ASCAP/BMI and open mic night
olddog
the bar owner only lets performers use originals.
Is there a blanket ASCAP or BMI fee that pub owners can pay and allow
open mic performers to play whatever they want?
Does anyone know the logistics involved in paying for musical copyrights and
live performances?
Olddog
iL_weReo
I wish I knew, I'd be a Trillionaire.
dugjustdug
> Is there a blanket ASCAP or BMI fee that pub owners can pay and allow
> open mic performers to play whatever they want?
>
I believe there is, OD. I'm sure there are others on this board far
more versed in this than I. Thus, I cannot provide you logistics as
to how to do this. Sorry.
Most of the places I've played as a cover band *who pay you by check*
have some annual fee they pay for that purpose - or so they tell me.
Of course, there are a number of places that pay you in greenbacks,
so, I wonder if they pay that annual premium to the ASCAP's of the
world.
olddog
"dugjustdug" <prestig...@yvn.com> wrote in message
news:9f21e2e1-98ff-4618...@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I was thinking there must be something for jukeboxes. I don't think they
make separate payments for each tune but a blanket payment for the jukebox.
Seems they could use something similar for open mic nights. Oh well. I
admire the pub owner for at least trying to comply.
Olddog
rct
Bar owners pay a flat fee based on occupancy and nights of live/
recorded music per month/quarter/year whatever. It isn't simple, but
it is simple for them to get it done, as I understand it. Your state
may have different ways of doing it, I only know of NJ. The long and
short is that if he doesn't want whatever hassles he or she perceives
lurking in the cover bands or jukebox world, originals is all they
should have in their place. Years ago we had a real rash of them guys
going around and sorta hammering bar owners for non payment of fees,
but it was because they were trying to get to the Karaoke thing, which
they succeeded in doing here in southern NJ.
rct
Amazing Disgrace
> Most of the places I've played as a cover band *who pay you by check*
> have some annual fee they pay for that purpose - or so they tell me.
> Of course, there are a number of places that pay you in greenbacks,
> so, I wonder if they pay that annual premium to the ASCAP's of the
> world.
Agreed. I've noticed in the past I got paid by check, often there was a BMI
or ASCAP or both sticker on the window of the club. Not always but often
enough to make me wonder if its all related. Mostly we get paid by cash now
and theres never any sticker on the window.
Could be coincidence.
Who really knows....
Derek
>Bar owners pay a flat fee based on occupancy and nights of live/
>recorded music per month/quarter/year whatever. It isn't simple, but
>it is simple for them to get it done, as I understand it. Your state
>may have different ways of doing it, I only know of NJ. The long and
>short is that if he doesn't want whatever hassles he or she perceives
>lurking in the cover bands or jukebox world, originals is all they
>should have in their place. Years ago we had a real rash of them guys
>going around and sorta hammering bar owners for non payment of fees,
>but it was because they were trying to get to the Karaoke thing, which
>they succeeded in doing here in southern NJ.
Yes, this is all true whether you play cds over a store/bar/
restaurant, have a live band, do karaoke, or hire a DJ.
The way some get around it is by paying for satellite radio, but even
then, there are rates for individual users, and rate structures for
commercial settings.
The perception that music should be avialable for free strikes me as
very odd. Particularly when that attitude is held by musicians who
expect to get paid for playing.
The_Professor
I guess. Of course we all know that the actual composers of the music
don't get most of these fees, they go to those who own the rights to
the music, who are, at least classically, the kinds of people who are
known for going from business to business making sure they pay up. I
guess there are also people like Michael Jackson, who own the rights
to Beatles stuff, but I don't know if I would want to give Mr. Jackson
$0.01 of the money I earn.
Thi is why while I love music, and love to get toether with people to
sing and play, I have no desire at all to perform in public. People
want to make some money, they can engae in the "W" activity!
kebs
Yeah, what he said, or you can try
> http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html
9. How much will it cost to obtain an ASCAP license to perform music?
The annual rate depends on the type of business. Generally, rates are
based on the manner in which music is performed (live, recorded or audio
only or audio/visual) and the size of the establishment or potential
audience for the music. For example, rates for restaurants, nightclubs,
bars and similar establishments depend on whether the music is live or
recorded, whether it's audio only or audio visual, the seating capacity
of the bar or restaurant, the number of nights per week music is
offered, the number of musicians, whether admission is charged and
several other factors.
Concert rates are based on the ticket revenue and seating capacity of
the facility. Rates for music used by corporations ("Music In Business")
are based upon the number of employees. College and university rates are
based upon the number of full time students; retail store rates depend
on the number of speakers and square footage. Hotel rates are based on a
percentage of entertainment expenses for live music and an additional
charge if recorded music is used.
Because ASCAP has over a hundred different licenses and rate schedules,
one will likely fit your needs. ASCAP operates under the principle that
similarly situated users should be treated similarly. This assures
fairness and consistency in our licensing. For example, rates for
restaurants of the same size, with the same use of music are the same
regardless of whether the restaurant is in Oshkosh or New York City.
..
kebs
rct
> > The perception that music should be avialable for free strikes me as
> > very odd. Particularly when that attitude is held by musicians who
> > expect to get paid for playing.
> I guess. Of course we all know that the actual composers of the music
> don't get most of these fees, they go to those who own the rights to
> the music,
I own the rights to my music.
> who are, at least classically, the kinds of people who are
> known for going from business to business making sure they pay up.
No, publishing houses and people who spot what they think might be a
"hit" are the ones that buy rights to music, not BMI or ASCAP. They
go from business to business making sure they pay up because that is
their job. Remember, rarely does a musician get held at gunpoint to
sell their rights, they do it in order to get the Bentley and the
video NOW man, RIGHT NOW.
> I guess there are also people like Michael Jackson, who own the rights
> to Beatles stuff, but I don't know if I would want to give Mr. Jackson
> $0.01 of the money I earn.
> Thi is why while I love music, and love to get toether with people to
> sing and play, I have no desire at all to perform in public. People
> want to make some money, they can engae in the "W" activity!
Many many many peoples are out there playing in public for something
more than money, because anyone that has done that knows there is no
money in it, not at this level. And if any single one of them had one
of their songs hit it, I would want them to get what they have coming
to them, they worked for it and they deserve it.
rct
Derek
>I guess. Of course we all know that the actual composers of the music
>don't get most of these fees, they go to those who own the rights to
>the music, who are, at least classically, the kinds of people who are
>known for going from business to business making sure they pay up. I
>guess there are also people like Michael Jackson, who own the rights
>to Beatles stuff, but I don't know if I would want to give Mr. Jackson
>$0.01 of the money I earn.
I would expect someone of your educational background to have a more
informed response. :-) "Of course we all know..." Really? I don't
know this.
I do know that some artists give away or sell those rights as outlined
above by rct, and others hang on to them come hell or high water.
There are plenty of musos (and families of deceased musos), who talk
about living off of a hit or two for a long time due to these sorts of
royalites.
Yes, it is an arcane formula that figures who gets what, but the idea
that some godless corporation gets all the $ collected by it's goons
and the artists get zilch is an urban or internet myth.
The Professor
Derek wrote:
If you say so. My experience has been that you cannot sign any sort of
recording and distribution contract with a big time distributor without
giving up the rights to the music...although there are some exceptions,
like SRV for example...but Jimmy Vaughan and Lennie Bailey didn't write any
of those songs either! There are so many egregious examples of this out
there that I figure it's something everyone knows.
As for the non distrubuted material, that might be very good, but nobody
knows about it, it is something nobody knows about, so it hardly makes a
difference..it's not the stuff cover bands play in bars, that's for
sure...and you don't want to cover some non distrubuted nothing of a piece
and go big with it...some weiner will sue you for sure, even if you paid an
up front fee when you made the recording. Imagine if SRV had done Texas
Flood in an environment like we have today!
And, as you imply, I do have a burr up my butt on this issue. JMHO, just
from my experience, but not all that many years ago people would share
their music, play covers of each others music, and we had a lot better
overall music scene. Now everyone has to do all original stuff all the
time, and it sucks. Muddy Waters, Howling Wolf, even SRV and Hendrix
probably would not be able to make it in this environment. Too much greed
has produced the retarded music scene we have today, and while we do have
some good talent out there, they can't develop because they can't fully
interact with each other...not because they don't want to, BTW, but because
they can't.
rct
> If you say so. My experience has been that you cannot sign any sort of
> recording and distribution contract with a big time distributor without
> giving up the rights to the music...
You can absolutely sign things that don't touch your own rights to
your own music, absolutely. I do not know what or whom guided your
experience, but you were not advised well.
> although there are some exceptions, like SRV for example...
OK. I guess he is an exception? To what, and how?
> but Jimmy Vaughan and Lennie Bailey didn't write any of those songs either!
OK.
>There are so many egregious examples of this out there that I figure it's something everyone knows.
There absolutely are egregious examples of people giving up the rights
to their music. But you don't hear about them until something hits
big and they all the sudden want what they knowingly gave away in
order to get the Red Bentley delivered this afternoon and to start the
video shoot tomorrow. Conversely, many artists do not give up the
rights to their music, which you never hear about at all. Sure,
Prince signed it all away to them, and spent a good portion of his
life fighting in court to own the songs again and get back up to where
he is now, which is about three years before he started. Remember, he
signed it all away in order to secure financing and distribution for
his movie(s), and his alledged to someday be the center of all music
creation out there in the midwest the Purple place. Nobody, and I
mean NObody, made him do that. And on and on it goes, many have
fallen for that, they always will.
> As for the non distrubuted material, that might be very good, but nobody
> knows about it, it is something nobody knows about, so it hardly makes a
> difference..it's not the stuff cover bands play in bars, that's for
> sure...and you don't want to cover some non distrubuted nothing of a piece
> and go big with it...some weiner will sue you for sure, even if you paid an
> up front fee when you made the recording. Imagine if SRV had done Texas
> Flood in an environment like we have today!
I don't know what this means. Distribution is nothing more than
putting the record in front of the faces of people that buy records.
> And, as you imply, I do have a burr up my butt on this issue. JMHO, just
> from my experience, but not all that many years ago people would share
> their music, play covers of each others music, and we had a lot better
> overall music scene.
We did, that is true here in southern NJ.
> Now everyone has to do all original stuff all the
> time, and it sucks. Muddy Waters, Howling Wolf, even SRV and Hendrix
> probably would not be able to make it in this environment. Too much greed
> has produced the retarded music scene we have today, and while we do have
> some good talent out there, they can't develop because they can't fully
> interact with each other...not because they don't want to, BTW, but because
> they can't.
ASCAP/BMI fees and collection have always existed, they were always
there, always will be there. The appearance of enforcement has risen
for lots of reasons. Big one here, Karaoke, those peoples never gave
a thought to the fees required to cover someones music, and they
didn't until nearly all of them were taken to court and put out of
existence. Another big one, Napster and the likes. Them guys
probably wouldn't be so hard on each nickel if the word "sharing"
didn't take the place of the word "stealing". Be honest, do you want
to work and then not get paid for it? Probably not. So yeah, the
scene has tanked, completely here, and probably irretrievably, but the
reasons are deeper than a couple thugs from the rights administrators
going around getting, and this is important, what they always should
have been getting all along, long before all this stuff started and
became "news".
rct
Amazing Disgrace
So yeah, the
> scene has tanked, completely here, and probably irretrievably, but the
> reasons are deeper than a couple thugs from the rights administrators
> going around getting, and this is important, what they always should
> have been getting all along, long before all this stuff started and
> became "news".
>
--------
Bars here are firing themselves at an alarming rate. It must be good for
business somehow, one bar near my house fired itself and re-hired itself
three times last year. Of course everytime its the GRAND RE-OPENING.
But I aint seen the rock scene in a big town this weak, since disco took
over the Charlotte rock bars in the late 70s.
Sad.
Era.
rct
> Bars here are firing themselves at an alarming rate. It must be good for
> business somehow, one bar near my house fired itself and re-hired itself
> three times last year. Of course everytime its the GRAND RE-OPENING.
>
> But I aint seen the rock scene in a big town this weak, since disco took
> over the Charlotte rock bars in the late 70s.
>
> Sad.
Sad is the word. Here in NJ, it is the archaic, Prohibition era
liquor licensing that continues to this day. The bar nearest here had
to change hands after the then governor rode by on her way to Atlantic
City and saw, well, strip joint of sorts. So she wondered aloud why
is this the first thing visitors go past on their way into town? So
it became, in her name, a place now called Christies.
So the guys that bought it, they had my band(s) in there not long
after they got it up and running, the usual clowns around here playing
there in various forms. It's been...more than 6 or 7 years now. Back
then, they bought the land and buildings right, and they had to pony
up for the liquor license. It was like nearly 10 million dollars or
some such, just for the liquor license. In NJ, if a liquor license is
allowed to languish and then expire, there is no new liquor license to
replace it. That's why it costs so much just to put your foot in the
nightclub business door. And after all that money, who is going to be
paying bands for long? Not many at all. Christies down the street
there, it only lasted a year or so, no more bands since.
So along with the union thing down there in AC, insurance on a bar in
NJ that costs more than the dump is worth, and the ever popular half
dozen police cars around the corner at 2am, there is hardly any scene
at all around here anymore. But then, I'm not looking either, so
there may be more than there was just 5 years ago.
rct
Amazing Disgrace
Holy crap! 10 MILLION dollars for a licquor liscence?
The karaoke bars supposedly were the hot thing in atlanta.. up until
recently, when, finally, a few of them closed down just because of the
economy.
The_Professor
When it comes to getting serious distribution, they won't make the
materials and promote them unless you give up the rights to the music,
especially if you are a nobody. SRV was lucky in who he got to manage
him at the start, however they never did promote him like someone they
owned.
There are artists out there who have to pay to do their own
compositions..a lot of them. A lot of the pop music you see out there
these days is written by stables of writers who work for the
entertainment company in question, like say Sony. They have writers
for all sorts of music BTW, from mainstrean to the most avant garde,
and they are not inclined to promote some bar band that won't give
them the rights to the music they are being asked to spend a lot of
money to promote. I don't know if any big time acts make much on CD
and MP3 sales; they make their money doing live shows...and have to
pay a fee to perform their own compositions.
The cool thing about Napster was CD sales tanked when they shut
Napster down. It was a nice way to check out material before
buying...and listening to 20 seconds of the songs doesn't do it for
me. To me, it is idiotic to pay a buck for an MP3 download...those
bucks will add up awfully fast!
My favorite egregious example of the nature of the entertainment
industry was the TV show WKRP in Cincinnati. It was the #1 rated show
when they cancelled it, and in interviews, those involved have claimed
it was cancelled because of the shots they took at the entertainment
industry. The DVD set for that show has none of the original music in
it because they couldn't get the rights, as shows like say Happy Days,
which had a lot of original classic music were able to do. The WKRP
DVD loses virtually nothing, IMHO, because the quality of the writing
is what made that show, and it's still there, not to mention the
outstanding character acting. This or that popular song comes and
goes...big whoop! In the end, having the original songs in there would
increase sales of those original songs...so IMHO all they do in the
end is shoot themselves in the foot. Pop music is not needed for "As
God is my witness, I thought Turkeys could fly" to be a hilarious
line.
You only see this sort of thing in the entertainment industry. With
say books, you get fair use. People can argue it, but it is there.You
don't have to pay a fee to use a Hemingway novel in a class, or refer
to Hemmingway in a presentation. With the entertainment industry, you
have to pay for any reference to anything.
Thus we have this insipid music industry especially, that cannot
produce anything that is any good.
rct
> When it comes to getting serious distribution, they won't make the
> materials and promote them unless you give up the rights to the music,
> especially if you are a nobody.
Yes, I would imagine if you wanted a record contract with one of the
three remaining large record companies there would be definitely some
negotiation as to ownership. That's how they work. Again, you are
not required to give up your ownership in order to secure a record
contract. And giving up your ownership in no way ensures that they
will promote you in any way, it simply assigns ownership and
publishing rights to the record company, usually in exchange for a
very large upfront buncha money, which is promptly blown. Remember,
the people getting these kinds of money have many times never even had
a job, much less any amount of savings or any idea what it takes to
stay alive.
> SRV was lucky in who he got to manage him at the start, however they never did promote him like someone they
> owned.
Ok but I still don't know why we keep coming back to SRV??
> There are artists out there who have to pay to do their own
> compositions..a lot of them.
I would say there WERE musicians doing that, I do believe there is
just refusal of rights as opposed to payment for rights these days.
And again, I can't say it enough, they took the front money, they
spent it all the first six months, they suddenly realized they sold
their livelihood, and that is why they are where they are. They very
possibly may have gotten a great, long term deal, keeping their own
rights, but for far less money than those big many zero checks that
come with giving your rights away. That's a choice, that's a decision
that they made. And you and I don't get to see those negotiations, we
don't know just how many times someone may have cautioned them against
that very thing, and they still went and done did it.
> A lot of the pop music you see out there these days is written by stables of writers who work for the
> entertainment company in question, like say Sony. They have writers
> for all sorts of music BTW, from mainstrean to the most avant garde,
Well yeah, no shite, been like that since...recorded music. Has
nothing to do with what we are talking about though.
> and they are not inclined to promote some bar band that won't give
> them the rights to the music they are being asked to spend a lot of
> money to promote.
Right. They don't "give to some bar band" anything. They promote
them via touring and radio play in return they get a much larger
portion of that bar bands record sales. A record company CAN and DOES
maybe say they want ownership, but you don't have to do it, especially
today.
> I don't know if any big time acts make much on CD
> and MP3 sales; they make their money doing live shows...
Big arena tours for certain. There are far too many examples of non
touring bands and studio types that make a very nice living without
touring, so that doesn't quite wash.
> and have to pay a fee to perform their own compositions.
Again, extreme examples of this, particularly while in court
determining ownership, and again, nobodys fault but the original owner
of the song.
> The cool thing about Napster was CD sales tanked when they shut
> Napster down. It was a nice way to check out material before
> buying...and listening to 20 seconds of the songs doesn't do it for
> me. To me, it is idiotic to pay a buck for an MP3 download...those
> bucks will add up awfully fast!
I never thought it was a good idea. Sure, it was upping the man, but
the man has a way of making everyone suffer when he has to. Thus and
so, we have the current dismal state of affairs.
> My favorite egregious example of the nature of the entertainment
> industry was the TV show WKRP in Cincinnati. It was the #1 rated show
> when they cancelled it, and in interviews, those involved have claimed
> it was cancelled because of the shots they took at the entertainment
> industry.
uh...ok. It was a sitcom. That's like saying All In The Family was
cancelled because it was too true?
> The DVD set for that show has none of the original music in
> it because they couldn't get the rights, as shows like say Happy Days,
> which had a lot of original classic music were able to do.
OK, so WHY did WKRP not get the rights? What were they offering? How
much did the rights holders want?
> The WKRP DVD loses virtually nothing, IMHO, because the quality of the writing
> is what made that show, and it's still there, not to mention the
> outstanding character acting. This or that popular song comes and
> goes...big whoop! In the end, having the original songs in there would
> increase sales of those original songs...so IMHO all they do in the
> end is shoot themselves in the foot.
Or, they weren't offered the going rate for such things, because there
actually IS a going rate for doing someones material in your show.
> Pop music is not needed for "As God is my witness, I thought Turkeys could fly" to be a hilarious
> line.
Sure, it was a funny show.
> You only see this sort of thing in the entertainment industry. With
> say books, you get fair use. People can argue it, but it is there.You
> don't have to pay a fee to use a Hemingway novel in a class, or refer
> to Hemmingway in a presentation. With the entertainment industry, you
> have to pay for any reference to anything.
No, you can use up to 8 bars for critique and education. You can
reference the song in writing with the appropriate copyright notice.
Fair use of a book does not allow you to buy a copy, take it home, and
Xerox it off for yer buddies. You'll get in trouble for doing that
you know.
> Thus we have this insipid music industry especially, that cannot
> produce anything that is any good.
The music industry most certainly CAN and DOES produce stuff that is
good, all the time. Maybe less of it, and as I age, even more lesser
of it, but that's ok. The contract part of it all has most definitely
gone to he77 in the last 25 years, even more for people in it longer
than me or some others here. There is a lot wrong with it all, that
is true. First re-negotiation of a record contract that returned the
majority rights to ownership to the musicians happened in 1972 or 73,
Dickey Betts and Capricorn did it, he was tired of them getting
publishing money that should go to the owners. He also re-negotiated
the per single and per album amounts paid to the band as performers
and the writers of the songs. Rights of ownership, royalty
percentages, who owns what, these have always been issues, probably
always will be. They have a lot less to do with the general decline
of the business of music than most people would like to think.
There's alot more wrong with record companies than this stuff here.
rct
rct
> What I don't understand is some unknown artist bitching about their tune
> being played on the radio and never getting anything. Huh? They got the
> potential for people to ring the radio station's phone off the hook asking
> who that band was.
Spenders Boss: "Hey, Spender! Not payin you this week but man my
phone is ringin off the hook with people wonderin who wrote that
report dude!!!".
So yeah, mail that to the mortgage company and let me know how it
works out for you.
rct
The_Professor
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 04:46:12 -0800 (PST), rct <Ron.Thomp...@faa.gov> wrote:
> >The Professor wrote:
>
> >> If you say so. My experience has been that you cannot sign any sort of
> >> recording and distribution contract with a big time distributor without
> >> giving up the rights to the music...
>
> >You can absolutely sign things that don't touch your own rights to
> >your own music, absolutely. I do not know what or whom guided your
> >experience, but you were not advised well.
>
> management, etc, are all investments that carry risk. That risk has to be
> mitigated by a profit potential. So naturally there is an interest on the
> part of investors in securing profits from royalties. This happens when
> the artist is relatively, or completely, unknown. It may seem egregious
> when you think of a huge name artist. But then consider all those artist
> who never gain much success - the middle men lost their investments in
> that case.
>
> I have read that the most common split with music publishers is 50/50. Not
> a bad deal when you consider all the things the publisher has to do
> (publish, market, distribute, guard copyrights - every aspect of
> administration) Pure income for the artist and all he had to do was sign
> his name and collect the checks.
>
> The Beatles originally sold their publishing rights because they hit it so
> big that they were losing 90% of the income to taxes. They arranged to
> split their rights and put their holdings into a public company. That way
> the income was in capital gains at a much lower tax rate. It worked well
> for them.
>
> A lot of big artists still sell the publishing rights, and they know
> exactly what they are getting into. It's just plain easier. Some make
> provisions for having the final word on whether their songs can be used in
> commercials and such. But most are perfectly happy to compromise in return
> for not having to micro-manage their works.
>
> Stories about artists really being ripped off in relation to their
> publishing rights usually don't have anything to do with the publisher.
> That deal was likely to be 50/50. The artists were often ripped off by
> their own people conned them out of a chunk of the artist's 50%.
I agree with everything you say here. However, there is a big
difference between simple publication and the organization,
preparation, manufacture, distribution and marketing of music done by
a major business. I agree they need to make a return on the
investment, and I have no problem with them taking the lions share of
the money for a given production, especially for an unknown. But the
rights to the music overall? That's a bit much, IMHO.
I agree also with your other post. With the web we have a way to
distribute, but still no way to effectively market, espcially given
there are no more independent vehicles to put the product before a
mass audience...you basically have one major terrestiral outlet and
one major satellite outlet for whom being sold out is part of the
business model.
If I ever got anything going, I would use the web though. Hit a decent
sized market with a lot of gigs, and do anything to get heard. Set up
a website with free download access to all the original music and
charge a small fee, like $25.00 or so per year for insider access and
put a lot of stuff on the insider site other than the finished
products. It's a restricted access site, so you do have more freedom.
Make money from the gigs and the website. You get say 100,000 fans
signed up in a market like NYC and that's 2.5 million for a website,
and if you have something that clicks, and do the gigs, you should be
able to pull that off, IMHO.
rct
> Or... take a job for twice the salary with one of those people who
> wondered who wrote that report. Do you have CD's to sell? Well then some
> radio station playing your tune might just have done you a big favor.
So...yer thinkin that they play Metallica records for nothing and they
tell Lars that they just done did 'em a solid? You do realize that's
not how it works, right?
> It takes the likes of William Huang's mother to demand money from a radio
> station.
Nobody demands money from anyone. There's a whole way it works out
there, all been in place a long time. If yer thinkin that William
Huangs' family is relevant in a discussion of how the music industry
works, you should take up golf. Quickly.
rct
Amazing Disgrace
> Or... take a job for twice the salary with one of those people who
> wondered who wrote that report. Do you have CD's to sell? Well then some
> radio station playing your tune might just have done you a big favor.
>
> It takes the likes of William Huang's mother to demand money from a radio
> station.
Just curious, have either you or the Professor ever released an album of
your own music, lable, indie, or otherwise? If so, what happened?
Les Cargill
>
> Derek wrote:
>
>> The Professor wrote:
>>
>>> I guess. Of course we all know that the actual composers of the music
>>> don't get most of these fees, they go to those who own the rights to
>>> the music, who are, at least classically, the kinds of people who are
>>> known for going from business to business making sure they pay up. I
>>> guess there are also people like Michael Jackson, who own the rights
>>> to Beatles stuff, but I don't know if I would want to give Mr. Jackson
>>> $0.01 of the money I earn.
>> I would expect someone of your educational background to have a more
>> informed response. :-) "Of course we all know..." Really? I don't
>> know this.
>>
>> I do know that some artists give away or sell those rights as outlined
>> above by rct, and others hang on to them come hell or high water.
>>
>> There are plenty of musos (and families of deceased musos), who talk
>> about living off of a hit or two for a long time due to these sorts of
>> royalites.
>>
>> Yes, it is an arcane formula that figures who gets what, but the idea
>> that some godless corporation gets all the $ collected by it's goons
>> and the artists get zilch is an urban or internet myth.
>
> If you say so. My experience has been that you cannot sign any sort of
> recording and distribution contract with a big time distributor without
> giving up the rights to the music...
Mechanicals, yeah. Publishing, no. And maybe not even mechanicals.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
>>> wondered who wrote that report. Do you have CD's to sell? Well then some
>>> radio station playing your tune might just have done you a big favor.
>> So...yer thinkin that they play Metallica records for nothing and they
>> tell Lars that they just done did 'em a solid? You do realize that's
>> not how it works, right?
>
> the Shitkickers who produced their own CD and sell it out of the trunk
> after gigs. Garage bands don't usually have a relationship with ASCAP.
>
You (both) do realize that Metallica sent out "tape tree" tapes
for a long time to build a fan base, right? You can't do that
anymore. The Innernet is bloated with stuff with absolutely no
market value whatsoever. Lars' dad is accused of having financed the
things...
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:20:33 -0500, Les Cargill <lcar...@cfl.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Spender wrote:
>>> I realize that Metallica is famous. Not quite the same as Ohama Dave and
>>> the Shitkickers who produced their own CD and sell it out of the trunk
>>> after gigs. Garage bands don't usually have a relationship with ASCAP.
>>
>> You (both) do realize that Metallica sent out "tape tree" tapes
>> for a long time to build a fan base, right? You can't do that
>> anymore. The Innernet is bloated with stuff with absolutely no
>> market value whatsoever. Lars' dad is accused of having financed the
>> things...
>
No. This was one or two tapes, not the Internet Firehose.
> Lot's of noise, sure, but
> word of mouth still directs people to the web sites of new bands.
>
It can, but .... it's less likely. The Web is a vast tissue of lies.
What the Innernet is good for is still word of mouth, but it's not
an improvement on tape trees for promoting a band.
--
Les Cargill
rct
> >So...yer thinkin that they play Metallica records for nothing and they
> >tell Lars that they just done did 'em a solid? You do realize that's
> >not how it works, right?
>
> I realize that Metallica is famous.
You may find this hard to believe, but famous means nothing in this
discussion.
> Not quite the same as Ohama Dave and
> the Shitkickers who produced their own CD and sell it out of the trunk
> after gigs.
If Ohama Dave and the Shitkickers(sic) are played on the radio, they
are payed by the same formula used in that market that pays
Metallica. Nobody works for free, unless you are giving Daves songs
away to your friends, then they are working for free.
> Garage bands don't usually have a relationship with ASCAP.
Yours don't, you mean. Anyone that makes a record and attempts to
sell it that doesn't protect their work via any of the large
performance rights peoples thingies deserves whatever they get,
especially today.
rct
Les Cargill
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:58:55 -0500, Les Cargill <lcar...@cfl.rr.com>
> complete with cover art and liner notes. It is still word of mouth,
> without the fuss of dubbing tapes or CD's yourself.
>
Yeahbut.... some other kid at the Junior High handed you the tape
to copy. See how this works?
I don't think the alleged "social" networking sites have
the same impact. MySpace has gotten the people I know who use it
somewhere between zero and bupkis in terms of work.
> Anything else is just clinging to nostalgia. Much like tapes themselves...
>
Uh huh. Drooll, baby.
http://www.precisionmotorworks.com/PDF/ATR.100_Suite.pdf
I don't care who y'are, that's a nice machine.
--
Les Cargill
VampX
> The Web is a vast tissue of lies.
That's preposterous! Wait, let me Google those statistics.
--
VampX
-------------------------------
http://www.scartissue.com.au
rct
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:26:26 -0800 (PST), rct <Ron.Thomp...@faa.gov> wrote:
> >Spender wrote:
>
> >> >So...yer thinkin that they play Metallica records for nothing and they
> >> >tell Lars that they just done did 'em a solid? You do realize that's
> >> >not how it works, right?
>
> >> I realize that Metallica is famous.
>
> >You may find this hard to believe, but famous means nothing in this
> >discussion.
>
> masses... yes it does.
>
> >> Garage bands don't usually have a relationship with ASCAP.
>
> >Yours don't, you mean. Anyone that makes a record and attempts to
> >sell it that doesn't protect their work via any of the large
> >performance rights peoples thingies deserves whatever they get,
> >especially today.
>
No offense bro, you really should, if you are as interested in getting
your music out there in a way that compensates you fairly. ASCAP/BMI
is all I am familiar with personally, but there are others, and I do
believe there is one specifically for internet protections for those
that are not ACAP/BMI'd. So you go on wit yer bad self, give the damn
music away, I don't care. I only know you do not have to sign your
rights away to the Evil Corporate Musikk Musheen, and that is not what
is wrong with the music business.
rct
Amazing Disgrace
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:58:55 -0500, Les Cargill <lcar...@cfl.rr.com>
> I can't imagine why. Want a "tape", go here or there and get the flacs,
> complete with cover art and liner notes. It is still word of mouth,
> without the fuss of dubbing tapes or CD's yourself.
>
> Anything else is just clinging to nostalgia. Much like tapes themselves...
Have you tried this for yourself? What were the results?
Did you succeed in marketing your own music over the internet?
rct
> Have you tried this for yourself? What were the results?
> Did you succeed in marketing your own music over the internet?
Oh come ON man. This is usenet ferkryinoutloud. What do you want?
Experience? People talking about stuff they've actually DONE??
People not just repeating what they read yesterday on the
HawtGittarreStudz.com?? Come on Howl, SMOKE SOME MORE WEED why don't
you.
rct
Derek
>
>Just curious, have either you or the Professor ever released an album of
>your own music, lable, indie, or otherwise? If so, what happened?
Yes, I have played on a record of all originals, one cover. We paid
mechanicals on the original, and just the studio time. We sold them
to friends and family of course, and had them available on gigs.
Last one I was on was all covers, and we paid mechanicals, then
recorded and printed. Pretty simple process, though long and drawn
out. Worked thru the Harry Fox organization both times.
Amazing Disgrace
heh.
well i was trying to be nice about it.
I noticed neither of these two guys, Professor or Spender, have stated they
have any experience, much less success, in internet marketing of music. I
wonder if Spender has ever signed "the big contract".
rct
> I noticed neither of these two guys, Professor or Spender, have stated they
> have any experience, much less success, in internet marketing of music. I
> wonder if Spender has ever signed "the big contract".
We lost ours. Seriously. Actually lost the actual physical
instrument called "big contract". Never did find it. They coulda
told us anything, we wouldn't have known. Didn't matter though,
nothing really ever came of it all.
rct
Amazing Disgrace
groovy.
are you Spender or Professor?
Amazing Disgrace
you looked in the porta-potty?
The_Professor
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:58:55 -0500, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Spender wrote:
>
> >> Lot's of noise, sure, but
> >> word of mouth still directs people to the web sites of new bands.
>
> >It can, but .... it's less likely. The Web is a vast tissue of lies.
> >What the Innernet is good for is still word of mouth, but it's not
> >an improvement on tape trees for promoting a band.
>
> complete with cover art and liner notes. It is still word of mouth,
> without the fuss of dubbing tapes or CD's yourself.
>
> Anything else is just clinging to nostalgia. Much like tapes themselves...
The musicians make money from their celebrity these days. I saw hype
for a Billy Joel/Elton John concert on TV. Sold out, and they added
another gig. You think the music is anything but worn out...or that
they perform anywhere near as well as they did when they were
nobodies? How about Bruce Springsteen at the Superbowl...think he'll
be anything more than the worn out old has been like we saw last year
with The Rolling Stones? The music is a vehicle to celebrity, and you
make the money off the celebrity these days.
Or more simply, the nostalgia is where you make the money...if that's
what you are after.
Derek
>
>groovy.
>are you Spender or Professor?
No, but I did spend the night at a Holiday Inn Express.
I see now that you weren't looking for direct experience from
participants in this thread, but are targeting these two guys to
establish thier credibility.
rct
> >No offense bro, you really should, if you are as interested in getting
> >your music out there in a way that compensates you fairly. ASCAP/BMI
> >is all I am familiar with personally, but there are others, and I do
> >believe there is one specifically for internet protections for those
> >that are not ACAP/BMI'd. So you go on wit yer bad self, give the damn
> >music away, I don't care. I only know you do not have to sign your
> >rights away to the Evil Corporate Musikk Musheen, and that is not what
> >is wrong with the music business.
> I'm actually not arguing with you on that point. I'm just saying that most
> garage bands probably don't do it.
Alright well, I'm saying that is a change, and that if you are making,
in any way, original material you need to be doing this stuff. We
did, even when I was only 18 or so, we did. And if a band doesn't,
and they are getting their a$$e$ handed to them well, it's their fault
and not the big music machine is allz I'm sayin here yo.
> Your copyrights are protected, in
> theory, with no action on your part. (You just need to be able to prove a
> date somehow.)
Probably amongst the most Trailer Park advises ever given. Absolute
BS, you can't bring an action to stop someone from using your material
without reasonably certain proof of copyright protection. In most
cases these days, that means an actual copyright. When I was young,
"mail it to yourself" was the sage advise. That stopped workin...late
80's I guess. If someone brings an action claiming you have a song
that violates their copyright, and they have one, and you don't, you
can have mailed it to JHKrist On A Cross himself, you don't have
anything. I didn't write this stuff to argue, but to lead some new
person away from that idea, should they pen the next KTel MegaHit.
> I wasn't talking about anyone signing away their rights in this regard.
> Publishing rights and royalties for performances are two different things.
They are. But they can, should, and very(or most) often, do have the
same owner, the writer or his/her publishing entity that pretty much
works for them. Or did. I am old.
rct
rct
> <amazingdisgraceb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I noticed neither of these two guys, Professor or Spender, have stated they
> >have any experience, much less success, in internet marketing of music. I
> >wonder if Spender has ever signed "the big contract".
>
> No, I never said I did. I've never ridden on the space shuttle either, but
> I have some understanding of how it works.
Well, there has been some pretty clear indications that you DON'T
understand how it works. Radio stations don't do favors frinstance.
They play music, and you get paid. Period. Things like that had me
and Mr Howldog over there questioning yer bona feedays.
rct
The Professor
Amazing Disgrace wrote:
>
> I noticed neither of these two guys, Professor or Spender, have stated they
> have any experience, much less success, in internet marketing of music. I
> wonder if Spender has ever signed "the big contract".
Of course I've never commented on using the internet to market music...and
while I might post stuff for fun if I feel inclined, I don't see it as a way to
make money selling music. I do know quite a few people who try to use INET to
sell music, and none of them make much.
The Professor
Spender wrote:
>
> I have a lot of nostalgia for some of the big arena shows I saw as a kid.
> But frankly the sound at the smaller venues is much better.
I liked the big festival type shows in open parks back in the day...before they
started not letting you bring in your own food and drink (even non alcoholic!
...can't even take water!) and they became vehicles for selling crappy beer. I
never liked stadum shows, FWIW. Small venues are the best by far.
The Professor
rct wrote:
If radio stations don't do favours, that's a big change from past practice.
The Tao Meister
;-)
"Prof" has been learning to play the guitar for about 3 years. He copped
to it (the only thing he's ever typed to his credit, imo).
It's the innardnet.
Just as 'rct' is merely missing two vowels and a consonant (an 'e','u'
and and an 'm') to better define his initials, -most is amusement here.
A grain of salt has value. This?
Regards,
mvm
Don Evans
It should be obvious, but maybe it isn't .. those friendly radio stations
play music, and they get paid in advertising, and they also *pay* for using
the music. So using songs isn't a favor, it's a service they should, and
usually do, pay for. So shouldn't you, the writer, get your share?
Don
Don Evans
I think you misjudge rct.
Don
Don Evans
> On Jan 7, 7:19 pm, Spender <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:58:55 -0500, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Spender wrote:
>>
>>>> Lot's of noise, sure, but
>>>> word of mouth still directs people to the web sites of new bands.
>>
>>> It can, but .... it's less likely. The Web is a vast tissue of lies.
>>> What the Innernet is good for is still word of mouth, but it's not
>>> an improvement on tape trees for promoting a band.
>>
>> I can't imagine why. Want a "tape", go here or there and get the
>> flacs, complete with cover art and liner notes. It is still word of
>> mouth, without the fuss of dubbing tapes or CD's yourself.
>>
>> Anything else is just clinging to nostalgia. Much like tapes
>> themselves...
>
> The musicians make money from their celebrity these days. I saw hype
> for a Billy Joel/Elton John concert on TV. Sold out, and they added
> another gig. You think the music is anything but worn out...or that
> they perform anywhere near as well as they did when they were
> nobodies?
I saw Billy within the past year, and yeah, he does. IMO, anyway.
Don
The Tao Meister
I imagine that's mutual. Such is 'this place'. Thanks for your
observation though- I'll keep it in mind (sincerely)- as is the
case with us all, to some degree or another, there's a lot of that
online.
We each focus on our own orientation towards other individuals and
vv, vs. those we're not the least bit involved in, re; posting history
don't you think? mvm
The_Professor
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why should they play your song? It's not like there aren't a million
of 'em out there...and you have a major recording industry with a
stable of writers and performers producing and promoting music who I
suspect are still more than willing to make deals with media outlets
to play their music over yours for the sake of generating sales.
The_Professor
> companies still dominate pop culture. Yet they have people who keep an eye
> on Soundclick for instance to see whose doing what.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised to someday see a big name come out of Soundclick
> beginnings.
All I can do is offer the sources of my resistance to even going to
sites like Soundclick.
First and foremost, I don't want to recieve anything from you other
than what I specifically order. I don't want any emails about exciting
new artists, or any information about your latest products unless I
specifically ask for it, case by case. The SPAM associated with
ordering these products is way over the top...and the scumware that
gets downloaded onto your computer to support the spam is 100%
unacceptable to me, and I will avoid it to whatever degree I can.
Secondly, an mp3 download isn't worth anywehere near a dollar to me.
It's worth next to nothing. I have owned thousands of records, tapes
and CDs over the years, and still have thousands of them, maybe 1/10
the total I have owned. I am a serious music consumer. I have never
downloaded an mp3 for a fee. Hopefully I never will. I insist on the
freedom a hard copy of the media allows. In short, I'm not going to
pay to download your work. One subkicker here is people getting upset
about me making a copy of the download, which is just another reason
to not bother with it.
Thirdly, the only access is via my computer, and that is very
restrictive to me anyways. I can go to a concert, and if I like the
band, buy a CD right there. I can then play the CD in my car, my home,
my office...make some mp3's for my mp3 player. Making CDs of mp3s is a
pain...and what if your computer crashes...I'm supposed to maintain
some library of backups...I can't imagine having soft copies of all my
music media and then having to maintain the database and
backup...vs....just having a pile of CDs somewhere.
Now, if the downloads were free, I might go for a tradeoff, but then
you make no money from the distribution of the online material...but
then it doesn't cost you much either...butt hat's your choice. Again,
if I had a good music act going, I would do free downloads from my own
site. No scumware!
Amazing Disgrace
only because they are the two guys going on and on about "this is what
happens when you do XYZ and this is why the industry is so bad".
So, i wanted to find out if they had ever actually done XYZ and as it turns
out, they havent.
Amazing Disgrace
> Well yes, I do have some understanding of how it works.
"some understanding" doesnt count for much in my book, especially when
you're trying to say "this is how it is".. In my opinion, the only real way
to truly understand something, is to have a good amount of actual practical
experience in the subject. THEN you can say, this is how i know it is,
based on what I worked on blah blah blah.
a lot of people arent going to agree with that opinion and thats fine. but
I'd rather listen to Terry Bradshaw and Howie Long talk to me about the
playoffs than a couple of guys in the office who never played a single
down.
Amazing Disgrace
Thompsor (rct) can play his ass off, and he's a real veteran of the bar
scene; and thru a long experience of working as a guitar player in various
capacities, he knows wtf he's talking about.
I give no higher compliments.
Amazing Disgrace
Your copyrights are protected, in
> theory, with no action on your part. (You just need to be able to prove a
> date somehow.)
>
I'm not sure thats how it works. My rep in BMI told me I definitely needed
concrete stamped posted registering with the Office of Coppyrights for
every single song we released.
He told me if push came to shove, and something ended up in court, a
stamped document from the Office of Copyrights was the evidence I'd
actually need. I copyrighted the words and the music for every single song,
that way.
The_Professor
wrote:
Maybe, however if so then you have no credibilty either...or did I
miss that major label contract and tour you did? Some of us might, for
example, know some major media people really well. Some of us might
actually take the time to inform themselves of various things, like
how the music industry works. While I can enjoy a good bar band as
well as the next person, I don't see how playing for a bunch of drunks
in itself qualfies a person as knowledgable on any topic other than
playing in a bar for a bunch of drunks (they could be, but not
necessarily)...and no disrespect intended there....just stating the
obvious.
Amazing Disgrace
> On Jan 9, 11:31 am, Amazing Disgrace <amazingdisgraceb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:22:25 -0800 (PST), Derek wrote:
>>> Amazing Disgrace wrote:
>>
>>>>groovy.
>>
>>>>are you Spender or Professor?
>>
>>> No, but I did spend the night at a Holiday Inn Express.
>>
>>> I see now that you weren't looking for direct experience from
>>> participants in this thread, but are targeting these two guys to
>>> establish thier credibility.
>>
>> only because they are the two guys going on and on about "this is what
>> happens when you do XYZ and this is why the industry is so bad".
>>
>> So, i wanted to find out if they had ever actually done XYZ and as it turns
>> out, they havent.
>
> Maybe, however if so then you have no credibilty either...or did I
> miss that major label contract and tour you did?
I've released an album, which you can still buy on amazon, and I'm a
registered BMI songwriter. You aint done that much I bet. Major label no,
toured in the old days but nothing special. I'm not the one saying "This is
how it is, this is why the music industry is all wrong" etc.. thats you
saying that. you're the one pontificating, boi... all i've done is ask if
either of you two guys have ANY experience at all with marketing your own
released music.
I guess the answer is "no".
The_Professor
>
> - Show quoted text -
True, however marketing your own music has not been the topic of this
thread. My response was to the idea you have to pay a royalty to
whistle a tune in a bar. You may see good and bad to it, I see nothing
but bad. I don't think the basic facts are much in dispute, but how
you see it. It is interesting that so many people think the writers of
the songs get the royalties though. No doubt most copyrights to most
songs are held by the authors, but no one plays those songs. The
rights for the ones that get played and used a lot are not held by the
song writers...and I do state that as an opinion here as I have no
desire to look up sources...but that in itself doesn't make my opinion
inaccurate!
Amazing Disgrace
a quick glance at just three of messgaes revelaed these quotes:
---------
"Of course we all know that the actual composers of the music
don't get most of these fees, they go to those who own the rights to
the music, who are, at least classically, the kinds of people who are
known for going from business to business making sure they pay up.
My experience has been that you cannot sign any sort of
recording and distribution contract with a big time distributor without
giving up the rights to the music...
When it comes to getting serious distribution, they won't make the
materials and promote them unless you give up the rights to the music,
especially if you are a nobody."
------------
and i would say, from my experience, ALL of those statements are
inaccurate.
and thats just three messages, all of yours filled with all kinds of
assumptions based on in-experience of the subject of discussion.
i'm done with you.
have a good weekend.
RichL
(a) I've used Soundclick for over a year now, posting songs etc., and
I've *never* received a bit of spam or any other e-mail from them.
(b) Whether you have to pay to download songs from Soundclick is the
individual artist's choice. Some let you download for free, some
charge, and some don't allow downloads at all.
(c) Regardless of how downloads are handled, you can listen to all
songs for free. So it's a great resource for me to explore new music.
(d) If you do download music and you're concerned about the volatility
of files on your computer, dump 'em to a CD. Doh!
I'm not sure which "Soundclick" you visited (or if you've even explored
the site at all), but it's sure not the same as the one I'm familiar
with.
RichL
My understanding is that it's not absolutely necessary but it saves a
lot of hassle should an issue arise.
The Tao Meister
OK. mvm
The Tao Meister
A] Correct. Ditto.
B] Correct. Ditto.
C] Correct. Ditto.
D] Correct. Ditto.
I rag on the prof. more than I should, I know, but the guy seems to be
typing in from some perpendicular or horizontal anti-correct universe
all the time....
mvm
http://tinyurl.com/2hj395 <--- Soundclick
The_Professor
>
> - Show quoted text -
If I said "my experience" then in that particalr case, that is
inaccurate. "My knowledge" would be more precise. Fact is neither of
us have ever signed a major label contract, so neither of us have any
direct experience.
The_Professor
> (a) I've used Soundclick for over a year now, posting songs etc., and
> I've *never* received a bit of spam or any other e-mail from them.
You don't get the SPAM from the website, you get it from whever they
sell the list of email addresses to..along with information about what
kind of music you and the people who visit your site like. I have to
qualify this with the fact I don't have direct experience with
soundclick, but have had a lot of experince trying to deal with
problems associated with other such sites. Selling the names and other
information they collect is a major source of revenue.
> (d) If you do download music and you're concerned about the volatility
> of files on your computer, dump 'em to a CD. Doh!
That's a lot of CDs to make! To each his own though.
> I'm not sure which "Soundclick" you visited (or if you've even explored
> the site at all), but it's sure not the same as the one I'm familiar
> with
Admittedly, I've only looked at it a few times. I avoid such sites
because of the scumware issue. Might not always be scumware, but in
my direct experience it is often enough to avoid them.
rct
> True, however marketing your own music has not been the topic of this
> thread.
True.
> My response was to the idea you have to pay a royalty to
> whistle a tune in a bar. You may see good and bad to it, I see nothing
> but bad.
If you play a song written by someone else, you are pretty much
obligated to pay them for it. There is no good way to divide it up
and say that band blows so no royalties from them or that band is
great and always does it well so royalties from them or this isn't a
bar it's a coffee shop so no royalties and on and on. You either get
paid for your work or you don't. You don't want to go to work and not
get paid, right?
> I don't think the basic facts are much in dispute, but how
> you see it. It is interesting that so many people think the writers of
> the songs get the royalties though. No doubt most copyrights to most
> songs are held by the authors, but no one plays those songs.
OK. Get a hold of Van Halen, Metallica, Rush, Yes, god man I can't
name all the bands that are covered in bars, at least around here, and
ask them whom holds ownership of their music. Short answer: WE DO.
Van Halens Right Now was used in the Pepsi commercials for a good
reason. The soda company could have gotten rights to have a bunch of
bums like me and Howldog cover the song and use it. Van Halen, wisely
in my opinion, said no, just use our original, take a break on the
royalties. We'd rather that than rct and Howldog clammin it into the
dirt with their molten arpeggiations of pentatonic riffage and skull
pummelling power chordage. It works good like that you know, gives
the owner some control over it. I don't know why you are of the idea
that the songs that are played are not owned by the authors. Sure,
LOTS of material is farm produced, the artist on the
radio is just performing it and didn't write it. 'specially Country.
But man, theres the whole lots of rest of them owned and performed by
the authors and have the crap played out of them. I'm just not
getting this.
> The rights for the ones that get played and used a lot are not held by the
> song writers...and I do state that as an opinion here as I have no
> desire to look up sources...
Right, because it is just so easy to walk into a room FULL of people
that have been in this business for a long time and just start flingin
type like an expert, you've learned well from intarwebring f0rumz,
bro.
> but that in itself doesn't make my opinion inaccurate!
OK. I COVER OTHER PEOPLE. I RECORD COVERS OF OTHER PEOPLE. I have
to follow the rules and get permissions, even the cheap route of 2000
copies or less. I have to find out who owns it, and I have to let
administering their rights know I am doing this, and if I exceed the
lower figures I have to start paying out and yes, I can be sued by
them if I do exceed the lower limit and don't compile and pay the
performance rights people. So I've probably looked up the ownership
of many hundreds of songs. I and my lawyer would not agree with your
opinion at all!
Are you confusing publishing companies with song writers or bands?
You could be. I am Ron Thompson. But I have a publishing company
that is the point of contact regarding rights to my music. If you
call me at home, you'll get me. If you call my publishing company,
you'll get me! That might be why you think that. Best to separate
yourself as a musican/recording artist etc. from the tedious work of
looking after your music, so you may see that songs on your favorite
record are the property of or copyright (fill in some whacky named
company). It's them guys, it's their company. Maybe that's it.
rct
RichL
I haven't noticed an increase in music-related spam since I joined.
I do get a whole lot from online musical instrument merchants, though.
The Tao Meister
>
> Admittedly, I've only looked at it a few times. I
Good God. Shut up.
The Professor
rct wrote:
>
>
> Right, because it is just so easy to walk into a room FULL of people
> that have been in this business for a long time and just start flingin
> type like an expert, you've learned well from intarwebring f0rumz,
> bro.
>
You are the one who went here.....
A room full of people expert in what? You signed some major recording contracts?
We got "a room full of experts" here in these sorts of contracts in alt.guitar?
I have said that not all artists lose the rights to their music. I could
probably go on naming people who have lost those rights long after you run out
of those who have retained them. I am probably most informed in The Blues, BTW,
so I do have a long list. I wouldn't walk across the street to hear Van Halen,
so I in fact know nothing about them..or him or whatever. Another fool notion I
have is that you don't get anything for 99% of what you do, but you have to do
that 99% to get to the 1% you get something back for. You want to nickel and
dime the 99%, you write off the 1% by wasting your time and energy on that
effort...and there's more to life than a bit of money.
Even if the money went to the writers, how would they know who to pay...and I
really don't know how they actually distribute that money, but how would they
know if I were whistling Stairway to Heaven or Hell's Bells at an open mic night
in a bar? How much of the money goes right to the big distributors like Sony and
how much to everyone else? You're and expert, as you say, so you should be able
to provide a credible reference here.
I'm just saying, BTW, as this is a discussion board, and that's what people do
on discussion boards.
The Professor
Spender wrote:
snippit...
That's kinda what I thought. You have to figure that even if you own the rights to
Led Zeppelin, they will figue that Led Zeppelin got 0.45% of total airplay and send
'em a check for something like $97.50 while they collect A LOT more than that. Now
maybe I am cynical in saying that all goes to the big labels...but really? How could
it not?
As to live peformaces, if I got to an open mic night and do "Everyboy Wants to Go to
Heaven", in a club that pays the fee, you think the estate of Don Nix is going to get
one red cent? So who gets that money? See above!
I have to admit I really don't care about who gets the money though. The big labels
have some bills to pay. What gets me about all this is the effect is has on overall
music quality. Almost no independent radio stations. Very few clubs with live
entertainment, and most especially those hole in the wall marginal clubs run by
people for the love of it are 100% gone...and what we see in the music industry today
is almost exclusively the result of that, IMHO. After all, if anything there are far
more really talented musicians out there than in say the 1950's and 1960's...but no
cross pollintation, no mixing of anything. Nowhere to develop. A stale, sterlie
controlled market. BLEAGH!
rct
> > Right, because it is just so easy to walk into a room FULL of people
> > that have been in this business for a long time and just start flingin
> > type like an expert, you've learned well from intarwebring f0rumz,
> > bro.
>
> You are the one who went here.....
I did.
> A room full of people expert in what?
I didn't say expert. I said been in this business for a long time.
Which is a little more than a guy admitting he hasn't even looked into
any of this.
> You signed some major recording contracts?
Major, as in major record companies, yes. Three. None went anywhere
great, so major as in big cash returns? No. None of those record
companies exists anymore.
> We got "a room full of experts" here in these sorts of contracts in alt.guitar?
Nope. Didn't say that. Read all the words, put them in their
context. It isn't hard.
> I have said that not all artists lose the rights to their music. I could
> probably go on naming people who have lost those rights long after you run out
> of those who have retained them.
Ok, you can do that. But remember, nobody "loses" their rights in the
middle of the night. They exchange those rights to ownership for
something else, usually lots of money up front with (probably) way
less recoup percentage. Do you know what that is? I'm no expert, but
I've read enough of them and paid back enough to know that part of it
too.
> I am probably most informed in The Blues, BTW,
> so I do have a long list.
Ok, that is fine and true, lots of those guys gave over their rights
out of, we can guess, either a need to feed the family or the needle
into their arm or ignorance. Only the first one really counts I
guess. It is a shame too. But remember, that is different than an
"artist" carping about it today, that stuff did happen, long ago.
It's one of the reasons there is so much emphasis placed on ownership
and all that.
> I wouldn't walk across the street to hear Van Halen,
> so I in fact know nothing about them..or him or whatever.
Ok well, their name came to mind as a "famous" act that does in fact
own their stuff, like lots of others.
> Another fool notion I
> have is that you don't get anything for 99% of what you do, but you have to do
> that 99% to get to the 1% you get something back for. You want to nickel and
> dime the 99%, you write off the 1% by wasting your time and energy on that
> effort...and there's more to life than a bit of money.
O...k.
> Even if the money went to the writers, how would they know who to pay...and I
> really don't know how they actually distribute that money, but how would they
> know if I were whistling Stairway to Heaven or Hell's Bells at an open mic night
> in a bar? How much of the money goes right to the big distributors like Sony and
> how much to everyone else? You're and expert, as you say, so you should be able
> to provide a credible reference here.
Read All Of The Words, it may come in handy in future conversation.
I'm not an expert. Compared to you, who acknowledges this is all your
opinion, I am only highly experienced is all.
ASCAP/BMI uses a well documented method of surveying local markets to
determine what is played, along with actual input from radio
stations. They also send people out to survey local live music
markets, like say, Atlantic City down the street. Sure, they probably
don't hit EVERY damn song ever played, but it is a method, a "process"
as everyone likes to say these days. Your computer is your friend, go
read all about it, more than you'll probably ever want to know.
> I'm just saying, BTW, as this is a discussion board, and that's what people do
> on discussion boards.
Yeah fine, that is true. When I am in a discussion board and someone
with a bunch of experience is discussing things, I don't contradict
that person and then tell them I don't even know what I'm talking
about. You might want to try that sometime.
rct
The Professor
rct wrote:
> When I am in a discussion board and someone
> with a bunch of experience is discussing things, I don't contradict
> that person and then tell them I don't even know what I'm talking
> about. You might want to try that sometime.
I get it. Seems to me all of these boards have a group of excessively chauvanistic
people who think that their particular viewpoints are somehow some sort of canon. The
worst case of this I have ever met, and I've met more than one of this type, is the
insurance salesman or whatever (some job the guy hates) who is a sessions player and a
few times a year gets called to sit in on sessions...on and on about playing with so
and so and such and such...and no one knows anything about music of any sort except
him. Never seen a woman with this sort of chauvanism.
I don't see myself misundestanding your assertion that your unspecified experience
makes you some sort of expert, and that anyone who comes to this board is supposed to
somehow kowtow to you. In any event, I don't see any evidence that you know any more
about these issues than I do, experience or not. If you had signed a major contract,
you would have made a lot of money...that's the point of it, they hire you to record
for them. If they don't pay you anything significant, or anything at all up front,
that fact speaks for itself.
You know nothing of who I am or where my knowledge comes from. If you can show me I am
wrong for a fact, I will acknowledge that. However to simple state your opinion on
something and tell me I'm supposed to bow down because you have some "experience"; I
don't think so.
FWIW, a lot of those old blues guys simply didn't copyright their stuff at all, and
others just stole it. I could probably dig up factual cases where some white guy who
didn't copyright something, but had less evidence of ownership than some of the
earlier blues artists did sue and win when people stole their stuff. Nothing wrong
with someone selling a song, that's payment for work done.
And in the end, you still have made no comment on the point I made, that your ASCAP
fees go to the big labels that own the rights to the songs. The notion of the
individual songwriter getting his due via such fees (anything but chump change) is a
tad naive. Of course if from your experience you have data showin that people other
than the big labels get significant money from these fees, I'll retract that statement
and appreciate learning something I didn't previously know.
The Professor
Spender wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 04:45:17 GMT, The Professor <DB...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >And in the end, you still have made no comment on the point I made, that your ASCAP
> >fees go to the big labels that own the rights to the songs. The notion of the
> >individual songwriter getting his due via such fees (anything but chump change) is a
> >tad naive. Of course if from your experience you have data showin that people other
> >than the big labels get significant money from these fees, I'll retract that statement
> >and appreciate learning something I didn't previously know.
>
> It's a case by case basis of course. But you used the example of Led
> Zeppelin. Led Zeppelin owns the rights to Led Zeppelin tunes.
>
> But who owns the tunes in neither here nor there. Think of it this way. If
> you bought a rental property, do you think the renters should be able to
> stop paying rent because, after all, you didn't build the house?
I suppose, but there are other ways to look at it. Who came up with the idea of putting a
bathroom in the house...should we pay a royalty? Even with patents (where sometimes
companies spend billions developing the product), they expire after a few years..but
copyrights seem to go on forever. The songwriter gets paid for writing the song, the label
sells the song and the band gets paid, the label makes its money...how long, baby how long?
...and why is music so special to justiufy all this nickel and diming? Sounds more like
someone wants money for nothing. I can see exclusivity for some period of time to allow the
principals involved to earn from the product, but like anything else it should go public
after say 20 years? The public has a stake too, BTW. No public, no revenue.
The_Professor
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:01:24 GMT, The Professor <D...@att.net> wrote:
> >Spender wrote:
>
> >> But who owns the tunes in neither here nor there. Think of it this way. If
> >> you bought a rental property, do you think the renters should be able to
> >> stop paying rent because, after all, you didn't build the house?
>
> >I suppose, but there are other ways to look at it. Who came up with the idea of putting a
> >bathroom in the house...should we pay a royalty? Even with patents (where sometimes
> >companies spend billions developing the product), they expire after a few years..but
> >copyrights seem to go on forever. The songwriter gets paid for writing the song, the label
> >sells the song and the band gets paid, the label makes its money...how long, baby how long?
> >...and why is music so special to justiufy all this nickel and diming? Sounds more like
> >someone wants money for nothing. I can see exclusivity for some period of time to allow the
> >principals involved to earn from the product, but like anything else it should go public
> >after say 20 years? The public has a stake too, BTW. No public, no revenue.
>
> amount of money at it. Let's face it, there really is no monumental public
> interest in music going public domain, the way patents in science do.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I guess the last thing I want to say on this is that's too bad. Music
is like science in that you build on the past. When you are
constrained legally from including elements of the past in present
compositions, way too much is lost. Could Mozart have been Mozart if
he couldn't have used the folk melodies he used in his compositions? I
guess people generally don't think there is a societal value and
responsibility with respect to music as there is for science. I would
disagree with that, FWIW.
Don Evans
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:47:41 GMT, The Professor <DB...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> That's kinda what I thought. You have to figure that even if you own
>> the rights to Led Zeppelin, they will figue that Led Zeppelin got
>> 0.45% of total airplay and send 'em a check for something like
>> $97.50 while they collect A LOT more than that. Now maybe I am
>> cynical in saying that all goes to the big labels...but really? How
>> could it not?
>
> royalties, they pay them to whoever owns the rights to the songs
> minus the operating expenses of the rights organizations. If an
> artist signed away all the rights to his songs, that's his problem.
> I'm sure more than a few have done just that and injected the
> proceeds into their arms. That's their business.
>
> But the members of Led Zeppelin didn't get rich buying lottery
> tickets...
>
>> As to live peformaces, if I got to an open mic night and do
>> "Everyboy Wants to Go to Heaven", in a club that pays the fee, you
>> think the estate of Don Nix is going to get one red cent? So who
>> gets that money? See above!
>
> who is in no way related to Don Nix or that tune might get money that
> should rightfully be his. But not a record label. The labels own
> right to recordings, not necessarily the songs themselves.
>
> The problem isn't that the artist doesn't own the rights to his
> tunes. The problem is that in many situations there is no real
> accounting of exactly which tunes have been played. But with flat fee
> licensing, the money has to be divided somehow. None of the
> organizations are clear on how they do it.
As I understand, and I may not have it exactly right, the money from live
venues is distributed in the same percentages as airplay money. In the US,
it's that way, at least. In some parts of the world (I know for sure Italy,
and I'm told it's common elsewhere) each show that isn't "under the radar"
ends with a list of tunes played being turned in to ... not really sure of
the name of the agency, but it results in a more or less accurate accounting
of what was played. I'm sure that one result is that more of the money is
used for the mechanics of collection, but I guess that's the price you pay.
As far as all this "big labels own the rights" crap, back in the dark ages
of recording, that stuff happened as a matter of course, but these days it
only happens if, as rct has said over and over, if the writer wants to trade
away future earnings for a smaller payday now. And even at that, there are
limits on how much of your writing you can legally give away, just to
protect the greedy or desperate ones. There are lots of ways labels will
*try* to grab your royalties by trying to use them as collateral, legal but
pretty unthical, IMO, but you don't have to do it.
>
>> I have to admit I really don't care about who gets the money though.
>> The big labels have some bills to pay. What gets me about all this
>> is the effect is has on overall music quality. Almost no independent
>> radio stations. Very few clubs with live entertainment, and most
>> especially those hole in the wall marginal clubs run by people for
>> the love of it are 100% gone...and what we see in the music industry
>> today is almost exclusively the result of that, IMHO. After all, if
>> anything there are far more really talented musicians out there than
>> in say the 1950's and 1960's...but no cross pollintation, no mixing
>> of anything. Nowhere to develop. A stale, sterlie controlled market.
>> BLEAGH!
>
> As I implied before, it really doesn't cost a club all that much for a
> yearly license allowing them to have any tune in ASCAP or BMI's
> catalog played in their club. Nothing that a modest cover charge
> can't handle.
When you add the cost to what they pay bands or whatever, it can sway the
balance of whether or not they find it financially attractive to have bands
... it does cost more than if they don't ... so the result is, less venues.
Don
Don Evans
> rct wrote:
>
>> When I am in a discussion board and someone
>> with a bunch of experience is discussing things, I don't contradict
>> that person and then tell them I don't even know what I'm talking
>> about. You might want to try that sometime.
>
> I get it. Seems to me all of these boards have a group of excessively
> chauvanistic people who think that their particular viewpoints are
> somehow some sort of canon. The worst case of this I have ever met,
> and I've met more than one of this type, is the insurance salesman or
> whatever (some job the guy hates) who is a sessions player and a few
> times a year gets called to sit in on sessions...on and on about
> playing with so and so and such and such...and no one knows anything
> about music of any sort except him. Never seen a woman with this sort
> of chauvanism.
>
> I don't see myself misundestanding your assertion that your
> unspecified experience makes you some sort of expert, and that anyone
> who comes to this board is supposed to somehow kowtow to you. In any
> event, I don't see any evidence that you know any more about these
> issues than I do, experience or not. If you had signed a major
> contract, you would have made a lot of money...that's the point of
> it, they hire you to record for them. If they don't pay you anything
> significant, or anything at all up front, that fact speaks for
> itself.
You have no more reason to believe me than any other guy on this group, but
I gotta say, you need to do more research. Signing with a major label
doesn't guarantee big bucks.
> You know nothing of who I am or where my knowledge comes from. If you
> can show me I am wrong for a fact, I will acknowledge that. However
> to simple state your opinion on something and tell me I'm supposed to
> bow down because you have some "experience"; I don't think so.
No one expects you to "bow down", but maybe you should listen a bit to
figure out who really does know what they're talking about.
> FWIW, a lot of those old blues guys simply didn't copyright their
> stuff at all, and others just stole it. I could probably dig up
> factual cases where some white guy who didn't copyright something,
> but had less evidence of ownership than some of the earlier blues
> artists did sue and win when people stole their stuff. Nothing wrong
> with someone selling a song, that's payment for work done.
Times have changed in that regard, a lot! And one of the reasons for the
change was the outrage at the unfair practices in the early blues recording
times. There have always been, and always will be, rip offs in the
recording industry, but if you educate yourself, and keep your wits about
you, you can avoid many of them.
> And in the end, you still have made no comment on the point I made,
> that your ASCAP fees go to the big labels that own the rights to the
> songs.
AFAIK, in general, publishing companies are the means of distributing
writers money ... labels have no part in it, unless your label is your
publisher. If you own your own publishing company, then it's up to you to
deal with Harry Fox and all, or you can pay someone to administer your
publishing. Frequently writers give publishers a portion of the royalties
as part of their deal, but they make that decision when they sign.
>The notion of the individual songwriter getting his due via
> such fees (anything but chump change) is a tad naive. Of course if
> from your experience you have data showin that people other than the
> big labels get significant money from these fees, I'll retract that
> statement and appreciate learning something I didn't previously know.
There could definitely be a better, more efficient mechanism for getting the
money to the writers of the tunes actually paid, but IMO, at least, that
doesn't mean no money should be paid to the writer. Of course money gets
deducted for the service of collecting, and you could argue that it's too
much, but I can't think of any comparable industry that doesn't take "too
much" from somebody's point of view.
Don
Amazing Disgrace
My understanding is that its absolutely necessary if any lawyers get
involved.
Amazing Disgrace
I dont see why you guys are even bothering with this buffoon. He (or she,
as it might turn out to be at this point) admits she has absolutely no
experience in any of this, gets the same answers from working players over
and over, continues to argue and state her erroneous theories are accurate,
then finally ends up calling those who disagree with her, are "chauvenists"
and claims "women would never act like this".
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
yeah right, perfesser.
Just wait until she gets into a chick singer band.
The_Professor
>
> - Show quoted text -
I listen, and I respond to what people say. For someone to say to me
that because they play a guitar and maybe I don't, they somehow know
more about a subject like this...or they play better, or they have
played longer...or they have posted to this borad longer...or whateve
rin that vein, is absurd, and limits participation on the board. I
reject it 100%. I have seen very little real information here, just
opinion, and I have no problem with the legitimacy of an opinion that
is different than mine. No way I am going to say my opinion is more
legitimate than someone elses because I play the guitar, or because I
read a lot about music and the music industry, both mags and books, or
because I have first ansd second degree relatives in the entertainment
industry, because I know there are lots of people out there who follow
the media very closely, and have good knowledge in that area, despite
never having played in a band, or played an instrument.
If you want to think that ASCAP fees result in the writer of music
getting his reward, fine by me. I think the money almost all goes to
the big media companies. I have seen no real information to resolve
the issue and I have no interest in pursuing it any further. I don't
disrespect your view, I just disagree with it. I can disagree with
people on menial things like this without disrespecting them...but if
people take such disagreement as disrespect, that's their problem, not
me...and the disrespect has to go back to them.
Too bad some people have to raise the I play in a band or I've played
a guitar for 87 years and therefore I know everything rhetoric on this
board. Probably does a lot to limit participation by people with
interest in guitar related issues. I ain't gonna repsect that rhetoric
though.
RichL
These things are based on fact, not opinion. It's not like talking
about whether Pink Floyd is better than Led Zeppelin.
Guys who have experience have dug into these issues. You obviously
haven't; you're simply spouting anti-industry rhetoric.
Do some actual research, "Professor", before you dig yourself into a
deeper hole.