compensation for session players who improvise

[hard truth]

I don't think the singers (including the wailing guest vocalist on Dark Side of the Moon) mentioned in the thread "How'd they do this" deserve any additional compensation for their work or any songwriting credit. I say this based on the assumption that they signed an agreement at the time the recording was made which specified the type and amount of compensation they will receive.

 

What about the sax player on Floyd's Money? Like the vocalist he was probably allowed to improvise and his playing arguably was a significant contribution to the success of the record. But I doubt that many of you would say that he deserves credit and compensation as a composer. It should be no different for a hired vocalist.

 

I don't like the idea that if something is hugely successful that the old agreements should be superceded. If every studio musician demanded compensation as composer after a record is succesful it could destroy the business. With any session, especially with an established act, it should be assumed that the recording could be successful. If the guest performer agrees to the terms of the contract, they should honor the agreement, whether or not the recording is profitable. The person(s) who create, execute and and finance the recordings are the ones who take the risk, so they should be rewarded when successful. A hired session player shows up and gets paid. Unless there is a prior agreement otherwise, that is all they deserve. If a session musician finds themseleves acting as a composer or arranger on a session, not just player, they should come to an agreement with their employer for additional compensation at the time, not after the record is released. Otherwise the employer is forced to pay compensation for services that they did not consent to pay for.

[Lee Flier]

Yes, session work has always been considered work for hire unless otherwise specified by contract. You do the work for an agreed upon one-time fee and that's it. Legally, that should never change for all the reasons you say.

 

However, I think if I ever had a monstrously successful record I'd want to voluntarily make sure everybody involved received some extra dough. Why not? I could afford it and I believe in sharing success with people who deserve it/contributed to it.

[Tedly Nightshade]

I'd like to see the business as we know it fully and completely destroyed.

 

And replace it with something that's good for music, and good for people.

 

Hell, I would have given Clare a credit for "Speak to Me" too!

 

Lee has the right idea giving writing credits to her fabulous drummer.

[Lee Flier]

Yes anybody can have a contract that specifies anything they want when they hire somebody, and if both parties agree it is legally enforceable.

 

But of course, much of the time it's just people trying to grab as much as they can and give the other guy as little as they can.

 

That doesn't mean everybody has to work like that. If somebody does good work for you and you can afford it, pay them more than you agreed on. If you enjoy working for someone and they can't afford your normal rate, work for less than you would charge somebody else. Everybody somehow winds up happy that way.

[DC]

Well, Sting was fooling around in the studio and came upon Dyer Straits doing 'Money For Nothing.' He jammed out that little bit at the end and his manager pounced on Knofler's manager and Sting ended up getting half of that tune for his little; 'I want my MTV' bit.

 

Lee said: However, I think if I ever had a monstrously successful record I'd want to voluntarily make sure everybody involved received some extra dough. Why not? I could afford it and I believe in sharing success with people who deserve it/contributed to it.

 

I always thought it was cool that Lennon got Harrison and Starr a point or two apiece of Lennon & McCartney tunes.

[GeorgeVW]

I always like the agreement that Huey Lewis and the News had set up for publishing. Whoever in the band actually wrote the tune got half the publishing and the other half was evenly split among all the band members. Nobody gets shut out of success, and the writer (who did the bulk of the work in theory) gets a fair shake.

 

I've seen way too many bands where the principal writers didn't share publishing in any way, and it always hurt the band in the long run, frequently killing it. The way I see it, either you're a solo artist, or you're in a band, and if you're in a band, everybody needs to be treated fairly.

[fantasticsound]

I can't speak to the Pink Floyd situation, but in the Martha Wash suit (Everybody Dance Now) it was clear to the judge or jury that she was contracted as a backup singer. Not the very focus of the song. And that was why she was given credit and damages.

 

She was the focus of the song, therefore she was more than just a supporting musician, hence the additional money.

 

I agree with DC and GeorgeVW. The Beatles and Huey Lewis had the right idea. A band is a band and everyone contributes, so everyone should reap some of the rewards. It's different than if you buy the rights to another songwriter's song.

[Philip OKeefe]

I agree with what Lee said - if the record is a huge smash, it's traditional, if not just plain old fashoned good manners and common sense - to pass out a little "bonus" to the people who were involved in it from a "work made for hire" standpoint.

 

However, when going into the studio to do the sessions, you can't always (ever) really know if the release is going to happen, yet alone wind up being a big success.... so the best practice is to ALWAYS have the session musicians sign a "work made for hire" session musician agreement, that specifies what they will be doing, and what the compensation is, and that all work is performed as a work for hire and they agree to make no claims on the copyrights for said work. If you don't have such an agreement, you can have your attorney write one up for you, or get them in various places on the web... heck, there's probably examples here on the forums, if you do a search.

[Philip OKeefe]

U2 (and other bands I am aware of) have always agreed to split everything equally, regardless of who wrote the song. IMO, while that is technically UNfair to the writer(s), it can also reduce the possibility of someone in the band pushing for a WEAKER song, simply because they "wrote it" and want it on there just because it may mean more money in their pocket personally.

[theblue1]

Originally posted by GeorgeVW:

I always like the agreement that Huey Lewis and the News had set up for publishing. Whoever in the band actually wrote the tune got half the publishing and the other half was evenly split among all the band members. Nobody gets shut out of success, and the writer (who did the bulk of the work in theory) gets a fair shake.

 

I've seen way too many bands where the principal writers didn't share publishing in any way, and it always hurt the band in the long run, frequently killing it. The way I see it, either you're a solo artist, or you're in a band, and if you're in a band, everybody needs to be treated fairly.

That's an interesting arrangement and would have been appropriate to many of the bands I've been in, where there's a primary writer, but others tend to contribute their little bits to chords and other arrangement facets.

 

As far as legalities go, it's pretty much like Lee sez... if you're not the writer (of record) and you want a cut, you better get it in writing before you do your work.