[atlantaprog] Re: ASCAP/BMI

I stand largely corrected! :?)
However, it all serves to underline the point I implied and Allen stated: to 
think that there is any money to be made as an according-to-Hoyle "rock 
star" is simply a wish-dream.  Like thinking you'll be able to fly when you 
grow up.  The business evolved out of that somewhere between 1983 and 1991.

Once you abandon the idea that some fairy god-manager is going to book you 
at carnegie hall, you can get down to the real relation, the underlying 
theme, which is the music itself and what want to do with it.





>From: Allen Welty-Green <agmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: atlantaprog@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: atlantaprog@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: ASCAP/BMI
>Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:43:09 -0400
>
>Well I know know about you, Hal... but I gave up on the "business" a
>long time ago! My chances are better at winning the lottery than in
>achieving major commercial success with my music.... heck, my chances
>are better at winning the lottery than in even MAKING MY LIVING with my
>music! That realization was actually very liberating for me, because it
>freed me up to work on the music I love the way I want to work on it...
>regardless of any commercial considerations. Of course I still want to
>be able to play for people who like what I do, and I want people to buy
>our CDs so we can afford to keep releasing them... but trying to play
>by the rules of the established music industry is a waste of time as
>far as I'm concerned (that includes Atlantis - to tie this into an
>earlier thread)
>
>AWG
>Independent and proud of it!
>
>
>
> > So why are we in this business again, long hours, grueling work, no
> > pay............;-)
> > Hal
> >
> > Brian King wrote:
> >
> >>> Allen is right on.
> >>> The reason radio airplay weighs more heavily in those formulas is
> >>> due to
> >>>
> >>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>
> >>> tight control and documentation of radio playlists, which must be
> >>> reported
> >>> to the PRO's on a monthly or quarterly basis.  That playlist data is
> >>> what
> >>> mostly determines payouts; it's mechanical royalties -- 6 cents per
> >>> play,
> >>> anytime, anywhere.  Think about that one next time you hear "Cry Me a
> >>> River"...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> These are two different things here.  You're right about the
> >> importance of
> >> the playlists, but PRO's have nothing to do with mechanicals, only
> >> public
> >> performance royalties (radio/tv airplay, clubs, stadiums, bowling
> >> alleys,
> >> etc.)  Publishers and/or the Harry Fox Agency collect mechanical
> >> royalties
> >> (from the artist's own record label and from other artists who choose
> >> to
> >> record cover versions of that artist's songs).  In other words, the
> >> songwriter gets paid the mechanical royalty whenever someone sells a
> >> copy of
> >> a record that contains his song.  The statutory rate right now is
> >> actually 8
> >> cents per song, going up to 8.5 cents in 2004 (though often
> >> negotiated to
> >> 3/4 of this by a record label's "controlled composition clause" or
> >> through
> >> negotiations with the songwriter's publisher).  But this money is
> >> paid per
> >> song per record sold, and has nothing to do with public performance.
> >> And
> >> the money paid for each public performance is not fixed, but subject
> >> to
> >> ASCAP/BMI/SESAC's internal formulas.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Most clubs (and restaurants) pay a simple structured membership fee
> >>> to a
> >>>
> >>>
> >> PRO
> >>
> >>
> >>> for protected and legal access to that PRO's catalog.  It's not
> >>> based on
> >>> what is actually played in the club -- it's almost an honor
> >>> system-type
> >>> agreement between a venue and the PRO.
> >>>
> >>> So in essence, PRO's are mostly about protecting artist income based
> >>> on
> >>> recordings.  That being said, I don't think this particular area of
> >>> the
> >>> music biz is any more or less fair towards artists than any other
> >>> area.
> >>> Which essentially means that all areas of the music biz are more or
> >>> less
> >>> equal in their cheating of artists :?)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well the guys who benefit most from PRO's are _songwriters who get
> >> radio/tv
> >> airplay._  As Allen pointed out, the smalltime guy with no airplay who
> >> performs his own songs at nightclubs is not going to get paid.  But
> >> it's
> >> also true that  _recording artists get zilch unless they are the
> >> writer as
> >> well_.  (The recording artist may get promotional benefits from
> >> airplay that
> >> drive record sales, and other income, but he doesn't get paid by the
> >> PRO,
> >> only the songwriter and his publisher do.)  For instance, when you
> >> hear Jimi
> >> Hendrix playing "All Along the Watchtower" on the radio, the Hendrix
> >> estate
> >> gets absolutely nothing from this public performance-- Bob Dylan gets
> >> paid,
> >> as the songwriter.  Not exactly fair considering Bob Dylan's own
> >> original
> >> recording gets little airplay, and if Hendrix hadn't recorded his
> >> (vastly
> >> superior, IMO) version Dylan wouldn't be getting paid anything for
> >> this
> >> airplay.  I think public performance income should be split somehow
> >> between
> >> the recording artist and the songwriter (maybe 80% SW, 20% RA), and
> >> this was
> >> attempted in Congress a while back, but it got shot down by the
> >> lobbying of
> >> those with something to lose-- namely songwriters, who'd have to share
> >> income they had all to themselves, and the broadcasting industry, who
> >> feared
> >> the pie (PRO fees) would just get bigger instead of being split.
> >>
> >> Brian
> >> lordonly.net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Other related posts: