|
|
Post by kgp on Oct 18, 2006 16:18:07 GMT -5
harpmagazine.com/It's not online yet, but I just got the November issue today and there's a three page interview with Paul. Nothing new, really, but he was a little more candid about the hell that soundtracking/scoring was. "You take Hollywood's money. you eat Hollywood's shit."
|
|
|
|
Post by nowwesayitoutloud on Oct 18, 2006 16:32:57 GMT -5
Somehow, that sentiment made it onto the screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlakeHopkins on Oct 20, 2006 0:18:29 GMT -5
im sure paul is plenty happy with the money he will make by doing this soundtrack.Soundtrack work is some of the most profitable you can get in the music business.Im sure he'll make a shitload of money from doing open season so really he needs to not bitch about it.He'll make more money than most people make in 7 years and thats a fact!
|
|
cford
Star Scout
Posts: 803
|
Post by cford on Oct 20, 2006 11:36:44 GMT -5
im sure paul is plenty happy with the money he will make by doing this soundtrack.Soundtrack work is some of the most profitable you can get in the music business.Im sure he'll make a shitload of money from doing open season so really he needs to not bitch about it.He'll make more money than most people make in 7 years and thats a fact! Will make? My understanding is that he has already been paid off. CF |
|
|
|
Post by Kathy on Oct 20, 2006 13:06:55 GMT -5
im sure paul is plenty happy with the money he will make by doing this soundtrack.Soundtrack work is some of the most profitable you can get in the music business.Im sure he'll make a shitload of money from doing open season so really he needs to not bitch about it.He'll make more money than most people make in 7 years and thats a fact! I like getting money for doing my job too; but in no way does that prevent me from bitching like hell about certain aspects of my job. Bitching about work is one of our inalienable rights under the Constiution...well if it's not, it should be. |
|
|
|
Post by FreeRider on Oct 20, 2006 15:10:48 GMT -5
im sure paul is plenty happy with the money he will make by doing this soundtrack.Soundtrack work is some of the most profitable you can get in the music business.Im sure he'll make a shitload of money from doing open season so really he needs to not bitch about it.He'll make more money than most people make in 7 years and thats a fact! Will make? My understanding is that he has already been paid off. CF I think he can still make money off of the publishing rights. I'm a little unclear about how that works, but there's plenty of money to be made just thru publishing. Sony pictures may own the copyright to the songs for their film, but Westy, I hope has rights to the publishing. |
|
|
|
Post by scoOter on Oct 20, 2006 16:46:27 GMT -5
im sure paul is plenty happy with the money he will make by doing this soundtrack.Soundtrack work is some of the most profitable you can get in the music business.Im sure he'll make a shitload of money from doing open season so really he needs to not bitch about it.He'll make more money than most people make in 7 years and thats a fact! kathy, if i may be so bold, let me take your response to blake a step more to the blunt side of the street: god, just shut the hell up. |
|
|
|
Post by kgp on Oct 20, 2006 17:08:10 GMT -5
I think he can still make money off of the publishing rights. I'm a little unclear about how that works, but there's plenty of money to be made just thru publishing. Sony pictures may own the copyright to the songs for their film, but Westy, I hope has rights to the publishing. I think cford is right. From what I understand, Paul doesn't own the rights, Sony does. Even the songs that didn't make it on the soundtrack; therefore, Paul cannot use those songs. |
|
|
|
Post by FreeRider on Oct 23, 2006 10:37:49 GMT -5
You're probably right. Sony or any big corporate entity wants full control over the product. But there are different sets of rights, one of them being publishing rights. I remember reading some interview with Pete Townshend a long time ago where he talked about friction with the other band members of The Who because Pete was getting more money than the others. That's because he wrote most of the songs. He had mentioned that he received money from publishing rights to those songs as well as the album sales.
So yes, while Sony may own the songs now to use them how the corporation sees fit, Paul may make money thru publishing. * If you look at a CD liner notes, you sometimes see the publishing outfit the artist goes thru in addition to the copyright...I can't remember what Paul's publishing company is...Grandpaboy Records?
*Unless, of course, Sony also took away his publishing rights and had the music published thru their own subsidiary.
|
|
|
|
Post by nowwesayitoutloud on Oct 23, 2006 10:42:11 GMT -5
Not only do composers/owners of publishing rights get paid more, I believe they tend to get paid sooner than other band members, causing friction in many a band. But I could be wrong ... maybe someone who's been in a band knows.
|
|
|
|
Post by FreeRider on Oct 23, 2006 16:50:26 GMT -5
Hey, I found some info at www.iammusic.com (as you can tell, I'm bored at work...): There are several separate licenses involved with music because different parties can own different parts of copyrighted material. There is the composer who owns the copyright of the composition. There is the publisher who can grant usage rights of the composition. The Performing Rights Organizations (PRO) usually collect performance royalties on behalf of the composer and publisher (unless a Direct License has been issued to the Licensee) when applicable. The sound recording is also copyrighted, which can be owned by a recording company.
Since a music library typically owns the copyright on the sound recording and the publishing rights, all these licenses are easy to obtain from one source in one transaction. Performing rights for a production music library can either be handled by the PROs, or obtained directly from the music library in what is known as a Direct License. Many small royalty free music libraries offer the direct license as a standard part of their music license. Other music libraries may grant a direct license for certain uses while requiring the PROs to handle others. Some music libraries do not grant direct licenses under any circumstance. This will vary between libraries.
When licensing so called "popular music", the costs are far greater and the various licenses have to be obtained from different sources. You need to contact the music publisher (or composer if no publisher) to obtain mechanical rights, synchronization rights and inquire about performing rights. Then, you need to contact the record label to obtain the master use rights as they own the copyright on the sound recording. Contracts for each right will need to be filled out with each party involved.
Another type of license worth mentioning here, which has nothing to do with an Audio/Visual Work or Audio Only production, is Grand Rights. These are the rights needed to use music in a broadway style performance, and are granted by, and paid directly to, the music publisher. Definitions: Audio/Visual Work: An industry term for film, television or any other audio/visual production such as presentations, Flash, Quicktime & other internet visual formats, videos, CDs, DVDs, etc. Synchronization Rights: The right to use the music in timed relations with other visual elements in a film, video, television show/commercial, or other audio/visual production. In other words, the right to use the music as a soundtrack with visual images. Synchronization licenses are obtained from the publisher (or composer if no publisher) or the music library. Master Use Rights: When you hear music on the radio or TV, this recording is known in the music industry as the "master recording". This is what is produced after all the musicians have played their parts and these parts have been "mixed" together for release. The recording of the master is also protected by copyright. A record label or music library owns this copyright, and can grant the right to use the recording in a compilation album, film soundtrack or other Audio/Visual medium. It grants the right to use the sound recording. Performing Rights: Public Performance Right is the exclusive right the U.S. Copyright Law gives to the creator of a musical work or other copyrighted material authorizing the use in public. Every time a song is performed on a broadcast, there is a public performance. This public performance is licensed by performing rights organizations (BMI/ASCAP/etc.) or directly from the copyright holder as a direct license. Mechanical Rights: License granting the right to record and release a specific composition at an agreed-upon fee per unit manufactured and sold. Right to use a song owned by someone else on a recording. Grand Rights: Term used to describe "dramatic" performing rights. This would include musical comedies (Broadway and off-Broadway), operas, operettas, ballets, as well as renditions of musical compositions in a dramatic setting where there is narration, a plot and/or costumes and scenery. The copyright owner has the exclusive right to issue licenses and collect fees for grand rights. Performance Rights Organizations do not collect performing rights royalties for this use, and are licensed directly from either the composer or publisher. Direct License: A license obtained directly from the copyright owner or publisher where the Performing Rights are paid directly to the copyright owner by the Licensee. With a Direct License, no royalties are collected by, or paid to, the Performing Rights Organizations (BMI/ASCAP/etc.). Copyright: The exclusive right, granted by law for a stated period, usually until 70 years after the death of the surviving author of the work, to make, dispose of, and otherwise control copies of literary, musical, dramatic, pictorial and other copyrightable works. Jeez, no wonder so many early musicians got screwed by the record labels and all (think Little Richard, all the early bluesmen and women, John Fogerty, etc, who rushed to sign contracts and all...). There's so many ways for an artist to lose money if they don't have a good entertainment lawyer looking out for their interests. |
|
cford
Star Scout
Posts: 803
|
Post by cford on Oct 24, 2006 9:29:20 GMT -5
So yes, while Sony may own the songs now to use them how the corporation sees fit, Paul may make money thru publishing. * If you look at a CD liner notes, you sometimes see the publishing outfit the artist goes thru in addition to the copyright...I can't remember what Paul's publishing company is...Grandpaboy Records? *Unless, of course, Sony also took away his publishing rights and had the music published thru their own subsidiary. The impression I got when Paul was discussing how Pete Yorn came on board to sing "I Belong" is that he really didn't have any say in the matter... of course, whether or not that affects future royalties I guess is unclear. I guess he would have been crazy to sign everything away.. CF |
|
|
|
Post by FreeRider on Oct 24, 2006 9:57:21 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't think Paul and Darren would sign everything away, he must have some rights he retains to his work. Does anyone know of a song called "Cheyenne"? I'm not familiar with it and found this on the Warner's music site for licensing. They have 44 songs of Paul's to license. Oh, and Paul's publishing is thru Elegant Mule, which may be a subsidiary of Warner's (if I'm reading the website correctly). www.warnerchappell.com/wcm_2/song_search/song_detail/songview_2.jsp?esongId=111857800&view=splitinfo |
|
|
|
Post by mrblasty on Oct 24, 2006 10:06:36 GMT -5
I've heard of the song, but never actually heard it. You can listen to a clip of it by clicking here: Cheyenne |
|
|
|
Post by mrblasty on Oct 24, 2006 11:05:54 GMT -5
He also mentions Cheyenne in this interview for Suicaine: members.aol.com/pwfiles/mbrown.htmQ. You mentioned four leftover songs? Something for b-sides?
One in particular, "Cheyenne," is one of my faves that I wanted to be on the record. Then there's "Pleasure of Your Company," "33rd of July", and, of course, "Wonderful Copenhagen."
Q. Were they just wildly different from the theme of the album?
Yyyyyeah, two of them were sorta fun-loving, one was incomplete. Lyrically, I wasn't really there. I sorta went with a riff and wrote a song that probably would have fit on my other records more. On this one, each song lyrically had to hold up to the previous one. These kinda didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by FreeRider on Oct 24, 2006 13:13:03 GMT -5
Cool, thanks for the info BlastT!
|
|
|
|
Post by scoOter on Oct 24, 2006 13:29:33 GMT -5
wow! paul songs i have never heard of before. and i like "cheyenne".
|
|
|
|
Post by ClamsCasino on Oct 25, 2006 0:57:55 GMT -5
Did anyone else notice that there's a song called "Stranger" with Johnette Napolitano listed as co-writer? Who's got the skinny on that?
|
|
|
|
Post by allshookup on Oct 25, 2006 1:32:41 GMT -5
Did anyone else notice that there's a song called "Stranger" with Johnette Napolitano listed as co-writer? Who's got the skinny on that? It's on Pretty & Twisted's self-titled CD  |
|
|
|
Post by mrblasty on Oct 25, 2006 18:44:05 GMT -5
Found this info in this interview with Johnette: www.fazed.com/music/johnette_interview.htmlYou did a duet with Paul Westerberg on the last Replacements album on a song called "My Little Problem." You also wrote "Stranger" with him. How did those collaborations come about and what were the recording experiences like?
Paul called me to do 'Little Problem' and it was a lot of fun, really crazy and wild. Then he gave me all this shit about how I was the only woman to be on a Replacements album, like, 'wow, lucky me!' I mean, please! With 'Stranger' I had the music, but no words, and it was meant to be in some soundtrack, but I can't remember what now. They never used it . . . Paul liked the music and came up with the words pretty quick, as I knew he would. I have a lot of words I have no music for. . . I really liked it, he got it immediately, and it sounds like a timeless Irish drinking song, which is exactly what I wanted it to sound like. |
|
