Not gelling with bandmate?

[Vito Corleone]

Yeah, he's a prick. I met the guy (Stu). Not a very nice person at all. I think Fogerty got a raw deal, especially since those classic songs and the way they sound was basically his vision. I remember reading about how Fogerty was in the studio trying to get input from everyone to be fair and democratic. Instead, all he got were a bunch of guys making snide jokes and laughing about everything so he kicked them out of the studio and mixed it HIS way...which became the hits that all CCR fans love. And if anyone {censored}ed anyone over, I would think it would be your own brother SUING you along with your other ex-bandmates over royalties. I'm sorry, but I'm with Fogerty all the way on this. I don't think he's a saint (he seems pretty full of himself), but without him, Doug Clifford and Stu Cook wouldn't have a successful franchise to tour off of.

 

 

I've never met any of those guys, so I don't know about them personally. But certainly those were Fogerty's songs, his sound, his vision and his band. Clifford and Cook have been living off his work for their entire lives. I'm not sure what Wade means by Fogerty screwing them and Tom. They were just along for the ride. If they didn't like the ride...oh well. But Fogerty screwed himself basically by selling his share of the record sale royalties back to Fantasy in exchange for getting out of his contract. But Fantasy trying to sue him for plagerism has to go down as one of the dumbest lawsuits of all time. Fortunately they didn't win that one.

 

He still gets the writing and publishing rights though, AFIAK, which I imagine are fairly substantial.

[Lee Knight]

Regarding the OP:

A lot of times it's tempting to see are lack of forward motion and success as our bandmates fault. I'm not saying this is the case here, but I am saying there is a lot that can be done before you severe a working relationship. I get the fact the Wades and others don't like the idea of mocking a part written for them. But...

...recording your ideas and presenting them to the band doesn't have to be a "play it this way or die" proposition. Having a fleshed out demo to present to the band can really help get your idea across. "Got a better ides? Let's try it!" But at least you initial idea is heard.

Sometimes all it takes is to step up and finish the job of expressing your idea fully. You don't have to be a prick about it, but don't be a timid and resentful shrinking violet either. And then come bitch about the unfair bandmates.

Make it work, or don't. Action is the key. Not backbiting.

[wades_keys]

I dunno. He's been living off those bass parts he didn't write for those songs he didn't write his whole life. Last interview I read with him he was laughing over the fact that he makes more royalties from the record sales than does Fogerty.

 

Didn't realize that. I guess he schemed his way onto the songwriting credits.

 

Tell me: how the hell does he make more money than John when John wrote the songs? Did he pull a "Sting" move and get his name on the tunes, keeping Fogerty's name off of them?

 

Interesting....

[wades_keys]

 

Worked for Stu Cook....

 

 

Except for the "no money" part, obviously.

[Vito Corleone]

Didn't realize that. I guess he schemed his way onto the songwriting credits. Tell me: how the hell does he make more money than John when John wrote the songs? Did he pull a "Sting" move and get his name on the tunes, keeping Fogerty's name off of them? Interesting....

 

The band members all gets a share of record sales revenues. Except for Fogerty who sold his share back to Fantasy in exchange for getting out of his record deal. Apparently he didn't have the foresight in the mid 70s that people would still be playing and buying CCR records 40 years later.

 

Fogerty still gets his songwriting/publishing royalties, AFIAK. Which, unless there was some prior agreement amongst themselves that he share those with the rest of the band, Cook and Clifford wouldn't receive.

 

I said Cook got more money from the RECORD SALES. Which he does. At the end of the day, whether the money he gets from the record sales exceeds what Fogerty gets from the writing or not, I couldn't tell you.

[Vito Corleone]

Except for the "no money" part, obviously.

 

 

Exactly. Cook has made a pretty good living his entire life from playing bass parts that, by all accounts, he had little input on--simply because he was the guy who did what he was told played them on the recordings in the manner he was instructed.

[wades_keys]

 

Exactly. Cook has made a pretty good living his entire life from playing bass parts that, by all accounts, he had little input on--simply because he was the guy who did what he was told played them on the recordings in the manner he was instructed.

 

What about Michael Anthony of Van Halen?

 

He gets all of that PLUS songwriting credits, when according to Eddie he never had any input into the process at all.

 

I know Eddie gets a bad rap, but I believe him on this, totally.

[Vito Corleone]

What about Michael Anthony of Van Halen? He gets all of that PLUS songwriting credits, when according to Eddie he never had any input into the process at all. I know Eddie gets a bad rap, but I believe him on this, totally.

 

 

Well, Van Halen apparently made some sort of deal amongst themselves early on to credit all songwriting to all 4 of them. Reminds me of some of those old 70s R&B bands like Ohio Players were you see 8 names on every songwriting credit. That's probably good in terms of keeping band harmony together where everybody is equally rich (or poor) instead of the songwriter living like a king while the others guys are paupers. Bad, though, if you're the guy who wrote all the songs and feel like you're giving away your money at some point.

 

I guess it comes down to what you think constitutes "songwriting". To the degree that the songs are worked out amongst the group and everyone contributes their own part and a little bit of something here and there? Then everyone in the band had a hand in the songwriting. If you limit songwriting to the more standard definition of who comes up with the riffs and the chord changes and the melody and the lyrics, then things like the bass part and drum part and other such things are "arrangement" and not "songwriting".

 

I presume Michael Anthony at LEAST wrote most of his own bass lines, such as they are. Probably had a hand in figuring out the vocal harmonies and such? I don't know that Stu Cook ever even did THAT much.

 

If EVH is upset about MA getting songwriting credits, he probably has no one but himself to blame. Splitting all the credits 4 ways probably sounded like a good idea at the time when they were first starting out. I have no doubt he'd have second thoughts about that decision now.

[wades_keys]

^ My thoughts exactly. EVH has no right to be upset about decisions made in good faith years ago: it's just sour grapes.

[Vito Corleone]

Fogerty still gets his songwriting/publishing royalties, AFIAK.

 

Looking into this, apparently Fogerty doesn't own the publishing rights to his songs. He sold those back to Fantasy as well. Which makes sense since I don't think Fantasy could have tried to sue him for plagerizing "Run Through The Jungle" unless they owned the song outright.

 

I WOULD imagine though that even if that's the case that he still gets paid whatever any songwriter is due from the publisher which the standard deal is 50%. For example we all know Michael Jackson (and now his estate) and Sony own the rights to the Beatles songs, but Lennon/McCartney STILL get 50% of that as the songwriters.

[Vito Corleone]

^ My thoughts exactly. EVH has no right to be upset about decisions made in good faith years ago: it's just sour grapes.

 

 

Yep. And that was Stu Cook's take in the article I read a few years back: that a lot of the animosity between him & Clifford and Fogerty was due to the fact that they still get sales royalties that he does not. (They also, along with Tom when he was still alive, have a say in whether the tracks get used in movies and commercials and apparently those guys said "yes" to EVERYTHING which pissed John off because he thought they were cheapening the catalog). Cook's attitude was nobody FORCED Fogerty to give up his rights, that was HIS bad decision.

 

And on that note I totally agree with Cook.

 

Doesn't change the fact though that if Cook and Clifford harbor any sour grapes about the fact that they were little more than paid monkeys doing exactly what Fogerty wanted during their time with CCR, I really can't feel sorry for them. Yes, by all accounts, Fogerty was a bit of a tyrant. But the results not only speak for themselves, but I never heard anything from those two (or Tom for that matter) to indicate to me that CCR's music could have been improved by allowing their input. Stu and Doug's tracks on "Mardi Gras" are pretty clear evidence to me that those guys are two of the luckiest bastards in the history of rock and roll.

[tim_7string]

 

What about Michael Anthony of Van Halen? He gets all of that PLUS songwriting credits, when according to Eddie he never had any input into the process at all. I know Eddie gets a bad rap, but I believe him on this, totally.

 

 

It's kind of ironic, because that's probably why they wanted Michael in the band to begin with. Eddie was obviously very talented, but also took up a LOT of sonic space. Having a rhythm guitarist was out of the question and even having a Billy Sheehan-type bass player would have been a problem (despite him wanting Sheehan in the band years later, that never would have worked). My impression is that the Van Halen brothers originally liked Anthony's playing because he could lock in with what they were doing without coloring it or adding too much of his own spin. Letting them shine rather than himself. So, since he was so good at making them look good, they put him in the group.

 

Kind of like in comic books where an inker chooses to support what the penciller drew rather than adding too much of his own style on the finished product, thereby "ruining" the artwork the penciller did.

 

However, it was this decision that probably frustrated Eddie later when he needed somebody to bounce ideas off of and found that Anthony was happy to just let Ed do his thing on his own. Reminds me of the Twilight Zone movie with the kid that could imagine anything and it would happen. He needed structure and discipline and he finally got it with the teacher that told him what he was doing was wrong, because his own family was too terrified of him to tell him no.

 

Just some of my theories.

[tim_7string]

 

Looking into this, apparently Fogerty doesn't own the publishing rights to his songs. He sold those back to Fantasy as well. Which makes sense since I don't think Fantasy could have tried to sue him for plagerizing "Run Through The Jungle" unless they owned the song outright. I WOULD imagine though that even if that's the case that he still gets paid whatever any songwriter is due from the publisher which the standard deal is 50%. For example we all know Michael Jackson (and now his estate) and Sony own the rights to the Beatles songs, but Lennon/McCartney STILL get 50% of that as the songwriters.

 

 

Yep, I remember reading that article in Rolling Stone back in '85. I was in absolute shock. I was like, "how the HELL can you be sued for sounding like YOURSELF?" Thankfully, the judge and jury decided in favor of Fogerty.

 

As for Lennon and McCartney, I am fairly certain their songwriting publishing deal was a terrible one and they made far, far less than that 50% you are describing. Probably more like 20 or even 10%. I think McCartney said they made something like half-pence on a pound. Now that I'm thinking more about it, they would have been billionaires in the 70s if they had that much songwriting share. So many people had so many fingers in the affairs of the corporate giant that "The Beatles" became, it's a wonder the boys in the band made any money at all.

[Vito Corleone]

As for Lennon and McCartney, I am fairly certain their songwriting publishing deal was a terrible one and they made far, far less than that 50% you are describing. Probably more like 20 or even 10%. I think McCartney said they made something like half-pence on a pound. Now that I'm thinking more about it, they would have been billionaires in the 70s if they had that much songwriting share. So many people had so many fingers in the affairs of the corporate giant that "The Beatles" became, it's a wonder the boys in the band made any money at all.

 

 

Terrible deals were the norm back then. But I DO believe I'm correct that "Lennon/McCartney", as a songwriting entity, gets 50% of what goes to the publisher. How that 50% might be split up beyond that would be a separate issue and how much Paul McCartney HIMSELF receives, I don't know.

 

I could be wrong about this, but I believe the "50% goes to the songwriter" is some sort of BMI/ASCAP rule that can't be negotiated between the songwriter and the publisher. What the songwriter chooses to do with his/her 50% is, of course, a separate matter.

[TIMKEYS]

lots of singer songwriter types ,,, just go into a studio , use session guys who are payed for playing the their tracks and emerge with a finished cd that they totally owns. When its time to perform the stuff live they build a road band and go play. No muss no fuss and no arguments over who did what. the studio guns got paid and all walk away with no strings attached. The road band gets handed the finished CD and learn to play it. many times stage versions of songs are not exactly like the recorded versions note for note or instrumentation.

[stevesherbert]

Regarding the OP: A lot of times it's tempting to see are lack of forward motion and success as our bandmates fault. I'm not saying this is the case here, but I am saying there is a lot that can be done before you severe a working relationship. I get the fact the Wades and others don't like the idea of mocking a part written for them. But... ...recording your ideas and presenting them to the band doesn't have to be a "play it this way or die" proposition. Having a fleshed out demo to present to the band can really help get your idea across. "Got a better ides? Let's try it!" But at least you initial idea is heard. Sometimes all it takes is to step up and finish the job of expressing your idea fully. You don't have to be a prick about it, but don't be a timid and resentful shrinking violet either. And then come bitch about the unfair bandmates. Make it work, or don't. Action is the key. Not backbiting.

 

 

this is good advice. the idea of demoing a bunch of songs yourself could go a long way towards presenting your ideas in a better way. a lot of times the riffs and melodies i come up with aren't accepted immediately because it depends on the proper drum rhythm being there to make it make sense, and it's difficult for a lot of people to hear the idea from outside of their particular part. recording things is a great idea, as long as you present it to the rest of the band as the seed of an idea, rather than a written-in-stone final product.

[callous]

Split up the songs, some are yours, and you lead. Others are his, and you do as he says.

 

It seems that in this case, a band leader is required--somebody to stop the squabbles and make the final decisions.

[Rockytoo]

Worked for Stu Cook....

Cool. When did you work for him? What did you do?

[Vito Corleone]

Cool. When did you work for him? What did you do?

 

 

Washed his bathrobes.

[Rockytoo]

Sounds like fun. When he lived at LT?

[Vito Corleone]

Yeah he'd come up and play in my backyard.