This article intrigued me....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4917550.stm
'However, he (Sir Cliff Richard) insisted that singers were as crucial to the success of a piece of music as its composers.
"We are as important to a song as the writer is because we give it life," said Sir Cliff.'
I think he's being silly. Anyone else?
Singer or song..?
- King Hoarse
- Posts: 1450
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 11:32 pm
- Location: Malmö, Sweden
Well, I think Van Morrison breathed life into It's All In The Game and Cliff didn't. So if you switch his "we" to "they" then maybe...
Cliff exagerrates, maybe, but of course not only singers but often musicians and sometimes producers are crucial to making a song popular, if that's what he means by the word success.
The Get Happy!! covers do it for me but I've heard other versions of them that I didn't like at all.
Cliff exagerrates, maybe, but of course not only singers but often musicians and sometimes producers are crucial to making a song popular, if that's what he means by the word success.
The Get Happy!! covers do it for me but I've heard other versions of them that I didn't like at all.
What this world needs is more silly men.
- Gillibeanz
- Posts: 1697
- Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 1:28 pm
- Location: England
- guidedbyvoices
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 1:14 pm
- Location: back to saturn x
Maybe more so back in the day where writers and singers were not the same person. Watching American Idol last night (don't ask, I'm a big guilty pleasure watcher of crap TV), I was struck at the lack of emotion or understanding of Bewitched Bothered & Bewildered versus say, Ella Fitzgerald's version that perfectly captures the complex range of emotions.
we have powerlines in our bloodlines
- Otis Westinghouse
- Posts: 8856
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 3:32 pm
- Location: The theatre of dreams
I think it's an unfair ruling, but I'm unclear as to whether a 50-year old recording falls out of copyright, or if the copyright passes to someone else who can make money on licensing it. If the latter is true, it's grossly unfair. Anyone know?
There's more to life than books, you know, but not much more
- ReadyToHearTheWorst
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 5:44 am
- Location: uk
Don't know all the ins & outs of this, but I do know that it's complicated.
There are one set of rules for songwriters, and another for performers (which is what Cliff is crying about, presumably). Also, the whole thing varies from country to country.
Overall though, I guess that Cliff reckons that someone will continue to make money out of his ancient efforts, so why should he be excluded?
However, despite having made only a handful of half decent records in nearly 50 years trying, I doubt that he's short of dosh.
There are one set of rules for songwriters, and another for performers (which is what Cliff is crying about, presumably). Also, the whole thing varies from country to country.
Overall though, I guess that Cliff reckons that someone will continue to make money out of his ancient efforts, so why should he be excluded?
However, despite having made only a handful of half decent records in nearly 50 years trying, I doubt that he's short of dosh.
"I'm the Rock and Roll Scrabble champion"
- Otis Westinghouse
- Posts: 8856
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 3:32 pm
- Location: The theatre of dreams
He says 'I'm OK, it's the other performers who depend on these royalties' and then he says 'Every time I play an old song it's with a view to people buying it' and so clearly he can't stand the thought of loss of earnings. Songwriters are under the same ruling as literary writers: 70 years after death. Quite different terms to the performers!
There's more to life than books, you know, but not much more