> > Uhhh...co-write credits with these people, (and Celine Dion and Prsley,
> and
> > other high-end Artists), usually means that it was part of the deal. The
> > real writer probably was lucky to get half the publishing if that...
> 
> Well the real writer should put the song out instead of selling it,
> then. All parties know what's in it and what's going to happen. Or,
> they should.
> 
> And I assume you mean Elvis Presley - I thought everyone knew he
> barely sang OR wrote ANY of his own songs - seriously, try finding
> one. Hard pressed. All old black R&B songs. Not to say they ain't
> good. Love Elvis.
> 

Well, this points up that we're really talking about two completely
different animals, the singer-songwriter and the performer.  One might argue
that the Beatles were among the first very popular singer-songwriter
artists, and that paved the way for a boatload of them in the '60s, '70s,
and beyond.  The "performer" tag still applies to a good many pop artists
(good, bad, or indifferent -- I don't mean either to praise or damn them,
just making a point), and the prevalence of major stage shows with extremely
challenging choreography raises the bar for a "performer" to be that much
more proficient in ways completely aside from songwriting.

Flip side of that coin, a whole lotta singer-songwriters don't have the best
voices or the best stage presence or the best (heaven forbid) dance moves.
Makes for a different kind of art altogether.  Neither being more valid than
the other.  Depending on one's biases, of course.

Two cents offered.  Accepting change in return.

Christopher