July 31, 200816 yr ^three: Santana, Jimi Hendrix, The Clash. When you don't grow up with it, it's not quite the same. totally skimmed your list, my bad. And i totally agree with your statement. 20 years from now we'll sound like RockandRoller...(not a stab RnR) No offense taken. :) It just boggles my mind to think that anyone will be nostalgic for music of the 90s some day. I mean, I have heard songs by just about every group on c-dawg's list (well, there are a handful I've never heard of) and none of the more modern bands have made much of anything I've wanted to listen to twice. I've tried, I think some of us older people just have a different "sound" in our ears as to what music is. It's probably always been that way with the different generations. Obviously the Cleavers and I Love Lucy set couldn't figure out what was so great about classic rock, but I think the popularity of the better groups has stood the test of time for quite awhile. So much of the 80s was one-hit wonders and bad metal, there's not much to take from that and musically, to me, the 90s were just a blur, and the 00s had me just tuning completely out to anything "current" or popular as we got into the age of American Idol and everyone WAILING, and all the rock bands sound the same, and all the songs on their albums sound the same. I had to ride down to Hocking Hills last year with a co-worker who listens to nothing but stuff like Slipknot and Incubus and stuff like that and I swear every song sounded the same after awhile; all the singers sound the same, the songs have the same chord progression, it's just uninteresting musically or lyrically. I hate to feel like I'm becoming an old codger, but clearly I am. hey... i grew up in the 90s and I feel the same way... it's supposed to be "my generation's soundtrack"... but I could never identify with the vast majority of it and I rejected it... the major musical trends of the 90s seemed to be a devolution... going for the lowest common denominator with novelty and shock value.
July 31, 200816 yr Only good music stands the test of time. Those powerhouse classic rock groups of the 70’s are a great example. The 50’s music my parents listened to was gone by the 60’s. The 60’s with the exception of groups like the Beatles starting fading in the 70’s. 80’s punk, metal, and new wave faded in the early 90’s and then recently started making a slight comeback this decade. The 90’s came and went with a few memorable exceptions. Those 70’s classic rock groups have remained popular and are still going strong for 30+ years and counting. Just a few groups as jmeck said are capable of selling out a stadium sized concerts. Although I would add Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd if they were to reunite.
July 31, 200816 yr I had to ride down to Hocking Hills last year with a co-worker who listens to nothing but stuff like Slipknot and Incubus and stuff like that and I swear every song sounded the same after awhile Nu metal (Linkin Park, Hed PE, Slipknot, Saliva, Drowning Pool, Disturbed, etc.) was the worst thing to ever happen to music IMO, but we're seriously only talking 1998-today. These were some of the other bands we listened to! Wow! And Korn! I forget which one it was but maybe it was Disturbed, I swear every song sounded the same.
July 31, 200816 yr Only good music stands the test of time. Those powerhouse classic rock groups of the 70’s are a great example. The 50’s music my parents listened to was gone by the 60’s. The 60’s with the exception of groups like the Beatles starting fading in the 70’s. 80’s punk, metal, and new wave faded in the early 90’s and then recently started making a slight comeback this decade. The 90’s came and went with a few memorable exceptions. Those 70’s classic rock groups have remained popular and are still going strong for 30+ years and counting. Just a few groups as jmeck said are capable of selling out a stadium sized concerts. Although I would add Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd if they were to reunite. Exactly.
July 31, 200816 yr >I anticipate a 47 paragraph reply from jmeck. Well these criteria have created a pointless list, I'm not sure how George Michael can make a top 20 and not The Rolling Stones, when U2 and The Rolling Stones are the only two bands who have and still can fill stadiums. Randy, so just how is Nirvana "your" music when you were a kid when they went out of business? At least I was old enough to get grounded from going to see them on a Tuesday or Wednesday night at Hara Arena back in '93. Also it's interesting to see Guns 'n Roses make the cut, there's just no way to describe to people too young to remember what a huge deal that band was. I think Appetite got banned from my school, I know The Beastie Boys and of course 2 Live Crew did. The only thing bigger than them was Michael Jackson during that Thriller period, but honestly that record only had 3-4 good songs on it and had some totally terrible ones. to be honest... George Michael is very underrated artistically... and has been largely misrepresented as lightweight dance pop
July 31, 200816 yr Nu Metal is to Rock what Backstreet Boys were to R&B and Pop. They'll be forgotten forever. Says YOU! :)
July 31, 200816 yr Christ, what a rock-friendly list. Then again, that demographc is the one buying stuff so I guess it makes since. I voted for Prince - Purple Rain, still a classic (though Stevie and Michael I still listen to). "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
July 31, 200816 yr Nu Metal is to Rock what Backstreet Boys were to R&B and Pop. They'll be forgotten forever. If only we could say that about you!
July 31, 200816 yr >"my generation's soundtrack"... There's the whole problem. At some point advertisers caught on to the idea of "generations" and that each generation should have it's own pop culture. To some extent that grew out of the growth of college enrollments and youth culture itself, because prior to TV so many went immediately from high school to the farm or factory and started having kids. But basically by programing that idea in the minds of kids and teenagers advertisers create and then gorge hungry little hippos with rehashed junk packaged as being "their generation". When that whole "generation" thing came about, real things were happening. Today nothing real is really happening amongst the youth so everything just takes on the tropes of importance and coolness and people lap it up. What new has happened in the last 15 years? Meth? >I too would have gotten grounded if I went to see at Hara Arena back in '93 (not sure what your point is My point is I was I think a sophomore in high school that year when you were not even in middle school and for instance I rode my bike to the record store to buy In Utero the day it came out. That said I think Nirvana was a solidly overrated band and they didn't take on "legendary" status until the guy died and at that time the band was seen moreso as an also-ran, maybe a notch above White Zombie, but not a leading band. I remember when he died not caring at all because I didn't really get to into that band because I was way too much of an optimist at the time and never fell for depressing 90's music like Nine Inch Nails. I think it's fair to say that Pearl Jam, as mediocre as they were and irrelevant as they are today, was definitely propped up as the leading alternative band, or at least Seattle band. Then as now I always thought Jane's Addiction was a much better band than any of those and I will never forget the first time I heard the record "Nothing's Shocking" while riding in the back of a friend's older brother's hatchback in I think 1989. I kept quiet in the back of the car but I knew that was a totally fresh and remarkable record, and I think "Ocean Size" was the first song I learned on guitar. What the hell are 12 year old kids hearing in their older brother's cars these days that are those kinds of blasts of positive youthfull energy? Also I think the overall impact of music in the minds of kids is going to diminish because of the internet and all these sources of offbeat imagery. It's impossible to communicate to kids how it used to be. On TV there was ridiculously boring stuff like Falcon Crest, The $64,000 Pyramid, The 700 Club, Phil Donahue, that Richard Simmons workout show, and on cable there was MTV which was so totally different than the network stuff. There wasn't even Rikki(sp?) Lake yet. It was more or less the only source of offbeat stuff, the only thing that was communicating to teenagers. There was the summer when all 3 networks showed the Oliver North trial all day long for like 2 months straight. It was that or MTV or going out and playing in the woods, riding bikes, playing baseball. We didn't have cable or video games so all of my experience with that stuff was at other people's houses. I do recall the early days of MTV being totally fascinating though in a way no kid today could understand. It was a festival of ideas and positive energy from around the country and world and Martha Quinn was a lot cooler and cuter than my baby sitter. >George Michael is very underrated artistically That song "Freedom" alone proves that. It's an impeccable piece of pop recording at the very end of the analog era. Where are those producers and recording engineers today who recorded that, U2's Achtung Baby, Janet Jackson, Chris Isaak, etc? >What's funny today is that all the bands that started in the 90's pretty much suck and/or are well past their creative peak. Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Smashing Pumpkins, Weezer, 311, etc. have And don't let Lenny Kravitz off the hook. That guy used to be pretty damn good, more or less the first guy to conspicuously record with vintage gear, but even he's gone to drum machines and has no creative focus. Oh, and Liz Phair, who totally tanked after churning out a few true classics of the alternative era. And when will Bob Seger's star dim? Night Moves, baby! Snap that capo on the first fret and watch the ladies melt!
July 31, 200816 yr Randy, so just how is Nirvana "your" music when you were a kid when they went out of business? At least I was old enough to get grounded from going to see them on a Tuesday or Wednesday night at Hara Arena back in '93. I too would have gotten grounded if I went to see at Hara Arena back in '93 (not sure what your point is). They're a band that is representative of the 90's. A decade that was Gen Xer's and Y's...being a part of the Y Generation and right on the cusp of the X Generation I don't see how I'm too far off. And let's be honest here who in the hell am I going to claim after that...N'Sync, Backstreet Boys, Britney. Give me a break, I can't help that I had to live through a dark time in music history. I call the mid 90's the 'toad the wet sprocket years'. An awful, awful period in music history as a whole. So, in 1991 I was in my Junior year at SU, and a buddy and I made plans to go see the Chili Peppers at a smallish theatre in Syracuse, called the Landmark theater. Seated a few thousand tops. They had two opening acts, neither of whom we knew anything about at the time. I had a Finance exam to take, so I knew we'd be late, but I figured, so what if we miss the opener. We get there about 45 minutes late, and catch the first act finishing up their last 2 or 3 songs. And they were awesome. Completely killed. That act.....Pearl Jam :cry:. Only time I ever saw them in concert. Second opener was completely lame. The worst live show I've ever seen in my life. Singer was obnoxious, unengaged, and the band phoned it in. That band....The Smashing Pumpkins. :roll: I've hated them ever since. Chili Peppers put on a phenomenal show...one that the 80+ year old ushers for the theatre were completely unprepared for :lol:. A year or two later Pearl Jam and Smashing Pumpkins completely took off and I realized what I missed. Re: Alice in Chains. I saw them open up for Anthrax, Megadeth and Slayer on the Clash of the Titans tour. Again, one of the absolute worst live performances I've ever seen. Lead singer must have been stoned out of his gourd because he couldn't even string together a coherent sentence. Completely atrocious.
July 31, 200816 yr The 90's came and went with a few memorable exceptions. Well, based on Ohio and Michigan, the 90's certainly made its mark. One listen to Rock 106 in Toledo (which actually calls themselves "90's Rock" like it's oldies or something) or 89X in Detroit ("Time Warp") will more than prove there is a huge following for bands that were big in the 90's like Nirvana, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, No Doubt, 311, Rage Against the Machine, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Pearl Jam, Smasthing Pumpkins, The Cure, Bush, Stone Temple Pilots, Jane's Addiction, Porno For Pyros, Live, etc. etc. Interestingly enough you listed 4 of about 10 bands I was thinking of when I posted that. As time goes on, that list will get smaller. How popular will these 90's era bands be 10 to 20 years from now? Only time will tell.
July 31, 200816 yr The bands (or at least their albums that I heard) that I remember a lot from the 90s, that I liked, was Black Crowes (maybe they were 80s?) Blind Melon, Gin Blossoms, Son Volt (I guess U-T was 80s?), Frank Orrall/Poi Dog Pondering...hmm...>scratches head<....Drive By Truckers? Are they 90s?.... ....George Michale Freedom/Chris Isacc Wicked Game...good songs....
July 31, 200816 yr I like that there are clear parameters, but I tend to put more credence in Rolling Stone's list. I mean London Calling should be on any top 20 list I think. A sample of their top 25 - this one is a 5 years old so I'm sure Radiohead is now somewhere toward the top. In my dreams Pavement starts appearing on these lists: 1. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Beatles 2. Pet Sounds, The Beach Boys 3. Revolver, The Beatles 4. Highway 61 Revisited, Bob Dylan 5. Rubber Soul, The Beatles 6. What's Going On, Marvin Gaye 7. Exile on Main Street, The Rolling Stones 8. London Calling, The Clash 9. Blonde on Blonde, Bob Dylan 10. The Beatles ("The White Album"), The Beatles 11. The Sun Sessions, Elvis Presley 12. Kind of Blue, Miles Davis 13. Velvet Underground and Nico, The Velvet Underground 14. Abbey Road, The Beatles 15. Are You Experienced?, The Jimi Hendrix Experience 16. Blood on the Tracks, Bob Dylan 17. Nevermind, Nirvana 18. Born to Run, Bruce Springsteen 19. Astral Weeks, Van Morrison 20. Thriller, Michael Jackson 21. The Great Twenty-Eight, Chuck Berry 22. Plastic Ono Band, John Lennon 23. Innervisions, Stevie Wonder 24. Live at the Apollo (1963), James Brown 25. Rumours, Fleetwood Mac
July 31, 200816 yr ^^ Yes those bands are the 90's. I remember seeing Poi Dog at Bogarts in '92 and then the Halloween show that year was Gin Blossoms, Too Much Joy, and RC Mob - the headliners.
July 31, 200816 yr I think RC Mob had a Dayton connection somehow. They played here too, for New Years shows. They were sort of neo-funk, like the RHCP.
August 1, 200816 yr I think they are from Columbus - the Bogart's Halloween show was an annual thing, and it used to crack me up that soon to become bigger bands always seem to open for them here. I think Harold Chichester did some collarborating with the Afghan Whigs as well. They were a fun band.
August 1, 200816 yr The Rolling Stone list is highly messed up since they for so many years have been ridiculously tilted toward The Beatles when many of their records are a mess, Sgt Pepper being the worst offender with the exception of The White Album, which is borderline unlistenable. I just don't know how you can put an album at #1 that has throwaway songs on it when there are many good records out there with no filler, no misses. Sgt Pepper has 4-5 good songs on it and then some stupid stuff. The White Album(s) has 4-5 good songs on it and about 18 bad ones. And Abbey Rd. is a mess too. People need to get over it -- sure Mccartney and Lennon were good pop songwriters and were given a venue in which to indulge their muse, but neither were necessarily the best and they put out a lot of bad songs. A lot of musicians out there claim they were highly influenced by Sgt Pepper and my question is influenced by what, specifically? It just became this thing that people started saying and then everyone was afraid to question it. Both Bob Dylan and Lou Reed were better songwriters than either of those but neither get hardly any radio play. Recent anecdote: so last night I was at an outdoor belly dancing event, and cued up first on the soundtrack was the afore-mentioned "Mysterious Ways" by U2. Anyone who remembers that video, it had some belly dancers on it when the song was written without belly dancing in mind. Great example of how people's behavior and thoughts are literally shaped by TV's modification of something that existed well enough previously on its own. But good luck striking up conversation about how great the wah and organ sounds on that song, people don't notice even when there aren't fire-breathing belly dancers around.
August 1, 200816 yr My re-arranging of the Rolling Stone list into a top 12: 19. Astral Weeks, Van Morrison 0. Janis Joplin, Pearl 12. Kind of Blue, Miles Davis 15. Are You Experienced?, The Jimi Hendrix Experience 9. Blonde on Blonde, Bob Dylan 0. Talking Heads, Fear of Music 13. Velvet Underground and Nico, The Velvet Underground 24. Live at the Apollo (1963), James Brown 5. Rubber Soul, The Beatles 0. Led Zeppelin II 7. Exile on Main Street, The Rolling Stones 11. The Sun Sessions, Elvis Presley Sorry nothing later than the 1979s for me, at least not in the top 12.
August 1, 200816 yr As a Production major from OU, we always like to blame the big record labels, but now I'm starting to wonder if maybe people just suck now. That's the much scarier thought. It's easy to blame the record labels because that gives you hope that things could change when indie acts take over the world. But what if there actually just isn't as much talent out there today? And I think we really need to be blaming the kids too. They actually like garbage. Soulja Boy didn't hit number 1 by accident...maybe there just isn't any demand for good music anymore. Go ahead and blame the record labels, my friend and I have been compiling a list of bad 90's songs and so far all of the songs we've collected beats just about anything today in terms of offending the ears (very scientific). We may have had souljah boy, but the 90's had Rico Suave, at least souljah boy has a sort of universal catchiness in the beat and tempo.
August 1, 200816 yr Ha! Other notables from the 90's: the Macarena, and that 'band' from The Heights...you know the one fronted by the guy who became pumpkin boy on 90210.
August 2, 200816 yr This is the single-handedly the most musically deficient and ignorant generation of all time. Way wrong, the internet has opened up people to music they never ever could have heard before. There are tons of local music scenes popping all over the world thanks to the ease of band networking on the internet, and getting music is easier and faster than ever. Hell, there's no way I or many others would ever have heard Mort Garson or Devin Townsend without it. I'd say now it's easier for bad music to get to number 1 because taste in music is so much more diverse now and internet based, not old school records based (although a ton still buy itunes for popular songs). Who cares about hit lists when so many more bands can survive nowadays anyways. I think music is a more important part of people's lives than it has been in the past.
August 2, 200816 yr This is a great point - if you stick to most terrestrial radio, and now even satellite to some extent you will get the same, lowest common denominator stuff. But with the options today, people can create there own playlists and find new, independent music at any time.
August 2, 200816 yr Yeah but you guys are talking about recorded music, and to a large extent the invention of recorded music acted to kill music. 100 years ago if you wanted to hear music, you had to play it yourself or go somewhere where someone was playing it. Every bar and social gathering needed musicians to make the music, meaning there were jobs for exponentially more musicians than now. So while in some ways recordings allow us to hear old music and music from around the country and world, it meant overall far fewer people who could devote their lives to writing and playing. Yeah, I thought of this, I didn't read it anywhere. Honestly how many musicians are there in Ohio who are making their living *entirely* from live performing, with no teaching? There just aren't enough gigs. Every juke box you see, every DJ you see chipped away at music like how every car chips away at real cities. The big problem is that most people's main experience with music is through recorded music so they want live music to sound like recorded music, which it usually can't. It also discriminates against styles that record poorly, like classical and choral and favors cheap music, especially electronic programed music like rap and techno. Any traditional style of music that predates amplification more than likely doesn't record as well as styles that came along since the invention of electronic amplification. And amplification messed up live performing...now it's so damn loud on stage you can hardly hear what you're playing and how loudly. It's tougher to play with a lot of confidence if you have no idea how it sounds out in the crowd. Now that there is a huge catalog of recorded music, movies and advertising more often than not just pluck existing recorded music instead of hiring someone to write some new stuff. So since there are so few great music gigs out there, there are far fewer people out there who are literally singing for their supper, and so fewer people approaching music with the kind of intensity needed to really get somewhere. If you've got nothing to live for except the factory or farm and that piano or guitar is the only way out, you're going to practice 25 hours a day. Now the economic conditions are so much better there's a lot less pressure on individuals. The other HUGE music-killer in the US was MADD and raising the drinking age to 21. It was a total musical disaster because bars hesitate to book under-21 bands aside from the fact they probably don't have many over-21 fans. When I was under 21 we would beg everyone we knew over 21 to come just to drink beer so the bar would make some money. I remember one time we were setting up and somebody almost blew out the system plugging in a jack and the bartender started yelling at us. Obviously he had nothing to do but watch us set up since all he was doing was pouring the ocassional diet coke or lemon water for the assembled under-21 crowd. Most of the time bars just plain don't book under 21 bands and so there ends up being a big rift in a local music community simply based on the age of the bands. Here's one of my best friend's little brother, a rare example of someone who was taken out of school at age 11 or so and didn't even bother going to Juilliard, but even he barely makes it playing live gigs. Most of the money he makes is appearing as a guest instructor at music camps. 100 years ago he could have been making big money every night of the week.
August 2, 200816 yr jmeck - most of these developments are not recent, except for the drinking age (and that was still 20 years ago). Obviously recorded music has been around for a long time and scenes were still able to break. I look at festivals like SXSW and even Midpoint and it gives me hope there are still good bands out there making a living. Also, with the paradigm shift of how people get their music it is putting an emphasis on performing to make money so this should have a positive impact as well. More than anything, corporate radio has dictated the junk most people hear (this is depressing), so people have to learn to find good music elsewhere, and there are options. Corporations also dictate the use of existing versus new material, but they are not in the business of promoting a craft. I understand your overall view, but by no means would I consider live music dead.
August 2, 200816 yr Yeah but you guys are talking about recorded music, and to a large extent the invention of recorded music acted to kill music. Yep. If anything, local music scenes have shrunk drastically due to the proliferation of recorded music. Where do you get your information? :wtf: Local music has not been reduced or become smaller, the way that is it covered has greatly changed, due to the Internet and mobile media. Agents, A&R, talent managers, etc., no longer have to hang out at clubs or "music hot spots" to find an artist or a band. There are fewer and fewer artists being cultivated "in-house" than at anytime in music history. Now, you do have a point about not needing live music at parties due to the electronic distribution of music. people 30 and under want their own programming and it's cheaper than hiring a band. Now that there is a huge catalog of recorded music, movies and advertising more often than not just pluck existing recorded music instead of hiring someone to write some new stuff. Yep. It seems fewer commercials and fewer movies are using music specifically written for them. Movie makers and advertisers usually pick stuff that's already been recorded, but the musicians typically do make some money from licensing, or if the musician is independent and/or up-and-coming, they get exposure (even if not much direct money). If you're an indie act invited to have a song in a movie, that's great exposure, much better than any myspace stuff. Movies are one thing today I think still help musicians, and sometimes help them a lot. People tend to think it's cool if there's a song they like in a movie, and they're likely to look up that band and possibly even buy their CD. Movies are positive exposure. They're not helping people pirate records. They're arguably helping sell records (even if minimally). Now commercials? I guess it depends on the commercial. For an indie act, a good commercial can be great exposure. Think of "Lake Michigan" by Rogue Wave. I have no doubt those Zune commercials helped the band. That's a catch 22. The with copyrights & publishing rights, the cost of "using" any part of a previously recorded is more expensive than ever. Many times using a previously recorded music can cost up to 65% of a budgeted project. Musicians, do not, make money for licensing or publishing only the songwriter. Having your music on a movie score, does not guarantee that it will be apart of a soundtrack or available to the public. A movie, is not a guarantee that you will be a success or even noticed. Commercials, unless the original artist/songwriter, give approval a specific "sample" is usually purchased to be rerecorded to fit the commercial.
August 2, 200816 yr Musicians, do not, make money for licensing or publishing only the songwriter. Songwriter/composer usually is a musician in the band. License fees can help the musicians. The money from the actual recording itself usually goes to the label or other publishing rights owners. Sometimes the copyright holders for the recording are the musicians themselves, but this is rare on the major labels. Commercials, unless the original artist/songwriter, give approval a specific "sample" is usually purchased to be rerecorded to fit the commercial. See Rogue Wave example. Many songs are original versions in commercials. Advertisers are good at finding music that is not huge so the cost of licensing is less and they don't need a cover band. Though obviously, given their intent, they'll still pay. The worst example I can think of a cover in a current commercial is the Aleve "Move on Up" campaign. The with copyrights & publishing rights, the cost of "using" any part of a previously recorded is more expensive than ever. Of course. It's not like they'll give gratis license to a Hollywood movie or commercial (venues solely for the intent of making money themselves), but it is all negotiable. Indie and up-and-coming is cheaper. It varies widely depending on the music. Red Hot Chili Peppers is a lot more expensive than Rogue Wave. Having your music on a movie score, does not guarantee that it will be apart of a soundtrack or available to the public. A movie, is not a guarantee that you will be a success or even noticed. Regardless of whether there's a soundtrack or not, it's good exposure. It can't hurt unless the project is something as bad as a Subway commercial or movie like "Beerfest." Again, where are you getting your information? What professional experience do you have?
August 2, 200816 yr Television and documentary production, licensing music. Where are you getting your information? For you to say musicians don't make many for licensing their song reaks of inexperience or lack of education. It varies widely depending on the music. I worked in the music industry for 7.5 years, prior to being appointed to my current position, and my responsibility was to know everything about the record music and publishing side of the business. On the recorded music side, I needed to know about finding an artist/band, A&R/ artist development, song selection, manufacuturing of the project, territory distribution, marketing, radio and video promotions and programming, video production, tours and unique artist branding. On the publishing front I need to know about artist royalty calculation along mechanical and licensing fees are calculated. In my current position, it's my responsibility to go between business that we've formerly wholly owned and now just have a investment in and since we are a media company are other core businesses need to work with those company's in the marketing and promotions of their products. So thats where I get my info. REAL LIFE JOB EXPERIENCE. Now in regard to musicians making money, it rare and far between unless each singular musician, on a specific project, has a licensing deal with the record and or publishing company. Unless the musicians ARE THE BAND OR ARTIST. Who gets paid does NOT depend on the music but the song/songs involved. Example, if I MayDay, CDM, KOOW and I are the "urbanohio band" and we write, produce, record our music than each of us will likely recieve a "song writer fee", and mechanicals for the music and royalties based on sales of the album, by territory. The person that produces the song will recieve a producers fee and who ever the executive producer gets paid based on sales of the overall project. If the pope wrote a song for us, it's his song and he gets publishing royalties for that song, not us or any extra musicians or back up vocalist brought in to produce the song. The extra musicians and vocalist are paid in a lump sum out of the overall production budget for that song/overall project. In addition, when the song or parts of the song are requested for use in another song, tv program, etc. The Pope, will get paid if he agrees to let the song be used. Second example. Say Rock-N-Roller is a singles artist. She doesn't play an instrument, doesn't write songs nor does she sing back up vocals and extra musicians and singers are brought in. Most likely she will only get royalties from the sales of the singles/album by territory. The producer(s), musician(s), vocalist(s), will all be paid in a lump sum per song, unless they have deals with the label and were asked to specificaly participate in this project.
August 2, 200816 yr Who gets paid does NOT depend on the music but the song/songs involved. Songs ARE music. HA! That's exactly what I was saying. Big song gets more money than little song, hence why it depends on the music. Example, if I MayDay, CDM, KOOW and I are the "urbanohio band" and we write, produce, record our music than each of us will likely recieve a "song writer fee", and mechanicals for the music and royalties based on sales of the album, by territory. The person that produces the song will recieve a producers fee and who ever the executive producer gets paid based on sales of the overall project. If the pope wrote a song for us, it's his song and he gets publishing royalties for that song, not us or any extra musicians or back up vocalist brought in to produce the song. Of course, but in the real world, pope would be a musician. Hence my problem with your original statement. Some musicians are making money. They're songwriters and even sometimes their own publisher. Now in regard to musicians making money, it rare and far between unless each singular musician, on a specific project, has a licensing deal with the record and or publishing company. No sh!t, sherlock. The writer/composer gets the money and the publisher. Many times the writer is the head of the band, hence my problem with your original statement. On the recorded music side, I needed to know about finding an artist/band, A&R/ artist development, song selection, manufacuturing of the project, territory distribution, marketing, radio and video promotions and programming, video production, tours and unique artist branding. O Did you issue or obtain synch licenses? That's all that would be relevant to this discussion. I knew you would fall for that. The "music" that make up a song and the "lyrics" that accompany the "music" are two different things. Once again, you speak of what you do not know. I've never issued a license nor obtain, since that is what the lawyers are suppose to do at my discression. I'm done with your nonsense. You've ruined another thread with your nonsense.
August 3, 200816 yr god I've just learned so much about the music industry that I'm closing this thread.
Create an account or sign in to comment