Ascap Tells Artists It's Cutting Their Payments

[Roflcopter]

Oh, one more thing. Please stop calling me Rob, that's for friends - not for highly selective 'avuncular' use whenever you turn a discussion into a pissing contest. Thank you.

[john]

It's been some years since I gigged, and I know that collection agencies have pushed to get venues registered with appropriate license, but my experience of venues was that they booked a band and let the band play what they wanted with no offer of any forms to notify songwriters that their material was played with a resulting end payment. It should happen, but in my experience it is largely overlooked.

Similarly I don't see any effort on the part of the musician's union to educate members as to the expectation when dealing with a venue, and I am not aware of any education for venue owners. Both of which are not necessarily an excuse, just the lie of the land.

All in it means that much of the royalty payments are not made, with only larger and more established venues taking a professional approach. Most smaller venues don't give a toss. Same goes for small bands performing covers. They don't think of the songwriters, and in my experience just believe that they can do what they want.

Unions and other professional bodies can be scarier than they actually are. They set a bar for membership that most musicians don't even investigate. Lets face it most amateur and even semi pro musicians aren't members of any professional body. They expect no royalty payments so they don't even consider that when playing covers. they wonder what the big deal is about. Most venue owners are only concerned with bums on seats and that entertainment was provided and their license covers THEM.

I think it's similar to the fact that many bands think stardom and fame will come find them, not the other way around. They don't think professional bodies because until they need to they wont even see the benefits of professional bodies... the "what does it do for me?" scenario.

Professional bodies are however fallible. They are run by humans, and their intentions are not always uniformly pure. They may fight for rights, but as I said, this is to the exclusion of most musicians because they fail to see the relevance. They may collect monies, but they're not collecting my monies... right? The professional bodies can be liable to empire building, forgetting why they are in existence... what is it they say about power corrupting? Sadly this can be true, and this unfortunately is much a factor of culture and historical back drop surely?

Anyhoo...

Gigging, I miss it, but meh....

*on a side note, can we not get bogged down in personal comments? We all have opinions and truth is often a matter of perspective... and that for me is something worth investigating, discussing our differences, it's not worth fighting over.

[Lazz]

Why not? It's one of your favourites, apart from feigned misapprehension and being purposely obtuse... or getting verbal, even .... read back maybe.

Agency shops still exist to this day……

Misrepresentation one of my favourites?

I wasn’t aware of that.

Maybe you can educate me and I’ll see what I can do about.

“feigned misapprehension” is very presumptuous. What you choose to label feigned misapprehension are genuine attempts to clarify what you mean where I don’t get what you’re saying so we can avoid misunderstanding and the misrepresentation you tell me I am fond of.

These two sentences, for example, proved tough for me to follow:

“Sorry, but if I let people sign waivers, ASCAP should not be at liberty to bluntly ignore that”

“They may *assume* people play covers anyway, but until that's established, they cannot simply dictate law.”

I’m not clear about “getting verbal”, either. It is apparent that your intent is not pleasant. And I’m certain you’re not just talking about ‘using language. Apart from that, I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Similarly, I honestly have no idea what an “agency shop” is.

Just because it's maybe YOUR union, doesn't make them sacrosanct, Lazz, or elevates one particular union or unions in general above criticism.

Sometimes I get the impression you don’t actually read what I say.

Maybe I’m simply piss-poor at expressing what I mean.

I have reiterated throughout that I have valid and legitimate question about the way PROs operate.

That doesn’t translate successfully into regarding them as sacrosanct.

Not to me anyway.

What I take issue with is the tenor of emotional hysteria in the reporting.

My questions about the way the media operates are also valid and legitimate.

The fact that people use the mafia metaphor, and “extortion” & “intimidation”, however, is something I believe PROs need to take seriously.

Hopefully they can learn how to avoid yet more embarrassing public-relations nightmares.

.

[Lazz]

Oh, one more thing. Please stop calling me Rob, that's for friends - not for highly selective 'avuncular' use whenever you turn a discussion into a pissing contest. Thank you.

So you prefer to be unfriendly.

Lazz is my name - that's what my friends call me - no idea what we can do about that.

I ain't changing it.

You're also determined to get personal. I have no problem with that at all. It's clear we have stuff to get sorted.

Might be better if we did that in private, though.

You ok with that?

.

[Lazz]

If it’s not too personal, I would be interested in hearing a bit about how your membership in a performance rights organization has worked for you. I imagine it could be instructive.

No, it's not too personal.

I'm happy to tell how it's worked for me, if that's useful.

I'll need a little time, though, if that's ok - I have other pressing stuff to deal with first.

.

[Roflcopter]

The professional bodies can be liable to empire building, forgetting why they are in existence... what is it they say about power corrupting?

Yep, that's one of humanity's eternal flaws - like the Young Ones pointed out in one of their shows - 'Give them a uniform and they think they're Hitler'.

There is simply no justification for treating everybody like criminals on the sole grounds of some people breaking the rules- however convenient it may seem.

(Frankly I think everyone with an IQ over 80 can be explained the 'No Covers, Or You Will Not Get Paid, You Will Never Play Here Again And It May Even Cost You' rule.)

[Lazz]

It's been some years since I gigged, and I know that collection agencies have pushed to get venues registered with appropriate license, but my experience of venues was that they booked a band and let the band play what they wanted with no offer of any forms to notify songwriters that their material was played with a resulting end payment. It should happen, but in my experience it is largely overlooked.

Venues do not report works which are performed on their premises.

If the job is to get done at all, the responsibility has to be assumed by the performing artist or their representative.

If the performing artist is also the composer, there is greater motivation to take care of business.

If nobody bothers with this paperwork, the licence revenue gets distributed amongst members according to formulae.

The question then becomes whether these formulae are at all fair or representative.

They are not.

As for educating people about the processes, I’ve never thought of this as a job for Musicians’ Associations. Although I know my old MU in the UK would sometimes get a speaker in from PRS to answer questions, it’s more rightfully a job for composers’ organizations. Both PRS and SOCAN have regular seminars and workshops to help get people up to speed. I don’t know about the other PROs but would imagine they all do the same in service of their membership. Shouldn’t be too difficult to find out.

Professional bodies are however fallible. They are run by humans, and their intentions are not always uniformly pure. They may fight for rights, but as I said, this is to the exclusion of most musicians because they fail to see the relevance. They may collect monies, but they're not collecting my monies... right? The professional bodies can be liable to empire building, forgetting why they are in existence... what is it they say about power corrupting? Sadly this can be true, and this unfortunately is much a factor of culture and historical back drop surely?

Definitely.

But it doesn’t make them the mafia.

.

[john]

Hey lazz

I completely agree that the onus is on the performer, I guess what i am saying is that at a fundamental level that message is not conveyed to start up bands, with many bands never realizing what they miss out on because no one tells them. Yes there are lectures but too few and somehow they do not connect with many musicians.

No it doesn't make them mafia, we are after all talking about a huge diversity of agencies from a plethora of backgrounds, but then there are occurrences where mafia of one kind or another has been and is involved. Media industries are by no means free of that sort of corruption.

I don't think it is a term I would associate with all or even most agencies/bodies/unions.

I think a bigger problem is that to many musicians they wonder about relevance. They don't know what most bodies do. They are just a collection of entities that involve legality, which to the uninitiated is a quagmire, a can of worms they are reluctant to open because it involves learning about topics that just aren't fun.

I am not professing that as a standpoint, just that that is the state of play.

I think for professionally trained musicians this is far less prevalent.

[Lazz]

I completely agree that the onus is on the performer, I guess what i am saying is that at a fundamental level that message is not conveyed to start up bands, with many bands never realizing what they miss out on because no one tells them.

Maybe that should be part of a basic “Musicians’ Survival Kit” available on Songstuff.

Maybe musicians who know should be helping those who don’t.

occurrences where mafia of one kind or another has been and is involved. Media industries are by no means free of that sort of corruption.

Ha.

In terms of artist-management and some label activities and operations, there are a few stories I am not allowed to tell.

I think a bigger problem is that to many musicians they wonder about relevance. They don't know what most bodies do. They are just a collection of entities that involve legality, which to the uninitiated is a quagmire, a can of worms they are reluctant to open because it involves learning about topics that just aren't fun.

I agree.

They aren’t fun – but they’re not that bad or difficult, either – it’s all easily taken care of – and it’s beneficial to the musicians.***

For a venue hosting live-music, though, and not your average individual up-and-coming musician, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to hold a different set of expectations about knowledge, legality and relevance.

***

For a guy like our Thomas, in Glasgow, for example, playing his own music in an ever widening circuit – if I was him, I’d be having a friendly chat with PRS, signing up (it’s free, and he meets the criteria), registering my songs, and picking up a pad of forms and carrying them around for whenever I play a venue with a license.

I’d be in less of a rush to join the MU: First, there’s no obligatory requirement to do so; Second, the gigs he does probably aren’t happening at scale anyway; Third, it only starts to become useful where you’re chasing the sorts of gig opportunities that are governed by established union agreements – like Radio or TV or sessions or Film.

..

[john]

Maybe that should be part of a basic "Musicians' Survival Kit" available on Songstuff.

Maybe musicians who know should be helping those who don't.

Absolutely. As you know that is at the core of Songstuff and always has been. Putting together some core information would be a good idea, and a survival kit is a good idea. All volunteers are welcome

[Lazz]

All volunteers are welcome

Don't wink at me.....

Maybe we need to shape a spec for what we think this core info should cover.

.

[john]

oh that was a general wink

and here I thought winks were universally liked