Who does a song belong to.. - Page 2

I don't think there's even a question of whether the song belongs to the musicians or the actors and producers. The song, a creative piece of work, belongs to the music director who composes a tune, lyricist who put meaning into the tune, and the singer who emotes and expresses the tune.

The actors do nothing in the process. That is why some awful movies have songs that we tend to remember over the years. For example, I love the song Aao Na, composed by SEL and rendered by Udit Narayan and Sadhna Sargam ... but for the life of me I could not remember what movie the song was from or who was in the movie. That is because I, along with many others across the world, did not bother watching Kyon Ho Gaya Na - a major flop.

Originally posted by: *Woh Ajnabee*

I don't think there's even a question of whether the song belongs to the musicians or the actors and producers. The song, a creative piece of work, belongs to the music director who composes a tune, lyricist who put meaning into the tune, and the singer who emotes and expresses the tune.

The actors do nothing in the process. That is why some awful movies have songs that we tend to remember over the years. For example, I love the song Aao Na, composed by SEL and rendered by Udit Narayan and Sadhna Sargam ... but for the life of me I could not remember what movie the song was from or who was in the movie. That is because I, along with many others across the world, did not bother watching Kyon Ho Gaya Na - a major flop.

I'm against the view that singers own a song. They do put the creative and technical input into a song, but I don't agree that it should be reward with a royalty. Just like in pop music a 'featuring artist' does not get a royalty, singers too are not part of the core creative team. They are part of the performing team and they get a fee for their services, just like a guitarist or tabla player does.

The composer and lyricist are the core creative team who make a song, with a structure and content, so they deserve royalty. They aren't performers and Javed Akhtar cannot organise concerts of him reciting 'Sandese Aate Hain' to people. His repayment should come from earning royalties whenever people enjoy or use his creative work.

The producers also deserve a royalty because they do the bulk of the marketing, production and distribution. They take on the risk of making a song, and like any record label, they too deserve a repayment.

Originally posted by: xobile

I'm against the view that singers own a song. They do put the creative and technical input into a song, but I don't agree that it should be reward with a royalty. Just like in pop music a 'featuring artist' does not get a royalty, singers too are not part of the core creative team. They are part of the performing team and they get a fee for their services, just like a guitarist or tabla player does.

The composer and lyricist are the core creative team who make a song, with a structure and content, so they deserve royalty. They aren't performers and Javed Akhtar cannot organise concerts of him reciting 'Sandese Aate Hain' to people. His repayment should come from earning royalties whenever people enjoy or use his creative work.

The producers also deserve a royalty because they do the bulk of the marketing, production and distribution. They take on the risk of making a song, and like any record label, they too deserve a repayment.

Is it funny that every season in one of these reality shows, I get into a similar debate with someone? .... I think it is. 😆

I don't agree ... obviously. I think the singer puts a little bit of him into the song, there is some amount of creativity at his end as well, and therefore he deserves to have his name attached to a song. I will agree that a composer and lyricist should perhaps be the ultimate 'owner' of the song, but the singer deserves his due as well.

You're comparing a singer's input into a song to a guitarist and a tabla player. That's like saying that Mohammad Rafi's singing to any of his songs contributed as much as a background musician in the band/orchestra. I have a heard time accepting that. Otherwise, what would be the difference between a good singer and a bad singer?

Like yesterday, me and you were discussing the song Dil Hai Ke Maanta Nahi, and we seemed to agree that perhaps Udit-Alka would've been a better choice over Kumar Sanu-Anuradha. Why? Because we felt there was something missing in the song that other singers could give it a little more of. That "something" (be it expression, voice quality, throw, etc) is that singer's creative input into the song.

Ajab Prem ki .... whatever that movie was had two really nice songs, both sung by Atif Aslam. There are many people out there who love both songs, but wish someone else had sung them to make the song better. Keeping Atif Aslam's argument aside, my point here is that a singer can ultimately make or break a song. And either way, he deserves some of the credit or the blame.

If what you're saying is in fact true, then it can be applied to other fields as well. For example, an actor in a movie. The movie isn't his, the direction isn't his, the dialogues, the scenes, the story, nothing belongs to him. But ultimately, he is the one who brings these things together and presents them to the audience. It his skills and talent that put that magical touch on other artists' work. Otherwise what would be the difference between a Shahrukh Khan movie and a Bobby Deol movie? And similarly, what would be the difference between a Udit Narayan song and a Neeraj Sridhar song? In the end, we identify an actor with the movies he's done, and a singer with the songs he's sung.