[mikeonthemoon]

Hi guys!

I didn't find a place on the forum to post our own cover songs. Well maybe, there's a reason 
But as we're all (must of us maybe) songwriters, we also do covers from time to time. And i guess, we all try to make them... specials.
To revisit the all song.

Wouldn't it be great to have a post where we can all share our "special" cover songs?

Just an idea in case some are interested I can even start the game

Thanks
Mike

[Morefrog Jones]

Hi
i have a cover on sound-cloud that gets way more listens my original stuff - its a good way of getting people on your page although they have probably made a mistake and are looking for the original

I think if you can make an original song sound a bit different - there is some song writing skill to it. and its a good way to improve your techniques so they say

I had to do this cover for my Mrs because she said that I had been learning guitar for 3 years and she has never heard me finish a song off (Which was true) - So i did one of her favourites to prove I could -Struggled to Match one of Billy Oceans High Notes - But What The Hell

https://soundcloud.com/morefrog-jones/red-lightspells-danger-billy-ocean-cover

[mikeonthemoon]

My covers on Soundcloud also get way more listens. But it kind of make sense i guess.

Good one this Billy Ocean's! Sounds really punchy.

I do have some on my YouTube page, so i'll just share the latest one: Bad Romance from Lady Gaga, acoustic style 

Cheers.
And guys, we want more covers here

[pompeyjazz]

Thats an Excellent cover Morefrog and one of my faves of yours. My fave cover is High Heel Sneakers

[hardtwistmusic]

The problem with covers is that Soundcloud and Reverbnation (and most of the other places you can post songs) require that you have procured the rights to record said covers.  

Doing so is expensive, OR (if you do it yourself) requires a tremendous amount of research and you still have to pay for the right to "publish" the cover.  

For me, it's not worth it.  When I hit the "do you have rights to this song" button on Reverbnation, I want to know for certain that I won't be lying.  Not that I'm too honest to tell that lie, but that there could be real consequences to doing so.  

I've never done it, but my (fairly limited) research indicates that it would cost about $200.00 to $300.00 to gain the right to "publish" a cover of someone else's song.  And that is AFTER you find out who currently owns the rights to the song, and notify them.  It isn't (as I understand it) a "permission thing" but a "notification thing."  And of course a "payment thing."

Most of the artists I know who "publish covers" (i.e. post them to Soundcloud and Reverbnation are making money from their art, and cannot afford NOT TO do it legally.  A few of them just do it because unless they make money, there is little that those who own the rights can do to them.  

For me, the consequences would not be monetary (if I "published" covers) but being kicked off Reverbnation.  I'm dependent upon Reverbnation to publish my own stuff.  Can't afford to get in their ill graces over something that does not really benefit me.  

Now, of course I could be all wrong about this.  But I suspect I'm not.  The little research I've done indicates that there is little chance of any meaningful consequence EXCEPT being kicked off your Soundcloud/Reverbnation/MySpaceMusic etc. account.  And even that is unlikely.  

BTW.... I'm pretty certain there is someone here who knows more about this than I do.  Probably Nooms or Boydie among others.    

[nooms]

morning hardtwist

think youll find its not that expensive to get permission.

if i remember correctly it cost us about £35 or thereabouts..
we notified PRS of our intent and paid a fee and a licence was issued..
it was a Tim Hardin song that we released as part of an album back in 2010

i cant say that if it had been a big current song whether it would be more expensive but cant see why it would be after all the original writer will get the royalty ..all grist to their mill.

[CaliaMoko]

There are two possibilities. Well, maybe three. Getting licensing to put a cover on a CD is easy and affordable. I think it's similar for SoundCloud (I haven't done it myself, but I've heard about it).

The one that is more complicated and expensive is synch licensing--like for YouTube covers. I haven't researched it, but it seems to me that if a person puts a song on YouTube, but only has a still image up throughout the whole song, they would get the same arrangement as on SoundCloud (but I don't know for sure). But if you put up a live performance, then you need a synchronization license, which is the complicated and--probably--more expensive option.

I once tried to get synch licenses for a musical review by a non-profit group. It was extremely labor intensive--I had to track down the actual copyright holders for each song. Some were willing to do it for nearly nothing, and others wanted as much as $300. And some of the low-cost ones insisted on something called  "favored nations", which means they will do it for cheap UNLESS we pay someone else more--in which case, they want the same amount as the highest-paid copyright holder.

In the end, I gave up.

Anyway, maybe it's the synch license you're thinking about, Verlon. ??

[delb0y]

I recall we once got the proper permission to put a Gram Parsons song on a CD, and I think there was another cover on there, too (maybe something by The Band). One was far more expensive than the other. Things may have changed - this was in a previous century - but it seemed to me that it was down to the publisher how much they charged.

I did think that if you were publishing on You Tube for fun, i.e. not monetising your video and not linking to a download that folks had to buy, then you were okay. But a quick Google and it turns out not. You do need permission and you do have to pay. Of course, billions of people don't, and there are masses of bedroom covers on there. Be interesting to see where this goes.

[Ramshackles]

We've surpassed any permission issues by doing a traditional song....our version of silver dagger:

[CaliaMoko]

I recall we once got the proper permission to put a Gram Parsons song on a CD, and I think there was another cover on there, too (maybe something by The Band). One was far more expensive than the other. Things may have changed - this was in a previous century - but it seemed to me that it was down to the publisher how much they charged.

I was not thinking, and I only wrote from my perspective in the USA. I don't know the rules other places. Here, the fee per song per pressing (on a CD or other kind of album or recording, sound only) is set by law and everyone gets paid the same.

[PopTodd]

I've posted this elsewhere in the forums before, but since there is a thread for it now....
This is a very old punk band of mine (1994) playing a Prince tune:
https://soundcloud.com/poptodd/when-doves-cry

[Skub]

We used to do Christine McVie's Songbird in between sets. Folk mistakenly think it's an Eva Cassidy song,rather than Fleetwood Mac.

This is a recording of us a couple of year ago and brings back memories of my time in a working band.

https://soundcloud.com/skub1955/harmony-dance-band-songbird

[hardtwistmusic]

morning hardtwist

think youll find its not that expensive to get permission.

if i remember correctly it cost us about £35 or thereabouts..
we notified PRS of our intent and paid a fee and a licence was issued..
it was a Tim Hardin song that we released as part of an album back in 2010

i cant say that if it had been a big current song whether it would be more expensive but cant see why it would be after all the original writer will get the royalty ..all grist to their mill.

For those in the U.S.  the 35 Pounds that Nooms quoted is about $50.00 at today's exchange rate.  Four years ago, it would have been about $65.00.   

Still far less expensive than I suspected, (my research was more like the $300.00 for "research and fees" that Vicki quoted. 

Again. . . if you know how, and can find it yourself, the "fees" are the entire cost.  I'm a pretty competent researcher, and I haven't had any luck finding out who owns songs. 

Everything Vicki said rings true with what I found (regarding the U.S.    It's probably different in every country.

[hardtwistmusic]

Anyway, maybe it's the synch license you're thinking about, Verlon. ??

YES....  It is the "synch licensing" that I found necessary in my research.  Like you, I found it more difficult that it was worth.  There was (if I remember right) a fee on top even if I were able to find the owner of the rights. 

I was NOT aware that only "live performances" were involved.  I wonder how Karaoke performances fit into all this.  Interesting that (if you are correct) videos must pay royalties, but audio versions do not.  I know someone who owns a radio station, and I know (5 years ago anyway) they had to pay almost $.08/song to play their songs.  The radio industry was trying (at that time) to sponsor legislation to change that to a "more reasonable price." 

This has been a most interesting thread.

[CaliaMoko]

I think, strictly speaking, both audio and visual versions of songs are supposed to pay royalties. There seems to be a lot of gray area these days, though, with all the online song hosting sites.

Live performances, in which a singer simply gets up and sings (or a band performs at a club or resort)--all royalty fees are covered by the annual licensing fee the venue (not the artist) pays to one or more of the licensing agencies (like ASCAP, BMI, Harry Fox). I would think a video of an artist singing to the camera would fit this type of performance, as well.

It's the "dramatization" of a song that requires a synch license. I think this includes songs being (more or less) acted out while being sung, as well as background music when something else is happening on the screen. Or stage.

As far as songs being played on the radio, the stations also need to have agreements with the licensing agencies. Because they're playing for the public, they can't rely on the 9.1 cents (per song, per pressing) the recording artist paid to make the CD legal. Restaurants and stores with piped in music also need to pay licensing fees. Depending on where they get their music, it might be included with the fee they pay--like, if they use Pandora for businesses, I think the licensing fee is built into the rate.

That's what I (think I) know.  And, of course, this all applies only to the USA.

Vicki