Re: Eno and Lanois writing credits

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

JOFO

Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Joined
Dec 2, 2000
Messages
4,422
Re: Eno and Lanois writing credits

It's no secret that Eno and Lanois had a hand in the writing process this time around. In fact, the band made that clear when they began in Fez. They also made clear that none of the material from the previous Rick Rubin session made it to the album.
Here's the question: does this scenario lean towards
1) Eno and Lanois contributions to NLOTH were much more pronounced in terms of song ideas, creation of songs, chord changes, melodies, arrangements, and production as well. This was a first with them regarding working with U2.
2) Eno and Lanois contributed ideas the same way they had on such albums as UF, JT, AB, and ATYCB, but this time decided, or U2 decided, that they would receive real credit for what they brought to the table. There was a disagreement between Eno and U2 regarding his contributions to ATYCLB.

I think the theory could go either way. However, if it is indeed theory 2, does that mean that in effect Eno and Lanois have either always been "members" of u2, or that from this point on, they will be, at least in terms of writing in the studio.
Have we seen the last of "Words: Bono, Music:U2"?
 
Well, they've certainly helped to "write" songs through production. Everyone knows that the songs morph through editing and different approaches. I guess U2 just wanted them on the ground floor this time around for a more organic approach.

It will be interesting what will happen after this tour and the Songs of Ascent record.
 
It seems to me that, since Eno and Lanois actually play instruments and sing on the previous albums and don't just adjust nobs on a recording panel, it's pretty likely they had very close to such a role on previous albums.

Good question, though. I'd like to know the answer. There were rumors of Eno being upset at not having received credit in the past. Was that ever confirmed?
 
I think the difference this time around is that Eno and Lanois were invited to Fez during the initial writing sessions without any set plan for an album.

In other words they were there from stage 1 rather than coming in at stage 2 or 3.

I think Eno and Lanois probably always had a suggestion as to where the song should go or do, but U2 always had the original sketch, this time they allowed the two of them got to be involved in the sketching process.
 
It's pretty curious that Eno made such a big deal of the credits last time around.
I don't know if we could ever know how heavily involved they truly were for UF, TJT, Achtung or ATYCLB but I think U2 trusts them highly and their impact was probably hard to measure in any real respect.

I think perhaps it was as simple as, having some more cash makes life a little easier, all around (motivation and sheer 'credit due'). And if these studio sessions with E/L are as laborious (and fruitful) as they seem, then perhaps they just wanted to make it more worth their while. That's totally understandable IMO.

I hate to be a semantical ass (I usually am), but I'd chose somewhere in between 1 and 2.
 
There were rumors of Eno being upset at not having received credit in the past. Was that ever confirmed?


I know there was thread about it here a few months back maybe. I think there was sour grapes on Eno's part but eventually it was resolved.
 
I don't know if we could ever know how heavily involved they truly were for UF, TJT, Achtung or ATYCLB but I think U2 trusts them highly and their impact was probably hard to measure in any real respect.

True.
I have been thinking lately, however, about the UF doc, the JT classic albums doc, and the U2 at the end of the world book.
These things offer glimpses, however slim, at what these 2 might be doing with the band.
I think there's a pretty huge step between War and UF, and I'm wondering how much these guys are responsible for that.

BTW, after listening to NLOTH for over a month now, I'm of the opinion that while superior to Bomb and ATYCLB, there's not a tremendous amount of sonic difference between all three. So to me that sort of counter balances how much weight Eno/Lanois' contributions might have been.
 
I think I'll never really understand how this band 'works' both internally and with their collaborators

especially the band's relationship with Eno baffles me
it's a bit like 2 children fighting for each other's attention
sulking and all

always seemed to me that with All that you can't ..... Eno finally got committed to the project the way U2 always wanted him too
and Eno must have felt a bit disappointed that this involvement didn't get credited more

don't think we'll ever really know though
 
1)

The credits on U2's albums always say "Lanois: guitar" or "Eno: keyboards and programming" but this was the first time they've been co-writing the songs.
 
If you listen to Apollo, which Eno recorded with Lanois in 1983, you can definitely hear an incredibly obvious sonic link to The Unforgettable Fire. I'd say that the influence that Eno and Lanois had on UF can't be overstated.
 
If you listen to Apollo, which Eno recorded with Lanois in 1983, you can definitely hear an incredibly obvious sonic link to The Unforgettable Fire. I'd say that the influence that Eno and Lanois had on UF can't be overstated.

Yeah, I'm in agreement.
It would be interesting to hear any demos of the tunes on UF before the studio versions.
Then again, I have the feeling most of those tunes were written in the studio.
 
I don't know either but it's cool to watch this if you haven't seen it in awhile:

YouTube - U2 - Unforgettable Fire (documentary) pt 1

Incredible that in the first 2 minutes Bono plays a pretty cool guitar riff, plays some bass, sings Pride, and gives a nice message about songwriting. Plus, he looks so great.

That's before we even see any of the other 3.
 
that's one hell of a mullet. but pretty cool. funny to me what he says about MLK still sounds like something he would say today.
 
In general, I've never been clear exactly where the line is between mere "producing" and actual "songwriting." How much advice or input can a producer have on the final version of a song before he should be credited as a "co-writer" rather than simply a "producer?" I dunno...I've never been in a studio or seen a record made close-up.

Obviously there was something different in their relationship this time around that led to Eno and Lanois being credited as songwriters rather than simply producers. Given how long they've all worked together in so many different ways over the years, I'm not sure the songwriting credit really matters or makes a difference in terms of the final album result.

In terms of money though, it matters a whole lot to Eno and Lanois, because as songwriters they'll be entitled to a share of the publishing royalties, rather than merely their production fees (I'm assuming producers typically just get an agreed fee for their work. Or do they normally get a royalty percentage too? Of course, in any particular case, producers and artists could negotiate whatever payment arrangements are agreeable to both parties, so maybe there isn't a simple "standard" producer/artist-relationship model).
 
In general, I've never been clear exactly where the line is between mere "producing" and actual "songwriting." How much advice or input can a producer have on the final version of a song before he should be credited as a "co-writer" rather than simply a "producer?" I dunno...I've never been in a studio or seen a record made close-up.


In terms of money though, it matters a whole lot to Eno and Lanois, because as songwriters they'll be entitled to a share of the publishing royalties, rather than merely their production fees (I'm assuming producers typically just get an agreed fee for their work. Or do they normally get a royalty percentage too? Of course, in any particular case, producers and artists could negotiate whatever payment arrangements are agreeable to both parties, so maybe there isn't a simple "standard" producer/artist-relationship model).

I can only offer my experience in the music buisness as both a musician and a producer:
-A producer can do alot to a song; come up with the groove, basslines, suggest chord changes, suggest melody inflections, do the keyboard/extra guitar parts, mix the thing, get the sounds for various instruments, etc., and still not be credited as a writer.
If a singer/songwriter or band comes into the studio, as long as they've got a lyric with a melody, and some chord changes, they are credited as being the writers of the song. Even if the initial version of said song winds up drastically different in the end product.
-Producers do not get royalties; there is a set fee agreed upon at the outset of a project, as well as a timeframe. If the album sells 2 copies or 2 million copies, it matters not in terms of money to the producer.
-Does it matter to Eno/Lanois this time around to get writing credits for monetary purposes? If U2 licenses some songs for commericals or what not, then yeah, it matter a whole lot, in terms of millions.
 
even better than the real thing :wave:

qs1ev5.jpg


Was able to grace Slane during the summer of '07 while based in Glasgow flying a summer contract for Thomas Cook. Definitely one of the highlights of the summer for this yankee...a big thanks to the tour guide for the extra time!

288z0is.jpg
 
I can only offer my experience in the music buisness as both a musician and a producer:
-A producer can do alot to a song; come up with the groove, basslines, suggest chord changes, suggest melody inflections, do the keyboard/extra guitar parts, mix the thing, get the sounds for various instruments, etc., and still not be credited as a writer.
If a singer/songwriter or band comes into the studio, as long as they've got a lyric with a melody, and some chord changes, they are credited as being the writers of the song. Even if the initial version of said song winds up drastically different in the end product.
-Producers do not get royalties; there is a set fee agreed upon at the outset of a project, as well as a timeframe. If the album sells 2 copies or 2 million copies, it matters not in terms of money to the producer.
-Does it matter to Eno/Lanois this time around to get writing credits for monetary purposes? If U2 licenses some songs for commericals or what not, then yeah, it matter a whole lot, in terms of millions.

Some producers do negotiate points (a percentage) with the label.
 
Some producers do negotiate points (a percentage) with the label.


Right; with the label, sometimes. Rick Rubin and the like would, and it paid off in his work with the Chili Peppers.
Most times, this is not the case, especially with bands that are not mega stars like RHCP, U2, Metallica, etc.
So did Eno Lanois get a deal with label? I can't answer that.
 
I can only offer my experience in the music buisness as both a musician and a producer...Does it matter to Eno/Lanois this time around to get writing credits for monetary purposes? If U2 licenses some songs for commericals or what not, then yeah, it matter a whole lot, in terms of millions.


Interesting feedback on everything - thanks for taking the time. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about "if they license some songs for commercials,", etc., it will matter that Eno and Lanois were credited with songwriting. If producers typically get a set fee at the outset for a project, as you said above is normally the case, and thus producer income is not normally tied to album sales, then getting songwriting credits will be a benefit to them in terms of songwriting royalties regardless whether the songs are "licensed to commercials," or not, right? They will be getting not only their "producer" fee, but also a percentage of the publishing fee for the songwriter royalties based on the album sales. Thus, it's not just "licensing songs for commercials" that is the issue, but any and all royalties that would go to the "songwriter(s)." Perhaps I'm not understanding it all correctly...I'm not in the music industry, but I am a lawyer (unfortunately!), so I'm just trying to apply my knowledge of contracts here...

Of course, we're all just guessing based on assumptions about typical contracts in the industry. None of us, I presume, has inside info as to the precise contractual fee and royalty arrangements between U2 and Eno/Lanois, or the record label?
 
even better than the real thing :wave:

qs1ev5.jpg


Was able to grace Slane during the summer of '07 while based in Glasgow flying a summer contract for Thomas Cook. Definitely one of the highlights of the summer for this yankee...a big thanks to the tour guide for the extra time!

288z0is.jpg

I wish I owned a sweet castle. :(
 
Interesting feedback on everything - thanks for taking the time. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about "if they license some songs for commercials,", etc., it will matter that Eno and Lanois were credited with songwriting. If producers typically get a set fee at the outset for a project, as you said above is normally the case, and thus producer income is not normally tied to album sales, then getting songwriting credits will be a benefit to them in terms of songwriting royalties regardless whether the songs are "licensed to commercials," or not, right? They will be getting not only their "producer" fee, but also a percentage of the publishing fee for the songwriter royalties based on the album sales. Thus, it's not just "licensing songs for commercials" that is the issue, but any and all royalties that would go to the "songwriter(s)." Perhaps I'm not understanding it all correctly...I'm not in the music industry, but I am a lawyer (unfortunately!), so I'm just trying to apply my knowledge of contracts here...

Of course, we're all just guessing based on assumptions about typical contracts in the industry. None of us, I presume, has inside info as to the precise contractual fee and royalty arrangements between U2 and Eno/Lanois, or the record label?



If the writer of a song licenses it usage for a commerical, it means big royalties to them every time that commercial is shown.
Remember several years back when Sting released "Desert Rose" and initially, it flopped, but a month or 2 later he gave it to Jaguar to use in the commercial, and the next thing you know, it became Sting's biggest hit in his solo career. Sting made millions from that commercial.
U2 has already given Boots to the NFL for use in that commercial; if Eno/Lanois are credited as co-writers, they are seeing a check every time that commercial is shown.
This is an essential point to my whole question: we know Eno got pissed with ATYCLB, not receiving enough credit, i.e., a writers credit. At this point, Eno/Lanois may have said "We'd like a piece of the pie also".
 
Paul McGuiness stated in U2 by U2 that Eno and Lanois have always contributed to the creation of songs but were never credit with songwriting because their contributions were considered in the percentage they negotiated as producers. From other comments over the years it seems to me that Eno/Lanois were always paid on a percentage basis which makes sense from U2's perspective because giving a percentage rather than a flat fee gives the person a better investment in the project. You also have to remember that U2 always did things differently than what was considered the norm for the industry. Even in the beginning they choose their producers. They asked for Lillywhite after Martin Hannett backed out but I get the feeling that they would have pushed for someone other than Hannett anyway because they didn't seem to click well in the studio from everything I've read. They were the ones that wanted Eno and Chris Blackwell actually tried to talk them out of it. They have always insisted on complete control in the studio. According to McGuinness the contributions Eno made on ATYCLB were really no different from on previous albums. I got the feeling that since that was the first one that Eno worked on after the Passengers project that he may have assumed that he would get writing credit. He also said it wasn't about the money aspect it was about seeing his name there. I think Passengers changed the game in Eno's eyes but the band didn't see it that way and there was probably a lack of communication about it all. Eno has also commented that he didn't talk money up front because he felt that colored one's contributions so there is also the possibility that percentages and credits were negotiated after completion. Lanois has said recently in interviews that there really wasn't all that much difference in what they did this time compared to before except that being formally asked in as collaborators gave them more of a feeling of being part of the band although he also said that the band still had final say on things.

Dana
 
If the writer of a song licenses it usage for a commerical, it means big royalties to them every time that commercial is shown.
Remember several years back when Sting released "Desert Rose" and initially, it flopped, but a month or 2 later he gave it to Jaguar to use in the commercial, and the next thing you know, it became Sting's biggest hit in his solo career. Sting made millions from that commercial.
U2 has already given Boots to the NFL for use in that commercial; if Eno/Lanois are credited as co-writers, they are seeing a check every time that commercial is shown.
This is an essential point to my whole question: we know Eno got pissed with ATYCLB, not receiving enough credit, i.e., a writers credit. At this point, Eno/Lanois may have said "We'd like a piece of the pie also".


I realize they stand to make even MORE money than usual if a song does well as a single or is used for commercial purposes, my point was just that even absent a song being used in a commercial, they will get a percentage of the songwriting royalty from album sales too that would otherwise have just gone to the band, rather than simply their producer's fee. Whether a song is used in a commercial or not, Eno/Lanois will make more money from the album than they typically would if just credited as producers.
 
I realize they stand to make even MORE money than usual if a song does well as a single or is used for commercial purposes, my point was just that even absent a song being used in a commercial, they will get a percentage of the songwriting royalty from album sales too that would otherwise have just gone to the band, rather than simply their producer's fee. Whether a song is used in a commercial or not, Eno/Lanois will make more money from the album than they typically would if just credited as producers.

Oh of course; sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

Agreed.
 
Paul McGuiness stated in U2 by U2 that Eno and Lanois have always contributed to the creation of songs but were never credit with songwriting because their contributions were considered in the percentage they negotiated as producers.
According to McGuinness the contributions Eno made on ATYCLB were really no different from on previous albums.
Lanois has said recently in interviews that there really wasn't all that much difference in what they did this time compared to before except that being formally asked in as collaborators gave them more of a feeling of being part of the band although he also said that the band still had final say on things.


This is what I'm thinking; the Eno/Lanois contribution this time around, while having been labeled differently, and maybe they were there during the actual first steps of writing, is different, in the end it amounts to the same thing as usual.
Which can be interpreted one of two ways....
 
Well, White Castle is always looking for new franchise owners. :hmm:

mmmmmmm....White Castle :drool: (especially at about 3 or 4 AM after a few beers!)

I am from the hometown of White Castle by the way, Louisville, KY (and KY is also the home state of Dallas Schoo! Woo hoo!). And yes...White Castle Fries do only come in one size! :))
 
Back
Top Bottom