Are singer who don't write their own songs just basically getting credit for someone else's work? Why?
83587
they are different individuals and different crafts. it is not the singer's fault that the songwriter can't sing his own songs nicely!
260396
A good song always starts with a poem.Why dont you try singing out those poem you wrote and come up with a good tune then sing it to him,for a change...if you can't sing,then let somebody else sing it for you...POETS ARE CREATIVE..be one..
698675
I know what you mean, I am a singer as well. Sometimes I feel like that too. I am happy that you have thought about it though, because that means you are aware of it. Some people fall in the trap of thinking that they did something. But anything good in this world comes from it's creator. God bless you and I hope the Lord uses you in magnificent ways!
1170929
I've read several articles pertaining to the song, and there is absolutely NO mention of McGraw doing the backing vocals. I can provide the links to the articles...but in my opinion, had he taken part in recording this song, it most certainly would be mentioned in EVERYTHING published about it.
41100
Usually the artists don't make nearly as much money as the rest of the distribution chain. Take for instance a singer who signs a recording contract with a big record company. Do they even own the copyright on their work? When an album is sold for $15-20, only a buck or two goes to the artist. The rest goes to the record label, the distributor, the retailer, etc.
900573
I think they would just cause they may not sing very well on there own, they can start a band and have someone stand beside them and sing, it may help carry there voice to where it needs to go, or even just a back up singer for someone with a greater voice, I think anything is possible!
918589
No.\n\nFirst of all calling it stealing is a misnomer.  It is negative spin put out by the recording industry.  Stealing is when you take something from someone, and deprive them of it.  If you download some music that you were not going to buy anyway, you have not cost the artist anything.\n\nLet me give you an example.  In 2003, I wanted to make a dance mix for my car.  I used some software called Mixmeister to produce a beat mix recording.  I downloaded a bunch of music that I used to listen to, and used some of it to make a mix for my personal amusement.  If I had purchased every song I downloaded it would have probably cost me $500 or so.  Often I would download tracks that I thought was the right one, only to find it was not.  Some of the tracks I already owned.\n\nIf downloading was not an option, I would never have even attempted to make this mix for myself.  So did my mix CD cost the recording industry anything?  No.  Of course not.  But technically, I broke the law and stole from them.\n\nLet me give you another example.  When Eminem first came out I heard one of his songs on MTV.  I then downloaded a bunch of his other music to see if I liked it.  I liked it and ended up buying several DVDs and every album he released.\n\nIn another example I used to use an illegal download site that is now closed.  It had a facility to suggest songs I might like.  Since I  had downloaded some Radiohead it suggested a band I had never heard called Muse.  I later went on to purchase three Muse albums and some additional Radiohead.  I would never have even known about Muse, were it not for this download site.\n\nWhen it comes to downloading the reality is that record companies are out of touch and unwilling to get behind new technology.  If they had been looking out for fans rather than their personal greed, they would have cashed in on the whole Internet downloading thing years earlier.\n\nLet us also not forget the reality here.  You talk about the poor artists losing money.  But that is just a line put out by record companies.  If you download a song, you are not hurting anyone.  The only time you are hurting an artist or a record company is if you ONLY download stuff and never buy it.  If everyone did this, there would be a problem.  But most people I know who download, always buy the CD or DVD if it is good.
509581
Do you mean the song?  It's an unattributed folk song.  No one knows who wrote it.
316861
The artists have to sign a contract with iTunes, and some (well, more like a lot) of artists have not done that.  Many songs are not in the iTunes MusicStore because the artists have not OK'ed it.
276089
People who purposely sing songs incorrectly....like in a stupid voice, mocking the song, twisting the lyrics. It's funny when Weird Al does it, but most people just aren't Weird Al.
665447
Well, before you respect her, one important question is.... You really believe that she can write the songs? She know how to play music instrument? I bet that she even don't know what is C major. She just pay for the name who write the songs, that's it. \n\nWake up, what she get only is her perfect artifical 36DD chest.
407902
Some people may have talent, but that does not help with personal problems or arrogance.\n\nSome rock stars kill themselves, even if by accident.  Some do not, but get away with some might crazy things.
297022
They write the majority of them. \n\nThey also wrote Gretchen Wilson's "I'm Here For The Party".
1045584
Depends on contracts and/or artist preferances, especially in the case of soundtracks. Some songs might not be on compilation albums because owned by another label who choose not to participate.
325271
Sometimes I give people things that I can, in turn, use myself. For instance, if I give a friend a fantastically cute shirt I usually give it to them on a condition: that I can borrow it. However, I don't usually let anyone borrow my things. I want credit for my cute and unique clothing, I don't want someone else to get the credit.\n\nThis isn't answering your question, only furthering my belief that there is something wrong with me...
899906
No. A creative work is "automatically" copyrighted when it is "fixed in a tangible medium."  Thus, when I write this message post, I own the copyright (not counting, of course, the permissions I give Yahoo to modify, delete, or use my words as part of the user agreement).  Similarly, when Cute recorded those recordings, they were automatically copyrighted--but instead of a record label owning them (what usually happens when an artist signs with a label) they themselves own them.  Making an unauthorized copy would violate their copyrights in the work.  Now, since it's unlikely that they've registered the recordings, their damages would be limited to "actual damages" incurred by your copying plus any profits you gained through the use of the recordings.  Since they don't have a label and, as you say, don't intend on releasing the recordings, their "actual damages" would be slim to none, and if you don't use the recordings for profit, your profit would be none.  That doesn't make it legal; that just makes it really not worth it to prosecute.  (This all changes if they have registered the recordings--then they can sue for "statutory damages" just like the big-name record companies.)\nLong and short is that you don't have to have a registration for something to be copyrighted--it happens automatically.  Registration provides additional rights and remedies, but don't assume something's not copyrighted just because it's not released or published.\n(However, you might try to track down the band members or a publicist and just see if they've given permission for the music to be disseminated. Then you'd have an explicit or implied license to download.)
460044
I liked her a few of the songs on her solo album so I wouldn't mind if she made another. however,  I love the music that No Doubt makes and think they should stick together even if she does do another solo album.  Why can't she do both?