Covers bands - are they just parasites? (& how PRS works)

[Dad3353]

19 minutes ago, TimR said:

So if you write a song that everyone buys, you get extra?

 

No, and I don't see why one should. 

[Leonard Smalls]

32 minutes ago, TimR said:

The venue will be charged an annual fee based on type of establishment rather than for each song performed

There's a scale of fees depending on where the music is... Frinstance we get charged more because our office area is on a mezzanine - as we can hear music in the "employee area" as well as the "public area" they want more. And as I said, PRS had absolutely no interest in having a copy of our playlist - I offered but they flatly refused!

I'd also thought about joining PRS - they want £100 flat fee, plus a further £100 for MCPS membership for recorded music playback. However, their rules for distribution are so complicated that I have to idea how much we'd make,  or how long it would take to pay back the initial fee. And what if we do a cover?

[Dad3353]

30 minutes ago, SumOne said:

I get that in principle. But it doesn't incentivise quality, or innovation, or efficiency. 

 

I believe that, in general, folk prefer to do quality work by nature, for the most part. Innovation need not (or even 'should not'...) be motivated purely for pecuniary reasons, nor should efficiency. 

[cetera]

Plenty of disinformation on this thread so to put a few things straight:

 

Venues are licensed by PRS/PPL, not the hirer.

 

The 'main' business of the venue is what they are licensed for. A pub may have a jukebox, the radio and/or occasional live bands but if they do not have 'regular' ticketed events then they will just have a 'general' licence. If you regularly play at one of these establishments then you will need to apply for the 'Gigs & Clubs Scheme' at PRS. If you write your own material then you will see a small payment every so often for your trouble. If you play covers then you will reward the original songwriters, as you should...

There is also a similar scheme for buskers on the Underground.

https://www.prsformusic.com/royalties/live-performance-royalties#:~:text=If members play at a,is performed at the event.

 

If the main business of a venue is ticketed events i.e. concert venue, arts centre, theatre, etc then approx 4% of box office is payable to PRS from the gross. This money is then paid out to the songwriters/publishers of the music performed after a small deduction for processing (under 10% - the lowest deduction of ANY worldwide Rights society). This 4% is SUPPOSED to be raised/paid by the venue (5p on a pint etc) and NOT charged to the band..... however, it often is added to band deductions which defeats the object if you write your own material. However, contrary to what some ignorant people think, PRS is NOT the music police and doesn't have any power to enforce the way a venue raises it's payable PRS licence fee.

Also, because ticketed venues are often rubbish at asking for setlists from artists and supplying them on to PRS it is always recommended that for those performances a writer use the online PRS live set list hub to upload their set info.

 

https://www.prsformusic.com/royalties/report-live-performances

You're welcome...

 

[dclaassen]

1 hour ago, Dad3353 said:

 

Well, it's part of a whole philosophy which includes a Universal Wage, paid to everyone, with a fixed, universal rate per hour, worldwide. An hourly rate means that, for an eight-hour day, one would get eight hours of 'wage'. For some jobs, 'on call' hours would be paid. For some other jobs, 24/7 hours would be paid. This would ensure that no-one, no-one at all, would be paid more than the number of hours in the week. There would be a fixed 'minimum' wage for those not 'employed', paid to everyone. 'Working' would be on top of that. A diamond miner in South Africa would get the same rate as a sheep farmer in Wales and the president of France. We all, on the Planet, have the same basic needs, and I see no reason why some 'need' more than others. There's a few details to work on, but that's the general idea. Will it get voted in..? Not in France, the US of A nor the UK, I don't suppose, but might be popular in much of the World. One day, maybe... 

https://www.tnellen.com/westside/harrison.pdf

[Downunderwonder]

On 24/09/2023 at 09:42, msb said:

Elvis just covered songs. 

The Rolling Stones were a cover band initially. Pretty sure they even played plenty when they broke out across the pond.

[TimR]

50 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

 

No, and I don't see why one should. 

 

Something that requires a large amount of input and research will only ever be possible if you can recover those costs.

 

A good recent example is the Coronavirus vaccine. If you stop companies from making money from innovation then they won't invest any time in innovation. 

 

Effectively, all the hours spent on writing songs that aren't successful have to be paid for by someone. Where does the money come from?

[Dad3353]

44 minutes ago, dclaassen said:

https://www.tnellen.com/westside/harrison.pdf

 

And some folk that I'm ridiculous..! Sheesh..!  

[Dad3353]

19 minutes ago, TimR said:

Something that requires a large amount of input and research will only ever be possible if you can recover those costs.

 

A good recent example is the Coronavirus vaccine. If you stop companies from making money from innovation then they won't invest any time in innovation. 

 

Effectively, all the hours spent on writing songs that aren't successful have to be paid for by someone. Where does the money come from?

 

See my other reply, concerning Universal Wage. I don't fundamentally understand the notion of 'recover those costs', in the context of not costing stuff in the same way. It's a step change, with a might big step. 

[TimR]

Just now, Dad3353 said:

 

See my other reply, concerning Universal Wage. I don't fundamentally understand the notion of 'recover those costs', in the context of not costing stuff in the same way. It's a step change, with a might big step. 

 

Universal wage needs 2 things.

 

1. Productive labour.

2. Ability to reward those who work more/harder in some way. 

 

If there aren't enough people being productive, you run put of resources. 

[Dad3353]

4 minutes ago, TimR said:

Universal wage needs 2 things.

 

1. Productive labour.

2. Ability to reward those who work more/harder in some way. 

 

If there aren't enough people being productive, you run put of resources. 

 

I don't agree. Those that work get paid for the time they've spent, s'all. 'more/harder' doesn't come into it; all folk need to eat. Not all time spent is 'productive', but every one still needs to eat, whether they 'produce' or not (yes, even poets...). The only resource worth anything to humans on the Planet is Time. The rest is virtual, artificial, and limitless.

We're quite a way away from the subject of this topic. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Dad3353

[BigRedX]

But for creative jobs how can you prove the people involved have been "productive". A lot of my work involves thinking. There's no visible product during this thinking time, but it's just as important as the bit at the end that produces and actual design. How about the times when I need to step away from my work and come back after an hour or two with fresh eyes. Do I get paid for that too?

[TimR]

There is productive time and non productive time. Many people would opt for sitting on the beach time, effectively writing songs that no one wants to listen to.

 

They're being paid for by the people sitting around watching carrots grow.

[UglyDog]

So are the non-productive people parasites, or the non-thinking ones? How much thinking is enough? Is there a sliding scale of parasiteness? Do I need another cuppa? We should be told.

[Dad3353]

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

But for creative jobs how can you prove the people involved have been "productive". A lot of my work involves thinking. There's no visible product during this thinking time, but it's just as important as the bit at the end that produces and actual design. How about the times when I need to step away from my work and come back after an hour or two with fresh eyes. Do I get paid for that too?

 

You've maybe not read the whole thing through, perhaps..? I esteem that everyone should be paid just for their existence on the Planet, so that they may eat. One shouldn't have to 'produce' for that; we're all born with nothing, and need to exist somehow. If there's any time spent doing other stuff, such as producing, one should be paid for that, at a flat, hourly rate, the same for everyone. The time you spend at home 'thinking', you're paid for anyway. The time you spend away from home playing would be paid on top of that 'living wage'. It would be impossible to get paid more than 24h per day, whatever the role, job or trade. It's a whole different way of thinking about 'profit' and 'worth'; it won't be agreed with by all, but I'm sure (without any proof...) that a very large chunk of the Planet's population would be in favour. I just need to become World President to set it all up. Don't hold your breath. 

[Dad3353]

1 hour ago, TimR said:

There is productive time and non productive time. Many people would opt for sitting on the beach time, effectively writing songs that no one wants to listen to.

 

They're being paid for by the people sitting around watching carrots grow.

 

As long as everyone gets enough to live, what's the problem..?

[Dad3353]

43 minutes ago, UglyDog said:

So are the non-productive people parasites, or the non-thinking ones? How much thinking is enough? Is there a sliding scale of parasiteness? Do I need another cuppa? We should be told.

 

No-one consuming their basic needs for living is a 'parasite'. Anyone taking more from the World 'pot' is a parasite, as it inevitably comes to the detriment of all the others. It's this huge disparity across the Planet that is the cause of so much misery. It could (and should...) be much better for all, not just the 'parasites'. 

[cetera]

Anyway.... these cover bands...... Parasites innit?

[dclaassen]

3 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

 

No-one consuming their basic needs for living is a 'parasite'. Anyone taking more from the World 'pot' is a parasite, as it inevitably comes to the detriment of all the others. It's this huge disparity across the Planet that is the cause of so much misery. It could (and should...) be much better for all, not just the 'parasites'. 

Please let me know where in the history of this word this has actually not lead to the suffering and death of millions of people?

[TimR]

16 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

As long as everyone gets enough to live,

 

[Dad3353]

9 minutes ago, dclaassen said:

Please let me know where in the history of this word this has actually not lead to the suffering and death of millions of people?

 

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question. 

[Dad3353]

2 minutes ago, TimR said:

 

 

Is that not a reasonable goal to aim for in this World..? 

[asingardenof]

16 hours ago, Richard R said:

 

So of things are paid out pro-rata,  there must be some idea of who is playing what all the country to determine the share? 

This is something I've always wondered as well, how PRS shares out the fees that venues collect. PRS seems to suggest that it's done on self-reporting by venues or artists, including for cover bands, but this seems to be placing an awful lot on trust.
 

[asingardenof]

30 minutes ago, cetera said:

Anyway.... these cover bands...... Parasites innit?

Nom nom nom

[cetera]

10 minutes ago, asingardenof said:

This is something I've always wondered as well, how PRS shares out the fees that venues collect. PRS seems to suggest that it's done on self-reporting by venues or artists, including for cover bands, but this seems to be placing an awful lot on trust.
 

How else are they supposed to do it? If noone provides the information how can anyone be paid? It's called the 'music business'. If you're a songwriter you need to take care of your 'business'. You can't leave it to someone else.....

Edited September 25, 2023 by cetera