Live at Pompeii 2017 - David Gilmour

Cirrus

ToneControl said:

What was the thinking being the new arrangement for the scatting on Great gig in the sky?
I wondered if it was an attempt to go for a more gospelly choral approach, but there were still solo parts at times, and then I thought perhaps it's intended to avoid getting too similar to the Clare Torry performance, to avoid needing to pay royalty payments to her (I was not happy that she got a songwriting credit for doing 2 takes of a vocal solo scat over a finished track, so I'd assume DG is far less than content)

I think it's a hard line to take when that vocal is featured front and centre in the song and contains (this is important legally) many memorable melodic moments. Even artistically, why is the fact it was two takes relevant? Plenty of transformative moments are just that - sudden moments of inspiration, single magical takes. Would it have made a difference if the same end product had taken 6 days of intense, difficult studio time?

ToneControl

Cirrus said:

ToneControl said:

What was the thinking being the new arrangement for the scatting on Great gig in the sky?
I wondered if it was an attempt to go for a more gospelly choral approach, but there were still solo parts at times, and then I thought perhaps it's intended to avoid getting too similar to the Clare Torry performance, to avoid needing to pay royalty payments to her (I was not happy that she got a songwriting credit for doing 2 takes of a vocal solo scat over a finished track, so I'd assume DG is far less than content)

I think it's a hard line to take when that vocal is featured front and centre in the song and contains (this is important legally) many memorable melodic moments. Even artistically, why is the fact it was two takes relevant? Plenty of transformative moments are just that - sudden moments of inspiration, single magical takes. Would it have made a difference if the same end product had taken 6 days of intense, difficult studio time?

Her scat was fundamentally the same as adding a guitar solo provided by a session player, there were no words (so you can't claim a songwriting-lyrics credit, and it was done in 2 takes (my point being that she didn't spend several hours constructing a melody, she improvised)

My thoughts are that if someone called you in to take a guitar solo as a session musician, and paid the full rate for your time, would you then be justified in claiming you co-wrote the track?
Is an improvisation a composition?

Danny1969

To be fair a guitar solo in a song typically last 16 bars or so .... Torry's vocal performance is the whole song, like the guitar lead in Apache is the whole song. 
I get what your saying though ... she's not a co writer but I think she deserved more than a standard session fee

viz

I think he's on Steve Wright tomorrow afternoon on radio 2 if anyone's interested

HAL9000

Travisthedog said:

On the whole David solo stuff is weak. About face is as good as it got for him...

Sadly, I agree. I've tried to like On An Island but it simply doesn't do it for me. About Face, once you've got past the eighties production, is IMHO the best of his solo albums.

mburekenge

About the Tory acapella in 'great gig in the sky'....gilmour himself has said his best solos are composites of several takes so the fact that hers is done in two is irrelevant.

The track is fantastic and the vocal makes it imo

ToneControl

Danny1969 said:

To be fair a guitar solo in a song typically last 16 bars or so .... Torry's vocal performance is the whole song, like the guitar lead in Apache is the whole song. 
I get what your saying though ... she's not a co writer but I think she deserved more than a standard session fee

There should be a mechanism for extra payment, but not a writing credit in my opinion

ToneControl

mburekenge said:

About the Tory acapella in 'great gig in the sky'....gilmour himself has said his best solos are composites of several takes so the fact that hers is done in two is irrelevant.

The track is fantastic and the vocal makes it imo

I think you're missing my point, which is that this was a solo added by a session musician.
If every session musician that came in and laid down a solo on someone else's track then demanded writing royalties on the more successful ones, there would soon cease to be a viable session industry.

Clare Torry herself postponed her claim until she retired, I assume because she knew she could expect no more work once she did this

ToneControl

mburekenge said:

The track is fantastic and the vocal makes it imo

I don't dispute that, but who "wrote" the track?


Looking at PF writing credits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_recorded_by_Pink_Floyd

There are plenty where DG is not credited 

Look at other famous solos that "make" a track, where the soloist is not credited with writing the track:

Reelin in the years
http://www.guitarworld.com/artist-news/elliott-randall-nailed-steely-dans-reelin-years-one-continuous-take/30317

Baker St
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopfeatures/8241031/I-was-paid-27-for-Baker-Street-sax-solo.html

I am sure I can list more


I'm not clear how she succeeded in her claim, it goes against everything I have read on the subject

http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/musician-tips/6-things-to-consider-before-entering-the-recording-studio/

Although the general rule is that a person who creates a work is the author of that work, U.S. copyright law creates an exception for “works made for hire,” in which the employer or person commissioning certain works for use is considered the author of that work.

Sometimes things get a little sticky in the studio; egos take over.  An instrumentalist creates a riff that becomes an integral part of the song; a sound engineer starts taking on more of a producer role; maybe your cowbell player thinks his stellar bell placement entitles him to 50% of the royalties.  A work for hire agreement makes ownership of the copyright clear from the outset.  If someone isn’t okay with it, at least you’ll know that up front, and you can make an empowered decision whether to use that person, or whether to go with another person who is willing to sign a work for hire agreement.

Keep in mind that consideration is required for a contract to be valid.  This is a legal concept meaning something of value that is given in exchange for a performance or promise to perform.  In some states, credit may suffice as adequate compensation.  In other states, there may be a minimum amount of monetary compensation required.

ToneControl

here we are, someone has already done the thread for us:
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/question-for-songwriting-experts-pink-floyd-claire-torry.312100/page-2

personally, I am glad she has got cash coming in, but I don't think it has any real legal basis
I don't see the sax players who have made similar contributions suing for royalties

Thinking about it, I would prefer the track with a DG solo over it instead to be honest

Gassage

Where do I start?

Great Gig. So I am aware that Bryan and the other backing singers worked this out themselves midway through the tour and 'sold the idea' to David via Polly. The first round of shows (with Manzanera and Carin) didn't feature it. It was at the Cancer Gig in April that it was first aired.

However, as the song is a metaphor for one person's journey through dying, death and heaven (the three parts) I didn't like the version (I don't like the song at the best of times) because I felt it diluted those messages.

It was, however, better than Kanye doing BR.

Re DG's solo stuff, OAI itself as a track is incredible. As are many on MLOR and tDB (High Hopes is in my top 3 floyd moments ever - Sorrow not far behind).

Rattle That Lock as an album is excellent in parts, slow in others.

However, his solo work is fine, it just ain't quite Floyd.

As Guy Pratt once commented regarding the David penned ditty, Learning To Fly:

"After singing about the desperate and despotic political visions of Waters' brilliant mind, I was curious to follow that up with a song that essentially glorified the everyday first world problem that is Tax Offseting."

mburekenge

ToneControl said:

mburekenge said:

The track is fantastic and the vocal makes it imo

I don't dispute that, but who "wrote" the track?


Looking at PF writing credits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_recorded_by_Pink_Floyd

There are plenty where DG is not credited 

Look at other famous solos that "make" a track, where the soloist is not credited with writing the track:

Reelin in the years
http://www.guitarworld.com/artist-news/elliott-randall-nailed-steely-dans-reelin-years-one-continuous-take/30317

Baker St
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopfeatures/8241031/I-was-paid-27-for-Baker-Street-sax-solo.html

I am sure I can list more


I'm not clear how she succeeded in her claim, it goes against everything I have read on the subject

http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/musician-tips/6-things-to-consider-before-entering-the-recording-studio/

Although the general rule is that a person who creates a work is the author of that work, U.S. copyright law creates an exception for “works made for hire,” in which the employer or person commissioning certain works for use is considered the author of that work.

Sometimes things get a little sticky in the studio; egos take over.  An instrumentalist creates a riff that becomes an integral part of the song; a sound engineer starts taking on more of a producer role; maybe your cowbell player thinks his stellar bell placement entitles him to 50% of the royalties.  A work for hire agreement makes ownership of the copyright clear from the outset.  If someone isn’t okay with it, at least you’ll know that up front, and you can make an empowered decision whether to use that person, or whether to go with another person who is willing to sign a work for hire agreement.

Keep in mind that consideration is required for a contract to be valid.  This is a legal concept meaning something of value that is given in exchange for a performance or promise to perform.  In some states, credit may suffice as adequate compensation.  In other states, there may be a minimum amount of monetary compensation required.

Im honoured that my comment was worth two replies.

Working within the music industry myself, i am well aware of the legality of session work payments.

My only point was that, in my own humble opinion, that vocal track elevates said track (which is already fantastic) to an entirely different level. Just my opinion.

I love DSOM - it has featured heavily in my life. Gilmours guitar work is sublime. Its the combination of all of the different artists and elements that elevates it to classic status.

It was the 'frequency transformer' fx on the bvs that inspired me to become an audio engineer.

ToneControl

mburekenge said:

ToneControl said:

mburekenge said:

The track is fantastic and the vocal makes it imo

I don't dispute that, but who "wrote" the track?

Im honoured that my comment was worth two replies.

Working within the music industry myself, i am well aware of the legality of session work payments.

My only point was that, in my own humble opinion, that vocal track elevates said track (which is already fantastic) to an entirely different level. Just my opinion.

But that's what you call in a session musician to do when you want a solo on an instrument you can't play
With PF, they called in Sax players, and on this occasion, a scat improvisor
Apparently Torry's solo was solely the second take, cut up and edited to the form we know

The track does sound good though. I wonder why they went that way and not a guitar solo or sax like they chose on every other occasion. 

I've seen the live vocals screeched out a few too many times though, not everyone can do a good job of it 

ToneControl

I like most of DG's solo output, probably "On an island" is the best one for me

I like all the post-Waters PF stuff, and have always hated "Final Cut"
I don't like the pre-Gilmour PF albums either, so you can see where my preferences lie

AlexC

ToneControl said:

I like most of DG's solo output, probably "On an island" is the best one for me

I like all the post-Waters PF stuff, and have always hated "Final Cut"
I don't like the pre-Gilmour PF albums either, so you can see where my preferences lie

Syd only did the one - The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn. Or do you mean sort of anything pre-Meddle/Dark Side?

mburekenge

ToneControl said:

I like most of DG's solo output, probably "On an island" is the best one for me

I like all the post-Waters PF stuff, and have always hated "Final Cut"
I don't like the pre-Gilmour PF albums either, so you can see where my preferences lie

Casterlization (wrong spelling) is amazing. I even like tge album with the orb

ToneControl

AlexC said:

ToneControl said:

I like most of DG's solo output, probably "On an island" is the best one for me

I like all the post-Waters PF stuff, and have always hated "Final Cut"
I don't like the pre-Gilmour PF albums either, so you can see where my preferences lie

Syd only did the one - The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn. Or do you mean sort of anything pre-Meddle/Dark Side?

I don't like Piper,
I like half of Saucerful, then More and Ummagumma show some promise, but aren't "albums" in the normal sense
Atom heart mother has always been one I liked, and Obscured by clouds

I bought Final cut when it was released, and really wanted to like it, same with Pros and cons, but Waters on his own was just way too unmusical for me.

JezWynd

ToneControl said:
...
The track does sound good though. I wonder why they went that way and not a guitar solo or sax like they chose on every other occasion. 

I've seen the live vocals screeched out a few too many times though, not everyone can do a good job of it 

You've answered your own question right there. Yes it could have been a guitar or sax and would have sounded much like any other extended Floyd outro. Instead they went with the human voice, probably the purest, most direct form of emotional response/release there is - and it worked incredibly well.

ToneControl

JezWynd said:

ToneControl said:
...
The track does sound good though. I wonder why they went that way and not a guitar solo or sax like they chose on every other occasion. 

I've seen the live vocals screeched out a few too many times though, not everyone can do a good job of it 

You've answered your own question right there. Yes it could have been a guitar or sax and would have sounded much like any other extended Floyd outro. Instead they went with the human voice, probably the purest, most direct form of emotional response/release there is - and it worked incredibly well.

Still, they had one of the top 5 guitarists in the world in the room. I would have preferred a DG solo
I'm guessing they didn't do it again because they agreed with me

ArchtopDave

My favourite memories of Pink Floyd date from my years at Uni in the second half of the '60's. I was at Cambridge, and they used to do their gigs in one of the cinemas, which happened to have a reasonable sized stage in front of the screen. You just turned up on the day, paid for your ticket, and found a seat where ever you wanted in the stalls.