Question for songwriting experts: Pink Floyd Claire Torry

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by aberyclark, Mar 11, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. aberyclark

    aberyclark Well-Known Member Thread Starter

    I know Claire Torry won a lawsuit thus receiving composition royalties for The Great Gig in the Sky. Her vocals are the main draw to the song. I'm not questioning her contribution to the piece. I'm questioning the legal side of her lawsuit. From what I understand , PF asked her to go in and improvise vocals over the piano track. She was paid standard session rate for her work.

    My question is how that constitutes a co-writing credit? Yes the vocals are the main hook of the song. But, I've watched and read many music docs to where producers tell a session musician to improvise (lead guitars, etc). 50 ways to leave your lover does not have a Steve Gadd co-writing credit (I highly doubt the intro drum pattern was charted out for him).


    Just curious what made this instance different? I was thinking the original session agreement did not cover such items. David Foster, from what I understand, rarely writes complete songs and has a staff of writers who supplement his ideas.

    Please chime in
     
    fortherecord likes this.
  2. carrolls

    carrolls Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin
    I think the members of Floyd didn't contest the lawsuit quite rightly, so it didn't need to go to court. If they did contest it however, she would have lost I think.
     
    Fullbug likes this.
  3. couchdave

    couchdave Founding member of Mystik Spiral

    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    In my understanding, what Clare Torry did was convince the court that her improvised vocals on TGGITS constituted a co-composition of the melody of the song itself. This would distinguish it from your example of Steve Gadd's drumbeat, which is part of the instrumental arrangement of 50 Ways... but is neither melody nor lyrics.
     
  4. botley

    botley Forum Resident

    I'm no expert on song publishing, but my Dark Side Immersion box and PULSE DVD sets credit Clare Torry with 'vocal composition' on that track, which is distinct from how other songwriting credits are listed on every other Pink Floyd release I've ever seen. It must be a clause of her injunction won against the band's publishers that her name be listed in that manner on subsequent publications of that work. I have no idea how it breaks down financially, but basically there wasn't any discussion of potentially dividing the publishing royalties before the original session, because no one had any expectation that Torry's performance would become intrinsically part of the piece in the way that it did over the years.

    She must have been able to prove in a legally binding way that the melody of her vocal performance substantially contributed to the musical content of the piece and therefore merited additional compensation. Not every session musician can do that, nor would it be worth their time and effort unless it was a mega-hit like "The Great Gig..."

    Interestingly, the alternate version from 1972 in the box set (an early mix that pre-dates the vocal overdub) doesn't credit her; so it must only apply to instances where her original vocal melody is present.
     
  5. aberyclark

    aberyclark Well-Known Member Thread Starter

    That makes quite a lot of sense. And if PF just settled without a formal law process, then that clears things up things as well.
     
  6. Cheepnik

    Cheepnik Overfed long-haired leaping gnome

    We'll never know if her claims would have stood up at trial since the matter was settled out of court. But the fact that the band was willing to pay to have the matter go away would seem to indicate they didn't want it to go to trial.
     
  7. carrolls

    carrolls Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin
    Or maybe they wanted to do right by her with the minimum of hassle.
     
  8. As Couchdave pointed out, melody and lyrics are the two things that give you songwriting credit. All she would have had to do, I think, is play a judge the version without her vocal and the version with. She created the melody, case closed. I don't think there are very many instances where that would be the situation. The melody is usually part of the writing process and not something a hired hand would participate in. Usually it's "sing this", not "go improvise whatever you want". Another example, where proper credit was given, would be on Funkadelic's Maggot Brain. That song is basically ten minutes of guitarist Eddie Hazel improvising. George Clinton instructions were "play like your mother just died". He did, and got a credit. Floyd should have given her the credit in 1973.
     
    Michael P likes this.
  9. Telegramsam

    Telegramsam Forum Resident

    Laws may vary, but once she accepted the session fee she was accepting that what she did was a solo, like a guitar or sax solo. Star musicians usually negotiate a royalty or a higher fee to do a solo on a record. Artistically I , personally, think that her contribution was so good that she merits a co-writing, and probably was what PF thought when they settled. And as far as I know she will not get back royalties, just from the moment the case was sttled on.
     
  10. botley

    botley Forum Resident

    Chord changes too, surely? And what about arrangement? Not that those apply in this case.

    Not quite that simple, since a 'vocal-less' version of the Floyd's recording didn't exist publicly in the mid-2000s when the suit was filed. Had it gone to court she would probably have had to produce an argument from either an expert testimony or something else.

    They didn't because they had no songwriting contract with her; their publishing royalties at that time were split fairly equally among band members and not divided up between individuals, as they later were. One needs to have an establishment collecting on your behalf. As a gigging session player in 1973 she probably wouldn't have had one.
     
  11. You can't copyright chord changes. Don't think arrangements get any special protection either.

    True, but hopefully any competent lawyer would do the research and could have found a vocal-less version, or asked for one. Wasn't there a live BBC version without vocals?

    Sure, which is probably why she didn't get any credit. At the time PF were not that huge yet, it probably didn't occur to her that the song would make millions.
     
  12. Lownote30

    Lownote30 Bass Clef Addict

    Location:
    Nashville, TN, USA
    I am an expert on copyright in relation to songwriting, and what Claire performed became the melody of the song which is the copyrightable portion. The chords aren't the copyrightable part. The melody is. That and the lyrics (which in this case there aren't any). It doesn't matter whether the melody was improvised, or whether there was a contract in place (Pink Floyd didn't need to have a contract with her in order for her to rightfully receive royalties). She wrote it plain and simple. You can also be your own collecting entity. All you have to do is be signed up with a performing rights organization, and that can be done after the fact. They collect the performance royalties for you. You can also appoint an administrator (publisher) after the fact to collect your sychronization and mechanical royalties). It's called a Scedule A and happens often when a person signs into a publishing deal and everything they wrote before that date is included in said deal.
     
    His Masters Vice likes this.
  13. Lownote30

    Lownote30 Bass Clef Addict

    Location:
    Nashville, TN, USA
    I agree with you that she does deserve a co-write on it. Her contribution was more than a solo, though. It is the entire melody of the song.
     
  14. Mylene

    Mylene Senior Member

    If Floyd had gone to court Nick Mason and David Gilmore would have lost songwriter credits as well in the crossfire.
     
  15. couchdave

    couchdave Founding member of Mystik Spiral

    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    If they had really wanted to give her credit, it wouldn't have been hard to set up a publishing arrangement. I think it's more likely that the Floyd just didn't think of Torry's contribution as "songwriting" in the usual sense. And she might not have either, at the time. Hence no composition credit (and no royalties) until much later on, when she and/or a good lawyer saw that there was a legal case to be made for them.
     
  16. tkl7

    tkl7 Agent Provocateur

    Location:
    Lewis Center, OH
    I can't agree that she wrote the melody of the song. That was already in place when Wright wrote the music. If anything, the Vocal Composition credit implies that the parties agreed that her vocal improvising were de facto lyrics. This would make sense, because everyone else who has "sung" the song, has imitated her improvisations enough that they are no longer improvisations.
     
  17. Lownote30

    Lownote30 Bass Clef Addict

    Location:
    Nashville, TN, USA
    Pink Floyd themselves probably weren't the craftiest when it came to handling those types of arrangements. It happens all the time.
     
  18. Lownote30

    Lownote30 Bass Clef Addict

    Location:
    Nashville, TN, USA
    All Wright had was different chords with different voicings. What Claire did was add the melodies that everyone remembers. A melody does not have to contain lyrics to be copyrightable. It is a melody regardless. Also, composition credits are composition credits whether they are lyrical, or musical when it comes to copyrighting songs. That information doesn't have to be provided on the copyright forms. It's often listed in liner notes of albums, and may have an effect on the percentage split with the royalties, but it's all part of the song.
     
  19. tkl7

    tkl7 Agent Provocateur

    Location:
    Lewis Center, OH
    The song was actually written and originally recorded without her part, and has a melody without her part as well. I understand where you are coming from, and that's probably why a settlement was reached.
     
  20. Lownote30

    Lownote30 Bass Clef Addict

    Location:
    Nashville, TN, USA
    Oh I understand where you're coming from. The instrumental version has an implied melody within the chords, but it's just the way the chords are inverted. The released version (the one everyone knows) doesn't have that as the main melody, though. It's Claire, and you're right. That's why a settlement was reached.
     
  21. rockledge

    rockledge Forum Resident

    Location:
    right here
    There are two things protected in a song under intellectual property, the lyrics and the melody.
    If she improvised it, that means she composed the melody on the spot.

    I do question the validity of the suit , in that it is my undestanding that she was paid a set fee. When you are paid a set fee for a song, it is considered a "work for hire" most often.
    Perhaps British approach to intellectual property laws is a bit different than in the states.
    Perhaps this is also why when singers would do that part live they avoided copying her melody and improvised their own, maybe PF was advised by their keepers not to give importance to that specific melody just for intellectual property reasons.

    Also, from what I have read David Gilmour is a very benevolent fellow. Perhaps the band settled just out of their sense of fair play and recognition of the importance of her part in that song.
    It isn't as if paying her royalties put any of them in the soup line.

    I don't think that is possible. Any credits they have for songwriting that were outside of that one vocal melody would not be effected at all. Her name would have been added to the credits, and would not have displaced other credits.
     
  22. Lownote30

    Lownote30 Bass Clef Addict

    Location:
    Nashville, TN, USA
    In the states, you would be paid as a musician by the Musicians Union to actually sing the part (not really as a work for hire, but paid in a block of studio time), but writing credit is an entirely different beast and handled by different entities here. I'm not sure how it works in the UK, though.
     
  23. rockledge

    rockledge Forum Resident

    Location:
    right here
    That isn't my point.
    If you copyright a song in the states, you can copyright it as a "work for hire" and a work for hire normally has a contractual insinuation to it, as well as far as I know can have a specific written contract on the piece.
    So say some radio station hires me to write a commercial for them , and I do, I can choose a lump sum payment and have the song copyrighted as a work for hire, giving total ownership to whoever hired me to do it.
    As an example, Willie Nelson sold the song "Crazy" to Patsy Clines manager or publisher outright, for a static amount. I think I have heard him say he sold the song for 25 bucks. That I believe is considered a work for hire.

    I am suggesting that the same situation exists when a musician does studio work.
    Think of all the music out there that has for example hired guitarists laying down tracks and being payed scale.
    They don't have the privelege of claiming ownership of a lead guitar peice melody , even though they most often improvise it on the spot.

    And it doesn't matter if it is a union or just a self represented agreement.
     
  24. aberyclark

    aberyclark Well-Known Member Thread Starter

    I hear that songwriting credit$$ have been a major strain within many bands. From what I read above, lyrics are covered as well as melody. So if Hal Blain suggested (I'm making this one up) to Brian Wilson "try the word turf instead of surf" and Brian kept it, should Hal get writing credit?
     
  25. fallbreaks

    fallbreaks Forum Resident

    When Pink Floyd (or Roger Waters, or whoever) played Dark Side of the Moon in concert, a backup singer almost always mimicked Clare Torry during Great Gig In the Sky. Clare Torry's contributions were an integral part of the song, because she contributed something major to the essential character of the piece. I think it was right for her to be compensated.
     
    fortherecord likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine