A session I regularly attend has received notice from the PRS that they will be attending to gather information as to whether or not they are entitled to claim revenue from this event.
This is not just an Irish trad session, it is quite eclectic, people playing blues, old rock'nroll, recent pop songs, some of peoples' own material, back to ITM, STM, ETM, ATM ( no, we don't have a cash point ), etc.
Just to confuse the issue it is held in the back of a restaurant at a quiet period, the organisers being friends of the management. There is no cover charge for the music, but it is mentioned at the top of one of the pages of the menu.
They do play background music over the tannoy, the speakers at the rear being disconnected for the duration of the session. To the best of our knowledge the owner already has a licence for this. Musicians sit in a circle, those who come to hear, mainly friends and family, who are normally outnumbered by the musicians, sit at tables nearby. No-one earns anything from this, except a feeling of community and togetherness.
We also have two lawyers amongst the regular musicians.
I'm curious to know the outcome, the worst thing is I shall miss the day, being elsewhere singing Sacred Harp.
Prior notice eh? I think you have time for a plan... Come up with a couple tunes that last their entire visit... play out of tune with each other, smile and invite them to join in with a little dance... really put on a show. Perhaps you can drive them out.
FWIW--Here in the U.S., a similar organization tried the same sort of extortion on a very small coffee shop (capacity maybe 20 people, total) that hosted a traditional session.
The shop decided to make the session a "private party"--therefore not subject to the "public performance" fee--and just do a poor job of guarding against gate crashers.
I think it's a pity that words like "ugly" and "extortion" should be applied to the PRS. It makes the organisation seem like the Cosa Nostra when, in fact, it is, as the name implies, dedicated to protecting the rights of musicians.
In an age when downloads and the non-sanctioned recording and filming of gigs and their subsequent posting on the internet are rife, the ability of professional musicians to be properly recompensed for their life of dedication is being eroded on a daily basis.
I depend on the PRS and the MU and the PPL and other such bodies to claw back whatever they can on my behalf, whilst I get on with the business of practising, rehearsing, travelling, recording etc., to put food on the table.
If that sounds emotive, so be it. It's reality.
Please enlighten me: I have not yet been so fortunate or unfortunate as to encounter the PRS's or its like. Some make them sound like the Secret Police, some like well-meaning union activists.
Objectively, anyone, tell me what do they actually do that would affect people who play old author-unknown public domain ceili music?
Just the sterile unemotional facts, what are we talking about here?
I suggest visiting their website. http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk
I you write a tune or make a recording or perform in public, the PRS is there to help you collect whatever monies are due to you.
The money is being collected anyway, so you might as well claim your share and, as the PRS clearly states, it is a "not for profit" organisation.
When i owned a bar, where we played live music every day, I had to pay thousands of pounds a year for a PRS music license.
Bands came in, played songs they had written themselves, and never saw a penny back from PRS for it. (I am not talking about kiddy bands who appeared and disappeared overnight either, but some who had been on the road for 25 years. Although in theory some of the kiddy bands ought to have been given the money I was giving to PRS, surely?)
No doubt Michael Jackson makes some money out of it, but I suspect that a lot of musicians with equally valid claims don't. And when money is paid out, it doesn't necessarily go to anyone associated with the creation or recording of music, but instead to whoever happens to own the copyright at the time, big corporations quite often.
And as for its being 'not-for-profit', it clearly makes enough money to pay its not-inconsiderable staff costs.
The fact that it costs a lot less to license recorded music than live music played by the people who wrote it means that ultimately the PRS contributes to the closing of venues and thus opportunities for musicians to perform their own work.
While I respect your right to make a living and have an opinion Chief W I would like to know .
Is this ITM we are talking about ?
How much money are we talking about ?
How much do you get ?
I wanted to run a dance class playing traditional tunes and they wanted £400 a year at one point . I dont see this adding up .
I never took over £100 a year after paying for the hall .
I can see the point about radio and TV but not little half penny shows like me . Yes PRS may not make a profit but they have to pay for paper work ,offices officers . Who controls this ? . I would rather have your permission and give you something direct if you could show me that you wrote one of the tunes we play .
Re the live bands in the bar....did any one of them ever fill out a PRS form ? This is, I understand, how you get your money back, rather than have it go to Paul McCartney, Elton John, Michael Jackson, et al. If the PRS does know you are playing your material, then you should be getting back a share.
But still, how do they judge when a performance is not a performance, only a session? That's our worry.
Perhaps you need to invoke the "Sandy Bells" Not-A-Performance defence, as eloquently expressed in these very web pages.
While I understand Chief Wanganui's concerns as a professional musician who actually receives money from the PRS, I'd also like to hear his views on informal gatherings of unpaid musicians in public bars to play whatever music they like.
Should they, or should they not, be charged by the PRS? Effectively, should they be banned, which is bound to be the result in many cases if the PRS pursue this zealously?
I think the session thing is a grey area. Technically speaking, it's a public performance, as it's music played in a Public House. What the view of the PRS is, I have no idea. You'd have to ask them.
Guernsey Pete is right about the PRS form. Every venue of any repute should have these forms and should require the band to fill them in after the gig. I have filled in thousands of PRS forms and, whilst the last thing you want to be doing immediately after a gig is paperwork, it has to be done and it's a gesture of solidarity to your fellow musicians. If you perform a tune in public written by someone and the performance is logged by the PRS, the writer will be paid something - not much, but it all adds up.
To answer the points made by E, any band which has been on the road for 25 years ought to be savvy with PRS forms etc. The kiddy bands would be paid out in the same percentage as Michael Jackson or anyone else. The PRS has no "tier system" that I'm aware of.
Re. copyright, this is either wholely owned by the writer or split in some co-writer/publisher deal. The PRS pays out accordingly.
The society sends its annual accounts breakdown to every member, so it's possible to see (if you can be bothered) how much is spent on staff etc., and how much is paid out to members.
Whether the PRS contributes to the closure of venues is a moot point.
Organisations which seek to protect the rights of professional musicians frequently attract stick when they appear to "stop the music". They are pilloried as "killjoys". Believe me, if you will, that, without the likes of the PRS, MU and PPL, many musicians who make a living solely from music would sink faster than we're currently doing. We're not all Michael Jackson. Most of us are just trying to scrape a living and are gratefull for any help we can get.
Well, I wasn't after the PRS' view which I understand you can't speak for, but yours.
Should they charge a fee to all places where sessions take place, or not?
Clearly, noting down tunes played and composers (who would get the fees from all the "trad"?) is completely incompatible with the spontaneity , drinking and good crack we associate with a pub session, so I'd guess that any pub threatened with such fees would find it easier to simply ban sessions.
Much as I like musicians, I don't believe we have any obligation to support them - nor anyone us - in their chosen lifestyle unless we like their music enough to shell out for it directly
I can see that it is up to musos themselves to get their money back, but it seems that PRS were better organised for taking it from me than for dishing it out to them.
PRS came round and measured my venue, and I had to pay for theoretical people to listen to music (ie the charges were based on square footage of the listening space, if I remember correctly, not on whether there was a single punter in to see the band), in order that PRS could give that money to the band standing in front of me, but only if they knew enough to ask for it. In fact, don't they have to be members or something?
If a band were playing, say, a Lennon-McCartney composition, Michael Jackson would get the cash, because he owned all the Beatles' back-catalogue at the time.
Fair enough, I suppose.
But to the best of my knowledge, for PRS to have any clue who was playing what would have been a novelty, since giving forms for bands to note down their set-lists was a waste of paper. Some of them appeared to have little or no human language, let alone the desire to spend five minutes ensuring that The Jam made any money out of their rendition of Eton Rifles. Most of the forms were just left lying round uncompleted.
It felt to me then, and it feels to me now, as though I was giving large sums to PRS, under threat of a heavy fine, for no significant purpose.
I don't resent musicians being paid for their compositions, nor for the use of their performances in movies, on record etc, but i think that there has to be a better way.
i worked for the PRS people years ago
Much of what i think/know is anecdotal.
i'm out of date.
Since i worked for them they joined with the mcps i'm talking about prs, not mcps
so everything here is with these caveats..........
the PRS is there to represent its members. they being writers and publishers in the uk.
They also work on behalf of members of similar bodies in other countries (eg USA = ASCAP).
they are not there to charge you for playing music per se.
ITM sessions
if you're talking about bog standard playing of traditional tunes (with no significant rearrangement) the prs shouldnt be interested, as the writers are long dead, and there is no publisher involved.
You're not playing a rehash of a live published work,so there are no royalties to pay, hence none to collect.
If you want to confuse the prs guy, tell him everything you play is “ZX0”.
This is the grade given to a registered work which is trad, but with no significant new arrangement..
however, if you play...i dunno ... banish misfortune, exactly in the way gerry oconnor plays it,
then you are playing the copyright new arrangement of a trad tune,
this arrangement will be a registered work, and as arranger and prs member, yer man oconnor is entitled to a few pence when someone copies his work in performance.
This gets more complicated by the fact that many players will change a trad tune.
any change from a "standard" is technically an arrangement, and as a live arranger, the musician is due arrangement royalties - provided the original work your arrangement is based on is trad/out of copyright.
This also means that there are probably many of you who should be registering any interesting arrangements you have made of trad tunes.
registering of tracks...
in my day, i knew of commercial tracks that royalties could not be paid out on, as they werent properly registered - i can remember one act, who were "allegedly" very into narcotics... every one of their works came up as UNKOWN COMPOSER, i knew who the writer was from buying cds etc, but the royalties couldn't be paid at the tracks weren't registered.
it is extremely important for small acts to take care to register their tracks.
the smaller an act is, the less chance they will get a royalty payout if the performance cant be matched to a registered work.
the prs dont have the resources to waste hours over trying to work out what is what, when the individual payout for a performance with be tiny anyway,
royalties will collected anyway, and will basicly be shared out to the identified performances at the end of the year. this means that if you arent properly in the system, you will get less than you deserve, and your works royalties will be paying for a pasty for Bono. perish the thought
------------
going back to the OP
you say the menu mentions that music being played.
this means that your venue is pulling in punters and wonga off the back of this.
if you want to play without payment, thats up to you, but if you play someones copyright work, they deserve a dime or two. after all, some/ many of your punters have chosen to spent their money at that establishment because of the fact there is live music. the business is increased off the back of live music, i cant see how anyone can argue that originators don't get some of that.
speaking as a punter, i will always choose a pub etc with live music over one without.
this means they get my custom, and i get entertained with a live act.
however, i have been to a few things over the years where the live music was very poor, seemingly just a few mates entertaining themselves in a public arena.
so i'll spent my wonga waiting to be entertained, you wont really do any entertaining, the business ticks over nicely, and then you complain that your not really entertaining anyone, so why should you pay a prs licence fee?
i'm all for keeping music live, but if you arent doing it for real, i suggest you play in someones backyard, or busk.
Following up on chiefs point.
In earlier days, an active gigging recording artist would make perhaps 50% of his income from PRS payouts.
Nowadays with the big drop in cd sales due to filesharing and illegal downloading etc, the performance royalties of an artists work , as opposed to the upfront purchase of it has to be more important than ever.
Finally.... in my day i was told that if a venue didnt have the correct licence, the prs would threaten them and so on,
but if the venue still didnt comply, then the prs would back off
“we're not in the business of criminalising people” is a quote i remember well.
As i said at the top, its all anecdotal and out of date....................
Well said bumchuckle. Anecdotal it may be, true it certainly is.
The points about properly registering works and arrangements of trad tunes are well made. I've recorded many trad tunes and registered the arrangements and the PRS pay out on them.
On E's point about the PRS being more geared to collect money than pay it out - you have to collect money in order to have any to pay out. The onus is on the musicians to claim what is owed to them, and if they leave unfilled PRS forms lying around after gigs, it's their own fault if they don't get paid.
Like democracy, if you can't be bothered to vote, you have no right to whinge.
I don't know for sure but I have a feeling that the license fee restaurants etc pay to be allowed to play music doesn't then get paid directly by PRS to the rights holders of the tracks that restaurant actually played, I don't think every restaurant submits a playlist like radio stations do. The way someone explained it to me once is that the PRS would do a survey of say 100 restaurants of a cetain kind (Indian restaurants for example) & look at what music they play, and then the money they receive from all Indian restaurants would be divided amongst the rights owners of whatever was being played by the 100 they surveyed.
So let me get this correct Chief ,you register an arrangement of a traditional tune . What if that arrangement is just the common way to play it ?
Should I now register the complete works of Chief O'Niel ?
Can I now retire ?
I dont mind stuff you wrote yourself but traditional tunes author unknown ?
I don't think there is such a concept as "the common way to play it" so far as the PRS goes. When you record a trad tune you have to register it as something, so you put it down as "trad arr. Joe Bloggs" or whoever. My (sadly defunct, owing to deaths of members) band had a top ten "hit" with a Bolivian folk tune. That was registered as such with the PRS and has been accruing royalties ever since. Obviously, if you record a trad tune the royalty rate is based on your arrangement. If you record an original composition, the rate is much higher.
bazouki dave, i tried to explain this in my previous post.
you can register what you like, but if the arrangement isnt novel, your arrangement will be Zero graded, you will get no royalties.
as an example there was once a very famous musician who would register all his tracks (which were all trad or classical), with him as arranger.
But he didnt change anything in the music from the known out-of-copyright versions,
so whilst he probably made millions though the mcps for cd sales etc, his prs royalties would be tiny, or even zero.
an important point is that, the *more* different your arrangement is,
the higher the grade your arrangement will be given, and thus the higher your royalty
as chief points out, arranger royalties are never as high as composer royalties.
mmm so who decides if your arrangement is origional ?
Do they employ a person who knows about traditional music?
Someone who has respect , who knows what he or she is talking about ?
Why should a session venue have to pay for zero graded music ?
I dont mind anyone who writes there own stuff charging for it , I will even forgive the chief for playing the whistle for that Titanic track I agree he should get paid for his stuff being on air but why should anyone claim a right to traditional music .
The more I think about it the more it sounds a bit like claiming for other people work .
you ask good questions, which go beyond my knowledge really.
i dont think that a session venue would have to pay for playing purely trad music, but of course in reality, most sessions would include some copyrighted work, be it eg a liz carroll composition, or an s shannon arrangement etc etc etc. i dont know how the licencing people approach this.
as i have said twice, you can't claim for anyone elses work, you claim for your adaptation of it. if you claim and don't produce anything novel, you get nothing.
they do have experts. they all live as crofters on the isle of Aran, and do freelance ITM analysis for the PRS when they are not knitting sweaters.
if you really want to get to the bottom of your gripes about this, you should ring the PRS for some bumph, or go and see them when you are in london, they are just off oxford street.
even better, hobgoblin is just round the corner.
I really dont think they are the enemy, they are trying to look after the creators of music.
apologies to guernsey pete, this thread has gone schizoid on you.
As far as claiming other peope's work goes, international copyright law generally states that a composer's work passes in to the "public domain" 50 years after their death (in the UK it's 70 years). This means that, whilst there is little doubt that O'Carolan or Beethoven actually wrote their stuff, it is all now the property of the general public and can be messed with by anyone in whatever way they choose. Some of the "messing" is obviously more (or less) tastefull than others.
No apologies neccessary for the thread going schizoid, it's all grist tothe mill.
Hearing that the PRS threatens then backs off, well I think that answers it all.
I suppose then it depends how the owner of the session venue reacts. An owner-manager who likes the music will not be rattled, but an ultra-cautious manager for someone else, could be.
Currently, PRS does not seek to charge for music used at recognised Service of Divine Worship in consecrated places of worships such as Christian churches and cathedrals (and places of worship of other faiths) having no admission charge."
PRS raises its ugly head again.
PRS raises its ugly head again.
A session I regularly attend has received notice from the PRS that they will be attending to gather information as to whether or not they are entitled to claim revenue from this event.
This is not just an Irish trad session, it is quite eclectic, people playing blues, old rock'nroll, recent pop songs, some of peoples' own material, back to ITM, STM, ETM, ATM ( no, we don't have a cash point ), etc.
Just to confuse the issue it is held in the back of a restaurant at a quiet period, the organisers being friends of the management. There is no cover charge for the music, but it is mentioned at the top of one of the pages of the menu.
They do play background music over the tannoy, the speakers at the rear being disconnected for the duration of the session. To the best of our knowledge the owner already has a licence for this. Musicians sit in a circle, those who come to hear, mainly friends and family, who are normally outnumbered by the musicians, sit at tables nearby. No-one earns anything from this, except a feeling of community and togetherness.
We also have two lawyers amongst the regular musicians.
I'm curious to know the outcome, the worst thing is I shall miss the day, being elsewhere singing Sacred Harp.
# Posted on May 5th 2008 by Guernsey Pete
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
Prior notice eh? I think you have time for a plan... Come up with a couple tunes that last their entire visit... play out of tune with each other, smile and invite them to join in with a little dance... really put on a show. Perhaps you can drive them out.
# Posted on May 5th 2008 by McCracken
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
FWIW--Here in the U.S., a similar organization tried the same sort of extortion on a very small coffee shop (capacity maybe 20 people, total) that hosted a traditional session.
The shop decided to make the session a "private party"--therefore not subject to the "public performance" fee--and just do a poor job of guarding against gate crashers.
# Posted on May 5th 2008 by mickray
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
What if you designate it an informal teaching session or workshop - would that be OK - or make it worse?
# Posted on May 5th 2008 by Bren
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
They will need PRS for the session AND definitely for the background music. The issue of revenue is irrelevant
# Posted on May 6th 2008 by mactavish
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
I think it's a pity that words like "ugly" and "extortion" should be applied to the PRS. It makes the organisation seem like the Cosa Nostra when, in fact, it is, as the name implies, dedicated to protecting the rights of musicians.
In an age when downloads and the non-sanctioned recording and filming of gigs and their subsequent posting on the internet are rife, the ability of professional musicians to be properly recompensed for their life of dedication is being eroded on a daily basis.
I depend on the PRS and the MU and the PPL and other such bodies to claw back whatever they can on my behalf, whilst I get on with the business of practising, rehearsing, travelling, recording etc., to put food on the table.
If that sounds emotive, so be it. It's reality.
# Posted on May 6th 2008 by Chief Wanganui
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
Must be nice having a bunch of hooligans beating up the patronage for the sake of a few quid on your behalf.
# Posted on May 6th 2008 by Ron Foreman
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
Please enlighten me: I have not yet been so fortunate or unfortunate as to encounter the PRS's or its like. Some make them sound like the Secret Police, some like well-meaning union activists.
Objectively, anyone, tell me what do they actually do that would affect people who play old author-unknown public domain ceili music?
Just the sterile unemotional facts, what are we talking about here?
# Posted on May 6th 2008 by Rook
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
Sorry, I can't help you Rook, but I second the motion. What exactly do these people do?
# Posted on May 6th 2008 by Fellenbaum
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
I suggest visiting their website.
http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk
I you write a tune or make a recording or perform in public, the PRS is there to help you collect whatever monies are due to you.
The money is being collected anyway, so you might as well claim your share and, as the PRS clearly states, it is a "not for profit" organisation.
# Posted on May 6th 2008 by Chief Wanganui
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
Just tell them you make it all up as you go along, and that it all sounds the same anyway.
# Posted on May 6th 2008 by RichardB
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
When i owned a bar, where we played live music every day, I had to pay thousands of pounds a year for a PRS music license.
Bands came in, played songs they had written themselves, and never saw a penny back from PRS for it. (I am not talking about kiddy bands who appeared and disappeared overnight either, but some who had been on the road for 25 years. Although in theory some of the kiddy bands ought to have been given the money I was giving to PRS, surely?)
No doubt Michael Jackson makes some money out of it, but I suspect that a lot of musicians with equally valid claims don't. And when money is paid out, it doesn't necessarily go to anyone associated with the creation or recording of music, but instead to whoever happens to own the copyright at the time, big corporations quite often.
And as for its being 'not-for-profit', it clearly makes enough money to pay its not-inconsiderable staff costs.
The fact that it costs a lot less to license recorded music than live music played by the people who wrote it means that ultimately the PRS contributes to the closing of venues and thus opportunities for musicians to perform their own work.
All in all a great idea...
# Posted on May 6th 2008 by E
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
While I respect your right to make a living and have an opinion Chief W I would like to know .
Is this ITM we are talking about ?
How much money are we talking about ?
How much do you get ?
I wanted to run a dance class playing traditional tunes and they wanted £400 a year at one point . I dont see this adding up .
I never took over £100 a year after paying for the hall .
I can see the point about radio and TV but not little half penny shows like me . Yes PRS may not make a profit but they have to pay for paper work ,offices officers . Who controls this ? . I would rather have your permission and give you something direct if you could show me that you wrote one of the tunes we play .
# Posted on May 6th 2008 by bazouki dave and the real tooty flutey
Well said E we posted about the same time
# Posted on May 6th 2008 by bazouki dave and the real tooty flutey
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
Re the live bands in the bar....did any one of them ever fill out a PRS form ? This is, I understand, how you get your money back, rather than have it go to Paul McCartney, Elton John, Michael Jackson, et al. If the PRS does know you are playing your material, then you should be getting back a share.
But still, how do they judge when a performance is not a performance, only a session? That's our worry.
# Posted on May 6th 2008 by Guernsey Pete
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
Perhaps you need to invoke the "Sandy Bells" Not-A-Performance defence, as eloquently expressed in these very web pages.
While I understand Chief Wanganui's concerns as a professional musician who actually receives money from the PRS, I'd also like to hear his views on informal gatherings of unpaid musicians in public bars to play whatever music they like.
Should they, or should they not, be charged by the PRS? Effectively, should they be banned, which is bound to be the result in many cases if the PRS pursue this zealously?
# Posted on May 6th 2008 by Bren
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
I think the session thing is a grey area. Technically speaking, it's a public performance, as it's music played in a Public House. What the view of the PRS is, I have no idea. You'd have to ask them.
Guernsey Pete is right about the PRS form. Every venue of any repute should have these forms and should require the band to fill them in after the gig. I have filled in thousands of PRS forms and, whilst the last thing you want to be doing immediately after a gig is paperwork, it has to be done and it's a gesture of solidarity to your fellow musicians. If you perform a tune in public written by someone and the performance is logged by the PRS, the writer will be paid something - not much, but it all adds up.
To answer the points made by E, any band which has been on the road for 25 years ought to be savvy with PRS forms etc. The kiddy bands would be paid out in the same percentage as Michael Jackson or anyone else. The PRS has no "tier system" that I'm aware of.
Re. copyright, this is either wholely owned by the writer or split in some co-writer/publisher deal. The PRS pays out accordingly.
The society sends its annual accounts breakdown to every member, so it's possible to see (if you can be bothered) how much is spent on staff etc., and how much is paid out to members.
Whether the PRS contributes to the closure of venues is a moot point.
Organisations which seek to protect the rights of professional musicians frequently attract stick when they appear to "stop the music". They are pilloried as "killjoys". Believe me, if you will, that, without the likes of the PRS, MU and PPL, many musicians who make a living solely from music would sink faster than we're currently doing. We're not all Michael Jackson. Most of us are just trying to scrape a living and are gratefull for any help we can get.
# Posted on May 6th 2008 by Chief Wanganui
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
Well, I wasn't after the PRS' view which I understand you can't speak for, but yours.
Should they charge a fee to all places where sessions take place, or not?
Clearly, noting down tunes played and composers (who would get the fees from all the "trad"?) is completely incompatible with the spontaneity , drinking and good crack we associate with a pub session, so I'd guess that any pub threatened with such fees would find it easier to simply ban sessions.
Much as I like musicians, I don't believe we have any obligation to support them - nor anyone us - in their chosen lifestyle unless we like their music enough to shell out for it directly
# Posted on May 7th 2008 by Bren
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
I can see that it is up to musos themselves to get their money back, but it seems that PRS were better organised for taking it from me than for dishing it out to them.
PRS came round and measured my venue, and I had to pay for theoretical people to listen to music (ie the charges were based on square footage of the listening space, if I remember correctly, not on whether there was a single punter in to see the band), in order that PRS could give that money to the band standing in front of me, but only if they knew enough to ask for it. In fact, don't they have to be members or something?
If a band were playing, say, a Lennon-McCartney composition, Michael Jackson would get the cash, because he owned all the Beatles' back-catalogue at the time.
Fair enough, I suppose.
But to the best of my knowledge, for PRS to have any clue who was playing what would have been a novelty, since giving forms for bands to note down their set-lists was a waste of paper. Some of them appeared to have little or no human language, let alone the desire to spend five minutes ensuring that The Jam made any money out of their rendition of Eton Rifles. Most of the forms were just left lying round uncompleted.
It felt to me then, and it feels to me now, as though I was giving large sums to PRS, under threat of a heavy fine, for no significant purpose.
I don't resent musicians being paid for their compositions, nor for the use of their performances in movies, on record etc, but i think that there has to be a better way.
# Posted on May 7th 2008 by E
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
i worked for the PRS people years ago
Much of what i think/know is anecdotal.
i'm out of date.
Since i worked for them they joined with the mcps i'm talking about prs, not mcps
so everything here is with these caveats..........
the PRS is there to represent its members. they being writers and publishers in the uk.
They also work on behalf of members of similar bodies in other countries (eg USA = ASCAP).
they are not there to charge you for playing music per se.
ITM sessions
if you're talking about bog standard playing of traditional tunes (with no significant rearrangement) the prs shouldnt be interested, as the writers are long dead, and there is no publisher involved.
You're not playing a rehash of a live published work,so there are no royalties to pay, hence none to collect.
If you want to confuse the prs guy, tell him everything you play is “ZX0”.
This is the grade given to a registered work which is trad, but with no significant new arrangement..
however, if you play...i dunno ... banish misfortune, exactly in the way gerry oconnor plays it,
then you are playing the copyright new arrangement of a trad tune,
this arrangement will be a registered work, and as arranger and prs member, yer man oconnor is entitled to a few pence when someone copies his work in performance.
This gets more complicated by the fact that many players will change a trad tune.
any change from a "standard" is technically an arrangement, and as a live arranger, the musician is due arrangement royalties - provided the original work your arrangement is based on is trad/out of copyright.
This also means that there are probably many of you who should be registering any interesting arrangements you have made of trad tunes.
registering of tracks...
in my day, i knew of commercial tracks that royalties could not be paid out on, as they werent properly registered - i can remember one act, who were "allegedly" very into narcotics... every one of their works came up as UNKOWN COMPOSER, i knew who the writer was from buying cds etc, but the royalties couldn't be paid at the tracks weren't registered.
it is extremely important for small acts to take care to register their tracks.
the smaller an act is, the less chance they will get a royalty payout if the performance cant be matched to a registered work.
the prs dont have the resources to waste hours over trying to work out what is what, when the individual payout for a performance with be tiny anyway,
royalties will collected anyway, and will basicly be shared out to the identified performances at the end of the year. this means that if you arent properly in the system, you will get less than you deserve, and your works royalties will be paying for a pasty for Bono. perish the thought
------------
going back to the OP
you say the menu mentions that music being played.
this means that your venue is pulling in punters and wonga off the back of this.
if you want to play without payment, thats up to you, but if you play someones copyright work, they deserve a dime or two. after all, some/ many of your punters have chosen to spent their money at that establishment because of the fact there is live music. the business is increased off the back of live music, i cant see how anyone can argue that originators don't get some of that.
speaking as a punter, i will always choose a pub etc with live music over one without.
this means they get my custom, and i get entertained with a live act.
however, i have been to a few things over the years where the live music was very poor, seemingly just a few mates entertaining themselves in a public arena.
so i'll spent my wonga waiting to be entertained, you wont really do any entertaining, the business ticks over nicely, and then you complain that your not really entertaining anyone, so why should you pay a prs licence fee?
i'm all for keeping music live, but if you arent doing it for real, i suggest you play in someones backyard, or busk.
Following up on chiefs point.
In earlier days, an active gigging recording artist would make perhaps 50% of his income from PRS payouts.
Nowadays with the big drop in cd sales due to filesharing and illegal downloading etc, the performance royalties of an artists work , as opposed to the upfront purchase of it has to be more important than ever.
Finally.... in my day i was told that if a venue didnt have the correct licence, the prs would threaten them and so on,
but if the venue still didnt comply, then the prs would back off
“we're not in the business of criminalising people” is a quote i remember well.
As i said at the top, its all anecdotal and out of date....................
# Posted on May 7th 2008 by bumchuckle
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
Well said bumchuckle. Anecdotal it may be, true it certainly is.
The points about properly registering works and arrangements of trad tunes are well made. I've recorded many trad tunes and registered the arrangements and the PRS pay out on them.
On E's point about the PRS being more geared to collect money than pay it out - you have to collect money in order to have any to pay out. The onus is on the musicians to claim what is owed to them, and if they leave unfilled PRS forms lying around after gigs, it's their own fault if they don't get paid.
Like democracy, if you can't be bothered to vote, you have no right to whinge.
# Posted on May 7th 2008 by Chief Wanganui
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
I don't know for sure but I have a feeling that the license fee restaurants etc pay to be allowed to play music doesn't then get paid directly by PRS to the rights holders of the tracks that restaurant actually played, I don't think every restaurant submits a playlist like radio stations do. The way someone explained it to me once is that the PRS would do a survey of say 100 restaurants of a cetain kind (Indian restaurants for example) & look at what music they play, and then the money they receive from all Indian restaurants would be divided amongst the rights owners of whatever was being played by the 100 they surveyed.
# Posted on May 7th 2008 by Pollyanna
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
So let me get this correct Chief ,you register an arrangement of a traditional tune . What if that arrangement is just the common way to play it ?
Should I now register the complete works of Chief O'Niel ?
Can I now retire ?
I dont mind stuff you wrote yourself but traditional tunes author unknown ?
# Posted on May 7th 2008 by bazouki dave and the real tooty flutey
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
I don't think there is such a concept as "the common way to play it" so far as the PRS goes. When you record a trad tune you have to register it as something, so you put it down as "trad arr. Joe Bloggs" or whoever. My (sadly defunct, owing to deaths of members) band had a top ten "hit" with a Bolivian folk tune. That was registered as such with the PRS and has been accruing royalties ever since. Obviously, if you record a trad tune the royalty rate is based on your arrangement. If you record an original composition, the rate is much higher.
# Posted on May 7th 2008 by Chief Wanganui
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
bazouki dave, i tried to explain this in my previous post.
you can register what you like, but if the arrangement isnt novel, your arrangement will be Zero graded, you will get no royalties.
as an example there was once a very famous musician who would register all his tracks (which were all trad or classical), with him as arranger.
But he didnt change anything in the music from the known out-of-copyright versions,
so whilst he probably made millions though the mcps for cd sales etc, his prs royalties would be tiny, or even zero.
an important point is that, the *more* different your arrangement is,
the higher the grade your arrangement will be given, and thus the higher your royalty
as chief points out, arranger royalties are never as high as composer royalties.
# Posted on May 7th 2008 by bumchuckle
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
mmm so who decides if your arrangement is origional ?
Do they employ a person who knows about traditional music?
Someone who has respect , who knows what he or she is talking about ?
Why should a session venue have to pay for zero graded music ?
I dont mind anyone who writes there own stuff charging for it , I will even forgive the chief for playing the whistle for that Titanic track I agree he should get paid for his stuff being on air but why should anyone claim a right to traditional music .
The more I think about it the more it sounds a bit like claiming for other people work .
# Posted on May 7th 2008 by bazouki dave and the real tooty flutey
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
you ask good questions, which go beyond my knowledge really.
i dont think that a session venue would have to pay for playing purely trad music, but of course in reality, most sessions would include some copyrighted work, be it eg a liz carroll composition, or an s shannon arrangement etc etc etc. i dont know how the licencing people approach this.
as i have said twice, you can't claim for anyone elses work, you claim for your adaptation of it. if you claim and don't produce anything novel, you get nothing.
they do have experts. they all live as crofters on the isle of Aran, and do freelance ITM analysis for the PRS when they are not knitting sweaters.
if you really want to get to the bottom of your gripes about this, you should ring the PRS for some bumph, or go and see them when you are in london, they are just off oxford street.
even better, hobgoblin is just round the corner.
I really dont think they are the enemy, they are trying to look after the creators of music.
apologies to guernsey pete, this thread has gone schizoid on you.
# Posted on May 8th 2008 by bumchuckle
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
UMMM, what's PRS??? I take it is not Paul Reed Smith
# Posted on May 8th 2008 by I_Fel
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
As far as claiming other peope's work goes, international copyright law generally states that a composer's work passes in to the "public domain" 50 years after their death (in the UK it's 70 years). This means that, whilst there is little doubt that O'Carolan or Beethoven actually wrote their stuff, it is all now the property of the general public and can be messed with by anyone in whatever way they choose. Some of the "messing" is obviously more (or less) tastefull than others.
# Posted on May 8th 2008 by Chief Wanganui
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
No apologies neccessary for the thread going schizoid, it's all grist tothe mill.
Hearing that the PRS threatens then backs off, well I think that answers it all.
# Posted on May 11th 2008 by Guernsey Pete
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
I suppose then it depends how the owner of the session venue reacts. An owner-manager who likes the music will not be rattled, but an ultra-cautious manager for someone else, could be.
# Posted on May 11th 2008 by Bren
Re: PRS raises its ugly head again.
The answer lies on the PRS website:
Quote:
"Must all performances be paid for?
Currently, PRS does not seek to charge for music used at recognised Service of Divine Worship in consecrated places of worships such as Christian churches and cathedrals (and places of worship of other faiths) having no admission charge."
So time to get down your local cathedral!
# Posted on May 19th 2008 by Frezz