Do singers deserve to get music royalties?

After a clash between musicians Sonu Nigam and Amaal Mallik over the same, the music community weighs in

Earlier this year, for the first time in India, playback singers in Bollywood got their rightful due as royalties for songs sung by them, thanks to the Indian Singers’ Rights Association (ISRA). Following an announcement by the body that close to ₹52 lakh were distributed to around 730 singers, a small, but important social media argument broke out between composer-singer Amaal Mallik and singer Sonu Nigam.

In a now-deleted post, Mallik took to Facebook, saying that he would like to see the lyricists as the first party to get the royalties. Following this, Sonu indirectly slammed Mallik, writing: “My advice is stop taking credit for singers making money. Nobody makes or breaks anyone.. It’s the Almighty. Your own Karma.. Your own goodness in thoughts... Singers make money because it’s them and not you who can sing on stage for hours... Attract 1000s of people to buy tickets to get entertained... Period... And not all singers whom YOU THE ALMIGHTY have MADE, make the same money.”

Even as the music community, after years of fighting archaic copyright laws, finally receives its due, singers and composers, along with lyricists, are locked in a new battle — do playback singers, who only give their voice to a song, deserve royalties?

“I, really, honestly, think that the person who writes the lyrics should be the first one who should get the royalties. My song won’t become a hit if there are no words in it. It’s the words that complete a song , and what resonate with the audience,” Mallik says.

While the composer, who has “nothing but respect for Sonu ji,” stands by his statement, more musicians have weighed in on the debate. Composer Anu Malik says that if “singers want money” as royalties, they ought to “create their own music and sing it”. He says, “I’m not saying that singers are not important. You need a great singer to put emotions that a composer has created through their music, and lyricist, through their words, across. But if I am a singer, I know that I will earn millions through a concert. Composers don’t get that money and the lyricists don’t. So then why should they get royalties of something that was actually created by two other people?”

Veteran lyricist Sameer agrees with the two, and says that singers don’t deserve royalties — neither before nor after. “Do singers give due credit to lyricists or the composer when they are singing the song at a concert? No. They don’t have the courtesy to do say that. So why should they get a part of royalty, when they themselves don’t want to want to give due credit? And writers don’t have any other source to make money other than royalties. Singers can go to concerts and make huge amounts of money,” he says.

But rapper Badshah feels that that the debate should reach an amiable conclusion. “At the end of the day it’s an intellectual property. So you cannot put a price constraint on it. You can create slabs, and such divisions based on the stature of the lyricist or the singer or the guy who is composing music. It has to be a mutual agreement between these two parties. You will have to sit, go back and forth on these things, and then lock on a system with which everyone is happy,” he says.

Singer Sonu Nigam had lashed out against Amaal Mallik’s social media post that asked for royalty money to be given to lyricists first, and not singers

HT PHOTOS n lyricist Sameer (far above) feels that royalties should totally e singers, who do not have the courtesy to acknowledge lyricists and posers in performances. Composer Amaal Mallik (top) says that songs uld not resonate as much if they didn’t have words, and so lyricists rightfully deserve it first. Rapper Badshah (far leftt) feels an amiable solution should be reached