Where does arranging stop & co-writing begin?

[kobuk]

Hi,

I am a guitarist/songwriter and I was asked by a friend to help her finish making a record. We worked on 10 songs together total. Some of the songs were brought to me with melody and lyrics and no chord changes so I wrote the chord changes and in one case changed the verse melody for a song. There were a couple of songs where I wrote a bridge or middle 8 section and there was one song where she brought a song completely written and I rewrote the chord changes and changed the basic rhythm/groove of the song based on a song she said she liked. After these initial writing sessions we got together with a couple of guys I know to rehearse and flesh out the bass and drum parts. I suggested a chord change or two at this point but am chalking that up as arranging.

Unfortunately, we made the mistake (that I will never make again) of not really defining or discussing the issue of co-writing as this process went on. Now that the record is done we had a discussion about writing credit and my friend said they believed that they wrote all the songs 100% and that my contributions should be considered arranging/transcribing/producing. I've tried to research the issue online and found one person who believed that only lyrics and melody are considered the song. Is this really true?

Is it arranging or co-writing when you write the chord changes for an entire song?
I don't want to be a jerk but I guess I'm having a hard time believing that writing the chord changes to a song or part of a song doesn't count as writing. If some of the more experienced writers and producer/arrangers could chime in and give me a reality check that would be great. I'll certainly change my position if the industry standard agrees with my friend.

thanks

[opentune]

Arranging: Playing around with what´s already there.

Co-writing: Writing new parts.

[Chucho]

as far as I'm concerned, 'making up chords' is writing.
have you given her the master / mix ?
can you mute all your bits and see how she likes it ?

[sears]

A song is usually melody and lyrics, not chord changes.

Then, if you agree that you have actually cowritten something, then you have to decide how to divide it up. Do you get half for changing a melody in a verse?

[jd_]

Originally Posted by sears

A song is usually melody and lyrics, not chord changes.

So say if a guitarists writes a "chord progression" containing verses, intros, outros, choruses and interludes and asks the singer to sing something on top of it, the singer is the author?

I strongly disagree...

[u b k]

Originally Posted by sears

A song is usually melody and lyrics, not chord changes.

the melody is a primary litmus test for enforcing a copyright claim, but that doesn't address the issue of who wrote what.

otherwise, people who wrote instrumentals would be screwed...


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[matt thomas]

the problem there is no real "industry standard" and if there is it is waaay outdated

That said, when I am producing I expect to co-write stuff and not get credit half the time, as I get paid for this as production.

Like if I were working for 3M and I invented something on their behalf. They would own the rights to it, not me. I see production in a similar way. Unless of course there is something figured out first, or the changes are huge.

Sometimes bands insist on crediting you

Sometimes within bands no-one gets credited except the singer because s/he came up with the vocal part.

Its a really messy area, basically you should sort it out first. The best you can do now is put your case to them, explain that there are different ways of viewing it, and throw yourself on the mercy of their conscience.

narco

[dreamsongs]

Based on what you wrote and my experience on this you have a strong case for a co-writing credit.

Any changes to the melody or even adding one word to a part no matter how insignificant you or they think is valid.

I have many people come thru my studio throughout the year and unless they're coming specifically and with the undestanding that it's a co-write, they have to sign a "work for hire" which basically states that they are working for me and have no part in the writing of the song.

This goes back a few years when I had a singer come in to work with me and later tried to get some money when the song started earning some income. He claimed he changed a word in the chorus and because I didn't notice and let it go, it became a problem.

From then on I became a little paranoid and made sure everybody who worked with me didn't change one word or any notes in the song.

It's rare this happens at my level but you never really know what people really might do. Now I have everybody sign-off ahead of time and save myself a potential headache in the future. Bottom line is I don't trust anybody anymore after that incident.

So if you changed a "bm to a bm7" or added a "b5th" to the song it won't qualify but lyrics and melody changes will.

And by the way, let's assume for the sake of argument that this album begins to make serious money. If you took this to court you would probably win if you can as much prove you were in the room at the time of the song was written. It's your word against theirs. It would be a pain in the ass and expensive to prove who wrote what so in 90% of the cases there's a settlement.

If you want to pursue this you have a case and you can always bring up these points I've just made. The person who knows the rules always has the edge...

[dan p]

All of the writing credits should be worked out in the beginning so you dont fight over this later no matter how much or how little you contribute.
Depends on if you are getting paid to produce or play and ideas are already done and brought in ready to go into the production stage for some kind arrangement.Well,there is more to it but get a lawyer and get everything in writing so everyone is getting their share they deserve for their contribution.LOL.


DAn P

[bgroup]

In your predetermined "producer agreement/contract". In my experience you have to figure out ahead of time if the artist is going to require "co-writing" and then make the agreement up front to get a piece of the song(s). If you don't figure that out before you start, then you're "producing" regardless of the contribution...

Hope this helps.

Brent
bgroupmusic.com

[TheRealRoach]

This came as advice when I asked the same sort of question to someone with a career's worth of songwriting and co-songwriting experience:

1. Anyone present at the time a song is initially written is entitled to an even split [this scenario works best for structured sessions where you walk in with no song, and then when you leave, you have a song].

2. Anyone brought in after the fact to help finish the song (and "song" here is defined as the tangible version of a song that you could write out on chart form: chord changes, melodies, lyrics) is entitled to half of what they would have received if they were involved at the beginning.

So an example scenario (and the most common one for me) is that 2 songwriters - both 50/50 owners - approach me after they bring it as far as they can bring it on their own. I work with them to finish the tune. If I had been involved in the initial creation I would have received 33%, but since I was brought in after the fact I receive half: 16.5%. Everyone has always seen this as a pretty fair and objective way of dealing with it.

So I would suggest that if the artist owned 100% and you were brought in after the fact, you should eligible for 25%. BUT since it wasn't worked out beforehand you will likely have to settle for less.

And not only should you have a songwriting credit, but also a producer credit for all of the extra work you did with the band and the execution of the recording by the sounds of it.

Don't settle for nothing, but you'll definitely have to chalk some of this up to experience.

[A440]

This is such a thorny, complicated issue ...which lawyers just love.

My understanding is that, with 'songs' ...the melody and lyrics is the 'song', anything else (harmony, structural issues, strings etc) is considered 'arrangement'.

Generally the writers of the 'song' get the composer & writer royalties if and when they arrive, where as the 'arranger' gets a fee up front.

Although, a composer can allocate royalties to the arranger if they want to (arranger royalties), but this is very much the decision of the composer.

If you changed the melody or lyrics, then a you are a co- 'songwriter' ('composer' or 'writer'). You have to have permission from the original writer(s) to change the melody or lyrics.

If you added chord changes, tweaked the structure, arranged the strings, then you are an 'arranger'.

Better to get these things straight before you work on a project, unless you want to make yourself miserable and make the lawyers lots of cash.

[ALL*MYTEE]

Everything is negotiable. What do you want?

[C_F_H_13]

This issue in general is such a joke in "legal terms".

Take a song like Beyonce's "crazy in love". If you took that same Lyric and Melody, but had wierd al sing it over an accordian and a steel drum......according to the LAW it is THE EXACT SAME SONG. Regardless of arrangement changes, or anything..///

The laws of songwriting and copyright need to be re-addressed.

In your case, you are definitely writing IMO. Introduction chord changes/inversions is definitely a major part of writing, regardless what the law says. The law however, is not on your side.

My suggestion for the future is to make sure whomever you are "arranging" for understands the difference between the two and what would constitute you deserving a piece of the song.

[donsimpson]

Originally Posted by C_F_H_13

Introduction chord changes/inversions is definitely a major part of writing...

So what happens when someone substitutes a 3m for the 5 in someone else's song? Do they get co-writing credit for the recording, and therefore only pay a portion of the mechanicals?

[C_F_H_13]

Originally Posted by donsimpson

So what happens when someone substitutes a 3m for the 5 in someone else's song? Do they get co-writing credit for the recording, and therefore only pay a portion of the mechanicals?

The part of my quote you skipped was the "IMO". It's my opinion and that's all. changing one chord is not the same as creating the chords, rearranging the whole structure of a song.

[Digitar]

A SONG is the words and music (melody) or if it's an Instrumental just the melody. When someone wants to record your song, they record THEIR ARRANGEMENT of YOUR song with their producer and musicians.
They will receive their cut for the arrangement and you will receive your cut for writing the song as far as the publishing goes(where the REAL money of the music business is).

Take a look at any Country CD and check the publishers list for each song, say there are two writers listed. Well each writer will have their publishing company and then you will see a third for the artists cut and maybe a fourth if the record company's muscling their cut. If they didn't get a cut of the action how many writers do you think would be making a living in Nashville?

Once the song is copyrighted and published, it doesn't matter if they change the song at all (Simpler or more Complex Chord progressions or whatever), Did you ever hear the term reharmonizing an old standard?, it's still the writers song only with a different arrangement. Think how many versions there have been of "Yesterday", over 2000. Do you think that changes the fact that Lennon & McCartney OWN it.

Now if you actually CREATED some of the words or melodies and were not credited with them in the copyright and publishing, then you definitely have grounds for legal action.

Remember, no one owns a chord progression or a drumbeat. But, when these things are put together in some unique way, then it becomes an arrangement. And, if you create a unique melody and words to go with it then you've written a SONG. THAT'S where the line is drawn.

[A440]

Originally Posted by C_F_H_13

This issue in general is such a joke in "legal terms".

Take a song like Beyonce's "crazy in love". If you took that same Lyric and Melody, but had wierd al sing it over an accordian and a steel drum......according to the LAW it is THE EXACT SAME SONG. Regardless of arrangement changes, or anything..///

The laws of songwriting and copyright need to be re-addressed.

In your case, you are definitely writing IMO. Introduction chord changes/inversions is definitely a major part of writing, regardless what the law says. The law however, is not on your side.

My suggestion for the future is to make sure whomever you are "arranging" for understands the difference between the two and what would constitute you deserving a piece of the song.

Are you implying here that everytime someone 'covers' a song, they should be entitled to an arranging royalty? If you are, I disagree with this. If you want a writers royalty, write your own hit song. If you want to cover a great song, by all means create a great arrangement, and be happy with the arranging fee or artist/producer royalties you get.

I speak from experience with this. I've had producers ringing me up telling me they'd like to cover one of my songs, but they'd like a writers royalty or a cut of the publishing if they go ahead. My response is always a categorical fuuck (in the nicest possible way of course!). They usually end up covering the song anyway.

[Jules]

Where does arranging stop & co-writing begin?

I remember one pre production session where I was sat cross legged on the rehearsal room floor with a sheet of paper with the lyrics and had been passed a pencil by one of the songwriters...

That to me, was a clear beginning!

From my producer point of view, I took the song from being an over 'coded' mess, into being a coherent whole, inspired a middle 8, and contributed lyrics as well as solid 'meaning direction' (I suggested on concentrating on ONE of many jumbled themes)

That ended up being a little stressful as the relationship between the band and myself got strained over what share I was due... In the end of course it was the classic "argument over a percentage of nothing"! - as it was never released..

What is relevant to this discussion about this - is that the band pretty much felt my assistance in organizing` lyric, structure and new parts for the song all came under the heading of 'what a producer normally does" and that my request for a small part of the songwriting was unreasonable.. (to me just another classic music biz f**k you "responsibility side step")

This was a new experience for me, new territory and not something I have ever asked for before (or since!)

The End...

[donsimpson]

Originally Posted by C_F_H_13

The part of my quote you skipped was the "IMO". It's my opinion and that's all. changing one chord is not the same as creating the chords, rearranging the whole structure of a song.

I wasn't flaming, just asking.

Would James Taylor get songwriting credit for the complete reharmonization the he did with Stephen Foster's "Oh Suzanna?"

[audiovisceral]

Originally Posted by kobuk

Hi,

I am a guitarist/songwriter and I was asked by a friend to help her finish making a record. We worked on 10 songs together total. Some of the songs were brought to me with melody and lyrics and no chord changes so I wrote the chord changes and in one case changed the verse melody for a song. There were a couple of songs where I wrote a bridge or middle 8 section and there was one song where she brought a song completely written and I rewrote the chord changes and changed the basic rhythm/groove of the song based on a song she said she liked. After these initial writing sessions we got together with a couple of guys I know to rehearse and flesh out the bass and drum parts. I suggested a chord change or two at this point but am chalking that up as arranging.

Unfortunately, we made the mistake (that I will never make again) of not really defining or discussing the issue of co-writing as this process went on. Now that the record is done we had a discussion about writing credit and my friend said they believed that they wrote all the songs 100% and that my contributions should be considered arranging/transcribing/producing. I've tried to research the issue online and found one person who believed that only lyrics and melody are considered the song. Is this really true?

Is it arranging or co-writing when you write the chord changes for an entire song?
I don't want to be a jerk but I guess I'm having a hard time believing that writing the chord changes to a song or part of a song doesn't count as writing. If some of the more experienced writers and producer/arrangers could chime in and give me a reality check that would be great. I'll certainly change my position if the industry standard agrees with my friend.

thanks

THAT'S ALL GROUNDS FOR A 50/50 SPLIT. DON'T TAKE B.S. AND DON'T SPLIT HAIRS - GO DOWN THE MIDDLE. best relationships that way.

[kobuk]

Thanks for all the replies. I knew this was probably going to fall in legal gray area at best.

If all I had done was suggest a different chord here and there I would have been ok with Production/arranging credit but several of these songs were brought to me with only lyrics and melody (still in progress) and my writing the chord changes helped give the songs their basic harmonic structure IMO.

The artist in question has a limited knowledge of chords and knows one strumming pattern. The songs that I feel I have co-written involve changes that the artist simply could never have come up with on their own. I pointed this out to them when we talked about it but their response was that they would have gone home and came up with their own changes if they thought I was going to see it as a co-write. Needless to say those songs would have been quite different had they written them without my input.

The artist acknowledges the melody change I made in the verse of one song but also feel that this is an arranging thing and not a co-write. It seems that most of you are clear that any change to melody and lyrics is a co-write.

I've definately learned my lesson and will never go into a producing situation again without a written agreement about what constitutes "writing".

On a similar note I recently helped out a friend's kid with producing/recording a hip hop project. I wrote the music to one of the tracks and made some significant changes/additions to another track. How are hip hop tracks usually credited? Is there any difference? I'm not anticipating resistance to the idea of co-write credit but I'd like to know others experience in this area.

[SyncSailor]

As state by others before me, the "song" is defined as the melody and lyric. It may be hard to swallow, but if you don't believe us, call ASCAP, BMI, OR SESAC.

The times I have worked in an arranger capacity, the points did not come out of the songwriter share.

[peeder]

Copyright law aside...my metric for what is songwriting and what is production is:

Any element that would exist in over 50% of potential cover versions of the song is songwriting. Any that would not is production.

Make sense?

[into the white]

Part of the problem is it sounds like you did a favor for a friend, but your concerns are over the business aspect. Is she planning to commercially release this? If so, then your complaints are valid and you certainly did enough work to warrant 50% credit. But if this isn't a serious project (which it may or may not be based on what you said), then I think you're worrying about it too much. If she was making a record for fun and asked for your help, get over yourself.

[Digitar]

Originally Posted by Jules

What is relevant to this discussion about this - is that the band pretty much felt my assistance in organizing` lyric, structure and new parts for the song all came under the heading of 'what a producer normally does" and that my request for a small part of the songwriting was unreasonable.. (to me just another classic music biz f**k you "responsibility side step")

Exactly, Jules,

Unfortunately, it's always going to come down to the integrity of the people we have to, or choose to work with. When I first started producing I was working with an artist that I produced 17 songs for, writing, producing and arranging and got it stuck up my a** royally. Even though I wrote melodies and lyrics on every song.

That's how you learn what this business can be about and you'd better cover your a**. No matter what you want to wish, or believe, a song is a melody and words to go with that melody, anything else is part of the arrangement. You can find out on your own or maybe listen to some music business veterans who've already seen that the contract is only as good as the person signing it.

Just some food for thought.

[SyncSailor]

Peeder - that is an excellent thought. really.

[Daniel Antix]

sounds like you co-wrote it to me.

[travisbrown]

A song is comprised of a melody and lyrics. That's it.

Hooks and riffs can arguably be part of the melody. Sort of depends if it they can be construed as a defining component of the song. If your arranger/collaborator comes up with a good hook, you may need to reconsider the contribution.

[uncle duncan]

It sounds like you would have a valid cowrite claim on the song with the changed melody, or the added bridge, or whatever it was. If the artist doesn't see it that way, remind her/him that it's in the copyright statutes, and if they choose to ignore the copyright statutes, that would not be a very good way for them to start a career in the music business. In fact, it could torpedo their chances at a deal if the music business discovers they're ripping you off. You could reassure them that you don't plan any legal action, but that it would be in their best interests to educate themselves so that they don't get into trouble in the future.

Let them think about that for a few days, and then if they still won't budge, suggest to them that you would feel less legally-imperiled if they came up with their own parts so that you can remove yours from the project. (You don't really want to do that - I just wanted an opportunity to use the word 'legally-imperiled'.)