JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Another ASCAP Controversy

Note: This email came to me asking for people to forward it. I don't do that, but I thought the entire thing was of educational value for artist in our community. I'll post some thoughts separately.
-------------------------------------------

Dear People

My name is Leslie Bloome and I have been a member of ASCAP since 1994 and up
until now I always felt that ASCAP was the right choice for me.

Recently I received an article printed (and attached to this letter,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/03
/BUGL13CH5H26.DTL) in the San Francisco Chronicle which disturbed me down to
my inner soul.

A VERY small club which I would often play at when I lived in San Francisco,
Skips Tavern, is currently being sued by ASCAP for copyright infringements
because bands playing there (mostly in open mIcs and jam sessions) would, on
occasionally, play a cover tune.

Skips Tavern is one of the very last places in the city of San Francisco
that hosts live music almost every night of the week. Bringing musicians
together in open mics who then form new bands and help to regenerate a live,
local, music scene. In a economy that venues are closing there doors to
music everyday, Skips is vital. These people who live an work in the Burnal
Heights area of SF have come to Skips for years to enjoy its music scene. A
scene, for as long as I can remember, has always been free to the public and
open to anyone who cares to go inside. Skips is not the kind of place that
brings in big national act but the local working Joe, who in their spare
time loves to play their music and enjoy the company of fellow musicians.

ASCAP's frivolous law suit and its need to make an example out of Skips
Tavern is not only wrong but a true embarrassment to myself as a member of
ASCAP and as a working musician. Shame on you and your organization.

I am going to forward this letter to as many musicians and members that I
know and to ask them to do the same. This law suit is wrong for the
musicians, wrong for the community and very detrimental to this small bar
whose only sin was to offer free live music six nights a week.

If you chose to, please forward this to as many people / musicians that you
feel would understand that what is going on is wrong.

You can direct any comments either back to me or to Contact the ASCAP Public
Affairs Department
Write:
Nate Bloom, Associate Director of Public Affairs
ASCAP Public Affairs
One Lincoln Plaza
New York, NY 10023
Email: NBloom@ascap.com or TMabry@ascap.com
Phone: (212) 621-6177or (212)-621-6546
Fax: (212) 595-3342

Sincerily


Leslie Bloome
D T G Productions


------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sounds of silence in Bernal Heights
Tavern owner ends live music after ASCAP suits

John Shinal, Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday, December 3, 2003

------------------------------------------------------------------------



Skip's Tavern, which sits on Cortland Avenue in the heart of Bernal Heights,
is a throwback to when San Francisco was mostly a blue-collar town.

The gritty neighborhood tavern is the kind of place where Vietnam-era
veterans always get a warm welcome but boisterous football fans wearing
anything but 49er colors do not.

In the past few years, Skip's also became home to a small but burgeoning
music scene, even as live music declined in the rest of the city. Bands with
names like the Lab Rats and Thunder Blue staged marathon jam sessions that
attracted crowds that often spilled onto the sidewalk.

But the stage at Skip's has been silent since Oct. 1, when owner Bill
Courtright pulled the plug after deciding that offering live music wasn't
worth the legal trouble it was attracting.

Twice in less than a year, Courtright was sued for copyright infringement by
the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, which collects
royalty payments for copyright holders and represents them in legal
disputes.

"I wasn't going to wait for a third lawsuit," said Courtright, who has owned
Skip's since 1990.

As record companies conduct a much-publicized effort to crack down on
Internet music downloads, Courtright's bitter legal dispute shows how small-
club owners, simply by providing a venue to local musicians, can run afoul
of the guardians of copyrighted music.

Courtright's troubles began in September 2002, when he received a letter
claiming that a private investigator hired by ASCAP heard musicians playing
covers of copyrighted songs at Skip's on June 22, 2002.

The letter, from the San Francisco office of the law firm Heller Ehrman
White & McAuliffe, threatened a lawsuit.

Under copyright law, Courtright can be held liable for the copyright
infringements at his club because he never purchased a license from ASCAP.

Yet Courtright and Regi Harvey, a drummer and guitarist who was on stage on
the night in question, vehemently deny that any such infringement took
place. In fact, copies of the lawsuits and supporting documentation reveal
two very different versions of what was played that night.

Harvey said the three songs in question -- "Shop Around," "Ain't Nothing
Like the Real Thing" and "Where Is the Love?" -- are not even in his band's
repertoire.

"We play original jazz and jazz rock," said Harvey. "We don't even like
those songs."

Courtright responded with a letter Oct. 3, 2002, asking that the law firm
provide evidence of the alleged infringement.

In return, he received a lawsuit.

Courtright tried to settle, and his attorney, James Attridge, sent a letter
Jan. 10 which stated that Courtright had agreed to pay for a one-year
license in exchange for the copyright group dropping the suit, which sought
unspecified damages.

The society's legal representative refused and sent subpoenas to Harvey and
Courtright requesting depositions.

"Trying to negotiate with them has been ridiculous," Courtright said.
"They're trying to make an example out of me, I guess."

ASCAP lawyer Richard Reimer said attaching damage claims to its lawsuits is
necessary to discourage copyright infringement by club owners.

Reimer said that if he took Courtright's offer to buy a license in exchange
for the group not seeking damages, "no one would ever (buy) a license.

It's not like we can call the San Francisco police and tell them to go
arrest him," he said.

Legally, if a copyright is not enforced within a reasonable amount of time,
the copyright holder loses the right to enforce it. For that reason, ASCAP,
which has 4,000 licensees in California, routinely goes after small,
unlicensed clubs for copyright infringements, said Robert Andris, a
copyright attorney in Redwood City. "Generally, the bar or restaurant signs
up," Andris said.

The license for Skip's, which is based on the club's seating capacity,
number of nights per week that music is performed and whether it's played
live or by a disc jockey or jukebox, would cost Courtright $698 per year.

Reimer said his group first sent a letter asking Courtright to buy a license
in 1997. When asked to provide a copy of the letter, however, Reimer
declined, citing confidentiality concerns.

Courtright acknowledged that he probably received such a letter, but that it
was similar to dozens of solicitation letters he gets every week.

"It basically said, 'Pay us money if you want to play our music,' " he said.
Because he had instructed Harvey to hire bands that play original music, he
ignored the letter.

If ASCAP wins the suit, Reimer said he expects to collect damage payments,

which range from $750 to $150,000 per infringement, in the high five
figures.

"But would we settle for less than that? Probably," he said. "I don't
anticipate having to try this case."

As to Harvey's and Courtright's statements that no violations occurred in
June of last year, Reimer said, "The ASCAP investigator will be credible and
believed. We call that a swearing contest," Reimer said.

Yet Attridge said that because of the testimony of the musicians on stage
that night, it will be impossible to prove any infringements.

"The first investigator got it wrong," Attridge said. "People saw him
drinking at the bar. I think he got his bars confused."

Reimer acknowledges that the investigator was drinking but said that is
necessary to maintain the undercover nature of such an investigation.

After Harvey and Courtright gave their depositions in May, ASCAP sent
another undercover investigator, who reported more copyright violations on
the night of June 3, 2003.

In August, Courtright was sued again and decided he'd had enough.

Although he intends to fight the lawsuits, he did not want to risk any more.

"I've tried to give local bands a place to play, but I can't monitor what
they play," he said. "Yet I'm the one facing the lawsuits."

Courtright said that in the seven years the club has had live music, he
imposed a cover charge on only one occasion. That was when Tito Jackson, of
Jackson 5 fame, played at the club earlier this year.

"They got me pegged as a small guy who won't fight, but they're wrong," said
Courtright. "I won't pay them a damn dime unless they drop the lawsuits," he
said.

After a November settlement meeting yielded no agreement, the cases are
moving forward. If they do go to trial, one thing is clear: While Courtright
faces the prospect of a five-figure payment, the biggest losers in the case
so far are the musicians.

"It's killing the musicians," said Harvey, who started a Sunday night jam
session at Skip's seven years ago that grew into the seven-nights-a-week
offerings. "There's no place for locals to play in this town anymore," said
Harvey, who booked the bands for Courtright.

While the pay was minimal -- less than $50 a night per musician for a trio,
for example -- and the venue small, "playing here meant something to them,"
said Harvey. "It's not a big joint, but it was a proving ground."

On a recent Sunday afternoon at Skip's, fans were watching the 49er game.

The bar's paneled walls, darkened from decades of cigarette smoke, are
covered with photos of such milestones as "The Catch" made by 49er Dwight
Clark and the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge.

Near a window, an electronic keyboard lay on top of a shut upright piano,
gathering the dust that filtered through a shaft of light.

Above the empty stage, to the right of a famous movie publicity shot showing
Marilyn Monroe trying to hold down her billowing skirt, a hand- lettered
sign revealed the current state of the music: "No Music Thanks to

ASCAP."

E-mail John Shinal at jshinal@sfchronicle.com.

Okay.. this comes up over and over and over. Here are my thoughts:

If a business has live music to bring people in, and can't afford to pay $1.91 per day of live music in their venue for the rights to play it/have it performed then their problems run far deeper than ASCAP.

Now, there are plenty of disgruntled songwriters who are members of PRO's who feel like they don't get payments they deserve. The system is archaic at best in monitoring airplay. But, I also think a lot of artists have unrealistic expectations of what the value of getting their song played a few times on a local radio station really is/should be. We're talking micro fractions of pennies in many cases. Nonetheless, there are very real scenarios where writers get significant regional radio airplay and never see a payment. There's also great confusion with internet royalty payments which really need to be clearly defined. I also think there needs to be a better balance between keeping the monitoring systems secret (to protect from the inevitable manipulation that would incur if the method was easy to track and abuse) and really explaining how payments were REALLY accrued and why so many writers feel left out unjustly.

However.. all that has NOTHING to do with the case above.. and that's such a typical political ploy used by people who misdirect the anger and suspicion caused by one set of realities and project them on another one.

The issue at hand in the above deals with giving music a value when it is used to enhance the commercial efforts of someone else. If having music in a venue, live or recorded, truly produces ZERO value back to that venue, and enhances their business conditions and customer experiences in no tangible way, then the venue has 2 realities: 1: They shouldn't have to pay for it because 2: they are idiots for using it in the first place if they want to have a successful business. Why do something no one wants and expect it to produce positive results?

But of course.. in my opinion, that's a totally bogus argument. It DOES positively impact the business financially. If musicians are coming to the venue 7 nights a week to perform live music, bringing even a couple fans with them as a group, it's clearly having a net gain far superior to a dollar ninety-one per night. A coke or two purchased per night would have great impact than that. So, let's please stop the bogus hand wringing. It's rings VERY hollow.

This seems far more like a simple pissing match, which, I think bears far more investigation and discussion than the bogus BS floated by both sides.

I've heard a lot of heavy handed examples of the PRO's really terrorizing small venues who simply don't want to recognize their role. It seems like unnecessary antagonism. It's easy to understand why a small venue, who by definition is independent minded in the face of massive corporate chain store businesses (like Starbucks for example) would be offended when an outsider they neither understand, nor respect, comes in demanding money for something they really either don't understand or simply never expected to have to pay because no one ever led them to believe they needed to. When they've been revealed to not know how that part of business actually works in the real world, they get ticked off and get defensive.. and these type of pissing matches materialize. It repeats over and over. Both sides are at fault, but it seems to me that instead of hiring some law firm to drop the hammer so they can threaten an independent business even further, perhaps a different approach MIGHT be in order. Here's some ideas.. just food for thought really:

1. Why can't ASCAP and BMI and SESAC come up with a friendly business oriented educational program on the value of live music to a venue? I am not talking some lame high school quality filmstrip type of thing. I am talking some REAL factual and statistical data that a legit small business could read and learn from. Something that showed factually that live music can positively impact their business. It's not that complicated.

2. Within this educational effort, there should also be a straight forward explanation of how the PRO's actually work and how that provides songwriters/artists with a small amount of income (and I suggest giving REAL examples of this in actually dollars and cents), and should also explain how the PRO's work on behalf of writers and not themselves (since they are non profits).

3. They should make it clear that there is NOT any bounty/payoffs to local reps. I hear a lot of accusations from artists and venues that local PRO reps are akin to mafia shakedown figures.. who drive big caddy's and get blood money payoffs from local venues the same way the mafia shakes down businesses for protection money. They need to eliminate this impression. If there ARE payments made on lawsuits/collections on a commission basis, they need to stop that practice immediately and go on record that it does not happen anymore. (Perhaps a PRO rep can comment on this rampant rumor?).

4. The PRO's should take a business partner viewpoint and methodology with small venues. They should offer more education on how a venue can leverage live musicians to help build business at their venues. You could do this by offering real world examples of successes in communities around the US where small venues/businesses have built success around live music (or even recorded music if that's a scenario at hand). After all, a venue that is truly thriving from live music is a good partner for the PRO's and would result in even higher legit payments. Why not nurture and develop this community? Why not build a database of venue which DO pay PRO fees, and give further value to those venues with large collective promotional efforts of licensed venues? Use a two way business partnership model where artists are informed of the legit venues doing legit business.. run local ads touting all the licensed local venues in the paper (using group advertising purchasing power of those venues to cost pennies instead of dollars for local advertising). After all, we are ALL marketing LIVE MUSIC and we all benefit if it is thriving.. the Venues, the Artist, The Writers and the PRO's alike. Why not organize the power of 200,000 PRO members, Thousands and Thousands of Venues and the PRO's which are large and powerful to collectively build demand instead of suing each other?

5. The PRO's should also do a MUCH better job of educating their own members on the minimal costs associated with a legit licensee, and how those costs are determined. To me, realizing the venue above was only being billed 1.91 per day for complete and unlimited use of any song in the ASCAP catalog within their venue seems like a pretty darn good deal. Again, if you can't sell one more 2 dollar drink to cover it because of the live music, then perhaps you really SHOULDN'T be in that particular business. I think there should also be clear guidelines to explain to artists how to submit playlists of their own material to PRO's for compensation. If a venue is paying 2 bucks a day for live music, there should be a reasonable expectation that some of that money is coming directly back to the artists who are playing their material in those venues if they are affiliated with ASCAP. Those systems seem to be nonexistent.

6. I think all PRO's representing writers in the US should have to work together to have a single, all inclusive, licensing deal. This means that 1 venue pays 1 bills which is divided up by the PRO's rather than having all 3 separately coming at venues. People running venues are not music industry execs. Why should they have to become experts to understand what a PRO is, which ones are legit, why there are 3 etc? I think the hones should be 100% on the 3 PRO's to work together to present 1 single and consistent payment option for venues. If their claims have legal standing, they should also have a legal responsibility to collect consistent license fees in a clear and easy to understand format. Let them fight between themselves for who gets what percentage of that fee. That's NOT the concern of the venue. Venues that play cable TV stations (like sports bars) usually have 1 standard fee they pay for access to ALL the channels.. imagine if each venue had to separately deal with every cable station for payment? It would be impossible. PRO's should present a single package of license fees. There should be assurances that this single fee covers them completely. It should clearly indicate what rights/abilities they have and benefits they get to paying this fee. They should understand where this payment goes so that they can feel confident that the artists in their club are seeing their fair share of this income based on a REAL and DIRECT systems and not some secret, convoluted, black magic type of process which everyone is suspicious of, venues and writers alike.

I think if the PRO's did some or all of the things above, in a consistent, methodical manner, then it would be much easier to take their side in these issues. I think Venues using live music should pay. If they aren't willing to pay, they shouldn't use live music. I think Live artists should accept that if they want their piece of this payment, they should be professionals (i.e. if you want to be paid.. be professional.. what a concept) and affiliate with a legit PRO (or if you must, start one yourself.. ) and hold them accountable to get your fair portion of those licensing fees paid by every venue you perform your songs at.

If any of the above is happening, it's not happening consistently and it's CERTAINLY NOT being clearly explained to writers, venues or other interested parties in clear terms.

That's just my opinion.. I could be right.

Brian

Amen, brother. I'm one of the irritated individuals mentioned above that tend to link the venue licensing issue with the nonpayment of royalties. I realize that the two are not necessarily related, but both get to me from time to time.

I should mention though, that micropennies or not, we are owed what we are owed and it's the principle of the matter that counts here. The royalties that I've been fighting to get for the past couple of years likely wouildn't pay for a cup of coffee, but that's not to say that I'm not being screwed when I'm denied them.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything else you mentioned though, and I do believe that if the PROs would get with the program you outlined, life would be easier for a lot of folks. A lot of good ideas there...



------------------
Shandy Lawson

Folk-noir Ballads and Acoustic Brawls
http://www.shandylawson.com

Brian, when a venue owner pays a license fee does it cover all the royalty collecting organizations or just ASCAP?

JeanB

Maybe I don't have all the facts, but it's my understanding that you only have to buy the ASCAP/BMI licenses when you play COVER tunes: tunes written by someone other than the performer. If you are hosting artists who play their own ORIGINAL music, you don't have to purchase the license.

Hallenbecks here in L.A., where we've held dozens of JPF showcases, has a sign up - very visible on stage - that clearly states "NO COVER TUNES". I've assumed it's specifically for the purpose of avoiding license fees.

The above law suit in San Francisco does sound like a bunch of BS, and ASCAP has other problems as well as this mafia-like approach to public relations.


------------------
Larry
www.audibleresponse.com

Again you hit the nail on the head, Brian. What can we do to support your position here? Can we send the "Big 3" a copy of your post signed by all of us? Even if we do, will they care?

Yes, hallenbecks does not allow for cover tunes... It served them well as they did not pay any fees, but it was also only music written by the people performing it.

Unfortunately all good things wind down. Hallenbecks is slowly moving out of live music, no longer 5+ nights a week, they are down to 2 or an occassional 3. At least that's what I'm told now.

This is not the first venue to put a stink. It's also not the first time that ASCAP has strong armed someone. For some reason, I don't think I've ever heard about BMI or SESAC doing this type of thing. It's usually only ASCAP that I've heard doing this.

I'm gonna pose that question about the value of music to a venue to my SESAC rep and see if he's willing to bring something up about it. I'll get back to you on that. But I do want to clarify about point two and the PRO's profit status. It is true that ASCAP and BMI are non-profit, but SESAC is a for profit PRO.

Thanks,
Jody

Jody... Both BMI and ASCAP came down on a little coffee shop I like to play in New Haven here. I believe BMI was first on the scene as well...

Jody,

I had fixed that error on my end but posted the unedited version by mistake. (there's a few other errors I need to fix in word usage as well). SESAC is a For Profit Company. They are only a tiny fraction the size of ASCAP and BMI and I've never heard of them strong arming any venues, but I do know at least some venues pay them a fee because I've seen SESAC stickers on their doors indicating they do.

Larry: If an ASCAP writer performs at a venue, wouldn't that still be a violation? I can see if only non-affiliated songs are performed where that would be exempt.. but for example, if I co-write a song with a BMI and ASCAP writer and perform it at a show, I don't think I have the legal right to waive their fees. The odds of NO ASCAP/BMI/SESAC songs ever being played in a venue with live music 7 days a week is miniscule. So, it seems like we need clarification: Who has the right to waive PRO collections? Does formal notice need to be given to do so? And we all know it's impossible in practical terms for a venue to really know what is and isn't an ASCAP song. Placing a sign up shouldn't remove them from responsibility, which is sounds like is the root of the lawsuit. I think BOTH sides of that lawsuit are in the wrong.

As for forwarding my suggestions: My perception is that they would fall on VERY deaf ears. I've met some great people attached to the PRO's, but I have also found many to be less than interested in listening/helping, especially at the corporate offices. Some of the reps are great though.

It would be helpful to have some PRO reps here to give their feedback. Feel free to have yours chime in.

Brian

Brian,

If you do not mind, I will contact Ralph Murphy (the author of Murphy's Laws on Songwriting), as well as a hit songwriter for Kathy Mattea, Crystal Gayle and Ronnie Milsap. He is with the ASCAP Nashville office, and a very straight shooter.

I have heard him address this issue before and I think you all may enjoy his take on the situation. It will probably be tomorrow before I reach him.

dawg

If the venue owners does go to court on this one, I suggest they get their stories a little more believeable, as in there I read they say they probably did get the notice but probably treated it as yet another bit of junk mail and didn't read it, yet they go on to tell us, in part at least what it said.
That would probably be taken by the court as an inconsistsnacy in eveidence, and possibly would enourage the court to look at any other evidence they offered a little less favourably.
It is not the venue's resposability to submit play lists.
It is their responsability to pay their umbrella dues so artists can legally play whatever they do.
It is up to the artist to submit the play list so any writer's, themselves included if they are pro members get's their dues.
It matters not if they ar4e paid or not. It matters only they are using a writer's material to perform in public, at a venue deemed to require a licience.
It costs nothing for a performer/writer to join APRA, and I am pretty sure the same applies for BMI and ASCAP.
All it takes to be a full memeber is that one of their songs is in fact performed in public.
That requires , again in APREA, that the writer fills in an initial live play form which, for the first one needs to be signed by the venue it wsa first played at.
Simple as that.
A sign saying No covers doen't mean a heck of a lot, as it implies the songs not to be sung have to have been recorded commercially.
If it said Only artist original song to be performed it would work.
As is now with so many songs that will never see a known artist doingthem being available for download off the net, non writing performers can get their material from non recorded writer's material.
Those writers are also entitled to their dues.
Probably could use them more than the big name songs being ripped off.
All the pros have their stated rules and conditions on their web sites, I think it time a few of us read them, and if we are memebrs, started applying their principles.
Graham



------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Dawg,

I know Ralph Murphy. We've asked him to get involved in the past but he's usually busy. He's always got an interesting take on things, and I've even quoted him in the newsletter before. I'll look forward to his input.

Brian

Hmmm, I must be reading a different article here, 'cause it looked to me like this ASCAP entity hires professional testimony givers, who may or may not be telling the truth about whether certain songs were sung on a certain date--no sign of proof, other than their word...Give me a break!!!

This story sickened me...this is definitely a case of coercion, in my view. And, the fact that it's only $1.91 a day, or whatever, is irrelevant...(who decided that, and what prevents them from raising that fee arbitrarily? Who watches the watchers?) What is relevant is that music is not being played at all in a place that used to have it...instead, the patrons of that small bar are reduced to watching TV, and gazing at the Budweiser clock spinning around, while lawyers get rich at yet another scheme to invent a tax where even the government wouldn't tread.

Well, I have to agree with everything that Brian said above. Here are a couple of additional comments:

Seems to me that the idea that all of this only deals with "covers" of songs is completely off the mark. All of my songs are registered with BMI. If I go to perform at a venue that is not BMI-licensed, strictly speaking I would not be permitted to perform my own songs. Doesn't matter if they're my songs or someone else's. What matters is if the songs are licensed by a PRO.

The artists who are performing at these venues, and who are crying and moaning that the venues might have to close down, should be affiliated with a PRO themselves. They might collect a few pennies here and there. They might show, as Brian says, that they place some value on their music. They might, in fact, stop taking the "wrong" side in these debates, and instead line up with their fellow songwriters to make all of this more economically viable for all of us.

The PROs definitely need to do a better job: Better at educating writers in the first place of the entire function of a PRO, better at educating the venues, better at accounting for performances, ad infinitum.

Remember, too, that some of us are =not= gigging musicians. I write and record at home. My primary focus is on film and TV placement; and from time to time, I'll submit something to a publisher or a performing artist. If I'm going to make any money at all, it is going to be through PRO royalties. Not record contracts, not touring, not CD sales. Performance royalties.

I realize I'm probably in the minority on this, but I certainly don't think I'm the only writer in that position. And everyone in my situation has a vested interest in seeing that the performance royalty system is as strong and as fair as possible.

But bottom line, ALL writers have that same vested interest. We can't be saying, "No, let's exempt all these businesses from paying the PROs" -- that's simply taking money out of our own pockets. Money that we are rightfully due.

If the venue owner offered to pay you $25 for your gig, would you say, "Oh, no thanks, you keep it, you need it more than I do"???

Yeah, the PROs need to get their acts better together. But I think we as writers need to help them do it, as well as help educate other writers and the general public on these issues.

Those of you who do gig and perform covers, consider this: When you perform a cover, you are using someone else's work in order to enhance your own performance. Don't you think the person who created that work deserves a little compensation for providing it for you to use? Or do you think the writer's job is simply to crank out songs that you can then appropriate and use for free?

--- Ed

Ed. I would say if anybody is performing at venues, no matter what they are performing, they should not even gother finding out if the venue is paying their dues.
Just submit the playlist.
It has the venue and dates listed so I am pretty sure the PROs will spot it if the venue is dodging the issue and pay them a visit or write them at least.
The more pro members who do thjis sort of stuff, the less the problem will exist I amm sure.
The more any member of any organisation or community gets involved and does their bit for their administration, the better, and stronger that body or community will be.
You can betcha the winning town in a tidy towns competition was not all cleaned up by the council.
It takes a community effort to excel in ay part of life.
Remember. Only the members submitting play lists are in fact doing anythoing toward the upkeep of any PRO.
Whoops. I said members in the previous paragraph.
That should be people, as anybody perfoming live should be submitting a play list.
Probably cover, or other people's song singers should be more morally bound to do it than original song folk, as the latter do own what they are doing so can make thewir own decision.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

[This message has been edited by Graham (edited 12-07-2003).]

Graham,

The US PRO's don't have the same systems as the Aussie ones do. As has been said here before, there is no system to submit playlists from gigs. You can keep them as records and use them in the ASCAP program that provides some compensation for writers who fall through the cracks, but outside of that, I don't believe there's even a place to submit them, let alone someone to track it etc...

As for Bluepoet, I guess you go into your day job for free everyday as well right? After all, you've decided that songwriters don't deserve compensation for their work.. I suppose you don't expect it for your work either right? No one forces a venue to use live music to enhance their business.. THEY choose to do it because they know they'll benefit from it financially. If they truly DON'T make any money or benefit from it, then they aren't in business.. they are running a hobby. Hobbyist venues are likely exempt from paying. (And these venues DO exist.. that wasn't sarcasm..). There are venues around the US that are free listening rooms with no commercial activity happening. I could easily support THOSE venues not having to pay a fee. But as soon as a beer or cup of overpriced coffee is sold, they should share those profits with the people who's work helps generate it... whether it's the electric company.. the table cloth manufacturer or the people who create the music.

Brian

Joining ASCAP as a writer costs $10 per year.
Joining BMI as a writer costs nothing.
Both require you to have at least one piece for which license revenue is at least conceivable.

Joining either as a publisher costs $100-something per year, but you do not need to do this if all you "publish" is stuff you wrote yourself.

The systems are quite a bit differant twix the bodies I am well aware of Brian.
I visited BMI and couldn't fine anywhere i could check as a non mewmber so can't comment on them, but I did E-mail the NY office advising of this post and giving them a rough outline of the content, asking for either a visit, or their thoughts.
ASCAP bore more fruit.
The link below has the live performance thing on it. Even the formular how it is figured and maintained.
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties7.htm
I am pretty sure that indicates there is in fact a play list system in force up there.
Fair bit of reading in the link guys, and covers all areas.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

i have no problem w/ people enforcing royalties for live music... you wrote the song you should get paid for it.

i guess the biggest problem i have is the haphazard way these fees seem to be enforced. now that's only my perception - i don't run a club and only know a handful of people directly involved in that sort of thing.

it just seems that if ASCAP would approach non-paying club owners as a potential future customer rather than as a source of a quick, high paying lawsuit... well it might be better for everybody.

i've heard that one or two clubs here in indy have been smacked with a lawsuit like this. seems like the response is typically to either close doors or go to an original only format.

------------------
kit malone
http://www.kitmalone.com

IF the system worked - by performing someone else's song the performer would be helping the writer get paid, not stealing their work. Performing covers creates potential royalty income for the writer - its not a theft of service.

The big problem IMHO is that there is not one system. If I were a bar owner and ASCAP sent me a licensing bill, then BMI sent me a licensing bill, then SESAC sent me a bill - each of which was based upon some arcane formula which has no relation to what was actually going on in my bar - I'd feel like I was getting fleeced. Whether it were $1.91 a night or not. Regardless of the dollar figure, none of these organizations could tell me if they represent the writers of the songs actually being played, that the money actually goes to the writers or that a fourth or fifth organization isn't going to walk through the door demanding fees as well.

I think we will find the stated case in this post has more holes in it than a colander and should not bve taken as gospel.
It only helps the writer if the performer submits a play list to a pro so they can metre out the royalty money.
All the pros to my knowledge have reciprcols so a venue owner only needs to pay their dues to one I am sure.
I think to be a full meber a person has to have at l;east one song performed live.
APRA dispensed with assocciate members many years ago, but I understand both BMI andm ASCAP still have them.
An associate member does not have to have had any works performed in public as I understand it.
I am sure a bit of a read at the ascap link I posted will enlighten any not sure of what is cooking.
As a side issue seeing they have been mentioned, a publisher can be a member of more than one pro by the way, where as a wirer can only be a meber of one at any given time.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Society is getting more confrontational, angrier, more competitive. We've swung away from the liberal, lessez faire, attitude of the 60's and 70's, through the "me first" 80's and early 90's up to this current social climate.

Political figures call each other liars and traitors. Talk shows become shout shows. People on the internet take things things personally which are said in general and respond with attacks. We can't control our diet so we sue the hamburger makers. We can't control our neighbors' hearts and minds so we accuse them of being demonic.

I never thought appealing for love, tolerance, and teamwork would become old-fashioned, but I guess it is.

The PRO's are playing hardball. Why shouldn't they? Everyone else does. The club owners are refusing to pay them. Why should they? Most of them aren't in it to be in the music business, they are in the booze business. If they thought mud wrestling would bring in a crowd, that's what they'd do.

I believe...no, I KNOW that creating a team and working toward common goals is far more productive than working against each other. The PRO's create ill will. The clubs fight them or go out of business. The musicians lose venues. The only ones winning are the lawyers.

I'm going to start writing music for people to fight by. I'll make millions.

Mike

------------------
Mike Dunbar Music

I don't know what you are talking about Mike.
What fight?
We are having a reasonably productive dicussion not a fight here.
I think some of us have thought some on the matter.
Maybe even learned something.
Or tried to learn something.
The toreodor song from Carmen came up as a real great fight song in The Dorothy Dandridge film Carmen Jones by the way.
What do we do when we can't control who uses our creation to make a quid for themselves while depriving us of our dues?
Sool our pros on to them sounds a wise move to me.
Graham



------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

I'm not talking about the discussion on this board. I'm talking about the practice of suing, legally attacking, the clubs. I agree with Brian. ASCAP and the other PRO's would, in the long run, be better off trying to educate and partner up with the venues. I think the goal here is to have more, rather than less, venues for live music.

I'll bet if ASCAP put one month's cost in money and time into studying and presenting the benefits of music, live and recorded, to a venue, rather than approaching them from an adversarial position, they'd end up with more revenue. We'd all end up with more music friendly venues.

The rest of my lament is about the turn of society in general, internet included, towards angry confrontation. We (all of us in general) are behaving like unsupervised children.

All the Best,
Mike

------------------
Mike Dunbar Music

maybe - but what happens when every small time club/internet radio station/corner bar/coffeeshop/etc/etc that provides an outlet for undiscovered or entry-level talent goes away because of lawsuits? is that *really* good for anybody?

people deserve to get paid for their songs, but *nobody* benefit from that climate except lawyers, rights orgs, and owners of songs that are big enough to garner significant play on the radio/jukebox/cover band.

a more fair solution would be to approach club owners that are known to be in "violation" with some sort of amenable deal that would guarantee sustainable future business - rather than fining/suing somebody out of business for maximum short term profit.

on a side note: i'm not a member of a pro, and i've also never once had a club ask me for a playlist. not that it would matter - because my set it all my own stuff. but i play approx 50 gigs a year -- not princely by any means but still a decent amount. i'm kind of surprised it hasn't come up.



------------------
kit malone
http://www.kitmalone.com

Oh. Okay Mike.
Maybe. Just maybe, more of us trying to do the right thing by each other would be what could turn the trend around.
And kit.
I think we would find in reality, the clubs getting sued in the most part had been asked to do the right thing way before the sue the butt off them stuff got started.
I am sure I stated it somewhere earlier but will agian.
I don't know one venue down here that has any entertainment whatso ever that is not under the APRA umbrella.
And you will never get a venue ask you for a playlist for pro purposes.
It is the artist that is resposable for the submission of the play list.
The venue just has to make sure they themselves are licienced to play anything that comes along.
Little after thought here.
What say the band was a mob of good guys and submit ther playe all them songs of yours at the place across the road to their pro, and you are not a pro member.
Back comes the return to them with your songs listed as author unknown, cannot forward the cheque to him.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

[This message has been edited by Graham (edited 12-08-2003).]

i'd rather loose that Big Fat royalty check from ASCAP/BMI than loose places like our local CATH Coffeehouse.

If it's a choice - I'd rather keep the venues open because they're my only real source of income from songwriting anyway.


------------------
kit malone
http://www.kitmalone.com

Just a quick weigh in.

Seems to me that even though Brian is raising legitimate GENERAL issues, the real issue here is should this venue be paying any PRO fees IF THEY PLAY ONLY SONGS WRITTEN BY THE PERFORMERS THEMSELVES????


To me the answer should be no because neither ASCAP, BMI or any other PRO own the music or represent anyone owning, writing or playing it.


Having said this, this case boils down to a "he said she said here" with the ASCAP agent on one side and the bar and band on the other. In my experience, the party habitually keeping a proper set of records and who can provide them to the court usually wins in such a case. So unless the band kept meticulous play lists, or have a line up of witnesses willing to swear the music was not played, their case is going to be hard to prove.

Jean asked the question above and I was wondering about the same thing - haven't found an answer on the ASCAP, BMI or SESAC sites or gotten a reply to my e-mails:

If you have a license from one, do you still need the others?

From what I can tell in the licensing agreements that are available on their sites - the answer would be YES. The agreement is a license only for the songs in the individual PRO's repertory (I thought the word was repertoire - but thats how its spelled on BMI and SESAC).

I'll weigh in on agreeing that songwriters should be paid for performance of their work.

I'll also weigh in on believing that the current system used by the PRO's doesn't do that outside of Radio/TV/motion picture royalties.

Although I'm firmly on ASCAP's side in this, I'll agree with Kit that suing Skip's to the tune of $7-10K per song is the Wrong Way To Go. ASCAP should allow them to settle cheap and obtain a license.

In other words, enough of this "making an example" nonsense. Approach the venue, clearly explain the system, focus on why it's worth the expense. Lawsuits should be the last resort.

The club scene is brutal enough without shutting down clubs over a few cover tunes. Yeah, artists should get paid but unless this guy was a gross, repeat offender (like, if booked cover bands every night) I don't see the benefit in losing a venue.

That said, both parties in this story sound like bumbling idiots (the ASCAP investigator was drinking? And he's the one to believe?. And geez dude, just pay the $700 and hire a cover band for a few weekend to make your money back.)

------------------
Scott Andrew and the Walkingbirds
DIY acoustic pop and strange country thing
Hear it: http://www.scottandrew.com/main/music

[This message has been edited by scottandrew (edited 12-08-2003).]

Amen Mike Dunbar! You speak the gospel truth. Strangely, I was down at my folk's house a couple days ago looking in their bookcase and stumbled onto a book I'd bought my father a few years ago for Christmas:
The Death of Common Sense
"How Law is Suffocating America"
-by Philip K. Howard

Needless to say, I'm reading it now, and it applies every bit as much *and more* than when it was written in 1994.
At some point common sense must rule again.
I wonder where the PRO-s were during WW2 when practically every band member was union and nearly all the bands played cover songs. ? And, I also wonder how direly any recording artists or songwriters were hurt by said covers. Seems to me that people were dancing, music was playing, and the original recordings were being purchased as a result.

Personally... I have little faith that the PROs divide the money collected from bars in any kind of accurate or fair method.
Seems to me if you perform an enjoyable cover of an artist's song, and you were required to state the name of the original artist and name of song, the prompted sale of so much as one CD of that artist would nullify everything the PRO could yield in a year's time.
And..if all 3 PROs are to be paid by the bar..couldn't it add up to as much as 6 bucks per night?..potentially $1800 or so per year? Seems small... but a LOT of small club owners can't handle such a fee easily, particularly if they are paying the performers in the first place. Many club owners loose money to the musicians alone on certain nights.
The PRO actions toward night clubs come off as nothing more than mafia tactics to me.
I think it's a hassle everyone could do without. And honestly.. if that means the average artist here doesn't collect their annual 39 cents, so be it. Who would care, so long as this aspect of the songwriter/performer nightmare vanished?
Venues are far more important to retain.

-gary

ASCAP is not closing the club. The owner is doing that. All the guy had to do was get a licesnce like everyone else, so that songwriters could get paid for what they do.

Less than $2 a day, for crissake.

My mother used to call it "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

I don't hold the club owners blameless either. We as musicians have to educate the public, and each other, that music is not free.

Pay the Piper,
Mike

------------------
Mike Dunbar Music

John,

Your argument assumes that in 100% of the cases, there are never ANY songs which have assigned rights to ASCAP or BMI or SESAC or the Canadian PRO or the Australian PRO etc.

If a venue can afford to track ALL of that accurately, night after night, it seems to me they'd be saving a LOT of money by simply paying the fees, and having all types of music without fear of violating rights. And remember, if you only play your own songs, but 1 or more of them are registered with a PRO, it seems there's still a violation based on your agreement with your PRO.

I really can't side with the venues on this. A few years ago (1998) when they passed a "Fairness in Music" act (which is absurd) the government gave a pass to a huge percentage of restaurants and businesses to play music for free without paying royalties. (Over 80%). It was passed simply because the lobby for the restaurants was so much more powerful than for the music industry. PRO royalties are by far the largest source of income for most pro songwriters. If the only penalty to a venue for not paying the fees is to be forced to pay the fees AFTER a confrontation, most will never bother. And it costs money to "force" someone to do the right thing.

Brian

That was well said Brian.
Sure saved me a lot of typing.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Truman Coyote' quote: ASCAP is not closing the club. The owner is doing that

But in this case the club is not closing. They're just letting the patrons watch TV instead. They are not playing original music because they don't want to deal with additional lawsuits.

Generally, I agree with Brian that a small royalty fee paid by clubs for the right to perform music makes sense. On this individual case, I don't. Because the club had a general policy whose intent was for the artists to play original music and the PRO appears to have a poor case based on the songs quoted. They just don't sound like tunes folks would really be playing in a bohemian style joint that focuses on original music. It also appears they agreed to pay the fee to settle the case and the PRO's lawyer turned that down.

I think the thing that really turns me off on the PRO system is the way royalties are determined and distributed.

1) The fee for a venue is based on number of nights a venue has performances and theoretical capacity (based on square footage of the premises). No question as to how many songs are played, how many patrons, how much income is generated, etc. For example, a 2000 square foot room is assumed to have 100 people in the audience whether there is seating for 50 or 300. The fee is the same if there is one show or five. The fee is the same if there is an occasional cover by primarily original artists or constant cover bands.

2) Distibution of royalties is based on estimates of radio play in the area. Everyone knows the problems with getting radio air play. The same 40 songs that are getting 99% of the air time also get the performance royalties, even when folks aren't playing their songs. I can guarantee you that what you hear on the radio in my area is not what you hear in the live music clubs. So I have no interest in the folks on the top 40 list receiving additional royalties while the songwriters here are "playing their own damn songs".

A final comment - I did a search of the PRO repertory for a few of the artists around here who I know are affiliated with PRO's. I also searched for Jody on SESAC. The search came back with a "Not Found". This seemed to be true for anything but major artists.

[This message has been edited by Marty Helly (edited 12-08-2003).]

Brian,
I don't know where you got the impression that I don't think songwriters should be paid for their work...I was talking about a story that you posted--the story told of a tavern owner who had a band play on a certain night--a jazz band--then, ASCAP hired someone to attend this gig, and they claimed to have heard certain songs play...songs that the jazz band even said they would never play! But, even though there seems to be no proof of any "violation", the end result is that no music is happening...my point was that that's the real sickening part...less music played means less for everybody.

Thanks for the info on the "hobby" venues, though...I've never heard of this, but I'm somewhat consoled. I was beginning to think that pretty soon someone would find a way to bug everybody's car radio, so they could charge for singing along...

As for my day job--first, it's at night, and second, please don't depress me with the thought of what I get paid vs. what I'm worth...



[This message has been edited by Bluepoet (edited 12-08-2003).]

Marty. I can't speak for ascap etc even though I have almost always found the writer I was looking for via either ascap , socan or bmi, I assure you, even an obsure writer such as myself is findable on the apra data base, dso pretty sure the others would have that capacity also.
While fishing through what is avail;able on APRA, I even found a data base of al songs that have royalties due them that APRA HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO TRACE TO SEND THE CHEQUE TO.
w ONDER IF THE OTHERS HAVE THAT ALSO. dang hit cap lock.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Check the recent setlists from shows by Government Mule, The Allman Bros, Aerosmith and fer chrissakes The Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan...know what you'll find? Covers. If Dylan can play 'em so can I, if the bar ain't licensed for 'em that's not my problem, I'll play somewhere that is. Does this guy think he's getting better songwriters than Jagger and Richards? Better than Dylan? Good music attracts better crowds, and mixing a familiar song or two helps relax them enough to listen to my originals, we now get requests for our tunes...without audiences the whole point is moot isn't it?

------------------
She walked up to me so gracefully, took my crown of thorns, Come in she said I'll give ya shelter from the storm

Go to www.bmi.com , click on "Licensing" at the top of the page, and you will find links to all sorts of information for venues about licensing BMI music: why they should do so, forms, rules, etc.

(I notice BMI has a whole new look to their website since last week or so -- looks much easier to find things now.)

Go here:

http://www.bmi.com/songwriter/resources/pubs/royalty.asp

to find the low-down on how BMI allocates their royalty payments among writers.

Unfortunately, in terms of the present discussion, I cannot find anything in that booklet that describes allocation for performances in small venues such as bars, nightclubs, restaurants, etc. Closest I see (unless I've missed something) is how they determine royalties for concerts.

I would suspect that computers will one day make it very easy for the PROs to account for virtually every performance of every work. The licensee keeps a computerized playlist, then uploads it to the PRO.

If you look under that "Licensing" link at the BMI page, you'll see that BMI is already doing this for radio stations.

--- Ed

FWIW, the same debate crops up every year here in Belgium, with one or the other venue crying foul about the big (everything's relative, remember) bad Sabam (our PRO) getting heavy on small venues that have such a hard time and are doing so much to promote music and culture in their neighbourhood. Last year, one of them managed to get a half-page in the leading daily here, proof that you have to be careful how these things are handled. The venue in question was indeed putting on rock bands in a musical desert but, as one of the bands pointed out, it wasn't paying the bands either! So the claim that it was helping music was a bit spurious.

But it did pull at least one sucker in: the journalist.



------------------
Michael Leahy
The Accidental Lyricist
http://michael-leahy.indiegroup.com

Ed -

The information in my post is based on the agreements and information currently available on the PRO sites. Look again and you will find BMI considers performances (outside of large scale concerts) to be "Unmonitored" and chooses an "appropriate surrogate such as radio and television broadcasts".

The posts from down under and Belgium also lead me to wonder - are we the only country without sufficient intelligence to have a single central databank instead of multiple PRO's?

Brian -

Aside from the size of the lobbying interests involved, my understanding is one of the reasons the "Fairness in Music" act was able to pass was the PRO licensing rules themselves. A restaurant/bar that had music playing in the bar was expected to pay a royalty based upon the entire square footage of the establishment - even if the bar is a separate room with 20% or less of the floor area and the music occurs when the dining room is closed or they have attempted to sound proof the two from one another so that the diners aren't disturbed by the music. In many cases their liquor license requires them to do business as a single entity so the PRO's treated them as a single entity in determining their size and capacity. The restaurants were able to portray themselves as victims of the PRO rules.


[This message has been edited by Marty Helly (edited 12-09-2003).]

What a bunch of crap !

When I was a young man playing joints in the midwest, EVERYBODY and I mean EVERYBODY that had a joint that had music paid a minimal fee to BMI and ASCAP.
Period !

they got a little sticker that went on the door or on the wall someplace and that was it.

In all my years of performing in joints from the mid 60' to the early 80's I never heard of a problem.

Now, it's a big deal.

Tell the club owners to pay the few bucks and shut up !

It's called "The price of doing business"

Life is so friggin' simple until somebody decides it isn't.

Radio stations pay licensing fees...it's "the price of doing business"

Club owners can be a greedy lot sometimes !

Bob Young

Sorry I got that detail wrong, but the point remains. The guy could have avoided the lawsuits...period! Get a license and play by the rules. It ain't complicated.

Being devil's advocate here:

Bob -
You never seemed to me to be one to not question things. Shut up and pay the bill doesn't seem your style.
And I've heard plenty of stories of songwriters getting screwed during the 60's and later by just playing the game the way the music business establishment told them they were supposed to.
Radio stations pay licensing fees that are based on the actual play lists and their measured market share. The money is allocated to the actual writers.

Coyote -
I think club owners who instruct their acts to play only original music are trying to play by the rules. They've been told they can't play the cover tunes without paying royalties so they make a business decision not to hire cover bands. They'd rather pay local songwriters who write their own music and actually come into their club than send off a check to NYC, LA or Nashville. They feel like extortion is being practiced by a bunch of music industry thugs and lawyers.
And again in the details on this occurrence - the club offered to pay the license fee and move on. ASCAP wants the case taken further cause there's a lot more money for the lawyers in infringement damages than there are in license fees.
I think the "one day" when its possible to monitor playlists is already here. I don't think there is any interest on the part of the PRO's to implement it. It would also document how many songs are played that they don't represent.
[This message has been edited by Marty Helly (edited 12-09-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Marty Helly (edited 12-09-2003).]

Wow, this has been a very enlightening dialogue. I appreciate everyone really gettin' into it. The jury's still out for me, though.

One of my favorite axoms is:

"THERE'S TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY...AND THEN THERE'S THE TRUTH!"

That being said, my own back-and-forth looks something like this:

I totally agree that $2 a day is not much if it's what you gotta do to do biz. And Bob Young is convincing in his statement that little joints have been accepting it as part of their overhead for decades. AND supposedly the money goes back to music and musicians in a good way.

On the other hand, I am very aware that large organizations (no matter how non-profit they are)that closely tied with the music industry can have a tendency to be bogged down in less-than-effiecient and less-than-fair methods.

Yes, the PRO's are supposed to be helping their songwriting members get their due. BUT LOOK AT THE CRAZY-PREDATORY-BOTTOM-LINE-DRIVEN INDUSTRY THE PRO'S AND ALL OF US ARE IMMERSED IN. I'm sorry, I'm into capitalism as much as the next guy-- heck I DEPEND on it. But Bob, I gotta tell ya, IT AIN'T THE SIXTIES ANYMORE. The gap between art and commerce is GROTESQUE right now more than ever.

My point? Yes, venues should pay their piddly 2 buck a day. BUT, we should also question where that money is going and how. DO WE SEND OFF OUR INCOME TAXES FEELING ALL WARM AND FUZZY ABOUT HOW GREAT AND FAIR THE DISTRIBUTION OF THAT MONEY IS? No. We question our representatives and get involved and make sure our voices are heard, like good Americans. Although it's only $2 a day and doesn't seem to warrant so much whining, it would suck if it really wasn't fully getting into the proper hands. It's amazing how easily people seem to be trusting a massive bureaucrocy while distrusting the little neighborhood bar.

By the way, is it true that PRO's distribute that $700 (a venue pays) to members based on local radio airplay? If that's true, it's a perfect example of good intentions turning into unfair policy. My god. As someone already mentioned, the gap between music played live and music playing on even "alternative" radio is HUGE.

So, the TRUTH? I still don't know. We just gotta keep talking and learning. Venues, PAY THE LITTLE FEE. Everybody, MAKE SURE THE PRO's are distributing it fairly. And let's keep talkin'.

Brian I did not disagree with you at all.

I whole heartedly support the concept that if a club hires bands to play music who include in their sets music written by others, by all means, make the club pay.


My comment was directed only at THIS SPECIFIC situation, and by extension, to clubs that ONLY host open mics and who play ONLY original music played by the amateur artists themselves. That makes no sense from either a moral or legal perspective.

Bob..(chuckling)

Marty...

You're right..

This is the kindof stuff I rail against sometimes..

It's just that I grew up with this being part of the deal...
I always thought the money (or at least part of it) got back to the writers somehow.
If, in fact, theyve been gypped over the years, then I guess something should be done.

And Digdown...

I know it's not the sixties anymore..but I just hate to see one more reason arise for a club to stop using live musicians...

I dunno....

I do hate to sound like the old fart that I am..but you guys today are looking at a whole different set of rules..
It's a damn shame...
I feel very lucky to have had my day when I did !

Good luck boys and girls...
You're gonna need it !

Bob ( I still think it's a bunch of crap !) Young

Thanks, Bob. Sorry, I didn't mean to be so glib with the sixties comment. I think a lot of us young-uns (I'm 31 myself) yearn for a lot of what the sixties held. And god knows we need experienced folk like yerself giving us the underrated but endlessly valuable "historical perspective." Was it easier to get a gig back then? I mean, I'm sure y'all had to hustle hard like all musicians in all decades. But it just seems like these days a reasonable flow of live music through a particular scene isn't a given anymore.

Therefore, venues using this PRO thing as another excuse to shut down their live music worries me as well.

It seems like a lot of people are finding a lot of excuses for shutting down live music these days.

Hey Dig..

No apology necessary...
I didn't think you were being glib at all..
You're right...it ain't the sixties.

Back then it was hard to get a gig like it is now, but in a different way.

There were many many more places to play, so that made it easier.
But there were more bands competing and that made it harder.

In 1968 I worked a neighborhood club in Chicago.
It was a 5 nite gig, 6 hours a nite and 7 on Saturday.
That was pretty much standard for full time work in Chicago at that time.
I got paid enough to raise my daughter, put a down payment on a nice house, and buy a new car.
My wife worked too, but we lived on my income and banked hers.
The club was on a corner on the North side of Chicago in a middle class neighborhood.
Our clientele was primarily from the neighborhood.
Got the picture ?

Now, picture this....
Across the street....another club with the same 5 nite schedule, also supporting 4 and 5 piece bands like mine...and in the middle of that block...you guessed it..another club !

This neighborhood was not unique...there were dozens and dozens of neighborhood locations that supported 2 maybe 3 full time opportunities for bands.

Now you add in the Rush St./Old Town/Hotel circuit and you add dozens more....

Now add in the Bowling Alleys, and VFWs and all the little corner bars that had music on the weekends.

No clubowner would ever consider asking a group to work for the door or tips or any of that.
We were professionals and we got paid according to our ability and drawing power.

Most joints were controlled by booking agents...
If you worked a joint you paid the agent 10 or fifteen percent whether he booked you in or not.
"the price of doing business"
Once an agent represented you in a club..that was a committment for life.
If you returned to a place and played without sending the commission to the original agent...you had a problem (if you know what I mean)
Sometimes you had to kick back 2 or 3 percent to the club manager as well...

That's the way it was in Chicago, and Milwaukee, and St Louis and vitually every big city that I was familiar with.

It was hard work...but it was a good living.

That's why this ASCAP BMI stuff seems like penny ante.
It was just a pimple on the ass of the business in general...
Joints had to pay off alderman or their loading zone would disappear...pay off the health department..pay off the cops..pay off the liquor distributor..pay off the linen service..Jeez..the few bucks they paid ASCAP and BMI was nothing !

I guess things do change....
Joints today pay incredible ammounts of money for insurance and other stuff...

It's a mean old world !

I don't honestly think I could make it starting out in todays music marketplace.

The good old days...?,,,

Yeah.......

I guess they were !

Bob Young