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

And if a heap of not yet members sign up themn complain I am sure that will help too.
No good being in the vocal majority or minority if you don't have a voice where it counts.
Ya know what would be great?
Any of you performers who are in fact out there at PRO covered venues, how about checking out some of the stuff by the non performing JPFers for stuff you could do and do exactly that and let them know so they can do the join the big boys.
Not to mention the pleasure to be had in knowing one of their songs has been done live.
Ah I rememebr my first one with fondness.
Graham



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

Actually 2 different people affiliated with orgs (one PRO and one Union) stopped by the boards to read posts recently (that's just the ones I actually know about) but declined to post because of the personal attacks and diatribes that were going on. Sometimes the regulars here forget that a lot of people stop in now and then without knowing the long histories and personalities. Our site has had a very good run as the most positive and constructive open message board in the music industry. In 2004, I am going to focus hard on eliminating the needless personal attacks, flaming and inaccurate claims made by people who are much more interested in causing harm and anger than being productive. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to anonymously attack or libel other people, companies or organizations. We usually do a good job of self policing this type of rhetoric, but hopefully all of us can improve and make this the true safe harbor for correct information and reasonable and honest debate in the music industry.

Brian

Brian,

AMEN! That's what I like about JPF...

Emily

Personally, I feel for anybody who can contribute to a subject in debate, to use the excuse of the deviations away from the actuall subject as an axcuse for not doing so is a pretty negative attatude.
Bordering on chinless even maybe.
Sure, it gets a bit over the top at times.
Debates often do.
Never the less. there are a lot of questions being asked, and points being made that could be contributed to by someone who is in fact able to do so from a wel informed position.
Above and beyond the side issues and tongue poking, there are still answers needed and being searched for.
I spent part of today e-mailing collabs asking for backing tracks to some of our songs as i have been asked to do a 40 minute set next week, and I feel having varied backings, and to be able to perform some of my never heard before stuff will help kick the gig along.
Why do I mention this I hear you ask.
Well. The way I look at it, I will do my playlst and it will be interesting to see if the recipricol thing twix pros world wide does in fact work emulating from down here in the live scene at least.
So maybe next send out the royalties time for my collabs pros, there may be a downunder dollar in their kitty, and that would be good to know for all interested in this pro thing.
Back to my thought on the don't go public visitors. I ask them to think again, as their comments will be apreciated by this little black duck at least.
If they choose not to, I hope they did get the mesage there are a lot of their members not too struck on what is happening, or not happening.
And not a few non members who may be in that situation because of them seeing the pros in general, as being a bit limp in the action department
Graham


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

If someone comes here to give accurate info about a subject, I doubt they want to get attacked in return. When they come here and see it happening to many who are posting info, their reasonable assessment is that it's more of a headache than it's worth. I doubt I'd go post somewhere else if I thought I'd just get attacked. Debates and even heated ones where the points are being argued are one thing.. but several posts (not just this one) in the last several months have gone way beyond any topic and have focused on individuals. My hope is that it was all a momentary lapse in the usual civility and community vibe here and going forward we'll get back on track. I notice that once a couple people get into it, it becomes much easier for others to do the same (this was especially evident during the WAR arguments that raged here for a while). It certainly grows like a cancer and hopefully we can cut all that out in 2004 and save the otherwise healthy patient.

Brian

Mike Dunbar appears to have alot of practical knowledge on this subject.

Mike says (I'm paraphrasing) that he would rather see a few admittedly already successful acts (read writers) get paid for public performance of their works, while those with not as much success go unpaid, rather than no one get paid at all.

I hope I've stated that right....

Brian says that a payment of (his figure) $1.91.oo a day should be so insignificant to the club owner that they should just pay it.

I disagree with both of these points...

to Mike, the rich are getting richer already..
We don't need to feed that situation..
Honestly, Mike..that sounds a little elitist, something I believe you are not.
That money comes directly out of the pocket of the performing artists that are trying to scratch out a living in these venues..
Knowing how little they are earning to begin with, I'm so surprised that you want to take this money from them.
As I've said before, and expense like this to the owner will immediately be reflected in his entertainment overhead, as it always is.

to Brian...

$1.91.00 a day doesn't sound like much....
But..double it if the guy is paying two PROs and I guess it's safe to say, triple it if he's paying three.
Now..remember that NOBODY in the business or private sector factors their payments by the day.
Shady lenders use a daily figure to give the illusion that the cost of something is insubstantial, but reputable businesses rarely do.
The reason is that the payments are not made by day..but annually or semi-annually.
No club owner or any other small business person is comfortable writing checks for hundreds of dollars.
Do the math on your 1.91 and it comes out to several hundred dollars a check and almost two thousand dollars if you're paying annually (that's a total for 2 or 3 pros paid annually)

That, to a club owner, is ALOT of money.

There is a reason why most "chain" establishments don't feature live entertainment.
They don't feel it is profitable..
You suggested that smaller places could be educated about the advantages of "live" music..
I would suggest that these larger companies who regularly do cost evaluations have decided that it is not financially sound and this lesson is not lost on the little guy !

My opinion is that this would be a good time to lighten the load on small venues..

I think the idea of forcing them to pay for a system that appears to be inequitable, especially for those of us at this level,
while putting money into the pockets of the Metallicas and Madonnas of the world, is a mistake.

As to getting paid for having our songs performed...

I do remember the first time I heard someone else perform one of my songs...
I did not hear a cash register go off...and all these years later...I'm not sorry.

About a year or so ago, I added a song to my "act" I cowrote with Corky Bernard.....
He's never asked me "Where's the money?"

These are tough times, and I honestly believe it's just good enough to get some band or artist to play our songs..
If we want to be paid for those songs we should go out and do them ourselves..

I do really believe that, and it comes from alot of years as a performer, and a few years as a writer.

As to Graham and the situation in Australia...

It sounds lots different down there is all I can say.

Much has been made about my "flip flopping"
An examination of my earlest posts (before I flipped out a bit) will show that my attitude was (and is) a curse on both your houses.
I think the club owners are cheap thinking...
I think the PROs are not functioning (on this issue) in the best interests of the vast majority of their members..
And I think the writers are being greedy..

The only people I view as blameless in this deal are the entertainers that are performing in these places.
They're working hard to make a living and the rest of us are just making it harder and harder..

Mark my words..pretty soon you won't be able to go out and hear ANYBODY singing your song if this keeps going the way it's going..

For myself....that would be sad indeed.

Here's hoping I can walk into someplace in Chicago in 2004 and hear somebody playing YOUR song !

Bob Young

Can anybody answer this question? And I mean answer it from actual knowledge, or out of the b0ook of their pro,and not a calculated guess, or from what they presume to be the case.
Do venues in fact, have to register with more than one pro?
To me, that would not be needed or desirable if the much talked about recipricol was working.
I will be surprised to find this is more than popular legend.
But I am a willing learner.
If a venue can't afford the one off annual fee in line with what I quoted as a down under example, based on what the venue owner told me, they really are not doing very well in their stated business at all.
Once again back to the PROs. If they have something to say toward clearing up some of the guess work and fantasy in the subject , and don't do so when given the chance just in case someone sounds off atb them, rather than addressing the issue, I still say they are behaving in a pretty ineffectual manner in whatever position they hold in any pro in question.
Graham


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

Graham -

Back on page 2 of this thread I posted a quote from the BMI FAQ page which states there license does not give you the right to play songs from the other two US PROs, you must get separate licenses. There are however reciprocal arrangements with foreign PROs so that, for example, an APRA license could allow you to play BMI songs down under and a BMI license would allow you to play APRA songs stateside.

Marty

Bob,

I read Mike's points differently and to me, they said:

1. We have rights to our work.
2. If we don't defend our rights, we lose them.
3. The system in place is flawed, but right now it is the best available, unless we want to charge venues triple or more the amount so we can accurately track where the payments go. Because this would be burdensome to the venues more than anyone else, the current system was the best anyone could come up with to fairly compensate folks. If there is a better system available right now, I am sure the PRO's, the venues, the writers and even the live performers would welcome it. So far, no one has brought one up. It is likely, however, that with technology in the near future we will be able to much more accurately track just about everything in life, musical or otherwise. If we don't make claim to our collective rights now, they might not exist later when even better systems allow the litle guys to get their payments more accurately.

In regard to the $1.91 per day issue, there's no question that if a venue owner isn't a good business person, they may plan ahead enough to have extra money available to make large payments of any kind for anything. But just as they find a way to pay for other business/atmosphere items such as candles or tablecloths, or uniforms for employees or the neon bar signs or the big screen TV, they should have to make a business decision on whether they want music as well. I assure you that the cable TV bill collectors don't say "this guy is little and can't afford it.. so give him a pass, even though he uses our services to bring in football fans every weekend." They simply turn off service. The PRO's are doing nothing more than that. If a venue never has live music (or can accurately prove they never use music affiliated with a PRO) then they have nothing to worry about. If, on the other hand the do choose to use music, they should pay for it, just as they pay to fee for cable service. Just because they bought the TV, they can't have the cable service free. Just as just because a venue books a band, they can't have the music written by someone who they AREN'T paying for free. It's the same concept. Venues have a choice of whether or not to use music. Artists have a choice of what songs to play and whether they will do a gig and and what pay they will accept for their work. Writers don't have that ability to decide. The blanket license fee gives the freedom to the venue and artists to make choices without the writers involvement. They control the process completely. If it's a bad business decision to use the music, then I believe they shouldn't. If it truly doesn't cover it's own costs, I am not going to complain that they don't have live music. If over the course of a year live music and the people performing aren't adding enough value to cover a few dollars a night, they shouldn't be playing. They can play to nobody in their basement until they can attract at least a couple of people to stay and watch. If they do, they'll likely cover 2 bucks a day (or even 3-5 bucks a day if you add all the other PRO's). (I believe SESAC fees are far less than ASCAP by the way).

As for the reason most chain establishments don't have live music, that's really completely unrelated to PRO fees. I can speak from direct experience here. The reason is that they don't hire people to book talent. If they have to cut back on staffing, that's a job that is expendable to them. And the reality is that without someone focused on that, the quality of the music suffers and becomes a negative for the company. This happened with Borders Books. They reassigned the people who booked live music in their stores and at the same time stopped paying artists. It wasn't because of PRO fees because ironically, they STILL pay them, even without their live music program. It's a tiny fee that is insignificant. The real cost was having regional music booking people on full time payroll. And they also realized that though they needed to pay songwriters (since they weren't part of the decision making process) they didn't need to pay the artists because they were totally free to play for free or not play for free. I was as disappointed as anyone that they stopped paying artists, but at least they kept paying the license fees because songwriters don't have a choice, artists do. Ironically, had artists stuck together and as a group never played there for free, they would have had to have paid for live music. As it is, there's never a shortage of artists begging to play for free. It seems to me that for songwriters to do away with the PRO License fees, that essentially doing the same thing.. begging other companies to take it free never to get paid again.

You said: My opinion is that this would be a good time to lighten the load on small venues..

If a venue pays 100 bucks a night to the artists playing in their club, they are writing larger checks each week for entertainment than they are writing for an entire year of PRO fees. If they are paying less than that, it's likely their PRO fees are going to be less as well.. if collected at all in the first place. Remember, the example of 1.91 was for a pretty active club with music every night. It wasn't a coffee shop. If it's a venue selling beer and paying the artists nothing and the songwriters nothing, then artists AREN'T losing anything if they stop having live music in the first place because they really aren't getting paid anyway. They can play for free in the park or at Borders bookstore. If you have even mediocre talent, you can find free places to play all over town. If the venues are paying reasonable money (100-500 a night) then it's hard to see 600 bucks a year as the burden it's made out to be. It's simply a cost of business. And a pretty cheap one at that.

You Said: I think the idea of forcing them to pay for a system that appears to be inequitable.... is a mistake.

I understand your sentiment, but it truly is irrelevant. The problem with equity in payments is between the songwriters and the PRO's who they assigned their rights to. If you hired an accountant or business manager who was ripping you off, it wouldn't mean those who owed you money weren't obligated to pay you. The venues owe the money. Are you saying that if the system was 100% perfect that the fees would then be okay? If you are, then you can't argue to remove them. The fees are right. The PRO's are responsible to do their jobs as well. It's two unrelated pieces of the puzzle. If you buy fruit from a wholesaler, you don't get it free because there's a problem with the wholesaler paying the suppliers. If we had that system in the world it would be mass chaos and no one would ever get paid for anything. It's up to the suppliers (in this case songwriters) to work out their problems with their wholesaler (in this case the PRO's). If they allow the retailers (in this case the venues) to not pay anything, they'll never get what is due.. EVER. It's really none of the venue's business. Songwriters have given the legal right to the PRO's to collect their money. It's between those two parties to work out their arrangements or disatisfaction.

You Said: I do remember the first time I heard someone else perform one of my songs...
I did not hear a cash register go off...and all these years later...I'm not sorry. These are tough times, and I honestly believe it's just good enough to get some band or artist to play our songs.. If we want to be paid for those songs we should go out and do them ourselves..

That's great. Now imagine if you saw a store selling CD's with your songs on it that you had recorded. And you knew that even if many people bought those CD's, everyone would profit except you. And that you had no say in it. Would you still be so happy? Even if the answer is yes, that's your personal choice. Others don't feel that way. They don't want to give away their lifes work. No one will ever stop you from giving your work away personally. They just don't want YOU to make a decision on what THEY must give away. As for your comments about songwriters being satisfied just to have someone perform their song, and that they should do them theirselves if they want to get paid, you could easily reverse that and say if artists and venues don't want to pay for the songs they perform, they should just write them theirselves and no one will be upset that they don't pay anything. That's the fair solution.. but I doubt venue owners will fill many rooms with songs they've written unless they happen to by Jimmy Buffet doing his own songs at Magaritaville.

You Said: The only people I view as blameless in this deal are the entertainers that are performing in these places.
They're working hard to make a living and the rest of us are just making it harder and harder..

This comment is baffling to me. Songwriters trying to make a living are wrong and greedy.. but artists trying to make a living using songwriters work are right and good? Again, artists have the choice of what to play. No one will ever care if they only do their own songs. And no one is forcing them to do someone elses. Songwriters write songs and the way they get paid is when people use those songs to perform live or record. Why rob them of their chance to make an honest living?

Brian


[This message has been edited by Brian Austin Whitney (edited 12-29-2003).]

Brian..

the points you make sound valid...

But...the system is not doing what it needs to do to make any of them matter..

You said near the end that songwriters should have the ability to earn off the public performances of their songs if they choose to...

Fine...but I think we all agree that songwriters like the majority in JPF are not, have not, and will not get that pay !

Not until they become major artists and have plenty of money already will they get any part of these fees being charged the venues by the PROs.
Meanwhile, the fees inhibit the ability of artists who may , in fact, promote the work of unknown writers, to get gigs.
You mentioned acts getting $100.00 a night...

Not around here, Brian..and I'll bet not in LA or Indianapolis either.
Most of the Coffee Shop or Listening Room acts around here work for, like 25 bucks and a piece of the door.
Many of them work for the door only or even for free.

Please remember Brian..I'm addressing the members of JPF.
I'm telling THEM that these fees will not put money into their pockets.

I stand by that.
Aside from Graham who is several thousand miles away, I'm still waiting to hear from a JPF member who is making any kind of money off the fees for public performance of their work.

Honestly, Brian, I am not taking this stand just to argue with you..

I think it's absolutely wrong and hurts the real workers..the musicians and entertainers while providing nothing positive for the writers. (except, as we've learned, the BIG stars)

When my songs become hits, and I'm getting money from sales and airplay that is collected due to the good work of PROs...I'll gladly accept it.

But no....I do and will always believe that taking money out of the pocket of hard working underpaid musicians and singers is wrong !

Sorry......

I guess we're just gonna have to disagree on this one.

Gee.....there's a first !

Bob Young

Thanks Marty. I went back and refreshed my memory, and I did respond to that back then but right now I can't recall if I followed through on it.
Will check.
If that is the case, it really sucks.
And is a good point for stating that it isn't a system that is ever at fault in any situation. It is in fact the folks who can and don't try to make that system a true representatio of what the majority hope that system will be.
The system is just something people put in place and maintain.
Same as any society. Takes all sorts and has to accomadate all sorts.
And they all, have to work for the good of that society.
Well the majority at least.
Going along with the flow never did achieve anything other than the same old thing and complaciency.
Graham


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

"Greed" is a loaded word. And it sure looks different depending on your point of view.

In the use of a musical composition, something of value is being exploited. If the musicians don't pay for it, and the club does not pay for it, then the writer is "paying" for it by losing the income that he deserves from his work. Is the fact that he wants that income greed? I don't think so.

Perhaps we should charge the performers for the priviledge of using our work. They do not want to pay. Is that greed?

The club owner does not want to pay either. Greed?

Why is it greedy for one guy to want to keep the money, but not so if another guy wants to keep the money? Both feel they are entitled. Again, it depends on which side of the fence you are on.

Seeking a financial edge in trying to build a career is a fact of life. I don't think greed is part of it, except in the most egregious cases.

Bob and Brian both make good points. But it is impossible to subtract from Bob's viewpoint the fact that he has spent his life on stages. From his point of view, performing musicians, in their struggle, should be shielded from paying--or absorbing--the costs of the material they perform. Is that reasonable, or is he just being greedy? I don't think it's greedy, but nor do I think writers are being greedy for asking whatever compensation they get for their work.



[This message has been edited by TrumanCoyote (edited 12-29-2003).]

Truman..

first...

If you're going to accuse me of having a more sympathetic view of the performers situation...

Well...

You're absolutely right !

Performing is what I know...it's the viewpoint that I understand best..so...Guilty as charged !

But, Truman...look closely at the facts !

The fact is that the very people that might actually NEED a little money garnered from these fees do not get it !

It goes to the already rich "stars"..not to the small time writer (like you or me)
At the same time, it creates a burden on the venue, which gives them one more excuse to say "phooey on live music, it's not worth the headaches or the expense"..

What that does is, it closes off an avenue for the display of music by unknowns, both performers AND writers (like you and me)

I was the one that brought the word greed into this discourse..

I'm sorry I did...it was the wrong word.

Short-sightedness more describes the attitude.

The fledgling writer says "Yeah...they should pay for using my song"
Unfortunately, the fledgling writer will see NONE of that money, and he or she has just provided the club owner one more financial reason to shut off the exposure to the fledgling writers songs, and eliminated a place for the fledgling writers musician friend to work on a Saturday night.

All for the promise of a few pennies which will never arrive.

Sorry....

I still call that a bad deal !

Bob

And I call it a bad deal too.
If it is in fact how you state up there.
'Bout time ya all got of ya butts and made the pros fess up and get it right.
They do claim to work for us you know.
But then again, so do politicians.
So glad to see the G word being acknowledged as the wrong word Cobber.
Lazy I am too shiftless to be fussed about, but greed did cut a bit I gotta admit.
Graham



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

Well, Graham..

I got a BIG mouth......

When I get stirred up I start shooting it off and wrong things come out..

I'm just not going to do that any more...

If logic doesn't substantiate my arguments...well..then it's me that's full of dung !

I'm OK with that...

Maybe my first wife had it right all the time !

Cheers, Cobber !

Bob

Just to stick my two cents in again, again, we're not dealing with a zero-sum game here, this ain't Texas Hold-Em, we're in a dynamic, limitless economy. Money doesn't grow on trees, but songs grow out of my brain and my fingers. And, club owners' money grows out of drunks. Logic doesn't apply to sales, only statistics do.

That's the problem with so much debate on the internet. People debate as if the outcome is either a or b. The outcome here may be omega modified exponentially by twelve.

But, people don't like to be disagreed with! And I know, cause I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is an @$$&01{!

Mike



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

Bob,

Thanks for the measured reply. And thanks for again stating your case, which makes sense to me (as does the OTHER side, to a degree).

I'm glad you saw that the point of my post was to dispute the use of the "G" word, and I'm glad you retracted it.

If these issues had an easy fix, there would be no need for geniuses like us to debate them.

Bob,

After all this it seems like perhaps our 2 viewpoints don't really conflict as much as it seems.

First, we agree that the system of payment from the PRO to the writers leaves a lot to be desired. The problem with it is that it isn't cost effective to micro manage it. Everyone could track and turn in performance listings for each gig, but with 3 US PRO's who could possibly know which version and writer should get paid for "I Love You" or "The Sky Is Blue and So Am I" because there are literally thousands of versions of these two song titles alone. Now multiply that by every song performed. Also keep in mind most artists who perform are themselves affiliated with a PRO, but may or may not have registered a particular song title for their PRO to even be aware it should be collected on. These circumstances are NOT the fault of the PRO, or the Venue or the Artist or the Writer. It's just reality. Rather than have an equally flawed but much more drastically expensive model where every song is tracked and humans try to manually sort out the minutia of which song was played, everyone agreed to use the same (slightly less flawed) method of radio/media airplay and large concert tracking where there were ways to accurately sample and then apply that mathematically to the entire country, saving EVERYONE (Media and Venues) a huge amount of money which they'd have to pay to make the other system work. Fees would likely have to be dramatically more and the hassle would be tremendous for the venues. Plus, fraud would be rampant. That is why the PRO's use a random and secretive sampling. If they didn't, I assure you that the big boys of the industry would manipulate the system much more than they do today.

As bad as this system is for an artist who only occasionally shows up on the radio, it does work to get money to some of them. For example, if you've ever received ANY PRO payment, then you've gotten some money for the assumed Live plays at the same time. From what I understand (and correct me if I am wrong) they don't break out the Live performances in their own pay category (at least on ASCAP reports which we took a look at last week). That money collected from venues is in the total pool and when the survey finds that a Bob Young song was played on WGN during the survey, a check is written and the amount is determined by all monies available, meaning that if you get a check, you did in fact get paid for live performances. Of course the money will be tiny if you are only getting a few plays and only showing up occasionally in a survey. The songs that show up millions of times will get (and frankly deserve to get) the money for those plays as well. But the formula can also work to a writers benefit (and has many times). I've had little guys get checks from seemingly no where because their song showed up on a survey in Alaska where some person just happened to play it 1 time on the day they randomly surveyed. He was then paid on the assumption that it was playing on other stations too, even though it likely wasn't. But in other periods, he had gotten regional airplay in Indianapolis on many stations, but it didn't get picked up on the survey. It evened out, over the course of time, to what was probably pretty fair and also probably the best and most fair system anyone on any side of the argument could come up with.

In the case of ASCAP, there's even a discretionary fund (which also uses some of the pool of money collected from venues) to pay writers who don't show up, but who can document significant local or regional airplay and live performance play. That pool of money does go to smaller writers in appropriately smaller amounts.

Let's also consider that there SHOULD be a financial benefit to success. If you are the little guy at a company, you're probably making a tiny fraction of the person who started the company, owns it and runs it. But people work their way up to the point where they can also run the company one day and should get the money for that success.

All of this is the reality we are dealing with today. In the often quoted scenario we've been using here (since there were tangible numbers of 1.91 per day), remember that equates to less than 5 cents for each song played that night. If the cost of tracking and monitoring that performance to get that nickel to the appropriate writer costs 50 cents, not many people will get paid. The blanket fee is small enough for the venue to afford, but large enough so that some of that money can get to a writer and publisher. (And remember, if there are multiple writers on a song, plus publisher interests, we're often talking less than a penny per play for each party. But those microfractional pennies add up over ALL the venues (and radio plays) throughout the year and the pool is large enough so that some folks who have had hit songs can still get a little money each pay cycle from the PRO's. (And I know a LOT of writers who only get a few hundred to a few thousand dollars per quarter for songs that were big hits.. it's not all about rich people.)

Remember also the real world example given by Danny and Sara for Sara's song "Home to You" which was all the way to #1 (for 1 day, finishing #2 for the week) on the country charts. The actual money that song produced for her was less than if she had worked minimum wage for the time period it took her to write it, get a cut, and collect. She's hardly rich (I stay at their house in Nashville). They make their living mostly from teaching. But those fees collected from the pools compensate her for radio play and all the cover bands and karaoke singers doing that song. The money DOES get to real people and not just Madonna.

So, unless you disagree with these points, we both agree the system is weak, but I make the case that it's the best system anyone has yet come up with to distribute the money. It's the system that each writer agrees to use when they sign up for a PRO. The PRO's (ASCAP in particular) can be swayed and changed by their members, but so far there hasn't been any uprising from the members to say there's a better system that should be in place.

Now please separate that from the system used to collect the money.

First, ask yourself what is the actual financial value of the song that is performed to the venue and artist? If you argue zero, then we can stop the argument here. It's a point we'll simply never agree on and further discussion won't change it.

But if a song has a value to a radio station (and you seem okay with Radio paying license fees) then it seems logical there is some type of financial value to venues and artists for it's use as well. Keep in mind when setting this value that there is a large cost of goods.. i.e. the songwriter has to spend money on their craft to write songs and get them out to people to hear and want to cover at a live venue. Sure, there are exceptions to that rule. Sometimes a writer plays a song for 1 person and they start playing it at shows. But that is more often not the case and it doesn't change the math anyway.

If you play someone's song 200 times in live venues over the course of a year, using the 1.91 fee as the basis, you'd owe that writer a whopping $10.00 for the entire year of usage, minus the cost of tracking and paying the money which would likely eat a chunk of it up. So, if that writer didn't have a publisher they'd be looking at 6-7 bucks probably in earnings if every venue you played paid license fees. That's for 200 dates per year. So ask yourself, is that an unreasonable amount for a songwriter to want for someone to use their song 200 times a year to get paid music gigs? You may argue that some number of people would seek out that song and buy it. That's good because a writer can't pay for the note pads they used to write the songs over the course of a year for 6-7 bucks. In that same time period, lets say you played for 25 bucks and half the door all year (your example) and lets say the door half was only 25 bucks (10 people at 5 bucks a head.. minuscule numbers here). So, over the same time period, even with these tiny numbers (a sort of worst case scenario for the live artist) they are taking in $10,000 dollars over that same time period (again, we are talking worst case scenario.. most full time artists doing 200 shows a year are making several hundred dollars per show at least with some gigs paying more and some less). Even if you played 40 songs by 1 writer, the compensation they would get from writing and creating every song you played all year would be a whopping $250.00, give or take a few bucks. That sounds like a pretty fair deal. If you're doing 40 Rolling stones tunes each night to make a living, I think you getting $10,000 and them getting $250.00 is a pretty fair exchange. Also keep in mind you (as the artist, and again ONLY making $25.00 per show plus $25.00 from the door 200 nights a year) can also sell CD's and shirts and get tips, etc., and that would further add to your earnings. If you played 100 gigs a year or 10 gigs a year, the proportions of income earned stays the same.

So, how much of that money would you take away from the writer? To me, if I could go out and play Bruce Hornsby songs (one of my favorites) and make 10K from the gigs, I think giving him $250 bucks is pretty reasonable. If I sell 1000 CD's at 10 bucks a piece with 10 of his songs on it, I will essentially be paying him $800.00 for the rights to use and sell them. So ironically, playing the songs live is actually a better financial deal to me by a factor of more than 3 to 1.

So, for me, as a songwriter, to get paid the same amount of money ($20,000 dollars) which the artist has made from playing 40 of my songs 200 nights a year (at the lowest pay rate) and selling 1000 CD's using 10 of my songs (at the budget rate of $10.00 per CD) I'd have to have roughly 20 artists doing this year round to make the same money. If my work is supporting 20 artists to do their music full time, I think it's fair that I should get a full time wage as well. (and we all know 20K isn't a great living wage.. but it's far more than I get to run JPF).

When you look at the money, you quickly realize that the songwriter is the lowest earner on the totem pole. I don't think anyone is evil in this equation. Many live venues want to use popular and familiar (i.e. cover) live music to bring in a clientele so they can sell beer or coffee or whatever they are selling. Many artists want to cover the best of all the songs out there to enhance their performance quality and make them more popular as performers and help them get more gigs for more money as they develop. Many writers would simply like to share in the earnings that their work helps make possible. Perhaps if a writer gets a few thousand dollars a year in PRO payments, they'll be able to hire a babysitter to watch the kids while they write songs.. or they'll be able to buy a new guitar or piano to write those future songs that others want to cover. Perhaps they'll simply be able to pay their rent one month or see that someone out there in the universe puts a value on their contribution to society. And perhaps a writer can survive long enough at low wages to develop their career to become famous and successful enough to make a full time living or even a comfortable living from their work. That's something that everyone who works hard, has talent and persistence and work ethic deserves to have a shot to achieve. Something tells me you're all for that as well. But even if you aren't, I don't think it's my right or your right to tell someone else that their work can be exploited by others with no say and no compensation. File "sharing/stealing" thieves feel that is the case. Some people simply think they are entitled to others work even though they'd never give their work (or what they worked to create/achieve/earn) away. I sure hope there aren't many artists and writers among them.

Brian

Brian...

Young man...we do disagree on some very basic points, and I don't think we're going to change our opinions...You have said several times that it's not my "right" to take away the "right" of others to earn.

My point is that we're talking about a miniscule amount for the writer to earn (in most real world cases) as opposed to the cost to the entertainer.

How did I learn all those cover songs ?
By spending a small fortune on records, tapes and cds, and of course sheet music.
All of which the writers and the artists are paid for.

I think they're getting plenty.

I'm not taking rights to collect away from the writers in my opinion.
If their songs are so good that they can make or break a performance artist should he or she decide to or not to decide to perform them,...
Then the writer should go out and perform them and make all the really big money and glamour they're missing out on.

That really is my position as close to a nutshell as I can get it.

Yes, I do think it's OK to get paid for radio plays...
A bunch of poor kids aren't busting their asses playing the song...it's a recording...
Recordings are THE reason a station is on the air...an essential ingredient to their success...sure they shouldpay...

But venues are sadly proving every day that they can exist without live music..

We have a whole generation that's grown up believing that recorded music is fine for a wedding...
Major awards shows on TV even, are using recorded music...

Local music scenes are withering and dying..

THAT concerns me !

I wish ASCAP and BMI were collecting fees and using the money properly..

I don't think they are...
If everybody can't be paid for plays, then nobody should.
Use the money for something else..education.. or something..

It's a badly flawed system in my opinion, doing no one any real substantial good.

It's been in place forever, and nobody cared,,...

Apparently somebody somewhere woke up and said "Hey...this is a lousy deal" and now it's this big mess.

A point too, Brian...

You said somewhere in this menage that the "government" decided this is how it should be.
That's inaccurate...
The PROs were and are private organizations.
They were and are desighned to collect and account for the money we are supposedly owed under copywright law...

they adhere to copyright law but have no affiliations (outside of licensses) with the government.

I don't know what's best for everybody...

It would be great if everybody got paid for something..

I say, if a songwriter believes his or her song is so good that he or she should get paid for the performance...
Let he or she invest what the performer does in the performance art and then go get paid for writing the song AND performing it.

They can say.."all right everybody...if you want to hear my song you've got to pay me for writing it AND performing it"

Then they don't have to worry about me or anybody else getting fabulously wealthy at Joe's bar this weekend because I included their song among the 70 or 80 other songs I did that night.

If their song is the ONLY reason I'm working at Joes...
Then they should come on down to Joes and sing that song over and over and over till the place is packed !

I don't know , Brian....the whole deal is beginning to look like a Fellini movie !

JPF is a huge organization.

I think if the PROs had a strong case to make for themselves...they would be here making it.
The argument that they don't show up because they might get yelled at....

I've seen society weddings get alot angrier than what goes on here..

I think they don't show up because they know their position is weak, their system is flawed and inequitable, and they don't want alot of people to realize it all at once !

I do believe that your best interests are for the JPF members...

I just don't think this situation genuinely benefits anybody..

When you buy a CD...is there a warning on it that you will be charged if you play it at a party where admissions are charged ?
Does it say on there somewhere in all that fine print that if you learn how to play one of the songs on your guitar and then go perform that and a bunch of other songs for a fee that you will be charged ?

I don't think so..

correct me if I'm wrong..it's true I don't get out much any more.

Plain and simple, Brian..
I'm sho-biz !
I figure you as a writrer should be proud and satisfied that I perform your song in my little act...
It may introduce people to your song and send them to the store to buy it, which puts money in your pocket.
I don't think I, as a performer, should have to pay you to promote your work.

I bought this damn fender strat...it's mine...I couldn't work without it...but Leo's family aren't insisting I send them a cut from the Koppleman wedding !

It just don't seem fair Brian...

sorry I'm just not getting it.

Bob

I guess I am still a bit disenchanted and skeptical about the amount of effort the PROs are expending and the manner in which the effort is proportioned.

BMI's website proclaims in a banner across the top of the page $1.6 BILLION DOLLARS TO BMI WRITERS AND PUBLISHERS. If BMI is 1.6, then I figure ASCAP has got to be 2.0 to 2.5 billion and SESAC maybe .5. So, at the low end, we are looking at 4.1 Billion dollars, all trickeling uphill to the most successful writers and publishers, with close to zero going to the new and struggling folks.

I find it difficult to believe that given todays current technology, which can give the name of every passenger on every commercial aircraft in the sky, at any given time, that organizations tasked with collecting and dispursing billions of dollars to writers and publishers cannot even attempt to find a better way of tracking the songs being performed.

Given the technology available 20 years ago, you can pick up any bottle or can of beer from a major brewery and call them, read them the code off the container, and they can tell you which plant brewed the beer, what line and shift it was bottled on, and which wholesaler inventoried it.

Given the bar codes within the Universal Product Code system, every cd sold in a retail store can be tracked, from pressing to purchase by consumer.

Although I am a member of BMI, this thread has caused me to take a harder look at the organization. This entire thread started because the PROs threaten to sue small retail establishments. Yet, in order to join BMI you must sign a contract whereby you waive the right to sue them.

Until the PROs make a firm committment to explore and implement a more equitable system of royalty disbursal, I will remain skeptical.

I feel that statements like, "it is the best system available now" foster a complacency that benefits only the status quo. I would like to see a substantial budgetary allocation within these billion dollar organizations towards the establishment and implementation of a vastly improved tracking system. Offer a million dollar prize to Cal Tech or MIT for an accurate computer tracking program which meets the criteria the PROs establish. Get some smart people from outside the music industry working on it. If the three PROs formed an alliance to sponsor such a competition, and the prize were pro-rated, none of their executives would have to give up a single day of vacation.

To continue to replay that old saw, "this is the best we have at this time" only indicates an organizational resistance to change in an industry which professes to embrace change and seems to reflects a mindset of, "I've got mine ... the heck with you."

Hey, I have been wrong a lot. But I am not afraid to post my questions and opinions, and I am not collecting one cent of my salary from songwriters.

dawg

Bob. Using your way of looking at it, let me say, to my knowledge, the man we both admire, and often give as an example, Irving Berlin, was never a "Gotta stop being lazy, invest in a live act and go sing" man.
He flogged his butt off up and down tin pan alley geting them that could to believe in his stuffr enough to do it.
He did in fact do a few stints in musicals.
I saw him in Rusty Bugles and the man was not a performer.
That was re-enforced when I watches some old footage of him in studios etc.
Great writer but total loss as a crowd appeal thing.
And he was no orphan. A great number of the great writers were never in fact performers in that era.
So much for history.
We non performoing writers are doing the same now using the modern way of doing it with varying success.
That now anybody in the world can go get a song from the net. Download it. Learn it, and then earn on it without so much as a penny evre getting to the writer is one of the setbacks of the deal, but if ya wanna get out there, ya gotta get out there as best you can.
I enjoy getting the odd e-mail from an artist saying they are doing one of mine, or ours when it is a collab, live and it is going well.
I'd enjoy it better if the system worked worldwide well that, at no expense to the performer, I got my dues for that public hearing.
Note Bob. You keep saying "Why should I pay" and I keep saying "The performer does not pay in the system here at least". "Royalty to writer payments by the PRO come from the umbrella fund generated by the Venue subs"
Note also. The venues still have to pay their dues, no matter if they use live or canned music.
It just varies in amount depending on what they state their annual entertainment breakdown as.
And as I understand, they tell fibs on that one, just as writers overstate their own song play figures when playing live.
Graham



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

Dawg,

I am happy to listen to your suggested program for how to collect accurately on every song played in every venue by every artist 365 days a year. This system would have to (among other things)

1. Supply the accurate song title, all the correct songwriters of that song (so it could be determined which of the many versions of "I Love You" were being played).

2. Ensure that accurate playlists were being submitted by people with zero motivation to care if they are accurate (and possibly even motivation to lie about what was played to give more money to their friends or favorites whether those songs were played or not). The simple fact that venues wouldn't know Hank Williams from Hank Snow from Hank Aaron when it came to writing credits is an issue by itself that makes a system like this impossible to imagine. How will they know song titles? How will they know accurate writers? In truth they can't. Even the artists playing the cover songs don't really know to much accuracy that a song they cover by Journey was written by people not even in the band in some cases. But they'd need to know this info to keep an accurate song by song record.

3. Once this information was accurately tracked, it would need to be submitted in some easy format to combine so that the 400,000 writers affiliated would get what was due. Of course things like duplicate names and titles and accidental or inaccurate song titles, mispelled names of writers etc.. would have to solved.

4. Once you have this perfect system, you have to pay for all the human manpower it would take at each stage to track and facilitate it. And of course since you're doing away the with blanket license concept, any writer who is NOT affiliated with a PRO (since their role would be changing and the protections offered by the blanket fee would be removed) could insist individual compensation which the blanket fee removes. (i.e. if you want to be paid today, you need to be a member of a PRO and accept the terms of the blanket fee.. if there is no blanket fee, it's every writer for themselves). This means that every venue (or writer if you pass the burden on to them) must track down and pay (or have a system in place to do it) each writer on the planet who might have written the song for direct payment.

Once all of this is taken care of, you have to determine the fees to cover both the process you created AND still leave money for all those little guys to get paid.

I am very interested in hearing how this could be done. Right now they are working on digital technology to track audio fingerprints of every song automatically taking all human input out of the equation. It's brilliant technology that already works and it currently being perfected to work on that scale. Then writers and artists both submit their songs to a database which tracks all media uses. But in a venue, unless each venue is hooked in electronically (which will happen one day, but not for a LONG time) and some time of identifiable system can tell Neil Young's version of his song from 30,000 other artits doing the same song in their own style, it will be a tough technological nut to crack. Most likely, what I see happening, is the same thing as we have now. The more accurate radio/internet system will be used to pay those live fees just as it has in the past, taking us righ back to the same discussion.

So, it may be complacency to not replace the current bad system. But someone needs to come up with a workable and affordable system.

As for Bob, I can accept that we disagree. I still feel that if a live artist doesn't want to pay to use someone else's song, then the easy solution is to not pay it. Why that such an unfair thing to you I don't know. They have a choice. Nothing is more fair than that. Songwriters should be able to say NO to having someone perform their song, but the blanket fee recognized by the courts means they can't say no. I'd be all for each artist having to clear permission to do each song individually if that made the system fair and accurate. I doubt most artists want to deal with that, though it seems to work pretty well through the Harry Fox agency and mechanical licenses.

Brian

[This message has been edited by Brian Austin Whitney (edited 12-30-2003).]

Okay.. I have to say it.. this might be the first time in 5 years that I agree 100% with(and better yet actually understood) everything that Graham said above. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop somewhere.

= )

Brian

Has it really been five years?
Don't time fly.
And good to see your English comprehension is improving too Brian.
Toward the list you put up Brian, I will paste it here and offer toward how some of the good points are addressed down here via APRA in the hope it will help those who want to try to get a better deal happening up here.
I usually don't do the C&P thing but given , because of post tally, we can't scroll back to see what the original point was, I will do so here.
Maybe edit it to headings so it isn't a tome.
1. Supply the accurate song title, all the correct songwriters of that song (so it could be determined which of the many versions of "I Love You" were being played).

The playlist forms of APRA, both on paper and the on line version provide space to give Title. Writer. Pro. Venue. Date.
That all goes into the data base and is distributed accordingly.
If a title has a publisher, this would be stated onnthe registration form for the song and would automatically be applied to any given song I would imagine.

2. Ensure that accurate playlists were being submitted by people with zero motivation to care if they are accurate (and possibly even motivation to lie about what was played to give more money to their friends or favorites whether those songs were played or not). The simple fact that venues wouldn't know Hank Williams from Hank Snow from Hank Aaron when it came to writing credits is an issue by itself that makes a system like this impossible to imagine. How will they know song titles? How will they know accurate writers? In truth they can't. Even the artists playing the cover songs don't really know to much accuracy that a song they cover by Journey was written by people not even in the band in some cases. But they'd need to know this info to keep an accurate song by song record.

This one I don't have an efective thought on how to improve it.
I guess honesty still has a place in society.
As does the fear of being busted should a random check come our way.
Venues would not have a clue who wrote what as radio is all about tell 'em how good the artist is so they buy the record.

3. Once this information was accurately tracked, it would need to be submitted in some easy format to combine so that the 400,000 writers affiliated would get what was due. Of course things like duplicate names and titles and accidental or inaccurate song titles, mispelled names of writers etc.. would have to solved.

On line playlists and title registration have pretty well solved this problem.
Even if the artist doesn't know who the writer is, I am told in the case of playlists and in submiting a recording licience request, the artist singing the song will in most times get it to the right place.

4. Once you have this perfect system, you have to pay for all the human manpower it would take at each stage to track and facilitate it. And of course since you're doing away the with blanket license concept, any writer who is NOT affiliated with a PRO (since their role would be changing and the protections offered by the blanket fee would be removed) could insist individual compensation which the blanket fee removes. (i.e. if you want to be paid today, you need to be a member of a PRO and accept the terms of the blanket fee.. if there is no blanket fee, it's every writer for themselves). This means that every venue (or writer if you pass the burden on to them) must track down and pay (or have a system in place to do it) each writer on the planet who might have written the song for direct payment.

Once all of this is taken care of, you have to determine the fees to cover both the process you created AND still leave money for all those little guys to get paid.

As I see the blanket system can and does work taking human weakness into consideration, I believe there is no need to replace that system.
Just the need for members to get behind whatever body they are members of, while letting them know the weaknesses they see in them and to ofer suggestions toward improving the situation.
A writer who is not registering their songs with a pro, will not get their dues, and they don't deserve them if they are not prepared to make the effort to apply the effort it takes to make their pro aware of their material.
Graham




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

Bob (laughing out loud)

Now, Brian...
Don't agree with everything Graham said..

Cobber..

You're wrong about Izzy Balin !

He got his start as a performer in the joints in the Bowery..

Played them for years and was very good too.

It was there that he began writing songs for himself to perform..
Other singers along the Bowery began to approach him about writing songs for them..


By the time his songs appeared on Tin Pan Alley..(actually his early ones predate Tin Pan Alley) He had song publishers doing any necessary legwork.

Also...Berlin never, ever got paid from an artist doing his song.
Quite the opposite...
Songs were shopped TO ARTISTS by the publishers and the writers themselves.
I can't remember who sang Izzy's first big hit "Alexanders Ragtime Band" but I do know the song was in an Earl Carrols Vanities of around 1920 or so.
Artists who performed songs in these shows got presents from the publishers that ranged from cash to cars to unlimited access to showgirls.
Remember, there was no radio in those days and very few records..
Money was made on sheet music sales primarily.
an artist wrote songs for somebody elses show..he didn't write the show.
He made his money (the vast majority of it) from publishing...
If the show ran long on Broadweay the earnings could be substantial, but would never approach the money from sheet music sales..If you want to read a great book abnout early show business in general and Izzy Balin in particular, I recommend "As Thousands Cheer"

So..fellas...what you've done is give me to make an ideal example of my position..

Thank you so much !

And let me also say, for the record..that if my sole role in all of this is just to bring the two of you into agreement on ANYTHING....

Then my work here has been good work indeed !

Bob (still smiling) Young

Lol Brian,

I am not arguing against the "blanket" system of collection. I am speaking against the "handkerchief" system of distribution.

digital fingerprinting is not all that new, nor was it funded by PROs. The first system was developed by Alexandria, Va. based Relatable and their first contract was with Napster. This was the technology that the RIAA used to catch Newyorkfashiongirl.

Phillips electronics had a system up and running in 2001.

In Jan of 2002, SESAC signed a three year contract Audible Magic Corporation for their digital fingerprint tracking system for radio play.

None of these address in any manner a desire on the part of the PROs to attempt to find a more equitable system of distributing the funds collected.

That is my only point.

Have you ever worked for a company where at least once a month there is a mistake in your paycheck ... and every time, it is in the company's favor.

Honest mistakes happen both ways. When the little guy is the one always getting shafted, it is not an honest mistake. It is a systemic flaw that needs to be addressed honestly.

dawg

Not wrong Bob. Just less correct than I can nopw be thanks to your clarrification and this thread in general.
Never say never Cobber. Even the wrongest of us may be right some of the time.
As I understand it you say Berlind used to do the live gig thing with his own stuff. Down here he would get a couple of bucks from the pro each time even when singing for just what the punters throw at them as I understand hapens up there.
We call that Busking and happens out on the street mostly.
Now. Are you saying Berlin actually paid artists to do his stuff live?
Sure I know about paying so called song pluggers, but paying artists who are already geting paid and think your song will enhance their chances of getting a crowd boogying is a bit of a stretch to me.
I will try and get the book, and thanks Cobber. I really like learning a bit more about just about anything, and Berlin and Gershwins are prety big anythings to me.
A side note here by the sway is I am about to put up one I did thinking of the sing for tips fraternity called Rattle My Jar Foe Me Someone.
Without this thread it may never have spat itself out.
So Thanks for that Guys.
Felt a nice way to go out of the year.
And Hey Dawg. Like the way you said that.
Graham


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

Hi all,
As an ASCAP member (both publisher and writer), I have been following this thread every other day or so...Here in Buffalo, I have heard complaints from a couple of venues where I have attempted to solicit a booking about PRO's wanting not only live music fees, but also fees for having the TV's volume on. The TV one really got me because those licences are already paid by the broadcast networks. As well, they have complained about PRO's wanting a fee payed for the entire establishment based on table capacity, even if it's a multiple roomed venue and the music is only being performed and audible in one room.

In any case, I have been able over the last 3 years to be awarded what is called an ASCAPlus Award. I have to submit either by paper form or email, songs I have written, where they have been performed, CD releases, and by what artist. Basically, as a performing singer songwriter, this amounts to just me, leaving my award at $200.00 per year. Now I realize, as Brian has mentioned that a single performance of a song is only rated at fractions of a cent. However, there is something wrong with the system in not acknowledging the struggling writer. How does it help the singer songwriter that mainly performs all of their own material??? For example, I performed on a local TV show back in March of this year and the producer of the show asked for my PRO info, song titles and songwriter info, so that she could submit cue sheets. Realistically, I wasn't expecting penny one from that TV appearance in terms of any type of additions to my quarterly ASCAP check. The thing that gets me is that it was submitted and when I get my ASCAP statements, it says that there has been no reported activity of my songs. How much activity IS activity? Maybe they need to come up with some sort of scale that works in a reverse direction, where if you're a struggling writer with minimal activity, the percentage of royalty rate is higher than that of a hit song that is getting multiple nationwide plays per week. At least the struggling writer would feel as if their work was worth something. I realize that the way the system is now, it is the easiest way for things to get done...the PRO members receiving the most airplay, record sales etc...are the most obvious to track. However, for the performing singer songwriter who is out on the road playing 100-200 dates a year, and getting very marginal airplay on indie and college radio, they're kinda left hanging, and frustrated with a couple of hundred bucks a year in performance royalties. Brian, when you mention how little Danny and Sara received for a HIT song, it can make one wonder if it's even worth the aggrevation...

Anyway, Happy New Year to all...
Davey O.

------------------
Davey O. Music (ASCAP)
http://www.daveyomusic.freehosting.net
http://www.cdbaby.com/daveyo1
http://www.cdbaby.com/daveyo2
http://www.cdbaby.com/daveyo3

Nop, Cobber...

Izzy didn't do all his own stuff on the Bowery..

He was a saloon singer, he sang the current hits of the day...Songs by people like Victor Herbert(who later founded and became first president of ASCAP) and all the bawdy old English music hall songs and even stephen foster...

He would also perform Yiddish parodies of popular songs...

His first original works were not for himself, but for other performers like him on the bowery.

So, in fact, he was making a living doing "cover" songs.

He continued working the joints until his songs (primarily cowritten in the beginning) began earning him sheet music monies.


Many of the other songs that came out of his legendary trunk in later years were also formed in the days around the beginning of World War One.
"God Bless America" had a different title and theme and was cut (thankfully) from a couple of shows.

Ahhhhh....I could go on for days...

What an inspiration...
Every aspiring songwriter should study Irving Berlin....not just his words and music, but his life.

He was a great artist and a great guy !
A loyal husband, a dedicated father..(and in his youth, the sole means of support for his mother and father and family)

You should read the book Cobber...
I have several books on Irving Berlin...but that's the best one in my opinion.

bob

[This message has been edited by bob young (edited 12-30-2003).]

[This message has been edited by bob young (edited 12-31-2003).]

*** the following is only opinion ***

1) I still think charging venues performance fees is the right thing to do because it is a right we the people gave to songwriters and because in a larger sense it is good for everybody to support property rights type ownership of intellectual property.

2) Although I don't now believe this to be a matter of law with music, but a matter of perception, if you don't support this one leg of copyright law (performance rights), that is going to further undermine in the public's and in Congress's eyes all music rights. And Congress will be more than happy to take away more music rights if some lobby will pay them off.

3) I believe that the value of performing a cover song to the performer (and the venue)is much greater (I can give examples of much more than 3 to 1) than the value of the "endorsement" or sales the performer can generate for the songwriter and (and record label).

4) I totally believe that the PRO's control their own destiny with this. If they act like the mafia, then what Bob (and I) fear might come true, everybody says "no thanks" to live music. And it makes it more likely Congress passes more laws to take away performance payments. But, if they follow some of the suggestions Brian has pointed out, then the outcome could be much different.

Thanks Davey O for the "real world" report.

that's good information...

thank you !

Bob

Davey,

I am curious if you can provide some of the details of what you turned in to get your 200 dollars?

In particular:

# of songs total you performed in the year that the 200 dollars was paid out.

# of total gigs you did that year.

So, if you still have your data, it would be great if you could share it.

Thanks,

Brian

I'll study up Bob. I did know about the look after the folks and all. Didn't know he was a pub singer.
The few bits I have heard him do did not ring my bell other than they were well written, and the fact he had the gonads to perform them, given I was not all that struck on his performance ability.
You didn't tell me if yopur exactly the opposite comment meant he paid performers to sing his stuff Cobber.
Hey Danny O. Way to go. That is a lot of light shed on the subject.
Thanks Cobber.
Graham

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

Brian,

To answer your questions...

Over the last 3 years I have performed in increasing numbers, 60 dates, 75 dates, to last year, approx. 80 dates. I am on a pace this year to perform 100-110.

I perform a revolving set list of 45 of my songs...some songs get the axe from time to time, (boredom, change of pace, they don't work in certain rooms etc..)

One point...on the online ASCAP application for the Plus Award, you run out of room after so many dates/songs/performances.

I have received $200.00 in awards from a pool of money that ASCAP puts aside for this program, that they claim is around 3 million dollars. The program is designed to get royalty monies into the hands of writer members who currently make less that $15,000 per year from songwriting royalties. I figure if I'm only getting $200.00 per year, even though I have had progressive activity each year, (airplay, TV appearances, and increased live dates), they must have a scale set up so that Joe Blow gets X amount for 20-100 performances a year, and so on. While I appreciate the award, when you look at it's design and how much money is said to be allocated for it, it really amounts to a token. I hope this info helps...

Davey O.


------------------
Davey O. Music (ASCAP)
http://www.daveyomusic.freehosting.net
http://www.cdbaby.com/daveyo1
http://www.cdbaby.com/daveyo2
http://www.cdbaby.com/daveyo3

On why the PRO charges for having the TV on in a bar when the TV station already paid for the performance right: The TV station paid for a performance in people's homes for private entertainment purposes. They did not pay for a public performance as part of a business. Similar to why the bar has to pay for playing a jukebox after they already bought the records that go into it.

The PROs use max capacity of a venue because it is an easily measured number documented in an official place (the occupancy permit) and not subject to change easily.

I have been doing quite a lot of thinking about the problem of tracking live performances and it is actually easier than you might think.

1. It does not have to track every performance of every song. The PROs don't even do that with radio stations. Instead they use a shifting pattern of random sampling.

2. Doing the statistical anlysis on hundreds of thousands of reports is no big deal; its what computers are good at.

3. Every venue generating serious money already has a computer terminal in it. I admit you have to look closely - its the credit card machine next to the cash register. Those things are more sophisticated than they look.

The approach I am taking is to separate the problem into separate tasks, each of which can have different technologies applied to it.

1. Performers prepare one or more set lists which are entered into a central tracking computer, indexed by an ID number. Like the list of 45 songs Davey mentioned. They do this at home over the web, assisted by various online indexes of all registered songs. Could also be done by mail for the less computer literate. Lists could be revised at any time but probably can remain the same for months at a time.

2. At the venue, Performer reports (using the credit card machine) that (A) he was there on that day, that (B) he performed songs from his set-list number X, and that (C) he performed N of those songs. Notice he doesn't have to report exactly which songs; just how many and from which list. He can have as many lists as he likes, representative of different sorts of jobs, such as his "wedding reception list", his "blues club list", etc.

3. At the central processing facility these little reports trickle in from all over. The credit card machines do this automatically. Each report is just 4 numbers: a date, the performer's ID number, the setlist number, and the number of songs played.

4. For each report they make a random selection of N songs from performer's setlist X and credit those with one performance.

Applying this process over thousands of venues over months of time gradually builds up a statistical picture of what is going on in live performance nationwide. This data is used to correct the simple extension of radio air-play that they use now.

There are refinements that can be made. For example it is probably not necessary for statistical purposes that every venue be tracked all the time. A rotating sampling method as used for radio may suffice. This is only an issue if customized software is required in the POS machine and I think I have a way around that.

The big challenges remain (1) keeping the operating cost of this scheme under the $2/day/venue that is coming in and (2) getting disorganized performers who could care less to bother making up the lists in advance.

A small scale test run of this system may be enough to prove to the PROs that their "live performances track radio play" theory doesn't hold water and they revise the whole thing.

p.d.,

The hard part would be getting the musicians to make the list. What's in it for them? Musicians can't even agree to stop playing for free or tips, how could anyone get them to agree to make out a list? If you could, why shouldn't they say they played all their own songs? Should the Pros then send out spies on the musicians? Should the venue fill it out? Why? What's in it for them? Why wouldn't they say the band played ten song, took a long break, so why should they be paying the fee? I'm not asking you to answer these questions, I'm showing you the problems.

Maybe you're right, maybe the musicians would be happy to write out each song, writer and PRO; and submit it...but I highly doubt it.

All the Best,
Mike



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

Oh I agree with you. The musicians are the weak link in my scheme.

Even preparing the lists can be a chore without a lot of help (for which I have other ideas, some possibly patentable). Say you wanna sing "Amazing Grace". BMI lists over 755 songs with that title! Unless you know the author's name of the one you plan on doing, how are you going to select it? 88 of those are variations by the same guy. Yikes.

Ok, more focused: "Coat of many colors". Dolly Parton, right? No, turns out there are 9 songs by that name. And the BMI repertoire database by itself doesn't cross index by artist, though their online web site database does.

(Btw, Parton has 571 songs registered to her name, one of which is titled "Amazing Grace"! I'll bet a lot of these 755 AG's are just different arrangements.)

A better approach to getting this changed may be a bunch of grad students in one city doing a survey of the live music scene for one month and comparing the observed song lists with what is on the radio in the same city. If it isn't the same list, the PROs got some 'splainin to do. Somebody could do a PhD dissertation...

Regarding the last couple of posts by PD and Bob.. Wasn't this entire thread based upon the playing of cover songs?...ie..not your own songs?
Isn't that the actual stated reason the PROs are collecting money from the venues?
I would think the only thing requiring reporting would be the cover songs...most of which have have an identity number currently established, if it were only made available to the cover artist for the sake of reporting purposes.

In regards to the television in the bar, it seems pathetic to me. Oh, yes... only if the volume is turned up? Nuttier than a damned fruitcake I say. This is due to the the songs they hear in the background? Commercial jingles? Who is to say there is any music at all? And who cares? I'm mean it..who truly cares about the televisions in bars? The songwriters? I think not. Songwriters/performers want the televisions OFF! (unless they are on it)(at that time they should be glowingly NOT concerned about bar televisions, but merely happy as hell to be on the television) Cannot people celebrate the fact they are on the television, regardless of where that television is located?
Should my dear mother be levied a fee for playing a radio in her antique shop in an effort to create "an atmosphere of pleasure" while playing solitaire? What about her watching Oprah on the tv? Are they coming after my mother next?
What about those grossly illegal and guilty moments where we've spun big chunks of vinyl so's to show off an old Victrola with a Bing Crosby or Satchmo record, all the while creating the perfect atmosphere of days gone by?..AND possibly aiding the sale of the Victrola. Wow...these PROs are missing a golden opportunity for extorsion here. And should the day come that somebody tries to collect, they'll leave the establishment with no skin on their hides, and a few more bones in the cellar's soil wouldn't hurt a thing, either....helps the weed grow!..LOL

Anyway... as you were, gents! ...Have a good one & keep up the good work!


-Gary

I realy think there are wek links in every section Guys.
It is documented that APRA now has felt the need to do the send the spys out because some of the very people who the body was founded buy and for are in fact overstating the plays on thewir own songs.
More than likely at the expencre of the songs that the punters most often want to hear. Their covers.
The suggested confusion over which is the right song, may happen, but very rarely I am sure as all the credits are on the Cd the artist learned the song from.
And on most downloaded leadsheets even.
Most certainly on evrey legit sheet music piece.
Heck. Even Kazzaa gives the credits from what I have seen.
One thing I am sure of though. No artist is going to want to fill in a playlist at the end of a 3 or 4 hour stint and feed it into a teller machine, even if it was possible.
It is so dang simple to fill in your play lists at your leasure.
Our APRA ones are due to be in by August each year, and made up to the end of June. Our financial year.
And Mike. Loved your comments on the sing for tips.
Have a listen to my Ratytle My Jar For Me Someone Cobber.
It is all about that.
I think you will like it. Is on Soundclick.
The clean site.
Graham

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

It seems to me the heart of the problem is lack of transparency and faith in the PRO money distribution process.

IF it is seen to be fair, then it seems to me everyone's issues go away because everyone gets a fair share


So if it is indeed not fair, or has not kept pace with the evolution of the music industry (Bob's brief history of Irving Berlin was a key bit of information I believe....ie it is the publishers who are most important here...they have to enforce their rights) then the vested interests have to become vocal and lobby for change.


They will of course be opposed by those who currently benefit most, and who want to retain the status quo.


So, given people here perceive a problem does exist.....how can we play a part to change it to make it more fair for everyone???


Can someone suggest a framework?? ie the steps we have to go through to make a legititmate case that has a good chance of effecting a fair solution??

No, Graham...he didn't pay directly..

but the publishers lavished gifts on people like al jolson and the like to sing the songs.

Not hard to imagine when you consider the fact that there was no other way to get the product heard by the public.

They'd go to the Wintergarden, hear Jolson sing a song and then go immediately to Carl Fischer and buy the sheet music.

that's how the money was made...no reccord sales (to sprak of) and no music on the radio.

He was a "singing waiter"..and a really successful one...
Now, given the few recordings we have of his voice, that is a bit hard to imagine..but the fact is that after his father died, that was how he supported his whole family.

I checked and I had the years wrong..
Alexanders Ragtime Band was featured in a Ziegfeld Follies in 1914.

It was his first big hit tho..I did have that right..

His first published song was "Marie from Sunny Italy" in 1911.
Ironically (vis a vie this discussion) one of his lifelong friends was Morton Gould...a great composer and late in life, a president of ASCAP !

Bob

[This message has been edited by bob young (edited 12-31-2003).]

Thanks Bob. That still goes on I guess too.
People have offered me money not to sing.
John. First thing I think needs doing is that those who are membres of a pro read and understand their agreememnt and the PRO guidlnes.
E-mail them and ask what the score is on anything that isn't clear.
And of course, those who are not membrs. Join as soon as you have that one needed song to sing stage.
I really think the individual can do more that most of us think.
I am sure anybody would start wondering if they should start taking things seriously if the best part of the morning in each working day wsas taken up with reading and replying to e-mails asking a string of common questions toward their effectivness.
Graham

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

Yes the issue was cover songs. But more particularly which cover songs. The claim is that the songs played live in small venues are not the same ones being played on the radio. If it can be proved that radio is not an accurate indicator of live performance, then the PROs have to give up on that approach and find a different one. Of course the big publishers benefit from the present scheme.

I know no artist would want to fill out a set sheet after a performance. That is why my proposal does not require that. All they have to do after the peformance is swipe their card through the machine, punch the number of songs they played, and walk out the door.

Hope everyone enjoyed and returned home safely from their HDNY observances and festivities!

Having followed this thread from its inception, and argued points here, I'm gratified to read this page five!

pd, you're onto something here! If you have the know-how and wherewithal to pursue the development, acceptance and implementation of your conception, go nuts baby!

Because while it was once true that live performance reflected radio play, I can't for the life of me imagine that ANYbody ANYwhere is covering, much less making a living from, Eminem or Snoop Dogg or Busta or FittyCent or Beyoncé or Aaliyah, Mariah, Britney or Xtina for the simple fact that the skills necessary, the memorization, and the production values in the recordings are WAAAAAY over the heads of folks hoping to catch coppers by flogging tunes in a pub or a lounge or a club or even a concert venue!

But look at the airplay chart and who's there? THIS IS NOT AN INDICTMENT OF ANY OF THE AFORE-MENTIONED ARTISTS OR THEIR WORKS.This is a recognition that their songs aren't gonna get done by the Taylor-hacking coffee-grinder, the cabaret-show-tune duo, the SoCal skatepunk-pop trio, the 'Skynyrd Lives'-dueling-Les Pauls four-piece, or the Boney James/Kenny G/Joe McBride smooth-poppy/pseudo-jazzy quintet with chick chanteuse (yeah, I know what I just did did!). Which, if you were to categorize perfoming musical acts by genres and configurations, would make up probably over HALF of the musical acts in the REAL world of live music in the States. Anybody ever heard of a Kid Rock or Puff Daddy tribute band?

Live tracking needs to be brought up to speed. For cryng out loud, I read today where a tire maker is putting chips into its tires for data collection, wear, failure, shock, etc. The POS song-reporting idea's time has come! Especially for ASCAP.

DIG MYSELF A TUNNEL- a subterranean hole-sick blues

high http://www.soundclick.com/util/streamM3U.m3u?ID=769954&q=Hi

real http://www.soundclick.com/util/streamM3U.m3u?ID=769954&q=Lo

------------------
edx.iuma.com www.soundclick.com/40LOVE www.soundclick.com/EdX

[This message has been edited by ed323 (edited 01-01-2004).]

Ed,

You just haven't been to a club that plays to an Urban crowd. There's plenty of people convering all those artists out there.

Brian

Maybe. And you're right about my not getting into (m)any 'Urban' clubs.

BUT, and as in J-Lo it's a HUGE one, AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL SONGS PERFORMED BY MUSICAL ACTS EACH NIGHT IN ALL LOCATIONS, I guarandamntee you that "Gimme Three Steps" is being covered by musicians (not just spun by a DJ) umpteen more times than "Without Me", and since this thread started out as a reportage of musicians performing PRO-affiliated songs in unlicensed venues, my point is no less valid.

Or are you counting karaoke caterwauling as 'covering' a song?

The complaint I hear repeated here is that performances of tunes by most PRO-affiliated artists are under-reported and under-paid. If "Freebird" is being done 500 times any given Friday or Saturday night by musicians in America, it isn't gonna show up on a radio sample.

I know the song does enjoy special status already, and as such is assumed to be getting a certain number of radio plays, but only by virtue of its heyday as a hit. The radio action does NOT follow the enduring popularity of the song, or take into account its relative ease of mastery by performing musicians, hence its ability and likelihood to be performed to the satisfaction of listeners.

Are there 500 paid singers in bands doing "Dirty" in a way that makes Xtina fans want to come back next time?

And radio plays mean very little to dance music like electronica and techno, in which a tune may be getting thousands of plays a night, but the music is only in the hands of DJs, and IDing each piece would be maddeningly inscrutable to even a genre-steeped sample-taker/tabulator.

The PGA changed their prize-money tree a few years ago to pay less to the winner, making more money available to the lower finishers, so that the players that need the money most in order to stay on the tour, could.

ASCAP ought to consider EVERY avenue for doing the same thing for the composers, authors and publishers who believe in and seek its representation.

------------------
edx.iuma.com www.soundclick.com/40LOVE www.soundclick.com/EdX


[This message has been edited by ed323 (edited 01-01-2004).]

Theoretical disccusion concerning lists, etc.

Aren't the PROs working on an ID number per song? I've heard talk of this. It's only a step from that to a barcode or some sort of system that an organised musician could use from their own PC for generating pretty accurate lists (which could then be sampled or handled in some sort of economic way). So same-title songs written by same-name writers would be no problem.

Love the credit card swiper idea. Trouble is, it's not really in the venue's interest to add that function to their system. So the PROs might have a hard time installing them.

If musicians are the weak link, so be it. Let the ones that are organised pick up the extra cents for submitting their lists on time.

Michael


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

It isn't the musician who pick up the cents by submitting a play list Mickael. It is them making it possible, at no cost to them selves, that the writers ands ownners of the material they use to gtenerate income can be paid their dues.
Submitting a play lsist is no differant to a shop keeper doing a stock take really.
And APRA does indeed have a number for evrey song on their list, Basically a writer can have several versions of a song, even versions done in collab and if they register each one with the pro, and the performing artist is aware of specific credits for the take they did, the money will get to where it is supposed to go.
Graham

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

Sorry , old friend..

that's just wrong...

Yopu keep saying this doesn't "cost" the musicians anything..

that's not true..

I've been there too long, Cobber..

ANY and all expenses like this, no matter how trivial they may seem are immediately reflected in the budget for live music.

If the owner pays...the musician does too...
It's always been that way..
The entertainment budget is always the first to be cut..

So, the performer does , indeed, pay.

And as I've said before, the performer doesn't grab those songs out of the air..one of his expenses along with all it takes to put him on stage, is the CD, or Taper, or sheet music or whatever that he had to buy to tlearn the tune.

That stuff isn't provided free by a gracious and generous songwriter..at least not when I was learning newe material.
Just like the commissions on sales garnered thanks to the working musicians displaying the writers wares..
The writer is happy to keep those as well...

Ahhhhh..

the almighty writers..

Gods own, apparently....
One begins to wonder just how many folks we musicians are beholden to...
My first grade music teacher..?
the guy that taught me how to whistle..I've done that on stage a few times..
My goodness..I just realized...many times in the solo section of one song, I will play a bit of the melody of another song...Gosh...thaere's another bunch of people I've been cheating alll these years..

I sure am glad I'm hanging it up while I still love music.

Bob Young

bob

No sweat Bob.
I don't think I am wrong, so we have a differant perception of what paying ya dyes really means.
Me. I don't think you paying a few bucks, just the same as joe averge music fan does for a tape, and a few cents, as it would have been way back in your young days, really qauifies as dues to the writer being paid for all the bread you have gained over all those years Cobber.
We may never agree on this, and I don't care.
I know I can change my opinion if given enough cold hard facts as to why I may have let my writer's bais effect my opinion.
Now do me a favor please and listen to the Rattle Rock song on Soundclick or SongRamp, and tell me if you can, what I did wrong with my mike setup in the harp break, and how can I get those distortion squeeks outn of it. Or if I should. I sorta like them actually.
Graham

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