-
Has anyone noticed a decline in their solo gig engagements at dinning establishments? I have been told from a proprietor that they now don’t have music due to licensing fees; I guess being to expensive. I wonder if this is becoming more common place, since some of these establishments once had music.
-
04-23-2011 11:59 PM
-
IMHO-it has very little to do with that. Gigs are down because these places are going to the wall because of the global downturn. Much easier to blame things like high licence fees rather than admit you're going broke because of idiot capitalists being greedy.
-
This gets discussed a lot on another forum a lot and consensus appears to be the rights groups are killing off gigs with their annual fees. In fact its is more than live performance they try to charge for even playing CDs or a radio as background music. They only people who think its a good thing are artist with a few CD's out making a few dollars off the rights.
I'm of the group of people who believe live music helps promote the writers music and in long run promotes music sales.
Then some clubs in my area stopped having music on weekend because the local governments want too much for a cabaret license for having live music. So restaurants are getting hit from all directions for having music.
-
.. isn't a business owner by definition a capitalist? Maybe the business is simply no longer sustainable - offering a product people don't currently want or think is too expensive and unable to meet current running costs
Originally Posted by billkath
-
I think I'm right in saying that the UK PRS will pay writers for logged public performances. So if you are playing originals and you're a PRS member you get paid, if you are playing covers the writers get paid. Originally Posted by docbop
At the end of the day though, it's a business decision for the venue owner. If the cost of the license plus live musicians leads to increased takings (s)he will likely be happy to pay both. If not, why hire the musicians if the license plus recorded music will keep the customers happy?Last edited by Bill C; 04-24-2011 at 07:42 AM.
-
Yep-but I didn't say capitalist-I said Idiot Capitalists. Originally Posted by Bill C
-
But its good for the writers to have their material played, which will results in some additional sales creating both songwriter and mechanical royalties. Plus the rights groups are just charging yearly fees based on size and type of establishment, that mean the writers really aren't getting paid for each performance. The real ones benefiting is the rights groups. Originally Posted by Bill C
In long run with business cutting live and recorded music because of the license fees the real ones being hurt are the people they are "protecting". The economy is bad and things like this only make it worse.
-
I expect the decline of CD sales is also a factor, If royalties from CD sales are diminishing that might cause the rights organisations to pursue income more actively in other areas ... Originally Posted by docbop
-
I was recently approached by an assistant manager of a Barnes and Noble book store to play a couple of hours in their cafe each week. That would have been a nice, easy solo gig but the manager said no dice because of the copyright laws. Why would their business be lower since Barnes and Noble is such a huge chain? Technology. With the invention of the "electric book", you don't need to go to the book store except to buy the electric book in the first place. The CD and DVD section is getting smaller and smaller because you can download everything off the net, sometimes for free. Same for a lot of the magazines. It's no wonder they don't want to shell out for licensing fees. They're losing a lot of business.
-
That may be true. Originally Posted by docbop
But, the writers and recording artists should have and do have the right to copyright their work and to be paid if someone chooses to use their work. Although I suspect it's one copyright fits all... but I don't see a reasonable alternative to that as it would be impossible to administer if everyone had different copyright agreements.
The person who performs these copyright tunes doesn't have the rights, rather he needs the permission. Sure seems to me that is the way it should be. That person is using someone elses property. So it's interesting to discuss, but the performer is in no position to call the shots.
I wonder if an establishment could require the musicians to only play orginal music and then wouldn't have to pay the liscense fees.
I prefer bands playing their orginal music, maybe that could be a solution.Last edited by fep; 04-24-2011 at 12:29 PM.
-
In my case, Twinkle Twinkle Little Star sounds better than anything I can put together, so for me that wouldn't be an option. Now, I'm not a working musician but I can see where someone like myself who is a working musician can get really tripped up. I'm a solo player and 90% of the songs that I do are from 1930 to 1956. Copyrights can become a big obstacle if someone really wanted to push the issue. I don't know what could be a solution then. I also wanted to add that I'm a huge supporter of live music no matter what era the songs come from. Back in the early 70's when I was a member of NY local 802, we had an organization named TEMPO which was formed to support live music. That was at a time when people were starting to use DJs and a number of keyboard players were using bass and drum machines instead of players. I wonder if some organization like that could put some pressure on rights groups to soften the blow somehow. On the other side of the coin, I hate to see the writers get ripped off. No solution seems easy by any means. Originally Posted by fep
-
That solution has a name: rock and roll! Originally Posted by fep
-
People just ain't going out to eat.
2 places I played at semi-regularly for the past few years have gone under. Sad state of affairs...
-
The "rights" group members are the musicians/composers themselves. This is the backbone of the music industry for almost all professional musicians. Don't blame them. Originally Posted by docbop
The decision for a restaurant, etc., to not get a license, is just another decision based on cutting overhead that doesn't generate the income to justify it. If music helped them make money, they would get one.
This is more a case of music getting to the point where it has so little monetary value in today's culture, regardless of the economy.
-
I'm all for people getting paid for their work, but ASCAP / BMI can be too heavy handed.
Do you know what their policy is on "original music" or music that would not fall under their jurisdiction?
Since it's not reasonable to expect them to post a field agent 24/7 at any given venue, then they feel they have to assume that every band is playing music that is licensed by them. Doesn't matter if it's 100% improvised. Doesn't matter if it's a drum circle - they want their cut.
-
Almost all? A very few, I'd say, some, at most. The backbone of the music industry for almost all professional musicians is teaching, I've always understood. Let's do a head count - will all the pros who make significant income out of copyrights please raise their hands? And the teachers? Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
(One thing's for sure, those who are making money out of copyrights are not gigging in restaurants. So it's no skin off their noses if the restaurants stop using live musicians.)
True, but I know places that have comedians instead of musicians. What's the difference? Licences of one sort or another. Venues are prepared to pay people to perform, just not musicians.The decision for a restaurant, etc., to not get a license, is just another decision based on cutting overhead that doesn't generate the income to justify it. If music helped them make money, they would get one.
Don't let them fool you with that 'downloads are sinking the music industry' line, it's pure propaganda. The music industry rakes in as much money as it ever did, or more, but in different ways - mobile ring tones represent huge amounts of money, football stadia are fuller for concerts than for matches, and so on. And rights collection organizations have become rapacious to the point where they are downright sinister. The one here in Spain is simply unbelievable - they were trying to charge hairdressers' for having the radio on a few months ago. And it's so obviously a mafia - the two or three guys who run it were really atrocious pop musicians back in the seventies who have converted themselves into professional bureaucrats, and there are constant reports of composers not in the clique never seeing a penny. The whole thing sucks.This is more a case of music getting to the point where it has so little monetary value in today's culture, regardless of the economy.
-
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.
-
I see it as the usual larger resturants and venues they would of sought out have less work so they are going after small venues they used to ignore. I just see a bad economy so the rights group is going after smaller venues trying to survive that in turn is costing more jobs for musicians. A vicious circle helping no one in long run. Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
I think back about being a young musician and there were clubs and playing opportunities everywhere. That was the training ground for musicians and it is practically non-existant these days.
-
Yeah, in my youth every hotel had bands, and duo/single acts six nights a week, nightclubs had touring acts and house bands, school/university gigs, restaurants had solo music. local and nationally broadcast television shows, (this is Canada), recording studios with regular studio players, big national stores hired bands for different promotions, community club dances, folk music venues church coffee houses,I think back about being a young musician and there were clubs and playing opportunities everywhere. That was the training ground for musicians and it is practically non-existant these days
all for the most part gone.
I do not know why.Last edited by markf; 04-25-2011 at 08:47 AM. Reason: edit
-
Around here every bar had music anywhere from solo piano to jazz trio. Large places had Top-40 bands that could sneak in some original material. To bigger clubs with bands playing original material. Then the whole list of gigs you listed coffee houses and on and on. I was always here music that I would end up going out and buying records/CD's of. Could hear great musicians and track their careers thru small bars up to the big clubs and on to tours. I remember talking to Joe Diorio once and he credits a lot of his development as a jazz guitarist playing Jazz five nights a week in clubs back when he was coming up. Originally Posted by markf
It was the apprenticeship program for musicians.
-
This is a very important part of learning to play. It's gone for kids.I remember talking to Joe Diorio once and he credits a lot of his development as a jazz guitarist playing Jazz five nights a week in clubs back when he was coming up.
and people like Neil Young, Joani Mitchell, came up through these places here on the Canadian prairies, and also the band The Guess who, and BTO.
and........Lenny Breau, who I saw performing in church coffee houses, and all the other places I mentioned, where he played for years.
-
With the information so readily available, it's a shame there is so much ignorance, speculation, and fantasy going on, concerning performing rights organizations. The only ones who complain are the amateurs.
-
If it weren't for the new forum ambience of peace, love and understanding, that could be taken as pretty snotty. Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
(Thinks twice, hits "Submit" anyway.)
-
You know, I kinda felt the same way, but then again, it's hard to tell when CG is serious.
And there is an inkling of truth to it-- bill kath's #2 post hits the nail on the head--if you've been out there gigging, you know that's the real reason gigs are drying up and anything else is an excuse (or a non-admission)
-
How many restaurants do you know of that don't have any music at all playing in the background, even if it's not live? I would say none. You have to pay licensing fees:
From ASCAP's site:
Public Performance or Performance Rights
A public performance is one that occurs "in a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." A public performance also occurs when the performance is transmitted by means of any device or process (for example, via broadcast, telephone wire, or other means) to the public. In order to perform a copyrighted work publicly, the user must obtain performance rights from the copyright owner or his representative.
BMI: Bars, Restaurants, and other Eating and Drinking Establishments | Music Licensing | BMI.com (too much to paste)
Believe me, most of them (club owners) have the license. If they say they can't hire you because they don't, and you hear even one note of music in the joint, they are FOS.
Reply With Quote
mclaughlin sound here
Today, 12:26 AM in The Players