I get to hear about how he's working with his mentor to do vocal production on a track getting pitched for Maroon 5, The Chainsmokers, etc. Sometimes the tracks take -- the artist likes them and decides to move forward. Usually they don't and it's a lot of getting your hopes up for nothing. These major artists have lots of songs getting thrown at them on any given day. To date some of my friends biggest credits are vocal production credits on a couple billboard top 100s. A single track will have 50 names on it between writing, production, studio performance, etc.

My friend's mentor is late 30s and mainly does songwriting. He's been trying to do a solo thing but just isn't marketable. However, just recently he "made" it with a feature on a top 100 song and a couple songs picked up by major artists. The checks cleared this last year but the songs came out a couple years ago. He went from "how do I pay rent" to 7M literally over night. He moved to WA to dodge CA income tax. My friend has been able to tie a couple big checks together over the years, but it's been tough. One year it's 100k, the next it's 20k and all from ads and random tv shows.

I'm consistently shocked when talking with my friend just how little music matters in the music industry. The people who make the most look good, sound good, and hell they're crazy talented. But they aren't the people who've written the lyrics or the melodies that define our culture. We probably can't name those people.

If You're a 38-year-old self-taught musician you can't exactly walk into a company and get a job.

I still make music as one of my main hobbies, but I've accepted that no one will ever know who I am, and I'll never make a single cent. There's nothing in the world like making a song for your friends though.

She did land on her feet, after literally going all the way back to college as a freshman. (She was fortunate to have the resources for that.)

Best anecdote though, on the 18 year olds who she befriended in the program: "The good news is they think I'm 28. The bad news is they think that's old."

If you try to find stardom, you won't succeed.

I have much respect for session musicians... probably the most talented type of musician

I also compose and produce music and have not made a cent from it other than occasional recording time.

Game dev is way easier.

Yes, starting your own indie studio means you'll probably not make it. But a lot of developers have steady jobs with decent pay at bigger studios.

If he waited for the big check before he made that move, CA will find him - it's not where you live when you got the check, it's where you live when you earned it.

For example, if you work remote for a company based in NY, PA, CT, DE, AR, or NE; your income is taxable in that state regardless of where you live or work. This is known as a "convenience of the employer" test. In fact, before a certain SCOTUS ruling you couldn't even claim a refund on that tax for your residence state's tax return (and even after, that refund is taxable).

California is already considering a wealth exit tax that would apply 10 years worth of tax nexus to anyone who leaves the state. I'd complain about this more, as it goes against the whole concept of freedom of movement... but the US already does the same thing. Emigrate from the US and you'll still be expected to pay US taxes on foreign income. I've heard there's a rule that exempts you from said taxes if you spend the entire tax year outside the US. Some people also take the really risky step of throwing out their US citizenship... which is actually grounds to be permanently banned from entering the US for any reason if they find out that you did so for tax purposes.

Freedom of movement is free as in libre, not free as in gratis. “You owe taxes if you leave” isn't a violation of freedom of movement.

That's because you still have U.S. citizenship. You can give that up and not be taxed, as I understand it.

Also, it looks like there are provisions to give you exclusions on your foreign income,if you have any.[1] That seems sane to me, if you live their the whole year and that location is your tax base, then you can exclude all the income from their in your U.S. taxes. But living elsewhere won't protect you from U.S. taxes if you still have the benefit of U.S. citizenship and make a lot of money from the U.S.

California considering a wealth exit tax seems a bit different on first glance, but I could see it making sense if it's somewhat similar in use. If you make your money from California and continue to after moving from there to elsewhere, that money being eligible to be taxed by California because otherwise it's extracting the benefit of California's laws and markets without paying into the system that provides them.

1: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...

For Americans, for better or worse, its very large stick (the military) affords its citizens all sorts of benefits while traveling/living abroad.

This is mostly a myth.

There are lots of examples of cases where people from less RAWR MILITARY countries (like... Sweden) got pulled out of risky situations before the Americans did. In some cases Americans simply have not gotten rescued at all and left to fend for themselves! And the US doesn't perform that service for free... if you get rescued they charge you tens of thousands.

Being able to be negotiated out of detainment has more to do with politics and trade, and the US has a lot of political enemies. The countries where the US military is a factor are countries you're not likely to want to move to and make a living in anyway.

Being able to travel to countries is also weaker as a US citizen, since many countries apply reciprocity, and the US often has stricter immigration controls.

Being American living abroad is mostly a demerit. You can't open bank accounts due to FATCA, you have to pay expensive specialized accountants due to foreign taxation, and in many cases people just don't like you due to your government. I can't think of any situations where being American is a pro over being an EU citizen.

The USA isn’t exactly hurting for new citizens and it’s probably desirable to have expats incentivised to deliberately relinquish their passports.

Mind you I’m looking at this from the perspective of here in New Zealand, where there’s regular media stories about Australia deporting NZ citizens who moved over there as kids and ended up criminals. There’s no incentives to relinquish an NZ passport so Australia can revoke their citizenship, deport, and they become NZs problem.

That should be "intend to stay there forever", since renouncing your USA citizenship is typically permanent, once you renounce citizenship, it's difficult or impossible to regain it.

That large stick to me seems to rather hit Americans traveling abroad, in that the US military unfortunately a bit has given ( people from the US ) a bad rep at some places?

when instead I, from western/northern Europe, is welcomed wherever I go (it seems this far)

Exclude up to about $100k of your foreign income from US taxes -- after that you still pay US taxes, and at the rate you would have paid if you were paying from the first dollar, meaning if you make $130K, you don't pay US taxes as if you made $30K, you pay the difference between the taxes on $130K and the taxes on $100K.

Deduct whatever you pay in foreign taxes from your US taxes, dollar for dollar.

The US is almost the only country that does this. All of my co-workers from Israel, Ukraine, India, and many other places pay generally no taxes in their home countries.

The foreign income exclusion is not that high, especially if you are a mid career tech worker ($107,600 for 2020), and you will be double taxed on amounts above the exclusion. But at least you can skip California state taxes if you count as a nonresident.

I'm sure different people will have different ideas of what that's worth, but it's available as a choice. People that opt not to renounce citizenship have obviously decided it's worth it to not do so, whether that be keeping future options open, or because they know they plan to return. $100k is a lot of money, even if in many locations its less than a mid-career tech worker salary, so I'm not sure I have any objections to this.

Also many countries have double-taxation treaties to avoid the double taxation when you exceed $100k

I know a bunch of Americans abroad, none of them have to pay any tax to the US, but several of them have to pay specialist accountants to deal with the differences in taxation between the countries. It ends up being a tax on Americans that is not paid to the US but to accountants.

Definitely it depends on the country, the industry, the specific company, and by the definition of mid-career (10 years? 20 years?).

> Also many countries have double-taxation treaties to avoid the double taxation when you exceed $100k

But then again, other countries do not double-tax from the start, so none of the international coworkers of the Americans abroad have to pay any taxes to their home countries, or for specialist accountants to deal with the differences in taxation.

Americans have a big burden of FATCA, specialist accountants and just a lot of stress in general.

And to what end, when most of them end up paying no taxes to the US whatsoever? (this was the point I was trying to make - that after all this BS they are put through, the US is still not getting any extra tax revenue from these people)

It seems like it's mostly so that US politicians can say they've done something about high-profile rich people who have moved to tax havens, rather than actually increase tax income measurably.

The other option is to pay the difference in taxes, so if you were taxed at 50% in the country of residence, and the tax bill in the US would have been 45%, you’ll get the 5% back as tax credits towards future US tax obligations.

If you’re working in most European nations you’ll probably be paying more in tax than you would in the US.

Safe Harbor

Safe harbor is available for certain individuals leaving California under employment-related contracts. The safe harbor provides that an individual domiciled in California who is outside California under an employment-related contract for an uninterrupted period of at least 546 consecutive days will be considered a nonresident unless any of the following is met:

• The individual has intangible income exceeding $200,000 in any taxable year during which the employment-related contract is in effect.

• The principal purpose of the absence from California is to avoid personal income tax.

The spouse/RDP of the individual covered by this safe harbor rule will also be considered a nonresident while accompanying the individual outside California for at least 546 consecutive days. Return visits to California that do not exceed a total of 45 days during any taxable year covered by the employment contract are considered temporary.

It is actually quite a lengthy application process to try and renounce your US Citizenship, and the federal government can simply deny your application.

This has been reinforced by the Supreme Court who could find no distinction between any socioeconomic class optimizing their tax burden, no matter how accessible the privilege becomes for some.

> Perhaps it's naive of me,

I think it would be considered naive to elevate the greed of the state over the greed of an individual. Your current train of thought doesn't seem to factor it in at all, it seems more like "if this kind of authority asks, because I respect it, I must comply" which makes me wonder where the limits are. Any state? Any due process outcome? Any percentage? Would you consider to read the state's law to discover that you are not subjected to the payment in many circumstances that you can create? To me, thats where the naivete lies.

My current thoughts on taxes are that the state incentivizes certain kinds of transactions. And if you don't engage in those kind of transactions then the state taxes a percentage of the remainder. The percentage of the tax being a deterrent, as it would prefer you put your money to use in other ways so that you never pay it. Spending, investments, etc. Which this logic its not about imagining that you are passively paying for roads and schools (you aren't, you are paying interest on the funds the state borrowed from the international markets to pay for the roads and schools that were already going to be paid for regardless, the ones that would be neglected would still be neglected). This is most directly seen with the old healthcare fine: if you don't have healthcare through an employer and don't pay for the affordable care act plan then you pay a $1,000 tax. They are incentivizing you to shift capital to certain areas of the economy, with the fallback being the state. This will be a more productive way for you to think of all transactions with the state.

My original comment does not state my opinions on these parameters of the taxation process. I was commenting on how I felt the act of moving to a new state, just to get out of paying taxes in the state you currently live in (and earned that money in), is, in general, immoral. I could have spent several paragraphs going over every possible exception to this viewpoint, and hedge every assertion with "in general", "except when", etc., but that tends to be tedious to both read and write.

> Would you consider to read the state's law to discover that you are not subjected to the payment in many circumstances that you can create?

> Which this logic its not about imagining that you are passively paying for roads and schools

Could you restate these sentences? I can't quite understand them.

I do find all of these issues related though, and that your comment is only naive because it isn't nuanced enough. Naive wouldn't have been the word I would have led with, as it is your word for yourself willing to be open to another perspective.

I don't find that action immoral because I don't find the state's goal grounded in morality. I find both agents to be amoral, with the individual's amorality being both compliant and reactionary to the state's amoral aggregate legislative process where the legislatures are inattentive and misguided and misled.

*the current state of the US healthcare system notwithstanding.

right, and I find that unrelated to being obligated to pay it.

its more like

"way to go, guys!" buys gas across the county line

"that's a great cause!" buys property in another state

"yes, build that park Leslie Knope!" moves

if I didn't do any of those things then I would pay it. if I wanted 1% - 50% more money to do a different thing and there was a legally compliant way to do so (enabled by the same authorities, mind you), I would consider it

If you move back before, you pay the original tax?

The same for corporations who move to the lowest taxed country.

Apple wants to pay Irish tax rates, then pack up CEO, CFO, and all employees in management positions and move to Ireland and Zoom. Your troops can stay here.

(Your first few big pay days should be exempt from all taxes though, especially if you can prove your were poor, or middle class in the previous 10 years? I’ve never felt it was fair for a guy whom got lucky in business, or life, having to pay a big tax; especially if they were scraping by in previous years. Am I saying the poor unemployed guy who one the lottery shouldn’t have to pay any tax on that first lottery win in life, or business—-yes. Our social safety net is so terrible here, it can’t be an excuse to tax new found wealth. America does not help out it’s poor well enough to tax those first few big pay days.)

But how you arrange doing that within your business framework is hard.

I agree that tax system should take individual person constancy of income into account.

Trying to get out of paying them would be like saying, "of course I should get help from everyone else for education, housing, infrastructure, etc., but goodness forbid I actually return the favor later on so that others get the same benefit!"

Anyway, it's not like such taxes take away so much of your earnings that you're left with a pittance. At some point you have to ask yourself, "is the amount of happiness I gain from keeping this amount of money worth more than the various things it will be spent on, and the benefit it will give to others?"

(I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode, "The Last of The Red Hat Mamas, where Mr Burns pledges to donate money to a children's hospital, but then uses it extend his own life instead - by 10 minutes[0])

It's a sign of the sad state of things that taxes are treated more like throwing money away, than being a resource used for the common good.

[0] https://youtu.be/-Icbia3fDuY?t=45

Not sure that 12% is worth picking up my family and moving to another state if that's the only reason to relocate. CA and WA weather and lifestyle is much different than what he saw in Southern California (I'm guessing that's where he lived since he was in the music industry).

I made that move (from SF Bay Area to Seattle) about 5 years ago (but for work, not taxes), and I'm thinking about going back to CA for the milder winters.

Though moving is easier and cheaper for a single person living in an apartment than someone with a family and house.

So, if its after June when your windfall hits, that particular option is removed and you have to focus on offsetting deductions.

But it resets January 1, every year :)

When my accountant tells me to sign here and here to save myself a few thousands a year, I don't ask him "wouldn't these few thousand dollars benefit the general public?" I keep what I earned because I know that if the table's were turned, the state would never choose to give me more than I'm owed either.

and if he did, he'd learn that 5 minutes of estate planning makes it ridiculously easy to avoid having any trouble, especially for a bill that large

so if you know, you know

if you don't, then you might find yourself bombarded by misinformation regarding the music industry, and state taxes on a programming forum

The financial advisor should be able to provide that.

B) Having more than 7M in already-taxed money and spending that on things that supported his own business. When you are doing something you love it feels no different than consumptive spending on a bunch of toys. The spending is tax deductible against the 7M he earned that year. Nothing goes to the government. Ideally he monetizes it to a greater amount in a future year and pays taxes in that future, but its only his problem if he doesn't monetize.

C) Having more than 7M in borrowed funds and spending that on things that supported his own business. Now both the spending and the interest payments are tax deductible against the 7M he earned that year. Nothing, goes to the government. Ideally he monetizes it to a greater amount in a future year and pays taxes in that future, but its only his problem if he doesn't monetize, and maybe the people he borrowed from.

D) Constructively structuring the payment as a capital gain, and moving to Puerto Rico under Act 60. This nullifies state and federal tax, while staying compliant under the federal government and the territory and prior state. This would involve talking with the organization that would pay you, maybe they could give you a share grant of the same amount, or of a discounted product they sell. Distinctly not 5 minutes. This actually might be easy since the royalty rights can already be bought and sold separately than the royalty payment.

E) Selling the rights to royalties to your own private foundation. 5 minutes if you already have a private foundation. Not 5 minutes if you don't. If you want to be liquid you can always pay yourself a modest or fantastic salary from the foundation, which is taxed. Either way, now you only need tax deductions against the much smaller salary while the rest of the liquidity can be invested or just sit there. (There is something equivalent to a 2% tax on the royalty received, and an annual 5% charitable contribution requirement. Still better than 12% and much better than 37% + 12% + self employment tax%)

as you might notice, all of this works no matter what the tax rates are or become, but people in your party that know this will nod and agree with whatever sentiment you have anyway. The politics typically only results in taxing salaried employees slightly higher or slightly lower.

so, most people would be prepared for option A) but its not hard to structure your life for the other options to become options. the trickier part is the big payment. its not supposed to be a "tax dodge" its just understanding why the tax rate can be 0%. Many people's tax experience is opening up Turbotax and crossing their fingers for a refund as the numbers spin like a slot machine, others of us know exactly what should be computed and have pushed chess pieces all year for it.

In which case... I am genuinely curious what the legal rules are.

> The people who make the most look good, sound good, and hell they're crazy talented. But they aren't the people who've written the lyrics or the melodies that define our culture.

I am confused by the story: isn't the person who made the big bucks here a person who "mainly does songwriting"?

The law says the songwriter is entitled to songwriting royalties.

In practice, famous artists' managers negotiate with poor unknown songwriters to take a percentage of the songwriters royalty by pretending that the artist co-wrote or wholly wrote the song.

This is made possible by supply and demand, and asymmetrical market access.

Famous artists can sell millions of recordings, even if the songs aren't so great. They have long queues of songwriters trying to offer them material for that reason.

Great unknown songwriters can't sell great songs unless they are recorded by someone famous or connected, because nobody will hear them.

To resolve these dynamics and make deals, mangers since ancient times have made talented unknown songwriters offers they can't refuse: Give away a percentage of the songwriting royalty (by crediting an artist for co-writing or writing the melody or the lyric) in exchange for jumping ahead of other talented unknown songwriters in the queue to get to market.

That might not be strictly necessary, because in the U.S., there's such a thing as a performer's copyright in the (recorded) performance itself, separate from the songwriter's copyright in the song. [0]

[0] https://www.ip-watch.org/2014/11/24/us-courts-recognise-new-...

Sometimes the guest is an actor or actress, and they're very nice looking.

Sometimes the guest is a musician... and they look funny to modern eyes. Then they pull out their instrument or open their mouth, and you can hear the same (or better) quality as today's musicians.

The Muppet Show ended in 1981. MTV launched in 1981.

This is very accentuated today, with a tremendous amount of effort put in by artists to be visually appealing/charismatic on instagram etc, which has replaced the top 20 chart position marketing trick.

There is little to no time to create music, the emphasis is very much on sound bites and visual marketing...

This lines up with stories I’ve heard from a friend who had some success in the music industry (2 gold records), was signed to a major label, then dropped so went into song writing.

It’s a hyper competitive industry to operate in

This is something I've noticed more and more lately. The list of credits on everything is huge. I happened to see an episode of Family Guy the other day. I haven't regularly watched it for years, but noticed on this one there were literally minutes of credits at the beginning. It went on and on and on. I don't know why this is or what it means, but it's interesting.

> I'm consistently shocked when talking with my friend just how little music matters in the music industry. The people who make the most look good, sound good, and hell they're crazy talented. But they aren't the people who've written the lyrics or the melodies that define our culture. We probably can't name those people.

I don't think this is a new phenomenon by any means. I was reading the other day about The Beatles and how, when they became big in the USA, the professional songwriters of the time were worried because these guys wrote their own songs. Apparently it was almost unheard of at the time.

Excepting songwriters who are/were also recording artists (The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, Prince, Danny Elfman, Elton John, Randy Newman, Sia....)

How about Max Martin? Stock Aitken Waterman? Lieber and Stoller?

There are of course many well-known song composers and lyricists in contemporary musical film and theater, for example Alan Menken, Andrew Lloyd Weber, Stephen Sondheim...

edit: hmm, ASCAP and Songwriters guild are a couple names that come up... though this might be something of a dispute within different groups within ASCAP..

No song can be sold in significant number until it has been recorded by a famous artist backed by a well resourced record company.

By the time a song has been sold in significant numbers, it is too late for ASCAP or the Songwriters Guild to act, because the song has already been credited to an artist who didn't actually write it, because the songwriter signed away his or her rights in order to bootstrap the song.

You may think "that's not fair", and you may be right, but the difficulty is that a famous artist can make as much money selling a song that is not quite as good as a "great" song, and the supply of OK songs far exceeds the supply of "great" songs.

What even is a "great" song? It is difficult to tell, and even more difficult to prove, until it has been recorded by a "great" artist, and bought by millions of fans of said artist.

By that point, a contract exists crediting the "great" artist with writing or co-writing the song. This contract can be defended in a court of law by an ordinary lawyer working for a "great" record company, or better still, by a "great" lawyer working for a "great" record company.

When it comes to greatness, the medium is the message.

WA is closing that loophole. They just passed a gigantic capital gains tax.

Having worked in this industry myself, is it definitely a talent to have good stage presence, good presence in front of a videocamera, photogenic and modeling skills. Not to mention charisma when dealing with radio and TV interviews, fanbase, etc.

It's also a talent to sing well, to sing consistently, to be able to channel inflection and emotion on command in a studio or on a stage.

There is more to being a pop star than the songwriting.

(Note I'm saying all this while still holding huge respect and value for the songwriters and producers themselves. I'm a total music fan.)

You could be VERY plain looking, and unable to dance at all, and chart in in 1965.

Disclaimer: I have perfect pitch since I was a kid, can hold a note when singing, made a lot of music as a kid (guitar and electronic), had some singing lessons and yet I'm at best a fun karaoke singer to listen to when you're drunk.

Without comment on the state of pop music, you don't actually mean to suggest that performance isn't a talent of it's own? How are you going to and sell that idea to Yo-Yo Ma?

I fully support artists getting as much of the live performance/merch/appearances money as they can. If they did not write a song they should not be getting paid for songwriting. All of the justifications in the article dating back to Elvis Presley show how long the business has been slimy.

The entire system seems incredibly open to bad faith abuse.

I like this typo.

Immoral: "an agent doing or thinking something they know or believe to be wrong."

But I can't confidently name a single songwriter from the last 50 years, aside from the ones that were predominantly popular performers and recorded-music artists (Roger Waters, Lennon/McCartney, James Taylor).

To me, not knowing any better, this suggests that songwriters had more economic self-determination within the music industry, which translates into influence and cachet, in the 1920s than they do in the 2020s.

Today, again as an outsider, it seems like publishers and managers have an outsized influence, because they control the economics more than any other entity in the system.

Leiber and Stoller, Ashford and Simpson, Nile Rodgers and Bernard Edwards, Rod Temperton, Diane Warren, Desmond Child, and Max Martin are well known songwriters from more modern times.

However, their hits are much better known than they are, compared to the great American songbook guys. Although there are other very successful songwriters from that era with less name recongnition, for example, Johnny Mercer or Harry Warren.

For example Quentin Miller here wrote tons of songs for Drake. https://genius.com/artists/Quentin-miller

Ghost producing is also a thing, I've heard stories of a producer getting $700 or $600 for fairly popular track because the the actual song is credited to someone else.

Hell, in hip hop it's not unheard of for bigger artist to outright steal ideas and concepts from underground artists. Then you can remake the song as your own, and if you decide to reach back and compensate the original artist that's okay but as far as I can tell you'll very rarely get into legal trouble.

Case in point

https://www.bet.com/music/2018/06/26/childish-gambino-this-i...

It's so easy to become successful if you just steal ideas from people

Someone told me "Taylor Swift writes her own songs." Sure, but when you look at the songwriters on 1989, over half of them were at least co-written by the song writer with the most #1 hits after McCartney and Lennon.

She has included song-writing voice memos that show the progression of how she wrote certain songs on 1989 and the documentary “Miss Americana” clearly shows her songwriting process (as does this collection of clips from an AT&T promo she did for Reputation https://youtu.be/I4WlSnWtkt8).

Liz Rose, who co-wrote some of Swift's earlier songs (including the much-loved, “All Too Well”), described the process of working with her as editing [1], something all of her other collaborators have said too.

There are a lot of pop stars who get a writing credit for doing very little on a track but Taylor Swift isn’t one of them. If anything, she’s been quite clear that her success is directly tied to her songwriting. Her voice alone (especially as a teenager) wouldn’t have made her a star. It was her songs, paired with her voice and her personality that made everything work.

[1]: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/bp/swift-collaboration--...

Not everyone agrees with that estimation

Vocal Coach reacts to Neil Young - Old Man (Live)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppSF6JpdaKQ

Neil Young "Old Man" REACTION & ANALYSIS by Vocal Coach / Opera Singer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trE7YifD9Jc

Compare his voice to that of, say, A-ha's lead singer. Now that guy has a voice. The same with the lead singer of Emerson, Lake and Palmer.

One reason Neil Young appeals to me is because he has an unremarkable voice yet succeeded anyway. Yah gotta respect that.

I remember when Stevie Nicks burst on the scene. All the reviews were she had a lousy, raspy voice that nobody would like. But she soon won everyone over :-)

Of course, it's my favorite NY song, too.

Not everyone would agree with that estimation.

May 19, 2019 CONCERT REVIEW: Neil Young's entrancing night at The Fox

https://www.inlander.com/spokane/concert-review-neil-youngs-...

Trying to infer whether on not Taylor Swift writes her own songs based on consistent collaborators seems odd to me.

One time he gave us a hard time about not being able to meet at any point except his lunch-hour. So we're all on Eastern Time at 3pm during the workday and he's on zoom...eating a sandwich as we spoke. So we gave up, we didnt even include him on any conversations because it was negative value.

In speaking with other students, 5-10% of the graduating class were complete free riders. Some were sponsored (e.g., federal government employees, etc) and were not only free-riders in terms of work, but also in terms of cost. Further, when graded your team got graded based on how many people you had, which many of us spoke up against especially given randomly assigned groups.

That said, some of my randomly assigned teammates were awesome, we're still friends, we formed great bonds and I wouldnt want to miss that experience.

Because someone had to come in last place, it eased a lot of the tension and created a much more pleasant group dynamic:

- The free-rider(s) were perfectly okay with jumping on the grenade, filling the last-place spot, and knocking 20% off their final grade in exchange for doing very little work and still passing the class.

- The lazier people who did care about their grade were a bit more motivated to contribute than they otherwise would've been.

- The go-getters who wanted to ace the class felt like they were fairly compensated for doing most of the heavy lifting.

...and programming pays better, anyhow.

What does "write the song" mean though? You hear lots of remix and cover versions of famous songs which are obviously derivative works, but what if that happens before the song is ever published? What if a song writer creates a song specifically for an artist? Do these stylistic influences count for writing credit? The line is not well defined.

As for remixes and covers, I'd say that if there was a change made that significantly altered or changed the song, it would be considered involvement. It seems that from the article, remixing or changing the song to the point where you would consider it substantially different is enough for a share of publishing revenues.

Bottom line is that while it's still subjective, most musicians and songwriters would have no trouble recognizing if someone else had a substantial impact on the final product.

No royalty paid.

That is like saying: "I just drove by a cop at 3mph over the speed limit and he didn't even turn on his lights. No fine paid." (implying that therefore speed limit laws don't exist)

The fact that many trivial violations go un-prosecuted never invalidates the law.

Here's a key line just a few paragraphs into a Georgetown Law paper on the topic [1] >>Many entertainment corporation shave left fan fiction alone, but a few have attempted and are attempting to stamp out unauthorized use of their proprietary characters.

It is very common. Your trivial "example" may come under fair use, but that says nothing about the actual facts of the matter.

[1] https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...

The lyrics were never used. Because the lyrics were never supposed to be used.

This page has a reasonably accessible description of who does what and why they get paid: https://www.openmicuk.co.uk/advice/music-royalties-explained...

Next there is the mechanical royalties that come from radio play, streaming, licensing agreements, etc. Those largely go to the owner of the composition(e.g. songwriter) from 25% up to 90ish percent depending on the publishing deal.

The live performance aspect is where the artist can rake it in if they play things smart. The live show largely goes to the artist(*as long as there is not a 360 deal in place*) They can charge what they can get, and sell merch at the show. If they produce their own merch they can probably net a nice profit. If they let a merch company "handle it for them" they will see 10 cents on the dollar or less. Artists can get into trouble if they make their shows too big and would only break even/run at a loss.

360 deals are a particularly insidious anti artist beast. Basically the label throws their might behind the artist and gets a large cut of ALL aspects of the money they make being an artist.(live shows,merch, everything) I suspect many of the big names at least start out in a 360 deal these days, and may have negotiating power once they become Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga or Ariana Grande.

Songwriters probably have the least negotiating power in this situation. When an artist has 50 songwriting teams throwing tracks their way, a suboptimal deal may have to be accepted just to have a shot at making the album. While I am not saying songwriting is not a talent(it most certainly is), unfortunately more people have said talent than there are A-List stars.

Equally important is the fact that a share of publishing means a share of all sorts of royalties which aren't negotiated case by case. For example for playing the song on the radio, in restaurants, on TV shows, etc. But even more insidiously, it applies to cover versions. So if Elvis Presley gets a 50% songwriting credit, he will then take 50% of the portion due to the songwriter on any version recorded or played live by anyone (who hasn't added the 'Presley magic'), at any time in the future.

It is all evil but it kind of shows who has the negotiation leverage. Todays pop music scene is all about creating a celebrity image consumers want to identify with. Once said image is created the actual music is not that important. So the writers do not get much credit.

I've thought about it slightly and without Teddy Park there is no blackpink, but without the individual members each bringing their own flavour to the group, there is no blackpink either.

If you're familiar with the concept art industry, this is essentially just character design but with living people.

We are being fed a story, Katy Perry and Ariana Grande are good examples of this.

Ariana Grande has written a few of her own songs (though none of these were released as singles).

Perhaps you meant that neither Katy Perry or Ariana Grande are composers (who write the instrumental portion of the song)?

"Kayfabe, in the United States, is often seen as the suspension of disbelief that is used to create the non-wrestling aspects of promotions, such as feuds, angles, and gimmicks in a manner similar to other forms of fictional entertainment. In relative terms, a wrestler breaking kayfabe during a show would be likened to an actor breaking character on-camera."

Outside of the entertainment industry, politics is an obvious example, though wikipedia states:

"It has long been claimed that kayfabe has been used in American politics, especially in election campaigns, Congress, and the White House, but no evidence of actual usage of kayfabe in Washington has ever been uncovered. In interviews as Governor of Minnesota, former wrestler Jesse Ventura often likened Washington to wrestling when he said that politicians "pretend to hate each other in public, then go out to dinner together.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayfabe

I find the idea of being fed a story fascinating because a successful story feels more real than life itself and I'm not sure you can separate the two (life and the stories we tell ourselves). Once you can see it for what it is, that it's just a story, it breaks the illusion. But a really powerful story sucks you back in time and time again, and sometimes, you forget that you were being told a story in the first place.

And now after typing the above paragraph I sit wondering how many stories I currently believe are real, are just stories after all. Money being one of the most powerful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM51qOpwcIM

I think most people think she falls under this category.

Who doesn't consider choir members to be artists?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I66oFXdf0KU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3szNvgQxHo

Many record producers do participate in the songwriting or composition process and are credited for that work (for example, Jay-Z), but the vast majority don't (for example, Glen Wallachs, co-founder of Capital Records).

Production can mean anything and everything from project management, sound design, co-writing, arranging to hands-on instrumental parts - to turning up once a week and saying "Sounds great. Carry on."

The split depends on the producer/artist agreement.

Session musicians don't usually get points even though they may literally write their parts. In publishing terms a song is melody+lyrics, and everything else is work-for-hire arrangement.

This often gets renegotiated because it's clearly nonsense. But that's the starting point.

A producer cannot "negotiate" creative credit if they did not earn it, because the guilds will not allow it.

If a producer wants writing credit, they must earn the writing credit by performing creative activities as specified by the guild rules. Project management and other "producing" activities do not count. Note however that the creative contributions of session musicians under WFH arrangements are generally attributed to their employer--i.e., to the producer, and SCL rules generally apply to determine the creative contribution the producer may claim for the work of session musicians.

Co-writing and arranging are not "producing" activities, they are writing and composition activities which can qualify for songwriting and composing credit. Few producers participate creatively in their songs, but the ones that do tend to be the more famous ones (like Dr. Dre, Jay-Z, Dr. Luke, etc.) and are use usually artists in their own right.

The economic view would be something like:

- There's a pie to be split, often beforehand. Some players are in better negotiating positions than others. Sadly, if you don't know a lot of performers, you'll have a hard time getting a bigger slice from the one that shows up.

- It's not actually relevant who is on the document as a "writer". This is simply a thing to be negotiated over so that the performer is incentivized to do the recording. It's the same thing as putting up sales tax on a purchaser of goods, legally the buyer is paying x% extra, but economically the buyer and the seller actually split the bill according to negotiating power.

- What will happen if it's enshrined that only the person who actually wrote the piece gets his name on it? Well there will be other things to bargain over. For instance, maybe you get your name exclusively on the song, but you put it in a company and the performer gets a piece of the company.

Heretofore there's been a gentleman's agreement about writing credits which benefited the artist, and that's largely been enforced by the reality that artists (and publishers) need writers less than writers need them.

But, what does a pop artist in the 21st century need more than anything in order to succeed? Their image on social media. The underlying threat here is the class issues, and the tactical deployment of the gig economy (song writers driving Ubers) was not accidental.

When the word "exploitation" starts getting thrown around, and comparisons to how black artists were treated in the early years of the music industry start getting made, the pressure on artists and their representation will grow, and the dynamics of the contract process will change. That's what the writers are hoping will happen, anyway.

Songwriting credit is copyright in the music and lyrics of the song. Artist credit is copyright in a specific recording of a song.

So if you write a song which is a great song, and Arianna Grande records a lackluster version which nobody likes that much, but then several other artists pick up on the fact that it's a great song and record their own highly successful versions, then the songwriter would do very well from this, but Arianna Grande wouldn't share in the later success of the cover versions.

If Arianna gets a 30% writers credit just for putting her own 'vibe' on the original recording, then she participates in the upside of the cover versions, even though they might have been successful despite her rather than because of her.

Here's how it was when I studied this 15 years ago.

In a traditional big four record contract, the artist (which for a band like Korn is five people), the record label gets 92% and the artist gets 8% (to split between them), but that's only on domestic (US) sales. On international sales the split is worse at 96%/4%. The artist would typically also pay for any damaged product, which mattered more in the case of shellac records as they are more brittle and broke more often.

For a publishing contract there's more variance in the split but it would typically be more like 60/40.

I'm not saying that its right, only we always want to simplify things that aren't really simple.

Now anyone can record high quality music at home. Anyone can self publish their music for the world to enjoy. Both were unthinkable a few decades ago.

But there are still a few gatekeepers, and gatekeepers will usually charge for opening their gate. Why wouldn't they?

A megastar can choose to record any of dozens of equally good songs. Whoever they choose will sell 100x more. So in one sense it's fair they get a share of the money they create by adding their fame and talent to the song.

I don't think this is actually true, at least if you define "good" as "likely to be a hit". There's a reason top pop performers go for songs written by songwriters with a proven track record, the most famous of which is perhaps Max Martin. Not anyone can write (and produce) songs that consistently appeal to whatever the public preferences of the day are. And no one wants to take unnecessary risks.

The question is if performers should get songwriting royalties for songs they didn't write.

Eh, to an extent. Audio production is a highly involved process. Few people have the equipment and knowledge to mic instruments & track sound properly, mix audio properly, apply professional-level production, master the tracks properly, master the album properly... It's not as easy as having a computer and some software.

You can get a pretty good sound at home now for sure but for professional albums you still need a decent professional studio. And even at home, getting good mics and hardware is still quite costly.

"A megastar can choose to record any of dozens of equally good songs."

There are famous or well-known (in the industry) songwriters that get chosen time and time again because they can consistently produce hits.

A few decades ago, even the greatest talents in the world needed a recording contract to reach a large audience, and that went through a few large companies.

Today that still helps to get the best equipment and the best people working on your stuff. But you can also record in a home studio with better tech than The Beatles ever had access to.

Not a flat playing field at all, but I think a fair amount of people do come up that way.

As for the best songwriters... I don't really know the business, and I don't want to pretend to. You're probably right for the Megahits. Maybe I'm right for the filler tracks?

Ah yeah, this I do agree with. With today's tech it's relatively easy to get youtube/soundcloud-grade quality. It's not super cheap but one can get by with a decent camera, a decent usb interface like a scarlett 2i2, and a mic or two depending on the instrument.

It's never been easier to get discovered thanks to soundcloud, youtube, instagram, etc. Very different from having to play gigs at the right places (sometimes for a long time!) and hope one gets discovered by someone there. I was thinking more of professional studio albums.

Sufficient for a pro album ready for radio play? Probably not. But good enough to monetize on youtube? All day long.

Ultimately, I wonder where the money ends up between the artist and the executive.

This article (not the pact's message) seems to be unfairly framing this as writers vs artists, but the real bad guy could be some suit at UMI or EMG...

It sucks for the writers all the same, but don't misplace your anger.

I would not be shocked in the slightest if a few artists are increasingly also starting to throw their weight around and that is gaining some traction and becoming more of a norm as well. Thats also not new, ranging from the inane (no brown m&m's back stage) to stuff like this.

I think a lot of people would be shocked to learn that

1. Many artists dont write their own songs

2. Many bands dont perform in their own studio albums and often use hired guns/session musicians

3. A lot of 1&2 are actually a relatively small number of people with a pretty prodigious output.

People like Max Martin, Ryan Tedder, Sia Furler, Dr. Luke, Bonnie McKee in the current sphere/conversation.

But even going back to Elvis...Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller are the actual writers for Hound Dog, Jailhouse Rock etc. And theres some for other Genre's, Motown had their own with Lamont Dozier and Brian and Eddie Holland. Otis Blackwell, Prince Nelson Rogers etc etc.

This revelation happened for me when i started getting into playing music. Over the years I have gained appreciation for those that dont really need to deal with 1 and 2, but that takes a very special type of talent and dedication.

https://www.insider.com/van-halen-brown-m-ms-contract-2016-9

If true, it is very surprising. Surely in most venues the people responsible for back stage hospitality are not the same people responsible for lighting, electrics, sound installation and stage safety? Isn't it quite likely that one of those teams would have met the requirements perfectly, and the other would have cut corners? How about the situation where extremely professional and scrupulous venues do all the important things right but resent having to sort M&Ms for overpaid stars? Wouldn't it have made more sense for Van Halen to have their own electrical inspectors who would check safety and reliability of the installation? How do other touring rock groups make sure everything is set up correctly? How did Van Halen come up with this particular canary test among all others?

Is it really that conspiratorial that an extremely famous 20 year old acted like a dick, and that at age thirty he made up a story to cover up his youthful dickishness?

> Surely in most venues the people responsible for back stage hospitality are not the same people

They all get paid from the same pool. It's the boss they're testing, not the stage hand.

Does the boss treat every requirement like a requirement and have it done seriously or do they pick and choose based on what they think is important and surprise the artist?

Obviously part of the reason this story gets told a lot is because a lot of people, many of them management consultants who charge by the day for nuggets of catchy wisdom like this one, love the idea that organizations have a homogenous culture and the same ones that skimp on the buffet preparation also skimp on the rigging safety. Actually, this is complete fantasy. It's perfectly believable to think that the same boss makes sure the artists have everything in their dressing room they want, no matter how demanding, but thinks that they won't check the bigger, critical but more expensive stuff.

I didn't ask when people started making up the claim, I asked how the claim was reasonable. The person sorting M&Ms would have been paid just the same. How does a reasonable request become dickish?

> they didn't have any particular preference for non-brown M&Ms but just wanted to mess with the people waiting on them"

Mess with? There's that unsupported judgement again. Am I messing with the cook if I ask for less salt, or no onions on my burger? Or are those valid things for a customer to want? Do I have to prove a medical reason for not wanting onions? Or brown M&Ms?

> management consultants [...] love the idea that organizations have a homogenous culture and the same ones that skimp on the buffet preparation also skimp on the rigging safety.

That's generally true but it doesn't need to be. If it saved them one bad show ever it's worth it. Even if it didn't, if they thought it would it was still probably a safe investment.

I'd be happy if a performer went out of their way to make sure that a live event that I paid for and travelled to attend went off without a hitch. To do otherwise would be dickish.

And two. Most large touring acts have all sorts of heavy equipment. Zepp, Skynyrd had enourmous amounts of stuff. Even to date, RHCP has a boat load of gear they lug around because like many they don’t use a venues PA, they use their own gear because it’s quintessential to their tone. Hell the Grateful Dead had a wall of sound.

All that is to say....sure that could be a reason. May even have been the reasoning to start out. But I’m not sure I buy it personally. That band was also known for their.....persona. Especially with David Lee Roth.

What a time to be alive.

Back in the rock'n'roll era, with the new 'teenager' category raining allowances on labels, label-owners often got a co-writer credit on songs. (And then there was the vinyl shipped 'off the books'.) They also typically grabbed up publishing rights.

Since streaming began: I've seen figures like $2 per 1000 streams for big-name artists. I've never seen figures mentioned for songwriters. At one time a top-10 hit might be covered by dozens of big names (each a potential revenue source for decades) - today stuff comes & goes quickly.

Thinking about The Beatles, for example, Paul McCartney is way richer than Ringo Starr. The common wisdom is it's because he wrote the songs and Ringo was just the drummer.

Also there's the example of the song "Bitter Sweet Symphony" where members of the Rolling Stones claimed songwriting credits and took all the song's royalties [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Sweet_Symphony

So I guess the answer is no.

The thing in short supply is not catchy tunes and beautiful lyrics. The thing in short supply is the attention of an audience in a world full of distractions. A popstar brings you attention. You bring them the hit song. You will get a smaller share of a huge pie in return.

If you wish, you can take a 100% share of a tiny pie and keep your artistic author's integrity.

That's the tradeoff.

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28789721-the-song-machin...

The one relationship that immediately springs to mind, when I think of this type of thing, is Elton John and Bernie Taupin.

I understand that they split up for a while, and that Elton John's music lost its lustre during that period.

Although I like some of Elton John's work, I am not enough of a fan to speak in more than a fairly vague sense. I just remember people complaining about it, when it was happening.

Keith Reid was also given top billing, for Procol Harum. He usually showed up in group photos.

I'm sure it's not as cut and dry on every song necessarily but Elton writes the music and Taupin writes the lyrics. Of course EJ performs the songs.

Neither would be what they are without the other, certainly, the same as Lennon and McCartney's solo work was great but didn't come close to their collaboration.

Anyways just want to point out EJ isn't one of the "manufactured" pop artists who had others write his songs for him. He's a true artist and musician in his own right even though Taupin is obviously hugely important to his success.

https://www.amazon.com/Song-Machine-Inside-Hit-Factory/dp/03...

More commonly, at some point a different writer is brought in to update it, sometimes heavy rewrites, sometimes just tweaks. Once it gets filmed, the writer's guild has a process of arbitration to determine who gets credit, based on roughly who is believed to have contributed the most original material. The person or persons who are considered the primary creators get residuals based on % of money made (actual money made not the Hollywood accounting bullshit).

They also have very prominent credits, second only to the director (notice it's the second to last in opening credits or second if it's closing credits).

Their biggest issue is all the unpaid work they get asked to do. They can do months and even years of work without any compensation with projects that aren't really moving forward.

I wonder if we could ever see this in the west.

"Pop stars ask for share of future revenue from covers of songs they make famous."

"Producer who brings amazing sound to good lyrics asks for share of future revenue."

:D