Music opinion/question of the week...

[Wolter]

Watching Suggs on TV this morning talking about the new Madness book and the subject of money came up. Madness have always claimed that they haven’t / don’t make any money because it goes 7 ways but I can’t believe that.
They split it 50% to the songwriter and 50% to the performing members.
Some Madness songs have been huge over the past 4 decades, I know Suggs didn’t write Our House but as an example that song alone must have made a huge amount of cash.

I'm not a fan of that setup. I think everything in a band should be split equally. Fuck the songwriter.

Typical bassist.

[Heston]

Watching Suggs on TV this morning talking about the new Madness book and the subject of money came up. Madness have always claimed that they haven’t / don’t make any money because it goes 7 ways but I can’t believe that.
They split it 50% to the songwriter and 50% to the performing members.
Some Madness songs have been huge over the past 4 decades, I know Suggs didn’t write Our House but as an example that song alone must have made a huge amount of cash.

I'm not a fan of that setup. I think everything in a band should be split equally. Fuck the songwriter.

I don't agree with you at all, the art of creation deserves its own rewards. I actually think the Madness model is a good one. If you just have the songwriter getting the money then albums can be diluted due to people wanting writing credits to make money. Plus, the non-writers must contribute musical ideas and flourishes here and there.

[Dr. Medulla]

I'm not a fan of that setup. I think everything in a band should be split equally. Fuck the songwriter.

So in the Pink Flag reissue discord—Newman insisted on sole credit for the music, Gilbert argued that that first album was the result of long months of group effort—you're Team Bruce?

[101Walterton]

Watching Suggs on TV this morning talking about the new Madness book and the subject of money came up. Madness have always claimed that they haven’t / don’t make any money because it goes 7 ways but I can’t believe that.
They split it 50% to the songwriter and 50% to the performing members.
Some Madness songs have been huge over the past 4 decades, I know Suggs didn’t write Our House but as an example that song alone must have made a huge amount of cash.

I'm not a fan of that setup. I think everything in a band should be split equally. Fuck the songwriter.

I don't agree with you at all, the art of creation deserves its own rewards. I actually think the Madness model is a good one. If you just have the songwriter getting the money then albums can be diluted due to people wanting writing credits to make money. Plus, the non-writers must contribute musical ideas and flourishes here and there.

It has caused many bands to fall out and split when one person is making all the money. Plus as a band surely everyone must contribute something to the finished song as you say.
They mentioned the Stones and Jagger / Richards making hundreds of millions but single digits for the others.
I expect that is now changing with the money coming from touring not downloads.

[Kory]

I'm not a fan of that setup. I think everything in a band should be split equally. Fuck the songwriter.

So in the Pink Flag reissue discord—Newman insisted on sole credit for the music, Gilbert argued that that first album was the result of long months of group effort—you're Team Bruce?

Very much. Starting a song is one thing but finishing it is quite another. As soon as you start saying "my contribution is worth more than yours," you basically reduce everybody else in the band to employees and you also almost always punish the drummer. Then you get resentment when the songwriter doesn't have to go into debt to pay his medical bills but the bassist has to struggle to live. I mean if you think your value in the band is higher than mine, then fuck you and start paying me and providing benefits.

[Kory]

Watching Suggs on TV this morning talking about the new Madness book and the subject of money came up. Madness have always claimed that they haven’t / don’t make any money because it goes 7 ways but I can’t believe that.
They split it 50% to the songwriter and 50% to the performing members.
Some Madness songs have been huge over the past 4 decades, I know Suggs didn’t write Our House but as an example that song alone must have made a huge amount of cash.

I'm not a fan of that setup. I think everything in a band should be split equally. Fuck the songwriter.

I don't agree with you at all, the art of creation deserves its own rewards. I actually think the Madness model is a good one. If you just have the songwriter getting the money then albums can be diluted due to people wanting writing credits to make money. Plus, the non-writers must contribute musical ideas and flourishes here and there.

Exactly, so equal split is the only way. Otherwise you're going to get resentment from the guitarist who thinks he added more to the song than the bassist, so why should he only get his equal split of the remaining 50%? If everything is equal down the line from the beginning, you're a team instead of a corporation.

[Kory]

Watching Suggs on TV this morning talking about the new Madness book and the subject of money came up. Madness have always claimed that they haven’t / don’t make any money because it goes 7 ways but I can’t believe that.
They split it 50% to the songwriter and 50% to the performing members.
Some Madness songs have been huge over the past 4 decades, I know Suggs didn’t write Our House but as an example that song alone must have made a huge amount of cash.

I'm not a fan of that setup. I think everything in a band should be split equally. Fuck the songwriter.

Typical bassist.

Imagine if Under Pressure was only credited to the writer of the lyrics and melody.

[Heston]

Watching Suggs on TV this morning talking about the new Madness book and the subject of money came up. Madness have always claimed that they haven’t / don’t make any money because it goes 7 ways but I can’t believe that.
They split it 50% to the songwriter and 50% to the performing members.
Some Madness songs have been huge over the past 4 decades, I know Suggs didn’t write Our House but as an example that song alone must have made a huge amount of cash.

I'm not a fan of that setup. I think everything in a band should be split equally. Fuck the songwriter.

I don't agree with you at all, the art of creation deserves its own rewards. I actually think the Madness model is a good one. If you just have the songwriter getting the money then albums can be diluted due to people wanting writing credits to make money. Plus, the non-writers must contribute musical ideas and flourishes here and there.

Exactly, so equal split is the only way. Otherwise you're going to get resentment from the guitarist who thinks he added more to the song than the bassist, so why should he only get his equal split of the remaining 50%? If everything is equal down the line from the beginning, you're a team instead of a corporation.

What about the bassist who gets pissed after every show and fucks groupies while the songwriter heads back to the hotel to finish the next album?

[Dr. Medulla]

I'm not a fan of that setup. I think everything in a band should be split equally. Fuck the songwriter.

So in the Pink Flag reissue discord—Newman insisted on sole credit for the music, Gilbert argued that that first album was the result of long months of group effort—you're Team Bruce?

Very much. Starting a song is one thing but finishing it is quite another. As soon as you start saying "my contribution is worth more than yours," you basically reduce everybody else in the band to employees and you also almost always punish the drummer. Then you get resentment when the songwriter doesn't have to go into debt to pay his medical bills but the bassist has to struggle to live. I mean if you think your value in the band is higher than mine, then fuck you and start paying me and providing benefits.

Yup, I agree. Unless the situation is where everyone plays exactly how the official songwriter directs them, creation is a group effort. The songwriter initiates, but doesn't conclude alone, so why do we pretend otherwise?

[Kory]

Watching Suggs on TV this morning talking about the new Madness book and the subject of money came up. Madness have always claimed that they haven’t / don’t make any money because it goes 7 ways but I can’t believe that.
They split it 50% to the songwriter and 50% to the performing members.
Some Madness songs have been huge over the past 4 decades, I know Suggs didn’t write Our House but as an example that song alone must have made a huge amount of cash.

I'm not a fan of that setup. I think everything in a band should be split equally. Fuck the songwriter.

I don't agree with you at all, the art of creation deserves its own rewards. I actually think the Madness model is a good one. If you just have the songwriter getting the money then albums can be diluted due to people wanting writing credits to make money. Plus, the non-writers must contribute musical ideas and flourishes here and there.

Exactly, so equal split is the only way. Otherwise you're going to get resentment from the guitarist who thinks he added more to the song than the bassist, so why should he only get his equal split of the remaining 50%? If everything is equal down the line from the beginning, you're a team instead of a corporation.

What about the bassist who gets pissed after every show and fucks groupies while the songwriter heads back to the hotel to finish the next album?

I think if being a songwriter is such a pain in the ass, that songwriter might be in the wrong business.

[101Walterton]

I'm not a fan of that setup. I think everything in a band should be split equally. Fuck the songwriter.

I don't agree with you at all, the art of creation deserves its own rewards. I actually think the Madness model is a good one. If you just have the songwriter getting the money then albums can be diluted due to people wanting writing credits to make money. Plus, the non-writers must contribute musical ideas and flourishes here and there.

Exactly, so equal split is the only way. Otherwise you're going to get resentment from the guitarist who thinks he added more to the song than the bassist, so why should he only get his equal split of the remaining 50%? If everything is equal down the line from the beginning, you're a team instead of a corporation.

What about the bassist who gets pissed after every show and fucks groupies while the songwriter heads back to the hotel to finish the next album?

I think if being a songwriter is such a pain in the ass, that songwriter might be in the wrong business.

It’s not usually the bassist that goes solo.

[Kory]

I don't agree with you at all, the art of creation deserves its own rewards. I actually think the Madness model is a good one. If you just have the songwriter getting the money then albums can be diluted due to people wanting writing credits to make money. Plus, the non-writers must contribute musical ideas and flourishes here and there.

Exactly, so equal split is the only way. Otherwise you're going to get resentment from the guitarist who thinks he added more to the song than the bassist, so why should he only get his equal split of the remaining 50%? If everything is equal down the line from the beginning, you're a team instead of a corporation.

What about the bassist who gets pissed after every show and fucks groupies while the songwriter heads back to the hotel to finish the next album?

I think if being a songwriter is such a pain in the ass, that songwriter might be in the wrong business.

It’s not usually the bassist that goes solo.

Songwriters can go solo whenever they want, I don't care. But if you're going to say you're in a band, then it should be an equal partnership.

[Kory]

I'm not a fan of that setup. I think everything in a band should be split equally. Fuck the songwriter.

So in the Pink Flag reissue discord—Newman insisted on sole credit for the music, Gilbert argued that that first album was the result of long months of group effort—you're Team Bruce?

Very much. Starting a song is one thing but finishing it is quite another. As soon as you start saying "my contribution is worth more than yours," you basically reduce everybody else in the band to employees and you also almost always punish the drummer. Then you get resentment when the songwriter doesn't have to go into debt to pay his medical bills but the bassist has to struggle to live. I mean if you think your value in the band is higher than mine, then fuck you and start paying me and providing benefits.

Yup, I agree. Unless the situation is where everyone plays exactly how the official songwriter directs them, creation is a group effort. The songwriter initiates, but doesn't conclude alone, so why do we pretend otherwise?

We pretend because of the super archaic concept that songwriting is lyrics and melody—nothing more. And in this society, why would we ever change something that heavily favors a small group? If that's how you want to value music, then go ahead and do an a cappella album and see how much money it makes you. I think you're either working in music because you want to make money, or because you like working in music. If you just want to make money, then go ahead and solo, and quit pretending you're in any kind of partnership. It's disingenuous. If you're in a band, then be in a band and split everything equally.

[Kory]

I'm not a fan of that setup. I think everything in a band should be split equally. Fuck the songwriter.

I don't agree with you at all, the art of creation deserves its own rewards. I actually think the Madness model is a good one. If you just have the songwriter getting the money then albums can be diluted due to people wanting writing credits to make money. Plus, the non-writers must contribute musical ideas and flourishes here and there.

Exactly, so equal split is the only way. Otherwise you're going to get resentment from the guitarist who thinks he added more to the song than the bassist, so why should he only get his equal split of the remaining 50%? If everything is equal down the line from the beginning, you're a team instead of a corporation.

What about the bassist who gets pissed after every show and fucks groupies while the songwriter heads back to the hotel to finish the next album?

I think if being a songwriter is such a pain in the ass, that songwriter might be in the wrong business.

I mean, feel free to take a band vote and cut the bassist loose if he's not pulling his weight. He should be contributing when the time comes, but if he's not got a mind for lyrics but has written super bass hooks, why should he be punished? I think that the Madness system potentially finds a stumbling block in this sense: you mention that if the songwriter is getting ALL the money, then you get the bassist writing weak songs to try and get that dough. But under the Madness method, he's still not happy with his 12% or whatever while the songwriter gets their 50% so it's really the same situation. Either that, or the bassist keeps writing songs that don't measure up and keep getting rejected. So you get double resentment of not getting that 50% plus somebody telling you basically twice that you're not going to get it.

[101Walterton]

I don't agree with you at all, the art of creation deserves its own rewards. I actually think the Madness model is a good one. If you just have the songwriter getting the money then albums can be diluted due to people wanting writing credits to make money. Plus, the non-writers must contribute musical ideas and flourishes here and there.

Exactly, so equal split is the only way. Otherwise you're going to get resentment from the guitarist who thinks he added more to the song than the bassist, so why should he only get his equal split of the remaining 50%? If everything is equal down the line from the beginning, you're a team instead of a corporation.

What about the bassist who gets pissed after every show and fucks groupies while the songwriter heads back to the hotel to finish the next album?

I think if being a songwriter is such a pain in the ass, that songwriter might be in the wrong business.

I mean, feel free to take a band vote and cut the bassist loose if he's not pulling his weight. He should be contributing when the time comes, but if he's not got a mind for lyrics but has written super bass hooks, why should he be punished? I think that the Madness system potentially finds a stumbling block in this sense: you mention that if the songwriter is getting ALL the money, then you get the bassist writing weak songs to try and get that dough. But under the Madness method, he's still not happy with his 12% or whatever while the songwriter gets their 50% so it's really the same situation. Either that, or the bassist keeps writing songs that don't measure up and keep getting rejected. So you get double resentment of not getting that 50% plus somebody telling you basically twice that you're not going to get it.

That is true. I think because there are (were) 7 of them the money doesn’t go far. Madness should have gone down the equal split because unlike a lot of bands most of the band are genuine songwriters. It is noticeable now when they include one of the non original songwriters songs on an album.