we were all set on having a great conversation this morning then the thread just disappears. kind of a shame how politically correct modern blues has become.
listen here to just the first thirty seconds, it goes by so fast you need to write down what is being said.
too bad nothing of any social or political importance can be discussed here.
I'm not sure which thread you're talking about. I deleted one thread at the request of the person who started it. It wasn't about politics.
Since many of us are performers, a discussion of ASCAP, BMI, and other performing rights organizations is just fine here. You're read the creed, right? An occasional off-topic thread is fine--with a stress on "occasional"--as long as the subject line begins with OT.
As majordomo, I don't want this forum to become a place where we spend a lot of time arguing about politics. Many of us do that in other venues, including Facebook.
I'm not sure what you mean by "politically correct." Usually people throw that term around when they disagree with some element of the forum creed. (They want to be free, for example, to throw around the word "fags" with impunity, or say "Fuck you!" to other posters.)
The issue that Lynch is being grilled on here is a complex one. I'm not sure that I fully understand its ramifications for somebody like me, or for the range of musicians who it impacts. Maybe somebody can explain it. Here's a story on it.
One crux of the disagreement comes, I believe, on p. 9.
I believe that the chief issue is how to deal with multi-authored works where two or more of the authors belong to different PRO's. Let's imagine that I write a song with Deak Harp called "Harmonica Blues." I'm with BMI, Deak's with ASCAP (for the sake of argument). Under the current consent decree, if Dennis Gruenling wants to cover that song on his next album, he can to EITHER BMI or ASCAP and request a mechanical license; he pays 9.1 cents for every copy of the song he plans to issue, and he is automatically granted the right to record and sell his version of that song when he contacts my PRO or Deak's PRO (BMI or ASCAP) and pays the requisite fee. That's called "full-work licensing."
What BMI and ASCAP were requesting of the DOJ, as best I can figure out, is a reconsideration of the consent decree that upheld this statute. They want me to be able to come along and say, "I don't care what Deak wants, I don't care what ASCAP wants. I want to be able to refuse to let Dennis record our song." This is termed "fractional licensing."
In other words, what ASCAP and BMI wanted was a revised consent decree which required a prospective song-coverer to come to BOTH organizations and get permission by paying a fee. And those PRO's wanted the right to pull some of their joint- and multi-authored songs--cross-PRO songs, if you will--from their respective catalogs, making it difficult or impossible for people to cover them.
Loretta Lynch and the Justice Department said "No. We don't believe that would be a good thing. So we're leaving the present consent decree in place. Full-work licensing will continue."
This is my understanding. Nate and others, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure I've missed some subtleties.
Last Edited by kudzurunner on Nov 30, 2016 5:06 AM
some of the top song writers are also well known harmonica players bob dylan, neil young, mick jagger rod piazza, it's possible they could be members here. so personally i do not consider this subject to be off topic. i do find it fascinating. i felt it would have been a nice fit in with the you tube thread, as i am sure ascap and bmi have some involvement there.
nice job adam researching this, it saved me the trouble. this video show's how what can go on behind the scenes, has an effect on our every day musical life.
I wasn't saying that this thread subject is off topic; it's quite on-topic, in fact.
I was responding instead to your complaint, "Too bad nothing of any social or political importance can be discussed here." That's only a half-truth, but the truth it contains is important. We can certainly discuss things of social and political importance. I've done that when I talk about the sociohistorical context of the blues. But I'm very leery, for example, of allowing free-swinging dialogue about a certain well-known NYC building developer. I'm sure you can understand why. Nothing good can come from that. It will only create bad blood. Same thing with discussion of religion, except in the narrowest possible context of "the devil and the blues," which I've written a book about and which seems like a reasonable subject. But basically religion talk doesn't work here, and I suspect that political talk would work the same way.
Last Edited by kudzurunner on Nov 30, 2016 11:03 AM
Last I heard, if you want to record somebody else's song, you go to the Harry Fox Agency to get permission, you pay them and they pass along the money to whoever's supposed to get it.
BMI and ASCAP, you pay them if you run a concert hall or bar or like that and you want to play music by ASCAP and/or BMI artists, and they pass along the money etc. etc.
Harry Fox is the only one a performer would pay, and that's only if the performer is putting out a recording on their own.
Ah, yes. You're almost entirely right, and I'm mostly wrong. Here's what the DOJ reminds us about that:
"The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) are “performing rights organizations” (PROs). PROs provide licenses to users such as bar owners, television and radio stations, and internet music distributors that allow them to publicly perform the musical works of the PROs’ thousands of songwriter and music publisher members. These “blanket licenses” enable music users to immediately obtain access to millions of songs without resorting to individualized licensing determinations or negotiations."
So yes, it's not about recording, it's about performing and about getting your music played on the radio. Jeez, I'm way off on that, and I should have known better. I'm right only to the extent that the Adam-and-Deak example is still relevant. For Dennis, substitute a blues DJ (and actually, Dennis IS a blues DJ). The DOJ is arguing that the current situation makes it much easier for such people to license music for playing on air, since they only have to worry about one PRO. BMI or ASCAP collects all the money for the jointly authored composition and distributes it to the other PRO, proportionately.
Good correction! That was a foolish error.
Last Edited by kudzurunner on Nov 30, 2016 2:10 PM
Interesting I've always gone to the publishers for recording and cd production. I've always thought radio stations and TV paid to BMI and ASCAP. ----------
