Say I write a song, and an artist covers it. If I produce it or by some other means control the outcome, I define that as active involvement. The opposite is non-active. Of course, this is a matter of personal opinion, and you can view the situation your own way.
> Please explain what non-active involvement is.
>
> > Did I say ACTIVE involvement? Involvement is involvement,
> > no matter how you slice it. If Paul writes a song and an
> > artist covers it, he's involved. If John were to write a
> > song for an artist, he's involved. Directly or indirectly
> > is immaterial for everyone except some.
> >
> > > > I don't think he had to try anything. Jim wrote seven
> > > > songs that were used on the album. That's involvement,
> > > > whether he's in the studio actively or not.
> > >
> > > Hang on. If Britney Spears did an album with 7 Beatles
> > > songs on it no one in their right mind would think John
> > > Lennon or Paul McCartney was involved with it.
|
