Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:

Jorge wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:BOB had a heavy hand in several songs as well

As a co-writer?

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.

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.

He can get paid streaming royalties perfectly fine without having his name in the liner notes though. So it feels more intentional than that.

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.

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.

Interesting. Seems silly to me, but makes sense from the producer's perspective. It looks like he is credited on everything on both Earthling and Dark Matter. On Hackney Diamonds (Rolling Stones), he is only credited on a few songs. Maybe Mick and Keith weren't up for negotiating.

Really enjoying reading this conversation today.

Kevin Davis wrote:Personally I'm way more bothered by the sound of the record than I am by the writing credits.

I'm bothered by both but I can be much more forgiving of a good record suffering from poor production (Pearl Jam's S/T album, for example).

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.

They've both spoken publicly in some detail about how they approached producing the band.

I get the sense Brendan makes suggestions about arrangement (e.g. shortening a guitar intro, changing a song's key, playing a part with a different approach) and occasionally adds musical embellishment where he feels it would compliment the song (e.g. adding a supporting keyboard part). There's still a very clear delineation between artist and producer.

Watt's approach seems more deeply involved and less traditional. You record in his studio, you can't bring your own gear, you can't write any songs before you arrive. When you do begin writing, he's an equal part of that process. The band are even building songs around riffs he's brought in. He deserves the writing credit in that scenario but it definitely seems very unlike anything they've done before.

I can't remember how he phrased it but when Mike was recently on that unbearable podcast to discuss the Mad Season reissue, he mentioned working with Watt as an outside writer having been a very new experience for the band.

tragabigzanda wrote:pearl jam sucks now

This whole period (Wotman, Klinghoffer, digital amps, etc.) has legitimately dimmed my respect for them a bit.

tragabigzanda wrote: I'm not trying to be pedantic for its own sake; I'm arguing that the placement of his name on the album art and promotional material feels like such a weirdly unnecessary move that Wotman's representation probably had to negotiate for; and which serves no clear monetary value. Ergo, either his songwriting contributions were so atypically disproportionate that the band was obligated to list his name, or that they felt he really had a hand in writing the majority of material and offered to list his name as a show of respect/appreciation/support/whatever. Which, for guys like me and spenno, really makes an already crappy pearl jam album feel even crappier.

Ah yes I see. I did think the big marketing push around Watt working with them was a little weird too. It seemed a huge focus of the album's promotional campaign

When did Andrew Watt become the Elon Musk of Pearl Jam?

Would you say that bringing Watt on board represents the band's "key party" stage of their relationship?

This thread is weird now

Just wait until they announce they're back in the studio with him

Birds in Hell wrote:Watt's approach seems more deeply involved and less traditional. You record in his studio, you can't bring your own gear, you can't write any songs before you arrive.

Really? If true that’s more head turning to me than anything else.

Matters wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:Watt's approach seems more deeply involved and less traditional. You record in his studio, you can't bring your own gear, you can't write any songs before you arrive.

Really? If true that’s more head turning to me than anything else.

That cant be right given the story behind Stevie which was before (?) the DM sessions. I think.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Matters wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:Watt's approach seems more deeply involved and less traditional. You record in his studio, you can't bring your own gear, you can't write any songs before you arrive.

Really? If true that’s more head turning to me than anything else.

That cant be right given the story behind Stevie which was before (?) the DM sessions. I think.

It’s true, it’s been widely reported. The Stevie session was like at an Earthlings gig I think?

Correct, WFS was a holdover from the Earthling sessions.

Birds in Hell wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:Personally I'm way more bothered by the sound of the record than I am by the writing credits.

I'm bothered by both but I can be much more forgiving of a good record suffering from poor production (Pearl Jam's S/T album, for example)..

I hear you. I think I’d feel much more strongly about Watt sharing writing credits if I felt like it was pulling them out of some golden creative period.

whatever they did differently, i would love more of it.