Bunnymen songwriting process

[DivaDiana77]

I suppose they should all be happy that it wasn't like the Smiths where Morrissey and Marr got all the credit and 40% each while bass and drums got 10% each.

[black francis]

That did seem a bit unfair. If I'm not mistaken the royalties were for their performances on the albums? Wouldn't that normally be a 25/25/25/25 split? Withahip? Dave?

[withahip]

Dinero y musica? No comprende.

[DivaDiana77]

That did seem a bit unfair. If I'm not mistaken the royalties were for their performances on the albums? Wouldn't that normally be a 25/25/25/25 split? Withahip? Dave?

Unfair, yes. But it was the agreement they made and it held up in a court battle. I'm not sure if it was more for performances.

[black francis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smiths#Court_case

In 1996, Joyce took Morrissey and Marr to court, claiming that he had not received his fair share of recording and performance royalties. Morrissey and Marr had claimed the lion's share of The Smiths' recording and performance royalties and allowed ten percent each to Joyce and Rourke. Composition royalties were not an issue, as Rourke and Joyce had never been credited as composers for the band. Morrissey and Marr claimed that the other two members of the band had always agreed to that split of the royalties, but the court found in favour of Joyce and ordered that he be paid over £1 million in back pay and receive twenty-five percent henceforth. As Smiths' royalties had been frozen for two years, Rourke settled for a smaller lump sum to pay off his debts and continued to receive ten percent. While the judge in the case described Morrissey as "devious, truculent and unreliable", he did not state that the singer had been dishonest.[15] Morrissey claimed that he was "... under the scorching spotlight in the dock, being drilled ..." with questions such as " 'How dare you be successful?' 'How dare you move on?'". He stated that "The Smiths were a beautiful thing and Johnny [Marr] left it, and Mike [Joyce] has destroyed it."[16] Morrissey appealed against the verdict, but was not successful.[17]

In late November 2005, while appearing on radio station BBC 6 Music, Mike Joyce claimed to be having financial problems and said that he had resorted to selling rare band recordings on eBay. As a teaser, a few minutes of an unfinished instrumental track known as "The Click Track" was premiered on the show. Morrissey hit back at Joyce with a public statement shortly after, on the website true-to-you.net.[18] Relations between Joyce and Rourke cooled significantly as a result of Morrissey's statement which claimed that Joyce had misled the courts. Morrissey claimed that Joyce had not declared that Rourke was entitled to some of the assets seized by Joyce's lawyers from Morrissey.

[DivaDiana77]

Unfair, yes. But it was the agreement they made and it held up in a court battle. I'm not sure if it was more for performances.

Oops. Not upheld in court but for some reason it continued the way it was. Hmmm. Close? Half a scooby snack?

[withahip]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smiths#Court_case

The bass and drums were fundamental to what made The Smiths sound. If those two wrote the bass and drum parts, they deserve songwriting credit.

My opinion on songwriting is all the parts make the song.

Legally, however, it is whomever that wrote the melody that legally gets the rights to the song. At least in the U.S.

I will give you the prime example. Check out "I Got Rhythm" by George Gershwin.
Snazzy gold shirt and all.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiWMkM4YhhQ&feature=related[/youtube]

Those chords progressions have been taken by so many it is impossible to count. It is a very popular jazz standard. Many songs use its chord progression, such as Ornette Coleman's "Chippie". Charlie Parker alone based many songs on its chord progression, e.g. "Moose the Mooche".

It doesn't matter if you use the same rhythm, chords whatever - as long as the melody is different.

The most famous rip off in the States of "I Got Rhythm" might well be
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVFxZXcUouM&feature=related[/youtube]


So legally Maybe Mac can get all the rights to the music. It doesn't mean he "wrote " it.

[black francis]

I think it's in the box set where Mac talks about a song and says he was sure it was his idea and Les was sure it was his idea, etc but in the end it was a Bunnymen idea or something or other. I liked that.

[In The Margins]

I think it's in the box set where Mac talks about a song and says he was sure it was his idea and Les was sure it was his idea, etc but in the end it was a Bunnymen idea or something or other. I liked that.

I never bothered reading the booklet in the box set. Did anybody ever figure out the differences in the booklet of the U.S. vs. the U.K. release? Remember -- they pulled them off the market (or delayed the release) to change or correct something in the booklet. Or something like that. Maybe Peter could tell us what really went on. Errrr, maybe not.

[withahip]

The thing about the first four Bunnymen albums is that the songs were as much about the music as they were about Mac's voice. We saw what happened when Mac split. Not a heck of a lot for any of them.