[Fmpro] ASCAP info

[Pete]

Thanks Doug for taking the time to post! Very
interesting.

Sticking with the old DX7 huh? Whatever works.

P e t e
S u r d o v a l


--- Doug Wood <daw at procomposers.org> wrote:
> Hi. I posted this yesterday using my grassroots
> address, so it bounced back
> to me. Sorry. Also, let's not be too quick with the
> trigger, please, folks.
> Like you I'm doing a million things so I can't
> always respond as fast as you
> want.    
> 
> >In all your posts over the last week, you haven't
> >responded to of referred directly to the election
> situation. Why? Is it not
> >a big deal to you?
> 
> Let me quote from my 2007 ASCAP campaign platform,
> published on my website
> for all to see:
>  
> "For many years, any 25 members could nominate
> someone to be placed on the
> ballot for the Board. Recently, the rule was
> changed; it now requires the
> signatures of more than 1100 voting members (not
> just members) to have a
> name placed on the ballot, and the number goes up as
> the membership
> increases. (The actual formula is so complicated
> only a handful of people
> really understand it.)
>  
> "It¹s time to revisit this issue, and to recognize
> that putting a candidate
> on the ballot is one of the ways by which ASACAP
> members can express
> themselves and put their ideas forward. There should
> be a reasonable
> threshold ­ say 100 signatures ­ but the current
> rule is both unreasonable
> and unnecessary."
>  
> > 2. Regarding your comment below, I see where my
> reference to the effective
> > rate per minute (blanket license divided by number
> of minutes of music
> > aired) paid by broadcasters could have been
> confusing. I should have said
> > "So the broadcasters are effectively paying x per
> minute" to be more clear.
> 
> That's not more clear. Broadcasters pay a flat fee
> and use as much music as
> they want. After five years you could add up all the
> minutes and divide the
> blanket fees by the result, but I'm not sure it
> would be a useful exercise.
> Neither ASCAP or the broadcasters ever look at music
> use that way.
> 
> Broadcasters look at which shows are most popular,
> and which PRO controls
> the theme music for those shows. This is where
> negotiations begin. (That's
> why SESAC went after the composer of the Seinfeld
> theme - it gave SESAC
> instant market share and the ability to negotiate
> significantly higher
> license fees. The higher fees SESAC received more
> than made up for the big
> bonus they paid the composer.)
> 
> Background music is also important in negotiations,
> and broadcasters and
> PROs keep careful track of whose music is used in
> which shows. Again, the
> more popular the show, the more valuable the
> background music is as a
> bargaining tool.  
> 
> So that's why I believe that theme music and
> background should receive
> higher royalty payments than other types of
> performances on TV and cable. I
> also believe we should account for audience size in
> calculating royalties. A
> performance on the Academy Awards should be worth
> more than a performance on
> another network which nobody is watching. And forget
> time of day - it's a
> thing of the past. Some channels, like CNBC - have
> higher viewership during
> the day than at night, during so-called "prime
> time."
> 
> And what about songs (with vocals) which are
> sometimes part of the story
> line, such as in Grey's Anatomy? What kind of a
> performance is that, and how
> should it be valued? How could you distinguish
> between a background vocal
> cue which is completely in the background and one
> which peeks out from the
> lines of the dialogue to reinforce the message?
> Somebody smarter than me
> will have to come up with the answer to that one.
> 
> So these are some of the things I'm thinking about.
> 
> > But for the sake of clarity, will you confirm that
> broadcasters pay ASCAP at
> > the same rate for song music as they do for score
> music under a blanket
> > license?
> 
> No, I can't. There is no "rate" for music like a
> taxi meter. I can confirm
> that all PROs make subjective judgments about the
> relative value of certain
> types of performances. So do broadcasters and
> studios, when they buy out
> performance rights from composers. Are the PRO
> distribution rules great? No.
> But do I think the solution is to pay exactly the
> same for every type of
> music, regardless of when it is broadcast, or on
> what channel, or whether
> anybody is watching - what's known as 1 to 1? No, I
> absolutely do not.
> 
> > 3. Still waiting for your observations re: the
> travel habits of your friends
> > on the ASCAP Board. If they're soaking us (the
> members) for First Class air
> > travel, don't we - the members - deserve to know
> that - since we're paying
> > their bills? I wish you wouldn't just ignore
> questions like this and hope
> > they go away. If you don't want to answer, just
> say so.
> 
> I'm really not qualified to pass judgment on this. 
> I drive a VW bus, I wear
> jeans and sneakers most of the time, I still use a
> DX-7 as my controller
> because I'm too cheap to buy a decent keyboard. What
> other people do is up
> to them. I think there are more important issues.
> 
> Doug Wood
> 
> Disclaimer: The views expressed are my own and do
> not necessarily reflect
> those of ASCAP, its directors, executives or staff.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The Film Music Pro List is sponsored by Film Music
> Magazine -  http://www.filmmusicmag.com
> 
> To edit your list options or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://nxport.com/mailman/listinfo/fmpro
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469