If you haven't seen this movie from 1996 then I'm sorry to spoil it but it's about a small rock & roll band from small-town Pennsylvania called The Wonders who rapidly gain popularity with a hit song who's members' ego and immaturity eventually catch up with them before they know it.
In the movie That Thing You Do it's the drummer that changes the tempo on the spot and makes the lead singer and songwriters new ballad into an upbeat rock song. Instantly the song is a hit with fans and gets the attention of people in the music business.
Here's where I'm reminded of when I was setting up publishing with my own band I played drums in years ago. The publishing company said that only the melody and lyrics were what you could claim for publishing. Basically telling me that I could never see a penny from any success of the band's songs I worked so hard creating and being a part of. Like the drummer in the movie should have felt, I too felt that my contribution as a drummer for our songs impact was just as important as the lyrics and melody. I think a drummer can change the whole genre of a band. Frankly, I listen to music most of the time for the feel of the song, and hardly ever know what the lyrics even are. Thankfully for me our singer and guitarist agreed and we split the publishing 4 ways, as did the Wonders in the movie I think, but that That Thing You Do is a glaring example of why the publishing/royalties should be awarded to more than just lyrics and melody. The "Oneders" would still be playing pizza parlors in Erie Pennsylvania if not for Guy Patterson's update to the song.
This may have changed in the age of producers thinking they're as important as the artist now days but I think the arrangement, vibe, and overall feel of the song can make it or break a song no matter what the lyrics or melody are and that there should be a pathway for recognition for it when paying "songwriters" And a reassessment into what actually makes the song, the song it is. Songwriters get paid a shit-ton for lyrics and melody but how much of those song's success actually from the words and the notes being played? How many disco songs would be top 10 hits in the 70s if they were just acoustic ballads? They were popular because they were dance songs. And apparently you can't claim royalties if you're the one who made it possible for people to dance to it. If you can sue Robin Thicke for his song 'sounding like' your song then why can't you copyright making your song 'sound like' something. Thicke didn't use any melody or lyrics from Marvin Gaye as far as I know.
What do I know? Maybe I'm just a bitter, washed up former drummer for a band who never got a chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment