to. If you compare the 50's and 60's, a time when artists covered songs regularly (Elvis, Bob Dylan, Peter, Paul & Mary, Jimi Hendrix) to now, there is a huge difference in the amount of covers nowadays and this is due to the costs.
Live is not so much of an issue I believe.
Helpful link for all of the above - http://www.makeitinmusic.com/licence-cover-song/
There are numerous examples of what you asked and it was a huge issue in the 90's, especially within hip-hop scene as artists began to prevent producers from using samples or underlying compositions without paying royalities (or an agreed upon fee). Off the top of my head I can think of Black is Back by Public Enemy which covered Back in Black by AC/DC. Public Enemy were forced to change the composition and samples that they used due to lawsuits. If you search for the original version and then listen to the altered version, you will notice a huge difference.
"A sample must be cleared with two camps: those who own the master recording (typically the record company that released the song or whoever purchased the catalog) and those who own the publishing rights (usually the songwriter). âGenerally, one side is going to cost about as much as the other,â says Eothen Alapatt, general manager at Stones Throw Records. Sampling a major artist like James Brown would cost about $20,000 â $10,000 for the master recording side and $10,000 for the publishing â a figure that rivals the entire budget for an album released on Stones Throw. But to not clear the samples on an album poses a high risk. Though he wouldnât get specific, Alapatt says that Stones Throw has paid $25,000 to $35,000 to have samples cleared after the release of an album."
Helpful link for above 2 paragraphs and the change in costs and legislation on sampling -http://www.spin.com/2008/11/sampling-dying/
and another question.... - CRAZY-HORSE - 25-09-2015
thanks for the info/input and for the informative links Crudivore...I appreciate it mate.