Yeah. My understanding is that Watt could get paid through streaming royalties or producer points without being credited as a songwriter, like you said -- but that only covers the recording (the master), not the composition itself.tragabigzanda wrote:He can get paid streaming royalties perfectly fine without having his name in the liner notes though. So it feels more intentional than that.Jorge wrote:One thing to consider is that Watt belongs to a new generation of producers, and nowadays it's become much more common for producers to negotiate for songwriting credit as part of compensation (this entitles them to a share of publishing royalties). Perhaps Watt's contributions aren't too dissimilar from BO'B's and they're just approaching the credit differently.Monkey_Driven wrote:I'm not as familiar with the recording/producing process as many others here, but doesn't the crediting of songs come down to the individuals involved? Like, maybe BOB didn't want to be named? I just want to figure out who to blame for that god awful intro to Future Days.Kevin Davis wrote:As a co-writer?Monkey_Driven wrote:BOB had a heavy hand in several songs as well
By being listed as a co-writer, he becomes entitled to a share of the publishing royalties, which is a whole separate, and often more lucrative, income stream. That includes money from radio play, sync licensing (TV, ads, movies), covers, live performances, etc. If someone covers “Wreckage” ten years from now, Watt only gets paid if he's credited as a co-writer.
This is just my interpretation based on a few conversations I’ve had, so I could be wrong. But from what I understand, publishing royalties are what many producers try to negotiate for these days because they’re recurring, global, and can end up being more lucrative long-term than the upfront fee or streaming cut.
