Good to see songwriters taking a stand on this, I remember Popbitch covering the 'change a word, take a third' phenomenon years ago. A co-write means more money for the artist (writing residuals generally better and longer-term than performance) and allows them to be positioned as singer/songwriter for media purposes, regardless of how much input there is.
I suppose it is particularly punitive these days given that revenue from streaming and radio is all a writer gets now (physical and download sales being negligible compared to 10 years ago, and music tv channels on their last legs), so any credit-sharing means a chunk taken out of an already vanishingly small income.
― Twelves, Thursday, 1 April 2021 14:34 (two years ago) link
I assumed this SOP across the board in modern pop. The tacit threat to the creative team being "share credit, or we record a different song and you get nothing."
― nobody like my rap (One Eye Open), Thursday, 1 April 2021 14:41 (two years ago) link
it's become dramatically more prevalent even in just the last 5 years i think
― ufo, Thursday, 1 April 2021 14:46 (two years ago) link
Yeah, I've seen it framed as a "tax" for the privilege of getting to write the performer's song.
― peace, man, Thursday, 1 April 2021 14:49 (two years ago) link
On the other side of it, I heard an anecdote the other day about a producer who was working for a big name producer and had signed a terrible deal. Basically, if the non-famous producer did 100% of the production on a song for an artist, the big name producer got 15% of it. But if the big name producer changed anything at all (ie a hi-hat sound using the same midi), then the big name producer got 80%.
― change display name (Jordan), Thursday, 1 April 2021 14:50 (two years ago) link
Damn, that's ugly.
― peace, man, Thursday, 1 April 2021 15:05 (two years ago) link