Ok Brian...I see what you're saying...sorry...

I don't think it's a 50/50 split....

If I said or implied that, I was mispeaking..

What I meant to say is that it's a partnership...it requires both sides..

I don't know, nor would I venture to guess how the duties split percentage wise...the point I'm trying to make (apparently not very well !)
Is that the songwriter cannot exist without the performer..
It is the performer that displays the songwriters wares in the marketplace where listeners can decide to acquire the songs (if they are able)
Now if you respond by saying "Yes, but if the songwriter hadn't supplied the performer with something to sing there would be nothing for the entertainer to do !"
True enough, and the second half of my theory....both sides need each other and for one (the songwriter) to demand payment from the performer is, in my eyes just wrong.

I think I'm right when I say that if the songwriter can expect payment from the artist (or the venue) for the performance of a song, then the artist (or venue) is certainly entitled to a percentage of any sales initiated by the performance.

How do we figure that stuff out ?

We Don't...THAT"S why nobody should be paying anybody !!!

I truly am not here just to argue...
I think this is really wrong-headed, and I'm amazed that Mike, who has slaved on stages as much or more than I have, has such a different view.

Bob