Heartland

I was wondering after the recent gigs what the new CD would be like if it ever appeared that is
Now we have 2 more new songs; Still and Arms which sound maybe more simpler but to me more Sistery (?) than say Crash & Burn. Than I realised something and correct me if I am wrong...
The new CD will not have any of the "old" new songs (I mean come on how "new" are Summer, Suzanne and War etc..over 10 years at least?) Why? Didn't Chris Sheehan, Mike Varjak & Adam Pearson co write some of those songs? If so that would mean Eldritch needs permission to publish said songs. Correct? Which considering the past is unlikely? So, if ever "New work" would appear on cd it will not be what we have ever heard or indeed songs co written by Catalyst and Ben.

I don't know anything about legal stuff but like I said after the recent gigs and the almost dissapearance of said old "new" songs this thought occurred to me. Like the thought that this may well be the last tour. Ofcourse in both thing I could be wrong...

Your thoughts?

if new CDs were like threads about new Cds-I'd have a box set by now

I think Come Together is Eldritch only, War on Drugs is deffo Eldritch only, and Susanne is Eldritch/Varjak, but may not be as thorny legal-wise as there is the precedent of it having been made available for download.

eldritch has no need to seek permission as all the lyric credits are his, making him at least co-songwriter. and i doubt anybody who hasn't bothered to record a track themselvesa would stop him recording it anyhow. and there's more chance of me waking up tomorrow with siouxsie sioux riding my 14" cock, on a methedrine and prawn jalfrezi IV drip with antlers and a job than there ever] EVER being a new sisters album. so live with it.

there's more chance of a new sisters CD than you having 14" Lee

I assume you don't need permission..

Metallica albums had songs with Dave Mustaine writing credits...

Plenty of Pink Floyd and Roger Waters live albums

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:waking up tomorrow with siouxsie sioux riding my 14" cock, on a methedrine and prawn jalfrezi IV drip with antlers

It's over-rated - trust me

1) I am sorry to have brought this up. ouch!
2) I can live without a new cd, no worries!
3) I can even live without the Sisters! Oh my gawd!!
4) So, Eldritch still writes?
5) There's lotsa great music out there (and in here) and maybe just maybe ain't so fearless anymore!
6) As long as The Sisters roll out the Carnivale each year I am tempted to go. I have no expectations other than to be somewhat entertained!
7) Oh and and if any ex band members have great footage lying about please upload.

mandrake wrote:1) I am sorry to have brought this up. ouch!
2) I can live without a new cd, no worries!
3) I can even live without the Sisters! Oh my gawd!!
4) So, Eldritch still writes?
5) There's lotsa great music out there (and in here) and maybe just maybe ain't so fearless anymore!
6) As long as The Sisters roll out the Carnivale each year I am tempted to go. I have no expectations other than to be somewhat entertained!
7) Oh and and if any ex band members have great footage lying about please upload.

1) don't be- it'd only be "fave songs" "worst songs" "is doktor avalanche gay" otherwise."
2 & 3) mere existance is futile
4) so eldritch writes still.
5) i doubt von has ever done anything out of recognition of any competition.
6) i expect there to be some bloody tickets left downstairs at the only two poxy uk dates every two or thre years.
7) and feel free to send in any sacks of rocking horse shit that are surplus to requirement.

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:eldritch has no need to seek permission as all the lyric credits are his, making him at least co-songwriter.

But he still, technically, needs permission from the other co-writers. If, for instance, he wrote the lyrics but not the music then he needs permission to record and release the music although he could record his own lyrics to different music.

In practice, it depends on how much of an interest the other writers take in administering their own catalogues of songs. Usually it's left up to the publisher or agent (that's the licencing agent, not the booking agent) to take care of these things but sometimes writers have a more hands on approach or set certain conditions for the use of their material. The one that comes to mind (I think because I mentioned it another thread probably on the same subject) is Noel Gallagher a few years back refusing permission for Wonderwall to be covered by The Smurfs.

So the real question is whether Pearson and Varjak etc particularly want to stop Eldritch from recording these songs or whether they're happy just to take the royalties.

(Okay, the real real question is whether Eldritch can be arsed in the first place but that's a different matter.)

you can bet your life that songs he has co-written have joint publishing rights. there's nothing to stop paul mccartney re-recording any lennon-mcartney written songs- he doesn't have to have permision from lennon's estate (yoko oh! no!).

mandrake wrote:I Arms which sound maybe more simpler but to me more Sistery (?) than say

If 'Arms' is "Sistery", then I'm completely deaf.

Stop wondering, hoping and thinking......

This is what you get, take (enjoy) or leave it....live gigs only!

Waiting for that next one to arrive...

nowayjose wrote:

mandrake wrote:I Arms which sound maybe more simpler but to me more Sistery (?) than say

If 'Arms' is "Sistery", then I'm completely deaf.

to me there is around the chorus that certain echo feeling that reminds of the sisters. you are ot deaf you have different taste and feelings.

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:you can bet your life that songs he has co-written have joint publishing rights. there's nothing to stop paul mccartney re-recording any lennon-mcartney written songs- he doesn't have to have permision from lennon's estate (yoko oh! no!).

It depends on whether the songs are considered as works of joint authorship or co-authorship. There's a legal difference.

If one person wrote the music and another the lyrics, they're considered to be separate works and the song is co-authored. Each part has separate copyright and each author has separate rights. In this case neither can exploit the other's work without permission.

Joint authorship exists where two or more authors have collaborated to produce a work where the individual contributions can't be separated eg if they wrote the music together. In this case either one can exploit the work without consulting the other as long as they don't enter into any exclusive contracts eg with record companies or publishers.

I'm not sure which applies to the songs in question.

You may be thinking of US copyright law, where there's no difference between the two and all collaborations are considered join authorships; but in Europe it's different.

You're right about Lennon & McCartney but that's because their early work was jointly authored and later songs, although written entirely separately, were covered by a mutual agreement that they should still receive joint credit.

i bow to your obviously superior knowledge on the matter.
there's certainly no flies on our andrew though and i can't imagine him missing a trick. or for that matter an ex-band member daring to cross him. look what happened to the last one! would you want to be "giving grounded"?

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:you can bet your life that songs he has co-written have joint publishing rights. there's nothing to stop paul mccartney re-recording any lennon-mcartney written songs- he doesn't have to have permision from lennon's estate (yoko oh! no!).

In addition to stufarq's post, is there also a potential wrinkle in that the originating artist has first right on how the work is initially released? How does that work out if there are co-creators?

a pale shadow

We can wish in one hand.

We can shit in the other.

Which do you folks think will fill up quicker?


Which has filled up more over the last God-knows-how-many years?

stufarq wrote:

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:you can... lennon's estate (yoko oh! no!).

It depends on whether the songs are considered as works of joint authorship or co-authorship. There's a legal difference.

If one person ...they don't enter into any exclusive contracts eg with record companies or publishers.

I'm not sure which applies to the songs in question.

... should still receive joint credit.

thanks for that answer.maybe one day we wil find out

Petseri wrote:In addition to stufarq's post, is there also a potential wrinkle in that the originating artist has first right on how the work is initially released? How does that work out if there are co-creators?

I don't think so. I'm not sure that there's any legal definition of "originating artist". If two or more people have joint authorship, each has equal rights over the work. Copyright law only applies to the recorded form of the work ("recorded" in this instance referring to any type of record including written) and doesn't differentiate between who started it or whose idea it was.

In co-authorship the lyricist, say, doesn't have any rights over the composer's work and they have to make an agreement to use them together. Neither can use the other's work without permission and each can use their own work separately if they wish.

Is Dok Avalanche bi-sexual?

I do not think that permission is needed to record a song so long as the writer is paid royalities. IE..Martin Gore didn't need Nick Cave's permission to record "Loverman" so long as Cave got royalties. I think you only need permission of the songwriter if you want to change the lyrics.

As such.....Eldo could record and release the songs he wrote with Varjack and Adam, so long as he made sure that they were paid royalties.

I think.

mandrake wrote:The new CD will not have any of the "old" new songs (I mean come on how "new" are Summer, Suzanne and War etc..over 10 years at least?)

Funny, 'cuz I just thought the same thing while listening to the Berlin bootleg of Arms.

War on Drugs has probably been buried in Von's mind anyway, as it hasn't been featured on the setlist in aeons. Shame about Summer, C&B and Suzanne, though.

But in all fairness, I wouldn't be surprised if Von'd decide to take another round around the block with certain companies to showcase material and discuss things, up until he tells them 'how much it costs to love us'.

And it's a bit silly to showcase a decade old material; if he has any intention of catching up with parties interested on the prospect of a new album (which is, of course, doubtful at best) , he needs to be able to say the songs are by the current lineup and they represent the present-day songwriting capability of the act.

Or he just gets bored and writes a new song every five or so years.

At least the demand seems to be existing, as not too few concerts were sold out this tour. Also I am quite optimistic concerning the effort made for the merchandising. On the other hand, we are talking about Andrew. It wouldn't surprise me if something is coming up, but on the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if nothing would be released either. Somehow I still tend to the last option .