Re: ASCAP vs BMI (long, and angry!)
Richard Flohil wrote: Two other notes on the above. Erica wrote to tell me that rates for performing right organizations are set in the US by the LIbrary of Congress (which I didn't know) - but presumably after submissions from both the societies and the music users. And Jon wrote me offline to suggest the chances of ever having a single society in the US (as every other territory does) are about the same as a snowball freezing in hell; he's probably right, but if songwriters really understood hopw they are getting screwed, they'd raise hell! Richard, ole buddy, I have considered this (difference in the amounts paid to US writers here vs what foriegn writers get) long and hard over the years and I have come to the conclusion that this is a matter of scale. If the writers in Europe got what we get here, they'd all starve to death, even the biggest ones, and yes they would be raising hell. However, if the writers in the US got what writers in Europe got it would be extraordinarily generous when you added up everything from a country this big. I think this makes perfect sense. Think about it: if you are a French writer, for instance, a gold record is 100,000 copies sold (as it is in many other countries around the world, as opposed to 500,000 in the US) and this makes you a tidy amount of money in France. However, if you awarded that same amount of money in the US, writers here would be richer than the Sultan of Brunei. It is impossible. How many radio stations are there in France? In the US? There is no way they can pay the same amount of money to the writers. What this really means is that at some point the governments of smaller nations who controlled royalty payments were persuaded that keeping artists decently paid was a necessity. Here it pays equally well if you have a hit song, but because there are so many stations it was not possible (until now, let us pray) to pay every single writer for every single spin, so a survey system was developed. This leaves out marginal writers like me who never get any money even though I get my songs played, but it makes hit songwriters wealthy. jg -- Joe Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
Re: ASCAP vs BMI (long, and angry!)
Tiffany Suiters, in what must be one of the silliest posts I've EVER read on this list, responded to my long post about the roots of BMI, and the reasons for its very existence, with the following dumb, DUMB, D-U-M-B line, her whole message prior to reprinting my long post all over again: Obviously an ASCAP recruiter Nothing about my contention that having two (or three) societies in the United States has seriously affected the pocket books of every songwriter and publisher in the United States, compared to their counterparts elsewhere in the world. Nothing about the duplicated (and even triplicated) overheads that are paid for out of the money collected, and therefore not distributed to songwriters and publishers. Nothing about the fact that the moneys paid for the use of music in the US are, per capita, are FAR lower than that in Europe, Australia, Japan and even Canada. I do realise that the issues raised - which began when someone or other innocently asked, in effect, "Jeez, which should I join?" - are not germane unless you're a publisher or a songwriter (or, perhaps, a music user!), but Tiffany's smart-arse response didn't exactly shed much light on what is a vital issue for creative people in the United States. If Tiffany has anything sensible to say about this issue, I'd be delighted to respond. Does she feel my facts were inaccurate? Does she think that two (or three) organizations benefit songwriters? And, no, I don't work for ASCAP. I'm a music industry publicist who represents a number of Canadian artists - my company, I'm proud to say, includes among our clients the redoubtable little Canajun bluegrass band Heartbreak Hill, chosen to open Twangfest's Saturday night celebrations in St. Louis. A wonderful choice (thanx, committee members!), and they shall do their best! Cheers, Richard Two other notes on the above. Erica wrote to tell me that rates for performing right organizations are set in the US by the LIbrary of Congress (which I didn't know) - but presumably after submissions from both the societies and the music users. And Jon wrote me offline to suggest the chances of ever having a single society in the US (as every other territory does) are about the same as a snowball freezing in hell; he's probably right, but if songwriters really understood hopw they are getting screwed, they'd raise hell!
Re: ASCAP vs BMI (long, and angry!)
Obviously an ASCAP recruiter At 02:16 PM 4/3/99 -0500, you wrote: Since I once worked for damn near a quarter of a century with Canada's performing right society, I've been following the discussion with interest. Astonishingly, no one has raised the issue of why on earth there are TWO organizations in the US (three, if you count SESAC). The duplication (triplication) of overhead costs American songwriters and publishers a fortune, and nobody seems to worry about that. The good Joe Gracey (and I'm SO sorry to have missed meeting you during SXSW, Joe), believes that BMI was formed to combat the perceived elitism of ASCAP at the time (early 40s), but that's only a very small part of it. In fact, BMI (which stands for Broadcast Music Inc) was - and still is - owned by the American broadcasting industry, which is, of course, the chief user of music, and the major source of royalty revenue for the public performance of music. It was not formed because ASCAP was doing a bad job, or didn't like hillbilly music, or wouldn't give rural blues songwriters a home - BMI was formed because ASCAP's demands for license fees were considered too high by the broadcast industry, and BMI thus became the perfect example of putting the fox in charge of the hen hut. This strategy has worked very well for American broadcasters, but not very well for American songwriters and publishers, who earn probably less than a third than their counterparts in Canada on a per capita basis, and more than half as much as their counterparts everywhere else in the world. Hopefully someone will provide accurate figures, but going from memory, ASCAP and BMI between them get 1.7 per cent of broadcast industry revenues; it's well over 2.5 per cent in Canada, and anywhere up to 10 per cent in European territories. In the same way that the United States is the only country in the world where all the money is the same colour (thus causing innocent Canadians to give out $10 bills when they thought they were giving out $1s) , the US is the only country in the world with more than one performing right society (Brazil is an exception; they have half a dozen, and the composers don't make a nickel after all the overhead costs!). Americans carry on about how competition makes the world a better place! In this instance, it doesn't. In every other country in the world (Brazil excepted!) one society sets rates for the use of music (with a quasi-governmental body approving the fees after consulting with the users and the society). The overhead is kept simple, the societies are not-for-profit (so ALL the money collected, less overhead, goes to the publishers and writers). The competition from the three American organizations, to get members, is intense, and costly. Recently, SESAC, so that it could tell music users that it represented a significant catalogue, paid Bob Dylan and Neil Diamond $4 million apiece to acquire their catalogues. Nice for Bob and Neil, not so nice for SESAC members, who will earn, collectively, $4 million less than they otherwise would have done. Worse, the competition to collect from music users (particularly small users like restaurants, cafes, etc) has caused such a groundswell of resentment that the restaurant owners recently managed to persuade your government (regardless of the international copyright agreements it has signed) to let many users off the hook altogether. Competition in performing rights? Bah! Humbug!! Every single American songwriter and publisher has lost money as a result of the creation of BMI. And the sheer ignorance of those who say "toss a coin!" rather than considering the implications of your situation in the US is mind-boggling! Sorry guys, support ASCAP, and remind everyone what BMI stands for - which is, in short, to screw the songwriter! Cheers, Richard
RE: ASCAP vs BMI (long, and angry!)
Richard says of BMI: It was not formed because ASCAP was doing a bad job, or didn't like hillbilly music, or wouldn't give rural blues songwriters a home - BMI was formed because ASCAP's demands for license fees were considered too high by the broadcast industry, and BMI thus became the perfect example of putting the fox in charge of the hen hut. That is indeed how BMI was formed - during a dispute between broadcasters and ASCAP back in 1940. The dispute was settled not long afterward, reintroducing the writer hens to the broadcasting foxes, but, as Ronnie Pugh says in the BMI entry in the _Encyclopedia of Country Music_, "BMI continued to grow by leaps and bounds because of its open-door policy toward music that had not gotten much support from ASCAP: primarily country, blues, and rb," and Bill C. Malone says essentially the same thing in somewhat greater detail in his book, _Country Music, USA_. BMI is certainly here to stay, especially in country music, and to suggest that it is, or ought to be otherwise, is somewhat akin to suggesting at this late date that the IUE dissolve itself because of the tainted circumstances of its creation (as a red-baiting alternative to the UE, for those unfamiliar with US labor history); it ain't gonna happen. Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
ASCAP vs BMI (long, and angry!)
Since I once worked for damn near a quarter of a century with Canada's performing right society, I've been following the discussion with interest. Astonishingly, no one has raised the issue of why on earth there are TWO organizations in the US (three, if you count SESAC). The duplication (triplication) of overhead costs American songwriters and publishers a fortune, and nobody seems to worry about that. The good Joe Gracey (and I'm SO sorry to have missed meeting you during SXSW, Joe), believes that BMI was formed to combat the perceived elitism of ASCAP at the time (early 40s), but that's only a very small part of it. In fact, BMI (which stands for Broadcast Music Inc) was - and still is - owned by the American broadcasting industry, which is, of course, the chief user of music, and the major source of royalty revenue for the public performance of music. It was not formed because ASCAP was doing a bad job, or didn't like hillbilly music, or wouldn't give rural blues songwriters a home - BMI was formed because ASCAP's demands for license fees were considered too high by the broadcast industry, and BMI thus became the perfect example of putting the fox in charge of the hen hut. This strategy has worked very well for American broadcasters, but not very well for American songwriters and publishers, who earn probably less than a third than their counterparts in Canada on a per capita basis, and more than half as much as their counterparts everywhere else in the world. Hopefully someone will provide accurate figures, but going from memory, ASCAP and BMI between them get 1.7 per cent of broadcast industry revenues; it's well over 2.5 per cent in Canada, and anywhere up to 10 per cent in European territories. In the same way that the United States is the only country in the world where all the money is the same colour (thus causing innocent Canadians to give out $10 bills when they thought they were giving out $1s) , the US is the only country in the world with more than one performing right society (Brazil is an exception; they have half a dozen, and the composers don't make a nickel after all the overhead costs!). Americans carry on about how competition makes the world a better place! In this instance, it doesn't. In every other country in the world (Brazil excepted!) one society sets rates for the use of music (with a quasi-governmental body approving the fees after consulting with the users and the society). The overhead is kept simple, the societies are not-for-profit (so ALL the money collected, less overhead, goes to the publishers and writers). The competition from the three American organizations, to get members, is intense, and costly. Recently, SESAC, so that it could tell music users that it represented a significant catalogue, paid Bob Dylan and Neil Diamond $4 million apiece to acquire their catalogues. Nice for Bob and Neil, not so nice for SESAC members, who will earn, collectively, $4 million less than they otherwise would have done. Worse, the competition to collect from music users (particularly small users like restaurants, cafes, etc) has caused such a groundswell of resentment that the restaurant owners recently managed to persuade your government (regardless of the international copyright agreements it has signed) to let many users off the hook altogether. Competition in performing rights? Bah! Humbug!! Every single American songwriter and publisher has lost money as a result of the creation of BMI. And the sheer ignorance of those who say "toss a coin!" rather than considering the implications of your situation in the US is mind-boggling! Sorry guys, support ASCAP, and remind everyone what BMI stands for - which is, in short, to screw the songwriter! Cheers, Richard
