A very useful article for composers
Steve Layton
Dalton, titled "The Difficulties Orchestra Composers Have Obtaining
Recordings of their Works", at this link:
http://www.newmusicbox.org/page.nmbx?id=50tp00
The rest of this month's issue has a number of other interesting
observations on the current realities of orchestral performance.
Jeffrey Quick
"Steve Layton" <dal...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Ugh! Are the AFM artists, or thugs?
Dr.Matt
They're (gulp) artists who want to be paid minimum wage! The nerve!
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
"If it's not addressed to my address proper, it may be counted as spam"
Steve Layton
news:VspDa.4737$XR3.1...@news.itd.umich.edu...
> In article <jaq-F2D1DE.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu>,
> Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Ugh! Are the AFM artists, or thugs?
>
> They're (gulp) artists who want to be paid minimum wage! The nerve!
Well and good, except they want that minimum wage to be paid and paid and
paid and paid... The real issue becomes how long and in what contexts people
should be compensated for their work. Artistic production tends to have two
different methods: one is the one-time "buy-out" like for some kinds of
commercial music, or for visual art; the other is that where the
"intellectual property" rights stay with the creator regardless of who owns
a copy of the product. Part of that doesn't jibe well together with other
real-world examples; if you design a house & somebody builds it for you, do
the builders get to control the use and sale of the house, and get a cut of
the money every time it's sold? No, because they give up the rights to their
"performance", in exchange for suitable one-time compensation. In essence,
some part of this concept is what needs to be implemented better, and more
precisely, into the art world. Or perhaps "re-implemented", as it's closer
to what common practice was for a lot of human history.
--
Steve Layton
http://www.ampcast.com/stevelayton
For the sounds of music being made worldwide *today*
pay a visit to "NetNewMusic": www.netnewmusic.net
Dr.Matt
Steve Layton <dal...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>"Dr.Matt" <fie...@millipede.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
>news:VspDa.4737$XR3.1...@news.itd.umich.edu...
>> In article <jaq-F2D1DE.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu>,
>> Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >Ugh! Are the AFM artists, or thugs?
>>
>> They're (gulp) artists who want to be paid minimum wage! The nerve!
>
>Well and good, except they want that minimum wage to be paid and paid and
>paid and paid... The real issue becomes how long and in what contexts people
>should be compensated for their work. Artistic production tends to have two
>different methods: one is the one-time "buy-out" like for some kinds of
>commercial music, or for visual art; the other is that where the
>"intellectual property" rights stay with the creator regardless of who owns
>a copy of the product. Part of that doesn't jibe well together with other
>real-world examples; if you design a house & somebody builds it for you, do
>the builders get to control the use and sale of the house, and get a cut of
>the money every time it's sold? No, because they give up the rights to their
>"performance", in exchange for suitable one-time compensation. In essence,
>some part of this concept is what needs to be implemented better, and more
>precisely, into the art world. Or perhaps "re-implemented", as it's closer
>to what common practice was for a lot of human history.
Alas, if we operate purely on that capital model instead of the mixed
capital and operating model which we have, then the initial price of
e.g. recording a work will be prohibitive--because the players are going
to have consumable-supplies overhead and uncompensated-practicing overhead.
And the exploitation of creativity to generate revenue operates on a model
in which after the initial investment, the exploiters may be able to gain
virtually unlimited net revenue without depreciation of assets, whereas
once you build a house, you've got just one house to sell--and it depreciates
with time. Very different financial arrangements apply because very different
business situations apply.
A much more comparable situation shows up in the licensing of subcontracted
software development. Contractual work-for-hire is not the only model found.
>
>--
>Steve Layton
>
>http://www.ampcast.com/stevelayton
>
>
>For the sounds of music being made worldwide *today*
>pay a visit to "NetNewMusic": www.netnewmusic.net
>
>
Jeffrey Quick
fie...@millipede.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
> In article <jaq-F2D1DE.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu>,
> Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
> >Ugh! Are the AFM artists, or thugs?
>
> They're (gulp) artists who want to be paid minimum wage! The nerve!
I didn't know the Chicago Symphony made minimum wage. I'm sure there are
a lot of regional orchestras who woould love to employ their talent.
As for your further comments re non-performing expenses...well, that's
why the CSO is NOT making minimum wage. Nobody's arguing that they
shouldn't be compensated for extra expenses. The question is whether
it's ultimately healthy for the music culture for them to try to squeeze
every possible (or impossible) dime out of the product.
Are you suggesting that composers who want a recording of their premiere
should pony up the per-minute equivalent of CSO recording session scale?
Are you on the take from W.T. McKinley et Fils?
Dr.Matt
Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>In article <VspDa.4737$XR3.1...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
> fie...@millipede.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
>> In article <jaq-F2D1DE.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu>,
>> Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>> >Ugh! Are the AFM artists, or thugs?
>>
>> They're (gulp) artists who want to be paid minimum wage! The nerve!
>
>I didn't know the Chicago Symphony made minimum wage. I'm sure there are
>a lot of regional orchestras who woould love to employ their talent.
>
>As for your further comments re non-performing expenses...well, that's
>why the CSO is NOT making minimum wage. Nobody's arguing that they
>shouldn't be compensated for extra expenses. The question is whether
>it's ultimately healthy for the music culture for them to try to squeeze
>every possible (or impossible) dime out of the product.
I'm pretty much expecting all major US orchestras to be re-incorporated
as co-operatives within the next 20 years... That's my suggestion to
the Florida Symphony. Sports teams can stay afloat with real squeezing
from the players. Orchestras need to court beer companies, TV stations
with their advertising, and a loyal-but-huge audience if they want
to steal moves from the sports-business playbook...
>Are you suggesting that composers who want a recording of their premiere
>should pony up the per-minute equivalent of CSO recording session scale?
How else are you going to get a recording with the CSO?
>Are you on the take from W.T. McKinley et Fils?
No, not at all, and I resent your insinuation that I'm on the take from
anybody.
David Sherman
The issue of composers having promotional recordings of their orchestral pieces
and the issue of having concert recordings of the same pieces, in my mind,
are separate.
I have created stunning “orchestral” recordings using as few as 10 musicians.
It costs some money. That’s how it goes. Everything costs money. If you
are creating promotional material for yourself, you have to spend. Just
like business cards or promotional flyers. You have to put out some money.
The trick is knowing which corners you can cut without affecting the quality
of the work. That takes some experience - or someone who has the experience
who can coordinate it for you.
Concert recordings are a different issue. The fear of inappropriate use
of these recordings (and there must have been many cases or it wouldn’t be
such an issue today,) makes unions and management alike very nervous. Nervous
enough in fact to not record concerts.
If you are a city that is as heavily unionized as NYC, the problem isn’t
only with the A F of M, but with stage hand unions, electricians unions,
and other unions representing other technical staff. It gets so crazy that
the house electrician is prohibited from replacing a light bulb (no kidding
- this is true.) If the piano on stage is too close to the concertmaster,
the player is prohibited from moving the piano or his/her chair even a couple
of inches.
So I’m sure that there’s a problem with in-house staff running recording
equipment with the purpose of recording a performance. They might not be
allowed to do so under their union contracts. A special audio engineer probably
has to be hired, and maybe a waiver obtained from the A F of M, or something
like that. I’m sure it’s even more involved than that. In the “old days”
I’m told that a good bottle of Scotch to the stage manager or chief electrician
was a good way to circumvent the rules. Now I doubt that would work any
more.
Unfortunately, the venom on our side is usually spewed at the A F of M.
In fact, in these cases, the A F of M is one of the more accessible and flexible
unions in the equation. The musicians union does not exist to thwart musical
performances or recordings. But they are very protective of the rights they
have to constantly struggle to enforce. One of those is that the fee musicians
are paid for their services to record a piece in no way relinquishes the
rights to future earnings of that recording.
That is fabulous. Think about it: a person who works for an orchestra through
salary, recording fees and residuals can earn enough money to afford a modest
house and a car, get some medical insurance, and retire with a small pension.
And they can’t get fired simply they won’t shave their mustache or some
other inane reason that was sited by conductors of old who could fire musicians
on a whim.
People in this group should be cheering that such an apparatus exists. And
shouldn’t be grousing about musicians who are able to earn such a living.
---------------------------POST VIA--------------------------------
news://nntp.xusenet.com http://www.xusenet.com
===================================================================
Jeffrey Quick
fie...@millipede.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
> In article <jaq-E80231.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu>,
> Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
> I'm pretty much expecting all major US orchestras to be re-incorporated
> as co-operatives within the next 20 years... That's my suggestion to
> the Florida Symphony.
Not a bad idea
> >Are you suggesting that composers who want a recording of their premiere
> >should pony up the per-minute equivalent of CSO recording session scale?
>
> How else are you going to get a recording with the CSO?
Then you are so suggesting?
The musicians have been paid for a performance and the rehearsal to make
it happen. That investment has been made and (theoretically) recouped. I
will grant that recording that performance is a value-added product. I
don't think that anyone sane is suggesting that composers have a right
to commercial release of a performance tape. I'm not sure I could even
defend a "right" to the composer having a recording. But I think we
agree that this is a Good Thing?
So how do the unions get Good Things they have no easily-defined right
to? By withholding their services. We're all so damn anxious to get that
Big Performance, we'll put up with anythng to do it. All it would take
would be a composer of the stature of Carter to put it in his contract:
No record-ee, no play-ee (after all, he's an old man and it's hard to
travel). This needs to go out into the court of public opinion. On a gut
level, most music lovers would say, "You can't get a recording of your
own piece?!" They don't know what goes on.
I've been affected by this a bit. When WCLV started their radio show, a
bunch of us asked Cleveland Chamber Symphony for permission to
broadcast. They were willing to talk but wanted to leave it up to a
performers' committee. In my own case, they had lost the digital masters
of the piece we were discussing, so it went nowhere. I believe that in
the end, they approved very few requests.
Dr.Matt
Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>In article <BUsDa.4750$XR3.1...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
> fie...@millipede.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
>> In article <jaq-E80231.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu>,
>> Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty much expecting all major US orchestras to be re-incorporated
>> as co-operatives within the next 20 years... That's my suggestion to
>> the Florida Symphony.
>
>Not a bad idea
>
>
>> >Are you suggesting that composers who want a recording of their premiere
>> >should pony up the per-minute equivalent of CSO recording session scale?
>>
>> How else are you going to get a recording with the CSO?
>
>Then you are so suggesting?
If you want a recording with the CSO, you hire the CSO.
>The musicians have been paid for a performance and the rehearsal to make
>it happen.
Where? When? By whom???? I see no reason to read further in your
discussion until you explain to me how you got to these outrageous
assumptions.
Dr.Matt
and NOT counting practice time.
That's really not much.
Nu?
Steve Layton
"David Sherman" <Some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote in message
news:3edf4256$1...@nntp.xusenet.com...
>
[...]
>
> Unfortunately, the venom on our side is usually spewed at the A F of M.
> In fact, in these cases, the A F of M is one of the more accessible and
flexible
> unions in the equation. The musicians union does not exist to thwart
musical
> performances or recordings. But they are very protective of the rights
they
> have to constantly struggle to enforce. One of those is that the fee
musicians
> are paid for their services to record a piece in no way relinquishes the
> rights to future earnings of that recording.
>
> That is fabulous. Think about it: a person who works for an orchestra
through
> salary, recording fees and residuals can earn enough money to afford a
modest
> house and a car, get some medical insurance, and retire with a small
pension.
> And they can't get fired simply they won't shave their mustache or some
> other inane reason that was sited by conductors of old who could fire
musicians
> on a whim.
But you can see that what you describe relates only to the performers; the
living composer exists as an "outsider" in the equation.
Taking performance more-or-less as "a job", there's little incentive by
groups to disseminate performances of new works; actually, all else being
equal, it's a safer financial course to just show up and play the same old
pieces again and again, and just go home to the dog and TV. Nobody much
needs new recordings of the standards anyway, because there's already a
jillion of each available, and another performance of it just down the road
in a few weeks. It's a "living", but one that sacrifices a large part of
what artistic vitality is about.
While from the performer perspective there's not much reason to treat a
living composer's work any differently, in the composer's perspective broad
and rapid dissemination is a huge goal, and a good recording of a good
performance is one of the most valuable tools for making that possible.
Jeffrey Quick
fie...@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
> In article <jaq-5ACCFD.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu>,
> Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
> >In article <BUsDa.4750$XR3.1...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
> > fie...@millipede.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <jaq-E80231.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu>,
> >> Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
> >> >Are you suggesting that composers who want a recording of their premiere
> >> >should pony up the per-minute equivalent of CSO recording session scale?
> >>
> >> How else are you going to get a recording with the CSO?
> >
> >Then you are so suggesting?
>
> If you want a recording with the CSO, you hire the CSO.
>
> >The musicians have been paid for a performance and the rehearsal to make
> >it happen.
>
> Where? When? By whom???? I see no reason to read further in your
> discussion until you explain to me how you got to these outrageous
> assumptions.
You may be misreading the antecedent to the pronoun here, which is of
course the previous noun ("performance"). If in fact the CSO is not
getting paid, we have more serious problems here. Note that I am not
saying that they have been paid for a recording. But if a performance
has been recorded, that recording is a bonus item which they may deal
with as they see fit. They may release it themselves, sell it to a
record company, give or not give a copy to the composer, destroy it.
That's what property is about.
That being said, what I have been arguing for is a standard performing
rights contract, like the standard union recording contract, in which a
composer receives a promotional recording, with use subject to
reasonable limits (and white noise is IMO NOT a reasonable limit). This
is perhaps something that ASCAP and BMI should get involved in.
What you seem to be arguing (and correct me if I misunderstand) is that
giving such a recording to a composer is NOT a Good Thing, because it
potentially reduces the revenue stream for performers. While I am all
for performers making money, realistically, the chances of anyone
besides Gordon Getty or Richard Nanes hiring the CSO for a demo are slim
and none. So there is no money being lost here. Further, what's sauce
for the CSO is sauce for Ann Arbor freelancers. Were you ever given a
recording of a public performance of your works, which you then used to
promotional ends? Or did you hire the musicians at standard recording
session rates and work rules?
As for the $120/3 hr gig scale, my sources within Local 4 tell me that
only the orchestral musicians are getting it. Some guy playing a club
date might be lucky to get $100. My church job pays about $15/hr (which
is the mimimum I'll leave the house for, and that only if it's a chunk
of steady and interesting work), the polka gigs are $20-30/hr. Then
there's composing...do we really need to go there? Given that composing
is a much worse per-hour than performing, is it so bad if performers
give the composer a hand by giving a recording?
Dr.Matt
The software companies pushed Digital Millenium Act.
>What you seem to be arguing (and correct me if I misunderstand) is that
>giving such a recording to a composer is NOT a Good Thing, because it
>potentially reduces the revenue stream for performers. While I am all
No, I was only saying that if you want a recording with the CSO, you
have to hire the CSO. If you get a performance out of it too, bully
for you!
>for performers making money, realistically, the chances of anyone
>besides Gordon Getty or Richard Nanes hiring the CSO for a demo are slim
>and none. So there is no money being lost here. Further, what's sauce
>for the CSO is sauce for Ann Arbor freelancers. Were you ever given a
>recording of a public performance of your works, which you then used to
>promotional ends? Or did you hire the musicians at standard recording
>session rates and work rules?
You're clearly wayyyyyy down a different path of discussion from any part
I ever participated in.
I have a demo of the first movement of my Sages of Chelm. It has
NEVER been played before an audience. I paid dearly for the demo, in
the hopes that it would be a produceable recording--but I forgot to
bring in a producer to run the session. Now I'm going back WITH a
really serious producer and recording the whole thing. AND I'm having
everybody who performs in the thing sign a promotional-use license
specifically so that I can use the recording to promote itself and
myself, have it streamed by Kalvos and Damien and American Music
Center, and generally do good things for everybody, with the
limitation any exploitation which actually generates royalties cannot
be considered purely promotional. The way we're doing it makes
sense. Yes, the paperwork involved is a bit arduous. But it's better
than doing things guerilla-style and settling a dispute later on.
>As for the $120/3 hr gig scale, my sources within Local 4 tell me that
>only the orchestral musicians are getting it. Some guy playing a club
>date might be lucky to get $100. My church job pays about $15/hr (which
>is the mimimum I'll leave the house for, and that only if it's a chunk
>of steady and interesting work), the polka gigs are $20-30/hr. Then
>there's composing...do we really need to go there? Given that composing
>is a much worse per-hour than performing, is it so bad if performers
>give the composer a hand by giving a recording?
Union scale in the US is about $40 per hour per person according to my
AFM contacts. I'm not sure where your figures come from.