[Fmpro] 80% Non-Lyric Penalty?

[bipcress@comcast.net]

Guys, I'm just a "flea on the dog" so to speak (film music 
columnist/essayist), and I am not hip to the Machiavellian money matters 
here discussed. May I ask a possibly stupid question? Precisely what is the 
logic behind paying out more residual bucks to a composer for music with 
words, and less for instrumental compositions? One thought: Of course I can 
understand that if a composer personally writes both music and lyrics for a 
particular commercial jingle he should perhaps get more simply for wearing 
two hats - that of composer plus lyricist. - John Bender

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "LesHurdle" <leshurdle at avradionet.com>
To: <fmpro at nxport.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Fmpro] 80% Non-Lyric Penalty?


>
> On Jan 10, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Pete wrote:
>
>> A TV Commercial, which gets paid the same if it has
>> lyrics or not.
>
> Not so..... song gets 12% non song 3% of a feature
>
>
>>
>> I also have a song *WITH LYRICS* in an
>> Academy-Award-Winning film that always gets paid at a
>> background rate. Because, uh... it was in the
>> background of the scene.
>
>
> Then you should challenge it, if you are prepared to get into ASCAP's
> bad books..............  I dare you ;-)
>
> L
>
> _______________________________________________
> The Film Music Pro List is sponsored by Film Music Magazine - 
> http://www.filmmusicmag.com
>
> Best of FMPRO: http://www.fmproquotes.com - Quotes site  by Billy Hale 
> Music
>
> To edit your list options or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://nxport.com/mailman/listinfo/fmpro
>