Self-interest or more in support of smaller artists? Anyones guess...

[www.theguardian.com]

Kind of funny stance for a band that claimed blues songs as their own compositions.

jb

Quote
jbwelda
Kind of funny stance for a band that claimed blues songs as their own compositions.

jb

When did they ever do that?

Quote
jbwelda
Kind of funny stance for a band that claimed blues songs as their own compositions.

jb

I really don't see the connection. Totally different things. Just trolling?

Quote
StonedRambler

Quote
jbwelda
Kind of funny stance for a band that claimed blues songs as their own compositions.

jb

When did they ever do that?

Was prodigal son one? Can't recall but maybe Stop Breaking Down?

No that was Led Zeppelin

I suppose the issue at hand relates more to performer than songwriter royalties but well, the topic goes where you take it.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonedRambler

Quote
jbwelda
Kind of funny stance for a band that claimed blues songs as their own compositions.

jb

When did they ever do that?

Was prodigal son one? Can't recall but maybe Stop Breaking Down?

I don't know about earlier pressings but on my copys of Beggars Banquet and Exile the proper composers are named - Robert Wilkins for Prodical Son and Robert Johnson for Stop Breaking Down.

Love In Vain -- Woody Payne



ROCKMAN

I'm doing my best I can for a local musician, singer, songwriter who has just had an album launch at The Half Moon Pub in Putney ,SW London on Saturday night.
This campaign with The Stones fully supporting it will be such a help to get what performers, all over the World, deserve.

Maximum allowed audience, with table service and everyone behaving along with covid restrictions, and it was a great night of live music..

First time tracks on the album were played live, along with old faves that we love to hear.

We have got an FB Peter Bruntnell Appreciation Group going with over 350 members who are trying in their own ways of getting recognition.

Maybe if any of you out there support your local bands and the record shops, we may just make a difference in getting them a few quid,dollars,peseta's and any money that may come their way.

With this added support of The Stones and many other big names in music,it can only be a positive move to get what they deserve from streaming etc.
They need as much potential revenue as they can get.

Just one track here from the new album 'Journey To The Sun',and hoping will sell well on line and also at the few gigs in London area that are coming up in June.




Support your local Record Store .......and if they can't be open due to covid restrictions, buy the records, CD's and live gigs on line.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-06-08 01:33 by crawdaddy.

Quote
StonedRambler

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonedRambler

Quote
jbwelda
Kind of funny stance for a band that claimed blues songs as their own compositions.

jb

When did they ever do that?

Was prodigal son one? Can't recall but maybe Stop Breaking Down?

I don't know about earlier pressings but on my copys of Beggars Banquet and Exile the proper composers are named - Robert Wilkins for Prodical Son and Robert Johnson for Stop Breaking Down.

You have a later pressing of BB then, dont recall exactly the original credits to stop breaking down, but add love in vain, you got to move, few others.

They made up for all this later with Blue and Lonesome for one, but also the original artist set Confessin the Blues. It was mostly record company business originally probably, rather than them actually trying to claim credit for the songs.

jb don't troll, thank you very much.

jb



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-06-08 01:36 by jbwelda.

Quote
jbwelda

Quote
StonedRambler

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonedRambler

Quote
jbwelda
Kind of funny stance for a band that claimed blues songs as their own compositions.

jb

When did they ever do that?

Was prodigal son one? Can't recall but maybe Stop Breaking Down?

I don't know about earlier pressings but on my copys of Beggars Banquet and Exile the proper composers are named - Robert Wilkins for Prodical Son and Robert Johnson for Stop Breaking Down.

You have a later pressing of BB then, dont recall exactly the original credits to stop breaking down, but add love in vain, you got to move, few others.

They made up for all this later with Blue and Lonesome for one, but also the original artist set Confessin the Blues. It was mostly record company business originally probably, rather than them actually trying to claim credit for the songs.

jb don't troll, thank you very much.

jb

It was the early pressings of Let It Bleed and Exile. But it was not the Stones who claimed they wrote Love In Vain and Stop Breaking Down, it was the record company (for some reason). Same happened with Stevie Wonder's I Don't Know Why on Metamorphosis. All the credits were quickly corrected.

Haven't heard that this also happened with Prodigal Son.

Greil Marcus - Mystery Train ---- 2020 edition



ROCKMAN

Quote
jbwelda
Kind of funny stance for a band that claimed blues songs as their own compositions.

jb

What a stupid off topic post. Again by you. And like always: Negative, bad mooded totally destructive and grudgingly.

Hold my self back to say this for a long time.

But this one was one too much.

Just deleted you from my account (which is possible).

So that I can no longer read your posts - neither your reply.

Bye, bye.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-06-08 11:15 by caschimann.

Pretty sure Stones - Prodigal Son
has always been credited to Robert Wilkins ....



ROCKMAN

Original, that's the most friendly way of collect things. No cd'rs, dvd'rs, or to put it on hard disc's. I don't want them. Original! sg, Lp's, cd's, dvd's original that's the way to collect things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-06-08 12:21 by tioms.

Quote
StonedRambler

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonedRambler

Quote
jbwelda
Kind of funny stance for a band that claimed blues songs as their own compositions.

jb

When did they ever do that?

Was prodigal son one? Can't recall but maybe Stop Breaking Down?

I don't know about earlier pressings but on my copys of Beggars Banquet and Exile the proper composers are named - Robert Wilkins for Prodical Son and Robert Johnson for Stop Breaking Down.

I read the first pressing for Beggar's weren't properly credited. I thought possibly Stop Breaking Down as well but can't be sure.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
jbwelda

Quote
StonedRambler

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonedRambler

Quote
jbwelda
Kind of funny stance for a band that claimed blues songs as their own compositions.

jb

When did they ever do that?

Was prodigal son one? Can't recall but maybe Stop Breaking Down?

I don't know about earlier pressings but on my copys of Beggars Banquet and Exile the proper composers are named - Robert Wilkins for Prodical Son and Robert Johnson for Stop Breaking Down.

You have a later pressing of BB then, dont recall exactly the original credits to stop breaking down, but add love in vain, you got to move, few others.

They made up for all this later with Blue and Lonesome for one, but also the original artist set Confessin the Blues. It was mostly record company business originally probably, rather than them actually trying to claim credit for the songs.

jb don't troll, thank you very much.

jb

It was the early pressings of Let It Bleed and Exile. But it was not the Stones who claimed they wrote Love In Vain and Stop Breaking Down, it was the record company (for some reason). Same happened with Stevie Wonder's I Don't Know Why on Metamorphosis. All the credits were quickly corrected.

Haven't heard that this also happened with Prodigal Son.

Just checked my original DECCA (open letters on label, no box) and yes, all songs credited to Jagger/Richards, no credit to the Rev.

EDIT:

Found some additional info on Rolling Stone:
[www.rollingstone.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-06-08 16:51 by treaclefingers.

As Rockman might say...lurv it!

Quote
jbwelda
Kind of funny stance for a band that claimed blues songs as their own compositions.

jb

Stop that , that's not nice

Quote
Nikkei
Self-interest or more in support of smaller artists? Anyones guess...

[www.theguardian.com]

Artists are selfish by nature so of course it's self-interest. If artists weren't selfish then there would be no records by anyone. But when you get members of Led Zeppelin, Paul McCartney and the others listed, and who knows who else is involved, there's clearly a big picture that needs to be brought into view that matters, because the Stones' self-interest reflects ALL artists' self-interest. It's not anything new, really, just that this is just in the UK.

I guess the Stones, like all the artists involved, be them rich or poor, old or young, are there just supporting a cause benefitting them all. The streaming probably saved record industry (from the threat of piratism) but the deal between these private enterprises like Spotify one one hand and Universal on the other was an awful one for artists. They just got a laughable, tiny amount of the cake, and it has been random and arbitrary what kind of deal the artists have with their record companies of the share (one can guess that a big client like The Stones might get better share than some unknown act, but still not that much).

The possibility to make online streaming similar like radio playing - that is, a matter of publishing rights - is a significiant turn. The artists will gain more by the cost of record companies. Generally - Retired Dog corrects me, if I bullshit - half of the royalties from radio play go to composers and other half to publisher. So who hold those rights makes money.

No matter what happens to this law proposal in UK, but something like that will happen, sooner or later. And the business is reacting - because we are talking about a big money here. One particular phenomenon is the recent emergence of new publishing houses and the big record companies buying the rights for the catalogues of old artists (the most famous one is Universal buying Dylan's whole catalogue). They don't do that for fun. The money in future will be in publishing rights.

So, for example, in the case of Dylan, for Universal it doesn't matter if the new law will pass or not - they will get 100% of Dylan's streaming money in any case.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2021-06-09 12:20 by Doxa.

Is there any particular gain the Stones might get with this new law?

One thing came to my mind. Irony has been that the streaming business most likely also saved ABKCO. At least for Klein's compnay the recent years have been a goldmine - they particularly don't need to do anything - just have the Stones catalogue in online and collect the lion's share of the royalties. Easy money. But with the new law it would mean that Mick and Keith as song-writers will get significiantly bigger share of the streaming money. All cost by ABKCO.

I am sure Mick and Keith would love that... Who knows if that might have some bigger consequences in regard to the rights for the ABKCO catalogue...

- Doxa

I used to work in a record store, and would often play albums that buyers would pay for.
Saturday Night Fever buy the score .....

Where’s my cut?

Lol

Quote
Doxa

half of the royalties from radio play go to composers and other half to publisher

See also here: Streaming royalties - [iorr.org] , [iorr.org] vs. Radio royalties - [iorr.org] .

Quote
treaclefingers



Found some additional info on Rolling Stone:
[www.rollingstone.com]

An interesting piece from 1969 - thanks!

Generally, I wouldn't accuse much the Stones for trying intentionally to rip off blues dudes. I guess there was a lot of misunderstanding and confusion in regard to old pre-war blues songs at the time - who exactly owning the copyrights or do they belong to Public Domain. The people themselves from the twenties and thirties - dudes like Robert Johnson - weren't interested in copywriting their songs (cost some money), and besides, many of the songs were like circulating among the people - each making an own interpretation, and probably having learned some of it from somwhere else. The idea of creating own songs, and then 'owning' them, wasn't that clear one. Many times it was like 'folk music' - belonging to Public Domain by nature. It was later when the money started to seriously flow - and big pop acts like The Stones making their versions - people started to pay more attention to these matters, and some people rightly, some people wrongly, sorted things out. The most famous case is Robert Johnson's catalogue (that now belongs to 'his' people).

The Stones were quickly to react and gave the credits to right sources - as that article shows. What's the story of "Prodigal Son" - was it thought be a Public Domain song (made by the famous "trad") that Rev. Wilkins in his devilish secular days was singing in the form of "That's No Way To Get Along", which he then re-interpreted in his 1964 recording of it to fit his faith - or a cold-hearted steal or just a human error - who knows. It's odd.

But what is more odd is the story of "Love In Vain". The original LET IT BLEED version was credited to this mysterious author called "Woody Payne". I have wondered and written about it earlier, but to make a long story short: some people have claimed that it was a lost cousin of "Nanker Phelge" - created just to pick up the royalties. I don't believe so - seemingly Payne had appeared before Stones' version was released, and still years later he was the author for whom The Blues Brothers paid for the use of "Sweet Home Chicago" - or some other Johnson number. We also have to note that the two Robert Johnson albums (The KING OF DELTA BLUES SINGERS VOL 1&2) released during the 60's - that shaped the rock world dramatically from Dylan to Stones and Cream - were all Public Domain stuff.

Then appeared this Woody Payne to claim for the rights and collect the royalties from (some) Robert Johnson songs. No one seems to know anything about this strange fellow any longer. The people (including some relative of the blues master) who got hold of Johnson catalogue later (the process started in the late 70's and there were many obstacles in the way) - Robert Johnson estate - didn't knew anything about him either. For them he was a thief and a conman.

Seemingly the Stones noticed it very quickly too. "Love In Vain" was credited to "trad, arranged by Jagger/Richard" (or something like that) already in YA-YA'S in 1970. That went (legally right) along the 60's Public Domain Robert Johnson albums, as would "Stop Breakin' Down" in EXILE two years later. It was later, by the time Robert Johnson people/estate were pushing them, and showed their right for Johnson material, changed to "Robert Johnson". Can't recall the exact dates here, but I believe that it was around 1978 when the estate was created and started to make their (rightful) moves (that would take decades to come true).

Now reading that ROLLING STONE article from 1969, I think that particular article by rising awereness could very well have something to do with the process. That the Stones recognized the issue and were more - or very - careful to give the credit to supposed rightful sources (for both legal and moral reasons). Then appeared this Woody Payne to claim rights for Johnson tunes.

My best quess is that this Payne character was not the lost cousin of Nanker Phelge (or even Allan Klein), but just someone who smelled money at the right time, saw an oppurtinity, and made his move. Namely, by the knowledge of the day, they could have relaesed the number as a "trad" - like they did in YA-YA'S - and collect all the royalty money anyway. There was no reason to invent any mysterious entities (although - if they were thinking someone else to cover the song in future, they could have make some money out of it. But I think that's a way too far reaching argument).

So despite how greedy they might be, I can't really see the Stones intentionally trying to rob off anyone here, at least Robert Johnson (The Wilkins case is a bit more muddy). By contrast, someone else was fooling them - for them trying to do a right thing...

- Doxa



Edited 12 time(s). Last edit at 2021-06-09 15:15 by Doxa.

Quote
Irix

Quote
Doxa

half of the royalties from radio play go to composers and other half to publisher

See also here: Streaming royalties - [iorr.org] , [iorr.org] vs. Radio royalties - [iorr.org] .

A high recommandation if this issue - and its background - happens to interest anyone.

It was actually the picture/post send by you Irix a couple of years ago that initially 'woke me' to see how terrible the streaming royalties are for artists (and good for record companies).

- Doxa

Quote
caschimann

Quote
jbwelda
Kind of funny stance for a band that claimed blues songs as their own compositions.

jb

What a stupid off topic post. Again by you. And like always: Negative, bad mooded totally destructive and grudgingly.

Hold my self back to say this for a long time.

But this one was one too much.

Just deleted you from my account (which is possible).

So that I can no longer read your posts - neither your reply.

Bye, bye.

Bye bye johnnie...

Don't know what yer problem might be, but I think my statement has been proven true.

jb

Quote
Rockman
Pretty sure Stones - Prodigal Son
has always been credited to Robert Wilkins ....

my close to original London BB says all songs by J/R both on the cover and on the LP itself.

you gotta move on my later zippered SF says "copyright control" which is a joke thing often used on reggae records.

my earlyish London LIB says woody payne for Love In Vain, but not sure this is original because it does say ABKCO on the label and I thought for sure my earlier copy that I cannot locate at the moment said J/R. I always wondered who this "W Payne" was as I always thought R Johnson wrote the song.

my earlyish Decca GYYYO says LIV is trad arr J/R, another weasel word like Gotta Move credit, as does my later Japanese copy.

My earlyish Exile that still contained the postcards does say trad arranged... for Stop Breaking Down.

Like I said, I doubt it was really the Stones trying to usurp credit, more like record company cutting corners. And doing what record companies do.



jb



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-06-09 19:31 by jbwelda.

First you say:

jbwelda:
Kind of funny stance for a band that claimed blues songs as their own compositions.

And then this:

Quote
jbwelda

Like I said, I doubt it was really the Stones trying to usurp credit, more like record company cutting corners. And doing what record companies do.

jb

In a thread that has one thing in common with what you are saying.
The Rolling Stones.

Sorry, fits anybody's definition of trolling.