Jump to content

Photo

Brooklyn Musician suing Devils


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#41 ice dog

ice dog

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,044 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 04:34 PM

this is a BS law suit.. they should be compensated thru ASCAP, just like Quiet Riot or AC/DC gets compensated. I'm not going to criticize their music, but they should be thrilled at getting a break to have their music heard by Devil's fans... by suing they have effectively crapped in their own bed.
  • 0
"Wendy...I'm home."
-Jack Torrance
Sherry Ross ‏@SherryDarlingNJ
"Little did we know the C on Parise's jersey stood for "C-ya, suckers!" Yes, I was fooled. And it is the collusion vibe that taints it."

#42 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,279 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 04:39 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk



I agree with that guy.
  • 0

#43 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,518 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 04:40 PM

I like on their facebook one of the fans was saying the Devils should pay because 30 million is just peanuts to them. :lol: Yes, that makes 30 million a reasonable dollar amount, even if they were being blatantly ripped off.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#44 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,918 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 04:43 PM

I agree with that guy.


You seem to have missed the point, but that isn't surprising.
  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#45 DevilinLA

DevilinLA

    Trivia Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,221 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 05:07 PM

this is a totally ridiculous opinion. yes, it's because of lawsuits that music - apparently all forms of it - is terrible. way to make a gigantic logic jump that associates two completely unrelated things. are you seriously arguing that musicians everywhere are no longer incentivized to make good music because there's a chance that they can't earn millions of dollars from it?



licensing use is surely a big part of a top musician's income, but if you don't think this lawsuit is an attempt a publicity grab for an unknown band, you're being naive. yes, they deserve to be compensated for the use of the song - the amount they deserve, i don't know. but it's certainly not $30 million or anywhere near that.

Sorry dude - You're out of your element on this one.

It is an absolute fact that the reason why copyright laws were invented. It actually derives from the English Statute of Anne in 1709 - wheras the incentive for creative art (or intellectually stimulated art or property) was in the able to utilize one's creation to develop an income stream. Absolutely, a professional musician or composer (by this I mean trained - not this BS pop stars or bands) needs to commit full-time to improving and generating better craft. If they are spending the majority (or any significant amount) of their time in another line of work to support themselves it takes away from their study and work.

Licensing and Publishing IS the biggest part of a composer or musician's income in today's business. Its not record sales, or downloads, or even touring. The ONLY way composers can earn significant living money from their work is LICENSING. Owning the publishing rights to material is key. Because so many folks believe music should be free - or delude themselves in thinking that illegal download isn't wrong. Or they simply don't care enough to actually stop.

The reason why record companies keep delivering crap is because in their effort to still try to reap a profit in this business they are simply following trends in hopes to capitalize on $$$. They aren't going to take any chances on anything different because there's not enough cash-spending consumers to make it worth while. MAke no mistake the music industry is dying - and its consumer downloading that is killing it. Anybody that thinks that true musicians are going to make music for "the love of the music" is kidding themselves. We're not talking millions of dollars here - we are talking sustainable income. You simply cannot make a sustainable income in this business without having a key foot in Music Licensing. A simple poll on how many folks on NJDEVS.com alone DON'T PAY for 90% of their music will back this up since you like stats. This fact - and the sense that "anyone can do music" through shows like AI is absolutely, unequivocally, reducing the number of choices out there as to different types of music (Regardless of what style/genres you like personally).

To the guy who thinks that ASCAP should pay - ASCAP is a non-profit middle-man society which deals soley with tracking "performance -based rights). This is a synch-related issue as it accompanies I video I believe (tell me if I'm wrong). ASCAP doesn't make any $$$ - they simply charge licenses to performance venues and broadcasting outlets and track and distribute funds based on number of airplay or performance numbers.

I AGREE that the actual amount of $$$ is in question. However, the ROCK is a large venue in addition to MSG being a top-market air station (depending if the song is broadcasted or not) - which alone should up the cost. I'm not saying that they should get a king's ransom, but the uneducated "starving artist", "crap musicians", "Lars Ulrich" banter I've been hearing is unfounded.

Truthfully, its the publishers (those that hold the publishing rights) of the song fighting this battle - not the band at all. They are probably well-happy for the publicity alone. The Publishing Co. stands the most to lose as its sole form of income is the song use.

My previous info is definitely colored by the fact that I am totally uninterested and nauseated by 99% of the music of the last 15 years as there is little variety (cue: the guy that says he listens to a wide variety of music both metal AND rap AND classic rock). The rise of technology has fully contributed to the decrease of musicianship with it. IF the marketplace could change and people made more informed choices about how their dollar actually affects the amount of creativity in our music culture we could affect change (i.e support what they like buy buying that artists music and ZERO CD burns or illegal downloading) than we might see things grow more diverse.

Having said all this ... uhh.... oh yeah - the band song choice was Langenbrunner's - so its his fault.... :whistling:

Edited by DevilinLA, 22 August 2011 - 05:14 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Sole Keeper of Anton Volchenkov
Sole Keeper of Mike Mottau #27
Keeper of Bryce Salvador #24

#46 devlman

devlman

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,060 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 05:17 PM

I would not at all say most music today is crap, or made on a mac. If you have gone 15 years without listening to good, new music then I am sorry for you. I will certainly say that close to 100% of music on popular radio stations is absolute, sh!tty ass garbage... but i think the only difference between music now and music back in the day is that you have to look harder for great music... but it is certainly out there!!


This is true, or at least it is in the nyc area where every station is exactly the same. I'm sure other markets have it a bit better

Edited by devlman, 22 August 2011 - 05:19 PM.

  • 0

#47 DevilinLA

DevilinLA

    Trivia Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,221 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 05:20 PM

I would not at all say most music today is crap, or made on a mac. If you have gone 15 years without listening to good, new music then I am sorry for you. I will certainly say that close to 100% of music on popular radio stations is absolute, sh!tty ass garbage... but i think the only difference between music now and music back in the day is that you have to look harder for great music... but it is certainly out there!!

Absolutely its out there. There is A LOT of good music out there.
The problem is that the current state of the Music Market (illegal downloading) can't support it - and those musicians will certainly have a nightmare of a time developing a viable career from it.

There were also problems 15 years ago in music diversity but the essential elements that changed the game were:

1. File Compression
2. Internet Download Speed and Consumer Cost
3. Personal Computer Cost and Hard Drive Space
4. Mobile MP3 devices

The argument that - "it helped lesser artist get heard and evened the playing field" - I disagree with. It took away the gatekeepers that determined if the music quality was high enough to get supported by A&R dollars. As quality fell the marketplace became saturated with mediocre music. Very few of these CD BABY artist can support a career without being picked up by major label dollars. With a lot less consumer dollars to go after - the record companies stuck to following trends in money making by jumping on bandwagons (H. Montana, Boy Bands, Pop Starts, etc.)

These things changed the way consumers access music and as a result the way music makes $$$.

Edited by DevilinLA, 22 August 2011 - 05:22 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Sole Keeper of Anton Volchenkov
Sole Keeper of Mike Mottau #27
Keeper of Bryce Salvador #24

#48 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,279 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 05:33 PM

You seem to have missed the point, but that isn't surprising.


Oh I saw your point jackass and I know you were being sarcastic. Go back to begging people for ideas/comments on your wanna be in Lou we trust blog as it is as boring as watching paint dry.
  • 0

#49 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,918 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 05:36 PM

Sorry dude - You're out of your element on this one.

It is an absolute fact that the reason why copyright laws were invented. It actually derives from the English Statute of Anne in 1709 - wheras the incentive for creative art (or intellectually stimulated art or property) was in the able to utilize one's creation to develop an income stream. Absolutely, a professional musician or composer (by this I mean trained - not this BS pop stars or bands) needs to commit full-time to improving and generating better craft. If they are spending the majority (or any significant amount) of their time in another line of work to support themselves it takes away from their study and work.


Okay, agreed. I don't know why a citation from 1709 is needed, I guess to puff up your credentials.

Licensing and Publishing IS the biggest part of a composer or musician's income in today's business. Its not record sales, or downloads, or even touring. The ONLY way composers can earn significant living money from their work is LICENSING. Owning the publishing rights to material is key. Because so many folks believe music should be free - or delude themselves in thinking that illegal download isn't wrong. Or they simply don't care enough to actually stop.


These sound like two things that aren't related. A musician owns the rights to the music. If the music is illegally used where the music would normally be licensed, that musician has the right to recompense for his or her work. What does illegal downloading have to do with this?

The reason why record companies keep delivering crap is because in their effort to still try to reap a profit in this business they are simply following trends in hopes to capitalize on $$$. They aren't going to take any chances on anything different because there's not enough cash-spending consumers to make it worth while. MAke no mistake the music industry is dying - and its consumer downloading that is killing it. Anybody that thinks that true musicians are going to make music for "the love of the music" is kidding themselves.


Who says the industry needs the massive record companies? There's a huge shift in the way that people are consuming music these days, and no one knows what the fallout is going to be.

And yeah, true musicians will make music for the love of the music, I have no doubt about that. Whether or not it's as good, or the production values are the same, or there's as many people doing it, is another matter.

We're not talking millions of dollars here - we are talking sustainable income. You simply cannot make a sustainable income in this business without having a key foot in Music Licensing. A simple poll on how many folks on NJDEVS.com alone DON'T PAY for 90% of their music will back this up since you like stats. This fact - and the sense that "anyone can do music" through shows like AI is absolutely, unequivocally, reducing the number of choices out there as to different types of music (Regardless of what style/genres you like personally).


This is just totally untrue and again, is completely backwards. I can download any music in whatever genre I like from the comfort of my own home. I don't have to buy an album only hearing one song on the radio, I can sample every song thanks to amazon.

I AGREE that the actual amount of $$$ is in question. However, the ROCK is a large venue in addition to MSG being a top-market air station (depending if the song is broadcasted or not) - which alone should up the cost. I'm not saying that they should get a king's ransom, but the uneducated "starving artist", "crap musicians", "Lars Ulrich" banter I've been hearing is unfounded.


so suing for $30 million dollars makes sense.

Truthfully, its the publishers (those that hold the publishing rights) of the song fighting this battle - not the band at all. They are probably well-happy for the publicity alone. The Publishing Co. stands the most to lose as its sole form of income is the song use.


How do you know this? That seems to be contradicted by this article here:

http://www.sbnation....ter-rising-band

My previous info is definitely colored by the fact that I am totally uninterested and nauseated by 99% of the music of the last 15 years as there is little variety (cue: the guy that says he listens to a wide variety of music both metal AND rap AND classic rock). The rise of technology has fully contributed to the decrease of musicianship with it. IF the marketplace could change and people made more informed choices about how their dollar actually affects the amount of creativity in our music culture we could affect change (i.e support what they like buy buying that artists music and ZERO CD burns or illegal downloading) than we might see things grow more diverse.


We might see things grow more diverse? The marketplace is incredibly diverse! People's ipods are more diverse than all but the most devoted audiophile's collection would have been 15 years ago. I can't tell if you're an industry insider or a former musician (or both or neither), but your logic strikes me as backwards on most of this issue. The industry is changing - we'll see what happens in ten years.
  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#50 ice dog

ice dog

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,044 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 05:38 PM

The way ASCAP works is a venue like Prudential Center would pay a licensing fee to ASCAP that allows them to play music from the entire library of songs registered thru ASCAP. The musicians would then receive a royalty for every time their song is played, ASCAP cutting them a cheque several times a year. I think this guy seems to be upset that his song was used in the video that was played what, 41 times before Devils games?

I'm not sure if ASCAP failed to pay a royalty due to it's use in video media??

$30,000,000 seems pretty silly... i'm sure the devils could hook him up with some compensation equivalent to what Ozzy gets from the Devils everytime they play crazy train... :D

http://www.ascap.com.../royalties.aspx
  • 0
"Wendy...I'm home."
-Jack Torrance
Sherry Ross ‏@SherryDarlingNJ
"Little did we know the C on Parise's jersey stood for "C-ya, suckers!" Yes, I was fooled. And it is the collusion vibe that taints it."

#51 DevilinLA

DevilinLA

    Trivia Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,221 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 05:44 PM

The way ASCAP works is a venue like Prudential Center would pay a licensing fee to ASCAP that allows them to play music from the entire library of songs registered thru ASCAP. The musicians would then receive a royalty for every time their song is played, ASCAP cutting them a cheque several times a year. I think this guy seems to be upset that his song was used in the video that was played what, 41 times before Devils games?

I'm not sure if ASCAP failed to pay a royalty due to it's use in video media??

$30,000,000 seems pretty silly... i'm sure the devils could hook him up with some compensation equivalent to what Ozzy gets from the Devils everytime they play crazy train... :D

http://www.ascap.com.../royalties.aspx

ASCAP handles PERFORMANCE Royalties only. Its a PRO - Performance Right Society.
It does not handle Synch Rights - those are individually negotiated between publisher and user unless done under a Work For Hire contract in which case the contractor owns the rights from their on.

Musicians don't always receive royalties - WRITERS and PUBLISHERs receive royalties - sometimes this is different.
  • 0
Posted Image
Sole Keeper of Anton Volchenkov
Sole Keeper of Mike Mottau #27
Keeper of Bryce Salvador #24

#52 DevilinLA

DevilinLA

    Trivia Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,221 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 06:08 PM

Oh what to do do when the INTERNET won't always give you the stats you need to prove to everyone how smart you are?
I guess get accusatory - this from the same guy who uses stats and figures to back up everything he says?
I thought I was speaking your language. Let me friendly tutor you then....

Okay, agreed. I don't know why a citation from 1709 is needed, I guess to puff up your credentials.

The basis of Copyright Law is founded upon this principle law adapted from the British. The Law was written to stimulate intellectual creativity in a stagnant environment. It was a reaction to the creative control loss from the useage of the printing press (i.e. who owns the rights?). This forms the underlying principle of Publisher vs. Creator/Author



These sound like two things that aren't related. A musician owns the rights to the music. If the music is illegally used where the music would normally be licensed, that musician has the right to recompense for his or her work. What does illegal downloading have to do with this?

A Musician owns nothing. The writer owns the rights to the music unless he/she enters a publishing deal with a publisher for a 50/50 share. Via a contract the Record Company (if there is one) owns the SR Rights (Sound Recording Rights) which are the actual rights to that sound recording of the song. If its not an original the record company agrees to pay a Copyright rate for mechanical royalties on the song for the use. (to publisher & Writer). The artist, in turn, receives an Artist Royalty Rate which is a percentage of sales either CD or downloaded. This percentage can be anywhere from 8 - 20% (big artist) but fluctuates depending at what cost the album or song sold at (MSRP or lower). The artist receives an advance to make the album (chargebacks at what it costs to record album) and all royalties are paid back on the advance before the artist makes individual profit.

Who says the industry needs the massive record companies? There's a huge shift in the way that people are consuming music these days, and no one knows what the fallout is going to be.

Agreed. But at present the quality level is diluted and a competition for consumer dollars is strong as no one is actually paying for music. The future will indeed be interesting.

And yeah, true musicians will make music for the love of the music, I have no doubt about that. Whether or not it's as good, or the production values are the same, or there's as many people doing it, is another matter.

True musicians study their craft to master it. It takes decades of intense study with hours upon hours of practicing each day. Usually this is predicated through a high level of training such as music school or intense private study. My example was not in reference to a "lucky hit rock song" with the stereotypical party-rock star lifestyle image - which is so popular today (And most groups gone the next day I might add). We can argue about the definition of professional musician all day long - but mine centers around those working in the industry for 30 - 40 years, such as professional writers/producers (David Foster, etc.). No, these people need time to write and escalate their craft - working at Subway during the day prohibits this. For the Rock Band folk - maybe not so much - for trained writers its very different. I would imagine you must be a musician to make this blanket statement?




This is just totally untrue and again, is completely backwards. I can download any music in whatever genre I like from the comfort of my own home. I don't have to buy an album only hearing one song on the radio, I can sample every song thanks to amazon.

Absolutely. How many folks here - or in the world for that matter - actually PURCHASE ALL OF THEIR MUSIC. That's the problem. The old argument was having to buy the whole album for one song. ITunes has made that a thing of the past. I hope this changes but the majority (not all) of the upcoming generations seem to have little regard for paying for music.

so suing for $30 million dollars makes sense.

No it doesn't. Some of the comments in this thread seem not to understand all the aspects of the issue. Much like contract negotiation you shoot for the moon and get what you get I'd presume.

How do you know this? That seems to be contradicted by this article here:

http://www.sbnation....ter-rising-band



We might see things grow more diverse? The marketplace is incredibly diverse! People's ipods are more diverse than all but the most devoted audiophile's collection would have been 15 years ago. I can't tell if you're an industry insider or a former musician (or both or neither), but your logic strikes me as backwards on most of this issue. The industry is changing - we'll see what happens in ten years.

Agreed its changing. IF you think music is diverse turn on the radio and tell me how much reggae, Jazz, Classical, Blues, Progressive Rock, Folk, Zydeco you hear. As it is the Grammy's tried to downsize the number of categories per year as well. Things are shrinking and while that music IS OUT THERE. It is increasingly more difficult to make a career (not multi-million dollar - but liveable) career in anything that doesn't start with "DJ" or "Lil'" or having 36DD's with botty shorts. Unless you are willing to pop out of an egg onstage. In which case I would argue that the theatrics of performance have grown and the musicality has again diminished. Evidence of this can be seen purely with the number of dancers on stage in a performance vs. number of musicians.



You have solid thinking on most issues - but I posted purely to add some info here taht I didn't see posted in th thread. I don't know everything - but I work inthe industry and have for many years and I hate when things are misrepresented.

Edited by DevilinLA, 22 August 2011 - 06:12 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Sole Keeper of Anton Volchenkov
Sole Keeper of Mike Mottau #27
Keeper of Bryce Salvador #24

#53 ice dog

ice dog

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,044 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 06:13 PM

ASCAP handles PERFORMANCE Royalties only. Its a PRO - Performance Right Society.
It does not handle Synch Rights - those are individually negotiated between publisher and user unless done under a Work For Hire contract in which case the contractor owns the rights from their on.

Musicians don't always receive royalties - WRITERS and PUBLISHERs receive royalties - sometimes this is different.


http://www.ascap.com...censingfaq.aspx

"ASCAP gives you a license to entertain your customers, guests and employees with the world's largest musical repertory. One of the greatest advantages of the ASCAP license is that it gives you the right to perform ANY or ALL of the millions of the musical works in our repertory. Whether your music is live, broadcast, transmitted or played via CD's or videos, your ASCAP license covers your performances. And with one license fee, ASCAP saves you the time, expense, and burden of contacting thousands of copyright owners."

ok... CD music was edited and syncd into the video... hmmm... is this the issue?

$30,000,000... is just frivolous. He'll probably lose, his song will no longer be played at the games, and the Devils fans, the one group of people he could have marketed his merchandise and live performances too will effectively be alienated and think he's a tool.
  • 0
"Wendy...I'm home."
-Jack Torrance
Sherry Ross ‏@SherryDarlingNJ
"Little did we know the C on Parise's jersey stood for "C-ya, suckers!" Yes, I was fooled. And it is the collusion vibe that taints it."

#54 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,918 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 06:25 PM

Oh what to do do when the INTERNET won't always give you the stats you need to prove to everyone how smart you are?
I guess get accusatory - this from the same guy who uses stats and figures to back up everything he says?
I thought I was speaking your language. Let me friendly tutor you then....

[/b]

You have solid thinking on most issues - but I posted purely to add some info here taht I didn't see posted in th thread. I don't know everything - but I work inthe industry and have for many years and I hate when things are misrepresented.


You're right that I was glib with regard to the ownership of music, and clearly you know far more about it than I do - the question is, is that the way that things should be done, or is that just how the industry grew up?

But you say this:

"IF you think music is diverse turn on the radio and tell me how much reggae, Jazz, Classical, Blues, Progressive Rock, Folk, Zydeco you hear. As it is the Grammy's tried to downsize the number of categories per year as well."

Who listens to the radio anymore? Who cares about the Grammys anymore? Radio has gone after vanishingly small dollars by shrinking playlists and genres. But those people who used to be served by terrestrial radio haven't stopped consuming music. Radio isn't diverse because people who listen to those types of music you list go elsewhere - the barrier to owning and consuming the music they enjoy is much smaller. And no, I'm not talking about free downloads.

Something like jazz has a proud tradition and a shrinking listener base, and takes incredible skill to play well. I would love to live in a world where jazz musicians are well-supported and able to pursue their craft. But I don't listen to very much jazz at all. It's unfortunate, but it's not these people's right to have a career in music if there aren't enough people who consume it. I don't think that free downloads are the problem here.
  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#55 DevilinLA

DevilinLA

    Trivia Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,221 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 06:41 PM

You're right that I was glib with regard to the ownership of music, and clearly you know far more about it than I do - the question is, is that the way that things should be done, or is that just how the industry grew up?

But you say this:

"IF you think music is diverse turn on the radio and tell me how much reggae, Jazz, Classical, Blues, Progressive Rock, Folk, Zydeco you hear. As it is the Grammy's tried to downsize the number of categories per year as well."

Who listens to the radio anymore? Who cares about the Grammys anymore? Radio has gone after vanishingly small dollars by shrinking playlists and genres. But those people who used to be served by terrestrial radio haven't stopped consuming music. Radio isn't diverse because people who listen to those types of music you list go elsewhere - the barrier to owning and consuming the music they enjoy is much smaller. And no, I'm not talking about free downloads.

Something like jazz has a proud tradition and a shrinking listener base, and takes incredible skill to play well. I would love to live in a world where jazz musicians are well-supported and able to pursue their craft. But I don't listen to very much jazz at all. It's unfortunate, but it's not these people's right to have a career in music if there aren't enough people who consume it. I don't think that free downloads are the problem here.

Let me first say I applaud your honesty on the issue.

I think much of this goes back to your statement about "needing" record companies that I have been thinking much about.
Although I don't think they are "needed" what they have done in the past is provide some key things:

1.) Distribution (through the big 5 Distributors) : Although this may be changing with the lack of brick-and-mortar places that carry CD's (Although Walmart and Target still remain) this is becoming less important.

2.)Radio Promotion Dollars: The ability of RC's to circumvent "Payolla" by putting their promotion dollar through independent promoters who, in turn, fuel radio airplay numbers by working with sponsors and Program Directors at Radio Stations (terrestrial or satellite).

3.) Marketing Dollars: Getting the artists face on everything and on every TV op.

These things require $ that purely CDBaby, Amazon, or any other on-line marketing scheme cannot provide. The problem has become getting the music to enough consumers that it actually turns into $$$ (because free downloads don't).

Jazz is tough because as America's 1st true original artform it is becoming somewhat subsidized by the government - but not enough to employ. Its a tough issue I just wish that people would be able to access and be introduced to more diverse forms of music - and SUPPORT what they enjoy with REAL Dollars. I also agree that ALL AWARD shows are just "ass kissing" festivals put together by record company insiders to promote more dying sales.

Its a tough situation. I only hope we can all as a society get culturally educated enough to contribute and support our own culture rather than cannibalizing it.
  • 0
Posted Image
Sole Keeper of Anton Volchenkov
Sole Keeper of Mike Mottau #27
Keeper of Bryce Salvador #24

#56 DevilinLA

DevilinLA

    Trivia Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,221 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 06:46 PM

http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.aspx

"ASCAP gives you a license to entertain your customers, guests and employees with the world's largest musical repertory. One of the greatest advantages of the ASCAP license is that it gives you the right to perform ANY or ALL of the millions of the musical works in our repertory. Whether your music is live, broadcast, transmitted or played via CD's or videos, your ASCAP license covers your performances. And with one license fee, ASCAP saves you the time, expense, and burden of contacting thousands of copyright owners."

ok... CD music was edited and syncd into the video... hmmm... is this the issue?

$30,000,000... is just frivolous. He'll probably lose, his song will no longer be played at the games, and the Devils fans, the one group of people he could have marketed his merchandise and live performances too will effectively be alienated and think he's a tool.

Unfortunately, I believe you are misinterpreting the info quoted here.
This bolded section covers a "performance broadcast" - not the ability to take a song and "SYNCH" it with video. If that video is broadcasted - ASCAP tracks $$$. The ability to use it in the first place - that's a separate license a SYNCHRONIZATION LICENSE which would be negotiated with the video owner. This happens with movies and TV every day and is called Music Licensing and requires an agree with the publisher/writer (but not the performer).

Again, I'm not entirely sure of the song context as I don't live in NJ. Perhaps some of the NJ locals can tell me if this song is played along with hockey video as I'm not sure....

Edited by DevilinLA, 22 August 2011 - 06:47 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Sole Keeper of Anton Volchenkov
Sole Keeper of Mike Mottau #27
Keeper of Bryce Salvador #24

#57 Onddeck

Onddeck

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,121 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 07:02 PM

Absolutely its out there. There is A LOT of good music out there.
The problem is that the current state of the Music Market (illegal downloading) can't support it - and those musicians will certainly have a nightmare of a time developing a viable career from it.

There were also problems 15 years ago in music diversity but the essential elements that changed the game were:

1. File Compression
2. Internet Download Speed and Consumer Cost
3. Personal Computer Cost and Hard Drive Space
4. Mobile MP3 devices

The argument that - "it helped lesser artist get heard and evened the playing field" - I disagree with. It took away the gatekeepers that determined if the music quality was high enough to get supported by A&R dollars. As quality fell the marketplace became saturated with mediocre music. Very few of these CD BABY artist can support a career without being picked up by major label dollars. With a lot less consumer dollars to go after - the record companies stuck to following trends in money making by jumping on bandwagons (H. Montana, Boy Bands, Pop Starts, etc.)

These things changed the way consumers access music and as a result the way music makes $$$.

I was just disagreeing to your statement of how music today is mostly crap... which isnt true. the music the radio tells us to listen to is garbage, yes. but there are so many great artists out there right now
  • 0

Somebody's gotta be the hero... Why not me?


#58 DevilinLA

DevilinLA

    Trivia Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,221 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 07:06 PM

I was just disagreeing to your statement of how music today is mostly crap... which isnt true. the music the radio tells us to listen to is garbage, yes. but there are so many great artists out there right now

OK, well, its all opinion.
My point was that "the music that gets the most promotion and reaches the most audiences" - is crap.
Great music will always exist - its just harder to make a living doing it for the average musician/composer.
  • 0
Posted Image
Sole Keeper of Anton Volchenkov
Sole Keeper of Mike Mottau #27
Keeper of Bryce Salvador #24

#59 AlienDev

AlienDev

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 44 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 07:51 PM

Well - let's get Hells Bells back right now.

IMHO the Devils intro was completely missing without it. (It was probably bad karma to remove it too...)
  • 0
Posted Image

#60 RowdyFan42

RowdyFan42

    A Legend

  • Tech Support
  • 12,624 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 08:11 PM

I guess these guys graduated from the Lars Ulrich School Of Suing The Sh!t Out Of Everyone Who Gives Your Crappy Music Free Publicity.

"T-shirts, GOOD! Napster, BAD!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS6udST6lbE
  • 0
Posted Image of the Devils' mascot, NJ Devil, and Posted Image of all mascots far and wide.

IT IS VERY HARD TO WIN ONE STANLEY CUP, FORGET ABOUT THREE... and maybe it's high time some of you actually APPRECIATED THAT instead of treating it like it's some flipping birthright because for some random reason you rooted for the damn Devils!!!!! Posted Image


AHLFans.net - American Hockey League fan forums




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users