Performance Free

[Art Munson]

I have a friend who is manager of a big restaurant in a big shopping mall that plays ASCAP music non-stop as added entertainment. They pay ASCAP $5000 a year for the license to play tunes and their revenue is $15 million a year. This is very reaonable. I have no idea what is going on in Europe, but those PROS seem to be equally responsible ruining the business by making ridiculous demands. House, are you in Europe?

[house]

I am in the USA. $5000 for a large restaurant that plays music all the time sounds reasonable.

[MichaelL]

I do not agree with your “cues have a limited shelf life theory”. The Beatles, zeppelin and the stones are still selling their music 45 years later and making a bundle.

Apples (pun intended) and oranges. You do understand that the Beatles and Led Zepplin wrote popular music, and had many hit songs, which his completely different than the anonymous world of writing production music? Any comparison between the longevity of their music and library cues is more or less irrelevant.

But, with respect to old themes, three years ago I composed a new theme that replaced a library theme that had been on a show since 1974! Everything changes.

Anecdotal evidence of a cue here and there that survives decades is far from the norm. Let us know in 5 years, if the old cues that you’ve recently put into libraries are still making money, and in which business model.

Doesn’t this bother anyone about non pro registered RF music?

To be honest, it may be too abstract for most composers to grasp. You’ve obviously been very successful (kudos!!) and you see a threat to that way of life. I understand that completely.

For part-timers and wannabes I suppose they just see “opportunity.”
99.9% of composers never have and never willexperience the kind of pay days that you talk about. You’ve heard DI’s point of view, basically “extra money is extra money.” So, when you say to them that “our way of life” is being threatened they don’t get it, because it never was their way of life.

My question is why do you even bother with this stuff, when you’ve got deals like that sitting on your desk?

[MichaelL]

I am in the USA. $5000 for a large restaurant that plays music all the time sounds reasonable.

The question again comes down to “how does ASCAP distribute that money?”

Twenty years ago, I pursued that issue with ASCAP. I had a Smooth Jazz CD that charted and two new age CDs that received a lot of air play on about 150 stations. A number of restaurants played those CDs, which would have been covered under their annual license. Of course, ASCAP has no way of counting what, or who gets played, so it goes into a pot divided by “hit” song writers.

So, if you are a singer-songwriter and you perform your songs at the local coffee house, that is paying the ASCAP annual blanket, Paul McCartney, and others, will get your money.

You can, however, plead your case and apply for an ASCAP award /grant for non-sruveyed performances. So the money that ASCAP collects for restaurants and from girl scout campfire songs is meaningless to 99.9% of all composers.

[Art Munson]

Wow…Your always making these statements like “you’re way of life is threatened”..etc. I simply am discussing some issues about the overall health of a business.

I am trying to figure out why some writers see PROS as a barrier to freedom? and why others have gravitated to performance free? I am trying to figure out why PROS in Europe are so unreasonable? The restaurant below my studio just told me that they pay 3K a year to both ASCAP and BMI to play tunes in 3 restaurants which have a combined 15 million in revenue. I asked ‘What if you didn’t pay?” He said “They would sue me and win.” and that “Rosebud restaurant was sued for 200K by ASCAP and lost.”

This is amazing, I never knew this stuff until today.

Why is house being asked to pay 4% of “mid 6 figure revenue” for some tracks on a business’ web site?

PROS are our friends, but clearly problems for businesses. You have to appreciate the fact that they are out there shaking money out of people for writers. Why would someone not want to be in a PRO?

Regarding shelf life of music: Good music stands the test of time period. Whether it is popular music or production music. Good music is good music. I simply do not agree with a statement that says “Your cue only has a 5 year shelf life”. That simply has not been my experience at all.

Regarding the deal: I was not awarded the deal. But my point is, In 2014, if you were an exec at a TV Network who wanted to freshen up the nightly news music theme, wouldn’t it make economic sense to search “News Music” on all the RF sites first to save a lot of money on that silly juicy John Williams fee?

Maybe I shouldn’t even be putting ideas in people’s heads…LOL!

[MichaelL]

With respect to “your way of life” I am referring to your level of success and accomplishment. Obviously I don’t know anything about your lifestyle. My point is that there is limitless army of Garage Band composers out there who simply cannot identify with your level of success, so a lot of your speech may be falling on deaf ears. When you talk about the “health of the business” you need to remember that many of these composers see themselves as being outside the business.

Yes, ASCAP and BMI go after money, for some writers, not all. In many cases they treat writers of background cues as untrusted adversaries.

Do you really think that a Network like NBC would diminish its brand with bargain RF music from an unknown composer to save money? Now you’re just yanking my chain.

Look, we’re sort of on the same page. I was a writer member of ASCAP for 35 years. I’ve been with BMI as a writer for two years, and have two BMI publishing companies. I’m not anti PRO, but I don’t have any rose-colored glasses, with respect to them either.

As I said in the OP…performance free is not a good idea.

But…I clearly recognize that parts of my catalog that are broadcast friendly and parts of it are not. For the latter, I choose to put that music into libraries that service my most likely buyer, businesses and small non-broadcast producers. So, I divide things accordingly.

[Art Munson]

No one is answering any of my questions above and I do not see why this is evolving into a one to one exchange…It would be interesting to hear from everyone who reads MLR..especially European writers.

Why would someone not want to be in a PRO? Why are people gravitating towards Performance Free, Royalty Free?

I have never heard anyone in this forum say “I make more in RF and Performance Free when compared with PRO Royalties”

And also, anyone who is behind a DAW cranking out 200 to 300 cues and marketing them across 5 to 10 web sites is not “outside the business” even if they only earn 5K per year. They most certainly are trying to become full time in the business IMHO. Additionally, big businesses are shopping a great deal at RF and PF.

[woodsdenis]

@Davids I am a European writer, don’t know wether Ireland is old or new Europe. Our Pro system is based on the UK model (PRS) which used to collect for Irish writers until we got our own PRO (IMRO) a number of years ago.

I can see no reason at all to be anti PRO, it does a good job at collecting and distributing revenue, also our rates our mush higher than the States it seems. Collection is enforced here rigidly but not at exorbitant rates.

It seems that GEMA (Germany) is the most hardline when it comes to policing so maybe thats where some of the “anti” sentiment comes from in Europe.

[SCP]

@Davids – Some of us make decent income through a combination of all – PRO / RF / Non-Exclusive etc. And sometimes it’s not a question of wanting or not wanting to be in a PRO – it’s just that the opportunities that were once available ($500/needle drop days) are no longer there.

I tailor my efforts depending on the opportunity + financial return. If I have 4 hours on a Sunday, great – I’ll bang out a ukelele tune that will sell 5 times/month on an RF site. If I’m trying to get into an exclusive PRO based library, I’ll spend a week fine tuning a track and hope that a year from now, the song will contribute to a bigger royalty check.

If there’s anything that MLR has taught me it’s that you need to adapt to the opportunities available (without thinking you’re contributing to the downfall of any one system).

[MichaelL]

@Davids I mean “outside the business” in the sense that many composers feel shut out of traditional exclusive libraries. By traditional, I mean money upfront non-retitling, PMA libraries that are very selective.

There is a lot of resentment toward that system. As AndyB suggests, it is one reason why alternatives exist.

If there’s anything that MLR has taught me it’s that you need to adapt to the opportunities available (without thinking you’re contributing to the downfall of any one system).

Well said SCP. Diversify. It’s not either or.

[Marcum]

I know this is a difficult thing to do since there are countless variables involved with licensing music. But I wonder if using the combined experience of people in this forum, we could come up with any kind of blueprint of what kind of licensing library and publisher deals to look for, and which we really should stay away from. And what kind of things we can do collectively to fight for fair compensation to the artist? I’ve read previous threads and I know there is a lot of differences in opinions on which models work and which don’t. But it seems like there has to be certain trends that we could all agree will never be good long term for the artist. And I’m speaking more to the career musician. Not the people who have posted they just enjoy doing it whether the get paid or not. Those people don’t really need to worry about this, if income is not a primary goal. If you are willing to give your music away for free for the fun of hearing it on TV or in a youtube video then there will always be a market for what you do. I’m worried about whether or not I have a sustainable career. And I know there are no definite answers.

Are we as artists just screwed long term, or are there proactive measures we can take? Just a brain storm, I don’t have the answers myself. But things like companies doing big blanket licenses that they don’t share with artist will eventually cut the artist out of the deal all together, especially if what Art said is true about PRO’s being on there last leg.

[Art Munson]

Another nail in the PRO coffin?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140323/07554026662/judge-highlights-bogus-collusion-ascap-publishers-rejecting-their-attempt-to-jack-up-pandoras-rates.shtml

[MichaelL]

@Marcum. There are countless variables. And, this is a global business that involves many thousands of composers. The needs, culture, and values of those composers are equally varied.

Different countries, and PROS in different countries, also operate under different rules.

I’m not sure that it’s a question of which models work, because every model works for someone.

I try to get people to understand that perspective is individual. For example, a lot of people complain about JP’s business practices. Personally, I cannot judge because I have never submitted music to JP. The business model does not appeal to me, so I avoided it.

Equally, I don’t worry about the future of re-titling, because I have never done it. That puts me in a very different position from writers who have invested a lot in that company and that business model.
Someone else will have a completely different opinion, based upon their positive experiences, and what they perceive as viable options for their music. Others apparently, are not so happy.

IMO, composers really need to understand each model, who the most likely / dominant customers are of each model, and what music will do best where.

IMO it’s not one size fits all, where every piece of music will, or should, perform equally well across all business models. There is a difference between what works on a an episode of Honey Boo Boo vs. what corporate clients need. No one should have to tell anyone that. It should be obvious.

As far as being “proactive” is concerned, PMA member libraries and the PROs have the most power to preserve their way of doing things.
And, as Art’s last post points out ASCAP will go to great lengths to do so.

Are we screwed long term? No. But, that is a question of perspective. It really depends on an individual’s skill-set, how hard they are willing to work, and how much money they want, or need, to make. What defines “earning a living” varies from composer to composer.

Asking the same question over and over, and expecting a different answer is a formula for frustration and disappointment. More than ever, writers need to be flexible and have an ability to adapt to change, whether it’s in technology, musical trends, or fluctuating income levels.

I’m sure that, at some point, one blacksmith turned to another and said, “we’ve got to stop horseless carriages, or we’re screwed.” Yes, the world changed, but people still own a lot of horses and they still need shoes. Others adapted and became auto-mechanics.

Marcum…I don’t know how old you are. But, the bottom-line is, life is too short to worry about things things that you cannot control. And, it will make you less productive.

[MichaelL]

Another nail in the PRO coffin?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140323/07554026662/judge-highlights-bogus-collusion-ascap-publishers-rejecting-their-attempt-to-jack-up-pandoras-rates.shtml

Oh yeah, and sometimes “proactive” can get you into trouble.

[Art Munson]

Please post library specific comments on it’s listing or they will be deleted (and they have).

[Author]

Posts