perc2100 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 my hunch is we're screwed going forward, but I don't blame DCI for the most part. I blame the mega company trying to rewrite the rules and the courts for letting them Unfortunately that's my hunch too: screwed w/DCI, WGI, etc. Definitely a bummer, and maybe someday the pendulum will swing back to center instead of the extreme end its on now; it'll NEVER go back to the mid-90s and before hay day when designers were like, "John Williams show? Done. Beatles show? Done!" w/out issues, but perhaps even some sort of archival streaming process can be restored at some point. At this point, I wonder if it is in Pageantry groups' interests to play hardball, NOT sell anything for awhile, and remind rights holders that making SOME money for nothing is better than making zero money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 While I agree that mega companies may want to maximize profits, the hold outs may not be the bigger composers. We can easily forget that lesser known composers need the royalties for survival. My guess is that Vienna Teng needed the royalties she was paid from Bluecoats in 2014 for "Hymn of Axciom" than David Bowie did for Crown using "Space Oddity" and there were probably far more requests for "Space Oddity" than "Hymn of Axciom." To add to that, it seems arguable that w/Bluecoats' success in 2014 other pageantry groups (HS band, WGI groups, maybe smaller drum corps) would look to Vienna Teng for show source music, thus increasing licensing revenue for the artist. Sure, this is a small niche, but money is money, and at this point it's money free money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 At this point, I wonder if it is in Pageantry groups' interests to play hardball, NOT sell anything for awhile, and remind rights holders that making SOME money for nothing is better than making zero money. I wonder how much money actually come from bands, corps and color guards compared to other sources. Shudder to think if it is small enough some rights holders may decide to write it off if a stink is raised and not sell at all..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I wonder how much money actually come from bands, corps and color guards compared to other sources. Shudder to think if it is small enough some rights holders may decide to write it off if a stink is raised and not sell at all..... Yeah, it's likely not much, but it is free money nonetheless. I know what we've paid to publishers/composers for rights to music and it can be $500, $1000s, etc: all for someone else using music that composer already wrote & published and moved on from! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rr4353 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 (edited) I think it wouldn't be too much of a hassle to provide recordings to the corps directors, members, and staff of their corps' own finals or semis or prelims run (whatever their last filmed performance is) so they can have a momento of the season. They could be instructed not to share it, but that way they have something to keep with them as a reminder of the summer they had! Am I crazy or is that something that could easily be done? Edited October 15, 2015 by rr4353 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj3004 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 While I agree that mega companies may want to maximize profits, the hold outs may not be the bigger composers. We can easily forget that lesser known composers need the royalties for survival. My guess is that Vienna Teng needed the royalties she was paid from Bluecoats in 2014 for "Hymn of Axciom" than David Bowie did for Crown using "Space Oddity" and there were probably far more requests for "Space Oddity" than "Hymn of Axciom." Just fyi - Vienna's post on licensing her work https://www.facebook.com/ViennaTeng/posts/10152611740616759 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peel Paint Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Someone postulated earlier that Tresona might be positioning themselves to be the one stop shop for licensing and production of A/V media for scholastic programs and the marching arts. If BOA has decided to pay Tresona for such services, then Tresona works for BOA to that extent. Yeah, okay, maybe that is what they meant, but I'd choose different phrasing if I were BOA, because Tresona is to BOA as the bucket is to a drop of water. Tresona is not BOA's contractual employee even if they make a deal. And I think Tresona does want to become the one-stop-shopping rights-clearance company. They're likely to squeeze remaining independents to come on board on Tresona's terms or get left behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonker Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Just fyi - Vienna's post on licensing her work https://www.facebook.com/ViennaTeng/posts/10152611740616759 Wow....what a refreshing take from an artist. Quite impressive. Makes me want to go out and buy more of her work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonker Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Yeah, okay, maybe that is what they meant, but I'd choose different phrasing if I were BOA, because Tresona is to BOA as the bucket is to a drop of water. Tresona is not BOA's contractual employee even if they make a deal. And I think Tresona does want to become the one-stop-shopping rights-clearance company. They're likely to squeeze remaining independents to come on board on Tresona's terms or get left behind. The sad part is the monopolistic take on what Tresona is trying to pull off. Buy up all the music rights first, reopen prior contracts and exploiting loopholes in language to in essence take back rights already issued....... and THEN jack up the prices of acquisition (or re-acquisition) of rights. market yourself as THE clearing house for rights acquisition and start charging groups for facilitating the process of securing the rights and controlling to whom they are rewarded moving forward. THEN, actually start to sponsor band competitions and attempt to look like one of the major supporters(???) of the marching arts. Ingenious (although walking a thin line of legality). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 The sad part is the monopolistic take on what Tresona is trying to pull off. Buy up all the music rights first, reopen prior contracts and exploiting loopholes in language to in essence take back rights already issued....... and THEN jack up the prices of acquisition (or re-acquisition) of rights. market yourself as THE clearing house for rights acquisition and start charging groups for facilitating the process of securing the rights and controlling to whom they are rewarded moving forward. THEN, actually start to sponsor band competitions and attempt to look like one of the major supporters(???) of the marching arts. Ingenious (although walking a thin line of legality). To be fair, this is nothing new. In the early 80's, Michael Jackson (who was HUGE at the time) was collaborating with Paul McCartney on a song & video. The two artists were clearly at the top of their artistic world and talking shop, and Paul mentioned that the best investment in the music industry was to buy up the rights to other artists' music, and then license them out (I'm paraphrasing). Sir Paul had naturally let the rights to most of his catalog slip away when he was younger, so to 'make up for that' he was buying other artists' catalogs (for example, he owned Buddy Holly's catalog in the early 80s). Jackson started buying rights, and quickly became somewhat obsessed with owning other artists' catalogs (he had a plethora of money he needed to invest and wasn't into real estate, so this both satisfied the 'millions in investment' need as well as his uber music-fandom). Jackson quickly decided he wanted to be the #1 music publisher in the world. He REALLY wanted to own the Motown catalog, but couldn't acquire it at that time. When he saw how the person who owned that cataloged 'used' it, Jackson became infatuated with big-time publishing and after a few years Jackson's company was finally able to buy the company that owned The Beatles catalog. In fact, Jackson (and his company) outbid Paul McCartney (and his company) for the company that held the Beatles rights; essentially McCartney, had his company won the bidding war for ATV, would've enjoyed 100% of the royalties of Beatles songs (as opposed to the 50% he received as part of the standard publishing deal)! Needless to say, Sir Paul was not too happy with the outcome of that situation, and I suspect his friendship with Michael Jackson was strained a bit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.