NOT The biggest secret in the music industry

[Dad3353]

[quote name='UglyDog' timestamp='1389376678' post='2333616']
OK, leaving aside the Sting/Summers argument -- to whom is the royalties system, as it stands, 'unfair'? Who is being penalised if the scribbler is paid per unit shifted rather than by the hour? The artist certainly isn't. So who is? In a nutshell, why exactly is it unfair and who is it unfair on?
[/quote]

I'll try, but you surely won't agree. I maintain that it's 'unfair' (I would say 'immoral'...) to have someone receiving money when no work is being done ('work' in the wider sense, including artistic creation...). Once the work is achieved, and after fair recompense, I believe that that's it. Finished. Done with, like a truck delivery. The writer of a work which becomes popular should not (imo...) continue to be paid for 70 years. He should receive the equivalent of the time taken in the composition, same as the truckie. I know full well that this is heresy to many; to me that changes nothing from a moral (ie: my...) standpoint. Ymmv.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389376731' post='2333618']
Ah... So you [i]have [/i]heard my stuff, then..? Hmm...
[/quote]

I confess I may have put my ear to the wall from time to time.

One time, I was in a band where the drummer desperately wanted to write something for inclusion in an upcoming studio session. After days of scribbling the little chap presented a song entitled 'Black Box'. This was a peroration on the (then fashionable) use of drum machines and the perceived threat to live, human drummers.

The song was so ghastly that the band rejected it on the spot and he stormed off in a huff. Time and circumstance mitigated against training a new drummer so - in an atmosphere of black irony - the session was completed with the aid of ... a drum machine.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389376812' post='2333622']
If everyone's time is equal. How do you work out how much a 10mile taxi ride is worth?

It takes a half hour if the taxi drivers time but saves the passenger 2.5 hours of walking time.

What about the doctor who diagnoses something in a 5minute consultation that results in the patient living many more years.

Surely there is wiggle room or I think it's called barter.
[/quote]

Taxis do, indeed, have a timer in them, for working out the price. Whether you've been saved time walking or only need wheels to get the shopping home is not the concern of the cabby. He's spending his life, hour by hour, and deserves to be paid for that. I'd add on, of course, the investment and running costs; that goes without saying.
As for your poor old doctor; should he be paid less if the patient expires 5 minutes later..? Obviously not. Why can the doctor not be paid in the same way as the cabbie..? He, too, is spending his hours on earth, one by one, and deserves reward for that. I see no problem there. Is he 'worth' more than a cabbie..? Not to me, he isn't. An hour's life is the same for us all; in fact, there [i]is [/i]no other real worth at all, imo.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1389358133' post='2333229']
[i]....This thread is another worrying indication that music isn't worth anything anymore....[/i] (WoT)

+1
And even more worrying, some of those are musicians!!
[/quote]

I don't think it's a case of musicians not valuing music, more that they acknowledge the reality of the way the world is working. Denying reality is probably not the best way to figuring out how to deal with it - but maybe true artists don't have to deal with reality


[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1389355590' post='2333167']
Isn't that why punk happened - to give everyone the opportunity to get up there and do it, regardless?
[/quote]

Perhaps it was the start of the slippery slope? Add digital technology for easy copying and then throw in the internet for easy distribution and we have a situation where a previously very exclusive 'club' has thrown open its doors to everyone.

The world is awash with music these days - an awful lot of it really, really good - and it has never been more accessible. This is the reality that career musicians have to deal with, like it or not.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1389360778' post='2333289']
Yes! And Noddy and Co. were at least creative, where the only thing 'creative' about banking is 'accountancy'. Banking [i]per se[/i] offers no benefit to society whatsoever, whereas music is good for the soul. In my opinion.
[/quote]

Fair point, but surely a truly fair scheme of things should be above personal opinons?

Also, and I hesitate to defend banking, but I seriously doubt that banking has no benefit to society whatsoever. The trouble with such 'cheap shots' is that when the cheers and laughter die down nothing has been achieved.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389377586' post='2333637']
An hour's life is the same for us all
[/quote]

That's where the argument falls down.

Is an hour of my life the same as that of the chap I employ to insert cocaine suppositories while I lay face down by the infinity pool on my tropical island.

I think not.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1389361001' post='2333293']
That's the thing, you see.

There are MILLIONS of songs out there, a huge chunk of which you can listen to for free. And a huge chunk of those are probably not very good.

If you want Every Breath You Take, it's going to cost you. Why? Because people rate it so highly they're willing to pay for it.
[/quote]

But a huge chunk of those MILLIONS of songs ARE very good. Popularity, however, is a whole different ball game and, arguably, has little to do with how 'good' the music is - as things like X-factor clearly demonstrates.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1389378331' post='2333657']
That's where the argument falls down.

Is an hour of my life the same as that of the chap I employ to insert cocaine suppositories while I lay face down by the infinity pool on my tropical island.

I think not.
[/quote]

I think I detect the merest hint of sarcasm here.

(...and we'll weigh up the 'worth' of your last hour on Earth with his, and compare... )

[flyfisher]

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1389358306' post='2333234']
Also, as far as I am aware Mr Holder has never been declared bankrupt then demanded that the taxpayer pay off his debts whilst allowing him to continue to receive his huge royalties…
[/quote]

How could the banks 'demand' anything of the taxpayers? More likely, I suspect, that they knew full well that they were so important to our current society (however right or wrong we think that may be) that they knew that government would not dare risk the wrath of the general public by letting their puny savings disappear as the banks sank without trace. Would you rather lose your music collection or all your money overnight?

I can't see much public support for bailing out a bankrupt former-millionaire musician can you?

[TimR]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389378208' post='2333654']


Fair point, but surely a truly fair scheme of things should be above personal opinons?

Also, and I hesitate to defend banking, but I seriously doubt that banking has no benefit to society whatsoever. The trouble with such 'cheap shots' is that when the cheers and laughter die down nothing has been achieved.
[/quote]

I don't think people really know what bankers do.

It's just fashionable to beat on the guys who gambled on the mortgage markets.

It's like saying all sculptors are evil because they carve ivory.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='UglyDog' timestamp='1389376678' post='2333616']
OK, leaving aside the Sting/Summers argument -- to whom is the royalties system, as it stands, 'unfair'? Who is being penalised if the scribbler is paid per unit shifted rather than by the hour? The artist certainly isn't. So who is? In a nutshell, why exactly is it unfair and who is it unfair on?
[/quote]

The people paying the royalties, obviously, because they are paying more than would otherwise do if the royalties were lower.

Perhaps we should have some sort of inverse royalty scheme, similar to progressive taxation? The more copies sold, the lower the percentage paid to the artist and the lower the retail price. The artist coudl still make a great deal of money from their few hours of creativity and the general public would benefit by having to pay less for (presumably) great pieces of entertainment.

Of course, such a scheme would be a non starter. Who ever heard of a mega-successful band ever putting out cheaper albums or cheaper gig tickets because they already have more money than they know what to do with?

So, is it really all about the art, or is it actually all about the money?

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389378697' post='2333670']
I think I detect the merest hint of sarcasm here. (...and we'll weigh up the 'worth' of your last hour on Earth with his, and compare... )
[/quote]

Hllo Senor DAD

Mr Sknk tel me telL you wha life like heer on San Pedro for me. It gret hnour be his Charrly STuffer and kep my famly in mangos. I get uniform too with paeked cap, rubr glovs and a prong.

It honest job and step up from workig in call centr.

Yrs

Ignacio Bonferrera (Mr)

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389379388' post='2333684']
The more copies sold, the lower the percentage paid to the artist and the lower the retail price.
[/quote]

So, a sort of fanboi tax.

I like.

(SDV).

Edited January 10, 2014 by skankdelvar

[Dad3353]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1389379762' post='2333696']
Hllo Senor DAD

Mr Sknk tel me telL you wha life like heer on San Pedro for me. It gret hnour be his Charrly STuffer and kep my famly in mangos. I get uniform too with paeked cap, rubr glovs and a prong.

It honest job and step up from workig in call centr.

Yrs

Ignacio Bonferrera (Mr)...[/quote]

(...[i]and, no, I don't want to know what the prong is for, thank you very much..![/i] )

[John Schoen]

My guess would be money is the driving force. Can you imagine how Paul McCartney felt when Michael Jackson bought the rights to all the Beatles songs? McCartney had to pay royalties to play his own songs and watch Michael Jackson become even richer than he already was. You can hardly call that fair.

Edited January 10, 2014 by John Schoen

[lurksalot]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1389375146' post='2333592']
Dad3353, stead of wasting your time arguing unsuccessfully against the royalty system for songwriters, why don't you get out there and write some songs of your own?
[/quote]

Dad has responded to this in his own humble way , but may I point out that he wrote, performed and produced the joint winner of the BC composition competion in December .

I understand the romance of the idea Dad puts forward as I have seen him explain it a few times now , and have sympathy with the thinking , but there are too many people with their noses in the troughs to stand a chance of change .

Take for example Radio , does the radio not pay the royalties for a broadcast , then why should an employer pay again if 4 people have a radio on in a workshop ? pay the approppriate royalty to broadcast to the population, but dont then further charge the population to listen to it FFS .

[peteb]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389378809' post='2333673']


How could the banks 'demand' anything of the taxpayers? More likely, I suspect, that they knew full well that they were so important to our current society (however right or wrong we think that may be) that they knew that government would not dare risk the wrath of the general public by letting their puny savings disappear as the banks sank without trace. Would you rather lose your music collection or all your money overnight?

I can't see much public support for bailing out a bankrupt former-millionaire musician can you?
[/quote]
I don’t think there was much support from the public to bail out millionaire bankers to be honest, even if there was little alternative!

I think that the whole affair demonstrated the impotence of the Government when dealing with the banking sector that had become too powerful and the folly of previous administrations who failed to regulate the industry a long time before for fear of angering the golden goose! It also demonstrated the arrogance of the banking sector when they attempted to return to the massive bonus culture, whilst the country is still reeling from the damage that the meltdown that their industry had caused…

Edited January 10, 2014 by peteb

[Roger2611]

[i]Some interesting points in the above melee! I still firmly believe that if I wrote the next "Every Breathe You Take" I would still make serious cash from it as honest sources will still pay to buy and use such a song.

As to the earlier point about who writes what....What made The Smiths the great band they were Morrisey's exquisite lyrics or Johnny Marr's fabulous guitar work or I guess the Axle Rose V Slash scenario, difficult one to answer.

In the originals band I play in the Guitarist rights the initial tune and lyric his view is that without my counter melodies on the bass the songs are nothing....my view, without his ideas I have nothing to put a counter melody to....we get on well...would that continue if we managed to turn out the next "Every Breathe You Take" I wonder.

Ooh me writings gone all slanty, I like it when that happens I just wish I knew why it happened![/i]

[redstriper]

I agree with Dad (and John Lennon) - performing rights are a false right and they should not exist.

But I really appreciate my PRS payments

[flyfisher]

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1389381211' post='2333732']
I don’t think there was much support from the public to bail out millionaire bankers to be honest, even if there was little alternative!

I think that the whole affair demonstrated the impotence of the Government when dealing with the banking sector that had become too powerful and the folly of previous administrations who failed to regulate the industry a long time before for fear of angering the golden goose! It also demonstrated the arrogance of the banking sector when they attempted to return to the massive bonus culture, whilst the country is still reeling from the damage that the meltdown that their industry had caused…
[/quote]

Seems a fair summary to me, though you missed out the arrogance of MPs accepting an 11% pay rise under the same circumstances.

[gjones]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389323037' post='2332915']
As a car mechanic, one gets paid for the 100 hours. When a car goes on to win rallies, or get sold for thousands as a collector's item, the mechanic has still been paid. If the car goes to the scrap heap the week after, the mechanic has still been paid. I don't hold with the notion that "if it becomes a hit, I become rich." An hour's work is an hour's work, and deserves appropriate recompense. Any more, in my book, is profiteering.
I doubt if my notions would meet with popular approval, more so on a music forum, so Tin Pan Alley can (probably...) sleep easy tonight. I still don't see how these huge sums can be justified in the hallowed name of 'artistry'. Is that clearer..? I've no qualms with expansion, or debate on the subject, as long as it's considered 'in scope' here, or in a dedicated thread. Agreement on all fronts will be difficult, I'm guessing...
[/quote]

So if a company's designers design some technology.......a phone a computer, a Jumbo Jet perhaps? It's ok for another company to reverse engineer that bit of technology, build a copy and sell it to enrich themselves at the expense of the original company?

I'm not so sure.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='lurksalot' timestamp='1389381031' post='2333727']
Take for example Radio , does the radio not pay the royalties for a broadcast , then why should an employer pay again if 4 people have a radio on in a workshop ? pay the approppriate royalty to broadcast to the population, but dont then further charge the population to listen to it FFS .
[/quote]

The population is not further charged, but it is the business owner who pays the MCPS and PRS fees.

The rationale is that playing music in a workplace or a shop enhances the working and / or selling environment to the financial benefit of the company in question. The songwriters and performers are consequentially remunerated for the service they provide (at a remove), which is a very good thing for working musicians.

PRS performs a valuable service to our community, notwithstanding the occasional public uproar when some music-thieving, fee-dodging hairdresser in Bolton runs off to the papers with a sob-story about heavy-handed treatment.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='lurksalot' timestamp='1389381031' post='2333727']
Take for example Radio , does the radio not pay the royalties for a broadcast , then why should an employer pay again if 4 people have a radio on in a workshop ? pay the approppriate royalty to broadcast to the population, but dont then further charge the population to listen to it FFS .
[/quote]

No, no, no. That'll never catch on. Government wouldn't allow it for a start in case people started to complain about how they tax us on our earnings then when we spend what we have left then on what we buy then on when we use what we buy. We really must stay used to paying through the nose for everthing, time and time again otherwise 'the system' will fall apart.

[peteb]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389381979' post='2333746']
Seems a fair summary to me, though you missed out the arrogance of MPs accepting an 11% pay rise under the same circumstances.
[/quote]
I wouldn't argue with you there!

Going back to the OP, I've been reading the (rather fascinating) interview with the three members of the Police that started all this. It does seem that the interview was laced with a large dose of black humour / alcohol and apparently Sting does give a significant share of his Police publishing royalties (15% each) to Summers and Copeland, which seems fair enough.

Perhaps Sting isn't such a bad chap after all...!

Edited January 10, 2014 by peteb

[lurksalot]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1389382307' post='2333752']
The population is not further charged, but it is the business owner who pays the MCPS and PRS fees.

[/quote]

Maybe not invoiced as such , but maybe it could be seen as another overhead to throw into the mix of business costs

The individuals can have their own radios at their benches or earphones on at no extra cost to the business for the same motivation purposes.If you are looking for an example of 'Having ones cake and getting paid to eat it ' one could certainly start with this scenario

[discreet]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389378208' post='2333654']
Also, and I hesitate to defend banking, but I seriously doubt that banking has no benefit to society whatsoever. The trouble with such 'cheap shots' is that when the cheers and laughter die down nothing has been achieved.
[/quote]

Give me [i]one [/i]instance of how banking is of benefit to anyone apart from bankers - not including the laughable amount of 'tax' paid (or more usually avoided) on their profits.

And how dare you suggest my post was a 'cheap shot'? It was no such thing. To which 'cheers and laughter' do you refer? I am very serious. And do you really think it is possible to 'achieve' anything against the financial sector, given its immense wealth, power and government backing?

If I didn't know better, I'd almost imagine your replies are deliberately provocative.

Edited January 10, 2014 by discreet