Bane of your existence

Not saying that you are, but how can people feel sorry for them and not the people who make their money by performing music?

BandcaveMan

I was once in a band that wrote a song with one singer, he then left the band and performed that song in his new band. He had to pay for the use of the music when he performed it (he only wrote the lyrics). We then wrote new lyrics and used the new version live so that he wouldn't get a penny.. The new version was better anyway. Created music has an owner, listeners are just license holders.

__________________
BandcaveMan
http://www.bandcave.com

starrynight

Music is a performing art, therefore it is a living thing which can be recreated (not just by the original composer). I think many can lose this perspective in popular music with the way recordings have taken over our impression of music. Those coming from the perspective of classical or jazz may agree with me more.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

Janszoon

Okay, but was that worth reviving a five year old thread over?

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

starrynight

Ah...The Thread Police.

Yes it was.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

Mrd00d

I think it was, because I didn't see this thread, as it was before my time. Very troubling piece of news. I felt inclined to share it on facebook.

__________________
Mrd00d's Last.fm

Euronomus

What I would be interested in knowing is how does ascaap or bmi decide which artists to pay? No doubt Pink Floyd, Nirvana, Beyonce, et al get a cut of that money, but if my band covers say.. Steve Von Till or Miranda Sex Garden and no-one from the publishing houses are there to log it (or even if they are there) do those acts get some of that cash?

__________________

starrynight

Well I was talking in more general terms about covers as well, about how people (including on this board if you look at threads about them) seem to denigrate covers as just ripping off the original instead of looking at it as being creative in its own right often. Covers can actually bring attention to a little known original song which would have languished otherwise, or made an old song in a new guise available to a whole new audience.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

mr dave

Alright so... I'll shred a 5 year old article a bit...

So a couple in Florida start having shows in their coffee shop. OK. There's no mention on whether or not the couple bothered with addressing the legalities in regards to becoming a performing venue or if they just decided to plug in a small PA into the corner of their cafe.

$400 a year to address the issue is ALL of $33 a month, or a whopping $1.10 a day. OH NO!!! They'd have to pay back the same amount as what, three 'gourmet' coffees back to a label every weekend? If they can't afford that then their venture into using live music as a method of attracting and increasing their business is a massive failure.

Now the example of trying to pull copyright money due to the televised broadcast of a football game is kind of insane. But, did the location bother getting the licenses necessary for public broadcast? Again, not specified in this rather biased article.

From what I understand performers themselves have to pay a fee ANY time they want to play a cover when in Europe and I've heard of some acts dropping hit covers from their sets to avoid that cost. Can anyone confirm if this is still the case?

The biggest complaint seems to be 'BOO HOO! the big label is being mean to all these wonderful start up artists who need to rely on other people's material to display their talents'. OK. What about all the legitimate start up musicians or those no longer soaking up the limelight but who were actually talented enough to both perform AND create the original material? Do they not deserve to get paid for their work?

I also don't think Urban's example of books holds water either. Really though, if you blatantly copied from books you'd get charged with plagiarism. There's also a very clear reason for citing sources and the methodology in doing so. Libraries are also established and have the licenses necessary to provide the service of 'free' books to their members. It's not at all the same as some coffee shop owners trying to make an extra buck on the side by having live acts playing under the table every weekend.

The examples of Prince, Radiohead, or Nine Inch Nails using the mainstream press to further their own careers independently of major label marketing is also a huge fallacy. If it weren't for the fact that their careers were very well established by their original association to those major labels I really doubt their attempts to market themselves independently wouldn't have amounted to a tenth of the success they actually achieved.

__________________
i am the universe

Howard the Duck

i'll add my $0.02

is there even such a thing as an "original" song, anyway?

most of the stuff up-and-comers or starters play, which they wrote, are based on some templates already out there, whether it be chords or melodies

you might as well instigate lawsuits against originals by these "start-ups" that sound like your songs

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.