Covers bands - are they just parasites? (& how PRS works)

[Stub Mandrel]

1 minute ago, TimR said:

 

I think in this case "Pro rata" just means equal share to everyone. Not proportionally according to input. So all the money gets paid into a pot each year and every musician registered with PRS gets a %age of that pot each year. 

 

No, there are hints such as basing the playing of covers on a 'sample basis' of setlists but without clear details for how this works. The website also seems to suggest that they make small payments to buskers, however the writing is so confusing I may be wrong on that.

[jimmyb625]

3 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

 

PRS is only interested in getting venues to pay for 'TheMusicLicence' while bands and venues can submit setlists they (rarely?) request them and AFAICS the money goes into a pot which gets shared out pro rata. If you play your own music the writer (not performer) can submit a setlist to be paid a pittance...

I run an amateur theatre. We pay PRS for the licence annually and submit track lists for music we use in our performances. We also host bands (including mine) and we've been asked to submit set lists for those. Our response for band setlists is always that we do not book the bands to play, rather they hire the performance space from  us, therefore responsibility for compliance doesn't lie with us. They can get a little shirty though.

That said, the band do get royalty cheques from them on a yearly basis (not that I see any of it, as I don't write)

[BigRedX]

11 hours ago, UglyDog said:

Mybe not, but judging by this statement from earlier in the thread...

"They tend to play in the sorts of establishments I wouldn't normally frequent, that appear to be mostly filled with the sorts of people I would want to avoid"

...it appears cover band venue and audience snobbery is alive and well.

 

9 hours ago, Lozz196 said:

I’m not sure about snobbery but from my experiences in gigging primarily punk & Oi (originals) I’ve seen far more violence in “regular cover venues” than on those scenes. 

 

As the author of the first quote - taken slightly out of context - what @Lozz196 said is pretty much my experience too. I've played and attended all sorts of originals bands gigs (including lots of punk and psychobilly bands)  and violence amongst audience members is very rare. On the other hand pretty much ever single one of the covers bands gigs I've attended has had some kind of audience incident, usually caused by knobhead men who've had too much to drink.

 

If not going to sub-Weatherspoons pubs to see what looks like a random bunch of people churn out songs that I have no interest in makes me a snob, then I completely embrace it. At least there's less chance of getting beaten up, if I stick with originals bands.

[BigRedX]

8 hours ago, TimR said:

I think in this case "Pro rata" just means equal share to everyone. Not proportionally according to input. So all the money gets paid into a pot each year and every musician registered with PRS gets a %age of that pot each year. 

 

You have to have reached a certain level of PRS royalty income from your own compositions, before you are eligible. From what I recall the one time I earned enough to trigger it back in the 80s it was at least £250 per year and then you got a share based on your actual royalty income for the subsequent 2-3 years. I suspect the figure is higher now as I've managed  to exceed this a couple of times in the past 15 years but I haven't been eligible this time around.

[Leonard Smalls]

11 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

AFAICS the money goes into a pot which gets shared out pro rata

That's my understanding too...

I spoke to PRS about this a few years ago when we started playing music in our shop. I asked if I should submit our playlist to ensure that the right artists got the money, but they said it didn't work like that - basically the artists received money as a percentage of how much they'd previously made. So if I played, say Sugar Minott or the Monochrome Set, then Paul McCartney or Ed Sheeran would get the majority. Which I feel is a bit appalling!

[JapanAxe]

19 minutes ago, Leonard Smalls said:

That's my understanding too...

I spoke to PRS about this a few years ago when we started playing music in our shop. I asked if I should submit our playlist to ensure that the right artists got the money, but they said it didn't work like that - basically the artists received money as a percentage of how much they'd previously made. So if I played, say Sugar Minott or the Monochrome Set, then Paul McCartney or Ed Sheeran would get the majority. Which I feel is a bit appalling!

I was playing on a rock’n’roll gig when a guy from PRS visited. He introduced himself to the landlord and then to us. We gave him a copy of the set list and he sat and worked on his laptop and scoffed a bar meal while we played the first set. So I got the impression that people other than Ed Sheeran and Paul McCartney might  benefit from that.

[Barking Spiders]

Have to say viz pub venues etc I'd much rather see a good covers band playing material I like than some anonymous band doing their own thing. You at least get a variety of songs unlike tribute bands.  Why anybody wants to see AC/DC, Pink Floyd and Oasis tribute acts beats me. Then again, why anyone would want to see the originals also goes right over my head.

[dclaassen]

I have always played in some sort of covers band...always good fun and often also really good music being made. I notice the jazz folks are not jumping in here. Most jazz gigs are cover gigs, and they seem to do okay. I remember once when visiting in Vermont (my wife's territory) we went to an event with live music. A emo (shoegaze?) band called "And The Mountain Cried No" was up doing the most miserable, dire original music I think I've ever heard. Not for me....:) 

[BigRedX]

@Al Krow Covers bands aren't stealing anything. Once a song has been recorded and released to the public it's fair game for anyone to do their own version. Technically either the band or the venue should be submitting a set list to the PRS. While each gig doesn't generate a lot of money (£6.00 for a pub and club gig divided between all the song writers whose works were performed that night). Everything else goes into the unallocated royalty pot (see above) and given that the vast majority of covers bands play songs that are already popular, it works out pretty evenly at the end.

 

Lets also put to bed the myth that originals bands play to tiny audiences for no money. The only reason they do this is either because they have deliberately chosen to, or because they are boring (musically and or visually) on stage. In nearly 45 years of doing various originals bands gigs I think the only times we haven't been paid was a few support slots done in the early days of the band in order to get out name out. Everything else at the very least we got full expenses. Of course I have found that if you don't ask for money then you may well not get anything, but then you only have yourself to blame. This year I've done some great gigs with both my originals bands including several that were completely sold out; we've had the audience up and dancing from the first song and audience members singing along to everything except the songs that were so new we haven't recorded and released them yet. That's all for music that I have been responsible for creating.

 

Also I'm not convinced that covers bands gigs are quite as lucrative as is made out, especially when you take into account the time, effort and expenses involved, certainly my experience of doing both at the same time, was that the covers band gigs per hour and taking into account my individual expenses was less well paid than the originals band I was in at the time, but that's probably the subject for a completely separate thread.

 

 

[Earbrass]

13 hours ago, SumOne said:

Some very far left/rightwing thinkers and certain religious views might say all professional musicians are decadent parasites - suckling time and money away from productive society. 

 

Money you say?  Excellent. Tell me more about this "suckling" process.

[NancyJohnson]

I've been asked for set lists a few times - this was times where I was doing 100% original sets; it was at the same place we used to play, a council owned arts centre in Bracknell, so I suppose they're just sticklers for officialdom and form-filling.  God know what the council have done with the forms containing song titles like 'Brain Eating Zombies', 'Mailorder Girlfriend', 'Suitcase Pimp' or 'Disco Tek Dancing'.  Probably using these to try and create a profile on us.

 

Elsewhere?  Nah.

[BigRedX]

I've been supplying set lists to the PRS for the originals bands I've been in for the last 25 or so years. When I look at my PRS royalty statements it is obvious that a lot of the time the band I'm in is the only one at the gig doing this as we have the full royalty allocation for the gig despite the fact that there were 2 or 3 other bands on the same bill. The individual gig payments might not be much most of the time, but for a prolific gigging originals band they add up over the year. The Terrortones paid for the majority of our studio time from PRS royalties. Another reason why IMO being a composer/songwriter is more important than simply being a musician.

[TimR]

9 hours ago, jimmyb625 said:

I run an amateur theatre. We pay PRS for the licence annually and submit track lists for music we use in our performances. We also host bands (including mine) and we've been asked to submit set lists for those. Our response for band setlists is always that we do not book the bands to play, rather they hire the performance space from  us, therefore responsibility for compliance doesn't lie with us. They can get a little shirty though.

That said, the band do get royalty cheques from them on a yearly basis (not that I see any of it, as I don't write)

 

As someone who hires a space, PRS won't talk to us. They say tbe responsibility for the Music Licence lies with the owner of the venue. 

[meterman]

Only time I’ve been asked for set lists (plus lyrics in some cases) has been in originals bands, usually at festivals or when TV or radio stations have been present, and you’re asked like it’s a legal requirement, maybe it is I’ve no idea.
 

Never ever got asked anywhere when I was depping in a covers band, no matter what the genre was. Might be because we were rubbish though 😂

 

 

[SumOne]

10 minutes ago, Earbrass said:

 

Money you say?  Excellent. Tell me more about this "suckling" process.

😀 I meant 'sucking' but my phone seems to prefer 'suckling'..... which I suppose also works! 

 

 

[BigRedX]

2 minutes ago, meterman said:

Only time I’ve been asked for set lists (plus lyrics in some cases) has been in originals bands, usually at festivals or when TV or radio stations have been present, and you’re asked like it’s a legal requirement, maybe it is I’ve no idea.

 

Mostly it's to save the TV or radio station having to work out what the songs are for themselves if/when they broadcast the gig, as the performance royalties for this can be quite significant. The one time I earned enough in a year to receive a share of the unallocated royalty pot was down to the single broadcast of a radio session my band did. They'll ask for the lyrics to make sure they don't inadvertently broadcast anything offensive. The Terrortones fell foul of this several times where various radios stations wanted to play our recordings but had to decline once they saw what was being sung, to the point were we considered radio-friendly versions of some of the songs when we made our album.

[jimmyb625]

15 minutes ago, TimR said:

 

As someone who hires a space, PRS won't talk to us. They say tbe responsibility for the Music Licence lies with the owner of the venue. 

Maybe they just decided we weren't worth the trouble?

[BigRedX]

9 hours ago, jimmyb625 said:

I run an amateur theatre. We pay PRS for the licence annually and submit track lists for music we use in our performances. We also host bands (including mine) and we've been asked to submit set lists for those. Our response for band setlists is always that we do not book the bands to play, rather they hire the performance space from  us, therefore responsibility for compliance doesn't lie with us. They can get a little shirty though.

That said, the band do get royalty cheques from them on a yearly basis (not that I see any of it, as I don't write)

 

If they are originals bands they should really be submitting their own set lists. It is in their interest to do so, and as a writer member of the PRS I wouldn't trust anyone else to do it for me (especially a venue or promotor). That way if you don't you've only got yourself to blame for your lack of performance royalty income.

[Dad3353]

Personally, I don't believe in royalty payments and the like, as a principle. I know that the World doesn't work the way I would like, and many (most..?) don't agree with me, but, for me, folk should be paid for their Time spent doing whatever they do. Writers should be paid for the time spent writing, musicians for the time playing music, presidents for the time spent presiding and miners for the time spent mining. I don't see why the popularity of anything makes anything subject to paying for its use, any more than a chair-maker gets paid for the number of times the chair is sat upon. He/she is paid for the time spent making the chair, end of story. A writer gets paid for the time spent writing the song/book/film/whatever. No, ('successful'...) writers (nor presidents...) won't subscribe to the idea, but that's how I think the World should work. Each person's Time is their only 'real' resource whilst they're alive, and is the only 'real' value to be considered. Just sayin'. 

[Al Krow]

16 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

Personally, I don't believe in royalty payments and the like, as a principle. I know that the World doesn't work the way I would like, and many (most..?) don't agree with me, but, for me, folk should be paid for their Time spent doing whatever they do. Writers should be paid for the time spent writing, musicians for the time playing music, presidents for the time spent presiding and miners for the time spent mining. I don't see why the popularity of anything makes anything subject to paying for its use, any more than a chair-maker gets paid for the number of times the chair is sat upon. He/she is paid for the time spent making the chair, end of story. A writer gets paid for the time spent writing the song/book/film/whatever. No, ('successful'...) writers (nor presidents...) won't subscribe to the idea, but that's how I think the World should work. Each person's Time is their only 'real' resource whilst they're alive, and is the only 'real' value to be considered. Just sayin'. 

 

As you say the world doesn't work that way and while it might seem at first blush to be fairer, it wouldn't really incentivise creating stuff that other people want as opposed to what we would like to spend our time doing. So someone designing a crap <whatever> but sold once would get paid the same as someone who came up with something that others find amazing and everyone wants.

 

Having said that, when you imply that our time on this blessed rock is the most precious thing we have...well no argument from me about that whatsoever, I am also of that view; just wish I had come to that realisation much, much sooner! 

 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Al Krow

[BigRedX]

26 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

A writer gets paid for the time spent writing the song/book/film/whatever.

 

How? Who by? How do you accurately measure the time spent? Some songs take less than 5 minutes to write. Others can take years off and on and maybe hundreds of hours of actual time from the first inspiration to when it can said to be complete. Which is worth more? How do you even tell?

 

I get this quite a bit in my day job of graphic design where some of my clients will question why I have spent so long creating their logo/leaflet/pack. The actual final design may have only taken an hour of two to produce, but there could be days before hand of working through unsuccessful options to arrive at the chosen result. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by BigRedX

[TimR]

PRS seem to be more concerned with getting money from venues who have background music and are playing original recordings to the public. 

 

Shops, gyms, etc. 

 

And presumably radio stations with huge reach that they can charge more for.

 

The venue will be charged an annual fee based on type of establishment rather than for each song performed so I can't see it being cost effective for anyone to be getting setlists from bands and them retyping and submitting lists. 

[Dad3353]

23 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

How? Who by?...

 

Well, it's part of a whole philosophy which includes a Universal Wage, paid to everyone, with a fixed, universal rate per hour, worldwide. An hourly rate means that, for an eight-hour day, one would get eight hours of 'wage'. For some jobs, 'on call' hours would be paid. For some other jobs, 24/7 hours would be paid. This would ensure that no-one, no-one at all, would be paid more than the number of hours in the week. There would be a fixed 'minimum' wage for those not 'employed', paid to everyone. 'Working' would be on top of that. A diamond miner in South Africa would get the same rate as a sheep farmer in Wales and the president of France. We all, on the Planet, have the same basic needs, and I see no reason why some 'need' more than others. There's a few details to work on, but that's the general idea. Will it get voted in..? Not in France, the US of A nor the UK, I don't suppose, but might be popular in much of the World. One day, maybe... 

[SumOne]

56 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

Personally, I don't believe in royalty payments and the like, as a principle. I know that the World doesn't work the way I would like, and many (most..?) don't agree with me, but, for me, folk should be paid for their Time spent doing whatever they do. Writers should be paid for the time spent writing, musicians for the time playing music, presidents for the time spent presiding and miners for the time spent mining. I don't see why the popularity of anything makes anything subject to paying for its use, any more than a chair-maker gets paid for the number of times the chair is sat upon. He/she is paid for the time spent making the chair, end of story. A writer gets paid for the time spent writing the song/book/film/whatever. No, ('successful'...) writers (nor presidents...) won't subscribe to the idea, but that's how I think the World should work. Each person's Time is their only 'real' resource whilst they're alive, and is the only 'real' value to be considered. Just sayin'. 

I get that in principle. But it doesn't incentivise quality, or innovation, or efficiency. 

[TimR]

10 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

 

Well, it's part of a whole philosophy which includes a Universal Wage, paid to everyone, with a fixed, universal rate per hour, worldwide. An hourly rate means that, for an eight-hour day, one would get eight hours of 'wage'. For some jobs, 'on call' hours would be paid. For some other jobs, 24/7 hours would be paid. This would ensure that no-one, no-one at all, would be paid more than the number of hours in the week. There would be a fixed 'minimum' wage for those not 'employed', paid to everyone. 'Working' would be on top of that. A diamond miner in South Africa would get the same rate as a sheep farmer in Wales and the president of France. We all, on the Planet, have the same basic needs, and I see no reason why some 'need' more than others. There's a few details to work on, but that's the general idea. Will it get voted in..? Not in France, the US of A nor the UK, I don't suppose, but might be popular in much of the World. One day, maybe... 

 

So if you write a song that everyone buys, you get extra?