[Fmpro] 80% Non-Lyric Penalty?

[Mark Northam]

On 1/13/08 5:42 PM, "Pete" <musical411 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- bipcress at comcast.net wrote:
>> Precisely what is the
>> logic behind paying out more residual bucks to a
>> composer for music with
>> words, and less for instrumental compositions?
> 
> I'm SO glad you asked that John! Cause, it isn't true.
> That's exactly why I've been debating this for a week.
> That's the perception Mark Northam creates when he
> makes statements like "Your music gets whacked with an
> 80% penalty if it doesn't have lyrics." NOT TRUE!

Pete, you're misquoting me again and using an altered quote taken out of
context to call me a liar. Enough is enough. Your distortions have now risen
to the level of deliberate misinformation, and that is a disservice to this
list. 

I don't want to burden the list with this argument continued for more and
more posts - we have other things to discuss. But I'm not going to stand by
while you intentionally misquote me time after time, even after it's pointed
out to you. 

I never said "music is whacked with an 80% penalty if it doesn't have
lyrics". I pointed out your misquote before, yet you continue to misquote me
again and again. Sad you can't make your case without misquoting others to
provide false evidence.

I said "a minute of your music is whacked with an 80% penalty if it doesn't
have lyrics" in the course of a conversation about score, and referring
specifically to the ASCAP weighting formula where a one minute score cue
within a program is paid 20% of what a one minute song cue in a program is
paid on TV, since all songs are awarded feature performance status by
default by ASCAP. That's an 80% penalty for a one minute cue - the typical
length of a film/TV cue - if it's score vs. if it's song. The discussion was
about score music, and always has been.

> 
> Then you have "Feature" use and "Background" use.
> Feature use is when the music becomes a main focus of
> the audience's attention. That happens when you see
> onscreen an orchestra performing live, a man playing
> harmonica in jail, a rock band jamming, an aerobics
> class dancing to a boombox, or when you hear lyrics.
> The lyrics become like a part of the scenes dialog and
> the logic is that it now becomes a primary focus of
> the audience's attention. It's no longer in the
> "background" supporting the scene.

In some cases that's true, but as a general statement, it's not always true.
Many times the lyrics are barely audible yet simply the presence of lyrics
becomes a trigger to pay background vocals by default as feature. In those
cases, the lyrics have nothing to do with and may never be clearly heard
above the dialogue, yet ASCAP still pays them feature because they do that
by default to all background vocals on cue sheets, as testified to by
ASCAP's Richard Reimer. It's nothing more than a money grab by the
songwriters.

> 
> Finally, you have "Background" use, which is when the
> music is supporting the visuals on screen, but no
> longer a primary focus of the audiences attention.
> It's been debated that vocal music is never classified
> and paid as "Background" although there have been two
> cases discussed here where Vocal Music has been paid
> as "background" as well.

Nobody has ever said "vocal music is never classified and paid as
background" - that's another amazing distortion and misquoting of the recent
posts you've conjured up. What's been quoted by Ed Baker, myself and ASCAP's
own senior management is that ASCAP pays all background vocals on cue sheets
by default as features, and can then re-classify them as background later on
if individual usages are examined by ASCAP. That's a WAY different statement
than what you've said was made "vocal music is never classified as and paid
as background". There are cases where it is, and that was discussed. Again,
you misquote others to try and make your point.

Pete, time to stop the misquoting and engage in an honest discussion of the
facts. You ignored Ed Baker twice pointing out how you misinterpreted his
post. You ignored my pointing out that you were misquoting me and,
amazingly, repeated the misquote. If you want to make a career out of
distorting and deflecting any and all negative aspects of ASCAP, maybe
they'll give you a job as a PR guy for them. In the meantime, I respectfully
request that you deal honestly with the other members of this community. I
have to believe you're bright enough to make your arguments without
depending on misquoting others to suit your reasoning.

Mark Northam