I was skimming over the headlines in my local paper this morning and one in particular caught my eye - Coldplay is releasing a free download of their first single off of their upcoming 4th album. You go to their website, put in your e-mail, zipcode and country, and then an e-mail will be sent to you with a link valid for 6 hours to download the single. Great, right? What a wonderful marriage of "free" music through legitimate channels. Not quite, though in theory it is great - and this is where artists like Loreena and others will have to take notice to anticipate glitches in the system.
For starters, Coldplay has quite a large following, and some reports as of yesterday in the article were that the e-mails took up to 8 hours to be delivered. I tried it today and had no delay. Then there was the second glitch (and one that I'm encountering now) where once the link was clicked, a password protected screen came up preventing me from getting the download. Well that's nice. Nowhere online have I found the requisite information necessary to download the song. If I were a Coldplay diehard, I would probably be influenced to go to the peer-to-peer networks to try and listen to this song but in this instance it doesn't matter. As a matter of fact, the journalist who wrote the article admitted that he had to listen to the song through a peer-to-peer network as Coldplay tech associates haven't acknowledged his e-mail. On the other hand, I heard Death Cab for Cutie's new single on XM and had-to-have-it-right-now and went over to iTunes and ponied up my .99 cents to have it right now. No passwords, just very straightforward. They also worked with iTunes to provide a few options. #1 being that in preordering the album, the single would become available immediately, along with a bonus extra song. Also, when the album does become available, they give you two options to buying it - a regular and deluxe edition, with the deluxe including music videos and such. Now, Coldplay's idea is a good one, but in my opinion they lost or frustrated a lot of people with this extra step of usernames/passwords that wasn't fully explained.
I know people who are howling about iTunes and how they haven't ever downloaded anything and don't wish to are probably reading this thinking, "the times, they really are a changin'", but for artists like Loreena who are looking into the trends/changes for the future, I strongly recommend what Death Cab has done, and not necessarily what Coldplay has done. I recall the frenzy of the presale information when Loreena was on tour last year and I can't imagine the frenzy that would erupt if Loreena encountered a Coldplay-esque glitch in downloading a "free" song.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: angie,
The question "should music be free?" is a hard one. There are some points that should be considerate when discussing this question:
- If music was free, then more people could have access to an artist's work and more people would go to music shows, because it would be easier for an artist do diffuse his/her work (which means more shows). This situation is very good for both artist and audience, since artists earn their money by making shows and audience would be happier with more shows and listening to its favourites artists for free.
- Another point is that, for some artists, record companies are still necessary. Imagine you are an unknown musician, new in the scene and you want to record an album with an orchestra and a choir, for example. Without record's support it would be a very hard task!
"Do you prefer to get your music online or from a music store?"
- I live in a poor country, Brazil, and here, people who want to have legal music usually prefer to buy CD's, although this is changing. I know many people that buy CD's on the Internet, but I don't know anybody who buys mp3. I think this can change, since people who buy CD's in Brazil usually have access to the Internet and so is a potential mp3 consumer. When talking about my favourite artists, I like to have them on CD. I like the booklet, the cover art, etc... I don't know how to explain that, but I feel more comfortable with CD's than with mp3. It's more traditional, I don't know...
Ok, that's all I wanted to say. Sorry for my English, but my native language is Portuguese, so, I tried to do my best!
Goodbye!
Posts: 3 | Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brazil | Registered: April 23, 2008
Originally posted by dlaws99: Sounds like you've been here before Shan-Lyn. This looks like the crux of the issue. A "venue" pays a license fee to SOCAN/ASCAP but the file sharing entity pays nothing, so it is pretty much stealing. If that file sharing entity happens to be a computer located in Kyrgyzstan, then there's not a whole lot anyone can do about it. Looks like Ian is going to jump in on this...
Dennis, FYI (For Your Interest), here are the SOCAN Tariffs for Licensing Fees. I was in the process of modifying some of my songs, so I thought I'd share the link:
Originally posted by IBlackaby: Re: PRS etc - Just thought I would pop by to say that although the rules (and systems) are often different from country to country, a fairly representative example is the PRS in the UK who demand that concert venues pay them 3% of the ticket receipts (after deducting sales tax). The venue (or promoter) is obliged to submit a form with the payment that indicates what repertoire has been played by the artists at each concert. That money (less a PRS commission) goes to those songwriters via the collection society's quarterly distributions and via the repsective publishers. It does not go to the performers. IIRC the minimum fee is £30 per event.
Hope that helps, IB
Hello again Ian,
I'd like to be able to discuss "Neighboring Rights" and Royalties with you and others later, at your time of convenience.
Btw, I am really enjoying this conversation. I'm hoping to glean as much information as I can, as I've been gathering all my songs of late, and am now working on the Performance area.
As well, I would like to harness Performers for my songs, and allocate a percentage of my Royalties to them, as I know that's my right to do as a member with SOCAN. Thank you.
Originally posted by IBlackaby: Re: PRS etc - Just thought I would pop by to say that although the rules (and systems) are often different from country to country, a fairly representative example is the PRS in the UK who demand that concert venues pay them 3% of the ticket receipts (after deducting sales tax). The venue (or promoter) is obliged to submit a form with the payment that indicates what repertoire has been played by the artists at each concert. That money (less a PRS commission) goes to those songwriters via the collection society's quarterly distributions and via the repsective publishers. It does not go to the performers. IIRC the minimum fee is £30 per event.
Hope that helps, IB
Ian, thank you. I'm glad this information is being brought forth. When I first signed with PROCan, (eventually merging in SOCAN), my works were generally being performed by other artists. I remember at the time that all royalties came to me, for the agreements were settled as such between the Performer and myself. Then for a number of years, I became absent from the scene. However, it stands to reason that when I decide to perform my works (which is what I'm presently working on), then I would not only receive royalties for being the songwriter, but would simultaneously receive monies for my performances as well. I'll try to get a hold of Carol Ryan again to bring myself up to par on these changes.
Thanks Ian...nothing like having the expert around...
quote:
Originally posted by IBlackaby: Re: PRS etc - Just thought I would pop by to say that although the rules (and systems) are often different from country to country, a fairly representative example is the PRS in the UK who demand that concert venues pay them 3% of the ticket receipts (after deducting sales tax). The venue (or promoter) is obliged to submit a form with the payment that indicates what repertoire has been played by the artists at each concert. That money (less a PRS commission) goes to those songwriters via the collection society's quarterly distributions and via the repsective publishers. It does not go to the performers. IIRC the minimum fee is £30 per event.
Hope that helps, IB
Posts: 235 | Location: Monterey CA | Registered: May 22, 2007
Sounds like you've been here before Shan-Lyn. This looks like the crux of the issue. A "venue" pays a license fee to SOCAN/ASCAP but the file sharing entity pays nothing, so it is pretty much stealing. If that file sharing entity happens to be a computer located in Kyrgyzstan, then there's not a whole lot anyone can do about it. Looks like Ian is going to jump in on this...
This message has been edited. Last edited by: dlaws99,
Posts: 235 | Location: Monterey CA | Registered: May 22, 2007
Re: PRS etc - Just thought I would pop by to say that although the rules (and systems) are often different from country to country, a fairly representative example is the PRS in the UK who demand that concert venues pay them 3% of the ticket receipts (after deducting sales tax). The venue (or promoter) is obliged to submit a form with the payment that indicates what repertoire has been played by the artists at each concert. That money (less a PRS commission) goes to those songwriters via the collection society's quarterly distributions and via the repsective publishers. It does not go to the performers. IIRC the minimum fee is £30 per event.
Originally posted by dlaws99: I know what you mean by getting warmed up. I can keep this going as well. For instance, the "follow the money" game. Per Ian Blackaby, it's the owner of the venue that must cover the royalties to ASCAP and BMI. Let's say a venue has a band who plays The Mummers' Dance and a jukebox with Mummer's Dance in it. There must be some formula ASCAP uses to charge the venue owner a standard fee (based on what?) because there's no way anyone can know if the record gets played or the band plays the tune. They obviously can't charge per play (what, 50 cents per?). After that, where does the money go? Does it get back to Loreena as a royalty check? Does it go to support the Old Songwriters Home in Vero Beach, Florida? By the way, Suzanne is a great tune. It's been covered a lot. I first heard it on a very obscure record by an American band called "Genesis" (not the Phil Collins version) that came out the same time 3 Dog Night's 1st record. The record was called "In the Beginning". I can't find any reference to it on the Internet so far. --Dennis--
He is right. The venue owners have to pay for a 'licensing fee' if they want their customers to enjoy the artist playing. For eg., when Loreena played at 'Place des Arts', this venue has to pay for a 'licensing fee' for every performer that entertains there. I have no idea as to the am't of this licensing fee. ASCAP/BMI-PROCan (all under the heading of SOCAN now, a Canadian copyright collective), then collects these licensing fees in order to be able to distribute royalties. They function internationally.
I don't know the exact criteria or guideline that SOCAN uses to charge a certain venue a certain amount for the licensing fee, but ....wait....let me look something up.
Alright back, and here's the skinny in a nutshell....according to SOCAN's policies. It's very informative, I might add.
Originally posted by angie: Shan-Lyn and Dennis, I think mixing artists' music goes back to the whole thing of "mash-ups" that another poster brought up. As far as appropriation goes, there have been cases where artists have taken action against others where proper permission wasn't given, the best example I can recall being the Enya/Fugees song. As far as artists' building their careers on other's music, well, I'm a little more lenient on that due to the fact that that's how a lot of people get started. Yes, there are musicians and artists and theatre people who solely try and create original compositions from the start, but the majority of people learn from those they like. Now, if they tried to base their entire career off of appropriating music or art or plays, well, then I think they get what they sow. However, I don't necessarily feel bad if I like Marie Digby's cover of Rihanna's Umbrella song better. As far as this pertains to Loreena, I think there have been a few cases of artists' using Loreena's songs here and there as an inclusion to their body of work. To my knowledge, no one has really mashed up her work that I can tell or used it solely to launch their career. I understand where you are coming from though.
As far as the downloading music goes with regard to these posts, it is becoming clearer to me that this is turning into a bit of a generational gap. I guess I never realized the divide until this conversation was started, but I remain confident since Loreena initiated this discussion, that she will figure out a way to provide what we as consumers and collectors want in the future, be it high quality downloads, CDs for those that want them, and the like.
Angie, I have to say that being a fan of Enya, I've heard of the Enya/Fugees incident. Mario Winans had sampled the same song by Enya "Boadicea" in his "I Don't Wanna Know". Enya was about to sue these people, but it seems like she was forgiving towards the folks who stole her music. On the other hand, although it may be kind of funny, I wouldn't want some crazy rap/hip-hop artist to sample Ms. McKennitt's "The Mummer's Dance". It would be insane if Ms. McKennitt sampled "Only Time" or Enya doing likewise with one of Ms. McKennitt's own songs. But, all in all, sampling lacks originality on the artist's part.
Posts: 315 | Location: Sterling Heights, Michigan | Registered: December 04, 2007
I just had a music lesson this evening. My teacher mentioned that back in the 18.-19.th century (Haydn, Mozart Beethoven a.m.o.) they were proud that other composers played their songs or parts of their songs.
Thinking it over, I thought it to be quite an honor to have created a song or piece so good that others just have to play it themselves. When has anyone ever played a song if they didn't like it?
This is not an invitation to go break the copyright-rules!
Anxious 2
Posts: 919 | Location: Denmark | Registered: January 25, 2008
I know what you mean by getting warmed up. I can keep this going as well. For instance, the "follow the money" game. Per Ian Blackaby, it's the owner of the venue that must cover the royalties to ASCAP and BMI. Let's say a venue has a band who plays The Mummers' Dance and a jukebox with Mummer's Dance in it. There must be some formula ASCAP uses to charge the venue owner a standard fee (based on what?) because there's no way anyone can know if the record gets played or the band plays the tune. They obviously can't charge per play (what, 50 cents per?). After that, where does the money go? Does it get back to Loreena as a royalty check? Does it go to support the Old Songwriters Home in Vero Beach, Florida? By the way, Suzanne is a great tune. It's been covered a lot. I first heard it on a very obscure record by an American band called "Genesis" (not the Phil Collins version) that came out the same time 3 Dog Night's 1st record. The record was called "In the Beginning". I can't find any reference to it on the Internet so far. --Dennis--
Posts: 235 | Location: Monterey CA | Registered: May 22, 2007
Originally posted by angie: Shan-Lyn and Dennis, I think mixing artists' music goes back to the whole thing of "mash-ups" that another poster brought up. As far as appropriation goes, there have been cases where artists have taken action against others where proper permission wasn't given, the best example I can recall being the Enya/Fugees song. As far as artists' building their careers on other's music, well, I'm a little more lenient on that due to the fact that that's how a lot of people get started.
Angie, I hear you. Last night, I went to check on an old music idol of mine, Judy Collins. I eventually landed in the YouTube area, and I heard her rendition of 'Amazing Grace'. In the right column, featuring other artists singing this song, I listened to Elvis, and Nana Mouskouri, etc. They all had their own styles and it was rather interesting to note the variant flavours to the same lyrics, but I appreciated their uniqueness, because they were so diverse in their expressions, that it wasn't difficult for me to appreciate the variant artistic forms in which the lyrics were being presented in. What mattered to me, is that these artists were expressing their own authentic take on the song. So, it really comes down to the 'listener', and which artist they would prefer to listen to.
My point in all of this, is that I've had the opportunity to experience Loreena sing, and she has expressed such a strong originality in her musical career, that personally, for me, no one can top that uniqueness she has. She really stands in a league of her own. She has demonstrated over and over, that she can take public domain lyrics and transform them into works of art. Much like having an art gallery, and the painters are all asked to paint their versions on the same canvas (namely, the lyrics). What can I say, I love and appreciate Loreena's Art Gallery, lol.
quote:
Yes, there are musicians and artists and theatre people who solely try and create original compositions from the start, but the majority of people learn from those they like. Now, if they tried to base their entire career off of appropriating music or art or plays, well, then I think they get what they sow.
Precisely. There's a certain superficiality about it.
quote:
However, I don't necessarily feel bad if I like Marie Digby's cover of Rihanna's Umbrella song better. As far as this pertains to Loreena, I think there have been a few cases of artists' using Loreena's songs here and there as an inclusion to their body of work. To my knowledge, no one has really mashed up her work that I can tell or used it solely to launch their career. I understand where you are coming from though.
Not long ago, I found myself at YouTube, listening to young artists trying to transform some of Loreena's songs (Note: Songs I really liked). I fully admit, my brain panicked. Ask QR, they received an emotional e-mail from me, lol. But then, I settled, and I realized how strong of an impact Loreena's originality had on me. And I muttered, "Face it gals and dudes, you'll never outstrip the Celtic Queen....", and if I would have been their music consultant, I would have kindly suggested, "Find other public domain lyrics that no other artist has touched yet, and you can build your clout from there, and break into the music industry showing your own originality". There was something mind-boggling in hearing another young artist taking on one of Loreena's songs that she put her passion into, and their version only divested all the wondrous beauty that Loreena had created. Yes, I took it personal, because we all know that Loreena's songs do hit her audiences in a very personal way. They merge with her, they feel the vibes, and for a while, the artist and audience become one in the spirit. THAT's the magic. THAT's where Loreena succeeds. No one can top that. I think that it would only be to their liability if they even tried.
quote:
As far as the downloading music goes with regard to these posts, it is becoming clearer to me that this is turning into a bit of a generational gap. I guess I never realized the divide until this conversation was started, but I remain confident since Loreena initiated this discussion, that she will figure out a way to provide what we as consumers and collectors want in the future, be it high quality downloads, CDs for those that want them, and the like.
Originally posted by dlaws99: Hi Loreena...See what you started?? Really great topic. Shan...like I said in my 1st post..This can get very complicated. Loreena has a cousultant to keep it all straight and legal. You have to admire her business acumen in treading these waters.
Hi Dennis, yes Loreena has started a great topic. I rather enjoy this. It's giving me an opportunity to voice my opinions on the changes I've experienced within the growing music industry throughout the years. I'm just warming up, lol.
In a way, I do understand why you would reason that it could be complicated in some areas, as there are many fine filaments that have sprouted from the "music tree or hierarchy". I don't doubt for one moment that Loreena would have an expert consultant to comb through and keep these matters organized. The music industry has so vastly changed, that 'consultants' are not options anymore. They're compulsory.
And for Loreena, see what you went and started? Lol. Thank you.
