ChatterBank13 mins ago
The Snowman!
21 Answers
We all know that Aled Jones made a lot of money, to put it mildly ,out of this song, and all the subsequent 'spin-offs' that came with it, but did the original singer Peter Auty get a share of this fame and fortune? If not, why not? Do you think he deserves some kind of recompense now, especially from those people who 'hushed it up' for twenty years! Wouldn't it be a sign of goodwill on their part - or is saying sorry enough to win his trust and forgiveness, in the light of how shamefully he was treated in the past?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by paintpowder1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What was hushed up for 20 years? It was never a secret that Peter Auty sang this originally before Aled Jones covered it. I always thought Peter Auty did the soundtrack on the film and assume he gets royalties. Is this case any different to when someone records a song and then someone makes a more successful cover version?
Congratulations! You must be the only one who knew.
Is there anything else we should know in case we get it 'wrong' again? Perhaps this link will enlighten you further.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/25603 49.stm
It can't have been a secret because Peter Auty had two runs in the charts under his own name with this song in the 1980s (1985 and 1987).
At one time Peter Auty and Aled Jones both had versions in the chart, although Peter Auty's never reached the heights that Aled jones's version enjoyed.
I don't believe Aled Jones ever claimed he sang the soundtrack. I hadn't realised however that Peter Auty's name wasn't credited on the film initially but it was well known I thought.
Surely Peter Auty has been getting royalties though.
Aled Jones has only got his fair entitlement hasn't he?
At one time Peter Auty and Aled Jones both had versions in the chart, although Peter Auty's never reached the heights that Aled jones's version enjoyed.
I don't believe Aled Jones ever claimed he sang the soundtrack. I hadn't realised however that Peter Auty's name wasn't credited on the film initially but it was well known I thought.
Surely Peter Auty has been getting royalties though.
Aled Jones has only got his fair entitlement hasn't he?
F 30: There was no accreditation given to Peter Auty on the film,so by definition he couldn't have been getting royalties.Only now will he receive them, but that won't be much as it's only a DVD,and the odd screening here and there. To right the wrong, he would really need to have it backdated 20 years or so to the time the film was released, that would be the least of HIS entitlements! If what you said were true, then Aled Jones would have been singing on the soundtrack, QED!! It's plain to see that there was an injustice done, and it now remains to be seen if RIGHT will be done...
It was wrong not to include Peter Auty's name in the film credits, but are you sure he didn't get the money he was entitled to?
If Peter Auty hasn't received any royalties then that is unfair and I'm sure a lawyer would easily win him what he is entitled to.
I'm still not sure what point you are making about Aled Jones. Are you saying he got money he wasn't entitled to? I can't see why you'd think that but maybe I'm misssing something.
If Peter Auty hasn't received any royalties then that is unfair and I'm sure a lawyer would easily win him what he is entitled to.
I'm still not sure what point you are making about Aled Jones. Are you saying he got money he wasn't entitled to? I can't see why you'd think that but maybe I'm misssing something.
My guess is that Peter Auty was paid the going rate for singing in the film, as do many musicians who play or sing on "pop" songs.
Some very famous guitar solos and other important instrumental parts of songs were played by "session musicians", and they only got the going rate at the time and get no royalties.
On the Pink Floyd album "Dark side of the Moon" there is a lady who does a long famous vocal part and she only earned about �200 at the time, and of course the album has gone on to sell millions.
Many of the Beach Boys songs had the instruments played by session musicians while the members sang, but these session musicians dont get royalties.
Why do you think Peter Auty should be treated any different from any other "session musician"?
Some very famous guitar solos and other important instrumental parts of songs were played by "session musicians", and they only got the going rate at the time and get no royalties.
On the Pink Floyd album "Dark side of the Moon" there is a lady who does a long famous vocal part and she only earned about �200 at the time, and of course the album has gone on to sell millions.
Many of the Beach Boys songs had the instruments played by session musicians while the members sang, but these session musicians dont get royalties.
Why do you think Peter Auty should be treated any different from any other "session musician"?
VHG: if you click on the link and read it you'll see that your answer is at odds with what the makers of the film said. It's THEY,not I, who said PA deserved accreditation, which is recognition of the 'mistake' they made,due to the 'hurried process' involved in releasing the film, and thereby acknowledging his right to royalties. Session musicians don't have this right, good as tho' they are, as they're tied to a fee only contract usually, tho' there have been exceptions.
F30: you seem to have a fixation with AJ!! This is not about him, rather, the whole sorry way the thing was handled at that time. But even he 'took the credit for twenty years' it was stated! Now, pardon me if i'm wrong, but isn't there such a thing as 'libel'? If somebody said that about you, and you knew it to be wrong,then i'm sure you would be well within your rights to resort to that law. I'm sorry you didn't understand some of what i said, but i think you need to read the link properly for all to become clear.
F30: you seem to have a fixation with AJ!! This is not about him, rather, the whole sorry way the thing was handled at that time. But even he 'took the credit for twenty years' it was stated! Now, pardon me if i'm wrong, but isn't there such a thing as 'libel'? If somebody said that about you, and you knew it to be wrong,then i'm sure you would be well within your rights to resort to that law. I'm sorry you didn't understand some of what i said, but i think you need to read the link properly for all to become clear.
The music to the film was always credited to Howard Blake.
Walking in the Air with Peter Auty singing was recorded in 1981 and there was no thought that it would ever be a single. The film was shown on the new channel 4 when it launched in 1982 (half the country couldn't initially receive it).
The popularity of the song was instant and it was released in 1983 with Auty as the singer. It was a minor hit.
Two years later, in 1985 the Aled Jones cover version was released and proving popular, so much so that the original was re-released.
Jones was able to perform it live, which Auty could no longer do, and the angelic Jones won in the charts.
There was never any attempt at deception, and the fact that the public got it wrong is not really Howard Blake or Aled Jones' fault.
Walking in the Air with Peter Auty singing was recorded in 1981 and there was no thought that it would ever be a single. The film was shown on the new channel 4 when it launched in 1982 (half the country couldn't initially receive it).
The popularity of the song was instant and it was released in 1983 with Auty as the singer. It was a minor hit.
Two years later, in 1985 the Aled Jones cover version was released and proving popular, so much so that the original was re-released.
Jones was able to perform it live, which Auty could no longer do, and the angelic Jones won in the charts.
There was never any attempt at deception, and the fact that the public got it wrong is not really Howard Blake or Aled Jones' fault.
I don't think I have a fixation with Aled Jones. You mentioned him first!. I was querying your comment which said:
" If what you said were true, then Aled Jones would have been singing on the soundtrack, QED!! ". I still don't see what point you were making there, but never mind.
I don't think the article is saying Aled Jones misled people. It is simply noting that most people are under the mistaken impression that he sang on the soundtrack... but surely that is because his version of the single was much more successful in terms of sales than Peter Auty's version, and also because Aled Jones is still well known today and his rendition is often shown on TOTPs at Christmas .
There was no conspiracy to hush anything up or mislead as far as I can see . I don't understand what "libel " you think has been commited.
Yes, it seems an inexusable error on behalf of the film company not to mention Peter Auty (assuming they had an obligation to do so) and I don't know why they waited so long. I also don't know why Peter Auty didn't pursue this through the courts if he had a case. Of course I agree that if indeed he is entitled to anything he should get whatever fees/royalties he is entitled to.
" If what you said were true, then Aled Jones would have been singing on the soundtrack, QED!! ". I still don't see what point you were making there, but never mind.
I don't think the article is saying Aled Jones misled people. It is simply noting that most people are under the mistaken impression that he sang on the soundtrack... but surely that is because his version of the single was much more successful in terms of sales than Peter Auty's version, and also because Aled Jones is still well known today and his rendition is often shown on TOTPs at Christmas .
There was no conspiracy to hush anything up or mislead as far as I can see . I don't understand what "libel " you think has been commited.
Yes, it seems an inexusable error on behalf of the film company not to mention Peter Auty (assuming they had an obligation to do so) and I don't know why they waited so long. I also don't know why Peter Auty didn't pursue this through the courts if he had a case. Of course I agree that if indeed he is entitled to anything he should get whatever fees/royalties he is entitled to.
Thanks Gromit. It took me so long to type my response to paintpowder and submit it that I didn't see your posting until after I'd submitted mine. You explained things much better than I did and I hope your answer and mine has dealt with paintpowder1's apparent misunderstanding of the situation.
I do like a conspiracy theory but like most of them there is no substance to this one.
I do like a conspiracy theory but like most of them there is no substance to this one.
Gromit : thanks for that!
I knew all of what you said with the exception of your last paragraph. I don't know if you read the link,but it seems lots of people knew what was going on, yet said nothing for twenty years...it's there in black and white...i never apportioned blame to anyone, they've held their hands up themselves and said it was wrong...read it!
I knew all of what you said with the exception of your last paragraph. I don't know if you read the link,but it seems lots of people knew what was going on, yet said nothing for twenty years...it's there in black and white...i never apportioned blame to anyone, they've held their hands up themselves and said it was wrong...read it!
I though it was all sorted as I started to read your latest posting, paintpowder1... until you said:
"but it seems lots of people knew what was going on, yet said nothing for twenty years...it's there in black and white"
The newspaper article looks to me like something to fill the news when no other stories were around. It's a non-story, I'd say. It's intersting but no conspiracy has been unearthed.
Anyway, I hope that's all sorted now.
"but it seems lots of people knew what was going on, yet said nothing for twenty years...it's there in black and white"
The newspaper article looks to me like something to fill the news when no other stories were around. It's a non-story, I'd say. It's intersting but no conspiracy has been unearthed.
Anyway, I hope that's all sorted now.
I too already knew it wasn't Aled Jones in the film.
From your December 2002 link paintpowder1
"Both singers will feature in a documentary about the film, Snow Business, airing on Channel 4 over Christmas.
Producer John Coates said: "We thought it was about time to set the record straight." "
Wasn't it all sorted out after the documentary in 2002?
From your December 2002 link paintpowder1
"Both singers will feature in a documentary about the film, Snow Business, airing on Channel 4 over Christmas.
Producer John Coates said: "We thought it was about time to set the record straight." "
Wasn't it all sorted out after the documentary in 2002?
I suppose the trouble with royalties is that for the 1982 film although we couldn't buy DVDs we did record illegally from the TV onto our VHS recorders - so not many royalties collected; for the songs we would have bought singles or tapes for chart purposes (obviously we also recorded from the radio) and as previously stated the younger Aled was more popular.
When was the DVD of The Snowman produced -not that long ago I should have thought?
When was the DVD of The Snowman produced -not that long ago I should have thought?
Latest Posts
Is It Feasible To End I C E Car Sales By...
News37 mins ago
Road rules40 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles98 mins ago
