Record Industry Braces for Artists’ Battles Over Song Rights

[chas smith R.I.P.]

A New York Times article on the legal battles yet to come:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/arts/ ... ted=1&_r=1

[Joachim Kettner]

I've always thought that artists received a certain percentage of money for each record that was sold, including royalties for the writers and the amount of airplay their songs get. What will be different in 2013?

[chas smith R.I.P.]

They can receive a very small percentage of each sale, after the label recoups expenses, which means that unless they're a star, they can forget about it. The best they can hope for is, if there is any money left over from the advance the label gave them to make the record. And if the label insisted on them picking the producer, and the producer insisted on having bagels flown in from New York...well you can imagine how much will be left.

The real issue is who owns the publishing and the mechanicals. Those are the people who can get the royalties and the licensing fees.

"Songwriters, who in the past typically have had to share their rights with publishing companies, some of which are owned by or affiliated with record labels, have been more outspoken on the issue. As small independent operators to whom the work for hire argument is hard to apply, the balance of power seems to have tilted in their favor, especially if they are authors of songs that still have licensing potential for use on film and television soundtracks, as ringtones, or in commercials and video games. "

My music is on the Cold Blue Music label and the deal was, I pay for everything to make the record and in return I get to keep the publishing and the mechanicals. If I license anything to be used on say, a film trailer, I give the label 20%. This is unheard of. The label sells the records and the downloads and I get a percentage of that also.

[Clete Ritta]

Very interesting article. Can you say "starving artist"? Unfortunately, many artists are not savvy business people, and relinquished their publishing and master rights to the big companies. Ray Charles was perhaps one of the first recording artists to demand ownership of the masters. In todays world, record companies are finally beginning to see the end of their reign over artists.

Personally, Id like to see an end to record companies entirely. They are heading towards obsolescence in this modern age of do-it-yourself artists who now have the ways and means to create, promote and earn what is essentially theirs alone. Worldwide distribution is a mouse-click on iTunes away. Musicians most likely will earn more from performances and sales of merchandise online and at shows than from CDs in WalMart in the future, if they arent already.

History has a long list of artists who were taken for the proverbial "ride" by those who cared less about art and music and were more about filling their pockets with cash that they really didnt deserve or earn, while the creators struggled to find ways to survive on what little royalties are sent them after payback. Too many lawyers!

Sadly, the pop industry is still sated with a lot of second rate talent who are content to buy their way into a career, while selling a piece of their soul along the way. Payola has merely found a loophole in the legal system in order to exist. The paradigm has shifted on the record industry, the devils dues have been payed many times over, and now its payback time.

Clete

[Chris LeDrew]

No one forces an artist into the business at gunpoint. As a songwriter myself, I hate it when we are somehow depicted as victims of the evils of the music business. It's up to us to be educated on the perils. If not, it's simply our fault for signing shady contracts and all that.

All the contracts these artists signed years ago are going to prove tangly in a court of law. The record companies won't take this lying down, and in some ways you can't blame them. Once you sign on the dotted line, you are bound by the rules of that contract. Artists like Don Henley.....how could he possibly want or need even MORE money? Their deals were lucrative on all ends. The record labels provided The Eagles and many more like them with the cash to cut these records. Without them in the beginning, these artists would not have been anywhere.

My contention is that a court of law funnel the royalties into money for sidemen.....the ones who contributed so much to many of these these hits but only got their relatively meagre studio fee. However, I know this won't happen. Regardless of the neighbouring rights breakthrough of recent years, too many legendary sidemen are still struggling despite their contributions to popular music. Talk about greed.....million-selling songwriters covet their own share.

[Earnest Bovine]

The star system is alive and well. It is not clear why the singer (for some reason called "artist") should get ownership of masters that were paid for by the record company. The singer's contribution is often much smaller than the efforts of the many highly skilled people without whom the recording could not exist. The record company was willing to gamble a substantial sum on the chance that this singer will be the one in a thousand whose records will sell enough to cover the recording costs. The singer has received substantial benefit from personal appearances that would never have been possible without record company money and promotion having created the illusion that the singer looks good and can actually sing.

[Bill Hatcher]

cant agree EB.

most of these contracts are so awful and lopsided in favor of the record companies. without the "artists" whatever that is...they would have nothing. you cant really say that the split has been even close to equitable. the big companies leaned pretty heavy on the artist. i personally am glad they are getting taken down.

[Chris LeDrew]

Yes, Bill, but who forced the artists to sign? Of course the contracts are lop-sided in the companies' favour. They are the ones putting up the money. Sometimes an artist (and I am one) doesn't have enough control over their own ego to be sensible about signing contracts in the beginning. All they want is the fame and adulation, at best maybe to make a living at their music and not have to work a day job like the rest of the world. This is a perfect opportunity for the business side of music to swoop in. It's up to the individual to act in his/her own best interest when it comes to signing on the dotted line. It's like saying that a bank is ripping you off with high interest fees. No one is forcing you to take on the loan (even though you probably desperately need the money, but that's another issue). Unfortunately, however, the artist is usually in financial straits at the start of a career and needs the company's support. This comes at a price, and it's paid in royalties.

[David Mason]

People used to "sing for their supper" - literally. Money arose as a system of trading commodities of differing worth, so that that you could get what you needed, using one skill to obtain an entirely different thing. And ever since, there have been people making money by handling money. Britney Spears, Chritine Aguilara and Justin Timberlake all arose out of a "star factory" down in Orlando, where managers - full-time professionals - are combing through the detrius of the Mickey Mouse/Disney World empire, money guys willing to support overage Mice in the hopes of the next teen star... and you have to bet they're gonna want a piece of the take. The world is not an inherently kind or fair place.

I would guess, and it's not at all unfounded, that there are some financial forces opposing the "democracy" of the internet. At some point, people (& governments) with a whole lot of money always wonder how to tax or tap the money that goes by unattached - they see it as a "revenue stream" that they somehow naturally deserve a piece of. How soon before we see a Myspace and YouTube tax?

[Clete Ritta]

...How soon before we see a Myspace and YouTube tax?

Theyre pretty clever by taxing our time and hearing. Ever notice how when we ordinary folk post on YouTube, the video plays right away, but often when viewing a famous artists music video (that cost a small fortune to make), it is usually preceded by a commercial advertisement!? Theres your revenue stream. Music video productions are often very expensive (essentially an advertisement paid for by the label to promote the artist) and, as if they arent already selling enough records to recoup the costs, they sell ad space too. Just like on MTV, the commercial volume is set to "11". Sometimes you cant skip or pause the ads like on your DVR, but at least the mute button works.

Clete

[Janice Brooks]

Watching this closely as someone who pays 200 dollars a year in my deal with Live 365.com to Sound Exchange.

[Tony Prior]

Artists like Don Henley.....how could he possibly want or need even MORE money? Their deals were lucrative on all ends. The record labels provided The Eagles and many more like them with the cash to cut these records. Without them in the beginning, these artists would not have been anywhere.

exactly... Henley bragged that the Eagles corporation had over 200 million banked/invested, this is what caused Don Felder to go to court for a bigger share of the pie...

Someone took a risk on them early on with $$$, they had no idea that 45 years later they would still be going strong.

Henley had no idea either . He had no problem letting the label invest and cut records early on did he. I imagine not !


Nobody knew the internet was going to be invented and that downloads for 99cents would replace vinyl , not even the record companies. I also suspect that if the internet was not invented and downloads did not become the game of the day, nobody would be arguing today.

[Clete Ritta]

The star system is alive and well...

The Industry as a whole has not really changed much, since talent shows like Star Search, American Idol, Earthling's Got Talent, etc., have by now conditioned our minds to think as they [the celebrity judges and execs themselves]. Everyones a critic at a talent show, whether they want to be or not. You dont have to vote, but you can send a text if you are feeling impulsive. Everyones waiting for the next chart-busting artist to win, and it has the air of a kareoke sporting event to me. It is after all a game show now isnt it? But, hey ... That's Still Entertainment! Is this off topic, or am I being too cynical? Or isnt this the way these networks have always operated? The machine continues its cycle of rinse, lather, repeat. I feel clean.

Clete

[Chris LeDrew]

Clete, you're certainly spot-on. But if the music business can be likened to a town, it has been devastated by a tornado called the internet. It still retains its values and ideals, but the infrastructure is torn to pieces.

[chas smith R.I.P.]

To add a few things. Keep in mind that the Eagles were Linda Ronstadt's back up band. They didn't just come out of nowhere.

The main problem that I see with iTunes, Pandora and Spotify is they, for the most part, are not about "new" music and artists. Spotify and Pandora are about playing stuff you already know, even though Pandora will add things that you may like. The same with iTunes.

I've stopped listening to commercial radio. I'm tired of listening to the same stuff I've been listening to for the past 50 years, but for the young listeners, who are hearing it for the first time, it's a great way to "sell" the oldies one more time. Go back about 25 years, to the introduction of cd's. The labels got to sell all of the stuff that had already paid for itself and it was like printing money, although it turned into Pandora's Box.

And lastly, I don't own a tv and I've never seen any of the Talent shows, but from a marketer's perspective, they're brilliant. A huge info-mercial where the audience selects what they want.

"When you're young, you look at television and think - There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought." - Steve Jobs

[Janice Brooks]

My station is about new acts. Also Bluegrass is having a great year and there is good new music coming from legends such as Connie Smith, Ronnie Milsap, and Charlie Pride.

[Chris LeDrew]

it's a great way to "sell" the oldies one more time.

That's because the oldies are from the golden era of 20th century music, and there will always be a demand for this music. In a hundred years, the period between 1955 and 1990 will be looked upon as a renaissance, just like the baroque period, etc. What's being created now is at best derivative of what was created during that period. Why listen to a copy of a copy of a copy? I know that's depressing for songwriters and music creators now, but it's a reality.

[chas smith R.I.P.]

Chris, no argument with that -- chas

Janice, I need to get into more internet radio. One of the problems is, a computer setup wouldn't last very long in the welding/machine shop and I haven't figured out how to make it happen there or in my truck. When I'm in my studio, I'm working on my things.

[David Mason]

In a hundred years, the period between 1955 and 1990 will be looked upon as a renaissance, just like the baroque period, etc. What's being created now is at best derivative of what was created during that period.

I think it's almost impossible to get a historic grasp of our own time. I mean, my dad grew up (and played) in an era where the big bands were the pop music, and he related everything back to that being the "golden years" stuff. And I'm a member of a huge demographic bubble of post WWII babies, who grew up at just the exact time where we had extra disposable money; and radio, TV and phonographs made it easy to spread an entire "youth culture." A bunch of other stuff - united opposition to Vietnam, drugs, the Pill - all contributed, of course.

But were Lennon and McCartney really better songwriters than Irving Berlin, Hoagy Carmichael, Rodgers and Hart, Ira and George Gershwin because they sold millions more records that were heard millions of more times? Or were the Beatles just four cute guys in the right place at the right time? One of the disappointments I have about "my" generation is the stranglehold we have put on the music business - every new artist is judged on how well they compare to "our" music, every "hot" new guitarist has to put up a YouTube version of a Hendrix tune, WE are Clear Channel... those stations would change if we didn't tune them in more that any other format. We kinda blew off the structural and political concepts of the Sixties (because they required work) and at the same time we put a deathgrip on the surface trimmings.

I read one of those ridiculous statistics recently, claiming that 94% of music listeners had their tastes entirely set by the age of 25. That level of precision is obviously suspect (even to me, a lucky 6-percenter), but we all know the guy still listening religiously to early Allman Brothers, the locked-down heavy metal kid (who's now 45 years old).... Eric Clapton is God, but Benny Goodman was the King of Swing. It's kind of hard to judge - we are going to die, you know. Will people in 2100 really be listening to Black Sabbath & the Grateful Dead? It's commonly proclaimed around here that even "real country" is already dead, that was only four to six decades ago, but any new artist still has to claim to love Hank Williams & Lynyrd Skyrnyd in their video.

[Joachim Kettner]

I'm a big fan of sixties' music especially of the style that came out of the UK. These artists benefited very much from the knowledge in production of the generation that came before them. I can imagine the guy who arranged "Matthew And Son" by Cat Stevens was not a twenty year old, as was George Martin who produced the Beatles records. Btw, the gentleman who played the picolo trumpet on Penny Lane, his name was David Mason, just died at the age of eighty five, so there were at leat two generations involved in the making of sixies music.
Jac Holzman who produced the Doors and those great Folk singers was also older, I think that was a big advantage for these young artists.

[Tony Prior]

The actually were not the Eagles with LR, they did some sessions for her and some gigs.

Richie Furay writes that Frey was hanging around the Poco rehearsals and from that Frey along with Leadon, Henley and Poco Bassist Meisner, put the Eagles together.

There were no Eagles before it was time, Wikipedai doesn't mention Linda R with regard to the Eagles... I think they did come out of nowhere...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagles_%28band%29

[Tony Prior]

regardless, all this hype about cash... the internet changed the way record companies do business, good for them, probably not good for artist, no more LP's no more CD's no more liner notes, packaging, distribution costs..all thats changed... All you need now is an internet connection and a PAYPAL account to buy a CD !

[Chris LeDrew]

Henley and Frey were hired by Linda and shared a hotel room on out-of-town dates. Something like a week into playing with Linda they started piecing together what soon became the Eagles. It doesn't seems as if their time with Linda was pivotal regarding the Eagles.

[chas smith R.I.P.]

But were Lennon and McCartney really better songwriters than Irving Berlin, Hoagy Carmichael, Rodgers and Hart, Ira and George Gershwin because they sold millions more records that were heard millions of more times? Or were the Beatles just four cute guys in the right place at the right time?

I think there's a valid argument that they were "Tin Pan Alley" with a rock beat because of their chords and melodies. Lennon and Harrison, who were rockers, would privately complain about what they had gotten themselves into.

I read one of those ridiculous statistics recently, claiming that 94% of music listeners had their tastes entirely set by the age of 25. That level of precision is obviously suspect (even to me, a lucky 6-percenter),

Given that pop music and pop culture is about identity, if you've established your identity by the age of 25, it stands to reason that the music you relate to would go along with that. From a personal perspective, I tend to still think I'm 25, until trying to work the long hours reminds me that I'm not.

As a "6-percenter", I tend to look at music as the big playground and the bigger it is, the more fun and the more satisfying it is. I had a session last week, for a well known producer, where it was, keys, a percussionist/drummer, him sometimes on guitars and me on various steel guitars, including bass steel guitar and "complicated sound makers". Each take was different and I had no idea of what was coming up next. And that's why I think it's important to "keep your ears open". A little bit of topic drift...

[Tony Prior]

Uhmm, The Beatles and song writing...well if they were just 4 cute guys they sure wrote a lot of songs that are being covered, recorded and played 50 years after the fact !

Some folks would love to have written just ONE song that lasted over 50 years !

I submit that John and Paul, although in the right era at the right time, were brilliant writers and even better, they were brilliant singers ! They wrote songs that fit what THEY were wanting to sing and play and look what happened ! Then after that we all needed bigger amps and stopped getting crew cuts.