[Fmpro] 80% Non-Lyric Penalty?

Mon Jan 14 05:13:01 GMT 2008

Well, that's exactly what's wrong, then.  The distinction "Feature" versus 
"Background" is denigrating in itself for composers who do scoring as their 
prime occupation. For them the penalty is real.  Maybe ASCAP officials 
should attend a Film Scoring 101 class to learn what it is about.

Job van Zuijlen
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:42:39 -0800 (PST)
> From: Pete <musical411 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Fmpro] 80% Non-Lyric Penalty?
> To: fmpro at nxport.com
> Message-ID: <422660.25640.qm at web53706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> You can call ASCAP and ask them yourself if what I'm
> saying is true. We can debate that the system could be
> done a million different ways. But, that's how it is.
>
> Hope that helped clear it up,
> Pete
>
>
>
>
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. 
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:17:16 -0800 (PST)
> From: Pete <musical411 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Fmpro] WELCOME TO ALL NEW MEMBERS...
> To: fmpro at nxport.com
> Message-ID: <945158.20308.qm at web53703.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Marinho,
>
> I'm all for changing the topic! Anybody using Myspace,
> Youtube, Facebook or Google Ads to promote their CDs
> or composing services? Any advice on what hasn't
> worked for you?
>
> Sorry if I went on about ASCAP royalties, but they
> aren't just "pocket change" for me. They are a major
> part of my yearly income. When I read Mark M. didn't
> even want to join ASCAP because of what he read here,
> I saw red.
>
> Please read my last post on the subject. That sums it
> up. And, I'll never mention ASCAP again in 2008 (if
> nobody writes anything else misleading about them.)
>
> Best,
> Pete
>
>
> --- Marinho Nobre <marinho at manommg.com> wrote:
>
>>  It is my hope that many of you will get off the
>> legal, money PRO stuck cicle that has been taking
>> place around here and feel encouraged to bring many
>> more issues on the technical and productive side of
>> film composing, such as software, hardware, dealing
>> with directors etc...  As you al probably know, the
>> world of film composing goes way further than ASCAP,
>> BMI and what pocket change some sort of royalty will
>> allow us... It will make me extremelly happy to see
>> many of you just open your minds...
>>
>> Welcome and
>>
>> Cheers...
>>
>>
>> Marinho Nobre
>> Music for Motion Picture
>> score at marinhonobre.com
>> Voice 347-424-4985  Fax - (718) 210-3151
>> http://www.marinhonobre.com
>> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1971862/
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 22
> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:28:31 -0500
> From: <bipcress at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [Fmpro] 80% Non-Lyric Penalty?
> To: <fmpro at nxport.com>
> Message-ID: <009101c855b5$e6238c30$ffb33d47 at gargantua>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Thank you much, Peter. Don't have to call ASCAP (I believe you, my
> brother). - JohnB
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Pete" <musical411 at yahoo.com>
> To: <fmpro at nxport.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [Fmpro] 80% Non-Lyric Penalty?
>
>
>> --- 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!
>>
>> The truth is, our music gets paid the same, regardless
>> of if it's an instrumental or vocal, when it's on the
>> radio, used in advertising, used as a show's
>> themesong, played in a restaurant, dentist office, bar
>> etc. Those aren't just a few rare exceptions, that's a
>> large amount of the music paid through ASCAP/BMI.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> You can call ASCAP and ask them yourself if what I'm
>> saying is true. We can debate that the system could be
>> done a million different ways. But, that's how it is.
>>
>> Hope that helped clear it up,
>> Pete
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
>> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
>> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 23
> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:12:33 +1100
> From: Mark Northam <mnortham at gmdgroup.com>
> Subject: Re: [Fmpro] 80% Non-Lyric Penalty?
> To: <fmpro at nxport.com>
> Message-ID: <C3B03D51.44C60%mnortham at gmdgroup.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> End of FMPRO Digest, Vol 33, Issue 17
> *************************************
> 