Singer or song..?

anjabro · Post by **anjabro** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:41 am

This article intrigued me....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4917550.stm

'However, he (Sir Cliff Richard) insisted that singers were as crucial to the success of a piece of music as its composers.

"We are as important to a song as the writer is because we give it life," said Sir Cliff.'

I think he's being silly. Anyone else?

King Hoarse · Post by **King Hoarse** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:23 am

Well, I think Van Morrison breathed life into It's All In The Game and Cliff didn't. So if you switch his "we" to "they" then maybe...

Cliff exagerrates, maybe, but of course not only singers but often musicians and sometimes producers are crucial to making a song popular, if that's what he means by the word success.

The Get Happy!! covers do it for me but I've heard other versions of them that I didn't like at all.

Gillibeanz · Post by **Gillibeanz** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:43 pm

Who can believe a man who has denied for years that he has had cosmetic surgery - then finally admits it??

guidedbyvoices · Post by **guidedbyvoices** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:22 pm

Maybe more so back in the day where writers and singers were not the same person. Watching American Idol last night (don't ask, I'm a big guilty pleasure watcher of crap TV), I was struck at the lack of emotion or understanding of Bewitched Bothered & Bewildered versus say, Ella Fitzgerald's version that perfectly captures the complex range of emotions.

Otis Westinghouse · Post by **Otis Westinghouse** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:57 pm

I think it's an unfair ruling, but I'm unclear as to whether a 50-year old recording falls out of copyright, or if the copyright passes to someone else who can make money on licensing it. If the latter is true, it's grossly unfair. Anyone know?

ReadyToHearTheWorst · Post by **ReadyToHearTheWorst** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:28 pm

Don't know all the ins & outs of this, but I do know that it's complicated.

There are one set of rules for songwriters, and another for performers (which is what Cliff is crying about, presumably). Also, the whole thing varies from country to country.

Overall though, I guess that Cliff reckons that someone will continue to make money out of his ancient efforts, so why should he be excluded?

However, despite having made only a handful of half decent records in nearly 50 years trying, I doubt that he's short of dosh.

Otis Westinghouse · Post by **Otis Westinghouse** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:37 pm

He says 'I'm OK, it's the other performers who depend on these royalties' and then he says 'Every time I play an old song it's with a view to people buying it' and so clearly he can't stand the thought of loss of earnings. Songwriters are under the same ruling as literary writers: 70 years after death. Quite different terms to the performers!

scooter4 · Post by **scooter4** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:22 am

Let's put it this way--Peter Noone did, er, uh, Green Shirt I think it was...Glad he didn't pick Watching the Detectives...So I guess my answer(now, at least) is: SINGER

yes I know, Detectives is OLD, coulda said Beyond Belef (is that considered the Middle period?)