OT: Proposed Tax on Music Played on Radio

[cnegrad]

Jason, It's part of the process. It's all starting to implode on itself, along with our government and the world economy. I disagree that the damage is irrepairable though. Laws and taxes can be repealed. Unlikely under current circumstances, I grant you. But society isn't learning it's lesson fast enough, so it may take the aftermath of crashing and burning before that can happen.

 

Look, admittedly I'm not in a happy place today. I sincerely hope I'm wrong and that there's a way to pull back from the precipice that I perceive as the current state of our world today. I don't know how many of you are really feeling the effects of our economy coupled with the downfall of the music biz (and the interaction thereof). I know that our family has been greatly affected in deeply negative ways. At this point, it's hard to "fight the good fight" anymore. Maybe people will finally learn after it's all taken away from them. Corporate screams at corporate, liberals scream at conservatives that scream at progressives, poverty screams at affluance, religious screams at atheist that screams at anarchist, powerful screams at powerless and nothing gets done. Nobody learns. Nothing changes. So I say, sure, go ahead and further legislate us into the abyss.

[ProfD]

The "new music business paradigm" that others tout is that of selling cd's at live performances. Very meager business model. Not financially worth it in my view, but that's just me. What if you're a talented recording artist, but aren't into the visual theatrics of a "stage performance"? I guess you can sell to a small audience from an online website, but again; is it worth it? Depends on what you're trying to get out of it. Fame and notoriety, I guess; if that's important to you. Seems like the only remaining real money in the biz is in soundtracks for movies, tv and videogames, and live touring for big names. Yeah, you can still play in bars, but that's monetarily questionable as well.

There are indie artists and bands selling thousands of CDs. They may not be making millions but it's enough money to continue producing, releasing and selling their music.

 

Fading fast are the 1960s through early 2000s when many artists and bands could get major label funding and simply concentrate on making music.

 

Similarly, there are not an abundance of venues throughout the world catering to live music from the smallest acts to arena-fests.

 

Competing forms of entertainment, alternatives to musicians and technology have diluted the music marketplace.

 

Regardless of the music avenue pursued, it will always take some combination of talent, salesmanship and luck to get product into the marketplace. The public still has to decide whether or not they want buy it.

 

The music business and radio industry can implode. Yet, the ground will always be fertile enough for the cream of the crop to rise. Younger artists, bands and musicians will take their chances.

 

The current climate of the music business really isn't built to sustain older musos. Well, at least those who aren't willing to get with the program i.e. embrace change, technology, consolidate styles, influences, etc.

 

So, in the absence of major label contracts and shrinking venues in which to play, I'm hoping those musos on the outside of the business and sound of today will be able to transition into academia.

 

After all, young people still need to learn the history of music and how to play and/or incorporate it into their own bag.

[Jim Alfredson]

I think it's ridiculous for session musicians to think they are owed anything more than the session fee they agreed to for the work they did. Why should the violinist on Sgt Pepper or the theremin player on Good Vibrations get any money if the song turns out to be a hit? Did they write the song? Did they put up any of the money to record/produce the song?

 

What if the tune isn't a hit? What if the studio/band/management/whoever paid for the session loses their ass on the recording or album? Do the session guys then owe that person a part of the money they lost? It's only fair if they want a percentage of any gains, right?

 

To me it's like the guy who type-sets or proof-reads the novel wanting a piece of a bestseller. Or the guy that did the drywall in your house wanting a piece of it's selling price. It's ludicrous.

 

As for this bill, it's just another way for Clear Channel to take over our supposedly public airwaves.

 

 

 

[kanker.]

I think it's ridiculous for session musicians to think they are owed anything more than the session fee they agreed to for the work they did. Why should the violinist on Sgt Pepper or the theremin player on Good Vibrations get any money if the song turns out to be a hit? Did they write the song? Did they put up any of the money to record/produce the song?

 

What if the tune isn't a hit? What if the studio/band/management/whoever paid for the session loses their ass on the recording or album? Do the session guys then owe that person a part of the money they lost? It's only fair if they want a percentage of any gains, right?

 

To me it's like the guy who type-sets or proof-reads the novel wanting a piece of a bestseller. Or the guy that did the drywall in your house wanting a piece of it's selling price. It's ludicrous.

 

As for this bill, it's just another way for Clear Channel to take over our supposedly public airwaves.

 

 

The thing is they already get paid for that for any TV performance of the material - the precedent is there. It's also there in commercial work - talk to anyone whose made money off of jingle work, particularly national spots.

 

The fact is that many of these session musicians aren't just playing on a song, they're creating parts, grooves, and arrangements for which they weren't compensated for in any additional fashion than their normal session fee, and so they are in many ways vital to the success of songs they perform on. If the tune isn't a hit, that's frequently more a result of label politics than anything - what does the label get behind and promote. Also, the session musicians wouldn't be encroaching on any "gains" of the writers/producers/name brand talent. They would be getting paid from a separate pool of money simply for the fact that the piece was aired.

 

Personally, the more revenue streams I can open up that pay while I'm in the bathroom are a beautiful thing. A dime is a dime, and it's ten cents less I have to worry about making. The guy who typeset a novel didn't do anything to add to the product, had no stake in the creative process that created the novel. The session musician, on the other hand, often does, and the fact remains just as you can hear the singers voice on a track, you can here Jim Alfredson's keyboard parts on there too - they are all integral to the final product.

 

BTW - Clear Channel is opposed to this legislation.

[Cygnus64]

I think it's ridiculous for session musicians to think they are owed anything more than the session fee they agreed to for the work they did. Why should the violinist on Sgt Pepper or the theremin player on Good Vibrations get any money if the song turns out to be a hit? Did they write the song? Did they put up any of the money to record/produce the song?

 

 

 

 

Wow. Just wow. I gotta admit, I am shocked to hear a comment like that coming from a fine musician like yourself, I find it downright bizarre. Out of curiousity, have you done much session work?

 

 

To me it's like the guy who type-sets or proof-reads the novel wanting a piece of a bestseller. Or the guy that did the drywall in your house wanting a piece of it's selling price. It's ludicrous.

 

I think I already know the answer to my question of "have you done much session work", it has to be "no" for you to have such a low opinion of the job. To compare a string quartet made up of some of the finest players on the planet playing on a Beatles album to a proofreader is not only demeaning, it's as if you have absolutely no clue as to what they even do, or what they add to the product.

 

Any jackass can lay down keyboards on an album, I do it every day. I can quantize and hit the keys and know enough to get something rather boring down. If I hired you for an album, don't you think that you would bring something extra to the table? I can't speak for you, but I can for myself: HELL YEAH. That's why I spent my childhood locked in a room practicing, so I could bring something extra to the table. I do, every time. If you don't want something extra, just use a sample, it's fine by me.

 

Did they write the song?

 

They MADE the song. I highly doubt McCartney wrote the string arrangement on "She's Leaving Home", so even ol Sir Paul didnt write the song, someone else did the lion's share of the work. It's notes on paper, the performers bring them to life. Ever played with a bad theremin player? I did, and he was supposedly some known "expert". We did Good Vibrations and it sounded like Bad Vibrations. You can't just stick any idiot in there with a theremin, violin, keyboard whatever, musicians aren't indispensable or interchangable.

 

Some of the best classical music sat around for 50 years after the first performance, only to be "rediscovered" all those years later. Why? Crappy first performance. It wasnt the composer's fault, it was the performer. On an album, that performance can make or break the album. If the performance is flat, the sales could be flat. If you get the right performers it changes the whole shebang. Pavarotti could sing the phone book and make it sound awesome.

[Jim Alfredson]

Lot of putting words in my mouth in the responses.

 

I have a low opinion of session work and must not have done much because I don't think the musicians should get paid more than an agreed upon session fee?

 

Hardly.

 

I think any copy editor / proof reader would be insulted that you believe a session musician is somehow more important to the success of an artistic endeavor than they are. Each person is important in different ways. That's what credits are for. Each person gets paid in different ways; that's why we have performers, session guys, songwriters, producers, engineers, etc.

 

The top session guys/gals are at the top because they are the best at what they do and they worked their way up to the top. And if they're really great, they become iconic, like Bernard Purdie or Carol Kaye and then they can demand (deservedly so) more money than their peers and perhaps they can even demand songwriting credits and thus get a piece of the pie. But they have to work for it; they don't just automatically get a piece of the pie if the record is successful because they happened to be at the right place at the right time.

 

I don't care how good you are, there is ALWAYS someone better. That's a fact, jack. So you have to do your best every single time you play. And there is so much more involved in making music, in making successful music, other than how good you are. Paul McCartney is certainly not the best musician in the world in terms of his technical prowess; far from it. But he's an amazing songwriter and performer. And that's the point; this session work we're talking about would not even exist without the initial concept and vision of the songwriter. And really great songwriters are not as common as really great session players. Period.

 

There's a reason we still listen to the Beatles, beyond the great arrangements and musicians that made that stuff what it is; we listen because the SONGS are great. You could have the greatest musicians in the world all playing together and if the song sucks, it will suck.

 

There are guys who are, for all intents and purposes, sidemen or session guys that have made their entire career off one hit without getting songwriting credit. Like Alto Reed, who played the famous sax line on Seger's "Turn The Page". He's making a good living off that one record, using it in every way he can to further his career. He didn't receive any songwriting credit for it and you could easily argue it makes the tune. Should he have? Maybe, but he's capitalized on it anyway and he's doing well.

 

I have done session work. I've also been on the other end, getting into arguments with session players who think they are owed more money/credit from me because the record they played on has done relatively well. I'm very generous with my songwriting credits; if you're in the room with me while I'm creating, even if I came up with the idea, you'll get songwriting credit. If you add something like a turn-around or rhythmic change-up to the tune, you'll get songwriting credit (even though you technically cannot copyright changes or rhythms). But if I write the song and you come in and lay down a pedal-steel part, even if it makes the song... I'm sorry, you're not getting songwriting credit from me, unless you create a melodic part that totally changes the tune. That's fair to me and I would expect the same if I laid down a killer B3 part for you on a song that was already written.

 

What's next? The piano tuner wanting a piece of the pie because he was the guy that tuned the piano for "Bridge Over Troubled Water"? The assistant engineer because he set up the overhead mics on "When The Levee Breaks"? The guy who gave Celion Dion her honey-tea before she sang the killer take on "My Heart Will Go On"?

 

I'm being sarcastic of course, but seriously... as cool as the theremin part is in Good Vibrations, any competent theremin player could have done that part. If the theremin player actually WROTE those five notes, then he/she might have a case. But just playing them... again, any competent player could have done that. Same with the string parts on the Beatles records. One could easily argue that George Martin should've gotten songwriting credits for a lot of that stuff since he arranged so much of it (and even played on a lot of it), but the players themselves? Are those terribly hard parts to play? Not really. There are literally thousands of string players who could do those parts just as good. I don't see how that diminishes the players at all; they did a great job, as they were contracted to do.

 

In any case, I believe these conflicts should be on a case by case basis and should be up to the parties involved, not shoved into a "one size fits all" government bill. If you think your part is so important to the song itself that you should be compensated for it above and beyond the session fee, then by all means fight for that. Like the guy who did the organ on "Whiter Shade of Pale". I don't agree with the case but he fought for it and won. Good for him. That stuff should all be worked out beforehand.

[Eric Jx]

+1 What B3-er said.

[ProfD]

I'd imagine it would have been hard for the musicians union to insure session musicians received a songwriter credit. As B3-er alludes above, there are musos willing to work for a flat fee and no credit.

 

Record companies have always had the upper hand in that regard i.e. a musicians come a dime a dozen mentality including facsimiles of the greatest in that time.

 

Nonetheless, history explains why folks like Scott Storch do not merely play KB parts. He produces the records.

[Cygnus64]

I don't care how good you are, there is ALWAYS someone better. That's a fact, jack

What???? Then why aren't THEY on the album?? You see people posting "I want the BEST keyboard for $200", but I've never seen one say they want the second best, never. Outside of politics or bit tits or something, why in the world would anybody hire someone for a recording if they could get a better person? On the album I made in 2008 I got to hire 11 union musicians. I hired 11 badasses. The best I could get,bar none. If one wasnt available I could easily hire the next in line, but they wouldnt have been as good. Why in the world would anyone hire the second best??

 

as cool as the theremin part is in Good Vibrations, any competent theremin player could have done that part

 

I've played the song twice in concert with a theremin player. Neither player was as good as the one on the recording, not even close. Ironically, on the first concert we were playing with.......... Brian Wilson. Not even close. Call me silly, but I don't want competent players. I want monsters. I want the very best I can get for any situation.

Same with the string parts on the Beatles records. One could easily argue that George Martin should've gotten songwriting credits for a lot of that stuff since he arranged so much of it (and even played on a lot of it), but the players themselves? Are those terribly hard parts to play? Not really. There are literally thousands of string players who could do those parts just as good

 

Well, I know the lead violinist very, very well and have played countless concerts with him. In all honesty: In 1967, I guarantee you that he was the best violinist in England, guaranteed. These thousands of string players exist only in your mind, not in England in 1967. Ummm, why do you think he's on the album? Was he walking by the studio with a fiddle case and they asked him to drop in? Picked his name outta the book? Why didnt they go with the other thousands of violinists who could have done it just as well then? They didnt. And there's a reason they didn't. Trust me, it wasnt dumb luck or a pick outta the phone book.

 

I've also been on the other end, getting into arguments with session players who think they are owed more money/credit from me because the record they played on has done relatively well.

 

Well, you picked the wrong players then. Me, or any other human being I know,I would never DARE do something as stupid and as arrogant as that. I'm happy for any job I get, I treat the employers with respect. Part of the job of being a good player is being a good Joe as well. I'm not a politician, this aint my bill. I've never really complained to anybody about their gig, if I didnt like it I wouldnt have accepted it or I just won't do the next one they offer. I take it the players you hired werent union players, because I havent heard of anything like that happening. That was crappy of them, but that's not the way most work. I didn't ask for this bill, but only a fool wouldnt want anything to pass if it affects them.

[kanker.]

BTW guys, that wasn't a theremin on Good Vibrations...

[Joe Muscara]

While I get what Jim is saying, I'm not sure I get his argument, and I think Kevin responded to this point but it was missed.

 

1. Session guys know the deal going in. If they want points, they should ask for them upfront. Here, Jim and I and likely others agree.

 

2. This bill/concept opens a new revenue stream whereby performers on a song that gets played on the radio will get paid. It does not affect the existing streams. So if your record gets played, you don't have to pay the session players anything different than you've already agreed to. The money doesn't come from your royalties nor anything your PRO should be paying you.

 

[Please note that 2 above is based on what I understand of this.]

[Cygnus64]

 

1. Session guys know the deal going in. If they want points, they should ask for them upfront. Here, Jim and I and likely others agree.

 

 

You won't get them. Sure, there is an exception for a Tony Levin or Joe Famous this or that. Other than that it's like any job, you take it at the salary offered or you don't. It doesn't make it right (or wrong if that's your opinion). I'm not a big union fan, but I'll say that without the Union one would probably be offered 1/10th the amount of money for a session.

 

BTW guys, that wasn't a theremin on Good Vibrations...

 

Yeah, its some offshoot as I recall. Tanner? Tannerinn?

 

BTW: the amount of money for the session players (non-featured performers) from this bill? 1 percent.

[Joe Muscara]

1. Session guys know the deal going in. If they want points, they should ask for them upfront. Here, Jim and I and likely others agree.

 

You won't get them. Sure, there is an exception for a Tony Levin or Joe Famous this or that. Other than that it's like any job, you take it at the salary offered or you don't. It doesn't make it right (or wrong if that's your opinion). I'm not a big union fan, but I'll say that without the Union one would probably be offered 1/10th the amount of money for a session.

I realize that's true in many cases. I was just making the point that they know the deal and shouldn't expect more than what they were offered unless they ask. Maybe sometimes someone will give them points for less pay upfront. This is all a different topic though.

[Cygnus64]

I realize that's true in many cases. I was just making the point that they know the deal and shouldn't expect more than what they were offered

 

I don't think people have overall. I agree completely that the guy who asked B-3er for more cash was totally out of line. I was and am always grateful for any recording work in the past.

 

This is new ground, IMO it's correcting a wrong. It's not retroactive. If you played on "Micki" by Toni Basil, you're outta luck. The past is past, this is a new deal. From their very own website:

 

For more than 80 years, radio and the recording industry have enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship: free play for free promotion. And it works. Its a relationship that has sustained businesses on both sides.

 

In fact, radios free promotion of artists translates to as much as $2.4 billion annually in music sales for record labels and artists

 

That's gone, it's history. Nobody in their wildest dreams could have predicted the illegal downloading situation. It used to be that indeed both sides would benefit, it doesnt work any more. I know that the bill really has little to do with the performers and session musicians, and everything to do with saving a dying business.

[Eric Jx]

I realize that's true in many cases. I was just making the point that they know the deal and shouldn't expect more than what they were offered

 

I don't think people have overall. I agree completely that the guy who asked B-3er for more cash was totally out of line. I was and am always grateful for any recording work in the past.

 

 

you state you agree with B3er yet you have argued the violinist who played on "she's leaving home" deserves more than he's received because Sgt. Peppers has done so well.

 

That seems like an inconsistent position to me.

[Cygnus64]

I realize that's true in many cases. I was just making the point that they know the deal and shouldn't expect more than what they were offered

 

I don't think people have overall. I agree completely that the guy who asked B-3er for more cash was totally out of line. I was and am always grateful for any recording work in the past.

 

 

you state you agree with B3er yet you have argued the violinist who played on "she's leaving home" deserves more than he's received because Sgt. Peppers has done so well.

 

That seems like an inconsistent position to me.

 

Not at all. You honor your commitments in life. If B3er told a guy he'll pay him 200 bucks to play on his album and he did play, it's case closed. The Beatles guy and the theremin/tannerinn guy, they got paid. Yes, I think they deserve more money, I didnt say they had a right to more money. Life's tough, you win some and you lose some, I accept that. I definitely feel that performers on a recording should be paid for radio play, but that's in the past. Something changed:

 

Let's say you and I have a gentleman's agreement. I cut your grass once a week, you clean my Parrot's cage once a week. Tragically, my parrot has a Toyota and dies. Do you actually think we still have an agreement any more?

 

The gentlemen's agreement between radio and labels was similiar: radio gets free tunes (and makes a profit) and then people would go out and buy the records. That was then. Today, they steal the records. Why in the world would labels want to stay in a deal like that?

 

I have a solution: If the bill would pass on July 1 2010, it would apply to recordings made after July 1 2010. Naturally I would prefer it if it would apply to all recordings, but I could understand this way (even though real musicians on records are largely a thing of the past). This way nobody can be accused that they went back on their word or violated a contract or anything else. A clean slate.

[Nu2Keys]

BUMP

[kanker.]

BUMP

wrong thread