Free Straits Concert

[dmg]

Interesting piece there, I guess the real thing is that we'll never know just how much input was given by the other band members.  I've always been of the opinion that the songs evolved the most on tour anyway but then these changes could be anyones idea too.

An interesting case in though is why David left.  Apparently not enough input into the songs or not getting his own songs on the albums.  Says to me MK is very much a man who knows what he wants in the studio and allows little input from anyone.

[vgonis]

Very enlightening post jbaent! Thank you. On another thread I have written about the contributions of Alan Clark, on LOG, and the words coming from MK's mouth! Yet he did not receive any credit then, (and I wonder what kind of credit could he claim- orchestration? a small piano idea-segment deserves a full composition credit?)  but it was the beginning and maybe Alan was trying to prove his value instead of asking what was owed. Of course as you say, it is a matter of perspective. MK works with the same ethics when he contributes to other albums. I don't think that on the numerous albums he has been contributing, anyone (except Steely Dan) has written his solos or licks, note for note, or at all. Yet he receives only credit for playing the guitar. So it is totally understood, if his work ethics are the same for his own compositions. And remember the Beatles? They wouldn't be the same without George Martin. I think that producing is very profitable and is a great credit, but on many occasions he actually contributed more on a songwriting level. He never asked for any because he believed that the first raw idea of a song was what mattered. So really, I have to side with MK on that.

Each person and band is a completely different story. We usually know only the stories from commercially successful bands. And the story there is always about money, fame, and making every other member pay and recognize the value of the contribution. And it is almost funny, because most of them started out sharing the credit, equally to all band members-exactly because they recognized the obvious- that each member adds something just by playing. I think U2 have such a relation, but I don't remember anyone else. But it is sad really, because successful bands that make such a lot of money, should be happy and not fighting for more. Music will make the world better...

And a little quiz: Oh , I had a dream last night. I woke up and I recorded a satisfying riff . And then took it to the studio and recorded it from my soul. And because it was so obvious what I did, later on I recorded another borrowed tune. No credit to the original composers and I got away with it. Who are we?

[qjamesfloyd]

There are players who can play Mark's music note for note, but there is more to it than that, Mark puts so much more into playing the songs than anyone can, mainly because he wrote them, and its also just his way of playing guitar, he is an emotional and inventive guitar player, with one of the worlds greatest feels,touch,taste,etc, and that is a very hard thing to replicate.

[jbaent]

Interesting piece there, I guess the real thing is that we'll never know just how much input was given by the other band members.  I've always been of the opinion that the songs evolved the most on tour anyway but then these changes could be anyones idea too.

An interesting case in though is why David left.  Apparently not enough input into the songs or not getting his own songs on the albums.  Says to me MK is very much a man who knows what he wants in the studio and allows little input from anyone.

I do agree with that. David left because he had plenty of his own songs and melodies but MK never wanted to use anything but his songs, so David frustrarion grew and grew until he left.

About inputs from anyone else, I think that keyboards melody on Walk of life or sax parts on Romeo, Sultans etc etc comes from Chris White, probably with some indications from MK, but I think the melodies that built that solos or parts came from the musicians themselfs.

[jbaent]

Each person and band is a completely different story. We usually know only the stories from commercially successful bands. And the story there is always about money, fame, and making every other member pay and recognize the value of the contribution. And it is almost funny, because most of them started out sharing the credit, equally to all band members-exactly because they recognized the obvious- that each member adds something just by playing. I think U2 have such a relation, but I don't remember anyone else. But it is sad really, because successful bands that make such a lot of money, should be happy and not fighting for more. Music will make the world better...

I mentioned Led Zeppelin and Toto as two examples that comes to mind about sharing credits, every song has different credits depending on what everyone did, if there is a bass line, a drum groove, a keyboard part, a guitar solo whatever that the player wrote by themself for the song, he got the credit for it.

It also happened with Pink Floyd, actually as far as I remember, the beguining of the crisis in the band comes from the moment where Richard Wright didnt contribute in anything except playing, and the Roger Waters took control over the whole bandm giving just some credits to David Gilmour in some songs for some solos or riffs.

Its clear that when MK goes with the song, and the chords, its his song, but when someone add a very valueble part (like the keyboards melody of walk of life, which is what made the song famous) then you have something that might be credited. I dont know if Alan came with that melody, maybe it was MK

[vgonis]

jbaent, I can't disagree with you, because there is truth and logic in what you say. I am only stating that since there is no binding written contract and it is all based in the vague ethical rules that each man accepts, such things are bound to happen. If I was in Alan's or David's shoes I would surely hate it and for good reason. But as I wrote before there is logic and consistency in MK's works ethics and contributions to other artists, so clearly it is a state of mind.
I really don't care about the whole thing from a moral point of view, because it is not out of the ordinary for the music business. And I also don't know how it works exactly. Music gets 50% lyrics 50%. So if someone writes a riff over somebody's music it is what 10%? Hard nut to crack. But your WoL example is good. On money for nothing a , a 6 note lift from Don't stand so close to me, (which could be avoided and left out-it is not the main attraction of the song) gave to Sting a  25% co-write of the song! I guess he had better management, lawyers and it was a good promotional tool since the Police were the no.1 group on the planet at the time they were recording.
Thank you too for the Bobby video. I don't recall hearing the song, but point taken. Even though Bobby doesn't look that hurt by the fact. So it is common practice in music business.
But with all this talk we may be giving validity to all those claiming they have written SOS or any other song!

[jbaent]

But with all this talk we may be giving validity to all those claiming they have written SOS or any other song!

Actually we can give credits to Dave for rhytmic guitar lines, John for bass lines and Pick for the great groove he played for that song, apart of MK who wrote the lyrics, the main chords and the solos.

And talking live, I guess that the only creative add was the sax solo played by Chris White.

The other people are just crazy people 

[vgonis]

That is exactly what I meant when I said I don't know how it works in the music business. I mean that the musicians that play on the recordings, get a small cut from every record sold or received air play. Isn't it that so? In a way it is a recognition for their contribution and efforts. Of course a bigger, fuller cut would be better, but it is the way of the world (of music business) 
And sometimes the crazy people are not that crazy. Since you mention Led Zeppelin, Willie Dixon, Minnie and a couple of others that claimed authorship and won the case, just happened to have solid evidence. (OK far fetched, I know) 

[Banjo99uk]

I might be wrong but wasn't Setting Me Up quite different from the final studio version after someone (not in DS) recommend they rearrange it. I think it was slower, but it shows MK writes all the songs but doesn't always do all the fixtures and fittings.

[vgonis]

I guess this was the work of Muff Winwood.

[Simon]

A brief conundrum.

Whose house is it? The architects, the builders or the expert ceiling painter that put on those magnificent finishing touches that really made it what it is?

Or is it perhaps the person who commissioned it?

[Hophead]

A brief conundrum.

Whose house is it? The architects, the builders or the expert ceiling painter that put on those magnificent finishing touches that really made it what it is?

Or is it perhaps the person who commissioned it?

The person with the deed in his ..or her hand..which in this case..would be Mark 

[vgonis]

Yes, it is a hard nut to crack as I said. And it is very old indeed. Art and craft. But then we get intellectual craft? Genius craftsmanship? How much can such a man add to the original plan/blueprint? Would he be able to create something from square one, something original, or he can only assist-suggest-work with someone else's original material? And then how can we evaluate in monetary terms his assistance? If he knows the deal, gets paid a fixed price and agrees to do the job, there is no need to deny him the ideas, but surely when the credit for it has to be in the form of co-writing a song, it is a different deal altogether. Alan Parsons made a career after the genius work in Dark side of the moon, a real boost for his personal career both as producer - engineer and later for his group.
Let me put it differently: If MK recorded acoustic versions of all his songs, alone with his guitar, we wouldn't have any of this page long discussions.  Maybe he wouldn't have made it big, but his sole authorship would be hard to deny. I mean, take "All along the watchtower". A fantastic Dylan song, that Jimi took it to stratospheric heights. Even Dylan recognized  the genius interpretation and tried to imitate it. Now tell me, if Jimi used a different set of lyrics, what is the resemblance between the two tracks? The solos, take up half of the song, the better half, but in the end only one gets the songwriters credit: Dylan. Was Jimi stupid, not to put his name too? Led Zeppelin used to put their names along with the original composers name, on many many songs, and as a matter of fact on most of them after the first pressing and with a court order. Dylan on the other hand rips ideas from original folk or blues songs and gets away with it. But that is a whole other story.

So it is the original idea that counts, for a good reason. See also another thing. When MK writes a song, he always declares it to the songwriters association, even if it never sees the light of day. If you look it up there are dozens of songs declared that were never released, some that were probably released under a different name and quite a few that were released years after they were declared. It is music, not photography, not architecture not painting. Different rules apply.

And I still see the point from Alan or David or Chris. (at least the ones we suppose they have...)  

[jbaent]

A brief conundrum.

Whose house is it? The architects, the builders or the expert ceiling painter that put on those magnificent finishing touches that really made it what it is?

Or is it perhaps the person who commissioned it?

Comparation betwen houses, vegetables, tables etc etc dont work for those who claims about music rights, the infamous SGAE in Spain, or other asociations that try to get money for the music when it got played at a radio, tv, shops, etc...

[JF]

a strange thing is that when Dire Straits was a "band", Mark was more "authoritarian" than he is in his solo career

I mean that the 96ers have more "liberty" to add their ideas, than the DS members in the 80ies

I'd say that synth lines on Coyote or you don't know you're born are Guy's ideas and add a lot ot the songs

I'm pretty sure that the WOL synth lead part is Mark's idea, but played and "arranged" by Guy (Alan is more on the hammond's part)

I agree that Alan Clark contributed a lot to DS music, it's obvious on LOG album, and during 80-81 and 82-83 tours.

Does it mean he must have been "credited" I don't have the response
As all you said, its' hard to determine who "compose" a song

And sometimes, you have the contrary : a song is credited by all the band, and only one musician have composed it :

Horizons by Genesis on Foxtrot (1972) is credited by all the band, but is obviously a Steve Hackett composition

All songs credited Lennon-MacCartney are obviously not composed by the two writers

So the credits thing is of course due to money issue.
Sometimes, it's easier to register the whole band, sometimes, it's easier to register just one musician.
And Yes Led Zep is very accurate in his credits, but even in this case it's common said by their fans, and rock's critrics, that Jones' work on many songs was underrated
e.g. Stairway to heaven is credited only by Page and Plant, but Jones added of course greats ideas to the song : intro on flute (and not on mellotron), keyboard part during the whole song, etc...


I'm in the same situation now.....
Yes, my 13' daughter compose and write songs.....
We recorded the first one this week.
I arranged it : I add chords she never thought about, I add some bars, I suggested her two different rhythms (4/4 or 6/8) I even add a small musical part with differents chords from the chorus and the verses, I played all the intruments.....
but she came with the lyrics, the melody, and the whole "feeling" of the song
well, do you think I must ask some royalties to my daughter ? 
I will think to this....