NAMM Slam 2012: Can 92,000 Be Wrong?
Moses Avalon
Generally NAMM is described by me as a 100,000 square foot Guitar Center with about 70,000 people playing Stairway to Heaven.
Not this year. Aside form a record breaking 92,000 attendees, NAMM has grown with the times, expanding from mere trade show to conference, power broker meet-n-greet.
Up until last year, had an aspiring artist asked me, “Why should I go to NAMM, I’m not a retailer, or a sound engineer?” I might have had little to disagree with. But with the addition of HOT Zone and a few minor tweaks in policy, NAMM has turned into far more than a place to see the latest Digital Work Station.
Now, I would say it doesn’t matter what aspect of the music business a person is working with, if you’re not at NAMM, you’re probably not deeply in the game.
NAMM has arrived, and with over 300 new exhibitors (to add to the over 2000 already) and a record attendance level eclipsing the population of several US cities it’s also proving the death of yet another piece of tech-biased propaganda: that the music biz is fading away.
As I recall, last year it was a very, male and very dry trade show. But for some reason (and I have my theories) the floor was decidedly more co-ed and with a fair amount of MILFie hotness. The Tech Awards show and the Ernie Ball Anniversary party attracted some high quality talent and with them their very high-talent entourages.
HOT Zone
But the real unsung hero of the new NAMM was the establishment of HOT Zone, a conference within the trade show that became the epicenter of the best deal making at the show. This was probably unintended, by founder and organizer David Schwartz, but the HOT Zone lounge on the second floor was the only space to have a quiet conversation in comfortable chairs, away from the hubbub.
Had you happened by, you would have been able to meet industry shakers shaking hands in a causal and very approachable environment. Alan Parsons was among them, giving a riveting workshop and hanging around after and the next day to shmooz.
My hope is that next year we see a continuation of this theme. If so, expect the nexus of deal making to be made more at NAMM than any five music gatherings put together. At about $100, the price gives it my highest marks on my chart ranking Music Business events.
=======
Download my new free iThing App: MyRecord Deal: The Moses Avalon Royalty Calculator. Stop getting played and find out what you are really owed. Read the review on Digital Music News.
New App Reveals the Truth About What Big Artists Make on Record Deals
Moses Avalon
I want to make you immediately aware of a benefit for you that I have been working on for a number of years.
It’s a way for artists to always know how much they are owed for any music deal (recording, publishing, merchandise, endorsement) and conversely, for labels, production companies, aggregators, managers, etc to always know how much they are making on commissions from their artists and songwriters. Journalists can also use it for research on artists and labels.
Inappropriately named “Royalty Calculator,” for marketing purposes, it’s a free App that hit the Apple App store a few days ago and I want you to be the first to download, use and review it.
If you have an Apple device, just go to the App store and type in “Moses Avalon” in the search function. You may get a few results but the one we are focusing on today is called the “Moses Avalon Royalty Calculator.” (It’s also called MyRecord Deal.) And I have one more request before you jump there.
I know many of you have wanted to make some small contribution to my site for all the free information and discounts I offer to those of you on my list and who follow me on Twitter.
This App is a chance to do that. The free version is ad supported, so, please click on the ads. It costs you nothing but we get a few pennies each time you click on one and those pennies ultimately offset the high cost of producing the App.
There is also a Pro version of the App for $4.99 and several cool ad-ons for 99 cents. A large portion of this money (like 50%) goes to my Artists’ Rights Advocacy Fund. This fund allows me to remain ad-free and agenda-free so you get my unbiased opinion on music scams and other issues that affect your career and your rights. If you ever bought a service on my website for under $300, you were a benefactor of this Fund. I’m hoping you’ll take a minute to give a little back.
All it takes is a tap of your finger.
Click here (or below) if you’re ready to help and get a fun, educational App, or keep reading about the App’s features below. If you don’t have an iThing, don’t worry we’ll be coming to Android soon.
Feel free to forward this and thank you for being one of my readers. You are the reason I have kept doing this since 1998.
Moses
Moses Avalon Royalty Calculator.
App Description
MyRecord Deal (The Moses Avalon Royalty Calculator)
They say crime doesn’t pay, but does music? You’d be surprised how little most of the time and how much some of the time.
Do you ever wonder how much Lady GaGa, U2, or Eminem make from their platinum records?
How about if you are a recording artist or songwriter and want to know if your record label or publisher is reporting royalties accurately, or if the contract you’re being offered is worth the advance?
Wonder no more.
MyRecod Deal is a complete, no nonsense App that calculates the profits and losses generated by virtually any US record or publishing deal. It’s both a serious tool for music professionals and a fun App for those curious about how much a hit song is actually worth. There has never been a more comprehensive tool that reveals the startling truth about how music pays.
Created by top music-business consultant, best-selling author of music business texts and artists’ rights advocate Moses Avalon, MyRecord Deal, is a mobile app version of his popular “MARC” (Moses Avalon Royalty Calculator) which has been in use by music-business professionals and educators for over a decade.
MyRecord Deal includes all MARC’s famous features but has been greatly expanded and retooled for the Apple mobile platform to include calculations for publishing and 360 Deal points. It will determine, with reasonable accuracy, if a record company is reporting all earnings and royalties.
How does it work?
Using actual accounting practices of major and indie record labels, the MARC analyzes the data you enter and determines how much the artist, the producer, and the record label should all be making on the deal at any given point, right down to the penny.
Included with MyRecord Deal is a detailed in-app help-book that explains record label accounting procedures to both educate and help configure the MARC to match any type of record deal. You can set configure it for any type deal including, indie, single, fully blown five-album, and major-label 360 deals. You can also use pre-configured templates that save you time and give you instant answers.
MyRecord Deal – The MARC can be used for:
–Determining how much mega groups are actually making on record sales and publishing. (General template is included, artist-specific templates available via in-app purchase.)
–Knowing if the advance offered by a label publisher is too much or too little for the size of the deal.
–Calculating the break-even point for any release for the artist, songwriters, producer and the label.
–Budgeting a DIY career to determine how much is too much to spend on the recording, the promotion, and the tour.
–Finding the actual “penny rate” of each single or album, as well as the publishing splits for each single or album.
–Figuring out the cost-benefit assumptions for auditing or suing a record label.
Using the included in-App Help Book, you will learn:
–How labels calculate royalties.
–The staggering difference between what the songwriter makes versus the recording artist.
–How to negotiate effectively with a label to get the best deal for the artist.
Try it for free (ad supported). Upgrade to pro for only $4.99 for a limited time.
SOPA Opera and The Anti-Music Media Bias
With piracy affecting all areas of commerce, why does it seem like only the music biz is whining? Well, because the main-stream media is only “reporting” about them and ignoring the massive extra-music industry support for SOPA. But why? Is SOPA really such a huge threat to media outlet’s revenue that they would sell-out on a Bill that is designed to keep themselves alive?
Moses Avalon
The other day I read a story about how the e-book trade is being rifled by piracy. The journalist postulated that the reason pirates have been ripping and burning e-books is because the public doesn’t want to pay the “high price,” offered by Kindle, Nook, Kobo, etc. A reader posting in the comments section sympathized, hoping that the “fledgling” e-book trade would not be too badly hurt by piracy. Then, a lawyer for a website that sells counterfeit designer-handbags and is presently under indictment, was quoted. He defended his client with intimations that the world is entitled to designer style without paying designer prices.
High prices causing piracy? Entitlement to quality goods and services? It all started to sound familiar. Where had I heard these defenses to theft before?
That’s it!! The music business! According to just about every paper and bloger, those bastards are charging $15 for one song. No, wait, it was $15 for 12-15 songs but only one song is good, right? No wait, it’s the record company’s greed that makes artists release only one good song on an album. Wait, I’m starting to get confused again, because someone smart once taught me that theft had little to do with the quality of content; people steal bad records too, right? (Brittany Spears was one of the most illegally downloaded artist, at one time.)
I thought theft was caused by a person not wanting to pay for something they perceive they have a need for, or a right to. Yeah, that rings true.
Now, can you imagine these same absurd arguments of “high price = theft” being printed about any other industry but music?
- People are stealing food because the price is too high; when you think about all the food you throw out, or decide you don’t like, after you buy it, it’s a rip-off.
- People are stealing movies because studios/theaters charge over $10 for a two hour experience, but there are usually only a few really good scenes in the movie, so it’s a rip-off.
- And books… Don’t get me started. How can you justify charging $10 for an e-book containing 50,000 words when I only have time to read about half of them, and let’s be honest, I’m only going to like about one tenth of the book anyway. I mean, the Steve Jobs book didn’t have any pages that I’ll to want to re-read or experience over and over again like my porn and pulp novels, my The Godfather DVD, or… my entire music collection.
Yet, the main-stream press (and thus the public) seem far more sympathetic to the plight of most every other trade supporting SOPA than it has ever been to the record companies and their stable of artists. Why?The answer is simple, but not very uplifting.
BUYING POWER
Even though SOPA (which I’ll get to in a minute) will benefit all forms of media and Intellectual Property, the main-stream press can not seem to get past its hate of the music trade and the journalists who “work” in it, to report on this very important Bill accurately.
All you read is how the RIAA, the NMPA and the MPAA are sponsoring SOPA with unprecedented amounts of lobbying; but little to nothing about others backing the Bill: the pharmaceutical trade, designer clothing, major law firms representing big brands of all types and even an internet centered busines, GoDaddy (until they were bullied into changing their stand by tech companies. A virtual blackmail campaign that seems to have backfired in GoDaddy’s favor.)
Why do the papers hate us so much that they would shoot themselves in the foot, journalistic-wise?
Let’s take one at a time:
News media institutions hate major record labels for one simple reason– they buy virtually no advertising in newspapers or even on TV, like they did in the good-old-days. Yet, despite horrendous rape of their inventory have survived the internet transition better than the print news business and all without any help from them as an advertising platform and with their journalists pissing on our head the whole while.
Main-stream journalists despise music “journalists” because to a hard-boiled investigative reporter who meets sources in back alleys to get a scoop, music journalism seems like an overpaid high-school newspaper beat; going to concerts, hanging out with musicians and getting your ass kissed in exchange for a decent write-up.
Yep, if I were a New York Times reporter making something south of $80K a year I’d have nothing but contempt for their cooler-than-tho back-stage passes, designer swag bags and gifts from PR firms.
So, everybody in the media biz hates us, but they love our product enough to promote its theft under the bumper sticker “information should be free.”
WHEN IT COMES TO SOPA,
GEEKS CAN SOMETIMES BE PRETTY DUMB
I sat next to a 20-something, “SOPA is evil,” tech-employed hipster the other night at a poker table. He thought information should be free.
He was repeating the standard propaganda you read in all tech-rags, how SOPA is censorship and will destroy the internet. I managed not to puke on him but did politely ask, “Help me understand your view point, cause I don’t know much about this stuff; if information should be free, then why should I be paying ISPs for data charges?” He stumbled, “That’s different,” he said, “You’re dealing with lots of technology and infrastructure.”
Yep, that’s different, I guess, than spending hundreds of hours getting a song just right.
Anyone who thinks that SOPA, which simply gives content providers a slightly bigger stick when seeking court injunctions to defend their property, will destroy the internet, well… I think we can guess what that person is using the internet for. I’ve questioned many a person-on-the-street about SOPA. Without exception, all who oppose it have not read the Bill itself. (You can read it here.)
If they did, they would see the Bill clearly states that blocking counterfeit sites is only something a ISP is required to do if it’s “technically feasible” and reasonable. (Bottom of page 19 of the Bill.) This still leaves ISPs with an enormous amount of wriggle room.
SOPA does have its problems. Most of which will ironed out in the next draft. But when it passes (and it’s a safe bet that it will) it will not destroy the internet or free speech any more or less than FCC regulation has “destroyed” cable TV or radio. History has proven that a little bit of regulation changes very little. Humans find a way to say what they want.
What SOPA will do is cost ISPs a lot of cash to be compliant. Which means this is not a philosophical argument, but a financial one.
The rest of the “censorship” claims are window-dressing. What the tech-biased, music-biz hating media, pandering to their advertising clients don’t want you to know, is that most people do not use the internet to find/steal/share entertainment content illegally or legally. According to studies, most people use the net mostly for:
1) Shopping.
2) Finding restaurants.
3) Finding dates, their friends, and finally…
4) Cloud storage.
THE BORING TRUTH
And that is what the ISPs are really, secretly afraid of and why they are fighting SOPA, ACTA, et al with threats, boycotts and thuggery instead of logical arguments.
It’s not because the internet will end if they have to take a little bit of responsibility re: piracy. It’s because if laws make ISPs liable for piracy, and they are forced to filter many P2P sites and forgo profits from advertizing such sites, then it will reveal to the public what the internet really is to MOST of us: a communication service. A simple, electronic, hi-tech yellow pages and Post Office replacement. Not the sexy entertainment hub and you-can-get-anything-your-heart-desires dream-box the Valley Lords wish it to be.
And if that happens then the Tech Gods will have to come to grips with the fact that they are not the new Les Paul. They are just the new Thomas Edison.
Why they are not happy with that probably goes back to a junior high-school trauma about losing a chick to a jock or a musician.
Sorry Valley Lords, I know you want to be cool like us. But you are not. You’re cool in your own way and this year Congress will prove it to you.
See you in court.
Mo Out
PS: If you’re new to the SOPA debate, here’s a pretty balanced (lightly anti-leaning) CNET piece that explains the issues with some great links.
And here is a great piece by very a clear thinker, Chris Castel, on a recent debate regarding pirating or, “rough sites,” as they are referred to in this debate.
And for a truly absurd “Conspiracy theory” about how media companies want people to steal their inventory, read this one on, of all places, Forbes. (Shame.)
*****************************************************************
Download my new free iThing App: MyRecord Deal: The Moses Avalon Royalty Calculator. Stop getting played and find out what you are really owed and how to properly budget your next recording. Read the review on Digital Music News.
*****************************************************************
Five Reasons You Should Be at NAMM in January 2012
Being on my list has be benefits. Due to a special arrangement with NAMM I have a guest list that can get you all access passes for only $25. But you must follow the instructions below and today is the last day.
Moses Avalon
You don’t have to tell me. I’m sure with so many music conferences to choose from NAMM might have made your cut list for this year. Sometimes the 100,000 square foot show can be like a Guitar Center on steroids. But this year is very different.
For less than the cost of a few packs of guitar strings you can have direct access to some of the top movers in the new music business, all in one room, all at once, at your finger tips, all talking about the REAL future of this business, not the hyperboloid crap that you read in blogs all year.
This year NAMM expanded on a pilot program begun last year called, The H.O.T. ZONE, a series of high-end workshops tucked into a private area within the massive NAMM trade show.
And they asked yours truly to put together the panels for one important unit.
The H.O.T. Zone will run for four days all throughout NAMM and while all the panels are amazing, on day three, Saturday, January 21st from 1-4PM my three salons are guaranteed to change your perceptive on this business forever!
“Making a Living in Tomorrow’s Music Business” is the theme. It includes three discussions with highly experienced and often controversial personalities.
Our three panels:
- Economics of the New “Record “ Industry: Learn who will be livin’ large in ten years and why.
- The Future Jobs in the Music Space: Navigate your next career move by knowing what jobs don’t even exist yet.
- The Artist’s New Team: Who will the artist’s support group evolve into within the next five years.
Cost..?If you already have a NAMM pass– $0. And if you don’t, only $25. I mean C’mon! $25 gets you an all access pass to the NAMM trade show floor, exhibits as well as The H.O.T. Zone seminars.
INSTRUCTIONS
==============
YOU HAVE TO BE ON THIS LIST TO GET THIS DEAL. IT’S NOT A WALK UP.
I have to submit my list to The H.O.T. Zone people. If you are not on my mailing list already, go here and in the message section type the word “NAMM.”
Be sure in the “name” field to include the name that matches your photo ID.
Be sure to enter the name that matches your photo ID.
Be sure to enter the name that matches your photo ID.
I print that three times because many have not followed that instruction and will miss out.
You also must do this by NO LATER than December 14th 5PM. TODAY!!
Do it now! You can always change your mind later, but get on this list today!
BEING ON MY LIST HAS BENEFITS AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM.
Want to see who and what you’ll learn and from who you will be learning? Go to this link.
So… What are my five reasons you should go to NAMM this year:
1) I’ll be there.
2) You get to hear me talk shit
3) I have great panelists that actually will teach something instead of pitching their crap at you.
4) You can buy me a coffee.
5) I’ve hired dancers for between-panel entertainment.
Nuff said?
Mo out
Goodbye Edgar, We Hardly Knew Ya
Is The Bronfman Exit the Sign of Great Things to Come In The Record Biz?
Moses Avalon
So Edgar quit. Who cares? Well… I do and so should you if you’re an artist or anyone who services one.
I never met Mr. Bronfman. The closest I came was to sit a table away from him at an awards function years ago, and here is the embarrassing part, I didn’t even know it was him.
Ed changed the music business and while we could argue for another ten years as to whether he changed it for the better or worse, the truth is it’s now irrelevant because it’s his departing and this particular time that has meaning.
Now that the most significant (albeit not the largest) label, Warner, is in control and positioned to be the most influential distributor in the game, what is the Russian guy who bought it gonna do? He’s gonna clean house as step one.
Ed didn’t just quit. He was fired. Not with a pink slip, but by the natural merger and acquisitions attrition of a golden parachute and planned obsolescence.
If you didn’t see this coming, you’re not paying close enough attention to the recent music biz math.
We don’t need the big wigs anymore. We don’t need to pay CEOs of labels $4 Million salaries plus bonus. I’m sure we can find a 35 year-old somewhere who can squeak by on $500,000 a year and all the back stage ass he can grab to run one of the industry’s biggest catalogs.
Since 1985 CEO salaries have increased form $800,000 a year to somewhere in the millions. Meanwhile all other salaries have remained basically constant. (See the chart below)
This is non-sustainable in a industry going through he kind of upheaval we’ve seen since 2005.
And this is just the beginning of the new music business.
As this smarter, leaner, younger, model sets in, the other Big Two distributors will follow and trim the fat-cats. Next will be Jimmy, Reid and others, resigning to “spend more time with their families” or getting into other facets of entertainment.
CONSOLIDATION IS THE NEW GROWTH
While just about every blog and paper seem to feel that the EMI break up is another blow to the recorded music trade, as usual, I see it a bit differently.
This is the blitz. Less distributors does not necessarily equal less product, less releases, less signings or less anything. As long as we have two large distributors with families of labels, we have competition and two is all we really need to keep the game going, let alone three.
Consider this: there were not more labels when we had six major distributors through the 1990s, there were less. (Source: Pollstar) When labels consolidate they tend to create more imprints, which leads to new A&R vehicles. And I’m sure with the millions the industry will save on its executive restructuring, more imprints and more development deals will be created.
The top has been too heavy for far too long. Now is the new dawn.
Ed, sorry to see you go, but we need your money for new artists more than you need it for a new boat. No hard feelings. But we’ll see ya at the Grammys, I’m sure.
This time I’ll say hi.
Mo out.
-
- CEO salaries at major record labels have tripled since 1985 while all others have barely kept pace with inflation.
The Big Opt Out: Steve Jobs’ Email From The Other Side
Moses Avalon
I was not really affected by the death of Mr. Steve Jobs until the other day when I got an email from him– about a week after he passed. Well, clearly it could not have been from him; he’s in an important meeting right now, I’m sure. But rather someone at Apple cleaning up his affairs.
As many might know, Steve did not believe in putting many layers between him and his customers. For several years well into his world wide fame, anyone could email him at steve@apple.com. And for about six years now that addy and another that led to his inbox have been on my mailing list along with the other 14,000 (+/-) of you all.
It seems he’s carrying this policy of staying in touch, even in the after life.
When I heard that Steve had passed, I had mixed feelings, but they all sort of just washed over me. Many of my favorite musicians have died in the past few years and I mourned them deeply, so, the passing of the guy who makes my mobile phone did not really have a significant impact.
Then I got his opt-out notice.
Anyone can opt-out of my mailing list at any time. But apparently Steve had not. He never made his presence known to me, or indicated with a reply that he was reading my missives (sometimes critical of Apple) but apparently he was there, looking over my shoulder for several years.
Now, an executive secretary is probably retiring that addy and cleaning out his virtual desk. I know that this is the reality, but in my fantasy I’d like to think that it is Steve himself saying goodbye to everyone in some weird netherworld way.
I’m not alone. As Apple stock plummets, iPhone sales dip and the new OS littered with issues, many are starting to wonder if the success of the company had less to do with its specific proprietary technology and more to do with Steve’s mojo.
Time will tell,
So, to Steve I want to finally say, safe journey Bodhisattva. And to the rest of us still stuck here on this Earth I’d like to say this:
Show someone who takes an interest in your work how much you appreciate them. Do it today. Some day it will be too late and as Joanie once wrote, you don’t know what you got till it’s gone.
Moses
Digital Music Forum West: Mimics TED for 2011 Conference. Did it Justify the $600 Price Tag?
Moses Avalon
I suppose there is something refreshing about going to a music conference and not seeing too many familiar faces. Sure, I knew many of the panelists from the scene, but the attendees..? Who were these people? Young, cool haircuts, mannered. Was this a music conference?
Digital Music Forum West (#DMFW) was held this year at the Hollywood Roosevelt hotel in Los Angeles on October 6-7.
About 350 registrants filtered in and out of attendance for two day’s worth of 15 minute speeches by people on the tech cusp. Attendees were split between artists on their way up the food chain of the LA music scene, and technology providers who navigate on the periphery of the music business.
Unlike every other conference, instead of multi-person panels, DMFW chose to do it more “TED” styled. No, this does not mean that music consultant, Ted Cohen, of TAG Strategic, decided who speaks and who doesn’t (although, as the moderator, it did have that feel.) It means that the format was more in line with the famous TED Conference, where each speaker takes the stage for a short time to give their presentation. It leaves little room for questions and was supposed to discourage speakers from pitching their company. Did it?
The one-room idea worked well; it keeps the energy focused. As an experienced conference Gadfly, I know how much we all hate trying to find the room with the next event. But the 15 minutes of fame thing– not sure. Many presenters ended up pitching anyway and there seemed no way to stop that.
But my bigger beef was that the short stage time forced presenters to speak a mile a minute; usually about complex rights issues that are hard to understand at 33 RPM let alone 78. (Am I dating my self or what?)
I asked DMWF’s organizer, Ned Sherman if he planned to repeat the format next year. “We’re going to consider it,” he said, recognizing some of the issues.
So, how was the show? Was it worth the money? On my published, Chart of 19 Music Conferences Ranked, I gave DMFW a 5 out of 10, meaning that it was a bit high priced in exchange for the chance of connecting with someone relevant. However, that rating was based on past years and it was anecdotal. This year, I actually attended the Forum in person. I found that it really stepped up its speakers and, despite the format’s shortcomings, delivered a nice power-punch of networking opportunities.
So, was it worth the money? At $600 a ticket, I’d have to say no. However, most people did not pay this amount. Artists paid a special rate of about $200 and here it starts to approach something more palatable.
All-in-all I am upgrading my rating on DMFW from a 5 to a 7 which puts it squarely in line with other well respected conferences. If they will have me, I’ll be back next year with hopes of seeing a few improvements:
1) A press room with fresh coffee and an interview area (Alright that’s for my fellow journalists.)
2) Less pitchy speakers with more specific topics.
3) Extended audience Q&A
4) One rate for everyone. Why should computer geeks pay more than anyone else?
End note: Apple founder Steve Jobs died the day before DMFW. Considering that if it were not Jobs there probably would not even be a conference where music and technology merge, it would have been nice to see some sort of homage paid to him. If it was there, I missed it.
Mo out.
“Termination of Masters”: Bringing New Life To Classic Recordings Or Helping Us Lose Them Forever
Many artists claim that, given the opportunity, they would take back their recordings from their money-grubbing labels. Well, 100s of acts will get that chance soon. Recently, the subject of “reversion of masters” surfaced in the New York Times. But when push comes to shove, many artists might opt to keep their hit recordings right where they are.
This excerpt is based on a chapter from the latest book by industry expert Moses Avalon’s 100 Answers to 50 Questions on the Music Business.
Moses Avalon
While many in the music space have known about the coming copyright Armageddon (known as “reversion/termination of master rights”) for several years, most artists still have no idea exactly what it means for them and what they can do about it. While the idea of artists taking back their classic recordings might seem great, given that many feel mistreated by their labels, my bet is the, “Devil you know is better than the devil you don’t” philosophy, will prevail when the time comes. Here’s why and a brief guide to help with this decision.
FIRST, WHAT IS REVERSION?
The Copyright Act states that after 35 years, the license or transfer of a work to a publisher (or label) can “terminate” and revert back to the original author. Under that law artists who recorded material after January 1, 1978, are eligible to reclaim their masters in the year 2013. (35 years later) If the copyrights were created/transferred in 1979, then they are eligible for reversion in 2014; if created in 1980, they are eligible in 2015; etc.
Sounds simple, but for those that recorded/released prior to 1978 things get a bit more complicated. Copyright law has changed several times from 1972 to the present resulting in several important exceptions to the “termination of masters” provision. For example, because of the change in law that occurred in 1978, artists whose recordings were registered between 1972 and 1978 will need to wait 56 years before they can reclaim their masters; and artists whose masters were recorded before 1972 can never reclaim their masters because — believe it or not — no sound recording copyright existed before 1972.
To make matters even more confusing, the window to submit a “termination of master” claim varies in length for each of the zones listed above. Ugh!
With so many variances in the law, we really need a computer to keep track of what masters will become available. (Isn’t there an app for that?) Especially when one considers that the albums immediately affected are some of pop music’s most successful recordings.
GREAT NOW… HOW DO I GET MY RECORD BACK?
While reversion may sound like the ultimate victory for the artist, keep in mind that without the threat of label litigation, bootleggers will be free to copy any CD like a two-track master and then commercially release the classic recording without significant fear of punishment. If the last ten years has taught the music business anything it’s that regarding copyright infringement: it’s one thing to prove it and quite another to get the money.
Can you imagine several different labels each selling different releases of Pink Floyd’s “The Wall”? (Which terminates in 2013.) Each would sound virtually identical to the original since each would be a re-recording of the same original CD. (Ever bought a bad bootleg by accident and upon listening to it realized that this was just an illegal recording of the recording? No… right… me neither.)
Artists have got to ask themselves this important question before attempting to pry loose the meal-tickets of their labels: What would various releases from sources as legitimate as iTunes or Amazon.com to nefarious ones that could carry viruses, do to consumer confidence when considering a purchase? Imagine the brand starting to deteriorate because of confusion or fear.
And it gets worse: since bootleggers have no direct contact with the artist — no royalties from sales would be paid and it is doubtful they would opt to pay the mechanical either.
And it gets even worse: unless the copyright administrator (which would be the artist by default when the master reverts) sues each and every bootlegger (very expensive) the sound recording copyright could be voided and end up prematurely in the public domain.
So, ironically, reversion — the artist’s right to control their work — could end up causing the deregulating of their copyright and the complete loss of the artist’s control.
Bottom line: before you get too excited about taking back those masters, you need to determine if you have the legal infrastructure and resources to defend the copyright as effectively as the label that has been over the past 35 years.
SO WHAT SHOULD AN ARTIST DO?
In lieu of actual reversion, there are a number of strategies that the artist can employ to turn the situation to their advantage. In my view a clever artist would see this as an opportunity to renegotiate with the label, rather than an outright divorce. In my consulting practice that’s the strategy I’ve been recommending.
Ask the label, “What value are you going to bring to the recordings from this point forward?” With Internet tools so cheaply available, it is clear that you no longer need a label to distribute your music, but you might need a partner to exploit it in new and creative ways. Ask the label for a marketing plan. Or do a P&D deal and flip the percentages; you get 85% and they get 15%.
Remember, unless you have the resources to market, promote, and most importantly, protect your copyrights, you should try to see reversion as an opportunity for negotiating a new deal with your label to bring new life to your hit record.
Spite makes for bad business decisions.
A word of warning: Reversion is a tricky business not to be undertaken without a qualified attorney. So don’t try this at home, kids. If you need an attorney the Moses Avalon Company will get you one of the best. Click here to email me for more information on this.
Mo out
Major Labels Brace Themselves For Loss Of Their Most Popular Catalog In 2013
The Mayan calendar claims that the world will come to an abrupt end in 2012. We have all heard the hype and suffered through the movies. But even if that prediction falls flat, the pop music business may still experience it’s own armageddon shortly thereafter. Are these just the ravings of another music industry expert flying off the rails? Lets see.
Moses Avalon
In 2013 many classic recordings are scheduled to slip out of the control of their major labels. No, I’m not referring to odd recordings that no one actually collects. This list of records includes some of the top selling albums of all time! (abbreviated list below)
Even though music business insiders have been dreading this for years, The New York Times finally decided that it was a newsworthy enough subject and published a piece this week about this issue (called “termination of masters”). Unfortunately, the reporter they assigned seemed to a have limited understanding of how the music business really works as well as copyright in general. In his article, he kept interchanging the word “songs” with “master recordings,” which littered his post with inaccurate statements like “artists can claim their songs in 2013.”
Though this New York Times piece may be new info to outsiders, it is a subject that has long been on the minds of those concerned with the recording industry and artist rights. I reported about the subject in a 2008 Moses Supposes article. Here’s the reprint for your perusal:
MAYAN MELTDOWN AT MAJORS
The hot topic for 2008’s American Bar Association conference was “termination of masters.” A little raison d’etre in the copyright act that supposedly levels the playing field for authors who are often at a disadvantage to the big, bad publisher (or record company in this case). The Copyright Act states that after 35 years, the license or transfer of a work must “terminate” and revert back to the original author.
With so many variances in the law we really need an iPhone Countdown app for what master rights are soon to go bye-bye. But, due to several exceptions, the albums that are immediately affected are those released in the US from 1978-1979. So, in the year 2013 the following Albums may no longer be property of their labels:
Courtesy of "Insert Screen Name Here" on Flickr
The Wall (Floyd)
Van Halen (Van Halen)
Off the Wall (Jackson)
Highway to Hell (AC/DC)
Joe’s Garage (Zappa)
Tusk (Fleetwood Mac)
London Calling (Clash)
Rust Never Sleeps (Young)
Darkness on the Edge of Town (Springsteen)
Man the Torpedoes (Petty)
Kids Are All Right (The Who)
Some Girls (Rolling Stones)
Fear of Music (Talking Heads)
Ricky Lee Jones (Jones)
Basically my entire vinyl collection.
Oh, I almost forgot– Breakfast In America, Super Tramp. (They can have that that one.)
As you can see, this is not an insignificant list, and this list is in NO WAY complete.
While this may sound like a victory for the artists, keep in mind that without the threat of label litigation we will likely see a de facto Public Domain-i-zation (I made that word up) of these masters. Artistically this might be cool, because now people can do wacky remixes and P2P them free of lawsuits, but it also means a complete deterioration of the one area that labels have been relying on for the revenue it takes to invest in new artists – catalog.
AND ARTISTS TOO?
Yes! To make matters worse, it’s not only the labels that could get the shaft here, but the artist as well. You see, ANYONE who worked on the recording is considered “an author” and can apply for a “termination of [their] rights.” ANYONE. Right down to the hanger-on who played the tambourine because he dropped off weed at the studio and someone said, “Hey, want to jam on the record.”
Imagine being a top heritage artist, you get your masters back and you’re looking forward to making a fresh deal for your classic recording, only to have an army of ex-entourage you left in the wake of ascension shaking you down. Even if you’re legally in the right, the cost of litigation could bury you.
Several arguments have been forwarded to further define exactly who exactly “the author” is, but so far each one seems to have just enough merit to pass summary judgment. The fact is, no one knows for sure exactly what or who “the author” will be in this context.
For my anarchist readers, who are presently wringing their hands with glee, I’ll say this: it’s one thing to want labels to suffer because they’re such greedy bastards, it’s quite another to want to see a complete erosion of classic recordings and financial infrastructure.
This is only a small article on what is going to be a very, very scary topic over the next couple of years. Stay tuned.
What would you do if your label, who claimed that after selling millions of CDs claimed you still own them money, was going to lose rights to the masters? Would you take them back, or renew your contract with them? I’ll give you some tips in the next piece on this important subject. What do you think is in the artist’s best interest? Post your answer below. Here’s a clue: it’s not the obvious answer.
Mo out
Why You Should think Twice Before Joining ASCAP or BMI. Part III: Who Pays More?
In Part I of this three part series I addressed the key question: Should You Bother To Join Either PRO. Part II dealt with the fallacy of ASCAP & BMI’s self-postulated “non-profit” status BS and the PR they spread at trade shows as to why this makes them better than SESAC. Here in Part III, we’re getting to the bottom line… Who Pays More?
BUT FIRST…
Let me start by making one thing perfectly clear: Even though this entire three part series has been about vetting the sales pitches, organizational structures, and payment methods of the two main U.S. Performing Rights Organizations (“PROs”)—ASCAP and BMI— Without them, the economic viability of the writers of popular music would be endangered and the music business, in general, would suffer.
The PROs, aside from collecting the money due writers and publishers, also support the music community by giving grants to charities, helping writers get loans and receive healthcare benefits. They also go to great lengths to ensure that writers get paid their share of royalties even if a writer is unrecouped with his or her publisher. These services have important impact on our community and deserve recognition and consideration. But you can read more about these good deeds on their websites (Here & Here)
Here’s what you wont read…
WHO PAYS MORE?
When it comes to upfront money, BMI has been known, on rare occasions, to offer non-recoupable advances (called “guaranties”) to superstars, whereas ASCAP is emphatic that they will not ever give advances, because, they claim, their internal policies won’t allow it. However, it is no secret that they have, in fact given recoupable Advances in the multiple millions of dollars to several of their super-star writers.
So on the Advance side of the argument, BMI wins, hands down.
The case for who pays more when it comes to dispersants, however, here’s where it gets amusing: reps from both PROs make the claim that they pay the same as the other. However, this is about as truthy as the public policies regarding Advances. There are myriad songwriting teams where each member was signed to a different PRO, yet their checks for the same song in the same pay-period were very different. The fact that this happens with some degree of frequency begs the question: How can any discrepancies occur between them if they are, as commonly referred to, like Coke and Pepsi and function identically?
There are two factors that help explain the why their payments can be so different:
- How much does the PRO actually spend to collect your money?
- What method does the PRO use to calculate what they owe you?
We covered the first point in the first two parts of our series (Part I / Part II), so let’s look at the second point listed above. To do that we have to look at the PRO’s “pooling system.”
WHAT’S THAT FLOATING IN THE POOL? IS IT MY MONEY?
After ASCAP/BMI collect all their money (about $900 Million a year each) each applies its own proprietary slice-n-dice formula for paying members. Explained in very general terms: ASCAP’s method segregates the money into individual accounts, or “pools” for each source (radio, TV, stadiums, etc) and then applies a crediting formula which splits up the pool to each member in that pool. BMI, on the other hand, mixes all the money from the various sources into a master pool first and then applies a personal crediting code assigned privately to each member to figure on their share of the entire pool.
To assume this seemingly small distinction makes little difference is a huge mistake, as you’ll see.
To illustrate this let’s to turn the pooling system into a “canteen” analogy. A canteen holds a finite amount of water — let’s say 900 million sips. So naturally, since there is a finite amount of water in the canteen, if some people are going to get a few sips more, it will be at the expense of people who are going to get a few sips less. This seems fair. If you earned more credits (read: more public performances) you should get more sips. But… In reality, instead of one credit for one sip, it works more like this: the more sips from the canteen you take, the more credits you earn — to take a separate big gulp.
Kinda like that old cartoon joke, “One for you, one for me. Two for you and… one-two for me. Three for you and… one-two-three for me.”
And in fact, this is standard practice in the ASCAP/BMI pooling systems. The rich get richer, faster, because they earn more bonus credits towards a larger share of a finite pool of cash. However each system has their own separate and distinct ways of earning credits, depending on different factors, as I’ll show you now.
SO WHO GETS MORE SIPS?
The first factor is loyalty: ASCAP’s formulas don’t factor in your history with them. They don’t care how long you’ve been an ASCAP member — ten years or ten months. Their system is purely based on number of credits earned in that exact pay-period. Their applied Johnny Cochran-esque philosophy:
If you got a hit you get a split.
Whereas BMI’s math tends to favor their successful writers who are time-honored, over those who are new to BMI. The longer your music is earning money for BMI the more credits you earn. So on BMI the applied philosophy looks more like:
If you’re new to the game, your check might be lame but…
if you once had a hit you can still get a split.
And so, veteran writers in BMI’s pooling system get bonus credits despite not writing a new hit in years, at the expense of newbies with current hits.
The second factor is the type of music you write. And here it is more like what George Orwell wrote in his classic book, Animal Farm, “All credits are equal, but some are more equal than others.” (I changed it a little bit.)
The discrimination in ASCAP’s pooling system are eyebrow raising and have been written about extensively on other sites. In my research, a former ASCAP exec admitted to me that a pop song with vocals played on top 40 stations will pay about eight times more than say, the Star Wars Theme,, a non-vocal composition, played exactly the same amount of times on exactly the same stations because they are in different pools and the vocals pool earns credits in an 8:1 ratio over most other pools.
To help compensate for injustices in their systems, ASCAP and BMI both give away several million each year in awards to members who have “distinguished” themselves but who didn’t show up in that year’s surveys. (Read: are in tight with the board)
DECISIONS, DICISIONS, DECISIONS…
It should be obvious by now, that the often used analogy of Coke vs. Pepsi to describe the two min PROs in the US is not an appropriate one. In fairness though, neither ASCAP or BMI do anything to discourage the analogy. It keeps the public from focusing on their differences and distracts us from looking too closely at their mutual competitor, SESAC, the other PRO. (RC Cola?)
Which PRO you choose to join is an important decision, worth more consideration than a casual coin flip or worse, basing it on which rep got to you first with a drink ticket or an invitation to play at a showcase. The right choice for you may ultimately boil down to a few considerations some of which are outlined above. (BTW, we do special consultations to help clients make this decision. Shameless plug. Click Here to Email Me.)
Based on some inside sources, here are some simplified, general guidelines for your consideration;
- If you plan to be earning money from pop songs on the radio you may prefer ASCAP.
- If you plan to be earning money from copyrights that are instrumental soundtracks in films and TV, or in Broadway musicals, you may prefer BMI..
Ironically, these guidelines are often the opposite of what many reps and “informed” people will tell you (Especially BMI.) Here’s a couple more:
- If you have a fluke hit (that has vocals) and don’t plan on following up with a songwriting career, ASCAP might be the way to go.
- But if you’re in this for the long haul and plan on many hits, especially ones that don’t have vocal performances, BMI’s system my be kinder to you
CONCLUSION AND A PERSONAL NOTE
I have tried not to seem like I’m favoring either ASCAP or BMI in this post. But I would like the reader to note that in verifying my facts for what you have just read, representatives of ASCAP, knowing that I was going to write something sobering, were forthcoming and cooperative. I wish I could have said the same for BMI, whose only response was to forward me a press release. That might be a factor in your consideration as well.
Only time will tell if ASCAP and BMI will grow more powerful or if they will outgrow their usefulness or be outmoded by “direct licensing” technologies. But of this I am sure:
You can see from reading the three parts to this series that these two companies compete rather fiercely; as digital broadcasting and other new performance mediums evolve over the next decade, their collection potential will approach the tens of billions per year. I can’t wait to see how competitive things get for the “societies” then. I for one I plan to keep a front-row seat, with popcorn and drink in hand.
Coke anyone?
Mo out
*****************************************************************
Download my new free iThing App: MyRecord Deal: The Moses Avalon Royalty Calculator. Stop getting played and find out what you are really owed and how to properly budget your next recording. Read the review on Digital Music News.
*****************************************************************
If you found this post helpful in making some decisions about which PRO to join (and when) and you want more info to take your music career to the next level please consider purchasing a copy of my latest book 100 Answers to 50 Questions on the Music Business.
