|
Post by sayne on Nov 29, 2008 18:29:24 GMT -5
All this talk about "Carnival of Light" got me to thinkin' (no, it didn't hurt . . . wiseguys!) IF a long lost song written by Paul EXCLUSIVELY were found and it was never previously published and the ONLY recording was a demo done by Paul in the wee hours of the night at Abbey Road after a Beatle recording session, would it necessarily HAVE to be credited to Lennon/McCartney? Would it matter if it was released as a Beatle song or just a Paul song?
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Nov 29, 2008 19:19:32 GMT -5
This is like Come And Get It, which is credited to Paul McCartney alone on Anth3. The recording was done by Paul alone, playing all instruments.
And because it IS on Anth 3, it has the status of a Beatle song, now.
However, it is not exactly as you asked, because Come And Get It was previously published (and recorded by Badfiner).
Interesting ...
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 30, 2008 0:39:41 GMT -5
All this talk about "Carnival of Light" got me to thinkin' (no, it didn't hurt . . . wiseguys!) IF a long lost song written by Paul EXCLUSIVELY were found and it was never previously published and the ONLY recording was a demo done by Paul in the wee hours of the night at Abbey Road after a Beatle recording session, would it necessarily HAVE to be credited to Lennon/McCartney? Would it matter if it was released as a Beatle song or just a Paul song? No. To use an example: "Come and Get It' was released crediting Paul, so I think it would follow that any other song in a similar situation would be credited to the Beatle who wrote it.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 30, 2008 0:40:41 GMT -5
And Joseph, I didn't see your answer before I posted. I think it is the same thing, though.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 30, 2008 5:23:14 GMT -5
All the "lost songs" which appeared on Anthology were either clearly Lennon/McCartneys (or Harrisons) and had been copyrighted as such at the time (If you've got troubles was copyrighted - though not actually published - by Northern Songs back in '65, I think), or else had already been released elsewhere and, therefore, credited to the individual composer (Real Love, Come and get it, All things must pass). Had Child of Nature appeared I'm sure it would have been credited to Lennon, given that the melody was the same as Jealous Guy. The only one I can think of which might have a question mark is Suicide, never actually released by anyone, and clearly composed during the Beatles era. Can't see that appearing (if it ever does) as anything other than McCartney sole, though.
What about Cayenne? That was credited to McCartney alone, wasn't it?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 30, 2008 10:49:09 GMT -5
Thanks. Then why the stink about taking John off of "Yesterday" or Paul off of "Happiness is a Warm Gun", etc? Is it just a money issue? I suspect when those of us with a "personal" stake in the Lennon/McCartney brand fade to dust, history will fix things.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 30, 2008 16:44:15 GMT -5
I suspect that there is a distinction between what happens in real life and what the press says. The only credits controversies I'm aware of are:
1. Give peace a chance being revised from Lennon/McCartney to Lennon (allegedly as a quid pro quo for Paul agreeing to something Yoko wanted, I forget what);
2. Paul wanting Lennon/McCartney changed to McCartney/Lennon on certain songs on certain of his solo releases. You'd have thought he shot the Pope or something;
3. I had a feeling there was a third one, but I can't remember what it is.
I have never heard any suggestion that either Lennon or McCartney should be removed from any L/M Beatles composition other than unsubstantiated press rumour, although I am aware that the credit reversal thing resulted in many assumptions that it meant removing "Lennon". Which it didn't. Where did the Happiness is a warm gun thing come from?
As for time, yes, that will sort it out in, Lennon's favour. Because his name is first.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Dec 2, 2008 12:55:27 GMT -5
I suspect that there is a distinction between what happens in real life and what the press says. The only credits controversies I'm aware of are: 1. Give peace a chance being revised from Lennon/McCartney to Lennon (allegedly as a quid pro quo for Paul agreeing to something Yoko wanted, I forget what); . I remember this. Does it go back to Anthology? Were any of the new bits credited to only McCartney in exchange for the switch on Give Peace a Chance? I'll have to look at a Badfinger record, but has Come and Get It always been only "McCartney"?
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Dec 2, 2008 14:53:28 GMT -5
I'll have to look at a Badfinger record, but has Come and Get It always been only "McCartney"? Yes, always McCartney and never Lennon/McCartney.
|
|
|
Post by johnpaulharstar on Dec 3, 2008 13:46:23 GMT -5
I believe Badfinger's "Come And Get It" was the first song to be credited to just McCartney and "Cold Turkey" was the the first to be credited as just Lennon.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Dec 3, 2008 15:44:21 GMT -5
I believe Badfinger's "Come And Get It" was the first song to be credited to just McCartney and "Cold Turkey" was the the first to be credited as just Lennon. What about Woman (Bernard Webb)? ;D I think Catcall and Penina were credited to McCartney only, along with the Family Way, if you count that.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 3, 2008 16:40:52 GMT -5
I get all that is being said, but why, then, was "Give Peace a Chance" initially credited to Lennon/McCartney? Also, if the Beatles HAD recorded "Come and Get It", would it have been Lennon/McCartney, too? I'm not so sure I see a rhyme or reason to the credits, other than if it was recorded by a non-Beatle, then it was singularly credited. If we have the aforementioned "Give Peace a Chance", then why not Lennon/McCartney for Junk, Teddy Boy, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Dec 3, 2008 16:49:52 GMT -5
Sayne is exactly right. There's no controversy, really. Beatles songs were credited Lennon/McCartney and songs by other artists were not, necessarily (although they sometimes were, too).
What about "A World Without Love" by Peter and Gordon (#1 hit in the USA). It was written mainly by Paul, wasn't it? But it's definitely credited to Lennon/McCartney.
A lot of people forget, too, that the originals on the first Beatles album were (and still are) credited to "McCartney / Lennon".
While I don't see any big deal about switching whose name comes first, I DO think it was low-class of Paul to try doing that several years ago. The Beatles are bigger than his ego, I think.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Dec 3, 2008 21:10:56 GMT -5
I get all that is being said, but why, then, was "Give Peace a Chance" initially credited to Lennon/McCartney? I read somewhere that John let Paul share a credit on the song as a "thank-you" to Paul for helping with "The Ballad of John and Yoko". As for your other questions - "the world may never know".
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Dec 4, 2008 1:02:55 GMT -5
I get all that is being said, but why, then, was "Give Peace a Chance" initially credited to Lennon/McCartney? I read somewhere that John let Paul share a credit on the song as a "thank-you" to Paul for helping with "The Ballad of John and Yoko". As for your other questions - "the world may never know". I think that rather than argue these points forever, we all here just need to get laid!
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Dec 4, 2008 4:39:41 GMT -5
1. All songs throughout the Beatle years, whether recorded by The Beatles or others, were jointly credited to John and Paul with the exception of Woman (Webb) which was done as an experiment to see whether the songwriting credit made any difference. I suspect that this song was treated as Lennon/McCartney in terms of songwriting royalties. 2. The Family Way soundtrack was clearly an entirely different sort of animal to the pop songs which fell under the Lennon/McCartney banner. I imagine there was some interesting behind-the-scenes discussion on how this material should be treated. 3. Give Peace A Chance was indeed credited Lennon/McCartney as a quid pro quo for Paul helping John to record Ballad of John and Yoko. I still don't recall (if I ever knew) why it reverted to Lennon sole. All other songs recorded outside The Beatles from then onwards took the solo composing credits. 4. While I don't see any big deal about switching whose name comes first, I DO think it was low-class of Paul to try doing that several years ago. The Beatles are bigger than his ego, I think. If you don't see any big deal, why do you think it was low-class? If you think it was low-class then presumably it IS a bigger deal than you're saying? If it's no big deal, then IT DOESN'T MATTER!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2008 5:16:59 GMT -5
In regards to the Lennon/McCartney songwriting credit,i think it shows that Lennon was the dominant personality in the band.I dont believe it is purely alphabetical...
However,i think the post Cynthia,sheepish,out of it,dominated Lennon would have cared where his name was postioned in the writing credits as long as it was an earner.......
|
|
|
Post by johnpaulharstar on Dec 4, 2008 15:25:22 GMT -5
[quote author=panther board=general thread=463 post=5155 time=1228340992) While I don't see any big deal about switching whose name comes first, I DO think it was low-class of Paul to try doing that several years ago. The Beatles are bigger than his ego, I think.[/quote]
I posted this on the old board, but it is worth repeating. The reason Paul wanted some songs to become McCartney/Lennon was that he was looking at a book of songs saw "Hey Jude" by Lennon. Apparently this book was only listing the first name and he didn't want his name to get lost down the road.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Dec 5, 2008 0:50:21 GMT -5
[quote author=panther board=general thread=463 post=5155 time=1228340992) While I don't see any big deal about switching whose name comes first, I DO think it was low-class of Paul to try doing that several years ago. The Beatles are bigger than his ego, I think. I posted this on the old board, but it is worth repeating. The reason Paul wanted some songs to become McCartney/Lennon was that he was looking at a book of songs saw "Hey Jude" by Lennon. Apparently this book was only listing the first name and he didn't want his name to get lost down the road.[/quote] And as on the old board, I will agree -- this Hey Jude is the best argument for a sensible restructuring of the credits. If I were arguing for Paul, I wouldn't suggest any removal of either name from any credit, whether it's Yesterday or I Am the Walrus, just to name any two songs. However, I think a fair appraisal of who was actually the main writer should change many to McCartney/Lennon. Any that are 50/50, whatever that means, leave Lennon/McCartney. It would be interesting to know if Lennon made any publishing money from Woman.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Dec 5, 2008 5:10:40 GMT -5
My understanding is that all McCartney was ever suggesting was that the songs where he was primarily the main writer and which were particularly associated with him - Let it be, Yesterday, Hey Jude etc. - be credited to McCartney/Lennon on McCartney's live albums/DVDs. Not that the switch be made on Beatles albums, and certainly not that Lennon's name be removed.
His reasoning was as jphs said above - he'd looked at a piano songbook in a restaurant to see that Hey Jude was credited to "John Lennon and P" with a limited character field being responsible for curtailing the credit, and reasoned that that limitation alone would dilute the public perception of McCartney's contribution to his own songs over time. On this board, shortly afterwards, we noted a university offering a John Lennon endowment funded by the Lennon Estate where the webpage sang the praises of such John Lennon songs as Let it be! So McCartney had a point.
And it wasn't as if there was no precedent - the Ardmore & Beechwood songs were credited McCartney/Lennon, and the Beatle song credits were switched - during Lennon's lifetime - on Wings over America and no-one made a peep.
But as soon as McCartney made, what seemed to me to be a perfectly reasonable suggestion - and one where, I felt, only he and Yoko were actually entitled to have any significant emotional involvement in the issue - everyone reacted as if he'd suggested we should all go out clubbing seals.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Dec 5, 2008 16:09:40 GMT -5
My understanding is that all McCartney was ever suggesting was that the songs where he was primarily the main writer and which were particularly associated with him - Let it be, Yesterday, Hey Jude etc. - be credited to McCartney/Lennon on McCartney's live albums/DVDs. Not that the switch be made on Beatles albums, and certainly not that Lennon's name be removed. His reasoning was as jphs said above - he'd looked at a piano songbook in a restaurant to see that Hey Jude was credited to "John Lennon and P" with a limited character field being responsible for curtailing the credit, and reasoned that that limitation alone would dilute the public perception of McCartney's contribution to his own songs over time. On this board, shortly afterwards, we noted a university offering a John Lennon endowment funded by the Lennon Estate where the webpage sang the praises of such John Lennon songs as Let it be! So McCartney had a point. And it wasn't as if there was no precedent - the Ardmore & Beechwood songs were credited McCartney/Lennon, and the Beatle song credits were switched - during Lennon's lifetime - on Wings over America and no-one made a peep. But as soon as McCartney made, what seemed to me to be a perfectly reasonable suggestion - and one where, I felt, only he and Yoko were actually entitled to have any significant emotional involvement in the issue - everyone reacted as if he'd suggested we should all go out clubbing seals. Excellent summary of the situation.
|
|