Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn
Originally Posted By: Guitarhacker
So according to your theory... the guy who brings the coffee to the coffee machine and makes the coffee in the studio while the writers are there composing should be given writing credits too?

Look up George Martin and you prolly won't find "coffee bringer" on his bio! laugh

Originally Posted By: Guitarhacker
If the musician is a hired studio gun, guess what????? The guy has signed that away to the artist when he signed the work for hire contract. If however, it is a signature riff such as the sax lick on Baker Street, or the guitar lick on In-a-godda-da-vida, for example.... and the creator of said lick is a studio musician.... the artist owns it. The same rules apply. That is NOT, writing the song. As a studio musician, you know that anything you create is the property of the artist who's paying you.

Obviously that is how the music business works...I acknowledged as much! But just because it is legal does not mean it is right! I think anyone who would use a significant creative contribution and not share a credit is a POS!

Originally Posted By: Guitarhacker
The music world decided that such contributions are not considered "writing the song" because licks and fills and such are not necessary parts of the song. Even a so called signature lick isn't necessary for the song. The verse, chorus and lyrics are.

Baloney! Where would Smoke on the Water be without its opening riff? Where would Day Tripper be without its opening? What about In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida? And thousands more songs! Of course those melodic hooks are every bit as important as anything written in words! And probably even more important because I know tons of songs that were hits when most people had no idea what the singer was mumbling!


Now you are confusing 2 things.

Riffs created by musicians in the band .......and everything else.

Oh yes, absolutely, the signature riff/lick for the songs mentioned.... are an integral part of the song no doubt. You hear the first few notes of Smoke on the water and immediately know the song. But you're missing a few things here....

All 3 examples were created by band members. These licks are not the product of an engineer with effects, nor were they the product of a hired studio player.

Next... I could do a cover of the song Smoke on the Water, that you would recognize that doesn't contain the signature riff. I could start it with chugging eighth G chords.... That riff, while we all identify the song immediately with it, isn't necessary to the functioning of the song as a song. Grab an acoustic guitar and play the song.... you don't need the signature riff..... start playing a chord and jump into the first verse. We've all heard covers of songs that sounded nothing like the original and we didn't recognize the song until the verse & lyrics started.

So no, signature licks and fills and solos are not necessarily part of the song (from a songwriting POV) especially when they are created by someone not the artist/band. The majority of signature licks are created by the band/artist and are copyrighted material. The non-artist hired guns have signed that copyright away in their contract for hire which means they can not claim ownership of that lick, only that they are playing it and created it..... but not ownership.

Last edited by Guitarhacker; 05/02/17 02:23 AM.
You can find my music at:
www.herbhartley.com
Add nothing that adds nothing to the music.
You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both.

The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.