"In the Year 2525 (Exordium and Terminus)" is a hit song from 1969 by the American pop-rock duo of Dennis Zager and Richard Evans. It reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 for six weeks commencing July 12, 1969. The song was written and composed by Rick Evans in 1964 and originally released on a small regional record label (Truth Records) in 1968. A year later, an Odessa, Texas, radio station popularized the disc, which RCA Records quickly picked up for nationwide distribution. "In the Year 2525" hit six weeks number one spot on the Hot 100 in 1969. Zager & Evans was a Lincoln, Nebraska, rock-pop duo of the late 1960s and early 1970s named after its two members, Denny Zager and Rick Evans. Zager and Evans met at Nebraska Wesleyan University, and they were joined by drummer Danny Schindler (later of the Benders) in the seminal Nebraska band the Eccentrics, until Schindler's tour of Vietnam in 1965. As Zager and Evans, the duo were backed by Mark Dalton, also a Nebraska native, on bass. Their first drummer, Paul Maher, was later replaced by another Nebraskan, Dave Trupp. Trupp and Dalton were also the rhythm section in the popular Liberation Blues Band and backed Evans on some solo demo material prior to Zager and Evans's recording of "In the Year 2525" in 1968. "In the Year 2525", with lyrics by Evans and music by Zager, warned of the dangers of technology, portraying a future in which the human race was destroyed by its own technological and medical innovations. The last stanza of the song suggests mankind undergoes a continuing cycle of birth, death and rebirth."
He said, " Hey, what's wrong with you? If you don't start walking, you're not going to find your mate. [Mutters under his breath, "Darn liberal Penguins, they always want us to 'do it' for them. All they're good for is sitting on the egg."]
Denny Zager did not write the music to "In the Year 2525." He wrote no part of it. "In the Year 2525 (Exordium & Terminus)" was written entirely, MUSIC & LYRICS, and is owned by Richard (Rick) S. Evans, U.S. 1968 #Eu-47617 and renewal: 1996 #RE0000730422. Verify: BMI.com (Broadcast Music, Inc.).
Mr. Evans, Thank you for showing up to point out YouTube's error. That's an error no one would be happy with, for sure. I would guess they copied that info from another source. I do wish you luck in getting to the bottom of the misinformation.
Btw, it's nice to meet you and congratulations on your creation. It's timeless. It could have been written today with the same ponderance and significance. In so many ways - cloning, robotics as examples, we seem to be headed where your song suggested; even your suggestion with "can woman survive" caused me to think about the increasing factors present that can cause infertility.
I hope you weren't at all offended that I also posted the remix version.
Hi John, you're absolutely right, YouTube info. contradicts itself. So does Wikipedia with their various "2525" presentations. There's a lot of misinformation out there, but at the same time, a lot of it is correct. Therefore, I suggest just going right to the LEGAL (correct) and bypass the confusion. So, if you'd like, try these two sources, (1) U.S. office and (2) BMI. Here's the procedure (1) enter URL www.copyright.gov/records/ Then of two panes choose the left, click Search the Catalog, enter (lower case) in the year 2525 (exordium & terminus), click "Begin Search", Boom! you're there. (2) enter URL www.bmi.com Then click "Search Site or Repertoire" (far top right), click "Search BMI.com (first line), enter just in the year 2525, click search, click Accept (song title page comes up, click the title (writer & publisher comes up, click my name (3 pages of 63 titles comes up, "2525" is pg. two. All titles recorded by Zager & Evans are in there, all written exclusively by me, and I sang lead on all of them. Actually, Zager didn't need to be there.
Hi Chloe: Yes, YouTube makes some errors, however I don't think they're much concerned with the authenticity of text data, much of which as you noted, comes from other sources such as Wikipedia which seems never to get everything right. Plus, I think YouTube mostly sucks up to uploaders which is understandable no material uploaded, no YouTube. So if someone sends a comment which may not seem to fit what the uploader was looking for, they block it. That happened with the video you included, I believe by Thaapa1 or something like that. I sent a comment much like the one I first sent replying to you. They didn't post it. Too much LEGAL, I suppose. Too scary, maybe. But I go easy on YouTube because every time a "2525" video is played there, I receive a royalty, not as an artist, but as writer/publisher. Zager doesn't receive a royalty, no "artists" or other players do. U.S. statutes exist to protect the intellectual property (creations) of the creative, not the players of the composition. Royalties come in worldwide and there have been over 60 covers of the song over time, many in foreign languages. If you're interested in some "LEGAL", scroll down a short ways to my reply to John Russell today and click away to visit BMI (Broadcast Music, Inc.) and the U.S. office.
If I may comment on your comment directed to John, and just to note, it just occurred to me there's a semantics error that a seeder could unintentionally use, that could lead to misinterpretation by some readers.
When you stated, "All titles recorded by Zager & Evans are in there, all written exclusively by me, " ---there it is - recorded by - opposed to composed by. It could be easy for some readers to read into a simple "by" to mean that those listed had something to do with 'all' components of the song, when they might not have.
Imo, it was appropriate to include mention of Zager because he does add his guitar music which adds strength and power to the sound, as well as interest, and he does add 'voice' in the first few words of each stanza, if that would be the correct term (I read and viewed that in your original performance video of the two of you).
Is this correct, if I may ask, was that the only recording of the 'two' of you? It appears you went on to record a handful or so of other songs, but spaced out over time, if correct.
Thank you, Richard. First, if the video I included as a remix violated copyright law in any way, then I would be more than happy to remove it from my article. Actually, the fact that they blocked your comment, is reason enough to do so. It was the incorporated video that inspired my inclusion, not as much their version of your song.
Thank you, too, on the royalties information received by the writer/publisher, and not by other players/producers. That seems as how it should be to me as well. It's the "intellectual property" - creation and innovation - that should most be rewarded. Also, you took the risk, not the supporters.
If I may digress for a sec -- that's a point that is also made with Capitalism that many refuse to acknowledge, and instead promote a socialistic view to spread the risk and consequences to everyone, even if they don't want 'someone else's risk/liability,'and want to promote a "you didn't build that" attitude so that they can 'steal' the royalties from the creator - as well as steal their 'glory.' You can see why I'm not an Obama and posse supporter. But anyway, I can see why his Admin. is also making changes to the copyright industry, as I understand it, loosening up the laws so that others can benefit from someone else's work (part of the TPP plans, I believe).
Yes, I did read your comment to John and replied. Thank you for mentioning it, though.
Chloe: Well, we're having some fun now. You have four paragraphs, so I'll comment on each: (1) What's a "seeder"? (2) The words "writer", "songwriter", and "composer" are all used to designate who (or what) wrote a song, although "composer" usually refers to full orchestral work such as a movie soundtrack, but not exclusively. BMI uses "Songwriter/Composer." So you would have preferred "All titles composed by Zager & Evans are in there, all written exclusively by me."? What? Zager never wrote, composed, or arranged anything. "All" components of a song for purposes of are very simple: lyrics (if any), melody, and chords. Nothing else. The recording of a song which usually includes a bunch of other stuff (bass, drums, strings, horns, etc.) are not part of the registration that goes on record with the Library of Congress. (3) This is subjective. I don't hear much strength and power in what Zager played on acoustic guitar. I hear strength and power in the drums & bass (exact tempo, bam, bam, bam, bam), then the strings (played by high school kids, Odessa, Tx., and horns by a Mariachi band. I could have added the harmony part in one take on another track. (4) The 'two' of us had two albums on RCA and one on Vanguard. I have recorded a lot of stuff over time. Nothing could top "2525."
1. A "seeder" is a term on these social sites (such as this one and Newsvine, WordPress, and many of those other sites we see listed at the end of internet articles) where when we take an article (or YouTube presentation) listed on another site from the one we're on, and turn it into another presentation, but we include the "http/:..." URL location to give 'credit' to the other site that we are copying. Members of these various social sites have the option to "seed" someone else's work of any kind without copyright infringement as long as credit is given to the author or site, or they can publish their own original work --- as long as they are not promoting their own work for monetary gain --- at least, that's how I understand the rules on Newsvine, and think they are the same here.
2. Thank you for going over the terminology. It seems critical, sometimes, especially when we're talking about a particular industry. Without the correct word usage (I was implying 'me' not you ), we could cause our readers to possibly take a wrong interpretation. Well, when I seeded your song from YouTube, I didn't realize you were both the lyricist and music composer---and that might have been my own fault for not seeing it written somewhere. I don't know anything about Mr. Zager, so yes, I had to guess that he was as much a part of the work as you, and now I know differently.
True, it is subjective. The more I think about this, I might have felt his contributions were more significant than they were, because I had first watched your original recording with the two of you performing (as I had mentioned). Maybe there's a visual connection to 'hearing' when they are combined? I don't know. But, in going back and listening to just the song, I have to agree that his 'sound' wasn't a stand-out.
My comment about his recording assistance and 'mention' of it was only to suggest that it seemed 'appropriate,' but not that he deserved any more glory than he got. Your voice is what stood out more than anything.
"All" components of a song for purposes of are very simple: lyrics (if any), melody, and chords. Nothing else.
That's good to know. Thank you.
(4) The 'two' of us had two albums on RCA and one on Vanguard. I have recorded a lot of stuff over time. Nothing could top "2525."
Interesting. Thank you for that info. Regarding the two of you recording more, I didn't notice them when I was looking, so will look again. I didn't know you had several of your own pieces, either. What I noticed were limited. Yes, "2525" was/is exceptional, imo. ... An essay with a crucial and perilous message in a song.
Thank you so much for being here today, and joining. Discrepancy is what brought you to the article today, but I'm hoping you will visit this piece again and share your story with us.
If I may, what/where/when inspired you to write this song, and how could you be so insightful to know that exactly what you predicted is what has happened in some instances, and still to this day, many of us are concerned about future events that your song suggested.
I hadn't gone through all the pages of replies prior today, but now I have, so a few points are at hand. At first I thought there was only one video, the Thaapa1, then I saw the second which you've titled the remix (so did its creator). It's actually a new cover of the song, not a remix. But it's okay for you or anyone to include them in a presentation and no violations have occurred as long as they're not selling something. There's a whole slew of these on YouTube and the Tube pays a royalty to present them. Just below the video is a notice of "Standard YouTube license." The Tube pays the writer(s)/publisher through this license. These amounts show up on my BMI and publishing statements. Everything is fine.
In your "digress for a sec" paragraph, I 100% agree with you. It's awful what we now have in charge. Obama's "You didn't build that." statement was just horrid goes against the whole principle of why this country was founded in the first place.
I received your "friend of The NewsTalkers email" and am going to respond to it tomorrow regarding the what/where/when, etc. you requested (pg3) dealing with the writing of "2525."
I see now that I hadn't realized you were referring to the seeded video for the article, rather than the latter one. So, it's Thaapa1 that blocked you. I'm sorry I didn't notice the other person's name, Thaapa1, when I added his video over here. I chose that version for the video presentation, and also wanted a version that presented your voice and original soundtrack. Now I know that it's a good idea to notice who is presenting videos on YouTube. I've been ignorant of how YouTube works, so your education is appreciated. So, as long as the presenter, in this case Thaapa1, is adding 'your' soundtrack, then you get a royalty, not him/her?
I not long ago learned the term "cover" on NT from another. In the case of the latter cover video I added in a comment, since he changed the music composition, but is singing 'your' song, does that mean that you 'both' get royalties from the Tube?
Thank you, too, for considering a reply to my curiosity regarding your inspiration and foresight in the writing of "2525," as well as my friend request.
Before I seeded this article, I looked up an original performance video of Evans and Zager for "2525." ..Mostly to make sure everything was the same in the Thaapa1 presentation. That site I went to didn't mention, that I noticed, who's stage they were on, but could be as you suggest.
I hope Mr. Evans comes back. I'm looking forward to reading more about his thoughts on his content, from back then -- to now.
The video I listened to was the same one, but it was incorporated into an older internet article. I hadn't watched it on YouTube.
What started this for me was an exchange on Newsvine, with my friend mentioning this song, causing me to think about how I hadn't listened to it for a long time. I noticed in NV's backlogs that mention of the title were in previous articles, so I decided to seed it over here, hoping to ignite discussion on the content and relevance to today.
Hi Chloe: You had some questions here, I'm responding.
Yes, it's Thaapa1 that did not post (blocked) my comment. As an uploader on YouTube they have that choice to post or not and they needn't give a reason for it. This has seldom happened to me and usually the result is posted like yours.
Yes, the soundtrack contains the song "In the Year 2525" so, as always, the Tube pays a royalty to the songwriter/publisher (in this case, both me, Rick Evans). They do not pay the artists or other players on the soundtrack which includes myself as artist, Zager, or the others. This is in compliance with U.S. copyright statutes. The Tube is not required to pay Thaapa1 a royalty because nothing they did was copyrighted. However, the Tube can pay an uploader something voluntarily if they so elect, but they aren't required to.
The term "cover" in the music biz, means an artist or group recorded their version of a song already recorded by someone else, as with "2525" which has been recorded by over 60 different artists/groups, orchestras, etc. world wide. Those are all "covers" of it. If they sell any of this product, royalties are paid the writer(s)/publisher(s), yours truly. The artist or group is paid royalties by the record company.
In the case of the latter video, he did not change "2525", the COMPOSITION, rather he changed the adaptation/arrangement of it and recorded that plus adding his video. YouTube is required to pay the owner of the composition (me). They aren't required to pay him anything nothing copyrighted.
That show was called "The Music Scene" hosted by David Steinberg in L.A. in '69. It was lip-synced as were most all TV appearances in those days because the TV studio tech couldn't handle live, full productions in the audio department very well. Now, obviously it's all changed and bands can sound great live on shows such as Letterman, Leno, MTV, et.al.
Sometimes matching years-old kinescope visual TV recordings with the audio is hard to do because it takes a lot more zeros and ones to produce the visual than it does the audio and get it out over the internet. So the visual is mega eating the 1's & 0's while the audio tends to jump ahead. The current tech can get it right though if the producer wants it invest in doing so.
Thanks for responding in such detail Mr. Evans . We in NT appreciate your cooperation in the discussion . And if you are up for it perhaps you might even consider more detailed questions about things which you may have considered for inclusion in the lyrics but opted not to ?
Also feel free to join in other topics if they peak your interest ...
The TV show in '69 was "The Music Scene" hosted by David Steinberg.
I was trying to respond to Chloe's request fo the thoughts and such that went into the song and prepared something yesterday sending it via email because it contained some attachments, but that email address was rejected by mail delivery. Chloe was aware of this and sent instructions as to how to do that via email. I'm working on it. I sometimes think it may be easier to set a Mars rover down on a selected crater than accomplish this!
Concerning the shit: I've been responding to Chloe's inquisitive mind in that department so that's the origin of my responses. So excuse me if I might have seemed to go into a Kanye West type of moment, but the "firstdary" individual responsible for the success of "In the Year 2525" rests squarely on my shoulders, as does Kanye's on his. However, the secondary two most notable participants were drummer, Dave Trupp, and bass player, C. Mark Dalton. I'm speaking musically here. The rest of it would take volumes and this is not the format.
So Mike, if you might ever discover that you're creative in some venue, be it maybe music, book writing, inventing a tool, inventing a computer thing, i.e. Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., something in science maybe, and you might want to realize the rewards of your "insanity", then might suddenly turn into something other than shit. It might turn into "I'm set for life." Who knew?
Hi Richard, Thank you for explaining how it all works! I better understand the term "cover" now, too. I see that the latter video kept your composition (words and tempo, if that word is accurate) and just changed the music "adaptation" - "arrangement" - so that must be what those others that sang your song did too, or some other changes - but still used your words and tempo/beat [maybe faster or slower, but still somewhat similar] with stanzas from your original song. Also, thank you for pointing out that the cover artists are paid by their recording company, so the fact that you get royalties from the use of your song, doesn't affect their compensation.
I'm following you with what you mean by nothing copyrighted pertaining to others singing your song vs. singing something original from their own composition.
Another question, if I may, that originates from my friend that first mentioned your song in our discussion -- what happens at death? Do the royalties continue to go to your beneficiaries for as long as a cover artist sings it? I thought that was an interesting question. It would seem as though they should, and if not automatically, the song is your "intellectual property" just like any other property that you should be able to 'will' in an estate value.
I still agree that a writer/composer of both the lyrics and music -- owns the song, and that accompaniment - whoever they are, are just that. Like an owner of a business--his support Staff doesn't own any part of his business, they are just employed by him.
Chloe was aware of this and sent instructions as to how to do that via email. I'm working on it. I sometimes think it may be easier to set a Mars rover down on a selected crater than accomplish this!
I think you're right about that Mars rover being easier!
I hope I noticed all of your comments you made today. My email that I use, groups all of the comments from the same person - all together, so I hope I scrolled down far enough to catch them all.
Just to note, I enjoyed reading your comment to Mike on how it was all lip-synced in the past - I didn't know that. I couldn't tell when watching your performance, either.
It's been fun and interesting learning the little bits and pieces of the Music Performance Industry that I have from a few here (Sixpick and Broliver Stagnasty), as well as some from Newsvine.
I hope my inquisitiveness hasn't pushed any boundaries, and if so, I would expect that you will adjust a reply accordingly. However, I'm seriously excited about viewing your attachments , and hope they will work with this site's functions. Please let me know if I can help in some way.
Are we there yet?
Additional info from youtube:
"
Published on Jan 2, 2013
"In the Year 2525 (Exordium and Terminus)" is a hit song from 1969 by the American pop-rock duo of Dennis Zager and Richard Evans. It reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 for six weeks commencing July 12, 1969. The song was written and composed by Rick Evans in 1964 and originally released on a small regional record label (Truth Records) in 1968. A year later, an Odessa, Texas, radio station popularized the disc, which RCA Records quickly picked up for nationwide distribution. "In the Year 2525" hit six weeks number one spot on the Hot 100 in 1969.
Zager & Evans was a Lincoln, Nebraska, rock-pop duo of the late 1960s and early 1970s named after its two members, Denny Zager and Rick Evans. Zager and Evans met at Nebraska Wesleyan University, and they were joined by drummer Danny Schindler (later of the Benders) in the seminal Nebraska band the Eccentrics, until Schindler's tour of Vietnam in 1965. As Zager and Evans, the duo were backed by Mark Dalton, also a Nebraska native, on bass. Their first drummer, Paul Maher, was later replaced by another Nebraskan, Dave Trupp. Trupp and Dalton were also the rhythm section in the popular Liberation Blues Band and backed Evans on some solo demo material prior to Zager and Evans's recording of "In the Year 2525" in 1968. "In the Year 2525", with lyrics by Evans and music by Zager, warned of the dangers of technology, portraying a future in which the human race was destroyed by its own technological and medical innovations. The last stanza of the song suggests mankind undergoes a continuing cycle of birth, death and rebirth."
Even now robots are everywhere ...
Cute!
The supreme Emperor Penguins will be made robotic one day...and will take over the world.
(No, John, that isn't a Conspiracy Theory. I just made that up.)
He said, " Hey, what's wrong with you? If you don't start walking, you're not going to find your mate. [Mutters under his breath, "Darn liberal Penguins, they always want us to 'do it' for them. All they're good for is sitting on the egg."]
Future politician's sound bite :
"I did not have sex with that robot ! "
LOL!
Here's a cool updated video and remix of the song "In the year 2525."
Thanks, J4T. Always liked FM. There's a very good chance you'll still be here 25 years from now. 2038, here you come.
I'm sorry to read that. I'm going to hope for the best, and it's possible because it's [hope] unsubstantiated...
"
But groundless hope, like unconditional love, is the only kind worth having.
John Perry Barlow (born 1947);
essayist, lyricist
Denny Zager did not write the music to "In the Year 2525." He wrote no part of it. "In the Year 2525 (Exordium & Terminus)" was written entirely, MUSIC & LYRICS, and is owned by Richard (Rick) S. Evans, U.S. 1968 #Eu-47617 and renewal: 1996 #RE0000730422. Verify: BMI.com (Broadcast Music, Inc.).
Oh, you're right. Thank you for pointing that out!
I didn't know you were on Facebook, Rick. Are you still playing? That was one of the seminal songs of my youth.
Heard you guys listed on one of Kasey Kasim's shows-Top 100 greatest disappearing acts a few years back.
Probably best to approach Youtube to get the credits straightened out.
Mr. Evans, Thank you for showing up to point out YouTube's error. That's an error no one would be happy with, for sure. I would guess they copied that info from another source. I do wish you luck in getting to the bottom of the misinformation.
Btw, it's nice to meet you and congratulations on your creation. It's timeless. It could have been written today with the same ponderance and significance. In so many ways - cloning, robotics as examples, we seem to be headed where your song suggested; even your suggestion with "can woman survive" caused me to think about the increasing factors present that can cause infertility.
I hope you weren't at all offended that I also posted the remix version.
Hi John, you're absolutely right, YouTube info. contradicts itself. So does Wikipedia with their various "2525" presentations. There's a lot of misinformation out there, but at the same time, a lot of it is correct. Therefore, I suggest just going right to the LEGAL (correct) and bypass the confusion. So, if you'd like, try these two sources, (1) U.S. office and (2) BMI. Here's the procedure (1) enter URL www.copyright.gov/records/ Then of two panes choose the left, click Search the Catalog, enter (lower case) in the year 2525 (exordium & terminus), click "Begin Search", Boom! you're there. (2) enter URL www.bmi.com Then click "Search Site or Repertoire" (far top right), click "Search BMI.com (first line), enter just in the year 2525, click search, click Accept (song title page comes up, click the title (writer & publisher comes up, click my name (3 pages of 63 titles comes up, "2525" is pg. two. All titles recorded by Zager & Evans are in there, all written exclusively by me, and I sang lead on all of them. Actually, Zager didn't need to be there.
Hi Chloe: Yes, YouTube makes some errors, however I don't think they're much concerned with the authenticity of text data, much of which as you noted, comes from other sources such as Wikipedia which seems never to get everything right. Plus, I think YouTube mostly sucks up to uploaders which is understandable no material uploaded, no YouTube. So if someone sends a comment which may not seem to fit what the uploader was looking for, they block it. That happened with the video you included, I believe by Thaapa1 or something like that. I sent a comment much like the one I first sent replying to you. They didn't post it. Too much LEGAL, I suppose. Too scary, maybe. But I go easy on YouTube because every time a "2525" video is played there, I receive a royalty, not as an artist, but as writer/publisher. Zager doesn't receive a royalty, no "artists" or other players do. U.S. statutes exist to protect the intellectual property (creations) of the creative, not the players of the composition. Royalties come in worldwide and there have been over 60 covers of the song over time, many in foreign languages. If you're interested in some "LEGAL", scroll down a short ways to my reply to John Russell today and click away to visit BMI (Broadcast Music, Inc.) and the U.S. office.
Richard Evans,
If I may comment on your comment directed to John, and just to note, it just occurred to me there's a semantics error that a seeder could unintentionally use, that could lead to misinterpretation by some readers.
When you stated, "All titles recorded by Zager & Evans are in there, all written exclusively by me, " ---there it is - recorded by - opposed to composed by. It could be easy for some readers to read into a simple "by" to mean that those listed had something to do with 'all' components of the song, when they might not have.
Imo, it was appropriate to include mention of Zager because he does add his guitar music which adds strength and power to the sound, as well as interest, and he does add 'voice' in the first few words of each stanza, if that would be the correct term (I read and viewed that in your original performance video of the two of you).
Is this correct, if I may ask, was that the only recording of the 'two' of you? It appears you went on to record a handful or so of other songs, but spaced out over time, if correct.
Thank you, Richard. First, if the video I included as a remix violated copyright law in any way, then I would be more than happy to remove it from my article. Actually, the fact that they blocked your comment, is reason enough to do so. It was the incorporated video that inspired my inclusion, not as much their version of your song.
Thank you, too, on the royalties information received by the writer/publisher, and not by other players/producers. That seems as how it should be to me as well. It's the "intellectual property" - creation and innovation - that should most be rewarded. Also, you took the risk, not the supporters.
If I may digress for a sec -- that's a point that is also made with Capitalism that many refuse to acknowledge, and instead promote a socialistic view to spread the risk and consequences to everyone, even if they don't want 'someone else's risk/liability,'and want to promote a "you didn't build that" attitude so that they can 'steal' the royalties from the creator - as well as steal their 'glory.' You can see why I'm not an Obama and posse supporter.
But anyway, I can see why his Admin. is also making changes to the copyright industry, as I understand it, loosening up the laws so that others can benefit from someone else's work (part of the TPP plans, I believe).
Yes, I did read your comment to John and replied. Thank you for mentioning it, though.
Chloe: Well, we're having some fun now. You have four paragraphs, so I'll comment on each: (1) What's a "seeder"? (2) The words "writer", "songwriter", and "composer" are all used to designate who (or what) wrote a song, although "composer" usually refers to full orchestral work such as a movie soundtrack, but not exclusively. BMI uses "Songwriter/Composer." So you would have preferred "All titles composed by Zager & Evans are in there, all written exclusively by me."? What? Zager never wrote, composed, or arranged anything. "All" components of a song for purposes of are very simple: lyrics (if any), melody, and chords. Nothing else. The recording of a song which usually includes a bunch of other stuff (bass, drums, strings, horns, etc.) are not part of the registration that goes on record with the Library of Congress. (3) This is subjective. I don't hear much strength and power in what Zager played on acoustic guitar. I hear strength and power in the drums & bass (exact tempo, bam, bam, bam, bam), then the strings (played by high school kids, Odessa, Tx., and horns by a Mariachi band. I could have added the harmony part in one take on another track. (4) The 'two' of us had two albums on RCA and one on Vanguard. I have recorded a lot of stuff over time. Nothing could top "2525."
In defense of Zager ... he has a cool futuristic sounding name .
Richard Evans,
Thank you for commenting back. Here we go: (:)
1. A "seeder" is a term on these social sites (such as this one and Newsvine, WordPress, and many of those other sites we see listed at the end of internet articles) where when we take an article (or YouTube presentation) listed on another site from the one we're on, and turn it into another presentation, but we include the "http/:..." URL location to give 'credit' to the other site that we are copying. Members of these various social sites have the option to "seed" someone else's work of any kind without copyright infringement as long as credit is given to the author or site, or they can publish their own original work --- as long as they are not promoting their own work for monetary gain --- at least, that's how I understand the rules on Newsvine, and think they are the same here.
2. Thank you for going over the terminology. It seems critical, sometimes, especially when we're talking about a particular industry. Without the correct word usage (I was implying 'me' not you
), we could cause our readers to possibly take a wrong interpretation. Well, when I seeded your song from YouTube, I didn't realize you were both the lyricist and music composer---and that might have been my own fault for not seeing it written somewhere. I don't know anything about Mr. Zager, so yes, I had to guess that he was as much a part of the work as you, and now I know differently.
True, it is subjective. The more I think about this, I might have felt his contributions were more significant than they were, because I had first watched your original recording with the two of you performing (as I had mentioned). Maybe there's a visual connection to 'hearing' when they are combined? I don't know. But, in going back and listening to just the song, I have to agree that his 'sound' wasn't a stand-out.
My comment about his recording assistance and 'mention' of it was only to suggest that it seemed 'appropriate,' but not that he deserved any more glory than he got. Your voice is what stood out more than anything.
That's good to know. Thank you.
Interesting. Thank you for that info. Regarding the two of you recording more, I didn't notice them when I was looking, so will look again. I didn't know you had several of your own pieces, either. What I noticed were limited. Yes, "2525" was/is exceptional, imo. ... An essay with a crucial and perilous message in a song.
LOL... I hadn't thought of that, but I see what you mean.
Funny how we sometimes relate songs to what was happening in our lives at the time.
Richard Evans,
Thank you so much for being here today, and joining. Discrepancy is what brought you to the article today, but I'm hoping you will visit this piece again and share your story with us.
If I may, what/where/when inspired you to write this song, and how could you be so insightful to know that exactly what you predicted is what has happened in some instances, and still to this day, many of us are concerned about future events that your song suggested.
Hi Chloe, ever onward on this matter:
I hadn't gone through all the pages of replies prior today, but now I have, so a few points are at hand. At first I thought there was only one video, the Thaapa1, then I saw the second which you've titled the remix (so did its creator). It's actually a new cover of the song, not a remix. But it's okay for you or anyone to include them in a presentation and no violations have occurred as long as they're not selling something. There's a whole slew of these on YouTube and the Tube pays a royalty to present them. Just below the video is a notice of "Standard YouTube license." The Tube pays the writer(s)/publisher through this license. These amounts show up on my BMI and publishing statements. Everything is fine.
In your "digress for a sec" paragraph, I 100% agree with you. It's awful what we now have in charge. Obama's "You didn't build that." statement was just horrid goes against the whole principle of why this country was founded in the first place.
I received your "friend of The NewsTalkers email" and am going to respond to it tomorrow regarding the what/where/when, etc. you requested (pg3) dealing with the writing of "2525."
Richard Evans,
Thank you so much for coming back and replying.
I see now that I hadn't realized you were referring to the seeded video for the article, rather than the latter one. So, it's Thaapa1 that blocked you. I'm sorry I didn't notice the other person's name, Thaapa1, when I added his video over here. I chose that version for the video presentation, and also wanted a version that presented your voice and original soundtrack. Now I know that it's a good idea to notice who is presenting videos on YouTube. I've been ignorant of how YouTube works, so your education is appreciated. So, as long as the presenter, in this case Thaapa1, is adding 'your' soundtrack, then you get a royalty, not him/her?
I not long ago learned the term "cover" on NT from another. In the case of the latter cover video I added in a comment, since he changed the music composition, but is singing 'your' song, does that mean that you 'both' get royalties from the Tube?
Thank you, too, for considering a reply to my curiosity regarding your inspiration and foresight in the writing of "2525," as well as my friend request.
Before I seeded this article, I looked up an original performance video of Evans and Zager for "2525." ..Mostly to make sure everything was the same in the Thaapa1 presentation. That site I went to didn't mention, that I noticed, who's stage they were on, but could be as you suggest.
I hope Mr. Evans comes back. I'm looking forward to reading more about his thoughts on his content, from back then -- to now.
The video I listened to was the same one, but it was incorporated into an older internet article. I hadn't watched it on YouTube.
What started this for me was an exchange on Newsvine, with my friend mentioning this song, causing me to think about how I hadn't listened to it for a long time. I noticed in NV's backlogs that mention of the title were in previous articles, so I decided to seed it over here, hoping to ignite discussion on the content and relevance to today.
Hi Chloe: You had some questions here, I'm responding.
Yes, it's Thaapa1 that did not post (blocked) my comment. As an uploader on YouTube they have that choice to post or not and they needn't give a reason for it. This has seldom happened to me and usually the result is posted like yours.
Yes, the soundtrack contains the song "In the Year 2525" so, as always, the Tube pays a royalty to the songwriter/publisher (in this case, both me, Rick Evans). They do not pay the artists or other players on the soundtrack which includes myself as artist, Zager, or the others. This is in compliance with U.S. copyright statutes. The Tube is not required to pay Thaapa1 a royalty because nothing they did was copyrighted. However, the Tube can pay an uploader something voluntarily if they so elect, but they aren't required to.
The term "cover" in the music biz, means an artist or group recorded their version of a song already recorded by someone else, as with "2525" which has been recorded by over 60 different artists/groups, orchestras, etc. world wide. Those are all "covers" of it. If they sell any of this product, royalties are paid the writer(s)/publisher(s), yours truly. The artist or group is paid royalties by the record company.
In the case of the latter video, he did not change "2525", the COMPOSITION, rather he changed the adaptation/arrangement of it and recorded that plus adding his video. YouTube is required to pay the owner of the composition (me). They aren't required to pay him anything nothing copyrighted.
Hello Mike,
That show was called "The Music Scene" hosted by David Steinberg in L.A. in '69. It was lip-synced as were most all TV appearances in those days because the TV studio tech couldn't handle live, full productions in the audio department very well. Now, obviously it's all changed and bands can sound great live on shows such as Letterman, Leno, MTV, et.al.
Sometimes matching years-old kinescope visual TV recordings with the audio is hard to do because it takes a lot more zeros and ones to produce the visual than it does the audio and get it out over the internet. So the visual is mega eating the 1's & 0's while the audio tends to jump ahead. The current tech can get it right though if the producer wants it invest in doing so.
Thanks for responding in such detail Mr. Evans . We in NT appreciate your cooperation in the discussion . And if you are up for it perhaps you might even consider more detailed questions about things which you may have considered for inclusion in the lyrics but opted not to ?
Also feel free to join in other topics if they peak your interest ...
Hi Mike of GA:
The TV show in '69 was "The Music Scene" hosted by David Steinberg.
I was trying to respond to Chloe's request fo the thoughts and such that went into the song and prepared something yesterday sending it via email because it contained some attachments, but that email address was rejected by mail delivery. Chloe was aware of this and sent instructions as to how to do that via email. I'm working on it. I sometimes think it may be easier to set a Mars rover down on a selected crater than accomplish this!
Concerning the shit: I've been responding to Chloe's inquisitive mind in that department so that's the origin of my responses. So excuse me if I might have seemed to go into a Kanye West type of moment, but the "firstdary" individual responsible for the success of "In the Year 2525" rests squarely on my shoulders, as does Kanye's on his. However, the secondary two most notable participants were drummer, Dave Trupp, and bass player, C. Mark Dalton. I'm speaking musically here. The rest of it would take volumes and this is not the format.
So Mike, if you might ever discover that you're creative in some venue, be it maybe music, book writing, inventing a tool, inventing a computer thing, i.e. Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., something in science maybe, and you might want to realize the rewards of your "insanity", then might suddenly turn into something other than shit. It might turn into "I'm set for life." Who knew?
Hi Richard, Thank you for explaining how it all works! I better understand the term "cover" now, too. I see that the latter video kept your composition (words and tempo, if that word is accurate) and just changed the music "adaptation" - "arrangement" - so that must be what those others that sang your song did too, or some other changes - but still used your words and tempo/beat [maybe faster or slower, but still somewhat similar] with stanzas from your original song. Also, thank you for pointing out that the cover artists are paid by their recording company, so the fact that you get royalties from the use of your song, doesn't affect their compensation.
I'm following you with what you mean by nothing copyrighted pertaining to others singing your song vs. singing something original from their own composition.
Another question, if I may, that originates from my friend that first mentioned your song in our discussion -- what happens at death? Do the royalties continue to go to your beneficiaries for as long as a cover artist sings it? I thought that was an interesting question. It would seem as though they should, and if not automatically, the song is your "intellectual property" just like any other property that you should be able to 'will' in an estate value.
I still agree that a writer/composer of both the lyrics and music -- owns the song, and that accompaniment - whoever they are, are just that. Like an owner of a business--his support Staff doesn't own any part of his business, they are just employed by him.
I think you're right about that Mars rover being easier!
I hope I noticed all of your comments you made today. My email that I use, groups all of the comments from the same person - all together, so I hope I scrolled down far enough to catch them all.
Just to note, I enjoyed reading your comment to Mike on how it was all lip-synced in the past - I didn't know that. I couldn't tell when watching your performance, either.
It's been fun and interesting learning the little bits and pieces of the Music Performance Industry that I have from a few here (Sixpick and Broliver Stagnasty), as well as some from Newsvine.
I hope my inquisitiveness hasn't pushed any boundaries, and if so, I would expect that you will adjust a reply accordingly. However, I'm seriously excited about viewing your attachments
, and hope they will work with this site's functions. Please let me know if I can help in some way.
All I know it was a damn good song and as they would say, before its time!