My question, about artists in general, is when are they no longer really the artist? If you didn't do the majority of the writing or performing, if your primary role was simply getting a bunch of talented people in a room together, does it make any kind of sense to give you full credit as the artist?
What do you guys think?
To me, an artist is someone who is the true mastermind behind their music regardless if they are doing everything by themself or not. They are heavily involved in the arrangement, production, writing and overall direction of their music. They come up with concepts, themes, melodies and are very involved in the creation of their music.
On songwriting credits- Anybody can get a songwriting credit for changing or contributing to the melody or the lyrics. For example, if the ONLY thing the artist did was change one word or decided to extend the melody a little longer towards the end of the song. They are legally suppose to get a writing credit which I completely disagree with because changing one word around doesnt really showcase whether or not the artist contributed in the writing process or the making of the song. To me, I think it is really stealing a "credit" that was not rightfully deserved.The artist could have received the full song completely written and then decided to change one word for the credit. Alot of pop singers do this on purpose just to have their name in the credits and for royalties.
I think songwriting credits should only be given out to the actual writers who came up with the lyrics and creation of the song.
|