Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
fortunate are those who came in before this nonex to ex migration happened.
Fortunate to the extent that we were able to get a bunch of NE tracks in, but we also are bound by an exclusive agreement for new material.
so I finally decided to upload about 300 older tracks in a pretty wide range of styles. ONE sale in six months.
I’m wondering if lackluster sales also relates back to today’s customer. In another topic, links were posted to youtube videos promoting subscription companies. I read some of the comments viewers left and saw things like:
YouTube already has that for free
Yeah. I’m still not paying that much
YouTube has a big list of free songs you use…
$199 is way too much for me
sorry, but I don’t think you should pay that much a year.So in addition to 100x more composers, many potential customers think music should be free. Not a good combination.
Just listened to your Latin album, Art and am a few tunes into Earth Tones.
Has anyone tried “Spotify for Artists”? I started checking it out but gave up part way through a long privacy agreement that was seeming a bit much.
I followed Chuck, Art and daveydad. I’m here:
Just uploaded the Electro Swing Album last week, check it out!
Hi Alan,
I did not, but the payout was for performance period 07/01/2017 – 09/30/2017 and my cue sheets have expected air dates from October 2017 through to very recent. Up to 37 cue sheets now. I guess my next domestic statement should have some. But with the dreaded survey system who knows.
If you had some with expected April air-dates, maybe you should have seen some on the statement. Are you going to reach out to ASCAP to ask? If so, keep us posted!
Michael
Get me the gig that pays more and I’ll take it.
I think his point was that if everybody turned down the less than $100 gig offers, such offers would cease to exist.
Like Steven says, late sixties. When I look at my albums I see blurbs assuring the customers that playing a stereo record on mono equipment wasn’t a problem. One sleeve says “a stereo record will last just as long as mono records played on the same equipment”. 🙂
I make somewhere between 3000 -4000 or more gigging 50 – 60 times a year .
Wow. That’s just $60 a gig! Is it really that bad out there in the live scene?
There have been recent discussions here about giving away exclusive rights for no upfront payment. The trend is not to give away the rights for free. Give the site a search and read up on the subject, see what you think.
Thanks for the link Michael, the author seems to agree with me :
“the majority establishes a dangerous precedent that strikes a devastating blow to future musicians and composers everywhere.”
Thicke’s version used a lot of Gayes’s elements, that is for sure. The tempo, the bass sound and the stylized use of the background voices. The percussion also, to a lesser extent. He probably thought he was ok, given previous definitions of a copyright being melody and lyrics only. The problem was the song made too much money.
So I wonder, how many elements of a style will the courts allow in the future? Can we trust the courts to judge each case individually, based on intent? Actually Michael, do you know if intent was the deciding factor with the appeals court judgement or were they basing it on the similarities? I didn’t read it.
Yeah, I was referring to the Blurred Lines verdict. Then Eminem copy was blatant with clear intent. I’ve listened to the original and the copy!
I mean Blurred Lines sounds similar to Marvin Gaye, but I think everyone is influenced by the great artists of the past. Maybe this just shows more than usual on Blurred Lines. Listen close enough to any artist and you can hear where they are coming from, who they are influenced by or studied, or are inspired by. I’m thinking of the Amy Winehouse album Back to Black I think it is. She evokes the great artists and the sound of the 60’s. As soon as you hear it you can recognize that. I don’t remember reading about lawsuits there. It would be a shame if a future artist like Amy was afraid to create and release their music because of this “new” definition of a copyright.
I’m against that verdict. I was taught that melody and lyrics were what constituted a copyright. And that is how the courts always decided, wasn’t it? So now copyrights can be judged based on a feel? Or a groove? Nobody can be influenced by the artists that came before them anymore?
Well that’s promising thanks. Hope ASCAP will also payout as I have something like 35 cue sheets for that show. Statement is in April.
Has anyone ever been paid royalties by ASCAP for “NBA Gametime” placements? Or does the NBA TV network fall through the cracks of their survey?