sorted

jamesoliver1234

Sorted

Winny_Pooh

Usually split in half
One half is for the songwriters (could be 50/50 if you write music & he writes lyrics)
The other half is performance and split between all bandmembers equally, unless one of them was already paid for session time.

siraxeman

Sounds like your singer has LSD, and that sounds like it doesn't bode well for the future! Look at Elton - he co writes, he writes the music and Bernie writes his lyrics. I don't know their agreed split but I reckon it might be around 50/50 or thereabouts.

A song isn't just words.....that's a poem at best! A song is words AND MELODY. I already don't like your singer!

LesbianWithAGun

Well..............


It should be equal...



But............

Who else has a claim? Anybody?
Any publisher?

If people make 80% off of a song be they whatever invested into the song, the remaining could be 10% 10% if two people have a claim - as an example, but my point is, writing credits should be equal if it's to be fair.

BigLicks67

Royalties can be split evenly if the band decides that from the outset that's what they want, as was the case for Radiohead & U2. However, the melody lines tend to be be seen as the key part of an original song, so sometimes the melody writer gets either all or a higher proportion of the royalties, Perry Farrell and Kurt Cobain spring to mind. So in a nutshell you need establish who is getting what from now on and if necessary make it a contractual agreement at that point to avoid disagreement later.

siraxeman

I'd still sack yer singer if he's got LSD.

Freebird

Split it 50-50, you get 3p and he gets 3p.

spark240

Give the singer all the money then sack him...

antifash

Get a contract from the Musicians Union. Oh, and sack your dickhead singer. 

Freebird

Next time he's brings you some lyrics, ask him what the chords and melody are 

Luminous

Generally 50/50 and plus one for sacking the wanker, he will only get worse. You don't need the grief.

lustycourtier

I love his optimism of actually making any money...

DulcetJones

A bit off the actual question but related.  If you're in the union ask your local about "neighboring rights", especially if you have, or are going to play on more recordings of any kind .  There might be money in it for you, probably not much, but money.  And yeah, pretty much what everybody has said so far.

shrinkwrap

I thought it was split 50% to lyricist and 50% to the music writer(s)... or is that just how it was done 50 years ago?

Cirrus

Well, traditionally the song has legally been the words and melody, and then any particularly memorable/ unique part of the arrangement.

The former is easy to define, that's the bit the postman sings.

The latter is a minefield of subjectivity, and where you get the mental things like the blurred lines and sam smith/tom petty controversies. On the other hand, a recognizable guitar solo melody or a genuinely original drum pattern might be fair game - obviously not all songs have words or vocals and they still need to be protected legally.

In truth, most parts of the arrangment aren't going to be very original in 99% of all music ever made. 4/4 Drum patterns, chord sequences, standard grab-bag of song arrangement cliches... it can be tough to hear as a supporting musician, and is the reason most bands come to an agreement early on. Some only credit the songwriter of each song (the beatles being a famous example, other than the Lennon/Mcartney split because they did for a time genuinely work together creatively), others split things evenly, U2 being the most famous example probably. Sometimes it leads to unusual situations - for example, Rick Wright was fired from Pink Floyd for being unproductive in the studio, then hired on a fixed wage for the Wall tour. The tour lost the band money, and Rick was the only one to actually come out of it in the black.

Your singer sounds like a dickhead, but if he did write the words and melodies he's probably closer to being right. I'd suggest being in a band with a dickhead isn't going to be fun for you, long term.

TheBigDipper

It's a bit late to be discussing this IMHO...

There are two basic royalties - publishing and performance. When a song is printed and sold in a songbook, the writers get publishing royalties. When a song is played (say, on the radio) then there is a performance royalty payment to the writer(s) and a performance royalty payment to the performer(s). Ditto for when a CD is sold or downloaded or played by a streaming service. 

Who wrote the song is really something you should have agreed already. Some bands share songwriting royalties equally across the board - to keep the peace and avoid arguments about whose song gets onto the record. I believe I read somewhere that Coldplay includes their manager in this - a 5-way split - because they feel he is an equal member. Other bands do not split it, and then each song has one or more writers with varying percentages of contribution. Generally, the lyric writer(s) get 50% and the music writer(s) the other 50%. If you can't agree amongst yourselves, then it's likely that a song will be considered (in court, for example) to be the words and the melody line, including the rhythm of the notes.

A distinctive riff (Smoke on the Water?) might be considered a distinctive non-vocal melody, too - but I could play and sing Smoke on the Water for you without using "the riff" and you'd still identify the song from the lyrics and melody.

I may well be wrong, as I haven't thought about this for many years, but I don't think a chord sequence is accepted as being part of the song - that's just part of a specific arrangement to underpin the performance of the melody. 

If you're getting songwriting royalties, do you already have a publishing agreement in place? That complicates things further, because you (or someone who claims they wrote the song and owned the original rights) may have sold the publishing rights to a publishing company in return for an advance against future royalties. That usually means they've given up control over how the commercial value of the song is exploited over to the publishing company. The publisher will take a cut of the gross royalty payments (publishing and performance) for their efforts in promoting the song and collecting royalties (as if!) on your behalf.

If you're a band playing and writing your own stuff - especially if it's unlikely someone else would want to record it - then there's little benefit these days in having a publisher unless you're broke and they offer you an advance you can live off. 

If it's too late, then it's too late - but if you write any other songs together, make sure you agree what the royalty split should be before it gets published or performed. 

Oh, and your singer might be a dick. Or, he might actually (in law) be the only person considered to be the writer, because he wrote the words and sang you the melody he was going to use to sing them. Can the song be performed and recognised without playing your riffs? If so, you might not have a strong case, sorry.

DulcetJones

shrinkwrap said:

I thought it was split 50% to lyricist and 50% to the music writer(s)... or is that just how it was done 50 years ago?

I belong to SOCAN in Canada, when I register a song with them I have to stipulate any and all sharing.  It can be any numbers I enter as long as it adds up to 100 and the other composers are also SOCAN members.  SOCAN collects royalties for radio play in conjunction with similar organizations worldwide.  

bluechargeboy

This is why we don't have a singer...!

FWIW we split everything three ways. Our drummer gets 33.34% instead of 33.33%, but we let him have the extra 0.01% since he's the one who sends the forms in!

Phil_aka_Pip

@bluechargeboy so you're in an instrumental 3-piece?

bluechargeboy

Phil_aka_Pip said:

@bluechargeboy so you're in an instrumental 3-piece?

Yeah, we're going for the minimum possible chance of making a living playing music!

jamesoliver1234

@lustycourtier i make a living playing music....and i don't want to discuss how much it is but enough to ask the question about.....so saying  i love his optimism of actually making any money...is a stupid comment when you don't know me or anything about me....