Downloads are old hat, increasingly replaced by streaming, such as what happens on here every Friday. http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/03/31/streaming-music-vs-downloading-2015/ and for the UK http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/03/31/streaming-music-vs-downloading-2015/
So how much do Youtube pay to Bob Dylan for the plays of Rod's version of Only A Hobo? If it was played on a jukebox or the radio he'd receive payment. He'd receive a payment because Rod sang Forever Young at the KC. It is one of the reasons why there is less money for the development of new talent.
Youtube (and Spotify and all the other streaming sites) do pay a fee for every time something is viewed, but they don't announce how much it is, so I've no idea.
I have no idea if bigger stars get more, but there's plenty of grumbling from performers about the peanuts they receive from on-line sites. Seemingly, they get more from adverts linked to the song. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/seven-ways-musicians-make-money-off-youtube-20130919 http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2015/01/28/songs-got-151781-plays-youtube-received-10/
Its one of the reasons Taylor Swift removed her back catalogue from Spotify. Adele just sells cds. If your songs are streamed you don't automatically receive royalties. If you buy either a cd or a digital download to your I-phone or pc royalties are paid. A multi-million pound seller can attract huge amounts of money in royalties. Spotify just divides up the plays against its income. It doesn't count free plays by people like me who don't pay the subscription so the artist and record company doesn't get paid. If I went to see Rod Stewart because I knew he would be singing Having a Party Allan Klein the owner of the copyright would be some money because its a public performance. If I found a pub with it on the jukebox and played it, even if the jukebox was free, Allan Klein would get a cut. If I came home and put Sam Cooke's version up on Spotify Allan Klein would get nowt. The same if I played it on Youtube unless it was the one on an official artist site. Millions of pounds have been taken out of the recording industry which is why it is more difficult for artists to get a start.
You'll have Castro after you. The original was by Etta James, I think. If I'm wrong he'll be after me as well.
It was. Peter Green, my favourite guitarist, was not in Chicken Shack, their guitarist was the very good Stan Webb. The original female vocalist for Chicken Shack, Christine Perfect who later married John McVie played piano and did back up vocals on some Peter Green Fleetwood Mac tracks before later joining them after he had left. Although I am a big fan of Etta James I prefer the Chicken Shack version, one of the best British blues records.
I'm with you on this one CC - Etta James has the most beautiful, soulful voice but, imo, Chrissie McVie's voice was far more suited to I'd Rather Go Blind than hers. Good to see you back (and on form) btw.
I'm with you there ...plus Jeremy Spencer added a lot to one of the best ( no, the best) bands I've ever seen...Kirwin weren't too bad either... Greeny replaced Clapton in The Bluesbreakers (John Mayall's)...I know you know this Castro...but to round out the genesis... sod it...I'll throw this in too...
My own favourite (along with the 6 minute version of Need Your Love So Bad which was released as a single in America)is this.
Maybe it was but I remember it being a classic when sang and played by Pete Green, which is good enough for me because I went out and bought it. Rod did a decent job on it too despite being old, having no voice and only playing to 'old people'. I also have the track by Chicken Shack on vinyl and in CD form on my very expensive Sound Leisure Juke Box of which only 800 were ever made. So despite being old I still know and value good music when I hear it and I don't see much in the charts today to get even remotely close to it.
