Forum Mainpage

Start a new Thread

Bottom

Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]

Michiel
Jul-23-2012, 07:39 GMT
Netherlands


Send private message

Hey Brenda, you are right on the broadway flop being many years later than Graceland. But it does not prove a No on the key question. For me it proves LL has not prepared a story in their heads, with checking whether all details mentioned were correct or not. it proves that they follow their emotions in replying the question. So they are angry about it. Why should anyone be angry for 26 years if there was no truth in it. But even that remark is irrelevant to the answer on the key question....

Bjoern
Jul-23-2012, 08:04 GMT
Germany


Send private message

@Michiel: You are right about the Bach thing. In Germany we have a Songwriter called Hannes Wader who released a song and when i first time heard it i thought: "Hey thats Pauls American Tune. But in the credit of Hannes Waders record he mentioned Bach as perosn who wrote the music. Im don't know why Paul think he wrote the music. For me it's a little bit strange.

Mimi
Jul-23-2012, 08:27 GMT
Austria


Send private message

I have some various points that I would like to add:

What is the thing about reprinting the cover? I bought Graceland the day it came out in Austria (and that was the same time it came out everywhere else) and it has all the credits (I still own it). So the credits for the other musicians where there right form the beginning.

American Tune: Paul always said that it was a Bach melody, that it is based on (like in the Dick Clark interviews that are still available). But these tunes are out of copyright. Of course he could have mentioned it in the liner notes, but you do not have to in this case By the way evan Bach "stole" the melody from Leo Hassler.

The question is: where does the copyright thing start and where does it end. Bodo mentioned Steve Gadds drum lick on 50 ways that made at least half of the song and Paul says that, too. But should he have been credited for co-writing the tune? There are so many other examples where the studio musicians contribute a great deal to the songs. If they are on good terms, everything is fine a there is a lot of respect, if not, well... Of all the hundreds of musicians that Paul has worked with, there are very few, who complain about him.

I do not understand, how these guy is so full of hate. If you do not want to jam or if you have a riff or whatever you want to keep for yourself, do not work together with other musicians! And I have the impression that Paul is very interested in sorting things out if both parties want that.

Bodo
Jul-23-2012, 10:25 GMT
Austria


Send private message

I agree with your arguments Mimi. Very well said.


I somehow also do not believe that Steve Berlin is just a liar. It makes me wonder why he is still full of hate for just a 'unknown' song from that album. That does not make a lot of sense, it was no single, it was no hit - maybe if they would have communicated better in the studio they would have made a few thousand $ out of it. But I think it was their fault to go and jam and a year later they say 'this is our song'. I believe the contract Warner made with Los Lobos and Paul was very clear about a jam session and the output.


Paul Simon has much more friends in music business than we know, so how Steve Berlin is making up the story just makes himself sound very jealous. If he ever would really have talked to him (and they didn't, they did not even want to talk to him in the studio) they might be friends too.


I see it that way:
Los Lobos contribution was legaly nothing more than Steve Gadds contribution to 50-ways. They had a contract as session musicians and did their job. They offered one of their ideas/song-fragments and did not tell Paul that they want shared songwriting for it (as Steve mentioned in the interview). The problem is that Los Lobos did not want to something together with Paul, their management said them to do it - and Los Lobos are usually 'songwriters' by themself so they felt uncomfortable with the role of session musicians.
They should have said to Paul that they want to do a song together with Paul.

Comming a year later and saying this is our song and having no proof at all is a weak position.
Paul was maybe upset with that attitude, as he said he is thinking that was only a lawyers idea to make some money - so I understood that his reaction was negative.

Bodo
Jul-23-2012, 10:31 GMT
Austria


Send private message

@Mimi - I also have never seen a Graceland copy without all credits, have a LP at home from 1987.

The question here is: Was it really his intention to get all song writing credits alone and did they change the contracts later, or did they just made a bad cover work or put out an early version by mistake(?). I am not sure if Paul is checking the covers and such things before the release, this is all done by the company (remember last summer when Paul said that this is the first time he sees that special package when Paul Fournier visited him).
In his back-cover text he explains very well from what band which song came so he had nothing to hide.

Bodo
Jul-23-2012, 10:43 GMT
Austria


Send private message

I've never read an interview with a musician using the f word in nearly every sentence.
I can understand that in the studio it wasn't working very well with those characters.

Bodo
Jul-23-2012, 10:48 GMT
Austria


Send private message

Will change the title of that discussion ;-)

DannyJ  
Jul-23-2012, 18:43 GMT
United Kingdom


Send private message

I'd be willing to bet good money that Paul OK's the cover art, and leaves it at that.

The record companies have employees to do all that practical stuff, the marketing machine, the production and manufacture, the distribution and PR... This is what record companies are for. I'm not at all surprised they made the minimum effort when it came to producing the liner notes for the 1st time.

People will be suggesting Paul burns his own CD's and drives them to the store next...

Mimi
Jul-23-2012, 19:05 GMT
Austria


Send private message

Maybe it has to do with the story that the release date was pushed back by Warner. There is the story of everyone was in New York for SNL and they recorded "Diamonds" because the album was released later than planed and so they had time to do another song. Maybe there was already album art out there without "Diamonds" and they had to change that.

DannyJ  
Jul-23-2012, 20:31 GMT
United Kingdom


Send private message

coming back to the question by Jimmie, I do wonder why Paul doesn't perform this song. Do you think it leaves a bad taste in his mouth?

Perhaps he doesn't want to enrage that gobby shite Steve Berlin... or perhaps they've reached an amicable agreement behind closed doors? Either way, I would like to know. I really like the song.

Los Lobos still sound like a bunch of w**kers though :-)

Erwin
Jul-23-2012, 20:49 GMT
Netherlands


Send private message

Thank you for posting this Bodo. i find it all very interesting!!!

Isabelle
Jul-23-2012, 21:04 GMT
France


Send private message

Thanks also
yes, interesting the wings on this great album

Matthew
Jul-23-2012, 23:36 GMT
United Kingdom


Send private message

I have read that interview before and a lot of it doesn't ring true.

Some of the latter comments at the bottom of the article are very interesting and confirm how I have always interpreted songwriting credits. Words and Music is the lyrics and the melody. Otherwise you'd hire a group of session musicians and someone would shake a tambourine or hit a triangle and they'd want a percentage of the royalties. It just doesn't work like that.

It sounds like they were extremely difficult to work with and didn't do as they were asked and even though they had already been informed that this was to be a jam session. All this 'we don't jam' nonsense is laughable. How they they warm up, experiment with new songs, knock ideas around? Are we supposed to believe that they compose every detail of each song on paper before going into the studio to cut a track?

Well here's the answer at 2:01 of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqUuE5bzKlA&fea
ture=related

Either Steve Berlin doesn't speak for the rest of the band, or they have changed the way they work completely or he wasn't telling the truth. Who knows?

But listen on to 2.50 where he talks about his 'bittersweet' relationship with the record company - Hollywood Records, not Warner this time.

Anyhow, if they didn't like the situation, they should have said, 'Sorry, this isn't working out but we know another band who think would be just right for your project', or 'Sorry, we cannot work like this but we have a song that we'd like to show you and maybe we can record it as a duet and put it on both our albums'.

I've listened to some of the tracks from 'By Light of The Moon' and only one of them sounds vaguely like 'All Around the World...' It is called One Time, One Night but really all it has in common is that annoyingly repetitive drumbeat. The song itself is quite forgettable in comparison with All Around The World Or The Myth of The Fingerprints.

Perhaps that is why their album only got to no.77 in the UK charts, no.24 in Sweden and didn't chart anywhere else?

John
Jul-24-2012, 10:01 GMT
United Kingdom


Send private message

Very interesting points being made and thought I would add a few myself - probable more general ones than specific to debate about Myths. It is also good as huge Paul Simon fans that we can take look at both sides of the argument so well.

I am no copyright lawyer but the key aspects of any song to me are the melody and the lyric and the creator of those require to be given credit. Any arrangements, specific instrument parts are however different e.g. Steve Gadd's brilliant drum part to '50 ways' is not the melody/tune and you can do a version of '50 ways' without that drum part (and it's still a great song).

I imagine it can then become difficult to decide when a contribution to a melody or lyric is enough to deserve co writing credits. If you suggest a couple of words is that enough, or if you contribute a verse is that enough. I suppose the same applies to a melody also.

In any recording session very talented musicians will contribute significantly to the development of the record eg Larry Knechtel on the piano for Bridge, Ray Phiri on Graceland (but not to the melody)

When you listen to the original songwriting demo for Bridge it sounds very different to the record but then Aretha Franklin's and Elvis Presley's versions sound different again - but it is still Paul's song and I like to think Myths is too

Bodo
Jul-24-2012, 11:09 GMT
Austria


Send private message

I think you are right John - and Paul Simon does know a lot about songwriting copyright as he learned it when he was 15,16 and I am sure he als 'paid' for that learning process.

The story has one more point:
It is always and again brought up by Steve Berlin. This guy (as he said in the same interview) can not write songs or music. The brilliant heads behind Los Lobos do not bring up that story again, because they might have an idea now what it is.

Paul can easely lean back and create songs today - we all know he is not a drummer or a brilliant guitar player - that job has to be done by Mark, Vincent and all others. He is the brilliant guy who can mix that all togheter, decide what he wants and what he toss away - and the result is 10 times better.

In fact, if you write the lyrics and put the chords over those lines you have written it - you have written both, lyrics and melody.

Bakithi has written that wonderful bass solo for You can call me Al - but do you have a song if you play it over and over again? It is one little part.

Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]

Forum Mainpage

Start a new Thread

Top