[Fmpro] ASCAP language

[Mark Northam]

Pete,

I'll clarify. Television is ASCAP's largest revenue source, bringing in
hundreds of millions of dollars to ASCAP annually. The policy that every
background vocal within a TV show should be paid as a feature performance
simply because there are lyrics effects that distribution widely, given the
"zero-sum" game of ASCAP's distributions. More for some necessarily means
less for others -  the more feature performances there are, that drives down
the value of a feature, which is what score is based on. So yes, hundreds of
millions of dollars and all ASCAP members who have works broadcast on
television are affected one way or another by this policy, unless they're
getting some sort of guarantee, etc..

The rules are currently written, as we've discussed today, to categorize all
background vocals as features on TV within shows. I'm not saying anything is
done not per-the-rules - the rules are being followed perfectly, so nothing
is "miscredited" if you define that as being paid at odds with the rules.
The rules are designed to support the policy of paying all background vocals
as features, and they do a nice job of that.

We need new rules, that's all. We need rules where non-visual performances
(no musician or vocalist onscreen) give instrumentals and vocals an EQUAL
chance of being a feature. A level playing field. No preference for songs.

I've proposed the policy that PROs in Canada and Australia use: A background
performance is a feature if the actors in the film hear the music, otherwise
it's background. Note this doesn't address themes - a separate discussion.
That's perfectly reasonable, and I think many composers would be fine with a
policy like this. A separate discussion is the rate at which features should
be paid compared to other music, etc.

As far as any numbers go for the % of background music that is background
vocal, ASCAP refuses to disclose that information, and I'm not going to
waste time guessing based on anecdotal evidence. ASCAP knows the numbers,
and has for decades refused to release them - that speaks volumes about an
organization that promises "our books are open to all" and "full financial
disclosure."

Best,

Mark Northam


On 4/30/08 9:37 AM, "Pete" <musical411 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> How do you come up with "hundreds of millions of
> dollars every year"? That's WAAAAY off.
> 
> What percentage of music in programs (not commercials)
> is vocal? Maybe 4%?
> 
> Obviously, if it's truly a feature performance vocal,
> it should be paid "feature" rate. So, what percentage
> of that 4% do you think is mis-credited as "feature"?
> A shift in that tiny percentage isn't going to greatly
> effect your payments.
> 
> Of course, each of us would have our own opinion on
> when a vocal piece slips out of feature and into
> background. Who gets to decide? How? Watch every vocal
> cue? That's very labor intensive. How much money
> should be spent on deciding if each vocal cue is in
> the featured foreground or slipped into background?
> Wouldn't it be more cost effective to just pay all
> vocal as feature assuming 99% of the time it is
> feature?
> 
> Pete
> 
> 
> --- Mark Northam <markn at gmocorp.com> wrote:
>> I wonder how
>> many people's lives would be different today,
>> especially composers - it's
>> amazing how a few words can affect the distribution
>> of hundreds of millions
>> of dollars every year...
> 
> 
> 

--------------------------------------------
Mark Northam, CEO  |  mark at gmocorp.com
Global Media Online, Inc.

http://www.RoyaltyReport.com - The Business of Music Royalties Worldwide

1-888-910-7888 ext. 702 / 310-209-8263 ext. 702
Yahoo/Skype: marknortham  /  AIM: mnortham