|
Post by mossy on Feb 15, 2017 17:08:55 GMT -5
I think their point is that on Right Stuff, Mexican (and Crimson Rambler) Noel didn't strum it. They created something first then took it to him to strum over. Without having been in the room witnessing who recorded what and read what was stipulated in the contract regards intellectual property it's impossible for us to say whether they truly deserve writing credits or not. Impression I'm getting with those two is that Noel came up with something, they spent a lot of time filling it out... I think your impression is correct for the majority of the material, but their claim for co-writes is only on the tracks I mentioned: Right Stuff, Mexican and the unreleased and unheard Crimson Rambler. So in those cases Noel wasn't the person who came up with something first - they were. I agree they definitely have a different opinion of what constitutes being a writer. They seem to want to credit every man and his dog! Seriously, who credits a drummer ;-)
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Feb 15, 2017 17:20:48 GMT -5
Impression I'm getting with those two is that Noel came up with something, they spent a lot of time filling it out... I think your impression is correct for the majority of the material, but their claim for co-writes is only on the tracks I mentioned: Right Stuff, Mexican and the unreleased and unheard Crimson Rambler. So in those cases Noel wasn't the person who came up with something first - they were. I agree they definitely have a different opinion of what constitutes being a writer. They seem to want to credit every man and his dog! Seriously, who credits a drummer ;-) Gaz specifically said this: "We took months of extra time writing ( WRITING !!) NOT doing what we were contracted to do which was to produce HIS tracks but we believed in the MEXICAN and the RIGHT STUFF oh yeh and SHOOT A HOLE ( he never even knew we were doing that and had zero to do with it ZERO ZERO ZERO and there were 1/2 others which'll probably be on his new album no doubt the way this is panning out" And "I will say this , I find it incredibly arrogant that strumming chords and singing some lyrics be considered by anyone as 100 % the song . It's very much the outlook of a guitar man and conveniently misses out the last 30 years of songwriting evolution . Where would Donna Summer be without Georgio's backing or Morrissey without MARR ( but then that's guitars innit so maybe in his world only guitar backing counts ?? Kinda figures but it ain't right ) I must point out that we work similarly with countless other musicians including Mr Paul Weller and not one of them upholds this view and in every instance we are credited and included as writers ( i.e. Receive publishing splits which means we share the revenue when the song is used or played anywhere - this is our very bread and butter when figures like 4K /8k are being bandied about for two solid months work in our fourties both with children ??!!!! ) so this was particularly hurtful especially in light of how ( initially ) reluctant he was to try this approach or in fact , to work on them or to see how important these two tracks were to provide him with something a little bit different to pepper his album . This was solely our initiative to do this and went well outside of our commitments as producer ( we could have just worked on his material and volunteered nothing ? )" To say that you believe in two tracks, from my understanding, it seems like the Mexican and The Right Stuff existed prior to Noel working with AA. The AA added additional parts while Noel went on tour, and continued working on the track. Then Noel picked-up the bits that he liked, and stripped away what he didn't, and used that as the basis for the versions on CY. I think Gaz and co expected writing credits because they considered what they did as part of the writing process, not that they were the origins of those tracks.
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on Feb 15, 2017 17:21:13 GMT -5
This thread makes me wanna drink a lot....
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Feb 15, 2017 17:26:03 GMT -5
I think your impression is correct for the majority of the material, but their claim for co-writes is only on the tracks I mentioned: Right Stuff, Mexican and the unreleased and unheard Crimson Rambler. So in those cases Noel wasn't the person who came up with something first - they were. I agree they definitely have a different opinion of what constitutes being a writer. They seem to want to credit every man and his dog! Seriously, who credits a drummer ;-) Gaz specifically said this: "We took months of extra time writing ( WRITING !!) NOT doing what we were contracted to do which was to produce HIS tracks but we believed in the MEXICAN and the RIGHT STUFF oh yeh and SHOOT A HOLE ( he never even knew we were doing that and had zero to do with it ZERO ZERO ZERO and there were 1/2 others which'll probably be on his new album no doubt the way this is panning out" And "I will say this , I find it incredibly arrogant that strumming chords and singing some lyrics be considered by anyone as 100 % the song . It's very much the outlook of a guitar man and conveniently misses out the last 30 years of songwriting evolution . Where would Donna Summer be without Georgio's backing or Morrissey without MARR ( but then that's guitars innit so maybe in his world only guitar backing counts ?? Kinda figures but it ain't right ) I must point out that we work similarly with countless other musicians including Mr Paul Weller and not one of them upholds this view and in every instance we are credited and included as writers ( i.e. Receive publishing splits which means we share the revenue when the song is used or played anywhere - this is our very bread and butter when figures like 4K /8k are being bandied about for two solid months work in our fourties both with children ??!!!! ) so this was particularly hurtful especially in light of how ( initially ) reluctant he was to try this approach or in fact , to work on them or to see how important these two tracks were to provide him with something a little bit different to pepper his album . This was solely our initiative to do this and went well outside of our commitments as producer ( we could have just worked on his material and volunteered nothing ? )" To say that you believe in two tracks, from my understanding, it seems like the Mexican and The Right Stuff existed prior to Noel working with AA. The AA added additional parts while Noel went on tour, and continued working on the track. Then Noel picked-up the bits that he liked, and stripped away what he didn't, and used that as the basis for the versions on CY. I think Gaz and co expected writing credits because they considered what they did as part of the writing process, not that they were the origins of those tracks. Where above does it explicitly say Noel took Right Stuff and Mexican to AA? I've read Gaz before say the AA "originated" those two songs. His, uh, unprecise language doesn't help of course but I can still read the above as him saying he started the writing of those tracks. He's not expressed a want for writing credits for anything else. Old quote: -"it's only a peep hole i'm offering here.....tracks 6 & 8 were unique cos we originated them because we felt his demos were all mid paced , insular & guitar based songwriting and we wanted and knew that people ( even his fans ) would want & expect more diversity on his solo album,( Chemical Brothers hits/ KRAUTROCK / Monstrous Psych Bubble / FLOYD ' Dark Side of the moon ' constant comparisons by him in the media made it EVEN more imperative . I'm glad he sees the wisdom of that an album later . . . "(On The Right Stuff and the Mexican)"
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Feb 15, 2017 17:33:12 GMT -5
This thread makes me wanna drink a lot.... Thanks. Rum and this thread go together very well I find. 🍹
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Feb 15, 2017 17:37:09 GMT -5
I mentioned earlier, that Gaz's thought process on songwriting credit is really the second of two schools of thought.
There's a significant amount of people who believe that the person who strums on the guitar and writes the lyrics, owns 100% of the song as the songwriter. Then, there are some that do believe that what the producer does, is a form of songwriting, especially if they're helping with arrangement.
It's incumbent upon both the artist and the producer to create an agreement, prior to working to with each other, of how crediting will occur.
For my album, the producer I got, I had known for 10 years. We're extremely good friends. I've known him since high school. And we didn't record a single note until we had come to an agreement on credits.
Now, I'm as independent and low budget as it gets as a songwriter, and I made an agreement before I started working with a producer. And he made an agreement before we started, and he's as DIY as it gets. How did Gaz not have that conversation with Noel? It feels like a bit of naivete and idiocy. When you're talking about the possibility of hundreds of thousands of pounds, or maybe even millions, that might be a conversation you should have. Not just out of a monetary outlook, but from an artistic outlook too. As an artist, you should be intelligent enough to protect your work.
If you work with a songwriter and you don't have a crediting agreement already written up, then you deserved to get played. Sorry. But that's just simple recording 101. As a songwriter, I would never work with someone until we came to an agreement on crediting. It's fair to yourself. It's fair to the person you're working with. And it really is a question of how much you want this to work out. Now, that also goes for Noel. He should have had that conversation too. But I put a little bit more blame on the producer, just because, a producer asking for writing credits, goes against "conventionality."
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Feb 15, 2017 17:41:35 GMT -5
Gaz specifically said this: "We took months of extra time writing ( WRITING !!) NOT doing what we were contracted to do which was to produce HIS tracks but we believed in the MEXICAN and the RIGHT STUFF oh yeh and SHOOT A HOLE ( he never even knew we were doing that and had zero to do with it ZERO ZERO ZERO and there were 1/2 others which'll probably be on his new album no doubt the way this is panning out" And "I will say this , I find it incredibly arrogant that strumming chords and singing some lyrics be considered by anyone as 100 % the song . It's very much the outlook of a guitar man and conveniently misses out the last 30 years of songwriting evolution . Where would Donna Summer be without Georgio's backing or Morrissey without MARR ( but then that's guitars innit so maybe in his world only guitar backing counts ?? Kinda figures but it ain't right ) I must point out that we work similarly with countless other musicians including Mr Paul Weller and not one of them upholds this view and in every instance we are credited and included as writers ( i.e. Receive publishing splits which means we share the revenue when the song is used or played anywhere - this is our very bread and butter when figures like 4K /8k are being bandied about for two solid months work in our fourties both with children ??!!!! ) so this was particularly hurtful especially in light of how ( initially ) reluctant he was to try this approach or in fact , to work on them or to see how important these two tracks were to provide him with something a little bit different to pepper his album . This was solely our initiative to do this and went well outside of our commitments as producer ( we could have just worked on his material and volunteered nothing ? )" To say that you believe in two tracks, from my understanding, it seems like the Mexican and The Right Stuff existed prior to Noel working with AA. The AA added additional parts while Noel went on tour, and continued working on the track. Then Noel picked-up the bits that he liked, and stripped away what he didn't, and used that as the basis for the versions on CY. I think Gaz and co expected writing credits because they considered what they did as part of the writing process, not that they were the origins of those tracks. Where above does it explicitly say Noel took Right Stuff and Mexican to AA? I've read Gaz before say the AA "originated" those two songs. His, uh, unprecise language doesn't help of course but I can still read the above as him saying he started the writing of those tracks. He's not expressed a want for writing credits for anything else. Old quote: -"it's only a peep hole i'm offering here.....tracks 6 & 8 were unique cos we originated them because we felt his demos were all mid paced , insular & guitar based songwriting and we wanted and knew that people ( even his fans ) would want & expect more diversity on his solo album,( Chemical Brothers hits/ KRAUTROCK / Monstrous Psych Bubble / FLOYD ' Dark Side of the moon ' constant comparisons by him in the media made it EVEN more imperative . I'm glad he sees the wisdom of that an album later . . . "(On The Right Stuff and the Mexican)" Even what you're quoting seems imprecise I can't actually tell what he's saying. His grammar is all over the place. Like when he says "originated," what does that mean? Does it mean that they demoed it and Noel played over the demo? That they demoed and Noel took inspiration and made his own version?
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Feb 15, 2017 17:42:46 GMT -5
Where above does it explicitly say Noel took Right Stuff and Mexican to AA? I've read Gaz before say the AA "originated" those two songs. His, uh, unprecise language doesn't help of course but I can still read the above as him saying he started the writing of those tracks. He's not expressed a want for writing credits for anything else. Old quote: -"it's only a peep hole i'm offering here.....tracks 6 & 8 were unique cos we originated them because we felt his demos were all mid paced , insular & guitar based songwriting and we wanted and knew that people ( even his fans ) would want & expect more diversity on his solo album,( Chemical Brothers hits/ KRAUTROCK / Monstrous Psych Bubble / FLOYD ' Dark Side of the moon ' constant comparisons by him in the media made it EVEN more imperative . I'm glad he sees the wisdom of that an album later . . . "(On The Right Stuff and the Mexican)" Even what you're quoting seems imprecise I can't actually tell what he's saying. His grammar is all over the place. Like when he says "originated," what does that mean? Does it mean that they demoed it and Noel played over the demo? That they demoed and Noel took inspiration and made his own version? That's my interpretation. They demoed something first then took it to Noel. Otherwise they'd be wanting writing credits for everything right?
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Feb 15, 2017 17:45:43 GMT -5
Even what you're quoting seems imprecise I can't actually tell what he's saying. His grammar is all over the place. Like when he says "originated," what does that mean? Does it mean that they demoed it and Noel played over the demo? That they demoed and Noel took inspiration and made his own version? That's my interpretation. They demoed something first then took it to Noel. Otherwise they'd be wanting writing credits for everything right? Well they would want a writing credit in either case. People have won court cases based on the thought that they provided inspiration to a track, somewhat like Pharrel's Happy and Marvin Gaye's Got to Give It Up court case. The two have almost no notes in common, but the "feel" of both made it so that Gaye's family won their suit.
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Feb 15, 2017 17:48:48 GMT -5
I mentioned earlier, that Gaz's thought process on songwriting credit is really the second of two schools of thought. There's a significant amount of people who believe that the person who strums on the guitar and writes the lyrics, owns 100% of the song as the songwriter. Then, there are some that do believe that what the producer does, is a form of songwriting, especially if they're helping with arrangement. It's incumbent upon both the artist and the producer to create an agreement, prior to working to with each other, of how crediting will occur. For my album, the producer I got, I had known for 10 years. We're extremely good friends. I've known him since high school. And we didn't record a single note until we had come to an agreement on credits. Now, I'm as independent and low budget as it gets as a songwriter, and I made an agreement before I started working with a producer. And he made an agreement before we started, and he's as DIY as it gets. How did Gaz not have that conversation with Noel? It feels like a bit of naivete and idiocy. When you're talking about the possibility of hundreds of thousands of pounds, or maybe even millions, that might be a conversation you should have. Not just out of a monetary outlook, but from an artistic outlook too. As an artist, you should be intelligent enough to protect your work. If you work with a songwriter and you don't have a crediting agreement already written up, then you deserved to get played. Sorry. But that's just simple recording 101. As a songwriter, I would never work with someone until we came to an agreement on crediting. It's fair to yourself. It's fair to the person you're working with. And it really is a question of how much you want this to work out. Now, that also goes for Noel. He should have had that conversation too. But I put a little bit more blame on the producer, just because, a producer asking for writing credits, goes against "conventionality." *takes long drag on spliff* "We didn't read the contract man! It was just about the music!" Joking aside Gaz did mention that they'd sorted out the contract to give them permission to use Noel songs on future mix compilations. So I assume some attention was paid to contracts up front. I suspect they only brought new songs to the table late in the game, after the straight HFBs had been announced and it looked like their album might get canned. They didn't think their album was different enough from straight HFBs (as it had exactly the same track order). So maybe bringing new songs was out of desperation to keep the project going..?
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Feb 15, 2017 17:50:32 GMT -5
That's my interpretation. They demoed something first then took it to Noel. Otherwise they'd be wanting writing credits for everything right? Well they would want a writing credit in either case. People have won court cases based on the thought that they provided inspiration to a track, somewhat like Pharrel's Happy and Marvin Gaye's Got to Give It Up court case. The two have almost no notes in common, but the "feel" of both made it so that Gaye's family won their suit. My point was they're NOT asking for writing credits for Stop The Clocks etc therefore the only songs they're claiming to have "originated" are Mexican and Right Stuff (and I think Rambler too). The Gaye ruling was only recent and bloody stupid in my opinion. Anyone can sue anyone with that precedent!
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Feb 15, 2017 17:54:37 GMT -5
I mentioned earlier, that Gaz's thought process on songwriting credit is really the second of two schools of thought. There's a significant amount of people who believe that the person who strums on the guitar and writes the lyrics, owns 100% of the song as the songwriter. Then, there are some that do believe that what the producer does, is a form of songwriting, especially if they're helping with arrangement. It's incumbent upon both the artist and the producer to create an agreement, prior to working to with each other, of how crediting will occur. For my album, the producer I got, I had known for 10 years. We're extremely good friends. I've known him since high school. And we didn't record a single note until we had come to an agreement on credits. Now, I'm as independent and low budget as it gets as a songwriter, and I made an agreement before I started working with a producer. And he made an agreement before we started, and he's as DIY as it gets. How did Gaz not have that conversation with Noel? It feels like a bit of naivete and idiocy. When you're talking about the possibility of hundreds of thousands of pounds, or maybe even millions, that might be a conversation you should have. Not just out of a monetary outlook, but from an artistic outlook too. As an artist, you should be intelligent enough to protect your work. If you work with a songwriter and you don't have a crediting agreement already written up, then you deserved to get played. Sorry. But that's just simple recording 101. As a songwriter, I would never work with someone until we came to an agreement on crediting. It's fair to yourself. It's fair to the person you're working with. And it really is a question of how much you want this to work out. Now, that also goes for Noel. He should have had that conversation too. But I put a little bit more blame on the producer, just because, a producer asking for writing credits, goes against "conventionality." *takes long drag on spliff* "We didn't read the contract man! It was just about the music!" Joking aside Gaz did mention that they'd sorted out the contract to give hem permission to use Noel songs on future mix compilations. I suspect they only bought new songs to the table late in the game, after the straight HFBs had been announced and it looked like their album might get canned. They didn't think their album was different enough from straight HFBs (as it had exactly the same track order). So maybe bringing new songs was out of desperation to keep the project going..? Still, writing credits should come up in any contract agreement, whether you envision bringing new ideas to the table or not. Like, from Gaz's writing, it seems like he resents the entire idea of Noel not giving more writing credits. I mean, they only went after two tracks, but that might also been because those were the most egregious and obvious examples of writing credit. But it appeared from some of his quotes, that he believes that he's entitled to more writing credits that the Right Stuff or The Mexican. If not? Then why bring up Donna Summers?
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Feb 15, 2017 18:17:42 GMT -5
*takes long drag on spliff* "We didn't read the contract man! It was just about the music!" Joking aside Gaz did mention that they'd sorted out the contract to give hem permission to use Noel songs on future mix compilations. I suspect they only bought new songs to the table late in the game, after the straight HFBs had been announced and it looked like their album might get canned. They didn't think their album was different enough from straight HFBs (as it had exactly the same track order). So maybe bringing new songs was out of desperation to keep the project going..? Still, writing credits should come up in any contract agreement, whether you envision bringing new ideas to the table or not. Like, from Gaz's writing, it seems like he resents the entire idea of Noel not giving more writing credits. I mean, they only went after two tracks, but that might also been because those were the most egregious and obvious examples of writing credit. But it appeared from some of his quotes, that he believes that he's entitled to more writing credits that the Right Stuff or The Mexican. If not? Then why bring up Donna Summers? I agree it seems fairly naive. Had he never heard Cigarettes and Alcohol? Or Shakermarker? Or Step Out? Or Mucky Fingers? Etc. Possibly not tbh. They clearly move in different circles and have looser arrangements with their normal collaboraters!
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Feb 15, 2017 18:34:31 GMT -5
Someone suggested Noel binned the album cos it was costing too much.
Gaz: "Maybe he should have had conviction and invested in one or the other rather than covertly splitting into two ? Waste of resources waste of talent waste of time and ultimately he fucked it cos I don't think the albums very good ( i always said it would sell a million whatever it was ) He could even have combined the attributes of both but split into two - nah ?!
As if the HFB album couldn't have benefitted from some of our flourish OR we could have benefited from a resident top notch mix engineer ( not SARDY though )
There were better ways of utilizing people's talent and I'm afraid non communication and inability to manage artistically certainly cost him more money but ultimately cost him a great album artistically"
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Feb 15, 2017 18:49:05 GMT -5
Someone suggest Noel binned the album cos it was costing too much. Gaz: "Maybe he should have had conviction and invested in one or the other rather than covertly splitting into two ? Waste of resources waste of talent waste of time and ultimately he fucked it cos I don't think the albums very good ( i always said it would sell a million whatever it was ) He could even have combined the attributes of both but split into two - nah ?! As if the HFB album couldn't have benefitted from some of our flourish OR we could have benefited from a resident top notch mix engineer ( not SARDY though ) There were better ways of utilizing people's talent and I'm afraid non communication and inability to manage artistically certainly cost him more money but ultimately cost him a great album artistically" Haha, that's a bs response. Sorry, it is. The reasoning: Maybe our album was expensive, but he should have sunk money into it until it was completed The thing that I always go back to is that Noel didn't make a dime off that album. You could make the case that Gaz made more money, even in his "meager" pay, than Noel made from that album. Noel lost enough confidence that he took a financial loss with no thought of recovering that cash. Like none. Noel is made of a lot of money, but enough to scrap 18 months of work with no forethought? That's always been the detail that has made me convinced that there's something else to this, and no explanation has sufficed to explain why he thought that he'd rather take that large of a financial hit for something that would turn any kind of profit if he just released it. Like ANY kind of profit. He wouldn't of even had to tour it. Just by releasing it, he makes some of his money back. Instead, he ate the whole loss. Doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Feb 15, 2017 18:51:24 GMT -5
Someone suggest Noel binned the album cos it was costing too much. Gaz: "Maybe he should have had conviction and invested in one or the other rather than covertly splitting into two ? Waste of resources waste of talent waste of time and ultimately he fucked it cos I don't think the albums very good ( i always said it would sell a million whatever it was ) He could even have combined the attributes of both but split into two - nah ?! As if the HFB album couldn't have benefitted from some of our flourish OR we could have benefited from a resident top notch mix engineer ( not SARDY though ) There were better ways of utilizing people's talent and I'm afraid non communication and inability to manage artistically certainly cost him more money but ultimately cost him a great album artistically" Haha, that's a bs response. Sorry, it is. The reasoning: Maybe our album was expensive, but he should have sunk money into it until it was completed The thing that I always go back to is that Noel didn't make a dime off that album. You could make the case that Gaz made more money, even in his "meager" pay, than Noel made from that album. Noel lost enough confidence that he took a financial loss with no thought of recovering that cash. Like none. Noel is made of a lot of money, but enough to scrap 18 months of work with no forethought? That's always been the detail that has made me convinced that there's something else to this, and no explanation has sufficed to explain why he thought that he'd rather take that large of a financial hit for something that would turn any kind of profit if he just released it. Like ANY kind of profit. He wouldn't of even had to tour it. Just by releasing it, he makes some of his money back. Instead, he ate the whole loss. Doesn't make sense. He lost £100k right? He grosses over £1m per gig on his UK tours, so no biggie really...
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Feb 15, 2017 18:56:37 GMT -5
Haha, that's a bs response. Sorry, it is. The reasoning: Maybe our album was expensive, but he should have sunk money into it until it was completed The thing that I always go back to is that Noel didn't make a dime off that album. You could make the case that Gaz made more money, even in his "meager" pay, than Noel made from that album. Noel lost enough confidence that he took a financial loss with no thought of recovering that cash. Like none. Noel is made of a lot of money, but enough to scrap 18 months of work with no forethought? That's always been the detail that has made me convinced that there's something else to this, and no explanation has sufficed to explain why he thought that he'd rather take that large of a financial hit for something that would turn any kind of profit if he just released it. Like ANY kind of profit. He wouldn't of even had to tour it. Just by releasing it, he makes some of his money back. Instead, he ate the whole loss. Doesn't make sense. He lost £100k right? He grosses over £1m per gig on his UK tours, so no biggie really... He had to have lost more than that. Paying session musicians alone, especially with how many names Gaz has been throwing out there. Depending on how deep they got, plenty more people would have been contracted, much more money would have been handed out. I'm not even including money for the studio (I'm just going to assume the AA have their own studio.) It's a large financial stake to record an album for 18 months, larger than £100k. Also, it's not like Noel makes a £1m from each gig. That's a massive oversimplification. His gig may make that much, but how much of that cut is his, is probably no where near that amount. It was a decent financial loss. Edit: as I remember, Noel said that for him to make a profit off an album, he has to tour for a year. That's in keeping with how much most acts have to tour to make a profit.
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Feb 15, 2017 19:00:42 GMT -5
He lost £100k right? He grosses over £1m per gig on his UK tours, so no biggie really... He had to have lost more than that. Paying session musicians alone, especially with how many names Gaz has been throwing out there. Depending on how deep they got, plenty more people would have been contracted, much more money would have been handed out. I'm not even including money for the studio (I'm just going to assume the AA have their own studio.) It's a large financial stake to record an album for 18 months, larger than £100k. Also, it's not like Noel makes a £1m from each gig. That's a massive oversimplification. His gig may make that much, but how much of that cut is his, is probably no where near that amount. It was a decent financial loss. The £100k figure comes from Noel's mouth. Why do you think he paid for the extra musicians The AA brought in months down the line? After he stopped being directly involved? I did say gross. The point is, he earns plenty and has much more banked from Oasis. £100k isn't actually that large for him.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Feb 15, 2017 19:05:38 GMT -5
He had to have lost more than that. Paying session musicians alone, especially with how many names Gaz has been throwing out there. Depending on how deep they got, plenty more people would have been contracted, much more money would have been handed out. I'm not even including money for the studio (I'm just going to assume the AA have their own studio.) It's a large financial stake to record an album for 18 months, larger than £100k. Also, it's not like Noel makes a £1m from each gig. That's a massive oversimplification. His gig may make that much, but how much of that cut is his, is probably no where near that amount. It was a decent financial loss. The £100k figure comes from Noel's mouth. Why do you think he paid for the extra musicians The AA brought in months down the line? After he stopped being directly involved? I did say gross. The point is, he earns plenty and has much more banked from Oasis. £100k isn't actually that large for him. I'd have to see the actual quote. I would assume that the £100k went directly to the AA, and that's what he's referncing. Not the overall cost of the recording. Unless the AA were working for nothing for 18 months. Like, was Mike Rowe working for free? If so, then why is he still working with Noel? The total for the project doesn't add-up. Point is, the price point for the album was most liKelly much more than £100k. That might have been what the AA got, split between them, for 18 months of work (which would make sense. 50k isn't a lot for producing an album for 18 months, but it adds up), but you're not starting a project on £100k alone. That just isn't a thing
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Feb 15, 2017 19:09:31 GMT -5
The £100k figure comes from Noel's mouth. Why do you think he paid for the extra musicians The AA brought in months down the line? After he stopped being directly involved? I did say gross. The point is, he earns plenty and has much more banked from Oasis. £100k isn't actually that large for him. I'd have to see the actual quote. I would assume that the £100k went directly to the AA, and that's what he's referncing. Not the overall cost of the recording. Unless the AA were working for nothing for 18 months. Like, was Mike Rowe working for free? If so, then why is he still working with Noel? The total for the project doesn't add-up. Point is, the price point for the album was most liKelly much more than £100k. That might have been what the AA got, split between them, for 18 months of work (which would make sense. 50k isn't a lot for producing an album for 18 months, but it adds up), but you're not starting a project on £100k alone. That just isn't a thing Gaz is insinuating in his recent posts that they weren't getting paid towards the end. I don't think Noel expected them to take 18 months tbh given he was in the studio for only one.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 15, 2017 19:15:10 GMT -5
Once you've strummed it and come up with a melody it's yours imo. I think their point is that on Right Stuff, Mexican (and Crimson Rambler) Noel didn't strum it. They created something first then took it to him to strum over. Without having been in the room witnessing who recorded what and read what was stipulated in the contract regards intellectual property it's impossible for us to say whether they truly deserve writing credits or not. But they clearly believe they do deserve writing credits and we know Noel has brazenly stolen from collaborators in the past (lyrically and musically). And there are people saying if they truly wrote the songs then they should sue, but it's clearly not as simple as that. Noel will be able to afford better lawyers, it'll be hard to prove either way and maybe they just can't be arsed with the hastle for the sake of a few quid when they've got their own projects to be getting on with. Yeah, essentially they created most of the backing track. Noel's main duty was to lay a melody and lyrics on top.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Feb 15, 2017 19:16:44 GMT -5
I'd have to see the actual quote. I would assume that the £100k went directly to the AA, and that's what he's referncing. Not the overall cost of the recording. Unless the AA were working for nothing for 18 months. Like, was Mike Rowe working for free? If so, then why is he still working with Noel? The total for the project doesn't add-up. Point is, the price point for the album was most liKelly much more than £100k. That might have been what the AA got, split between them, for 18 months of work (which would make sense. 50k isn't a lot for producing an album for 18 months, but it adds up), but you're not starting a project on £100k alone. That just isn't a thing Gaz is insinuating in his recent posts that they weren't getting paid towards the end. I don't think Noel expected them to take 18 months tbh given he was in the studio for only one. Gaz insinuated that they were initially given an advance and after 18 months, the advance wasn't enough to cover their cost, or the work they thought that they had done. If we assume that they got 100k, then 50k for 18 months would be far below market value for a producer on a high profile album. So, this album was certainly worth more than 100k. And I find it hard to believe that they were parading in session musicians, most likely unionized session musicians for 18 months with only them paying out of pocket for hours of work with nothing coming from Noel (I could see it for a couple months, but what about the costs before then?). Doesn't make sense. It would run counter to most of what I know about recording, and I'm a small timer. I can't imagine someone like Mike Rowe, who has worked with some substantial artists, walking into a studio without knowing who was paying him Yea, every artist and musicIan does a favor here and there, but hours upon hours worth of work? It's why the cost of the album was probably far far more than the price Noel is quoting. Especially since, let's say that Noel wasn't paying out cash. If the AA got the writing credits, then wouldn't it stand to reason that they also got the lump sum for whatever money they shelled out?
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Feb 15, 2017 19:21:32 GMT -5
Gaz is insinuating in his recent posts that they weren't getting paid towards the end. I don't think Noel expected them to take 18 months tbh given he was in the studio for only one. Gaz insinuated that they were initially given an advance and after 18 months, the advance wasn't enough to cover their cost, or the work they thought that they had done. If we assume that they got 100k, then 50k for 18 months would be far below market value for a producer on a high profile album. So, this album was certainly worth more than 100k. And I find it hard to believe that they were parading in session musicians, most likely unionized session musicians for 18 months with only them paying out of pocket for hours of work with nothing coming from Noel (I could see it for a couple months, but what about the costs before then?). Doesn't make sense. It would run counter to most of what I know about recording, and I'm a small timer. I can't imagine someone like Mike Rowe, who has worked with some substantial artists, walking into a studio without knowing who was paying him Yea, every artist and musicIan does a favor here and there, but hours upon hours worth of work? It's why the cost of the album was probably far far more than the price Noel is quoting. Especially since, let's say that Noel wasn't paying out cash. If the AA got the writing credits, then wouldn't it stand to reason that they also got the lump sum for whatever money they shelled out? Here's where the £100k quote comes from btw: www.salon.com/2015/03/04/noel_gallagher_i’m_in_the_process_of_fin’_the_arse_off_my_solo_career/“Chasing Yesterday” rescued a couple of tracks from the album with Amorphous Androgynous you decided not to release. Recently Gaz Cobain from that band said, “I don’t think he wanted to fully interface with the craziness of our music.” Would you agree? Well, Gaz has one way of putting it; I have another. If somebody delivers me a record that I paid a fucking 100,000 pounds for, then I would assume that I’d have interfaced with it at some point. The tunes themselves were worth resurrecting, and the recordings that I did with Amorphous Androgynous were not worth pursuing any longer, because I felt that they weren’t very focused – a bit like Gaz.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Feb 15, 2017 19:36:05 GMT -5
Gaz insinuated that they were initially given an advance and after 18 months, the advance wasn't enough to cover their cost, or the work they thought that they had done. If we assume that they got 100k, then 50k for 18 months would be far below market value for a producer on a high profile album. So, this album was certainly worth more than 100k. And I find it hard to believe that they were parading in session musicians, most likely unionized session musicians for 18 months with only them paying out of pocket for hours of work with nothing coming from Noel (I could see it for a couple months, but what about the costs before then?). Doesn't make sense. It would run counter to most of what I know about recording, and I'm a small timer. I can't imagine someone like Mike Rowe, who has worked with some substantial artists, walking into a studio without knowing who was paying him Yea, every artist and musicIan does a favor here and there, but hours upon hours worth of work? It's why the cost of the album was probably far far more than the price Noel is quoting. Especially since, let's say that Noel wasn't paying out cash. If the AA got the writing credits, then wouldn't it stand to reason that they also got the lump sum for whatever money they shelled out? Here's where the £100k quote comes from btw: www.salon.com/2015/03/04/noel_gallagher_i’m_in_the_process_of_fin’_the_arse_off_my_solo_career/“Chasing Yesterday” rescued a couple of tracks from the album with Amorphous Androgynous you decided not to release. Recently Gaz Cobain from that band said, “I don’t think he wanted to fully interface with the craziness of our music.” Would you agree? Well, Gaz has one way of putting it; I have another. If somebody delivers me a record that I paid a fucking 100,000 pounds for, then I would assume that I’d have interfaced with it at some point. The tunes themselves were worth resurrecting, and the recordings that I did with Amorphous Androgynous were not worth pursuing any longer, because I felt that they weren’t very focused – a bit like Gaz. Still, I wonder if 100k is actually referencing the record, or what he paid the AA for the record? But thanks for finding the exact quote.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Feb 15, 2017 19:44:41 GMT -5
I will say, I think the biggest point of empathy toward Gaz isn't the songwriting credit, the miscommunication, or even the money. It's the fame. And not fame in the conventional sense.
Gaz said it himself, no matter what, Noel's first album probably would have sold a million. When I hear that, I don't think of the monetary aspect. I think of the notoriety.
Gaz could make a million albums with Weller, and none would give him the chance to get his work out there more than Noel's album. Noel once mentioned that it's very rare to have the world waiting on you. Most of the time, you go into the studio, and maybe you find an audience afterward...maybe you don't. But with Noel, the "creator" of Oasis releasing his first solo album, how many producers have had that opportunity walk through the door?
Make a classic album, and you're up there with the best of them. You could make a great album with Weller and it would never get the same attention as a great album with Noel on what would have done with his debut (It would have been a career changer for him. Instead, he gets left in the dust to make music that he obviously loves, but without that....panache I guess?). So to have that golden ticket taken away from you, and then given to someone else, especially when it's someone who you find to be "inferior, (Sardy)" must still bite at Gaz. And it might be where the majority of his bitterness comes from.
Obviously, that's a lot of assumptions by me. But if I were in his place, that would be the part that would most grind on me. The opportunity take away.
|
|