Some Thoughts on the Music Biz By Joan May [For recent revisions, search the word...."update"]

[Though I've never used online file sharing], I received an email awhile ago that said: << While major recording companies are in court trying to stop Napster, a growing number of well-known recording artists are voicing support for Napster and person-to-person non-commercial file sharing over the Internet. http://web.archive.org/web/20010202151300/www.napster.com/speakout/artists.html <<<< I'm glad this is happening because these artists' statements are beginning to expose the Music Industry's dirty little secret: that when we consumers plunk down our money for a CD, the artist often gets none of the money, or very little, due to all the Legalized Racketeering that comprises the music business today: the extortion of publishing and performance royalties from artists via usurious management and recording contracts, the so-called "Music Publishing" business which in essense is nothing but a Protection Racket that should be abolished, and various "creative accounting" practices of the labels. Not only were the artists naive in signing such agreements (which never should have been legal in the first place), but consumers have also been hoodwinked into thinking we're paying an artist for his work when we're not. I think this could be grounds for a class action suit for fraud on behalf of the record buying public who can demand that our money be transferred from the suits to the artists where it belongs, where we always intended it to go. I'm sure that's why artists are supporting the online alternatives, even if they don't get paid directly -- the online services increase interest in their music and bring more fans to their shows and self-published CD's, where they do get paid, and the record execs, unscrupulous managers and music "publishers" don't receive more of their ill-gotten gains. UPDATE March 2009: Here's a recent quote from a band which liberated itself from record companies, which nicely illustrates the above point: "We've gone from selling in excess of half a million records quite routinely when I joined the band to, on this album, selling just under 50,000.  It's still in the early stages of release, but the figures are an absolute fraction of what they used to be.  Yet we're making the same, if not slightly more, money than we did back then.  We're getting an infinitely bigger cut." ---- Marillion frontman Steve Hogarth  Goldmine Magazine, 3/27/09 {end revsion} UPDATE September, 2009 RE: Musicians hit out at piracy plans   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8247376.stm The headline would've been clearer had it read: "Musicians hit out at GOVERNMENT ANTI-Piracy Plans" I think the best way to handle this is a surcharge on every computer at the point of purchase, which would be doled out to the content-holders using a type of formula analogous to that currently in use for paying royalties for performance of songs in clubs - though I can't imagine what kind of math That involves! I assume this would be easier in an online environment where dowloads can be more efficiently monitored than songs performed in clubs.   I'm not proposing a tax on computer sales, as that would entail collection and enforcement by the government, not a good idea, IMHO, but rather a voluntary agreement amongst computer manufacturers, royalties collection agencies (I hope they're private sector) and other stake holders. Of course such a surcharge could have some of the negative side effects of taxation, i.e. if the charge is too high, it could depress sales. I'd hope the charge wouldn't be that prohibitive if everyone buying the computers shared in the cost. And if it's a voluntary program, then it could be discontinued if it harmed the computer industry, and some other business model could be tried.   I'd prefer this to a subscription system, as I'd resent being asked to buy a subscription to download some theoretical songs I Might want in the future (I don't download content illegally anyway), and I'd refuse to buy such a subscription. Those who do download illegally would likely just say "F You" to such requests as well. I'd much prefer to have everyone pay more for the machines on the assumption that unauthorized downloading is ubiquitous and, as the article describes, often benefits musicians as well as their potential customers.   One incentive for the computer industry to adopt such a surcharge is to avoid future litigation naming them as accessories to and enablers of illegal downloading, by manufacturing a machine which makes such downloading so easy it almost Dares the user not to do it. That the industry is aware of this problem is apparent from their attempts at software solutions such as DRM but those turned out to be counterproductive, as they interfered with music that was legally downloaded. {end revision} The Grateful Dead (I'm not a fan but love the wonderful irony of their story) became one of the richest touring bands in the world via something analogous to online file sharing, i.e. encouraging and even assisting their fans in recording and sharing all the concerts, bringing millions of new fans to the gigs. If they'd been uptight about 'protecting' their music they'd never have been anywhere near that successful on the strength of their studio albums alone.. Younger groups like Phish report similar largesse via enabling fan taping of their gigs. It's obvious to me that the record industry's objections to online distribution are not about protecting artists, because if the companies really cared about that they wouldn't be exploiting these artists mercilessly in every way they can. I don't think there's any proof that artists lose money due to online file sharing. Artists are being manipulated into believing this by record execs and other parasites who are the true thieves and who rightly see the online community as a direct threat to their continued wealth. I believe that artists gain much more from online sharing than they could possibly lose, via the publicity and exposure these services provide. [Probably the main reason the music industry is losing sales, aside from crappy product, is the current depressed economy.  During the first few years of Napster's existence, CD sales actually increased. In a news article (New York, AP, 7/24/03), Simon & Schuster announced they were laying off staff, stating that ".. Our industry continues to be challenged by any number of issues including the most prolonged period of depressed sales in memory..." And nobody is claiming that's because people are downloading books off the internet.] [[Update]] Other possible reasons for decreased record sales are outlined in this 3/04 article about the only well designed study on the subject: http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1486060/03302004/id_0.jhtml ..... such as the observation that sales in the 1990's were most likely inflated due to so many consumers replacing their LP collections with CD's, a process that's largely over now. [[end of revision]]   ****************** From Procol@progrock.org, the Procol Harum Email List [edited]: .....I think that record companies, with all their shenanigans, aren't even the worst culprits -- at least they perform a service. Bigger parasites are the so-called "Music Publishers" -- a totally archaic profession that had meaning back in the days prior to recording technology when the only way to own a piece of music was to buy it on the printed page, take it home and play it yourself (there's something to be said for this method but that's another story), or in the early years of recording, when pop songs weren't written by band members, but rather by songwriters employed by the publishers. Now publishers have little to do except siphon royalties away from the composers. And then there's the legal structure that's tantamount to giving rock band managers a license to steal from the musicians while taking no financial risks themselves. I read in the book Music Law, by Richard Stim that Elvis demanded and got a songwriting credit for some of the tunes he recorded, as extortion for agreeing to record the songs. This is another grave injustice -- songwriting credits being bought and sold, treated as a commodity, with no relation to the reality of whether the person had any composing contribution whatsoever. This is just plain fraud, but musicians are held in such low esteem by the laws governing them that no one cares and the practice is allowed to go on unimpeded. This topic and other egregious injustices of the music biz were covered quite well by an episode of The Sopranos last season -- highly recommended to anyone interested in this topic.   ******** From Jefferson Airplane message board on AOL: [somewhat edited] ......I'm certainly not anti all managers -- some excellent ones: Peter Grant, Bill Graham, [Derek Sutton (Robin Trower's manager)], and Tom Petty's manager whose name escapes me [It's Tony Dimitriades]. My point isn't that all managers are thieves, but rather that the law allows -- encourages -- managers to steal from bands and it's Perfectly Legal! In reading about various bands and watching VH1's Behind the Music series - in case after case it's the same kind of thing: a contract with a manager is breached, usually the band fires the manager for being incompetent, a thief, or both - and the manager then proceeds to sue, or just threatens to do so, and walks away with all the musicians' earnings, everything they own or will own, all their royalties in perpetuity, etc... If this isn't cruel and unusual punishment I don't know what is -- and that's supposed to be unconstitutional (4th amendment).   I don't know how these management contracts can be legal -- they seem like legalized Slavery to me!!. I know the musicians shouldn't sign such things but they often don't know they're signing their lives away, I'm sure. I can't believe any contract could spell out that a manager can't be fired for incompetence.. it must be in Latin or something,   or not there at all and interpreted that way after the fact by the courts. Even if a band fires a manager against the terms of a contract, why shouldn't their "punishment" be simply to re-hire the manager for the duration of the contract, or pay him a few thousand bucks for pain and suffering?   And why should there be any kind of contractual arrangement between band and manager in the first place?   Why not an employer/employee relationship wherein the band can hire and fire managers as it sees fit, for whatever reasons? I don't think it should be necessary to hire a lawyer or anyone else to keep from being robbed via a contract. A legal system that requires such a thing is based on racketeering -- it's the old Protection Racket, pure and simple.   One shouldn't have to hire anyone to assure that their basic human rights aren't being violated by a contract -- such rights-violating contracts should be illegal from the outset (I'm particularly thinking of the right to be free from involuntary servitude -- i.e. a band shouldn't be forced to associate with a manager for one minute more than they choose to - and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment -- those horrendous out-of-proportion court settlements that allow managers to take everything a band owns because the band fired them at the wrong time or something)... Rock musicians are especially easy marks for being exploited by our current system of contract law, because of their image (sometimes deserved) as befuddled gullible artistes, and/or stoners, etc ..attracting sharks and con artists like magnets, and the current legal system favors such sharks over the musicians. I'm convinced the law involving rock musicians is corrupt to the core -- unfairly favoring the business types over the artists -- and is badly in need of reform. But back to the Airplane -- I still wonder why they lost all their royalties for 21 years in a dispute with a manager, and which manager that was.. I can't imagine it being Bill Graham! Best, Joan http://community-2.webtv.net/jem33/bg/index.html [It was Matthew Katz] Subject: Re: Airplane's Managers? Date: Sat, 31 July 1999 10:54 PM EDT ......I didn't mean the 'stoner' thing [typical rock band reputation] as an excuse... rather a reason that Rock musicians attract more than their fair share of parasites, thieves and con artists. I bet that none of those management contracts that got The Airplane and so many others into so much trouble had any language, technical or not, spelling out what could happen to them if they breached the contract .. e.g. I can't imagine a contract saying "If you fire the manager a couple of weeks sooner than is allowed by this contract, the manager has the right to sue you and take everything you have"--- I think those things happened to bands because of the court system and the way they handle breaches of contracts. I bet the bands were never informed of this by the contracts themselves. ........A management contract does nothing to protect a band -- no matter what its language - because the deck is stacked against the band from the outset. The band comes into the agreement with the potential to earn millions of dollars with its music (and that's the only scenario I'm talking about -- when a band hits it big -- that's when all the exploitation happens), while the manager has nothing of material value coming into the agreement. It's not like a contract with a record company where both parties have great assets and take equal risks (the record company taking the first risk, as it should). So if the manager screws up the contract he has nothing to lose --- and the band has nothing to gain -- the best they could do is to get the manager thrown in jail for theft, and that doesn't get them their money back, so it's rarely if ever done. This is why I think the band/manager arrangement should be employer/employee, not contractual. ....As I understand the real world of business law, it's a dynamic, not a static system. Its purpose is to assure that people receive just compensation for their work, and when this isn't happening it's necessary to reform the system. I think accepting the status quo just because it is the status quo is against the principles of free-market economics. ......Successful musicians aren't taking corporate dollars -- they're the ones who are Creating those corporate dollars, and in so many cases they're not being paid for their work due to all these legal shenanigans. When we bought all those Airplane records, CD reissues, concert tickets, etc. I'm sure we expected a big chunk of our money to be going to the band. Now that I find out they were deprived of their royalties for 21 years and that the lawyers and probably Matthew Katz got most of the money, I think we've all been cheated, and our money used for purposes we never intended. In another sense, we've been exploiting The Airplane all these years as well, by deriving enjoyment from their music for which they weren't paid. So I feel an obligation to try and advocate for reform of the legal system that led to such injustices. Brian Wilson's successful 1993 lawsuit against a lawyer and music publisher -- correcting a conflict of interest that happened about 30 years previously -- winning Wilson about 8 million well deserved dollars-- gives me hope that more such corrections can happen, perhaps leading to legal precedents that will prevent such injustices from happening to bands in the future. [There were 2 lawsuits, the first one which Wilson won -- regarding his late unlamented incompetent abusive manager/father selling all of the Beach Boys songs for a pittance many years before, and his lawyer in that transaction also being the lawyer for the music publishing company. Wilson won a bundle --- Millions! -- due to that conflict of interest -- and THEN Mike Love saw the opportunity to sue Wilson over songwriters' credits, and he also won his suit (in 1994), so then much of Wilson's winnings went to Love.. I think Both lawsuits were justified and am very happy at the results! ...There's a very similar situation in Procol Harum that I think could come out the same way but I digress.... I also hope The Airplane can recoup some of its losses in similar fashion someday.]

From Usenet: Subject: Re: The Story of Grand Funk Railroad Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1960s Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 11:16:31 -0700 (PDT) ...Terry Knight may have gotten them their start but we mustn't forget that it's the musicians who are drawing the crowds and record buyers, not the manager. I'm not a fan of this band but was horrified when I saw on VH1/Behind the Music that Knight was stealing the band's money, and when they fired him a few months before their contract said they could he sued them for 57 million dollars and threatened to keep them from playing or recording until the suit was settled which could take years, so they settled out of court and Knight took everything the band had -- their royalties, just about all their money -- they had to start all over again, losing all they had earned to Knight. I'm sure the fans who spent their money on seeing and hearing the band did not intend for Knight to get their money -- they were defrauded by the legal system, as was the band. There are many similar stories about usurious management contracts that rob musicians blind and I am convinced that it's the legal system that needs reform. As it stands now, the deck is stacked against the musicians in all management contracts, if the musicians are successful and the manager is incompetent and/or a thief -- the law makes it easy for the manager to rob the musicians - one of the many types of legalized theft in the music biz. {end of post} -------- [Procol Harum also had terrible trouble with managers and the kinds of typical usurious contracts that still victimize so many musicians..I don't know Why this situation wasn't described in Claes Johansen's recent book about the band; it certainly contributed to the disintegration of the original (best) lineup. Keith Reid acted as the business person within the group, and they made a big mistake allowing him to do this, because as a businessman he's a great poet. In the 60's, Reid apparently fired a manager before the contract allowed, and then agreed to a horrible out-of-court settlement, forfeiting substantial band members' artists' royalties (but not Gary's and Keith's songwriting royalties) to the manager. So not only was Matthew Fisher deprived of his composer credit and royalties for A Whiter Shade of Pale, but also artists' royalties as well, and he then forfeited all his future PH  performance royalties in 1969 when he left the band, in order to pay his share of the band's debts (which he probably had no part in causing),  thus making virtually no money from his Procol work.    Robin Trower and BJ Wilson were similarly screwed and I'm sure that's one reason Robin left the band, and BJ almost did, in 1971. Robin described this situation in the December, 1972 issue of ZigZag magazine. Why can't a ridiculous settlement such as this be overturned in court?]   UPDATE On July 30, 2009, Matthew Fisher won his Appeal in the UK House of Lords (now known as the UK Supreme Court) for future royalties as well as co-writer credit for "A Whiter Shade of Pale."     The text of the Judgment:   http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090730/fisher-1.htm   .. and two of the many press articles about the case.   http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/30/procol.harum.royalties/   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/5941449/Procul-Harum-organist-Matthew-Fisher-wins-share-of-A-Whiter-Shade-of-Pale-royalties.html#    {end revision} ----------- Subject: Re: crediting - breach of contract - Help? Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.songwriting Date: 20 Mar 2000 20:25:20 GMT ....The organ melody of "A Whiter Shade of Pale" wasn't taken directly off a Bach piece -- it was influenced by 2 Bach pieces but sounds like neither of them, nor any other melody line in Bach. It's an original melody by organist Matthew Fisher of Procol Harum. [I think there's a chance that Gary Brooker and Keith Reid could benefit financially if Matthew Fisher's name were added to the credits of "A Whiter Shade of Pale," as that may nullify the original publishing contract that Brooker and Reid signed, which I hear is not as lucrative as it should be even though they're both quite wealthy from the song's proceeds. I read about the Electric Flag, and how Buddy Miles was under-age when he signed some initial contracts with the band and when this came to light a few years later it resulted in the voiding of their original contracts, to the benefit of the entire band. It would be wonderful if something similar could happen for Gary, Keith and Matthew. ] For more info on this song: http://www.procolharum.com/awsop.htm As to the general discussion, those who've dogmatically said that a song's credits just consist of the vocal melody and lyrics are incorrect. In lawyer/musician Richard Stim's excellent book "Music Law," he explains that the traditional method of determining credit was the chord progression, words and vocal melody -- BUT that there are many exceptions. The law is flexible and each song is considered on its own merits. Major exceptions include an instrumental part or even a riff that is an indispensible element of the song, often determined by its use in cover versions. He also stated in an article in Musician magazine ("Rasslin' for Royalties," 2/99) that anyone whose contribution is written on the sheet music of the song is a co-writer. His book cites cases where a person's name can be added to a song's credits for reasons other than having had any part in writing the song (someone here mentioned John Lennon's name being on "Yesterday," for example). Actually I think this is one of the many instances where the law is disrespectful of musicians and needs reform -- I don't think such fraud as that should be tolerated. But there are many examples of the law treating musicians with disrespect -- often giving the business types the edge over the creators, making it easy for musicians to be ripped off by managers, etc.. and I think much reform is needed. But back to the topic of credits -- I suggest going to amazon.com and ordering Stim's book. He also gives his email address there, or last [I] Iooked it was there -- so maybe he'd be amenable to questions. I've wanted to write him for some time about all the reforms I think are needed in music law.

Group: alt.gossip.celebrities Subject: Re: Hey, Yoko -- leave Paul alone, dammit. [I didn't come up with this subject title] Date: Thu, Dec 19, 2002, 12:36pm .....Paul [McCartney] said in a PBS interview that after Michael Jackson bought his Beatles publishing out from under him, he (Paul) got some legal advice to the effect that 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and went into "music publishing" himself.   Of course, (in my opinion), the "music publishing" business is an archaic racket that should be abolished, its assets liquidated and transferred to the composers where they belong. Group:    alt.gossip.celebrities Subject:    Re: Hey, Yoko -- leave Paul alone, dammit. Date:    Fri, Dec 20, 2002, 10:09am ......On the contrary, Paul would probably be even wealthier than he is now if all the royalties currently paid to "music publishers" were instead paid to the composers [despite his losing his "publishing" income from others' songs]. Paul wrote or co-wrote some of the most lucrative songs on the planet. On a related subject, he'd be wealthier still if some judge had the good sense to rule that an 'agreement' whether written or oral, formal or informal, that falsified song credits, deceiving the public and paying songwriting royalties to people for songs they didn't write, was not lawful, and declare that ubiquitous "Lennon-McCartney" fiction null and void. The order of the names on songs both men wrote is unimportant. What's crucial are the songs that were written by just Lennon or just McCartney (most prominently "Yesterday,") -- those credits should be corrected and royalties adjusted accordingly. George Martin has said that Paul (alone) wrote more money-making Beatles songs than John (alone) did, confirming Paul's critics' opinion that Paul wrote more 'commercial' material than John, so if the credits were corrected, Yoko would probably end up owing Paul some money. Also, the performer designation on "Yesterday" should be corrected from "The Beatles" to "Paul McCartney" and that would generate more extra royalties for Paul. I think Paul cares infinitely more about the credit than the money of course.   But he, as well as John, has created a body of work that is extremely valuable to millions of people, and so no matter how rich he is, he's earned every penny. But it would be more ethical if all the money he earned came from his songs, not by "music publishing" the songs of other composers. Subject: Re: Heather caused Paul/Yoko fight? Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebrities Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 11:50:18 -0800 (PST) [response to article quoted from] "NATIONAL ENQUIRER.... " If this story is true....,   "PAUL McCARTNEY'S wife Heather is to blame for a public feud between the former Beatle and John Lennon's widow Yoko Ono..." ..then good for Heather!  Like Linda McCartney (RIP) she's willing to fight for her man's rights. "...Insiders say Heather wanted Paul to get more recognition for Beatles songs he wrote by himself. So she pushed him to ignore a 40-year tradition that put John's name first on credits for Beatles songs, no matter who did more work or even if one of them wrote the song alone...." So what's wrong with that?  There's nothing sacred about tradition. The above quote is like complainng about the Civil War ending a hundreds-of-years tradition of slavery. "...The result: the credits for 19 classic Beatles hits on Paul's new album "Back In The U.S. Live 2002" read, "By Paul McCartney and John Lennon." The flip-flop has Yoko upset, and Paul firing back: "There is no need for anybody to get their knickers in a twist." Said a music industry insider: "Heather's a strong-willed woman and she's told Paul he should fight for his place in pop history. She's got Paul so wound up about this, he comes off looking like a prima donna." Beatles biographer Philip Norman, said 60-year-old Paul is acting "like a spoiled diva who's trying to rewrite the past," ..." A past of lying to the public about song credits and paying songwriting royalties to John and Paul for songs they didn't compose should be rewritten, i.e. the false information of the past needs to be corrected. ...John Lennon, from 1980 Playboy interview published in book form as "All We Are Saying"): "out of guilt, we always had that thing that our names would go on songs even if we didn't write them. It was never a legal deal between Paul and me, just an agreement when we were fifteen or sixteen..  I'd put his name on "Give Peace a Chance" though he had nothing to do with it...lt was a silly thing to do actually.  It should have been Lennon-Ono." The above credit has since been corrected, i.e. Paul's name removed.  A good start, but the work is far from finished. UPDATE 1/21/09 One thing I find disturbing in discussions about copyright reform, such as this excellent one here:   http://www.reason.com/news/show/29299.html >> Free Culture vs. Big Media Lawrence Lessig leads the charge to retake the public domain. David Post | November 2004 Print Edition  >> .. is that the copyright holder in these arguments is always assumed to be the creator (or the creator's heirs). In the rock biz, this is often not the case: the copyright is owned by some business type who has bought/stolen/extorted the copyright away from the creator in a long term contract the creator can't break.   IMHO, if there's going to be a tightening of copyright enforcement, then there should also be some New Rules (as Bill Maher might say), regarding copyright ownership of works of art, i.e. that no one but the creator and the creator's heirs should be allowed to own the copyright for the long term. If the creator wishes to "lease" the work out, to acquire needed cash, this should be time limited, after which the creator would have the option to re-acquire the copyright. This would end the travesties all around us, such as the A Whiter Shade of Pale publishing situation, which the two (of three) creators are not permitted to terminate, and Paul McCartney's ongoing anguish [see Link below] regarding the false crediting and/or non-ownership of his Beatles works, especially "Yesterday." {end revision}

From Al Kooper fan folder on AOL: Subject: Re: Accounting Date: 7/26/03 3:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Jem33 >[someone else wrote]: >Recording contracts by the 5 majors are such rip offs...charging the artist for everything,then having the label..not the >artist..own the masters .... thats like paying off >the bank on your house payments...and having >the bank ... STILL own the house.... [or, as Prince has said: 'If you don't own the masters, then the Masters own you.' -- jm] Damn Right.  I read a clever post in a newsgroup that described record companies as glorified LOAN SHARKS and that's pretty accurate, based on all I've read and heard..... [I saw on the TV show Celebrity Justice that] there's a current court case being brought by artists -- one or more of The Eagles, among others -- demanding that record labels pay them what they're owed -- that they can't get a decent accounting of the profits earned by their CDs.  And we all know it's a common practice of record companies to cook the books and hide profits to avoid paying royalties, or just not pay them at all.  This is  how Allen Klein got started as a successful manager -- by examining record companies' books (he started as an accountant)  and threatening to have them prosecuted if they didn't pay the artists what was owed, and then going to the artists promising to get them their money from the labels if they'd hire him as their manager. [from the Paul McCartney authorized biography "Many Years from Now"]. UPDATE July 2009 See Here for a press report of Klein's death: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090704/en_nm/us_klein_1  { [[update]]}: That non-payment of royalties is still a pervasive problem is apparent from the recent (5/04) settlement by the major record labels [Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group, Sony Corp.'s Sony Music, EMI Group Plc Bertelsmann AG's BMG Group and Warner Music Group] to return $50 million in unpaid royalties to numerous artists, from the most famous to the obscure. As with Allen Klein, these companies only had to be asked in the right way (this time by NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and music industry attorney Bob Donnelly) to cough up the money and they willingly complied, admitting no deliberate wrongdoing. Hopefully this case will result in reforms in music industry accounting practices so all these companies don't continue accidentally making this same mistake. See here for more informaton on this groundbreaking case: http://web.archive.org/web/20040520233102/http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Music/05/04/media.royalties.reut/ [[end of revision]]} I heard a comment from a rep of RIAA saying that artists shouldn't complain about bad record deals because they hire high powered entertainment lawyers to make these contracts and they should blame the lawyers, not the companies -- an argument which has some merit -- lawyers can be crooks too.   I think a lot of this cheating of artists out of royalties could be avoided by demanding that the artists earn a percent of the gross sales receipts rather than of profits. Nowadays via SoundScan, the grosses can't be falsified or hidden,  as they're public knowledge...

A few words about producers From the Procol Harum Email List: procol@progrock.org Date:   00-04-16 13:32:18 EDT [edited] ...... And to have been a producer of bands like Mountain, Nugent, Frampton -- what does this actually mean? Those bands need no musical input from a producer - just a competent sound engineer who sets them up in a good acoustical environment and tells them when to start playing, and stays out of their way, musically. I don't want to get off on a rant here about most Rock producers, but suffice it to say that I think a band that sounds great Live needs no (outside) producer and shouldn't hire one -- the producer just siphons off money from the musicians for doing nothing of any musical value, and the band runs the risk of the producer inserting himself into the music and mucking it up. This situation is beautifully dramatized by Lou Reed's character as a meddlesome producer in Paul Simon's film "One Trick Pony." Date:   00-10-21 14:13:28 EDT ......And wouldn't it have been even nicer if Procol never had any producers at all, but rather the best sound engineers it could find, and the most acoustics-friendly places to play and record all their material LIVE?   Chris MItchie's descriptions of the productions of Broken Barricades and Exotic Birds And Fruit were very insightful: reading between the lines a bit, you can really see how Procol was butchered by the studio -- EBaF was supposed to be a natural sounding album but it was just concocted layer by layer anyway, each musician playing separately in the studio -- and how creative can a great band like Procol BE under such circimstances?   And BJ OVERDUBBING his drum solo (!!!)) on Power Failure -- probably because he thought he needed to make a "studio" recording and much knob turning was mandatory -- ending up with the weakest version of that solo that he ever played. Mitchie commented that BJ's Live playing was SO much better. And this doesn't just apply to BJ or that particular tune but to the entire band and all the albums.. People have commented on how much better One More Time (a Live recording) sounds than Prodigal Stranger(a studio production). Multiply that difference about a hundredfold and you have some idea of how much better the original Procol sounded Live than they did on any of their albums. That's why it's so imperative that the best Classic Live shows be released, especially for the sake of BJ's musical legacy, as he was probably the greatest victim of the studio and the producers.

So here's a summary of reforms I'd like to see: ----------- Change the method of calculating artists' royalties from percent of profits to percent of gross sales receipts. (I believe this system is in effect in some other countries). That way, record companies wouldn't be able to cheat artists of royalties by under-reporting profits, and gross sales receipts are known to the public via SoundScan and can't be falsified. Artists should be the first ones paid, because it's their work we consumers are buying. Require that all CD packages, including reissues, include information as to what proportion of the price of the CD the artist(s) will receive. Abolish the "music publishing" business, liquidating all its assets and transferring the money to the composers where it belongs. Abolish artist/manager contracts as they now exist. The manager should be an employee of the band, like the secretary or roadie, to be hired and fired as the band sees fit. Reverse all financial settlements based on exploitative artist/manager relationships and reimburse the artists for these past injustices.. Prohibit fraudulent songwriting credits and retroactively correct all the false credits that now exist, adjusting royalty payments accordingly. -------- Injustices can be prevented from happening in the future if musicians could become independent of record companies, and technology has finally developed to the extent that this is now possible. Bands are already able to build home studios and record/manufacture CD's without spending a fortune, and definitely without the help of the suits in the offices. What remains is to develop publicity and marketing strategies which are at least as effective as those of the record companies. The Internet -- specifically sites like iTunes.com -- seems the most promising place for this to be accomplished. **Update** From alterbridgeband.net message board: Alter Bridge Discussion gtrfan33 (that's me ) Posts: 19 (10/23/04 1:54 pm) Re: alter bridge dvd ---------------------------------------------- I see no harm to the band in selling an audience recording of a concert that isn't available commercially. And that's the cure for bootlegging - Release the damn stuff legitimately and the people will buy it -- hasn't iTunes taught bands and record companies that yet? You know, I've read about at least 3 rock singers (Scott Stapp [Creed], Amy Lee [Evanescence] and Myles Kennedy [Alter Bridge] ) who've played concerts while sick because of the grueling touring schedules that are demanded of them, and it made me think how unnecessary it all is (not to mention very sad and a potential unfair labor practice) when recording and playback technology has advanced to the point of reproducing concerts with audio and visual quality that equals or surpasses actually being there. I've felt for some time that bands should play a reasonable number of live shows, probably mostly close to home, when they feel well enough to do them justice and protect their health, then extract the best performances and release the results to the rest of the world on DVD. Recent reports are that DVDs -- musical and otherwise - are more popular than anyone ever dreamed and are becoming one of the most successful home consumer media in history. Several DVDs could be released every year, without the artists killing themselves touring, and if fans Really wanted to meet, greet and schmooze with the musicians let THEM (the fans) make the effort and travel to the live gigs, not vice versa. The only caveat would be for the bands to make sure they get a HUGE percentage of the gross sales receipts (not net, gross) - or maybe close to 100% if they produce the DVDs themselves. {end of revision}

My advice to record companies How can you enable rock musicians to earn what they deserve from CDs (i.e. a substantial % of gross sales receipts) and still make profits? Cut costs, that's how: Don't hire producers or studio musicians. Only record bands which already sound great Live, using competent sound engineers and acoustics-friendly, audience-free places for the bands to play. This will result in creation of superior product at minimal expense to the company. Artists, labels and consumers would all be winners in this scenario.

Relevant commentary from musicians:

Paul McCartney discusses the legalized theft of 'music publishing' and false songwriting credits, specifically "Yesterday."

Excellent July 20, 2003 article by Chicago Sun-Times Music Critic Jim DeRogatis Excerpts from "Misguided Music Executives Bite the Fans that Feed Them": "....They argue that this "thievery" deprives musicians of money that's rightfully theirs (never mind the fact that few artists ever see royalties from major-label releases). They say it drives prices up for everyone else (even though the industry itself has long raised prices over the objections of artists, retailers and consumers)..... ...By now, many Chicago music fans are familiar with the story of Wilco's "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot." When the best album of the band's career was rejected in July 2001 by its formerly "artist-friendly" label, Reprise, the group turned the situation around by letting fans hear the music for free on the Net, thereby building excitement and eventually securing a better deal with a new label. "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" went on to sell more than 365,000 copies, double the number of the group's previous release. When it was officially issued in stores last April, it debuted at No. 13 on Billboard's Top 200 albums chart--Wilco's highest position ever--with only minimal radio play and zero support from MTV or VH1...Though it garnered minimal coverage in the United States, a recent study by British researchers concluded that music fans who download songs actually buy more albums than other consumers....While it's true that album sales have been declining.....the corporations would rather target downloading than accept the blame for their own mistakes. What is really at fault here? Overpriced CDs ... The elimination of inexpensive cassette and CD singles. A lot of lousy product. And obscene amounts of marketing money spent on glossy, superficial novelty acts that hit big and then disappear, rather than the old model of investing in and nurturing artists that grow over long careers. Downloading isn't killing the music industry. The music industry is killing the music industry. And good riddance to it. The quicker the current business model dies, the sooner a new one might emerge. Hopefully it will give artists the respect they deserve, instead of treating them as willing dupes. And maybe it will even view fans as people who should be rewarded rather than being branded as criminals."

The only well designed study on file-sharing and CD sales: **Update** Excerpt from VH1.com News 03.30.2004 4:36 PM EST   "Don't Blame File-Sharing For Slumping CD Sales, Study Says   Exhaustive Harvard analysis says music industry's claims don't add up. by Joe D'Angelo While file-sharing continues to be blamed by the recording industry for slumping music sales, a new study conducted by the Harvard Business School shows that downloading has only a negligible effect on CD sales. "Downloads have an effect on  sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero," concludes the report, conducted with the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. ..... Unlike many reports that have popped up on both sides of the file-sharing debate, Harvard's study is not a survey. Surveys may inaccurately reflect real behavior, especially when they require a participant to admit to an illegal activity, such as copyright infringement. Harvard's statistical analysis is based on observing 1.75 million downloads from 160 popular albums during 17 weeks in the fall of 2002 and determining whether sales of an album decline more sharply when that album is downloaded more often. So thorough was the research that minute factors, such as network congestion, song length and international school holidays, were taken into consideration.........The report also speculates on why the recording industry is in such dire straits, citing a decreasing number of album releases, competition from other media (movies, video games), a reduction in the variety of music on the radio, and a possible consumer backlash against the RIAA's ongoing litigation campaign. A similar sales slump was recorded in the late 1970s and early 1980s, while sales figures in the 1990s may be abnormally high since many music consumers replaced their vinyl and cassette collections with CDs."