Talk:Cover version: Difference between revisions
imported>Ro Thorpe |
imported>Hayford Peirce (→Royalties: I dunno if I can swallow this without some sourcing; also, above, Justine) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
::On the other hand, WP's article on Cover version is a gazillion words long! Geez! I think, upon mature consideration, that we'd probably better have two separate articles. Sooner or later, the different sections would get long enough split, and that might cause redirect etc. problems. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:30, 6 March 2008 (CST) | ::On the other hand, WP's article on Cover version is a gazillion words long! Geez! I think, upon mature consideration, that we'd probably better have two separate articles. Sooner or later, the different sections would get long enough split, and that might cause redirect etc. problems. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:30, 6 March 2008 (CST) | ||
:Allez, allez (to quote Justine) - [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 17:25, 6 March 2008 (CST) | :Allez, allez (to quote Justine) - [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 17:25, 6 March 2008 (CST) | ||
::As in Les Malheurs du Vertu, where she might be encouraging the gardener, say, in his efforts? [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 12:56, 7 March 2008 (CST) | |||
==Royalties== | |||
"Because the songwriter, through the publisher, gets most of the royalties from each playing of a cover tune, cover songs are both a form of flattery and a source of income for songwriters" -- I hate to sound like a WPian, but could you give a *source* for this? I just can't believe that the *songwriter* gets *most* of the royalties from a cover. Ie, at a minimum, more than 50% of the revenues. More than the singer? More than Capitol Records or RCA or whoever? If that's really the case, then why would anyone *bother* to cover another song? It wouldn't be worth the effort unless you *knew* it would be a million-seller, in which case, I suppose a small percentage would be worthwhile. I'm not dogmatically saying that this statement is *not* correct -- I'd just like to see some sourcing for it. Thanks! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 12:56, 7 March 2008 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 12:56, 7 March 2008
What the devil means "A and R men"? This should definitely be clarified.
I'm *pretty* certain that, in fact, the K-Trio's version of Tom Dooley was a *cover* of it being sung just *slightly* earlier by the Tarriers, a fine, and now completely forgotten group, that preceded the Trio by about a year -- I actually owned their original record. They are the ones who had a big hit with Hill and Gully Rider or whatever that song was.... Hayford Peirce 19:14, 5 March 2008 (CST)
- Place cursor over 'A&R men' (in fact it's better without the spaces), and all will be revealed!
- Now I'm going to google the Tarriers... Ro Thorpe 13:43, 6 March 2008 (CST)
- The WP article on the song makes all clear. Ro Thorpe 13:49, 6 March 2008 (CST)
answer songs
Do we want separate article about these? In a sense, they *are* cover songs -- just with different words....
- The Wild Side of Life -- It Wasn't God Who Made Honky-Tonk Angels
- He'll Have to Go -- He'll Have to Stay
Hayford Peirce 15:12, 6 March 2008 (CST)
- WP's article is pretty short, and over half of it is about hip-hop, so I think those would go very well here for now. Ro Thorpe 15:17, 6 March 2008 (CST)
- On the other hand, WP's article on Cover version is a gazillion words long! Geez! I think, upon mature consideration, that we'd probably better have two separate articles. Sooner or later, the different sections would get long enough split, and that might cause redirect etc. problems. Hayford Peirce 16:30, 6 March 2008 (CST)
- Allez, allez (to quote Justine) - Ro Thorpe 17:25, 6 March 2008 (CST)
- As in Les Malheurs du Vertu, where she might be encouraging the gardener, say, in his efforts? Hayford Peirce 12:56, 7 March 2008 (CST)
Royalties
"Because the songwriter, through the publisher, gets most of the royalties from each playing of a cover tune, cover songs are both a form of flattery and a source of income for songwriters" -- I hate to sound like a WPian, but could you give a *source* for this? I just can't believe that the *songwriter* gets *most* of the royalties from a cover. Ie, at a minimum, more than 50% of the revenues. More than the singer? More than Capitol Records or RCA or whoever? If that's really the case, then why would anyone *bother* to cover another song? It wouldn't be worth the effort unless you *knew* it would be a million-seller, in which case, I suppose a small percentage would be worthwhile. I'm not dogmatically saying that this statement is *not* correct -- I'd just like to see some sourcing for it. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 12:56, 7 March 2008 (CST)