so, lindsey or stevie? who owns this album more?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

See what happens when you throw lawyers into to the mix? [No pun intended.] Jason, from a legal standpoint, you may well be right. I havent' researched it enough, but what you say raises some questions: What about an instrumental? If what you're saying is true, then nobody gets songwriting credit!?!? What about those greedy producers who insist on songwriting credit for changing a couple of words? What about the Lennon-McCartney non-collaboration collaborations? Using a FM example, what about The Chain? I don't think Mick or John came up with any words.

I guess I'm trying to point out that it's not as clear cut as what you say. The songwriting credit usually goes to the person(s) writing the lyrics and melody. That could be one person or several. For the most part, I think we can agree that Stevie comes up with her own melodies, and maybe that's why Lindsey never got songwriting credit. Yet he's come up with all kinds of riffs and things for the songs. But he certainly must have changed some chords here and there, which may or may not have affected melody. For instance, I hear Storms, and I wonder if the chords used in the latter part of the song were in Stevie's original composition or whether Lindsey introduced them. While he didn't get songwriting credit for riffs of chord changes, he gave it to somebody else for coming up with a riff. Interesting, no?

It is interesting, esp. in light of Stevie giving music credits to so many other people. I think maybe in the beginning LB and SN considered themselves so mush of a team that they did not think along those lines. Then, by the time Tusk came out, they were so pissed at each other that it was not an option and of course by then, the lawyers (scum of the earth ) were involved. So, there was no way anyone's lawyer was gonna let any Ace be played without remuneration in a solidified contract, etc.

Interstingly, on Rumors, Stevie gave the words (or at least a significant amount of them) to the group for "The Chain." She also, according to the Rumors DVD 5.1 interviews constributed to the words of "Oh Daddy" without credit from CM. So, I think "they" have always had some sort of agreement that the words and music belong to the initial writer and any embellishment by anyone else in the band is just seen as part of being in a band. I mean John gets no credit for the bass lines he comes up with and they are stellar and often the defining moments of some songs (Dreams, Oh Daddy, Smile At You, etc.). Anyway, I am just thinking out loud

[teedee]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

With all due respect, that's incorrect. She still had to get people to play the instruments. I'm not dissing it; just setting the record straight.

stevie may have to get musicians to play the record, but initially its the meolody thats in her head that gets out there thru them, no one is saying she is playing all the instruments. we know that. but you make it sound like she just writes the words and then lindsey does all the musical ideas, you have to remember stevie has the melody already down , and lindsey or whom ever adds his instrument to it.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Stevie writes the songs. Lindsey produces them.
I've never known a producer to get co-writing credit on anyone's songs, simply because of ideas they contributed to the finished product.

It happens a lot more than you think, Johnny. It really does.

As evidenced in the documentary, Stevie's "demos" these days could damn-near pass for a finished product themselves.

This is absolutely true, and we all saw it in the documentary. And speaking strictly from an academic point of view, it gave me pause. It made me wonder if perhaps she is not restricting the development of the song in some ways. When you bring a producer like Lindsey a near-finished product, it's gotta be somewhat limiting to his creative process. Were I he, I would view it that way.

Sure, his guitar playing has far more finesse than her piano playing... but in a case like that, we're being offered a good view that not all of the terrific little parts in Stevie's songs, are entirely of Lindsey's doing.

Good point. Stevie brought Lindsey a gem and he was smart enough not to mess with it too much. Both of them deserve a lot of credit in a case like this.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

And it's my opinion that Lindsey hasn't really done anything all that experimental or outside-the-box since 'Go Insane' in 1984.

With all due respect, Johnny, you are dead wrong here. Starting with the Cradle tour, Lindsey took an approach to playing guitar that made some history. The way he asked Rick Turner to rig his Chet Atkins was groundbreaking. It was an innovation. History was made. What has happened since then is an evolution of that sound and that kind of playing. You don't have to go outside the box, (arrgggh... I hate that term) every single time to innovate. Sometimes an evolution is more palatable and interesting than an outright new start. Big Love acoustic didn't even make it to tape until 1997, and at that time it was new to a lot of people. Then with GOS/SWY, we got an evolution of that sound. As for the reuse of riffs, all guitarists do that. This falls right into the blues tradition, much of which has translated to rock. Guitarists have signature riffs and they stick to variations of those riffs throughout their careers.

[teedee]

[QUOTE=CarneVaca]It happens a lot more than you think, Johnny. It really does.



This is absolutely true, and we all saw it in the documentary. And speaking strictly from an academic point of view, it gave me pause. It made me wonder if perhaps she is not restricting the development of the song in some ways. When you bring a producer like Lindsey a near-finished product, it's gotta be some what limiting to his creative process. Were I he, I would view it that way.

How can you look at it as her restricting the development? so is she suppose to hold back on her ability to get a great sounding demo and giving it to lindsey as producer just because it demo is in a near finished condition. why should she hold herself back, if she is able to construct a product that is good before she gives it to him, what s wrong with that.? you make it sound like all her demos have to be comnpletely rough, before she gives it to him so that you can say , see what he did to it. why not just give stevie the credit for having a good demo to presen, rather than saying she is holding the development back, if its good in her demo, why is it considered holding back?

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

LB misses the subject verb agreement in the last line. He purposefully does it for effect and timing in that "doesn't" has too many syllables there. IMO it sounds great. So, I cut them all some slack in the grammar dept -- it is after all rock and roll

I hate to beat a dead horse, which is why I won't go into the WISYA discussion again, but I must take issue with what you say above. "she don't miss me" and "should've ran," as grammatical offenses, are not even in the same ballpark. "Should've ran" sounds like an unintentional mistake by someone who doesn't know the proper grammatical tense, while "she don't miss me," as you rightly point out, is intentional and works.

[strandinthewind]

interestingly, Stevie is not closed to the idea of LB's brilliant guitar in lieu of what she has done in a demo. A good example of this is the opening riff of SYW's Thrown Down as opposed to the sensational WOS version. LB's version is far more subtle. So, I think I come back again to they are a creative team when in FM, esp. now, and giving one all of the credit is incorrect IMO.

[teedee]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

I hate to beat a dead horse, which is why I won't go into the WISYA discussion again, but I must take issue with what you say above. "she don't miss me" and "should've ran," as grammatical offenses, are not even in the same ballpark. "Should've ran" sounds like an unintentional mistake by someone who doesn't know the proper grammatical tense, while "she don't miss me," as you rightly point out, is intentional and works.

Then why is it that lindsey can do something intentional with the grammar that works, or sounds better , but stevie cant?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

I hate to beat a dead horse, which is why I won't go into the WISYA discussion again, but I must take issue with what you say above. "she don't miss me" and "should've ran," as grammatical offenses, are not even in the same ballpark. "Should've ran" sounds like an unintentional mistake by someone who doesn't know the proper grammatical tense, while "she don't miss me," as you rightly point out, is intentional and works.

FOUL

They are both errors. I think Stevie was well aware of the error and chose to go with the rhyme just like LB chose to go with the meter in BTLH.

[CarneVaca]

[QUOTE=teedee]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

How can you look at it as her restricting the development? so is she suppose to hold back on her ability to get a great sounding demo and giving it to lindsey as producer just because it demo is in a near finished condition. why should she hold herself back, if she is able to construct a product that is good before she gives it to him, what s wrong with that.? you make it sound like all her demos have to be comnpletely rough, before she gives it to him so that you can say , see what he did to it. why not just give stevie the credit for having a good demo to presen, rather than saying she is holding the development back, if its good in her demo, why is it considered holding back?

Just in case you forgot: I don't read your posts. Your complete disregard for grammar is too distracting for me, not to mention the teedious repetition.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

FOUL

They are both errors. I think Stevie was well aware of the error and chose to go with the rhyme just like LB chose to go with the meter in BTLH.

Never mind what they did intentionally or not, then. Question for you: Which one sounds worse to your ear? Be honest now.

[teedee]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Just in case you forgot: I don't read your posts. Your complete disregard for grammar is too distracting for me, not to mention the teedious repetition.

LOL!!! Doesn't mean I can't respond. To each his own. LOL!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Never mind what they did intentionally or not, then. Question for you: Which one sounds worse to your ear? Be honest now.

Neither. I think its just rock and roll. But, I see where people are sticklers and that is cool for them. Plus, the dreamy vocal layering in "Smile At You" makes it less obvious to me. But, to each their own

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Neither. I think its just rock and roll. But, I see where people are sticklers and that is cool for them. Plus, the dreamy vocal layering in "Smile At You" makes it less obvious to me. But, to each their own

I'll have to take your word for it. But I'll tell you this. As an editor, I would never let "should have ran" slip by, unless it were part of dialogue. But on some occasions, I would allow "she don't miss me" for effect, in or outside dialogue. And all I'll bet you most editors would agree.

[teedee]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

I'll have to take your word for it. But I'll tell you this. As an editor, I would never let "should have ran" slip by, unless it were part of dialogue. But on some occasions, I would allow "she don't miss me" for effect, in or outside dialogue. And all I'll bet you most editors would agree.

that was the expected answer I knew you would give.
ok for lindsey, not ok for anyone else.

Dialogue or in print, it is still the same phrase.