Yes there are a few well known song writers, but it is the singer that sold the song. Having a good singer is what make people want to listen because they make it into reality.
It is the same in any industry. The inventor is only as good as the sales person. Yes some inventors will be successful because their inventions are just that awesome, but many are not even known since they could never sell their product, and others take credit for it (Edison looking at you).
Theoretical sciences are also the same, Einstein was just that awesome but there were thousands of pretty good people at his time that pushed theoretical physics forward.
The song writer sure they are important, as is the person that does the mixing, the teachers that gave the singers voice lessons, the teachers that gave the musicians their abilities. The people that feed them, clothe them, and raise them... do their parents also get a return on investment?
Peter, Paul and Mary were far more popular in their time and were much more able to sell the songs of Bob Dylan than he ever would have, and most people have no idea their songs were written by him, in fact almost none of the songs were their own work, the music was however. Thus who really should get the largest share? not everyone is equal in making a song a popular reality.
Bob Dylan and Peter, Paul & Mary had the same manager, Albert Grossman. He was probably as responsible as them for any financial success. From wikipedia, Grossman charged his clients 25 percent commission (industry standards were 15 percent). He is quoted as saying, "Every time you talk to me you're ten percent smarter than before. So I just add ten percent on to what all the dummies charge for nothing."
Yes there are a few well known song writers, but it is the singer that sold the song. Having a good singer is what make people want to listen because they make it into reality.
I'd argue it's a combo: the right match. Good tunes can be hits under multiple singers, and the top singers can't make a clunker tune into a hit.
Bruce Springsteen and Tom Petty had terrible voices, judging by traditional standards, but their voice fit certain kinds of tunes, giving songs a kind of next-door-neighbor authenticity that
Bruce Springsteen and Tom Petty had terrible voices, judging by traditional standards, but their voice fit certain kinds of tunes, giving songs a kind of next-door-neighbor authenticity that differed from slick, over-produced arrangements.
Maybe it's something about their presentation, it's organic and resonates with audiences.
Song Writers are anoymous (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the same in any industry. The inventor is only as good as the sales person. Yes some inventors will be successful because their inventions are just that awesome, but many are not even known since they could never sell their product, and others take credit for it (Edison looking at you).
Theoretical sciences are also the same, Einstein was just that awesome but there were thousands of pretty good people at his time that pushed theoretical physics forward.
The song writer sure they are important, as is the person that does the mixing, the teachers that gave the singers voice lessons, the teachers that gave the musicians their abilities. The people that feed them, clothe them, and raise them
Peter, Paul and Mary were far more popular in their time and were much more able to sell the songs of Bob Dylan than he ever would have, and most people have no idea their songs were written by him, in fact almost none of the songs were their own work, the music was however. Thus who really should get the largest share? not everyone is equal in making a song a popular reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I'd argue it's a combo: the right match. Good tunes can be hits under multiple singers, and the top singers can't make a clunker tune into a hit.
Bruce Springsteen and Tom Petty had terrible voices, judging by traditional standards, but their voice fit certain kinds of tunes, giving songs a kind of next-door-neighbor authenticity that
Re: (Score:2)
Bruce Springsteen and Tom Petty had terrible voices, judging by traditional standards, but their voice fit certain kinds of tunes, giving songs a kind of next-door-neighbor authenticity that differed from slick, over-produced arrangements.
Maybe it's something about their presentation, it's organic and resonates with audiences.