Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Bar Italia Forum -> Bar Italia Forum -> Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Post Info TOPIC: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
beetlebum7


Professional

Status: Offline
Posts: 56
Date:
Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

I know how Pulp Credit each member w/ the song credits and jarvis w/ the lyrics... but is there any lists (I checked pulpwiki) that show who came up w/ the main bulk of the song?  Or is this always soley Jarvis who does then brings it to the band and they all flesh it out together?  I was just wondering this after listening to party hard and thinking how cool that simple bass line is... thinking did Steve Mackey bring that to the band and they all worked it out.. or was that Jarvis as well?



__________________
calumlynn


Cocaine Socialist

Status: Offline
Posts: 584
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

I think it just depended on the song. I know they did a lot of improvisation etc in band practices in order to come up with ideas. I reckon a lot of the melody/structuring side of things will have been Jarvis, but it certainly seems that the others did a lot, it's quite well documented that Candida was the brains behind Bad Cover Version, and that by the time they were writing Different Class, Russell wasn't really putting much into the songs at all (except the same guitar riff into every song or something).

__________________
andy


Master Of The Universe

Status: Offline
Posts: 1261
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

Well i always thought it was a bit weird when bands say they wrote full songs in the studio: it can happen for the odd song, or songs like Wickerman and This is Hardcore, but i suppose the main melody always come from one songwriter. So i suppose Jarvis brought a basic melody that evolved in the studio. And maybe the others did too.

__________________
Stephen


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 2300
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

I think a lot of WLL was jammed, and then Jarvis came around later and added lyrics? Or am I paraphrasing incorrectly from Sturdy's book?

Nick 'wrote' babies obviously, but how much did he write?

Maureen and Back in LA are refugees from Russell's old group.

But as Steven Havenhand was saying, around '87, Jarvis would largely come in with complete songs...but sometimes things were a band collaboration.

__________________

swaying slightly, drunk on the sun, I suppose
Fran


Legendary

Status: Offline
Posts: 1004
Date:
Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

I can't find it now, but I read something the other day in a Richard Hawley interview, he was being asked about potential new Pulp material and his view was that Candida was very central to the whole process, that in terms of any new material, whether or not she was up for it would be the deal-breaker, I think is the phrase he used.

I was always under the impression that the purpose of crediting everyone on all songs was the legal mechanism they used to split the money equally in the way they wanted to.

Then the contribution of people must be hard to quantify often. I was watching one of those song-writing programmes a while back and there was a comment from Boy George, saying you see someone credited on a song and think, "What did they do, make the tea?", but he was actually being quite positive about that, saying maybe that tea break was when it all came together.



-- Edited by Fran on Sunday 22nd of April 2012 04:57:41 PM

__________________

We'll use the one thing we've got more of, that's our minds.
saw119


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

I think Nick accidentally came up with the guitar part for Babies at a Catcliffe rehearsal. I've wondered bout this too and it confuses me slightly. Now no disrespect to Jarvis or his songwriting skills but other band members muct contribute alot to the process in some way. I only say this on the evidence of the kind of songs that appeared on his two solo albums. The songs on his solo albums are credited bu writer/s not by band so you can see more clearly who did what, for example Steve gets very few credits on both albums but plays bass. I would offer the view that Jarvis solo works are not at all like Pulp so maybe the band have that special songwriting chemistry that is so difficult to find. For me, I'll probably always say that I believe Candida is the important catalyst for Jarvis's songs and will use the eveidence of both before she came along and after Pulp went on hiatus. Think of all the band members that were lost and gained, even the leaving of a major cog like Russell can be weathered, where she remains a constant.

__________________

Where Pigeons go to die.
fredthe3rd


200% and Bloody Thirsty

Status: Offline
Posts: 1420
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

All I know on this sort of subject is that songs were always credited to Lennon/McCartney even if only one of them had written it or McCartney had written more of it... so songwriting credits don't necessarily tell you much.

__________________
Eamonn


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 4715
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

Re Nick's contribution to Babies, on the SkyArts songwriting programme Jarvis said Nick came up with the opening Dmaj7 chord which caught the ear of the band and they all went at it from there. Having said that, the initial inspiration for a song is arguably the most important part.

Regarding Bad Cover Version, when Jarvis described the making of it, the fact that he made reference to Candida coming up with the main part could have been because it was something out of the ordinary. Not to down-play Candida's role - I think Martin Aston's book on Pulp refers to her and Jarvis spending a weekend in 1992 preparing songs for a demo session (this one http://www.pulpwiki.net/Pulp/IslandDemo I believe). Conversely, I think Nick mentions in Truth And Beauty how a bit surprised and maybe put-out the band felt when one day in 1997 Jarvis arrived at the studio with A Little Soul pretty much done and dusted.

So I guess we can infer that they generally wrote together, with different people coming up with ''snippets'' (I think Nick used that word in some interview) and then a case of the best snippets being kept and all the band trying to add to them. I know they mentioned the ''trying to create an atmosphere like being in a forest so Candida you be the leaves on the ground etc.'' method before which is interesting and charming but not sure how practical it is over the course of a session-load of songs!

__________________

Tell mester to f*ck off!
beetlebum7


Professional

Status: Offline
Posts: 56
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

Yes,
I agree, I do remember Jarvis saying anything brought to the group is worked out together "as a team" ... and though he could easily keep 1/2 the royalties for writing the lyrics and then 1/5 of the other half for the music it seams that it's split 5 ways equally... and he'd definitely be entitled to it... being the only original member... not that others didn't pay dues keeping the band afloat... such as Candida working two jobs and getting fired from one because of the band etc...
I do know that BLUR had issues ... well Graham Coxon did from the vague statements he made... Damon definitely pockets a huge chunk of the royalties... and the blur credits differ from any other bands i've seen it doesn't just say Music by and lyrics by... it says:

SONG: DAMON A.
MUSIC: DAMON/GR.....etc...
LYRICS: DAMON

so you know who brought the song to the table ...who worked on it .... who wrote the lyrics .... a "SONG" every now and then was graham or Damon/GRAHAM but for the most part was Damon

__________________
saw119


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

Maybe we should also remember that someone like Steve Havenhand who played bass with Pulp thru '87 and must have contributed something to the material that eventually became Separations has never received a songwriting credit on a Pulp release (well, not to my knowledge not even on the recent Separations reissue). In fact all the songs that he, presumably, had some hand in are credited to Steve Mackay as he played bass on the actual album.

__________________

Where Pigeons go to die.
beetlebum7


Professional

Status: Offline
Posts: 56
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

I wasn't aware of that.
I'm also wondering how much possible material Candida may have for a possible new album since she's had over 10 years of hiatus time.... along w/ the others as well.

__________________
Eamonn


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 4715
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

I'd be surprised if anyone but Jarvis had attempted to write any music, in the 9 years or so they were apart (maybe Nick with Pollinates?).
What makes them special is how they work together. In their own lives they're common people...collecting wood-sap, making pottery, training to be a counsellor etc.

__________________

Tell mester to f*ck off!
H


Sorted

Status: Offline
Posts: 35
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

Eamonn wrote:

I'd be surprised if anyone but Jarvis had attempted to write any music, in the 9 years or so they were apart (maybe Nick with Pollinates?).
What makes them special is how they work together. In their own lives they're common people...collecting wood-sap, making pottery, training to be a counsellor etc.

 Russell & his wood sap. He was also a keen (edible) mushroom picker as I recall.



__________________
calumlynn


Cocaine Socialist

Status: Offline
Posts: 584
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

I don't think it's a case of someone like Candida writing music themselves. It's the way they work in the band, as part of the songwriting process.

__________________
triciathetree


Cocaine Socialist

Status: Offline
Posts: 554
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

H wrote:
Eamonn wrote:

I'd be surprised if anyone but Jarvis had attempted to write any music, in the 9 years or so they were apart (maybe Nick with Pollinates?).
What makes them special is how they work together. In their own lives they're common people...collecting wood-sap, making pottery, training to be a counsellor etc.

 Russell & his wood sap. He was also a keen (edible) mushroom picker as I recall.

 Village maiden, picking mushrooms...



__________________

The trees, those useless trees, produce the air that I am breathing
saw119


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

calumlynn wrote:

I don't think it's a case of someone like Candida writing music themselves. It's the way they work in the band, as part of the songwriting process.

 Absolutely, that's exactly my point. I just see her as integral.



__________________

Where Pigeons go to die.
andy


Master Of The Universe

Status: Offline
Posts: 1261
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

beetlebum7 wrote:

Yes,
I agree, I do remember Jarvis saying anything brought to the group is worked out together "as a team" ... and though he could easily keep 1/2 the royalties for writing the lyrics and then 1/5 of the other half for the music it seams that it's split 5 ways equally... and he'd definitely be entitled to it... being the only original member... not that others didn't pay dues keeping the band afloat... such as Candida working two jobs and getting fired from one because of the band etc...
I do know that BLUR had issues ... well Graham Coxon did from the vague statements he made... Damon definitely pockets a huge chunk of the royalties... and the blur credits differ from any other bands i've seen it doesn't just say Music by and lyrics by... it says:

SONG: DAMON A.
MUSIC: DAMON/GR.....etc...
LYRICS: DAMON

so you know who brought the song to the table ...who worked on it .... who wrote the lyrics .... a "SONG" every now and then was graham or Damon/GRAHAM but for the most part was Damon

The Blur deal was kinda 50 damon 25 Graham 15 Alex and 10 Dave apparently, which seems fair if Damon brought 95% of the song. I always thought production and arrangements are a huge part of a song, but the main part will always be the melody.

So in a way, if Damon brought all the songs, he was kinda nice to share the money like that really. And Jarvis was even more generous he brought most of the mélodies as well.



__________________
Stephen


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 2300
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

Aren't Pulp songs split 50% lyrics, 50% music though?

So Jarvis gets 100% of the first 50% and then 16.7% or 20% (depending on the era!) of the music? I always thought there was a clear delineation that it was lyrics: Cocker, music: Pulp...

So, something like Common People would be 60% Cocker, 10% Doyle, 10% Banks, 10% Mackey, 10% Senior?
But Disco 2000 would be 58.3% Cocker, 8.3% Doyle, 8.3% Banks, 8.3% Mackey, 8.3% Senior and 8.3% Webber...?

__________________

swaying slightly, drunk on the sun, I suppose
beetlebum7


Professional

Status: Offline
Posts: 56
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

I'm not sure about that at all... but I do remember what Andy said now about Damon 50% graham 25% .... etc....
I see why tensions were in blur when you have one of the best songwriters in England and one of the greatest guitarists not get'n the same $ ..someone would be unhappy. Anyone can apply themselves and learn an instrument well... but songwriting... you either have it or you don't. It's not something you can really learn to obtain.

__________________
SarahAWilson


Legendary

Status: Offline
Posts: 1044
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

From an interview with Mark in 1995, which I found on Acrylic Afternoons:

How did your involvement in the song writing come about?

Dunno - it was kind of, er... always ... um. The last two years before they asked me to join the group, it was always quite a grey area what my involvement was. I was playing on the songs on concerts and TV, but wasn't like 'part of the business'. I did write part of Do You Remember The First Time? caused a bit of trouble for a while, I think, so I shut up about it. It was all a bit complicated, I wasn't really sure if I wanted to be more involved or not.

So what made them suddenly decide to make you a member?

Because it just happened, the way we went to the rehearsal room to start writing the album, I was there and contributing nearly all of the time. We kind of wrote the album in two halves. The second part I was there all the time. The first half of the songs were already there, but when we got to the studio I started playing on all the tracks. And so they decided that the time had come for them to decide what to do with me.

We noticed that there are a few more guitar solos on Different Class, e.g., Something Changed, Mis-Shapes. Are they yours?

Something Changed is the first guitar solo I've sat and written, but I didn't let anyone else know about it until we went into the studio and did it. Pencil Skirt, Jarvis had done it and given it to me to play at concerts. Mis-Shapes - Jarvis did it but in a different way.



__________________

"It is hammering it down!"
calumlynn


Cocaine Socialist

Status: Offline
Posts: 584
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

andy wrote:
beetlebum7 wrote:

Yes,
I agree, I do remember Jarvis saying anything brought to the group is worked out together "as a team" ... and though he could easily keep 1/2 the royalties for writing the lyrics and then 1/5 of the other half for the music it seams that it's split 5 ways equally... and he'd definitely be entitled to it... being the only original member... not that others didn't pay dues keeping the band afloat... such as Candida working two jobs and getting fired from one because of the band etc...
I do know that BLUR had issues ... well Graham Coxon did from the vague statements he made... Damon definitely pockets a huge chunk of the royalties... and the blur credits differ from any other bands i've seen it doesn't just say Music by and lyrics by... it says:

SONG: DAMON A.
MUSIC: DAMON/GR.....etc...
LYRICS: DAMON

so you know who brought the song to the table ...who worked on it .... who wrote the lyrics .... a "SONG" every now and then was graham or Damon/GRAHAM but for the most part was Damon

The Blur deal was kinda 50 damon 25 Graham 15 Alex and 10 Dave apparently, which seems fair if Damon brought 95% of the song. I always thought production and arrangements are a huge part of a song, but the main part will always be the melody.

So in a way, if Damon brought all the songs, he was kinda nice to share the money like that really. And Jarvis was even more generous he brought most of the mélodies as well.

 

A music publisher once told me that the actual songwriting part was the melodies and structure- melodies including main hooks, the kind of thing you'd be able to hum. Other stuff is just instrumentation and is not part of the songwriting process. For example, if you take a really radical cover version (maybe the Futurehead's version of Lovecats) you'll see that despite the huge overhaul, the band who cover it can never be credited as writing the song, as it's just instrumentation, and it's the original melody, chord structure and lyrics that really count.

Apparently what a lot of bands do is split everything equally whilst they're all still in the band, then if the band ceases to exist it reverts back to the original writers. This means that if, say, the drummer quits the band and a new drummer joins, old drummer isn't going to continue getting paid for a song he no longer plays and the new one is going to be piad the royalties that old drummer gave up when he left the band, and therefore isn't going to resent the other band members for getting paid much more than him.

I personally would NEVER do what Pulp did. They're very lucky that they became so successful and that it worked out so well, but most of the time, if a band were to split everything equally it would mean that the songwriters- those who often drive the band forward and are the most likely to want to continue with music should the band split- are left being pretty skint and unable to fund themselves to make further music. No disrespect to other band members, but it's hardly a secret that supporting members such as drummers and bassists are often simply in the right place at the right time and mostly have other careers to fall back on, whilst a songwriter may have dedicated years of their life towards achieving a particular artistic vision (and probably has no other particular skills!).



__________________
Fran


Legendary

Status: Offline
Posts: 1004
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

I remember reading this article on the BBC a while back about all the disputes bands can get into over money when someone feels hard done by, this is about Procul Harum but mentions quite a lot of others dragged through the courts over the years, I remember the Spandau Ballet one being pretty acrimonious. So this:

"There are exceptions, of course: Pulp, Coldplay, REM and Placebo are among the bands who have split credits among the band members on the recording."

seems very prudent in the long run, who can really quantify the monetary value of different contributions to a song? I particularly liked:

"if the lawyers were "of African descent, at least 80% would have gone to the creators of the groove".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6146618.stm



__________________

We'll use the one thing we've got more of, that's our minds.
andy


Master Of The Universe

Status: Offline
Posts: 1261
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

Some very interesting read here
Fran wrote:

who can really quantify the monetary value of different contributions to a song?

Well i think you can really: a song is basically the melody (+ lyrics most of the time) and the chords, without that there's nothing. So that's what should and count most. I guess there should be only 4 royalties involved: writer(s), arranger(s), performer(s) and (music) producer(s). Maybe that's already what's being signed as default contract by bands...

As a songwriter, it'll never come to my mind to ask for royalties from a song written by my band mate, unless i added a bit to the melody or the lyrics. A guitar solo is nice but it can always be done without, unless you're Satriani or something.



__________________
beetlebum7


Professional

Status: Offline
Posts: 56
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

here's an interview w/ Candida from 1996 so it is split 5 / 6 ways equally...jarvis not taking half for lyrics.

What input do you have in the music?

At first I found it difficult to do, because I was used to reading music. It took a long time to get round the fact that I had to improvise along with guitar-playing. I played really quietly at first, in case the band thought I was crap. We all come up with ideas now, and we tape everything we do. The money's split equally six ways as well.

__________________
twiggy


Loss Adjuster

Status: Offline
Posts: 321
Date:
RE: Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Permalink  
 

do they retain their publishing? Maybe they split the royalties but Jarvis takes all of the publishing for writing the lyrics?

__________________
1 2  >  Last»  | Page of 2  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Bar Italia Forum -> Bar Italia Forum -> Songwriting credits Vs. Actual songwriting
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard