Latest on MJJC

A Letter from Bryan Loren

AlwaysThere said:
So if I wrote "Bohemian Rhapsody" with Freddie Mercury -- a fifty-fifty collaboration on the music and lyrics -- but he recorded the demo without my assistance, I would only get an arrangement or production credit???? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, that logic makes no sense. If you contributed chords or a principal melody, you wrote the song. No question.
Click to expand...

Go album by album in their discography. All albums since Queen in 1973 until A Kind of Magic in 1986 had one credited writer per song in 99% of the cases. It was not until they found out Freddie is dying that they changed that policy and started all sharing the royalties no matter who wrote what and they were credited on all songs as Queen. The Miracle in 1989 was the first album where they were credited as Queen on all songs. Go watch the documentary where Brian May is talking about that. And it was Freddie's idea. Who comes up with the song's idea (demo) will be credited as a sole writer because Freddie considered it to be HIS song and not a collaboration with the band, even though they wrote guitar solos, some other instrumental parts, etc.

What I mean is that Greg P. in my opinion didn't deserve writing credits on DSTYGE, Teddy on Dangerous and SPYHO (and some others on some other songs)... just like Eddie Van Halen didn't receive it on Beat It, Slash on Give In To Me, etc. Also in my opinion Bill Bottrell shouldn't be credited on Black Or White just for writing that intro part.

Collaborations are of course entirely different thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_discography
 
This is a really interesting debate. Has been a good read!
 
OnirMJ;4219987 said:
Go album by album in their discography. All albums since Queen in 1973 until A Kind of Magic in 1986 had one credited writer per song in 99% of the cases. It was not until they found out Freddie is dying that they changed that policy and started all sharing the royalties no matter who wrote what and they were credited on all songs as Queen. The Miracle in 1989 was the first album where they were credited as Queen on all songs. Go watch the documentary where Brian May is talking about that. And it was Freddie's idea. Who comes up with the song's idea (demo) will be credited as a sole writer because Freddie considered it to be HIS song and not a collaboration with the band, even though they wrote guitar solos, some other instrumental parts, etc.

What I mean is that Greg P. in my opinion didn't deserve writing credits on DSTYGE, Teddy on Dangerous and SPYHO (and some others on some other songs)... just like Eddie Van Halen didn't receive it on Beat It, Slash on Give In To Me, etc. Also in my opinion Bill Bottrell shouldn't be credited on Black Or White just for writing that intro part.
Click to expand...

That being the case, I find their post-1989 philosophy to be completely absurd. Where is the logic in four people earning money and praise for work one or two of them may have done? I'm willing to wager that May/Deacon/Taylor all agreed to Freddie's idea because they knew he wrote the group's best songs — imagine the money made from "Bohemian Rhapsody" alone. In any case, I lost respect for all of those men. Whoever wrote the song should receive the credit and the royalties. But I digress, as I'm not entirely sure how this correlates with the debate at hand.

Contributing a guitar solo isn't in nearly the same class as contributing necessary elements to a song (chords, lyrics, melody).

Greg Phillinganes created the bridge for "Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough" alone and from scratch. Teddy Riley helped recreate "Someone Put Your Hand Out" melodically and structurally. Bill Bottrell wrote and performed the rap on "Black or White." For these things, they all deserve co-writers credit. That's what's fair, and that's what's just.

Also, as I don't think this this has been addressed yet: obtaining co-writers credit DOES NOT MEAN that songwriting/publishing royalties are divided evenly. The legal teams for the responsible writers discuss what they consider to be fair. If Greg Phillinganes, for example, was granted credit for "Don't Stop," the money wouldn't be split 50/50. Depending on what Greg and the Estate/Sony decided, it could range anywhere from 70/30 to 95/5.
 
By the way, Bryan Loren is asking people to use "family & friends" for PayPal for those so-called "donations" - this is as a matter of facts a case of tax fraud since what he promotes is arranged for sustainability and does not classify as a donation at all but taxable income instead.
 
^^ It's probably to avoid commision – he'd have to pay taxes anyway no matter if "family & friends" is used or not. He simply wants to receive 100% instead of giving 1.9% commision to PayPal (which would be the case when not using "family & friends" option).
 
Family and friends is common for 'help me avoid PayPal fees'. The donators are also screwed and can't get their money back as far as I'm aware.
 
^ Correct.

There are no taxes for "family & friends" because that option is really meant to send financial "gifts" / aid to your family, relatives and RL friends only (not "internet friends"). However that option is highly misused, of course. In the USA there's a lifetime limit (most people won't even reach it) to avoid people sending millions of tax-burdened money to someone else. But if you're not reaching that, it's tax-free.

The money received via "family & friends" is only allocated to your income if - eg the IRS in the USA - finds out that the option was misused.
 
I would donate something anyway to help out for the songs we have now. $10 or $20 isn't going to hurt for several years of enjoyment of these leaked songs.
 
AlwaysThere said:
Greg Phillinganes created the bridge for "Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough" alone and from scratch. Teddy Riley helped recreate "Someone Put Your Hand Out" melodically and structurally. Bill Bottrell wrote and performed the rap on "Black or White." For these things, they all deserve co-writers credit. That's what's fair, and that's what's just.
Click to expand...

He did it alone? You're sure?

The type of rap, like the one on Black or White, is on par with a guitar solo for me. It's somewhat extraneous. Indeed on many radio edits it was replaced by an instrumental section.
 
Re: Paypal

I might be wrong (regarding how it's handled in the USA), but as far as I know (from using Paypal for a German business as well as having a private account), the "friends & family" option has nothing to do with taxes.

Taxes you pay if you have any income from whatever source and a certain threshold is reached. But that's the concern of your tax office not Paypals.

What I think Paypals "friends & family" mode is about, is that the receiver does not get transaction fees subtracted, and that there is no protection service for the buyer (you can't get refunds). So it's basicly for paying people you trust.
 
If you or your buyer use "family and friends" even though the transaction is for a commercial OR private sale, it's fraud.

People misusing this function - because chances are high that it remains unnoticed in most cases - does not make it legal in any way.

It has indeed very well to do with taxes - both in Germany and in the USA - because if you were to make a sale, you'll get taxable income (note: taxable does not exclude tax-free, eg if your business is unsustainable there'll be no taxes). But if you receive money via family and friends, it's NOT income because PayPal only implemented this for simple money transfers and NOT any business.

It's quite common to be misinterpreted and misused because many sellers - commercial and private - are using it to lower the price for their buyers but nonetheless it is against the law (also against PayPal's own GTCT).
 
ChrisC said:
He did it alone? You're sure?

The type of rap, like the one on Black or White, is on par with a guitar solo for me. It's somewhat extraneous. Indeed on many radio edits it was replaced by an instrumental section.
Click to expand...

Fair point. As far as Greg and Michael have indicated, the bridge was all Phillinganes.

I can get behind the idea that raps and instrumental solos are immaterial, though the final presented album version (i.e., the one every single consumer who picks up Dangerous will hear) includes it, so it's only fair that Bottrell is listed as having written it.
 
Korgnex said:
If you or your buyer use "family and friends" even though the transaction is for a commercial OR private sale, it's fraud.

People misusing this function - because chances are high that it remains unnoticed in most cases - does not make it legal in any way.

It has indeed very well to do with taxes - both in Germany and in the USA - because if you were to make a sale, you'll get taxable income (note: taxable does not exclude tax-free, eg if your business is unsustainable there'll be no taxes). But if you receive money via family and friends, it's NOT income because PayPal only implemented this for simple money transfers and NOT any business.

It's quite common to be misinterpreted and misused because many sellers - commercial and private - are using it to lower the price for their buyers but nonetheless it is against the law (also against PayPal's own GTCT).
Click to expand...

It's probably the wrong place here to discuss this in detail...
but I've had a look for any info on this from Paypal directly, but couldn't really find.

For me this rarely happens, because the big majority of invoices that are paid to me go through an online shop system (not ebay) that handles everything in Paypals commercial mode by default. I mean this in comparison:

A.) Invoice (incl. tax) is paid via Paypal in commercial mode. Paypal subtracts transaction fees. I report the invoice total as income and I report the Paypal transaction fees as expense.

B.) Invoice (incl. tax) is paid via Paypal in friends/family mode. Paypal subtracts no transaction fees. I report the income.

What's against the law with that?

And how is Paypal supposed to make transfers taxable or not taxable? They are a bank. They care about their transaction fees, not tax.

If Loren reports all those payments correctly to his tax-office, this should be perfectly legal, in whatever Paypal mode or other money transfer way it's getting sent to him. (Of course the legal question about him and the right to take money for these songs is a whole over topic.)

Anyway, I'm willing to learn if you have better info than that. :)
 
Last edited:
He won't be releasing anything. It's even worse he's taking donations for it. Doesn't seem legal at all and he should probably stop before someone contacts him, if they haven't already.
 
I don't think we will ever hear about this again...

He might have recieved some money - not much I expect - but he could never leak songs anyway...

So if we hear more it'll be something like -

"Glad people felt like I deserved to get paid for my work, but unfortunately I have been informed by The Estate and SONY that they will sue the hell out me if I leak anything, so unfortunately I wont be able to...."
 
This was a really interesting thread actually.

I think I will go ahead and say there is No monetary value in releasing music posthumously. It's never even charted well, Catalogue releases add nothing to MJs legacy, the posthumous stuff has not borne any number 1s on the US Charts, 100 or 200. Grammys are basically out of the question lol.

They (critics like Pitchfork and Rolling Stone) have never fairly reviewed the material (Michael was outright condemned, Xscape receives a lot of flack by reviewers and fans alike). They will always be looked at suspiciously.

You know what has made an impact? This Is It, Cirque De Soleil, the Musical. Hopefully the Biopic.

The Estate won't ever care about music as long as they are wanting money. It'll only probably be the kids who cosign projects about their father and his art.

But leaks probably make it easier for the Estate tbh. The fans still support their projects, and they have to devote no effort to releasing a concert/song/compilation, or anything lol.
 
Has anyone contacted BL regards his statement to release HQ songs?
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
This was a really interesting thread actually.

I think I will go ahead and say there is No monetary value in releasing music posthumously. It's never even charted well, Catalogue releases add nothing to MJs legacy, the posthumous stuff has not borne any number 1s on the US Charts, 100 or 200. Grammys are basically out of the question lol.

They (critics like Pitchfork and Rolling Stone) have never fairly reviewed the material (Michael was outright condemned, Xscape receives a lot of flack by reviewers and fans alike). They will always be looked at suspiciously.

You know what has made an impact? This Is It, Cirque De Soleil, the Musical. Hopefully the Biopic.

The Estate won't ever care about music as long as they are wanting money. It'll only probably be the kids who cosign projects about their father and his art.

But leaks probably make it easier for the Estate tbh. The fans still support their projects, and they have to devote no effort to releasing a concert/song/compilation, or anything lol.
Click to expand...
Also, can't forget the unbridled success of Michael Jackson the Experience. Pretty much I'll always give the estate a pass for that alone.
 
WOW...and wow backwards.

I have learned quite a bit about this entire deal with Loren's contributions to MJJ's work, and it's been something else. And to think, I kinda lucked up on this trying to figure out if he really made a transition to being named Bryanna, all stemming from what I believe to be a typo on an import pressing on his '92 solo CD "Music For The New World". It appeared that many MJ fans decided it must be true that he did, which can pass here in America given 'World' was never commercially released here; Japan was the only known place of release at the time. Incidentally, when I read that letter on his website (which is now no longer active, but he has IG and X pages), because I was able to snag a hi-quality copy of those tracks via P2P sites like Audiogalaxy, I paid him $20 for that, the newer music he released (like "Discreet"), and the fact that at least some of the Dangerous tracks ARE out here as commercial releases, so his claim that numerous bootlegged/unauthorized tracks exist that he, at any level of contributing at all, wasn't getting paid for, contract or none, sounds pretty valid to me. If you have heard any of his solo album material, which I'm sure in some way most of you have, you can tell his production style easily. MJJ likely kept some good stuff in his opinion, and Loren got back what he didn't want, some of which ended up on 'World'. Same with his involvement with Janet on "Rhythm Nation". I think he deserves to get paid for what the Estate has/won't release. I'm actually interested to know if Loren is/was the only one to contend anything like this to this extent. To reiterate, IMO, he has a valid claim...as for how he chose to go about it, that's between him and his god to handle.

(BTW, I have heard an interview with him through the MJJ archives about 3 years ago or so. He IS a bit of a pretentious pr1ck. Still, his first solo CD, self-titled, holds a place in my tier of inspirations as one of the first I've heard by someone at or near my age having been credited with nearly every facet of the recording at the time. He coulda been the same way then, too...doesn't change what the music means to me.)

Thanx again to all who have weighed in on this over the years. I truly learned a lot today.
 
bryanloren.com is down.


I always wanted to thank Bryan Loren for probably the most honest interview out of all MJ's collaborators. It takes guts to tell it like it is in front of an audience of loyal Michael Jackson fans. Fans who think Bryan is being negative for simply stating how he believes he was shortchanged.

079: Bryan Loren Special – The MJCast

www.themjcast.com www.themjcast.com

From 'Do the Bartman' to his contributions on various tracks he was not credited for, including the Black Or White rap! He also spilled the beans on Bill Bottrell and how he really felt about him.

As stated by some others above, I remember Bryan doing a lot of leaking himself. It's a shame this was not mentioned in the MJCast interview. It's possible that his own actions may have ruffled some feathers up in those ivory towers.

I think Bryan Loren's MJCast interview is an honest portrayal of what went down with a key collaborator who was not afraid to tell the public just how he felt about his time collaborating for MJ. I think a lot of MJ's collaborators were shortchanged, the only difference being Bryan was more forthright and honest (and brave) in his depictions, in front of so many MJ fans.
 
K, I read the letter and first of all, props to him for saying that to MJ fans. I could never. Anywho, back to my point, he said that he doesn't get a cent for his music. I get that. Some people are saying that it was Michael's fault for letting that happen and it's all Michael fault that Bryan is not getting his cash. Well maybe it wasn't Michael, but his estate or label. Because 1) That doesn't seem like something MJ would do to anyone and 2) most cases, the label or estate would do something like that (now, I'm not saying all labels and estates would do that but it was and is very likely they would) Hopefully I don't cause up any commotion over here. Just saying what I think and you can have a totally different opinion and that's totally fine : )
 
@mjfanatic777 said:
K, I read the letter and first of all, props to him for saying that to MJ fans. I could never. Anywho, back to my point, he said that he doesn't get a cent for his music. I get that. Some people are saying that it was Michael's fault for letting that happen and it's all Michael fault that Bryan is not getting his cash. Well maybe it wasn't Michael, but his estate or label. Because 1) That doesn't seem like something MJ would do to anyone and 2) most cases, the label or estate would do something like that (now, I'm not saying all labels and estates would do that but it was and is very likely they would) Hopefully I don't cause up any commotion over here. Just saying what I think and you can have a totally different opinion and that's totally fine : )
Click to expand...
Two words: Commercially viable. It's the death sentence of many a talent whose works never see the light of day in rotation, even after so much blood, sweat, tears, energy and money are poured into their dreams and aspirations. This is part of why I think the Estate will never release any of Loren's work specifically, even if he never called them out as he did. Someone there thinks his contributions aren't good enough to be included and, in turn, get him paid. They would rather see him continue to struggle for credibility than to recognize anything past what has been released. Call it a form of entertainment blackballing. MJ himself MIGHT have been that cold...but this sounds way bigger than him to me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top