TimR Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 [quote name='discreet' timestamp='1389474383' post='2334639'] Yes. Strictly speaking, some venues require a set list which needs to be sent to the PRS. There are various different public performance tariffs and pricing issues to be taken into consideration. [url="http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/livevenuesevents/concertvenues/Pages/concertvenues.aspx"]http://www.prsformus...certvenues.aspx[/url] [/quote] Since most of us play in pubs it's 3.11 here: http://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PPS%20Tariffs/P-2013-10%20Tariff.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 [quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1389473865' post='2334626'] It'd be interesting to guage how many contributors, who make money from playing in covers bands, don't think that the person whose work they are using to get paid should also not receive something. After all, if they had not written the song covers bands would have nothing to play and not get paid themselves. [/quote] Continuing the 'get paid for the actual work' theme, the writer has already been paid for his song, after which it becomes public domain (yeah, I know, contentious). The covers band is being paid for their performance, not for the song. I'm warming to Dad's theme. After all, the concept of royalties is a fairly recent thing isn't it? It's just a made up convention enabled by recording technology - certainly a nice little earner if you can get away with it, but that's not the same as genuine fairness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389477072' post='2334683']...I'm warming to Dad's theme...[/quote] Hush, now; they'll hear you..! [attachment=152097:Tar_Feat.jpg] Damned..! Too late... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389477072' post='2334683'] Continuing the 'get paid for the actual work' theme, the writer has already been paid for his song, after which it becomes public domain (yeah, I know, contentious). The covers band is being paid for their performance, not for the song. I'm warming to Dad's theme. After all, the concept of royalties is a fairly recent thing isn't it? It's just a made up convention enabled by recording technology - certainly a nice little earner if you can get away with it, but that's not the same as genuine fairness. [/quote] Copyright has been around since the 18th century. It's not a concept dreamed up by the recording industry. We use it to reward people's creativity and encourage them to create more. Sting has proved his creativity is more valued than mine. Edited January 11, 2014 by TimR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiltyG565 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389477072' post='2334683'] It's just a made up convention [/quote] A bit like money. Going to honestly need something a little better than "It's just made up" to persuade most, fellas. Most things are just made up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389477072' post='2334683'] Continuing the 'get paid for the actual work' theme, the writer has already been paid for his song, after which it becomes public domain (yeah, I know, contentious). The covers band is being paid for their performance, not for the song. I'm warming to Dad's theme. After all, the concept of royalties is a fairly recent thing isn't it? It's just a made up convention enabled by recording technology - certainly a nice little earner if you can get away with it, but that's not the same as genuine fairness. [/quote] So an element, the song, that is essential for the covers band, is the only element not compensated. They get the song for free. But without it they have nothing to perform. Most of the songs I play in my covers band I will never buy, I don't like them. So, I've paid for my gear, but the fundamental element for any covers band and gets us paid, other people's songs, doesn't get compensated? Instrument, amps and songs, all tools for the job for covers band to get paid. Odd that we should resent paying the writer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteb Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 [quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1389478640' post='2334714'] So an element, the song, that is essential for the covers band, is the only element not compensated. They get the song for free. But without it they have nothing to perform. [/quote] But the writer is paid for the performance of their song, via the PRS licence - it's just the Landlord pays for it rather than the covers band (who would otherwise have to factor this cost into the fee that they would have to charge the pub) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_b Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I can guarantee that the favourite music that you lot listen to (and maybe love) wouldn't have been written, played or recorded if the songwriter and the artist couldn't make a living at their craft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I don't think anyone is suggesting artists shouldn't make a living from their craft. I think the suggestion is that they shouldn't be able to make an entire living from spending just a few hours on their craft and then sitting back for the rest of their lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) [quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1389478640' post='2334714'] So an element, the song, that is essential for the covers band, is the only element not compensated. They get the song for free. But without it they have nothing to perform. Most of the songs I play in my covers band I will never buy, I don't like them. So, I've paid for my gear, but the fundamental element for any covers band and gets us paid, other people's songs, doesn't get compensated? Instrument, amps and songs, all tools for the job for covers band to get paid. Odd that we should resent paying the writer. [/quote] But the writer has already been paid when he first sold the song. You're supporting the writer being paid everytime the song is performed - which is indeed what happens (or should). I'm just wondering about the 'natural justice' in that arrangement. Perhaps it's because this is a musican's forum that we're finding it tough to question the status quo. We're generally admiring of superstar musicians (and writers) who have managed to become millionaires without working anywhere near as hard as most people. We generally don't even denigrate them when they move abroad to their tax havens. Perhaps it's because that's the dream we're also chasing? On the other hand, big, rich fat-cat businessmen are more generally figures of scorn, creaming off their millions from the labour of the hard working men toiling in their factories and businesses. Well, guess what, those businessmen have been as creative as song writers, in their own way, by thinking up a business idea, putting it into practice and persuading loads of people to work for them. It's the inconsistencies that fascinate me. Edited January 12, 2014 by flyfisher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteb Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Perhaps there should be an hourly rate for songwriters, where they are paid for the quantity of their output rather than how good or successful their songs are?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiltyG565 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='peteb' timestamp='1389485274' post='2334788'] Perhaps there should be an hourly rate for songwriters, where they are paid for the quantity of their output rather than how good or successful their songs are?? [/quote] But how does that work? If their work isn't popular and doesn't make enough sales, where does this hourly rate come form? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_b Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389485114' post='2334784'] ....I don't think anyone is suggesting artists shouldn't make a living from their craft. I think the suggestion is that they shouldn't be able to make an entire living from spending just a few hours on their craft and then sitting back for the rest of their lives.... [/quote] And who writes those rules? Whose opinion counts so highly they can dictate that to someone else? Whose business is it how long it takes to write a song, book etc, and what the person should get paid? If enough people want to hear a Noddy Holder song so that it gets played thousands of times every Christmas then why should it be anyone else's business what he's getting paid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteb Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) I was being facetious – did I really need to add a smiley?? Not strictly about songwriting, but still pertinent… [url="http://www.audioprointernational.com/news/read/ben-hammond-public-misconception-of-the-music-industry/06700"]http://www.audioproi...-industry/06700[/url] Edited January 12, 2014 by peteb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiltyG565 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='peteb' timestamp='1389486458' post='2334797'] I was being facetious – did I really need to add a smiley?? Not strictly about songwriting, but still pertinent… [url="http://www.audioprointernational.com/news/read/ben-hammond-public-misconception-of-the-music-industry/06700"]http://www.audioproi...-industry/06700[/url] [/quote] Oh... Turns out yes... yes you did need a smiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389485223' post='2334785'] But the writer has already been paid when he first sold the song. You're supporting the writer being paid everytime the song is performed - which is indeed what happens (or should). I'm just wondering about the 'natural justice' in that arrangement. Perhaps it's because this is a musican's forum that we're finding it tough to question the status quo. We're generally admiring of superstar musicians (and writers) who have managed to become millionaires without working anywhere near as hard as most people. We generally don't even denigrate them when they move abroad to their tax havens. Perhaps it's because that's the dream we're also chasing? On the other hand, big, rich fat-cat businessmen are more generally figures of scorn, creaming off their millions from the labour of the hard working men toiling in their factories and businesses. Well, guess what, those businessmen have been as creative as song writers, in their own way, by thinking up a business idea, putting it into practice and persuading loads of people to work for them. It's the inconsistencies that fascinate me. [/quote] What's 'natural justice'? And why have you gone off on a tangent about business men? If radio, venues, pubs, bands or whoever are making money themselves from using someone else's work than surely that person should be compensated. Terms such as 'natural justice' give the impression that your viewpoint has a hint of envy that others make a living from music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1389486947' post='2334802'] What's 'natural justice'? And why have you gone off on a tangent about business men? [/quote] What's 'natural justice' indeed? The businessman thing was another example of how someone can make a great deal of money by leveraging the work of others - loads of people contributing some of their time and/or money towards making a few people incredibly rich. My point is that they are both examples of the same thing, yet they are generally regarded rather differently. [quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1389486947' post='2334802'] If radio, venues, pubs, bands or whoever are making money themselves from using someone else's work than surely that person should be compensated. [/quote] Yes, but we don't apply that principle universally do we - that's my point. The inconsistencies! [quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1389486947' post='2334802'] Terms such as 'natural justice' give the impression that your viewpoint has a hint of envy that others make a living from music. [/quote] Well, only as envious as anyone would be about someone who no longer needs to do another day's work in his entire life because he wrote a hit song 30 years ago. But I'm probably all bitter and twisted because I couldn't get myself retired until I was 50 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1389486140' post='2334795'] And who writes those rules? Whose opinion counts so highly they can dictate that to someone else? Whose business is it how long it takes to write a song, book etc, and what the person should get paid? If enough people want to hear a Noddy Holder song so that it gets played thousands of times every Christmas then why should it be anyone else's business what he's getting paid? [/quote] Whose business indeed? And if a businessman (or a banker, or even a successful musician) manages to get paid huge sums and legally arrange their financial affairs to minimise their taxes, then why should that be anyone else's business either? Do we really not care about consistency in these sorts of things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1389484860' post='2334782'] I can guarantee that the favourite music that you lot listen to (and maybe love) wouldn't have been written, played or recorded if the songwriter and the artist couldn't make a living at their craft. [/quote] This may enlighten some... [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Schubert"]Wikipedia: Schubert...[/url] I'm not sure how much the author(s) of this piece are rewarded each time it's read, either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='peteb' timestamp='1389485274' post='2334788'] Perhaps there should be an hourly rate for songwriters, where they are paid for the quantity of their output rather than how good or successful their songs are?? [/quote] That's how 99.99% of the population of the planet earn their living. Why are artists (musicians, poets, authors...) so different..? [quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1389485847' post='2334793'] But how does that work? If their work isn't popular and doesn't make enough sales, where does this hourly rate come form? [/quote] How does a farmer, growing inedible green-purple carrots, get to sell his wares..? Answer: he doesn't. The end product (physical or not...) has to have some interest in the eyes of others. If I write rubbish songs, I wouldn't expect to earn a living from that, and to prove [i]that [/i]point, I don't (or didn't...). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1389486140' post='2334795'] And who writes those rules? Whose opinion counts so highly they can dictate that to someone else? [/quote] Turning that around for a moment, the current rules have been written by the music industry haven't they? If their opinion counts so highly, why is it that, as soon as technology enables it, many people seem to prefer to download their music for free? Could it be there is a body of opinion out there that it's not fair for someone to write or record one song and make a small fortune from it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1389486140' post='2334795'] And who writes those rules? Whose opinion counts so highly they can dictate that to someone else? Whose business is it how long it takes to write a song, book etc, and what the person should get paid? If enough people want to hear a Noddy Holder song so that it gets played thousands of times every Christmas then why should it be anyone else's business what he's getting paid? [/quote] This is a 'virtual' discussion on a bass forum. No-one (I hope..!) is getting whipped or scalded. These are opinions and sentiments, not a judicial inquiry. Whose 'rules' are these..? For a great part, these are mine. Whose business is it..? Anyone's who wishes to join the debate. Remember, this is virtual. No tears are shed. Why should it be anyone's business..? Imo, because that's what healthy debates are about. For the record, I've quoted no names here, and make no case for any individual, merely a general 'way things should work, imo'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389488657' post='2334824'] That's how 99.99% of the population of the planet earn their living. Why are artists (musicians, poets, authors...) so different..? How does a farmer, growing inedible green-purple carrots, get to sell his wares..? Answer: he doesn't. The end product (physical or not...) has to have some interest in the eyes of others. If I write rubbish songs, I wouldn't expect to earn a living from that, and to prove [i]that [/i]point, I don't (or didn't...). [/quote] Farmers get paid for simply having land. It's nationalised industry where the capital is in private hands. Furthermore, farmers who have in a lot of cases inherited their farms can now earn 10's of thousands by leasing the land to renewable energy companies. Money for no effort at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1389486947' post='2334802']...If radio, venues, pubs, bands or whoever are making money themselves from using someone else's work than surely that person should be compensated...[/quote] Quite so, in proportion to the work involved. The writer should get paid for his/her work. Once that work has been paid for, the fact that others are gaining from it should not be a factor. A taxi driver gets a neurosurgeon in time at an operation. He gets his fare. He then takes a lady shopper to her domicile, with her parcels. He gets his fare. He then takes a businessman to his plane, in time to clinch a huge financial deal. He gets his fare. What difference does it make whether someone else is using what the writer has already been recompensed for. Is the writer jealous of others folks good fortune..? Surely not..! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1389489319' post='2334829'] Farmers get paid for simply having land. It's nationalised industry where the capital is in private hands. Furthermore, farmers who have in a lot of cases inherited their farms can now earn 10's of thousands by leasing the land to renewable energy companies. Money for no effort at all. [/quote] A very good point, and for which I'm sure most here will anticipate my point of view on the subject. No, I don't adhere to inheritance, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.