In our continuing discussion of intellectual property, music, and the question of what art is worth in general, I've received some very insightful and oftentimes profane comments about the subject. It seems as though you all are somewhat heated by the subject. Pay too much for that sub-par Dixie Chicks album?
Here is a portion of one comment, posted by one gdragon:
"What a*^-hole decided that any musician's song is worth 10 cents a play, no matter what!? I mean seriously, ten cents!? That means, in the marketplace, Bob Dylan receives the same amount per play as does Nick Carter. . .that sh*t's f*cked up!"
I can certainly see where you are coming from, gdragon. You are correct that the marketplace in the music industry is indeed, f*cked. If Bob Dylan is a classic Ford from the 60's, and Nick Carter is a 2005 Saturn Ion, why would anyone consider paying an equal amount for the two cars? You would have to be truly loony toony to actually consider that.
In the case of the music business however, our government has decided to extend the long arm of the law into a business sector where it has no place, where the free market could certainly work things out naturally.
Just like the Patriot Act or the drug war, the Feds will certainly claim they are just trying to "protect" you.
It is true that the 10 (actually 9.1) cents that gdragon speaks of, known as the statutory rate (stop giggling, that's not funny), does prevent many musicians and songwriters from getting royalty screwed (pun intended). But in the grand scheme of things, placing a price, any price on art is devaluing its potential worth. As soon as anyone decides that a song is worth more that 10 cents, the law has effectively prevented the worth of that art from going up.
Obviously Bob Dylan would like to receive more than the statutory rate, and probably deserves to do so. Then again, will I be happy when I receive my first royalty check for $.45? You bet your booty I will.
I welcome any/all comments/questions about this subject, it really does torque some people off. What any musicians reading this should know, is that your chances of generating revenue are decent when performing live, somewhat conceivable when selling your music, and virtually impossible when solely depending on royalties. This is largely because of the increasing irrelevance of radio, maybe next time we can dive in to that...
Frogs Gone Fishin' just finished a three-day run over the weekend to the mountains and Boulder. It was great to play a college town during the school year, something FGF really hasn't done because we've all been at school in different locales. The kids at CU really know how to throw down a party (especially after a CU win over CSU, the big state rival). We are also selling our old trailer in order to buy a bigger, better, sexier trailer.
If you're in Denver, come check out FGF at Wash Park Grille this Friday. And regardless of where you are, have a safe and happy week!
3 comments:
Can't make money on royalties?! Yeah, not if you're a dope wielding hippie! Excuse me if I'm wrong but isn't Elvis Presley one of the highest grossing musicians year after year?! And homeboy damn sure ain't playing any shows to nobody!
Yo afroman,
thats like me saying, "you dont't think you can make it in the movie business? Don't you have any idea how much brad pitt makes?" What is even sadder than this is the fact that of the select few artists who can have a successful enough career to live on royalties, most of them were probably so young and hungry and eager to get started that they signed a shitty record deal where the signed away song rights, not just masters but publishing to. After this happens a band needs to 1) make enough money to pay back the record company for all the money they blew (whether it was smart spending or not) 2) Now you need to hope your band is so successful that you can get together the millions it will cost to sue the label 3) If you are even lucky enough to win the suit then you can begin to accept royalties, that is if you aren't already dead because this whole thing will be like a 30 or so year process. This brings up another interesting intellectual properties question, 'How long is the right amount of time for song ownership to last?' Should fourth and fifth generations still receive royalties for your song as if they did something to earn it while everyone else still has to pay, or should they move to public domain to help ensure the use and viability of a song continues long after the passing of the owner?
We are all gonna be rich off powerball way before any of us are rich off royalties.
afroman, for your sake i hope you are not a performing musician. if you are, enjoy the raman noodles you'll be eating for the rest of your life. i hear they come in three flavors now!
Post a Comment