Conference napalm::commusic_v1

...in which case, in .0, they co-wrote the piece.

my .02,
Dan

    Hmmm,
    
    I disagree with .1
    
    I think what your pondering is the distinction between "writing"
    and "arranging".
    
    I would say the appropriate and fair credit is
    
    	Written by A
    	Arrangement by A & B.
    
    That is assuming B did not contribute any "new sections" of music,
    or SIGNIFICANTLY recast a section of A's original concept.  It also
    assumes that A did not write the parts that B played and that said
    parts are significant to the piece.
    
    	db

    It's up to A.  If he feels B is deserving of the credit, give it to
    him.
    
    							Brian

I agree with db.

I'd say A wrote the piece and A and B arranged it


Chad

    Wut he and db sayd ...
    
    Steve

	I went home and thought more about this (good question) and I came
	up with the following:

	For 'contemporary' music that can be simplified to fake book notation
	(just melody (lyrics) and chords), I'd say that the initial composer
	deserves *all* of the credit - musician B was simply doing an 
	arrangement of musician A's composition.

	However, in cases where the music cannot be simplified to fake book
	notation (no clear cut melody, emphasis on instrumentation and not 
	a lead line with chords), then the new stuff incorporated by musician B 
	*would* constitute co-authorship, IMHO.

	I guess, when first reading .0, I thought first of this angle, where
	musician B *did* add new (necessary) parts to the piece.

	As db and others said, though, in the end it comes down to A's decision.

	more .01,
	Dan

    
    Well, lets look at it another way. 
    Do people who arrange music get writing credits? In my
    experience, NO. I was given a tape with songs that I was asked
    to arrange. On this tape was a guitar an a vocal track. I had to
    add bass, drums, brass anthing that I felt that worked for the
    particular song.  I know arrangers and studio musicians who do that
    sort of stuff everyday and they don't get writing credits. 
    
    Should Jaco Pastorius get song writing credits for his bass lines
    on the Joni Mitchell albums or other songs where his playing helps
    make the song work? That could be said for lots of  other musicans
    also.
    
    That's my non cents.
    
    Errol
    

    David van Tiegham should get writing credit for Anderson's Sharkey's
    Day.
    That's my too sense.
    Tom

    thanks for the thoughts.  The place I've come to is that the basic
    underpinnings were there - changes and rhythm.  I lean toward
    'written by A, arranged by A&B'.
    
    karl

How about a song with vocals and melody?  Say I write some music
and arrange it, then pass it off to another band member to write the
melody and lyrics?

Holy copyrights, Batman!

andy

    re: .10
    
    I think you get "writing" credits for either words or music.
    
    However ,it's not uncommon to see credits broken down as "music by
    A, lyrics by B".
    
    Always give credit where credit is due.  It's not just a moral thing.
    
    	db

re .-1

>  -< lyrics involve writing too >-

Of course!  Did it seem that I was implying that it didn't?

I was looking more for the emphasis of the "song" vs. the "melody".
Maybe "emphasis" is the wrong word.  The problem really becomes acute
if the song actually gets on an album, gets published, and royalties
are involved (I'm in a very hypothetical mood today)... 8^)   Given
that one wrote and arranged the music, and another the lyrics and melody,
who gets what %age?   Then there's the difference between royalties based
on the "writing" of the song and "performance" royalties.

I've also seen the "Music by x, Lyrics by y".  I'm just not sure how
that translates into $$$.  The Doors got around it by making everything
"Copyright: The Doors".

andy

    
    
    
                  Actually a rythum and changes do NOT a song make.
    
                  What will determine the "song" is the prominent melody
                  and words.  
    
                  Whoever was responsible for the creation of either
                  of those parts should get the credit.
    
                  
    
                                                  Chris

>                  What will determine the "song" is the prominent melody
>                  and words.  
>    
>                  Whoever was responsible for the creation of either
>                  of those parts should get the credit.

Using your logic, an instrumental song with incredibly intricate chordal
changes but no isolatable melody would have no credits, and you'd be unable
to copyright it.  Is this what you're suggesting?  I doubt it.

andy

An interesting example of how complicated songwriting credit can get is
Emerson, Lake & Palmers "Pirates" (from Works Volume 1).  As I recall, it is
music by Emerson, Lyrics by Lake and Pete Sinfield, vocal line (melodies, I
presume) by Lake, arrangement by ELP, and orchestral arrangement by Godfrey
Salmon.

This may not be exact (I'll try to look it up) but you get the idea.  I have
no idea how the money got split but that was probably determined by the
copyright holder which was probably ELP's Palm Beach Music or whatever.

I guess it's never simple when there are family, friends, and/or money on the 
line.

- John -

    
    An example of a piece of music meeting the .14 criterion of no 
    distinctive melody or lyrics is "Beyond the Event Horizon"... no
    distinctive melody, just lots of chord changes and non-transcribeable
    sounds (how do you transcribe a two-minute chirp dive into standard 
    musical notation?).                 
    
    Copyright (everything): (artificial_entity) seems to be the way
    to keep the copyright notice simple.
    
    	-Bill