Decline in diner gigs due to right’s societies?

**mr. beaumont** · 04-29-2011, 10:07 AM

Another constructive MaxChill post. Glad you're around.

**cosmic gumbo** · 04-29-2011, 10:36 AM

I do have to admit, some folks wear their ignorance like a badge of honor around here. It's pretty obvious who does a little bit of amateur gigging and who is in the music business by the total lack of understanding of how things work.

Jazz is an art, and you gotta respect those that pursue it as such, just for the purity of it, because there is so much to love. When it comes to doing it for fulltime income, it becomes a business, and you gotta respect what it takes for a guy to feed his family. Amateur opinions shouldn't be mistaken as fact.

**czardas** · 04-29-2011, 05:06 PM

Ay Caramba!

I'm totally ignorant of copyright stuff. I just add it to my music because I'm told it's a good policy. I don't tend to gig at all anymore, as I said earlier. It's pretty hard to find people to work with, because it always end up with me having to teach them, and that gets to be too much of a pain. It simply takes too many years. On the other hand, flamenco artists don't tend to hang around the North of England, so just travelling to a rehearsal becomes an extrememly long journey. There are one or two decent players in London, not many but a few. If it was not for family, I would live somewhere else.

I ought to also throw in the fact that I have had to deal with some pretty bad RSA in my right arm over the years, however that's an occupational hazzard that many artists face. Out come the ice packs! Having said all this, I decided this year was a year to put all my self-pity behind me and focus on my music again. Nothing will deter me short of extreme circumstances.

**Greg Brouelette** · 05-06-2011, 03:54 PM

Here in the U.S. there has absolutely been a decrease in the number of venues which have live music. I know of 2 different bluegrass jams which have shut down because the venue couldn't afford the license fees. I know of at least 3 different coffee shops which no longer have live music because of the fees.

I use to teach music full time. At one point I was trying to find a venue like a pizza restaurant who would host an "open mic" night for my students. Every venue I went to turned me down specifically because they couldn't afford the license fees.

A friend of mine who owns his own small gift shop actually had 2 of the ASCAP goons come into his store to tell him that he would have to pay their fee for playing a CD on his stereo. He pointed out that the CD was of his own band and promptly kicked them out of the store.

ASCAP tried, and luckily failed, to impose a license fees on people who buy musical ring tones on their phones. They were of the opinion that this constituted a "Public Performance" of the music.

We must realize several things: First, once ASCAP get's their money then BMI and SESAC will come after the venue as well. TO buy all 3 licenses will be around $4000 per year which means the venue has to create an additional $4000 of profit every year. As much as they would like to support local music they can't break even. Music doesn't bring in that much extra profit.

ASCAP has said themselves that if you don't have a hit on the radio then you shouldn't expect to make very much, if any, money from the PROs. So the excuse that the PROs are protecting the independent song writer is pure crap.

We must also look at the moral side. With the law the way it is now I literally cannot go to a coffee shop with friends and play a couple of tunes on our guitars. Not because it's illegal, but because a private company can enforce it's own interpretation of it's own contracts as if it's law and they can enforce it on people who never signed that contract.

Should we have a world where nobody can play music to anyone outside of their family without paying a performance license? Should we be limited to only playing unlicensed music nobody has heard of? How soon will it be before I can't teach a pop song to a student in a guitar lesson because that now constitutes a public performance?

The solution is to pass a law which says that PROs have no right to collect license fees from any venue with a seating capacity (as defined by the fire Marshall and local building codes) less than 150 people. Exceptions would be:
1) If the venue charges an entry fee or requires tickets (a minimum food or drink purchase does not count but a "door charge" does) then they must pay the license fee.
2) If the venue has an alcohol license which limits entry to people at or above the legal drinking age then they must pay the license fees.

This makes sure that bars and theaters pay for the music and bands that play there, but small businesses, coffee shops, small restaurants and so on can have music performances without having to worry about the fees.

Additionally, this will open up thousands of new venues for musicians to play at. If you can sell half a dozen CDs a year then you'll receive more money that the majority of ASCAP licensed artist will make from their license in that same year. It allows children to grow up in a world where music isn't just something that they hear on the radio, it's something people can do. It's something THEY can do. It fosters a culture of music which nourishes the next generation of musicians instead of treating playing music as if it's stealing.

The vast majority of musicians will still make money because they have more venues to play in and the mega stars will make very slightly less. It's a compromise worth making.

**JohnW400** · 05-06-2011, 04:17 PM

If that's the way it is then I would call myself a "jam band' and just go in and improvise over changes.

**randalljazz** · 05-06-2011, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Greg Brouelette

Here in the U.S. there has absolutely been a decrease in the number of venues which have live music. I know of 2 different bluegrass jams which have shut down because the venue couldn't afford the license fees. I know of at least 3 different coffee shops which no longer have live music because of the fees.

I use to teach music full time. At one point I was trying to find a venue like a pizza restaurant who would host an "open mic" night for my students. Every venue I went to turned me down specifically because they couldn't afford the license fees.

A friend of mine who owns his own small gift shop actually had 2 of the ASCAP goons come into his store to tell him that he would have to pay their fee for playing a CD on his stereo. He pointed out that the CD was of his own band and promptly kicked them out of the store.

ASCAP tried, and luckily failed, to impose a license fees on people who buy musical ring tones on their phones. They were of the opinion that this constituted a "Public Performance" of the music.

We must realize several things: First, once ASCAP get's their money then BMI and SESAC will come after the venue as well. TO buy all 3 licenses will be around $4000 per year which means the venue has to create an additional $4000 of profit every year. As much as they would like to support local music they can't break even. Music doesn't bring in that much extra profit.

ASCAP has said themselves that if you don't have a hit on the radio then you shouldn't expect to make very much, if any, money from the PROs. So the excuse that the PROs are protecting the independent song writer is pure crap.

We must also look at the moral side. With the law the way it is now I literally cannot go to a coffee shop with friends and play a couple of tunes on our guitars. Not because it's illegal, but because a private company can enforce it's own interpretation of it's own contracts as if it's law and they can enforce it on people who never signed that contract.

Should we have a world where nobody can play music to anyone outside of their family without paying a performance license? Should we be limited to only playing unlicensed music nobody has heard of? How soon will it be before I can't teach a pop song to a student in a guitar lesson because that now constitutes a public performance?

The solution is to pass a law which says that PROs have no right to collect license fees from any venue with a seating capacity (as defined by the fire Marshall and local building codes) less than 150 people. Exceptions would be:
1) If the venue charges an entry fee or requires tickets (a minimum food or drink purchase does not count but a "door charge" does) then they must pay the license fee.
2) If the venue has an alcohol license which limits entry to people at or above the legal drinking age then they must pay the license fees.

This makes sure that bars and theaters pay for the music and bands that play there, but small businesses, coffee shops, small restaurants and so on can have music performances without having to worry about the fees.

Additionally, this will open up thousands of new venues for musicians to play at. If you can sell half a dozen CDs a year then you'll receive more money that the majority of ASCAP licensed artist will make from their license in that same year. It allows children to grow up in a world where music isn't just something that they hear on the radio, it's something people can do. It's something THEY can do. It fosters a culture of music which nourishes the next generation of musicians instead of treating playing music as if it's stealing.

The vast majority of musicians will still make money because they have more venues to play in and the mega stars will make very slightly less. It's a compromise worth making.

clear thinking...excellent suggestion. so how do WE go about getting such conditions written into law? no powerful musicians' lobby that i know of. any attorneys who would care to take up the cause?

**NSJ** · 05-06-2011, 06:49 PM

Hmmm I just realized that Mr. Gumbo may just post on AAJ, under, possibly, his actual name.

. Which "Mr. Professional " fails to use here.

**NSJ** · 05-06-2011, 06:56 PM

I'm still shocked that no one mentions the "work for hire" amendments that were enacted around 2000 or so that legalized andPERMANENTLY assigned all rights to compositions, via the mechanism of a contract clause, to an artist's song to the record company.

**czardas** · 05-06-2011, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by randalljazz

clear thinking...excellent suggestion. so how do WE go about getting such conditions written into law? no powerful musicians' lobby that i know of. any attorneys who would care to take up the cause?

The problem is this: although people have been lobbying for a small gigs exemption in the UK for the past several years, the licencing authorities and various government ministers have successfully evaded acting on such considerations by hiding behind false pretences, lies and dubious (if not also deliberately ambiguous) legislation. The link to the debate I posted earlier gives one the impression that these ministers are just fresh out of kindergarten. Squabbling like spoilt little children. I'm sorry, I really can't take people like that seriously.

It seems the best I can do is keep voicing my opinion.

**NSJ** · 05-06-2011, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Greg Brouelette

Here in the U.S. there has absolutely been a decrease in the number of venues which have live music. I know of 2 different bluegrass jams which have shut down because the venue couldn't afford the license fees. I know of at least 3 different coffee shops which no longer have live music because of the fees.

I use to teach music full time. At one point I was trying to find a venue like a pizza restaurant who would host an "open mic" night for my students. Every venue I went to turned me down specifically because they couldn't afford the license fees.

A friend of mine who owns his own small gift shop actually had 2 of the ASCAP goons come into his store to tell him that he would have to pay their fee for playing a CD on his stereo. He pointed out that the CD was of his own band and promptly kicked them out of the store.

ASCAP tried, and luckily failed, to impose a license fees on people who buy musical ring tones on their phones. They were of the opinion that this constituted a "Public Performance" of the music.

We must realize several things: First, once ASCAP get's their money then BMI and SESAC will come after the venue as well. TO buy all 3 licenses will be around $4000 per year which means the venue has to create an additional $4000 of profit every year. As much as they would like to support local music they can't break even. Music doesn't bring in that much extra profit.

ASCAP has said themselves that if you don't have a hit on the radio then you shouldn't expect to make very much, if any, money from the PROs. So the excuse that the PROs are protecting the independent song writer is pure crap.

We must also look at the moral side. With the law the way it is now I literally cannot go to a coffee shop with friends and play a couple of tunes on our guitars. Not because it's illegal, but because a private company can enforce it's own interpretation of it's own contracts as if it's law and they can enforce it on people who never signed that contract.

Should we have a world where nobody can play music to anyone outside of their family without paying a performance license? Should we be limited to only playing unlicensed music nobody has heard of? How soon will it be before I can't teach a pop song to a student in a guitar lesson because that now constitutes a public performance?

The solution is to pass a law which says that PROs have no right to collect license fees from any venue with a seating capacity (as defined by the fire Marshall and local building codes) less than 150 people. Exceptions would be:
1) If the venue charges an entry fee or requires tickets (a minimum food or drink purchase does not count but a "door charge" does) then they must pay the license fee.
2) If the venue has an alcohol license which limits entry to people at or above the legal drinking age then they must pay the license fees.

This makes sure that bars and theaters pay for the music and bands that play there, but small businesses, coffee shops, small restaurants and so on can have music performances without having to worry about the fees.

Additionally, this will open up thousands of new venues for musicians to play at. If you can sell half a dozen CDs a year then you'll receive more money that the majority of ASCAP licensed artist will make from their license in that same year. It allows children to grow up in a world where music isn't just something that they hear on the radio, it's something people can do. It's something THEY can do. It fosters a culture of music which nourishes the next generation of musicians instead of treating playing music as if it's stealing.

The vast majority of musicians will still make money because they have more venues to play in and the mega stars will make very slightly less. It's a compromise worth making.

This is a very well stated, eloquent argument. Thank you for your post. EDIT: It should lay waste the stupid argument posted here by "professionals" against us "amateurs" that these corporate entities exist to, gulp, protect musicians. Bullshit! As I said, the Congress listens to big wigs and executive-types, not people who care about music. And certainly not people who make music. These entities exist to exploit, cheat and rob musicians--even big musicians. I can't tell you how many million-selling artists wind up filing for bankruptcy. That explains why something as wretched as the "Work for Hire" clause could be nonchalantly inserted into a bill.

**czardas** · 05-06-2011, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by NSJ

It should lay waste the stupid argument posted here by "professionals" against us "amateurs" that these corporate entities exist to, gulp, protect musicians.

Well I don't agree with their behaviour, and I earn a living from music. For me it is a personal hinderance. But outside of my own concerns, I just see it as greed and lack of consideration for the community.

**max chill** · 05-06-2011, 10:58 PM

Music is a huge multi billion dollar industry. Most of the money doesn't go to the musicians or composers, it goes to the middlemen. Is it wrong that businesses who profit, or enhance their value by using music, are required by law to provide some type of compensation to the music creators? Business is business.

There is some type of misunderstanding that ascap or the union are organizations that exist to make some type of corporate profit. They are organizations created by the musicians themselves, to collect and protect the little bit that the gov't says belongs to them. All funds get disbursed to the musicians or composers.

The average musician's ignorance of business is one of the reasons why music is so undervalued, and why we've been exploited forever. We are our own worst enemy. Knowledge is power. It's time to wake up, or things will only get worse.

**Spirit59** · 05-07-2011, 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by max chill

There is some type of misunderstanding that ascap or the union are organizations that exist to make some type of corporate profit. They are organizations created by the musicians themselves, to collect and protect the little bit that the gov't says belongs to them. All funds get disbursed to the musicians or composers.

The thing is these are private organizations that are not held accountable by any neutral third parties (or are they?) Where is the transparency? How do we know exactly where the money goes? How much of it gets eaten up by "administrative costs"?

**Bill C** · 05-07-2011, 05:41 AM

Originally Posted by Spirit59

The thing is these are private organizations that are not held accountable by any neutral third parties (or are they?) Where is the transparency? How do we know exactly where the money goes? How much of it gets eaten up by "administrative costs"?

It took me about a minute to find the 2010 financial results for PRS (UK collection society).

**mike_k** · 05-07-2011, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Spirit59

The thing is these are private organizations that are not held accountable by any neutral third parties (or are they?) Where is the transparency? How do we know exactly where the money goes? How much of it gets eaten up by "administrative costs"?

A lot of this info is out there. You just have to do a bit of hunting.

http://www.ascap.com/about/annualReport/annual_2009.pdf

ASCAP's overhead ran between 11.5 - 13.2% from 2007 to 2009. The above link is the ASCAP's annual report, and the info is found on page 10.

Also, ASCAP is audited annually by E&Y (also in the annual report).

**JohnRoss** · 05-07-2011, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by mike_k

ASCAP is audited annually by E&Y

Ah, like Lehman Brothers. That's all right, then.

**Spirit59** · 05-07-2011, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by mike_k

Also, ASCAP is audited annually by E&Y (also in the annual report).

Originally Posted by JohnRoss

Ah, like Lehman Brothers. That's all right, then.

nudge nudge nowhuttahmeen sei noh MOH-ah!

**NSJ** · 05-12-2011, 03:14 PM

The sad and unbelievable story of an established guitarist's story to collect what was owed to him--an indictment of the record business, if there ever was one.

the Musician is Bill Nelson. This is his story.

Dangerous Minds | The Story of Be Bop Deluxe’s Bill Nelson and How His Record Label Ripped Him Off

**82Benedetto** · 05-12-2011, 08:38 PM

Offer to play for peanuts and you'll get a different result...

Less gigs because businesses a) can't afford the live music or b) have financially favorable alternatives.

**randalljazz** · 05-13-2011, 07:05 AM

really? do we have to do that again?!

**JohnW400** · 05-13-2011, 09:05 AM

@ Randalljazz

Nope, I'm good . How about you?

**JimBobWay** · 05-15-2011, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by Spirit59

I'm all for people getting paid for their work, but ASCAP / BMI can be too heavy handed... Doesn't matter if it's 100% improvised. Doesn't matter if it's a drum circle - they want their cut.

This caught my eye because I was recently in a town that does a weekly drum circle and I stopped by, and there was an ASCAP rep trying to break it up. I didn't get the whole story but the chutzpa of it struck me. I was trying to figure out what the angle would be on that. When I saw it used here as a metophorical worst-case it brought that evening back to mind. These things are a part of the landscape and once you establish this sort of system it only changes when those who benefit the most no longer do so. In my view the post about the overall economic climate goes to the heart of the matter. When times are tough all the arts suffer.

**Spirit59** · 05-15-2011, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by JimBobWay

This caught my eye because I was recently in a town that does a weekly drum circle and I stopped by, and there was an ASCAP rep trying to break it up. I didn't get the whole story but the chutzpa of it struck me. I was trying to figure out what the angle would be on that. When I saw it used here as a metophorical worst-case it brought that evening back to mind. These things are a part of the landscape and once you establish this sort of system it only changes when those who benefit the most no longer do so. In my view the post about the overall economic climate goes to the heart of the matter. When times are tough all the arts suffer.

As you can see, I wasn't really speaking 100% metaphorically. And the way it works is that you're assumed guilty until proven innocent, with the excuse that "Well, we just don't have the manpower to assign an agent to watch all performances, so we have to assume that cover tunes are being played."

Actually, there may be an increase in Dinner gigs.....you play and get compensated with dinner....

**Billnc** · 05-16-2011, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by Hypno

Another scenario: will the performance rights societies start asking for the fees directly from the performers also? And if a performer is earning a small amount, who would bother to perform?
But I suppose; fewer performers could make for a higher demand.

Actually, at a dime a song I'd be happy to submit a set list and check for every gig I play. They'd rake in a lot of money on a world wide scale, writer would get paid, it wouldn't kill me and the venue, who is responsible right now, would have no worries.

**patskywriter** · 05-16-2011, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Billnc

Actually, at a dime a song I'd be happy to submit a set list and check for every gig I play. They'd rake in a lot of money on a world wide scale, writer would get paid, it wouldn't kill me, and the venue, which is responsible right now, would have no worries.

that sounds reasonable, unless you're a hipster musician type and actually mean $10. o.O