Death of the guitar band

[darkblack]

And you would be correct, Loca - that description of Sean's reflects the compositional function, irrespective of whether the composer is the performer or not. A composer need not be a musician - the process of composition encompasses many artistic disciplines - nor is a musician necessarily a composer, save perhaps for moments of extraneous improvisation played within a compositional framework, by intent or otherwise. Yet, at the same time one could be both things depending on predilection, training, and one's subjective ability to avoid emphasizing the 'poser' in 'composer'.

[Gob]

A sampler alone is not a musical instrument. The keyboard in conjunction with a sampler is an instrument. I think the real distinction needs to be made between those who play notes on a keyboard and use a sampler to edit them and those who use pre-recorded music and edit it using a sampler (or any other editing tool including turntables). One is a musician and the other is not.
Can you guess which is which?

There again I think you need to catch up with the 21st century Sean, Samplers do not necessarily need a keyboard to play them, you can even us ...gasp...guitar interfaces....

Or no physical input at all, the notes can be drawn into a sequencer...

Okay Strop, the million dollar question...

the use of snippets of song to construct a "new" song

Would you describe a person who does this and this alone as a musician?

Yep. If by doing so a new piece of music is created, then what else can they be described as?

[Sean]

There again I think you need to catch up with the 21st century Sean, Samplers do not necessarily need a keyboard to play them, you can even us ...gasp...guitar interfaces....

Or no physical input at all, the notes can be drawn into a sequencer...

I think you know my background well enough to guess that I am aware of such devices mate. I used a keyboard as an example input device as it's the one you use. I didn't want to confuse you further...

Okay Strop, the million dollar question...

the use of snippets of song to construct a "new" song

Would you describe a person who does this and this alone as a musician?

Yep. If by doing so a new piece of music is created, then what else can they be described as?

LMAO I can think of a few choice descriptions but I think I'll stick with arranger or producer for now.

I believe you are saying that a person who is completely tone-deaf, cannot play a note on any musical instrument and doesn't know what key signatures, scales or even chords are can be considered a musician just because they can use a particular piece of software and edit together music that somebody else has written and performed

Would I be right?

[Gob]

I believe you are saying that a person who is completely tone-deaf, cannot play a note on any musical instrument and doesn't know what key signatures, scales or even chords are can be considered a musician just because they can use a particular piece of software and edit together music that somebody else has written and performed

Would I be right?

You saying I'm not a musician?

[Sean]

Not at all mate. I believe you stated before that you use a keyboard...

[Gob]

Anyone with a finger, even people without can play a note on a piano (or a sampler) though.

[Sean]

Anyone can produce atonal sounds but a skill is involved to produce music.

[Crackpot]

So you're flip-flopping on your "Gob as musician" stance?

[Gob]

Who, me or him?

[Joe Guy]

Anyone with a finger, even people without can play a note on a piano (or a sampler) though.

It's also possible for a guy without any fingers to play a note on a piano with his organ.

The question then would be whether he is playing an instrument or just playing with himself.

[Sean]

Not at all CP. I only ever stated that people who spin records and edit other people's music together are not musicians.

I know that Strop uses a keyboard to create his music. This, in my view, makes him a musician.

So there!

[SisterMaryFellatio]

Just to put my tuppence in......

I am a hooj fan of the doof doof (crap as Sean calls it) Judge Jules, Fatboy Slim I could go on.......Do i think they are musicians NO! They have a good ear for what will mix with what and they certainly know how to get the house jumping!

A musician (IMHO) is someone who can write a melody then play it on whatever instrument they intended it for. Sean will never see it any other way as he is a musician. Hes gets pissed that the musician responsible sometimes misses out on royalties and credit for the work that these DJ's sample and the DJ's take the credit for the work! Apparently its rife in the music industry, Sean has had stuff of his that hes written thats been nicked and used by others but its very hard to prove.


Seans also pissed off hes related to Chris Moyles the DJ and hes made more money than him!

[Gob]

You put your tuppence where ever you want to girl

The problem is that the lines are blurred.

How much does some one have to add which is thier own creation to a track (or how much sampled music is permissable) to draw the line between the musician and producer?

"Bitter Sweet Symphony" being a prime example

[Sean]

I don't see any blurring at all.

Using Bitter Sweet Symphony as an example...

Richard Ashcroft used his voice on the track so he can rightly be credited as a musician on that track. Any other members of The Verve who played their instruments on the track should also be credited as musicians. The studio engineer who mixed in the sample should not be credited as a musician.

[loCAtek]

Anyone with a finger, even people without can play a note on a piano (or a sampler) though.

It's also possible for a guy without any fingers to play a note on a piano with his organ.

The question then would be whether he is playing an instrument or just playing with himself.

Also: better than a rose on a piano is: tulips on an organ

[Gob]

But it was the band that put the sample there Sean, not "an engineer." (And boy do they regret it now..)

[Sean]

LMAO - Now you're a pregnant woman doing cartwheels!*

I mean the person who physically inserted the sample, not the person/people who decided to use it...


*You're trying to confuse the issue...

[darkblack]

The studio engineer who mixed in the sample should not be credited as a musician.

Aaaaaaaaand...If they nicked it from someone/thing...

[Sean]

Damn right! Pay up and give credit where it's due!

[Gob]

The studio engineer who mixed in the sample should not be credited as a musician.

Aaaaaaaaand...If they nicked it from someone/thing...

Originally, The Verve had negotiated a licence to use a sample from the Oldham recording, but it was successfully argued that the Verve had used 'too much' of the sample.

Despite having original lyrics, the music of "Bitter Sweet Symphony" is partially based on the Oldham track, which led to a lawsuit with ABKCO Records, Allen Klein's company that owns the rights to the Rolling Stones material of the 1960s. The matter was eventually settled, with copyright of the song reverting to ABKCO and songwriting credits to Jagger and Richards.

"We were told it was going to be a 50/50 split, and then they saw how well the record was doing," says band member Simon Jones. "They rung up and said, 'We want 100 percent or take it out of the shops, you don't have much choice.'"

After losing the composer credits to the song, Richard Ashcroft commented, "This is the best song Jagger and Richards have written in 20 years", noting it was their biggest hit since "Brown Sugar".

In a Cash For Questions interview with Q magazine published in January 1999, Keith Richards was asked (by John Johnson of Enfield) if he thought it was harsh taking all The Verve's royalties from "Bitter Sweet Symphony," to which he replied, "I'm out of whack here, this is serious lawyer shit. If The Verve can write a better song, they can keep the money."

After “Bittersweet Symphony” became a hit single, the group was sued by former Stones manager Allen Klein (who owns the copyrights to the band’s pre-1970 songs because of aggressive business practices). He claimed the Verve broke the agreement when they supposedly used a larger portion than was covered in the license, something the group vehemently disputed.

The Verve layered nearly fifty tracks of instrumentation, including novel string arrangements, to create a distinctly new song. In fact, the song’s signature swirling orchestral melody was recorded and arranged by the Verve; the sample from the instrumental record is largely buried under other tracks in the chorus.

The band eventually settled out of court and handed over 100 percent of their songwriting royalties because it seemed cheaper than fighting for a legal ruling that might not end in their favor. As if things couldn’t have gotten worse, they were then sued by another old Rolling Stones manager, Andrew Loog Oldham. Klein went after the Verve for infringing on the songwriting copyright, which he owned, but Oldham possessed the copyright on the sampled sound recording. They totally lost everything.

Not only couldn’t the Verve earn money from their biggest hit, they were stripped of control of their song. For instance, after the group refused Nike’s request to use “Bittersweet Symphony” in an ad, the shoe manufacturer aired the song after it purchased a license from Allen Klein.


“The last thing in the world I wanted was for one of my songs to be used in a commercial,” the despondent lead vocalist Richard Ashcroft said. “I’m still sick about it.” In one final kick in the groin, “Bittersweet Symphony” was nominated for a Grammy in the Best Song category, which honors songwriters. Because the unfavorable settlement transferred the Verve’s copyright and songwriting credit to Klein and the Rolling Stones, the Grammy nomination went to “Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.”

http://thevervelive.blogspot.com/2005/0 ... y-and.html