The Verve and “Bitter Sweet Symphony”

Few songs capture the mood of a decade like The Verve’s Bitter Sweet Symphony. Released in 1997, it became one of the defining tracks of the Britpop era, with its sweeping orchestral sample and Richard Ashcroft’s poignant lyrics. The song earned worldwide acclaim, topping charts and becoming an enduring cultural reference point.

‍

Yet behind the success was a bitter dispute that overshadowed the song for decades. A disagreement over sampling rights meant that The Verve lost ownership of their biggest hit and most of the royalties it generated. The Bitter Sweet Symphony case became one of the most infamous cautionary tales in music law, illustrating the risks of sampling without watertight agreements.

‍

The Background: Crafting a Masterpiece

‍

The Verve, formed in Wigan in 1990, had built a reputation for expansive, psychedelic influenced rock. By the mid 1990s, they were part of the Britpop wave but retained a distinctive sound that set them apart from peers like Blur and Oasis.

‍

When recording Bitter Sweet Symphony for their 1997 album Urban Hymns, the band used a sample from an orchestral version of The Rolling Stones’ “The Last Time.” The arrangement had been recorded in 1965 by Andrew Loog Oldham, the Stones’ former manager, and released by the Andrew Oldham Orchestra.

‍

The Verve cleared the use of the sample with Decca Records, which owned the recording, but they also needed permission for the underlying composition, which was credited to Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Initially, permission was granted for a limited licence, but when the song became a global hit, the situation changed dramatically.

‍

The Dispute: Rights and Royalties

‍

Allen Klein, former Rolling Stones manager and owner of ABKCO Records, controlled the publishing rights to “The Last Time.” Klein argued that The Verve had used more of the sample than originally agreed and therefore had breached the licence.

‍

The consequences were severe. ABKCO sued, and as part of a settlement, The Verve agreed to hand over 100 percent of the royalties from Bitter Sweet Symphony to ABKCO. The songwriting credits were changed to list Jagger and Richards as composers, effectively erasing Ashcroft’s authorship in the eyes of the industry.

‍

Richard Ashcroft later described signing away the rights as the worst moment of his career. Despite writing the lyrics and crafting the song’s iconic structure, he saw little financial reward from its global success.

‍

The Fallout

‍

The loss of rights to Bitter Sweet Symphony became a defining element of The Verve’s story. The song achieved critical and commercial success, yet the band did not benefit from its royalties. The irony was sharp: a song about the struggles of modern life became a financial windfall not for its creators but for another generation of rock stars.

‍

Over the years, Ashcroft spoke openly about his frustration, describing how the legal battle had overshadowed one of his proudest creative achievements. For many fans, the case symbolised the exploitative side of the music industry, where contracts and rights could override artistic contribution.

‍

The Resolution: A Late Victory

‍

For more than two decades, The Verve had no claim to their biggest hit. But in2019, Richard Ashcroft announced that Mick Jagger and Keith Richards had voluntarily returned the rights to him. In a rare gesture of goodwill, the Stones’ camp acknowledged that Ashcroft had created something original and deserved recognition.

‍

Ashcroft declared himself “humbled” by the decision, which finally restored his songwriting credit and future royalties. It was a remarkable reversal, though it came long after the peak of the song’s commercial success.

‍

The Impact on the Industry

‍

The Bitter Sweet Symphony case became one of the most famous examples of the risks of sampling. It highlighted the complexity of clearing rights, which often involve both the recording and the underlying composition. Clearing one without the other can leave artists vulnerable.

‍

The case also demonstrated how unforgiving contracts can be. The Verve believed they had permission, but when the song became a hit, the terms of their agreement were challenged, leaving them powerless. For younger artists, the lesson was clear: never underestimate the importance of watertight permissions.

‍

The eventual return of rights by Jagger and Richards was unusual. In most cases, settlements are final, and artists rarely recover what they have signed away. The Verve’s story therefore remains both a cautionary tale and, in its final chapter, a story of unexpected redemption.

‍

Lessons for Musicians Today

‍

The case offers several important lessons:

‍

• Clear all rights fully. Sampling requires permission for both recordings and underlying compositions. Partial clearance is not enough.

• Contracts are binding. Once rights are signed away, recovery is extremely difficult.

• Success can change the stakes. Agreements that seem adequate before release may be challenged if a song becomes a hit.

• Persistence pays off. Ashcroft’s decades long campaign eventually brought recognition, showing the value of continuing to fight for fairness.