Most performing artists are, in essence, independent business owners. Yeah? So what? So are a lot of people.
The strange and harsh thing about performing artists being business owners, is that performers base their livelihoods on their creative capacities. Performing artists are expected to run their business, perfect their craft, and do everything else it takes to get by, all by themselves (at first). Some are lucky enough to have help from family, friends, or others they trust on the business and logistics sides. To say it's difficult to nurture both sides of a creative person's business obligations is a tremendous understatement.
Creative artists have to worry about at least all of the following:
- Inventory
- Distribution
- Advertising/Publicity
- Health Benefits
- Travel expenses/reimbursement
- Payroll
- Taxes (personal and business)
- Unions
- Scheduling
- Wardrobe
and that's just the beginning.
Some who are married and have kids have the additional issues of child care, possible spousal neglect, and a host of other things most of us don't have to worry about—especially when combined with all the other facets of our business and personal lives.
If you own a hardware store, you have to know about hardware before you open up shop, you need to keep up with advancements in the field, you need to have inventory of stuff people need, and you need to be open so people can get stuff from you. It's hard work, but it's steady, and you can count on making a decent living at it if you stay in the same place, and keep providing the stuff people need. Can you imagine how much harder it would be for a hardware store owner to pack his stuff up in an RV and take his "show" on the road? Many hardware store owners can open up shop on the web, and be everywhere at once.
Somehow or other, people who need hardware will find a store. Performing artists have to go to the audience. With the exception of a few hotels in Las Vegas, or performance venues in Nashville, TN, or Branson, MO, performers aren't stationary.There's only so much of an entertainer's act they can convey through a website. That leads us to inventory. If you never thought of songwriters, poets or comedians carrying inventory, try this on for size:
Imagine if a hardware store owner had to build the store, and make every tool, nail, and whatever else in the shop himself. It's not the same gig anymore, is it?
A performer must create himself or herself from the ground up. A comedian or composer of music must write their material. Their music, poetry or comedy (respectively) is their inventory. Most throw away 75 to 90% of their material before they find the "gold". If the hardware store owner threw away 75% of his inventory, do you think he'd survive?
Every two years, the great George Carlin repeated the same cycle of getting new material for an HBO special. (He did fourteen of them, which, in total, represent thirty one years of work.)
In the last fifteen or so years of his life, he'd write a whole show (90 minutes or more of material), take it on the road, work it really hard for two years, and then perform it live on HBO, thus adding it to the canon of recorded comedy, and to his record collection—that is, the collection of records he'd made so that we could enjoy it. After he put a special out on HBO, he'd take a short break, then go back on the road using the previous year's material, and slowly start putting in the new stuff, with the new material eventually becoming a majority of the show.
I saw George live twice. Both times were during the beginning of a cycle. He'd just begun to write some new stuff, and was about 18 to 20 months from an HBO special. During the early performances in a cycle, he would read some of the newest stuff from notes. That's how "hot off the presses" it was. How exciting! I got to see one of the great comic minds of our time create, or at least refine his inventory.
After comedians or composers/performers write material, they have to perform it hundreds of times till they can do it in their sleep. The ones who are somewhat established can "get by" financially while developing new material. The ones who are starting out don't have that cushion. They're working without a net, or with a day job.
Imagine a comedian submitting a business plan to a bank, as part of applying for a small business loan. That's funny enough. Imagine the comedian telling the bank that 75% to 90% of what they create is going to be "tossed", and not "sold".
If you know a bank who would loan money to a comic, please let me know which one it is.
Many entrepreneurs have exploited creative souls' desire to be heard–to have their message brought to the world. The creative souls often look at the short term expression rather than the long term opportunity. That's part of what keeps them going from gig to gig. Little Richard talked about the early days of his career (and some of the later days) as if he had been a slave. His contracts were bought and sold (from one record company to another) for pennies. His last name is Penniman, but..he really shouldn't go living it out that way. He's 76 years old, and shouldn't have to be working quite so hard as he is now.
He could only be sold/traded that way because he cost the record labels so little in the first place. It's not a wonder that the great Little Richard–to whom both Lennon and McCartney owed much of their careers–is scrounging around playing dinner theater venues.
Don't get me wrong! I'm happy to have seen him live. But he looked like he was in pain. He's old. And being Little Richard up on the stage, even for an hour, looks like some hard work. To have to do that at age 76? That can't be fun.
So, why does this horrible tradition of exploitation and "gypsy"-style wandering continue? Are musicians and performing artists stupid? Are they gluttons for punishment; maybe just so attention-starved that they'd rather be on the stage and make no money than be a quiet conformist, average member of polite society?
No, I don't think that's it. I think it's in the "DNA" of creative people. Musicians, actors, authors, comedians have a holy mission. Their mission is to change their audience–to move them the way nothing but a great work of art could.
Billy Joel said it better in his 1993 Commencement Address to the graduates of Berklee College of Music—my alma mater, than I've ever heard/read anyone else say it:
And I hope you don't make music for some vast, unseen audience or market or ratings share or even for something as tangible as money. For though it's crucial to make a living, that shouldn't be your inspiration or your aspiration. Do it for yourself, your highest self, for your own pride, joy, ego, gratification, expression, love, fulfillment, happiness—whatever you want to call it. Do it because it's what you have to do. And if you make this music for the human needs you have within yourself, then you do it for all humans who need the same things. Ultimately, you enrich humanity with the profound expression of these feelings.
Once an artist has done that, their job—as far as that night's audience is concerned—is done. Performers of all types are holy people, in that they actively seek out audiences in order to help the audience grow.
That may not be how it appears on the surface. Dustin Hoffman, during his appearance on Inside The Actors Studio recounts how Sir Laurence Olivier answered the question "Why do we [actors] do what we do?"...Olivier's answer consisted of going nose-to-nose with Dustin, and saying, practically chanting "look-at-me, look-at-me, look-at-me, look-at-me..".
Okay, so actors (and comedians and musicians, and authors) want an audience. Without an audience their art wouldn't be very meaningful (, and they couldn't get paid). If one of their trees was to fall in the forest and nobody was there to hear it, the tree would have made a sound, but the artist wouldn't care as much about the tree if there had been no one there to have heard it fall.
But creative people's desire is to change the world with their contributions to it. The contribution couldn't be anywhere near as significant if you, an audience member, saw it every night. If you saw the New York Philharmonic every night for 20 years, you'd start falling asleep during performances pretty regularly—unless you were in the orchestra.
To me it's sad and ironic that standup comedians don't laugh very often. It's a pretty big no-no to tell jokes to comedians. The last thing they want to hear while they're cleaning house is "Hey, I'll bet you've never heard this one..."–especially if it starts with "Two Jews walk into a bar". I once told Judy Gold a joke of my own, but I did so in the context of conversation. She found it funny. And I know she found it funny because she said "That's funny.". Had she not found it funny, she'd mostly likely have made a face and a sarcastic remark.
Comedians don't laugh as easily as the rest of us because their whole job is to make us laugh. To them, hearing a joke (even a really good joke) is not unlike "talking shop". Their "resistance", if you will, to having a really hearty laugh, is higher than that of most people. That's sad and ironic, isn't it? I've been around some great comedians while they were just having casual conversation. They would talk about everyday stuff (taking their kid to school, or whatever), be really funny in recounting a story, but neither participant in the conversation was laughing at the other's remarks. I, as the guest of one of the comics tried not to be rude, but I'm not immune to the laughter—yet.
Dick Cavett said of my favorite comedian of all time—Groucho Marx—that it was sad that Groucho didn't have a Groucho to make him laugh.
Sturgeon's Law correctly states that "ninety percent of everything is crap." The "hacks" are 90%—the comic, or writer, or whatever, whose work doesn't make him or her grow, and whose work clearly doesn't strive to change or challenge the audience. It's the standup equivalent of According to Jim, or of most Adam Sandler movies.
Good comedians talk with contempt about "hack premises"—bases (for jokes) that are so overdone, tired, and clearly don't come from the soul, but rather from formulaic repackaging of common, everyday things that'll make a certain type of audience laugh. When the really good and great comedians work hard at their craft by baring their souls to an audience, they generally talk about something unique to them. They hope that you or I, as audience members, will be able to relate, or at least take something away—something that'll stay with you after the liquor from the club will have worn off.
Much of Steven Wright's humor's a little bit "out there". But it comes from inside him. One of his signature jokes is about his rented apartment, and how the landlord allows pets. Steven said "I have a pony". The great Emo Philips has a joke about suicide, religion, and the differences that separate us. Everyone can take something away from that joke. Me? I took away that the minute differences in people's beliefs can create chasms so wide, that two people may only get to know each other to the extent that they know the other's beliefs are different from their own. As a result, they may never get to serious dialogue. I'm guilty of it myself, and Emo made me even more aware of it. He taught an important lesson, but framed it in a funny context.
Jodie Wasserman talks about being broke. That's not easy, going on stage and talking about being broke. She was doing it before the economy tanked! It's one thing to tell your best friend something like that. Jodie says that in her act, to hundreds of strangers a day. She bares her soul on the stage, and hopes we will grow from it. That's an artist at work.
George Carlin said in 1977 (in "A Place for My Stuff") "That's my job: thinking up goofy shit...; coming around every once in a while, telling you what it is...".
Artists can't stagnate. They can't stay in the same place all the time. Even the great David Brenner and George Wallace who have indefinite engagements at Vegas hotels don't see the same audiences every night.
I have a sense that most Vegas audiences see standup comedy as something to do between bouts of addictive gambling, or sessions at the hotel's tanning salon. That's disgusting. That comedy clubs serve alcohol is not wonderful either. But hey, that's commerce, not art. If selling drinks gives the comedians a venue, it's a compromise that comics are willing to live with.
The truly great comics come around to where we live, and take us with them for a little while. Enjoy the ride. Take a snapshot in your mind. Don't take for granted the effort it took the musician/comedian/poet to get to the club/venue at which you're seeing them. They're doing what they do to help us grow. Thank them for the "ride", and for the opportunity to grow, and wish them well as they move on to help another little piece of the world.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Entertainment vs. art in a bad economy
I've always found some comfort (and opportunism) in the fact that no matter what crisis or problem the world (or some segment of it) is facing, someone's makin' a buck off it. Warren Buffet just invested $5 billion in Goldman Sachs—one of the two investment banks that got through this financial crisis relatively unscathed (is that an oxymoron?). When asked about it, he said "Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." . He's wealthy, he does good things with his money, he's smart, and he's doing good for an investment bank. Why shouldn't he be rewarded?
Richard Nixon went to China when he was President. He brought back a piece of wisdom from there. He told folks that the Chinese symbol for crisis is one character that means "danger", and another character that means "opportunity". That's some pretty smart stuff. (I just saw another article that clarifies the "Crisis=Danger+Opportunity" thing. Nixon's "common wisdom" isn't 100% accurate.)
Who in showbusiness profited from 9/11? Filmmakers, comedians, musicians...We really needed to be cheered up. We escaped into things we found comforting, because the world was just too scary or too horrible for some of us.
How could we dare to laugh during a tragedy? We have to. We aren't laughing at the tragedy, we're laughing in spite of it. That's tough to figure out sometimes.
Comedians understand the concept of "too soon", and can even joke about that. The other night, Bill Maher (on his show "Real Time with Bill Maher", in the "Exit Strategy" segment) was talking about how India would be a good place to live if you want to stay thin. Behind him, as he talked about staying thing, was a picture of Gandhi. He didn't get a laugh. He asked "What? Too soon?".
One couldn't joke right away after 9/11—especially about the tragedy. Many comedians recount that it was Gilbert Gottfried at a Comedy Central Roast telling his version of the old joke "The Aristocrats" that gave comedians permission to laugh again. That was about 3 weeks after September 11, 2001.
Are entertainers being opportunistic? Absolutely not. The business world profits off the entertainers and artists, while the purveyors of entertainment product/services get paid the same whether times are good or bad. Comedians will always bare their souls the same way, whether during good times or bad.
Lots of charities took in money around 9/11. Politicians experienced boom times! (No kidding!) Some are still clinging to 9/11 to rationalize all kinds of disgusting behavior..but that's another story for another blog.
So what does this have to do with the arts and entertainment? It occurs to me that, during bad economic times we need escapism. Movies do well, despite many people cutting back on "unneccesary expenses"; comedy clubs often experience boom times because of bad times.
"Art" doesn't always make out as well as entertainment does.
Most musicians, comedians, actors and others who pursue their entertainment-industry related craft look on what they do as their art. Newsflash for the more serious among you: The sad truth is that most people who pay to see you /hear you don't care that it's your art. They want to take their minds off their problems, and they think you can help. They're not paying for art—especially not during tough times. Most people associate art with museums and auctions, neither of which are critical (for most people) during tough times.
Many artists—especially those who take themselves far too seriously—are offended by the idea that people will equate what they (artists) do with other, lesser forms of entertainment. Will I go see the circus, or will I go to a comedy club? They may even take it one step further. Well, both have people who'll make me laugh...The circus ticket is $40, and the comedy club is $20 + two drinks..and the comedy club is closer. Is it an insult to the comedian that someone's considering the circus as an alternative? I don't think so. I'm as big a fan of comedy as anyone I know, and I still see comedy as a form of entertainment for the masses.
Comedians perform a holy function in the world. They make us forget our problems, but that's not the holy part.
That comedians help us by baring their souls on the stage is not relevant to most of their audience. Jon Stewart's doing well. God bless him. He's a funny man, he's worked very hard for a very long time to get where he is. And he still works hard. On "The Daily Show" he doesn't usually bare his soul. No matter who is elected (or awarded the office of ) President of the United States, comedians will have plenty to joke about. With McCain, there'll be jokes about, teeth-whistling, anger management problems, a waddling walk, and just a general fuddy-duddiness. Needless to say comedians will have more material about Sarah Palin than they did about Dan Quayle. Damn! Who ever thought we'd have a president with more comedy-potential than Dan Quayle? The comedy bar's being raised pretty high now. If Sarah Palin gets into the Veep-spot, most comedians will be depressed for a short while, and then...the comedy will come flowing forth.
If Obama's elected, wow...It'll be a whole new thing. There will be race jokes, and that will upset some people. There'll be jokes about him being a "stiff". Joe Biden's not as old as McCain, but he's no spring chicken either.
Okay..I digress. If you play music, perform comedy, act, do magic, juggle, whatever...You'll do better in a bad economy if you go into showbusiness, and realize people will need you more in a bad economy. Don't be a sourpuss about most people using you for escapism. You have a job, and that's more than a lot of people can say in this economy. Be grateful, take the applause, and hope for that one great inspiration to create art that'll be remembered.
Richard Nixon went to China when he was President. He brought back a piece of wisdom from there. He told folks that the Chinese symbol for crisis is one character that means "danger", and another character that means "opportunity". That's some pretty smart stuff. (I just saw another article that clarifies the "Crisis=Danger+Opportunity" thing. Nixon's "common wisdom" isn't 100% accurate.)
Who in showbusiness profited from 9/11? Filmmakers, comedians, musicians...We really needed to be cheered up. We escaped into things we found comforting, because the world was just too scary or too horrible for some of us.
How could we dare to laugh during a tragedy? We have to. We aren't laughing at the tragedy, we're laughing in spite of it. That's tough to figure out sometimes.
Comedians understand the concept of "too soon", and can even joke about that. The other night, Bill Maher (on his show "Real Time with Bill Maher", in the "Exit Strategy" segment) was talking about how India would be a good place to live if you want to stay thin. Behind him, as he talked about staying thing, was a picture of Gandhi. He didn't get a laugh. He asked "What? Too soon?".
One couldn't joke right away after 9/11—especially about the tragedy. Many comedians recount that it was Gilbert Gottfried at a Comedy Central Roast telling his version of the old joke "The Aristocrats" that gave comedians permission to laugh again. That was about 3 weeks after September 11, 2001.
Are entertainers being opportunistic? Absolutely not. The business world profits off the entertainers and artists, while the purveyors of entertainment product/services get paid the same whether times are good or bad. Comedians will always bare their souls the same way, whether during good times or bad.
Lots of charities took in money around 9/11. Politicians experienced boom times! (No kidding!) Some are still clinging to 9/11 to rationalize all kinds of disgusting behavior..but that's another story for another blog.
So what does this have to do with the arts and entertainment? It occurs to me that, during bad economic times we need escapism. Movies do well, despite many people cutting back on "unneccesary expenses"; comedy clubs often experience boom times because of bad times.
"Art" doesn't always make out as well as entertainment does.
Most musicians, comedians, actors and others who pursue their entertainment-industry related craft look on what they do as their art. Newsflash for the more serious among you: The sad truth is that most people who pay to see you /hear you don't care that it's your art. They want to take their minds off their problems, and they think you can help. They're not paying for art—especially not during tough times. Most people associate art with museums and auctions, neither of which are critical (for most people) during tough times.
Many artists—especially those who take themselves far too seriously—are offended by the idea that people will equate what they (artists) do with other, lesser forms of entertainment. Will I go see the circus, or will I go to a comedy club? They may even take it one step further. Well, both have people who'll make me laugh...The circus ticket is $40, and the comedy club is $20 + two drinks..and the comedy club is closer. Is it an insult to the comedian that someone's considering the circus as an alternative? I don't think so. I'm as big a fan of comedy as anyone I know, and I still see comedy as a form of entertainment for the masses.
Comedians perform a holy function in the world. They make us forget our problems, but that's not the holy part.
That comedians help us by baring their souls on the stage is not relevant to most of their audience. Jon Stewart's doing well. God bless him. He's a funny man, he's worked very hard for a very long time to get where he is. And he still works hard. On "The Daily Show" he doesn't usually bare his soul. No matter who is elected (or awarded the office of ) President of the United States, comedians will have plenty to joke about. With McCain, there'll be jokes about, teeth-whistling, anger management problems, a waddling walk, and just a general fuddy-duddiness. Needless to say comedians will have more material about Sarah Palin than they did about Dan Quayle. Damn! Who ever thought we'd have a president with more comedy-potential than Dan Quayle? The comedy bar's being raised pretty high now. If Sarah Palin gets into the Veep-spot, most comedians will be depressed for a short while, and then...the comedy will come flowing forth.
If Obama's elected, wow...It'll be a whole new thing. There will be race jokes, and that will upset some people. There'll be jokes about him being a "stiff". Joe Biden's not as old as McCain, but he's no spring chicken either.
Okay..I digress. If you play music, perform comedy, act, do magic, juggle, whatever...You'll do better in a bad economy if you go into showbusiness, and realize people will need you more in a bad economy. Don't be a sourpuss about most people using you for escapism. You have a job, and that's more than a lot of people can say in this economy. Be grateful, take the applause, and hope for that one great inspiration to create art that'll be remembered.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
We have spoken, and SoundExchange has listened.
When last we left our heroes, your fearless leader (that's me), had taken a firm stance about performance royalties for spoken word artists. Musicians get money when their published intellectual property is played live in many public forums, and over mass media. Spoken word artists (like standup comics) should get paid too when their stuff is used in the same forum/media. Makes sense, no?
For the most part, spoken word artists aren't getting performance royalties. That's because traditional performance rights organizations set up their infrastructure decades ago, and they're set up to monitor music. In 2006, BMI distributed $732 million in royalties to member-composers and publishers. This year, it'll be closer to $900 million. Also, BMI is Broadcast Music Incorporated. Too many people in their organization already drank the "Music-only" Kool-Aid. (Poor Ko0l-Aid. It is so often associated with a destructive cartoon-pitcher that breaks down people's walls, and as the primary means of a cult mass-suicide.)
Well, the battle's nowhere near over, but the first real proof-of-concept that it's not only doable, but is good for everyone, is here. That proof of concept is in a relatively new company called SoundExchange. They are a performance rights agency for streaming media.
I'd first heard about SoundExchange three or four years ago. It seemed like a really nice idea. Who knew they'd ever get anywhere? They recently contacted artists we serve with notices that money is being held in their behalf. I found that strange, as these artists had never registered with SoundExchange. SoundExchange grants blanket licenses to, among others, Sirius and XM Satellite Radio, and distributes a large majority of the license fees among the creators/owners of sound recordings (rather than of published works).
Of course, the most important part of such a royalty payment is how it's calculated. We will examine SoundExchange statements soon. If there's anything really interesting in the first one we see, we'll make sure and post it here.
Maybe this is the first important step in getting all Performance Rights Agencies in line about this issue. Copyrighted, published work performed over mass-media or public performance spaces should be annuities to their creators/owners....whether those recordings contain music or spoken word.
Congratulations, SoundExchange on this bold first step.
For the most part, spoken word artists aren't getting performance royalties. That's because traditional performance rights organizations set up their infrastructure decades ago, and they're set up to monitor music. In 2006, BMI distributed $732 million in royalties to member-composers and publishers. This year, it'll be closer to $900 million. Also, BMI is Broadcast Music Incorporated. Too many people in their organization already drank the "Music-only" Kool-Aid. (Poor Ko0l-Aid. It is so often associated with a destructive cartoon-pitcher that breaks down people's walls, and as the primary means of a cult mass-suicide.)
Well, the battle's nowhere near over, but the first real proof-of-concept that it's not only doable, but is good for everyone, is here. That proof of concept is in a relatively new company called SoundExchange. They are a performance rights agency for streaming media.
I'd first heard about SoundExchange three or four years ago. It seemed like a really nice idea. Who knew they'd ever get anywhere? They recently contacted artists we serve with notices that money is being held in their behalf. I found that strange, as these artists had never registered with SoundExchange. SoundExchange grants blanket licenses to, among others, Sirius and XM Satellite Radio, and distributes a large majority of the license fees among the creators/owners of sound recordings (rather than of published works).
Of course, the most important part of such a royalty payment is how it's calculated. We will examine SoundExchange statements soon. If there's anything really interesting in the first one we see, we'll make sure and post it here.
Maybe this is the first important step in getting all Performance Rights Agencies in line about this issue. Copyrighted, published work performed over mass-media or public performance spaces should be annuities to their creators/owners....whether those recordings contain music or spoken word.
Congratulations, SoundExchange on this bold first step.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Stand Up for Spoken Word Performance Rights!
The U.S. isn't doing so great economically. That's bad. Right? Maybe it's not all bad. Historically, entertainment has always done well during "lean" times. Vaudeville thrived during the Depression; "talking pictures" were only two years old; and people were lining up around the block to see Mary Pickford, Charlie Chaplin, The Marx Brothers, and all the other film greats of that era. In the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was President, comedy clubs opened all over the country.
This time around it's not much different. People want escapism. But there is one huge difference between the '80s and today. We have exponentially more mass-media now than we had in the '80s. Many entertainers and performing artists are getting paid right and left because mass-media are using their intellectual property. But one important group of artists is getting shafted.
Some opinions may differ. BUT, we should all be able to agree on a few points:
Anyone who creates works of art must be compensated when those works are bought, sold, or otherwise used for the benefit of the general public.
One of the intended uses of commercial recorded works is broadcast—performance over mass-media.
One of the rules of commerce has always been (and will continue forever to be) that the greater the number of people who benefit from something, the greater the compensation to its creator/owner should be. Sound about right so far? Good.
Let's apply that to the arts and entertainment industry. Paul McCartney has been selling records for forty six years. He has probably sold more records than any popular music artist. He should be, and has been compensated accordingly.
Lucky for Paul he's also a music publisher (song pimp). He owns a lot of music. (If you want to find out just how much, go to that last link, and under "Browse All Titles", choose "All", then click the "Search" button). Every time a work he owns is played on the radio, or on TV he gets paid. He is a genius of music publishing. There was a time during which Sir Paul bought every college "fight song" he could get his hands on. Seem like a dumb move? Remember, college football is often televised. When Notre Dame plays football on TV, their "fight song" is played in the background at least once during every game. (Cha-ching!!) If Notre Dame plays a college whose "fight song" McCartney owns, he gets paid for use of both teams' songs. (Cha-Ching, Cha-Ching!!). Even if the game isn't televised, Paul still gets a smaller check (Cha!)
Funnily, and ironically, Paul doesn't own the music that made him most famous. He wrote it, but he doesn't own it. Michael Jackson does. Michael's been pimping out Paul's Beatle songs for use in TV commercials, stage shows, and LOTS of other stuff. Hello Goodbye has been used in at least four major national ad campaigns in the past two years.
When a song gets broadcast to millions of listeners, the listeners benefit, and so does the broadcaster. Accordingly, the creator /owner of the song should be paid. The U.S. Copyright Act as amended in 1909 says so. Although broadcasting as we know it didn't exist in 1909, those who amended the Copyright Act were looking out for the long-term interests of intellectual property owners. Yay! Well, it's time to look "long range" again.
(SPOKEN-WORD ARTISTS: We're comin' to the good part now. We've established the premise, now we're goin' for the setup.)
You might want to know who sees to getting copyright owners paid. Well...
In the USA, there are three Performance Rights Organizations (or PROs)—BMI, ASCAP , and SESAC. (SESAC is commonly pronounced "sea sack", by the way.) Their mission is to license the rights to b
roadcast music over mass-media and other public forums. They collect money from license fees, and disburse a large percentage of it to the composers and publishers whose work is broadcast/used in public forums. A composer or music publisher can sign up with any one of these three agencies. The agencies' respective payment and collection schemes/schedules vary from one another, and of course, change for those whose music is broadcast or played in public more.
If you look carefully as you walk into a club, bar, or performance venue, you'll likely see stickers with th
e logos of ASCAP, BMI, and/or SESAC around the front door somewhere. The sticker's an indication that the establishment/venue had been assessed a blanket fee f
or the year (to play music licensed by ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC). It's like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for composers. Those stickers tell the venue's patrons that composers/publishers of the music they're hearing are being paid for the public use of their work. But the mass media pays a nice chunk too. Every radio station, TV station, or cable network pays the PROs. When the agencies start monitoring internet media for use of copyrighted material, the pie will get even more huge. Gazillionaire Google hasn't been asked to chip in yet. And Google owns YouTube. Nice, huh?
Well, it's nice if you're a composer of music. What if you are a professional public speaker? What if you've recorded audiobooks and hundreds of speeches that are broadcast on mass media or performed in public? Don't you deserve to get paid for the broadcasts and public performances of your work? We established earlier that anyone who creates works of art must be compensated when those works are bought, sold, or otherwise used for the benefit of the general public.
That should be the beginning and the end of it.
Can you think of a group of public speakers whose copyrighted work is regularly broadcast over mass-media for the entertainment of the general public? I'd like to name a few of my favorites, if I may:
George Carlin
Chris Rock
Judy Gold
Jeffrey Ross
Greg Giraldo
Lewis Black
Lisa Lampanelli
Eugene Mirman
Jonathan Katz
Demetri Martin
Laurie Kilmartin (pictured below)
Yup, standup come
dians! They don't write music, but they do compose. (Actually, Demetri Martin does compose music, but it's a very small part of his act. That makes him an interesting case. More about him later. Maybe.) Their works are copyrighted, performed and broadcast just like any other creative work. The public benefits from hearing the works, and many radio stations, internet streaming sites, and television networks benefit from the public performance of standup comedy. And the comedians don't see a dime of performance royalties! Why the hell not?
I asked this question of representatives from all three USA-based Performance Rights Organizations. Two of the three (ASCAP and BMI) gave me the exact same response. They said they are set up to collect money for musical works only. They added that if there were musical accompaniment behind a spoken word performance, the composer/owner of the music, and only the music can be paid by a Performance Rights Organization.
How about an example that has nothing to do with standup comedy? Okay.
A few people over the years have performed /recorded Allan Ginsberg's Howl with musical accompaniment. Howl is perhaps the most famous poem of the past 50-75 years, and Ginsberg's estate doesn't see a nickel of performance royalties when those recordings are played on the radio, or used in a movie. (He probably gets a license fee for use of the poem, but his estate deserves every consideration that musicians get.) Were it not for Ginsberg's poem, there'd have been no foreground to which the musical accompaniment had been a background!
BACK TO COMEDY! George Carlin performed his written work Braindroppings as an audiobook. When the audiobook (which runs about two hours) gets broadcast over satellite radio, the radio station is filling its airtime with George's copyrighted material. Subscribers pay to hear it (on the ALL-COMEDY satellite radio stations); XM Radio or Sirius keep their subscribers happy. If George had done a straight reading of the book (no background sounds of any kind—just his voice), he wouldn't get paid for the broadcasting of his work. If a musician composed (for the audiobook recording) a little 6 note interlude to aurally indicate that George is moving on to the next chapter of the book, "Mr. Six-note" gets paid, and Mr. Conductor (that's George...See the link) gets zilch. That's horribly unfair, and it gets worse. (By the way, a lot of Braindroppings is repurposed excerpts of George's wonderful standup material. )
Demetri Martin is a wonderful standup comedian. He incorporates music into his act, which makes him eligible for performance rights royalties today. He may be able to open an interesting door toward income streams for standup comics. But that'll come later.
Venues from the size of Madison Square Garden, down to small clubs all over the country, pay ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC for annual blanket licenses to play music represented by those agencies. Any time a represented work is performed live, the composer/publisher gets paid a tiny bit. Billy Joel playing 25 songs at 30,000+ seat arenas for a year will get a bigger "taste" than the punk band playing at a 50 seat club on the Lower East Side. Billy and the punk rockers get paid twice (once for their performance, and a second time by the Performance Rights Agency), and the standup comic gets paid once—by the club/promoter, but not by a PRO.
George Carlin did 14 HBO specials, Billy Joel did two. George and Billy both got paid by HBO. Both George and Billy composed copyrighted works that were performed on television. Billy got paid twice by BMI. Once for the live performance of the works, and a second time for their broadcast on HBO. George didn't get paid at all by a PRO.
You're not a multi-million seller? That's okay. This can still make a small difference to you if you compose (and/or perform) spoken-word pieces for a living. Some comedians perform 10 minutes of copyrighted (and possibly published) material three or four times a night. Why can't a PRO represent the comics too? The comedy clubs are already paying blanket license fees to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC (for the radio and other music they play over loudspeakers/between shows). Why would 100% of the fees collected from a comedy club by PROs go exclusively toward music? 90% of what's performed or played at a comedy club is COMEDY—spoken word comedy.
Wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest to let spoken word performers in on the action? Most comedians get paid bubkes for their work in the clubs. Performance Rights money won't pay for a house in the Hamptons, but it might help a comic make the rent one month in a tight year.
But it's not about need. It's about what's right!
That the PROs aren't factoring in the spoken word artists' contributions to a given venue is just dumb—especially when that venue is a COMEDY CLUB. The ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC license fees for a comedy club are based only on the music that's played there. By not factoring in spoken word as the lion's share of the Performance Rights assessment for a comedy venue, BMI and the other PROs are saying that comedy is insignificant to a comedy club. BMI charges several thousand dollars a year to the average comedy club, based only on the music. That's crazy!
ASCAP is an acronym for the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers. Aren't standup comics authors? (Actually, ASCAP meant to say lyricists, but the word Lyricist doesn't sound as good as Author; nor does the resulting acronym—ASCLP). Makes you want to put a CAP in their AS, doesn't it?
If you're read this far, I'll bet you have a few questions:
So how much more money do spoken-word artists/performers stand to make?
It's a good question, and I don't have the answer. The PROs use statistical sampling as the basis for how any of their members gets paid. There are technologies available that allow for a more accurate count of what's played where, and how often. But that's not in place yet.
Is it really that simple? Just get the PROs to factor in spoken word, and get a check?
Nope. It's not even close to that simple. It's a system, and ya gotta work the system to make something from it. Musicians have been working the system for decades. Spoken-word artists and their representatives should be in on this, and I'd like to help beyond simply writing a blog post.
Are you saying it's right to squeeze small businesses harder just to pay the standup comics?
Absolutely not. A restaurant that has a video jukebox full of Tammy Wynette, The Judds, and reruns of Hee Haw should not have to pay one penny toward a standup comic's performance royalties. But what if the jukebox has a little "Git 'R Done" or "You Might Be a Redneck"? Shouldn't Larry The Cable Guy and Jeff Foxworthy (respectively) have a tiny taste?
I don't even think that restaurant should be charged any more than they're being charged now. I think the BMI pie (mmm) should be carved just a little bit differently to give the standups their fair share. Who deserves more performance rights money from a comedy club, Jeffrey Ross or Britney Spears?
Isn't this a little pie-in-the-sky? Aren't you just dreaming?
Nope. History's on our side in this fight, folks. ASCAP was founded in 1914 by, among others, Irving Berlin—the Jewish guy who wrote White Christmas. Irving was a prolific songwriter, and wanted a central agency to monitor (and collect money for) public performance of his many works. Other songwriters were in the same boat, and wanted in.
ASCAP was considered "elitist", as it didn't acknowledge the legitimacy of country and folk music, it didn't allow membership to black composers, and excluded lots of other people, for reasons passing understanding. BMI was formed to meet the needs of those whom ASCAP didn't see fit to represent. SESAC was founded in 1936, BMI in 1939. Over the years, PROs have ventured into many new territories to see that their memberships expand, that more musicians are getting a taste, and that they all make more money. Inclusion is within our reach. But we haven't made our case yet.
How do we get started?
I have some of the broad strokes. It has to start with one PRO. Which one?
ASCAP is still snotty, and BMI is still a lot better for big-timers. SESAC is the smallest of the three, the most open minded, and therefore may hold the most potential for spoken-word performance rights. I don't know yet. It's still early in the game. I believe that if they're approached the right way, all the PROs will want the spoken-word creators in eventually.
Conclusions:
It's way too early in this game to determine with any accuracy what the real performance royalties numbers could be for spoken-word artists/writers. I asked some knowledgeable people to help me "do the math". If we took all the comedy being performed live in clubs and theaters all over the United States, added to that all the comedy broadcast over terrestrial radio and satellite radio, added to that all the standup comedy and other published, copyrighted spoken word that's broadcast on cable TV (that's BET, HBO, Showtime, Comedy Central, and on and on and on), the comedians stand to bring in tens of millions of dollars a year (collectively).
And the "Wild West" of the Web is hardly regulated right now. BMI has plans to turn the internet into a serious source of performance rights revenue. But execution is a lot more difficult than making a plan. The spoken-word people's time is now—while the PROs are still figuring out how to collect and fairly distribute all that internet money. Statistical sampling may not even be necessary anymore, because it's so easy to track how many times a copyrighted/published work has been streamed on the web.
Let's get in the door now, before the internet media get really monitored, so that we can be counted. When Google starts kicking in as they should; when Apple becomes one of the world's largest media "casters", there will be more money for everyone. All you authors have to do is claim your fair share.
Comedians, please weigh in. Could you use a tiny slice of the millions of dollars the PROs stand to collect from registered spoken-word works? Are you ready to work for it (or set your people to work for it)? Will you join me in helping you (and other spoken word artists) get paid for the broadcasts and public performances of your material? This will be a herculean effort, is likely to take a decade, and may not result in big money to the average spoken-word performer. But it opens the door to greater possibilities where there is now nothing. That door's going to close pretty soon. Google hasn't really been told to pay up yet. Neither have most of the website owners exploiting intellectual property without paying for it.
Let's talk to the WGA. Maybe they can help in this battle. Let's talk to all the people we know with the connections to make things happen. I'm your sister-in-arms, and will do whatever I can to help. If you've found this helpful, have a question, or just want to insult me, leave a comment, or drop me a note. If you really liked it, forward it to a friend who might benefit from it. Thanks for your attention.
This time around it's not much different. People want escapism. But there is one huge difference between the '80s and today. We have exponentially more mass-media now than we had in the '80s. Many entertainers and performing artists are getting paid right and left because mass-media are using their intellectual property. But one important group of artists is getting shafted.
Some opinions may differ. BUT, we should all be able to agree on a few points:
Anyone who creates works of art must be compensated when those works are bought, sold, or otherwise used for the benefit of the general public.
One of the intended uses of commercial recorded works is broadcast—performance over mass-media.
One of the rules of commerce has always been (and will continue forever to be) that the greater the number of people who benefit from something, the greater the compensation to its creator/owner should be. Sound about right so far? Good.
Let's apply that to the arts and entertainment industry. Paul McCartney has been selling records for forty six years. He has probably sold more records than any popular music artist. He should be, and has been compensated accordingly.
Lucky for Paul he's also a music publisher (song pimp). He owns a lot of music. (If you want to find out just how much, go to that last link, and under "Browse All Titles", choose "All", then click the "Search" button). Every time a work he owns is played on the radio, or on TV he gets paid. He is a genius of music publishing. There was a time during which Sir Paul bought every college "fight song" he could get his hands on. Seem like a dumb move? Remember, college football is often televised. When Notre Dame plays football on TV, their "fight song" is played in the background at least once during every game. (Cha-ching!!) If Notre Dame plays a college whose "fight song" McCartney owns, he gets paid for use of both teams' songs. (Cha-Ching, Cha-Ching!!). Even if the game isn't televised, Paul still gets a smaller check (Cha!)
Funnily, and ironically, Paul doesn't own the music that made him most famous. He wrote it, but he doesn't own it. Michael Jackson does. Michael's been pimping out Paul's Beatle songs for use in TV commercials, stage shows, and LOTS of other stuff. Hello Goodbye has been used in at least four major national ad campaigns in the past two years.
When a song gets broadcast to millions of listeners, the listeners benefit, and so does the broadcaster. Accordingly, the creator /owner of the song should be paid. The U.S. Copyright Act as amended in 1909 says so. Although broadcasting as we know it didn't exist in 1909, those who amended the Copyright Act were looking out for the long-term interests of intellectual property owners. Yay! Well, it's time to look "long range" again.
(SPOKEN-WORD ARTISTS: We're comin' to the good part now. We've established the premise, now we're goin' for the setup.)
You might want to know who sees to getting copyright owners paid. Well...
In the USA, there are three Performance Rights Organizations (or PROs)—BMI, ASCAP , and SESAC. (SESAC is commonly pronounced "sea sack", by the way.) Their mission is to license the rights to b
roadcast music over mass-media and other public forums. They collect money from license fees, and disburse a large percentage of it to the composers and publishers whose work is broadcast/used in public forums. A composer or music publisher can sign up with any one of these three agencies. The agencies' respective payment and collection schemes/schedules vary from one another, and of course, change for those whose music is broadcast or played in public more.If you look carefully as you walk into a club, bar, or performance venue, you'll likely see stickers with th
e logos of ASCAP, BMI, and/or SESAC around the front door somewhere. The sticker's an indication that the establishment/venue had been assessed a blanket fee f
or the year (to play music licensed by ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC). It's like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for composers. Those stickers tell the venue's patrons that composers/publishers of the music they're hearing are being paid for the public use of their work. But the mass media pays a nice chunk too. Every radio station, TV station, or cable network pays the PROs. When the agencies start monitoring internet media for use of copyrighted material, the pie will get even more huge. Gazillionaire Google hasn't been asked to chip in yet. And Google owns YouTube. Nice, huh?Well, it's nice if you're a composer of music. What if you are a professional public speaker? What if you've recorded audiobooks and hundreds of speeches that are broadcast on mass media or performed in public? Don't you deserve to get paid for the broadcasts and public performances of your work? We established earlier that anyone who creates works of art must be compensated when those works are bought, sold, or otherwise used for the benefit of the general public.
That should be the beginning and the end of it.
Can you think of a group of public speakers whose copyrighted work is regularly broadcast over mass-media for the entertainment of the general public? I'd like to name a few of my favorites, if I may:
George Carlin
Chris Rock
Judy Gold
Jeffrey Ross
Greg Giraldo
Lewis Black
Lisa Lampanelli
Eugene Mirman
Jonathan Katz
Demetri Martin
Laurie Kilmartin (pictured below)
Yup, standup come
dians! They don't write music, but they do compose. (Actually, Demetri Martin does compose music, but it's a very small part of his act. That makes him an interesting case. More about him later. Maybe.) Their works are copyrighted, performed and broadcast just like any other creative work. The public benefits from hearing the works, and many radio stations, internet streaming sites, and television networks benefit from the public performance of standup comedy. And the comedians don't see a dime of performance royalties! Why the hell not?I asked this question of representatives from all three USA-based Performance Rights Organizations. Two of the three (ASCAP and BMI) gave me the exact same response. They said they are set up to collect money for musical works only. They added that if there were musical accompaniment behind a spoken word performance, the composer/owner of the music, and only the music can be paid by a Performance Rights Organization.
How about an example that has nothing to do with standup comedy? Okay.
A few people over the years have performed /recorded Allan Ginsberg's Howl with musical accompaniment. Howl is perhaps the most famous poem of the past 50-75 years, and Ginsberg's estate doesn't see a nickel of performance royalties when those recordings are played on the radio, or used in a movie. (He probably gets a license fee for use of the poem, but his estate deserves every consideration that musicians get.) Were it not for Ginsberg's poem, there'd have been no foreground to which the musical accompaniment had been a background!
BACK TO COMEDY! George Carlin performed his written work Braindroppings as an audiobook. When the audiobook (which runs about two hours) gets broadcast over satellite radio, the radio station is filling its airtime with George's copyrighted material. Subscribers pay to hear it (on the ALL-COMEDY satellite radio stations); XM Radio or Sirius keep their subscribers happy. If George had done a straight reading of the book (no background sounds of any kind—just his voice), he wouldn't get paid for the broadcasting of his work. If a musician composed (for the audiobook recording) a little 6 note interlude to aurally indicate that George is moving on to the next chapter of the book, "Mr. Six-note" gets paid, and Mr. Conductor (that's George...See the link) gets zilch. That's horribly unfair, and it gets worse. (By the way, a lot of Braindroppings is repurposed excerpts of George's wonderful standup material. )
Demetri Martin is a wonderful standup comedian. He incorporates music into his act, which makes him eligible for performance rights royalties today. He may be able to open an interesting door toward income streams for standup comics. But that'll come later.
Venues from the size of Madison Square Garden, down to small clubs all over the country, pay ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC for annual blanket licenses to play music represented by those agencies. Any time a represented work is performed live, the composer/publisher gets paid a tiny bit. Billy Joel playing 25 songs at 30,000+ seat arenas for a year will get a bigger "taste" than the punk band playing at a 50 seat club on the Lower East Side. Billy and the punk rockers get paid twice (once for their performance, and a second time by the Performance Rights Agency), and the standup comic gets paid once—by the club/promoter, but not by a PRO.
George Carlin did 14 HBO specials, Billy Joel did two. George and Billy both got paid by HBO. Both George and Billy composed copyrighted works that were performed on television. Billy got paid twice by BMI. Once for the live performance of the works, and a second time for their broadcast on HBO. George didn't get paid at all by a PRO.
You're not a multi-million seller? That's okay. This can still make a small difference to you if you compose (and/or perform) spoken-word pieces for a living. Some comedians perform 10 minutes of copyrighted (and possibly published) material three or four times a night. Why can't a PRO represent the comics too? The comedy clubs are already paying blanket license fees to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC (for the radio and other music they play over loudspeakers/between shows). Why would 100% of the fees collected from a comedy club by PROs go exclusively toward music? 90% of what's performed or played at a comedy club is COMEDY—spoken word comedy.
Wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest to let spoken word performers in on the action? Most comedians get paid bubkes for their work in the clubs. Performance Rights money won't pay for a house in the Hamptons, but it might help a comic make the rent one month in a tight year.
But it's not about need. It's about what's right!
That the PROs aren't factoring in the spoken word artists' contributions to a given venue is just dumb—especially when that venue is a COMEDY CLUB. The ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC license fees for a comedy club are based only on the music that's played there. By not factoring in spoken word as the lion's share of the Performance Rights assessment for a comedy venue, BMI and the other PROs are saying that comedy is insignificant to a comedy club. BMI charges several thousand dollars a year to the average comedy club, based only on the music. That's crazy!
ASCAP is an acronym for the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers. Aren't standup comics authors? (Actually, ASCAP meant to say lyricists, but the word Lyricist doesn't sound as good as Author; nor does the resulting acronym—ASCLP). Makes you want to put a CAP in their AS, doesn't it?
If you're read this far, I'll bet you have a few questions:
So how much more money do spoken-word artists/performers stand to make?
It's a good question, and I don't have the answer. The PROs use statistical sampling as the basis for how any of their members gets paid. There are technologies available that allow for a more accurate count of what's played where, and how often. But that's not in place yet.
Is it really that simple? Just get the PROs to factor in spoken word, and get a check?
Nope. It's not even close to that simple. It's a system, and ya gotta work the system to make something from it. Musicians have been working the system for decades. Spoken-word artists and their representatives should be in on this, and I'd like to help beyond simply writing a blog post.
Are you saying it's right to squeeze small businesses harder just to pay the standup comics?
Absolutely not. A restaurant that has a video jukebox full of Tammy Wynette, The Judds, and reruns of Hee Haw should not have to pay one penny toward a standup comic's performance royalties. But what if the jukebox has a little "Git 'R Done" or "You Might Be a Redneck"? Shouldn't Larry The Cable Guy and Jeff Foxworthy (respectively) have a tiny taste?
I don't even think that restaurant should be charged any more than they're being charged now. I think the BMI pie (mmm) should be carved just a little bit differently to give the standups their fair share. Who deserves more performance rights money from a comedy club, Jeffrey Ross or Britney Spears?
Isn't this a little pie-in-the-sky? Aren't you just dreaming?
Nope. History's on our side in this fight, folks. ASCAP was founded in 1914 by, among others, Irving Berlin—the Jewish guy who wrote White Christmas. Irving was a prolific songwriter, and wanted a central agency to monitor (and collect money for) public performance of his many works. Other songwriters were in the same boat, and wanted in.
ASCAP was considered "elitist", as it didn't acknowledge the legitimacy of country and folk music, it didn't allow membership to black composers, and excluded lots of other people, for reasons passing understanding. BMI was formed to meet the needs of those whom ASCAP didn't see fit to represent. SESAC was founded in 1936, BMI in 1939. Over the years, PROs have ventured into many new territories to see that their memberships expand, that more musicians are getting a taste, and that they all make more money. Inclusion is within our reach. But we haven't made our case yet.
How do we get started?
I have some of the broad strokes. It has to start with one PRO. Which one?
ASCAP is still snotty, and BMI is still a lot better for big-timers. SESAC is the smallest of the three, the most open minded, and therefore may hold the most potential for spoken-word performance rights. I don't know yet. It's still early in the game. I believe that if they're approached the right way, all the PROs will want the spoken-word creators in eventually.
Conclusions:
It's way too early in this game to determine with any accuracy what the real performance royalties numbers could be for spoken-word artists/writers. I asked some knowledgeable people to help me "do the math". If we took all the comedy being performed live in clubs and theaters all over the United States, added to that all the comedy broadcast over terrestrial radio and satellite radio, added to that all the standup comedy and other published, copyrighted spoken word that's broadcast on cable TV (that's BET, HBO, Showtime, Comedy Central, and on and on and on), the comedians stand to bring in tens of millions of dollars a year (collectively).
And the "Wild West" of the Web is hardly regulated right now. BMI has plans to turn the internet into a serious source of performance rights revenue. But execution is a lot more difficult than making a plan. The spoken-word people's time is now—while the PROs are still figuring out how to collect and fairly distribute all that internet money. Statistical sampling may not even be necessary anymore, because it's so easy to track how many times a copyrighted/published work has been streamed on the web.
Let's get in the door now, before the internet media get really monitored, so that we can be counted. When Google starts kicking in as they should; when Apple becomes one of the world's largest media "casters", there will be more money for everyone. All you authors have to do is claim your fair share.
Comedians, please weigh in. Could you use a tiny slice of the millions of dollars the PROs stand to collect from registered spoken-word works? Are you ready to work for it (or set your people to work for it)? Will you join me in helping you (and other spoken word artists) get paid for the broadcasts and public performances of your material? This will be a herculean effort, is likely to take a decade, and may not result in big money to the average spoken-word performer. But it opens the door to greater possibilities where there is now nothing. That door's going to close pretty soon. Google hasn't really been told to pay up yet. Neither have most of the website owners exploiting intellectual property without paying for it.
Let's talk to the WGA. Maybe they can help in this battle. Let's talk to all the people we know with the connections to make things happen. I'm your sister-in-arms, and will do whatever I can to help. If you've found this helpful, have a question, or just want to insult me, leave a comment, or drop me a note. If you really liked it, forward it to a friend who might benefit from it. Thanks for your attention.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Berklee keeps the tradition going.
I'm a proud alumna of Berklee College of Music in Boston, MA. I am still a bit active with the college. I go to alumni events, I give money, and I try to see the college every once in a while. I love my "old school" not just because of the vibrant, youthful energy that's there, but because it is a great mix of the old school rules, and the talented students' contemporary applications (and discretionary breaking) of those rules to create great new work. But the traditions remain inseparable from the new creations.
When I was in school there, I got derisive comments from academic snobs along the lines of "How nice. I go to a real college.". From other, well-meaning people who didn't understand that it was a real school, I got "Wow, your school must be like [the movie and TV show] Fame!"
In my head, I'd respond "Yes, that's exactly what it's like. A vocalist has a dramatic moment, spontaneously bursts into song in the hallway, with accompanying music, and background singers that come out of nowhere; and people around her begin to dance for no reason."
At a recent event for Berklee alumni, I got to meet some graduates from the classes of 2006 and 2007 respectively. I asked whether they got the same types of comments today that I got "in my day". I was told that the big question the students of today get is "Are you going to try out for [TV show] American Idol?". The wiseass students today respond with something along the lines of "No, because I have some self-respect, and don't care to sound like Beyoncé or Whitney Houston (ca. 1985) to please some rich, spoiled, non-musician with power." I love that!
Sadder still is the fact that, in order to get discovered, American Idol (winner) Kelly Clarkson had to "sign her life away" to the producers of the show.
I had no idea how disgusting that show's setup is. But I should have known better, because (in that part of the music business) nothing's changed since my day. It's all a (disgusting) music industry "tradition"—"Pay For Play". (That is, paying a club owner for the privilege of performing on his stage. That's not just working for free..that's PAYING to work.)
Blues singers from 70 or 80 years ago had their intellectual property exploited by someone else, while the originators of the music got next to nothing; Little Richard took the the just-short-of-highway-robbery record deals that were offered to him early in his career. Black musicians were treated unfairly back then. Now there's less discrimination—musicians with any skin color can get ripped off equally by American Idol, and much lesser forums, media, or venues.
"Do it for the exposure" is the slogan of the exploiters in the entertainment industry. It's one of our emotional "hot buttons". "The Man" takes advantage of the creative artist's desire to express him/herself, and to be liked, and to have their work acknowledged, and to make a "living" doing what they love.
There's a slightly more dignified manner of "Pay for Play" today. They're called "bringer shows". The musicians (or comedians, for that matter) bring the audience. They ask friends, colleagues, relatives, and whoever else they can, to come to the show, and pay for drinks. Often there's no cover charge at "bringer shows". But the drinks ($5 for a small, watered down orange juice) subsidizes the comics' stage time. Getting up in front of people is the ONLY way to get better at it.
The really great performers who start out doing bringer shows didn't have to do them for long.
By college students' standards, I'm old—43 to be somewhat close to exact. And yet, Berklee has stayed the same, while progressing a whole lot. Tradition mixed with musical experimentation and creativity, along with a great sense of humor are part of what makes Berklee special. I love anything that has a sense of humor about itself—even a funeral.
Berklee's unique. It always has been, and always will be. The best way to illustrate how different and special Berklee is, would be to tell you about Christopher Guest's visit to the school. Christopher Guest was honored at Berklee with an honorary doctorate. He, along with a fantastic ensemble of Berklee faculty and students, performed arrangements and adaptions of selections from his body of music.
Over a hundred bassists accompanied Christopher for the evening's final number, Big Bottoms . "Bottom" is a musical colloquialism meaning the bass part. In musical colloquial/trade-speak, when one is "holding down the bottom", one is playing the bass (or bass guitar). If you read the lyrics , you'll see that's not what the song's about.
That one hundred bassists thing? That's unique to Berklee. It takes the "Big Bottoms" joke from the ridiculous to the absurd! The students are, on the whole, a very talented bunch. They're very dedicated, but they don't miss out on the good times.
My favorite teachers at Berklee were Ken Zambello and Bob Freedman—with a special honor going to Bill Leavitt—founding chairman of the Guitar Department. If all I'd gotten out of Berklee was my time with these three great musicians/teachers, it'd have been more than enough.
I loved Ken as a teacher because he took rock and roll seriously. He approached it intellectually and technically, and with great respect. He would dissect it, and show us—his students—that it, like every other great genre of music, was an outgrowth of other traditions/genres. Without understanding what came before, it's really hard to understand how to properly and professionally execute any given genre.
"A-Wop-bop-a-loo-bop a-lop-bam-boom!"???
What the hell was that? Well, Little Richard may have composed that lyric himself, but he didn't invent the phenomenon of singing non-lyrics. There was scat singing well before him.
Little Richard was an original. But, did he create everything he did out of thin air? No. There was Louis Jordan not too far before him. And before Louis Jordan? There was Louis Armstrong, then the blues singers, then Africa. Frankly, I know almost nothing of African music.
Little Richard, Ray Charles, and others developed their styles out of a mix of gospel, jazz, earlier popular music, and jazz. One of Billy Joel's biggest influences was Ray Charles; another great source of Billy Joel's inspiration was The Beatles. The Beatles were influenced by Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley. Elvis also loved black blues singers and gospel and took a lot out of it. Every great musician comes from some great tradition that came before they did.
I'm pretty sure the name of the first class I took with Ken was "Rock Analysis" He played Chuck Berry, Bill Haley and the Comets and Oingo Boingo. And taking their music apart, and understanding the elements of it was real work. Ken also directed an ensemble in which I was a student-musician. He had us listen to recordings of pop songs, and try to play the song as it had been played on the original, with a slight adaptation for the ensemble of the moment.
In that class he pointed out (and then we heard what we already knew was there, but didn't know it well enough to articulate it), that some of the instruments were playing straight (think the guitar, bass, and drums on Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band) and the guitars, the bass, and the vocal were playing swing (think Little Richard's Tutti Frutti). The elements of jazz were coming together with a more driving, set of rhythmic elements.
Did Bill Haley know what the hell all that meant? Probably not. Doesn't make it any less serious. Some of you won't get this, but the greatest thing I learned from Ken Zambello, is that we'd better learn music as a trade, and learn in depth about the styles that have already been successful, so that we can make it in commercial music. Although he said many funny things in my classes with him, my favorite was "Nobody's going to pay to hear your 7/8 Reggae version of Take Five." In English? He told students that there's a constant struggle between art and commerce. And while one shouldn't compromise on one's art, that's not always going to pay the rent. He also told students that if we are serious about music, we have to understand it thoroughly. Listening to a record, and being able to "copy" it is part skill, and part talent. After I took Ken's classes, I listened to rock and roll with "new ears". I was able to do things after his classes that I would never have been able to do without them. I had so much more respect for rock and roll. Since he released The Stranger, Billy Joel had always been my favorite pop music composer. Billy knows rock and roll as an art form, but also understands its forms, and its inner workings. He can dissect the songs he fell in love with, and that made him love rock and roll.
When he did an album in a particular style, he understood that style completely, and gave it his particular take.
That's reality. Imagine that! Liberal Arts colleges probably have lots of "Intro to Basket Weaving" type classes, and "Analysis of the eleventh notes in Arnold Schoenberg's twelve-tone pieces". How can anyone make a living from that? Ken was (and obviously still is) aware of the realities of art and commerce. He gave it to us in exactly the doses we needed.
And so, we are able to mix tradition with experimentation to make bold new work that has a solid, grounded foundation. What does this have to do with anything important?
In the Book of Proverbs we're taught that there's "nothing new under the sun". It's really true. The computer industry hasn't had anything new in a long time. It may seem new, but it's all been done before in cruder forms. The World Wide Web may come closest to anything truly new, but it's all just a big, complicated network.
With music? Hell, no. Ken Zambello said "Stevie Wonder didn't invent the II V.". Neither did Duke Ellington. Neither did Bach.
(I had a heck of a time finding a decent link to explain the II V (pronounced two-five. The first two chords to the song "Satin Doll" (Dmin7 and G7, in the key of C), also the first two chords to "Tea for Two".)
When I was in school there, I got derisive comments from academic snobs along the lines of "How nice. I go to a real college.". From other, well-meaning people who didn't understand that it was a real school, I got "Wow, your school must be like [the movie and TV show] Fame!"
In my head, I'd respond "Yes, that's exactly what it's like. A vocalist has a dramatic moment, spontaneously bursts into song in the hallway, with accompanying music, and background singers that come out of nowhere; and people around her begin to dance for no reason."
At a recent event for Berklee alumni, I got to meet some graduates from the classes of 2006 and 2007 respectively. I asked whether they got the same types of comments today that I got "in my day". I was told that the big question the students of today get is "Are you going to try out for [TV show] American Idol?". The wiseass students today respond with something along the lines of "No, because I have some self-respect, and don't care to sound like Beyoncé or Whitney Houston (ca. 1985) to please some rich, spoiled, non-musician with power." I love that!
Sadder still is the fact that, in order to get discovered, American Idol (winner) Kelly Clarkson had to "sign her life away" to the producers of the show.
I had no idea how disgusting that show's setup is. But I should have known better, because (in that part of the music business) nothing's changed since my day. It's all a (disgusting) music industry "tradition"—"Pay For Play". (That is, paying a club owner for the privilege of performing on his stage. That's not just working for free..that's PAYING to work.)
Blues singers from 70 or 80 years ago had their intellectual property exploited by someone else, while the originators of the music got next to nothing; Little Richard took the the just-short-of-highway-robbery record deals that were offered to him early in his career. Black musicians were treated unfairly back then. Now there's less discrimination—musicians with any skin color can get ripped off equally by American Idol, and much lesser forums, media, or venues.
"Do it for the exposure" is the slogan of the exploiters in the entertainment industry. It's one of our emotional "hot buttons". "The Man" takes advantage of the creative artist's desire to express him/herself, and to be liked, and to have their work acknowledged, and to make a "living" doing what they love.
There's a slightly more dignified manner of "Pay for Play" today. They're called "bringer shows". The musicians (or comedians, for that matter) bring the audience. They ask friends, colleagues, relatives, and whoever else they can, to come to the show, and pay for drinks. Often there's no cover charge at "bringer shows". But the drinks ($5 for a small, watered down orange juice) subsidizes the comics' stage time. Getting up in front of people is the ONLY way to get better at it.
The really great performers who start out doing bringer shows didn't have to do them for long.
By college students' standards, I'm old—43 to be somewhat close to exact. And yet, Berklee has stayed the same, while progressing a whole lot. Tradition mixed with musical experimentation and creativity, along with a great sense of humor are part of what makes Berklee special. I love anything that has a sense of humor about itself—even a funeral.
Berklee's unique. It always has been, and always will be. The best way to illustrate how different and special Berklee is, would be to tell you about Christopher Guest's visit to the school. Christopher Guest was honored at Berklee with an honorary doctorate. He, along with a fantastic ensemble of Berklee faculty and students, performed arrangements and adaptions of selections from his body of music.
Over a hundred bassists accompanied Christopher for the evening's final number, Big Bottoms . "Bottom" is a musical colloquialism meaning the bass part. In musical colloquial/trade-speak, when one is "holding down the bottom", one is playing the bass (or bass guitar). If you read the lyrics , you'll see that's not what the song's about.
That one hundred bassists thing? That's unique to Berklee. It takes the "Big Bottoms" joke from the ridiculous to the absurd! The students are, on the whole, a very talented bunch. They're very dedicated, but they don't miss out on the good times.
My favorite teachers at Berklee were Ken Zambello and Bob Freedman—with a special honor going to Bill Leavitt—founding chairman of the Guitar Department. If all I'd gotten out of Berklee was my time with these three great musicians/teachers, it'd have been more than enough.
I loved Ken as a teacher because he took rock and roll seriously. He approached it intellectually and technically, and with great respect. He would dissect it, and show us—his students—that it, like every other great genre of music, was an outgrowth of other traditions/genres. Without understanding what came before, it's really hard to understand how to properly and professionally execute any given genre.
"A-Wop-bop-a-loo-bop a-lop-bam-boom!"???
What the hell was that? Well, Little Richard may have composed that lyric himself, but he didn't invent the phenomenon of singing non-lyrics. There was scat singing well before him.
Little Richard was an original. But, did he create everything he did out of thin air? No. There was Louis Jordan not too far before him. And before Louis Jordan? There was Louis Armstrong, then the blues singers, then Africa. Frankly, I know almost nothing of African music.
Little Richard, Ray Charles, and others developed their styles out of a mix of gospel, jazz, earlier popular music, and jazz. One of Billy Joel's biggest influences was Ray Charles; another great source of Billy Joel's inspiration was The Beatles. The Beatles were influenced by Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley. Elvis also loved black blues singers and gospel and took a lot out of it. Every great musician comes from some great tradition that came before they did.
I'm pretty sure the name of the first class I took with Ken was "Rock Analysis" He played Chuck Berry, Bill Haley and the Comets and Oingo Boingo. And taking their music apart, and understanding the elements of it was real work. Ken also directed an ensemble in which I was a student-musician. He had us listen to recordings of pop songs, and try to play the song as it had been played on the original, with a slight adaptation for the ensemble of the moment.
In that class he pointed out (and then we heard what we already knew was there, but didn't know it well enough to articulate it), that some of the instruments were playing straight (think the guitar, bass, and drums on Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band) and the guitars, the bass, and the vocal were playing swing (think Little Richard's Tutti Frutti). The elements of jazz were coming together with a more driving, set of rhythmic elements.
Did Bill Haley know what the hell all that meant? Probably not. Doesn't make it any less serious. Some of you won't get this, but the greatest thing I learned from Ken Zambello, is that we'd better learn music as a trade, and learn in depth about the styles that have already been successful, so that we can make it in commercial music. Although he said many funny things in my classes with him, my favorite was "Nobody's going to pay to hear your 7/8 Reggae version of Take Five." In English? He told students that there's a constant struggle between art and commerce. And while one shouldn't compromise on one's art, that's not always going to pay the rent. He also told students that if we are serious about music, we have to understand it thoroughly. Listening to a record, and being able to "copy" it is part skill, and part talent. After I took Ken's classes, I listened to rock and roll with "new ears". I was able to do things after his classes that I would never have been able to do without them. I had so much more respect for rock and roll. Since he released The Stranger, Billy Joel had always been my favorite pop music composer. Billy knows rock and roll as an art form, but also understands its forms, and its inner workings. He can dissect the songs he fell in love with, and that made him love rock and roll.
When he did an album in a particular style, he understood that style completely, and gave it his particular take.
That's reality. Imagine that! Liberal Arts colleges probably have lots of "Intro to Basket Weaving" type classes, and "Analysis of the eleventh notes in Arnold Schoenberg's twelve-tone pieces". How can anyone make a living from that? Ken was (and obviously still is) aware of the realities of art and commerce. He gave it to us in exactly the doses we needed.
And so, we are able to mix tradition with experimentation to make bold new work that has a solid, grounded foundation. What does this have to do with anything important?
In the Book of Proverbs we're taught that there's "nothing new under the sun". It's really true. The computer industry hasn't had anything new in a long time. It may seem new, but it's all been done before in cruder forms. The World Wide Web may come closest to anything truly new, but it's all just a big, complicated network.
With music? Hell, no. Ken Zambello said "Stevie Wonder didn't invent the II V.". Neither did Duke Ellington. Neither did Bach.
(I had a heck of a time finding a decent link to explain the II V (pronounced two-five. The first two chords to the song "Satin Doll" (Dmin7 and G7, in the key of C), also the first two chords to "Tea for Two".)
Friday, May 30, 2008
Tradition, religion, and the future of the arts.
The great novelist and columnist Tracy Quan (whose website we designed, by the way) recently wrote in her column about atheism for The Guardian , that music is inseparable from religion. She's right. Some of the greatest music ever written was written as a form of (or an adjunct to) worship. Religion and music are both as old as the hills. Bach, Mozart, Leonard Bernstein, and many contemporary, popular recording artists have all written music expressing their love of God as they see Him.
Tracy's own one line summary of her own article on the topic was "If God is not great, why are the tunes so good?". It's an excellent question, and here's my answer.
Both music and religion have stayed alive for millenia because they each have dedicated, passionate followers, practitioners, and believers. A lot of the greatest music ever written is only hundreds of years old. Anything with that kind of staying power has to have something going for it. But "the old guard" eventually falls out of fashion with the younger generations. That's been addressed too–by both religion and music.
Religion and music (respectively) have traditionalists and modernists. The modernists give religion greater numbers, while the traditionalists give modernists something against which to rebel, and something to (in their view) update. "Fundamentalists" are typically at the far "right" end of traditionalist movements in just about every religion (, except perhaps Buddhism). The modernists look way to the "right" and think of the traditionalists as "stuck in the past", cultists, or just plain loony.
When thinking about this dichotomy (in either religion or music), I instinctively remember the stereotype of the old curmudgeon yelling in disgust about "these kids today, with the hair and the music...". These are the same (generally older) traditionalists who often start certain of the rants in their repertoire with "Back in my day..." or "In the old days"...Interestingly enough, these types of rants are common to both music traditionalists and religious traditionalists.
There are also advocates of modernity (in both religion and music). The religious modernists believe that religion must change to suit the times. They believe that along with culture shifts, and advances in technology (among other things) should come adaptation of religion to those shifts. Traditionalists believe that people should adapt their behavior to religious law, and maintain religious tradition.
That doesn't answer why the tunes are "so great". The tunes are so great because it's rarely the religious moderates who write the great religious music–that which stems from passion, rather than from the "gee, isn't our culture nice?" kind of warm, fuzzy feeling. Modernists want to change, things that are already great, don't need to change. If one views one's religion as sacred, changing it seems counter-intuitive. The intuitive action would be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
The modernists generally compose and/or record music that is the religious equivalent of Peter, Paul & Mary's recording of "If I Had A Hammer". It's a nice tune, but it won't rock your world, or change your life—unless you're the song's publisher. Then you'll make a coupla bucks off it, since the song is still doin' business.
Johann Sebastian Bach was not a religious modernist. He was as old school as they ever got. Back in 1705 (when Bach was 20), the old school was a lot newer. Yet, I'm sure someone thought of Bach as a rebel. He was looking to do something new in music, but he wasn't looking to change that which he felt was quite right—his religion.
Bach was the real deal. The tunes are so great because they were written by people with tremendous talent, a contemporary ear, and old-school values. Can you see changing a note of Bach's music to "suit the times"?
Mozart wrote some great music for the church, he was an amazingly talented musician. There is some debate as to Mozart's religious practice. He was a Catholic, but also a Freemason. His father had been a Jesuit. Maybe he wasn't all that devout. I'm not sure we can know, and I'm not sure it makes a difference. Many of his greatest works were commissions for the church, or for church big-wigs (back in the day when they actually wore big wigs), and it was great work. No reason to change what's already great.
My longtime-friend Jonathan Rimberg (bottom left) is one such "old school" (highly talented) musician with a modern ear. (The song to which that links is more of a Hebrew rock and roll song than of religious praise. It's very Beatles and Billy Joel-influenced.)
Jonathan, as part of Shoresh did a fabulous a capella arrangement of a beautiful Jewish hymn-like prayer, in the style of Take 6 (Check out "Family Of Love") . Great tunes have staying power is partially that they were written out of passion, and were executed by people with the talent to do justice to the music. The melody was taken from an Israeli love song from the 1967 War
Having grown up in the Orthodox community, I wasn't always objective about Jewish music. I recently got to thinking about whether the music with contemporary influences made religious purists (traditonalists) "crosses a line". I asked Jonathan about this. His response is that the line (for music) shifts with the times, even though the religious values don't change.
I find that interesting. There's a concept in Judaism of making mundane things holy by adapting them into a Jewish context. Hence we have song parodies of classic rock and roll, but with religious-themed lyrics. Oy! That's a whole 'nother discussion we've already had.
Yet despite the efforts of some religious purists with contemporary ears, there are those on the farther-right (if you can believe that), who resist the modern influences. One rabbi in New York sought to ban a concert of Jewish music at Madison Square Garden because one or more of the performers was set to perform parodies of rock and roll songs.
Although Rabbis lead the Jewish community as a whole, there is a subset of Rabbis who are specialists in applying complex parts the "old school" law to contemporary phenomena. There are, for example, rabbis whose primary gig is applying the law to medical advances. One such rabbi is the leading authority on Jewish Law's take on whether or not, and under what circumstances "brain death" constitutes death. There have been decisions in Jewish law about everything from how to make a microwave oven suitable for cooking kosher food, to sex reassignment surgery. These decisions have made for more than a little controversy and divisiveness.
Musicians, on the other hand, can often get along despite their differences in philosophy about "old school" versus "new school". There are thousands of recorded performances featuring great old-school-meets-new-school combinations. Tony Bennett and Bono is but one example. Igor Stravinsky was open to incorporating Jazz influences into his music.
Mozart collaborated with librettists on his operas. That makes him what we today would call a songwriter. Of course, he's also much more than that, but it's one of his many musical talents.
If he were alive today, he might write for both Broadway, and The Met. Broadway would pay the bills, and The Met would be his passion. Or maybe not.
Religious traditionalists often express disgust at the modernists' adaptation of religion to suit their needs, while many modernists think of the old-schoolers as being zealots, cult-members, or just plain "antiquated".
Even within the realm of symphonic music there were modernists who rebelled. Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartok. The great thing with all of them, is that they paid great (and due) homage the great forms that preceded them, and built their creations on a solid foundation. Bartok wrote some amazing pieces based on Hungarian folk songs. The great composers who rebelled did so with respect, and with a thorough understanding and appreciation for what came before them.
Most modernist religious practitioners today aren't like that. They want the quick, easy God-fix, or treat their church or synagogue attendance as if it were a social, or business networking opportunity. What does that have to do with the future of the arts? Plenty! More later...
Tracy's own one line summary of her own article on the topic was "If God is not great, why are the tunes so good?". It's an excellent question, and here's my answer.
Both music and religion have stayed alive for millenia because they each have dedicated, passionate followers, practitioners, and believers. A lot of the greatest music ever written is only hundreds of years old. Anything with that kind of staying power has to have something going for it. But "the old guard" eventually falls out of fashion with the younger generations. That's been addressed too–by both religion and music.
Religion and music (respectively) have traditionalists and modernists. The modernists give religion greater numbers, while the traditionalists give modernists something against which to rebel, and something to (in their view) update. "Fundamentalists" are typically at the far "right" end of traditionalist movements in just about every religion (, except perhaps Buddhism). The modernists look way to the "right" and think of the traditionalists as "stuck in the past", cultists, or just plain loony.
When thinking about this dichotomy (in either religion or music), I instinctively remember the stereotype of the old curmudgeon yelling in disgust about "these kids today, with the hair and the music...". These are the same (generally older) traditionalists who often start certain of the rants in their repertoire with "Back in my day..." or "In the old days"...Interestingly enough, these types of rants are common to both music traditionalists and religious traditionalists.
There are also advocates of modernity (in both religion and music). The religious modernists believe that religion must change to suit the times. They believe that along with culture shifts, and advances in technology (among other things) should come adaptation of religion to those shifts. Traditionalists believe that people should adapt their behavior to religious law, and maintain religious tradition.
That doesn't answer why the tunes are "so great". The tunes are so great because it's rarely the religious moderates who write the great religious music–that which stems from passion, rather than from the "gee, isn't our culture nice?" kind of warm, fuzzy feeling. Modernists want to change, things that are already great, don't need to change. If one views one's religion as sacred, changing it seems counter-intuitive. The intuitive action would be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
The modernists generally compose and/or record music that is the religious equivalent of Peter, Paul & Mary's recording of "If I Had A Hammer". It's a nice tune, but it won't rock your world, or change your life—unless you're the song's publisher. Then you'll make a coupla bucks off it, since the song is still doin' business.
Johann Sebastian Bach was not a religious modernist. He was as old school as they ever got. Back in 1705 (when Bach was 20), the old school was a lot newer. Yet, I'm sure someone thought of Bach as a rebel. He was looking to do something new in music, but he wasn't looking to change that which he felt was quite right—his religion.
Bach was the real deal. The tunes are so great because they were written by people with tremendous talent, a contemporary ear, and old-school values. Can you see changing a note of Bach's music to "suit the times"?
Mozart wrote some great music for the church, he was an amazingly talented musician. There is some debate as to Mozart's religious practice. He was a Catholic, but also a Freemason. His father had been a Jesuit. Maybe he wasn't all that devout. I'm not sure we can know, and I'm not sure it makes a difference. Many of his greatest works were commissions for the church, or for church big-wigs (back in the day when they actually wore big wigs), and it was great work. No reason to change what's already great.
My longtime-friend Jonathan Rimberg (bottom left) is one such "old school" (highly talented) musician with a modern ear. (The song to which that links is more of a Hebrew rock and roll song than of religious praise. It's very Beatles and Billy Joel-influenced.)
Jonathan, as part of Shoresh did a fabulous a capella arrangement of a beautiful Jewish hymn-like prayer, in the style of Take 6 (Check out "Family Of Love") . Great tunes have staying power is partially that they were written out of passion, and were executed by people with the talent to do justice to the music. The melody was taken from an Israeli love song from the 1967 War
Having grown up in the Orthodox community, I wasn't always objective about Jewish music. I recently got to thinking about whether the music with contemporary influences made religious purists (traditonalists) "crosses a line". I asked Jonathan about this. His response is that the line (for music) shifts with the times, even though the religious values don't change.
I find that interesting. There's a concept in Judaism of making mundane things holy by adapting them into a Jewish context. Hence we have song parodies of classic rock and roll, but with religious-themed lyrics. Oy! That's a whole 'nother discussion we've already had.
Yet despite the efforts of some religious purists with contemporary ears, there are those on the farther-right (if you can believe that), who resist the modern influences. One rabbi in New York sought to ban a concert of Jewish music at Madison Square Garden because one or more of the performers was set to perform parodies of rock and roll songs.
Although Rabbis lead the Jewish community as a whole, there is a subset of Rabbis who are specialists in applying complex parts the "old school" law to contemporary phenomena. There are, for example, rabbis whose primary gig is applying the law to medical advances. One such rabbi is the leading authority on Jewish Law's take on whether or not, and under what circumstances "brain death" constitutes death. There have been decisions in Jewish law about everything from how to make a microwave oven suitable for cooking kosher food, to sex reassignment surgery. These decisions have made for more than a little controversy and divisiveness.
Musicians, on the other hand, can often get along despite their differences in philosophy about "old school" versus "new school". There are thousands of recorded performances featuring great old-school-meets-new-school combinations. Tony Bennett and Bono is but one example. Igor Stravinsky was open to incorporating Jazz influences into his music.
Mozart collaborated with librettists on his operas. That makes him what we today would call a songwriter. Of course, he's also much more than that, but it's one of his many musical talents.
If he were alive today, he might write for both Broadway, and The Met. Broadway would pay the bills, and The Met would be his passion. Or maybe not.
Religious traditionalists often express disgust at the modernists' adaptation of religion to suit their needs, while many modernists think of the old-schoolers as being zealots, cult-members, or just plain "antiquated".
Even within the realm of symphonic music there were modernists who rebelled. Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartok. The great thing with all of them, is that they paid great (and due) homage the great forms that preceded them, and built their creations on a solid foundation. Bartok wrote some amazing pieces based on Hungarian folk songs. The great composers who rebelled did so with respect, and with a thorough understanding and appreciation for what came before them.
Most modernist religious practitioners today aren't like that. They want the quick, easy God-fix, or treat their church or synagogue attendance as if it were a social, or business networking opportunity. What does that have to do with the future of the arts? Plenty! More later...
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Song Parodies—Repurposed brilliance or unlicensed hackery?
[Despite the title, this post is not about musical tastes. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about what is funny, what isn't funny, and what is in good taste or bad taste. This is simply about music parody in the context of the music business.]
Parody has a long and interesting tradition. It has been used throughout the centuries, in many cultures, as a way to express protest, as a way to satirize some political or social phenomenon, or just as a means of amusement. Some have made a career out of it.
Allan Sherman is probably the best example of a contemporary song parodist. He was a really funny showbusiness jack-of-many trades. His credits include writing for Jackie Gleason, and producing Bill Cosby's first comedy album—Bill Cosby Is a Very Funny Fellow, Right?. He was also a very busy and successful television producer, and performer of song parodies during the 1960s.
Allan Sherman's (Sorry to have given a Wikipedia link, but this entry's pretty good, and pretty accurate.) greatness lay in several facets of his work—his song or composition choices, his comic persona, the subjects of his lyrics, and the production values are just a few reasons why Allan was such a great parodist.
The arrangements on Allan's records deserve their own blog entry. One paragraph will have to do. Lou Busch—Allan's co-conspirator in these musical pursuits—was an astounding and versatile musician. Lou's arrangements for Allan Sherman were part of the reason I wanted to be an arranger. They perfectly complemented Allan's performance, and sense of humor, and were always perfect for the song and the lyric. Busch's arrangements weren't copies of any single recording of a song—although one comes close.
Allan's biggest hit was a parody called Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah—a funny take on summer camp. Most people who knew the song parody had no idea that the original was from an 1870s opera called La Gionconda by Amilcare Ponchielli . The song (on which Hello Muddah Hello Faddah was based) is called Dance of the Hours. Allan Sherman brought us opera, and we didn't even know it. The first time I heard the original, I thought "Wow, an instrumental version of Hello Muddah Hello Faddah. It's a nice tune even without the lyrics.". His parody When I was a Lad was copped from Gilbert and Sullivan's HMS Pinafore.
Allan also did a very ambitious project called Peter and The Commissar a very interesting take on Peter and The Wolf by Sergei Prokofiev. Sherman showed a depth and breadth of knowledge, not only about how to entertain, but about how to perform. He did not have what most would call a soothing voice. But in his comic persona, he made the performance/execution work perfectly.
Why all this fuss about Allan Sherman? Allan performed the art of parody respectably, respectfully, and very creatively. From a business perspective he did the right thing too. He paid both tribute and money to the composers of the original works (except for those works that were in the public domain). [Sometimes parodying a work that's in the public domain is a great idea, because it's royalty-free, and because it may be either well-known (a "classic"), or may be good enough to warrant /attract a new audience. Most people had (and still have) no idea who Ponchielli was, but they know his work because of Allan Sherman.
But this post really isn't about him—it's about how music parody fits into the music business. To see it in proper context, we should look at the history of music parody, music business of the past, and the music business overall.
Musical parodies go back a long way. Many American school-children are taught a song we knew as My Country, 'tis of Thee". I was shocked to have found out (as a kid) that the song was originally a British song called God Save The King. God Save The King was later adapted to God Save The Queen, after the King died. Isn't it hilarious that young American students sing a British song as tribute to the country from which America declared its independence?
Yankee Doodle—one of America's best known songs—is a song parody!
The Battle Hymn of the Republic started as a melody with a very different lyric .
Franz Josef Haydn wrote the melody for a song called Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser (God Save Franz the Emperor). Less than fifty years later, someone using different lyrics turned into the German National Anthem—Deutschland Uber Alles, which translates to "Germany Above/Before All". Many people still have very negative associations with the song because of the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Mel Brooks used the anthem very effectively in the original movie of The Producers, to make fun of the Nazis. But the melody by Haydn is beautiful. It's such a shame to see its parody/adaptation be held in such low regard because of its having been "repurposed".
So what does that have to do with the music business today? LOTS.
I'm not a lawyer, but we can even have some legal fun with this one.
Happy Birthday To You is just a different lyric to Good Morning, Dear Teacher (ca. 1890). Because the original composers (Mildred and Patty Hill, in case you like trivia) put different lyrics to it, and published the song again in 1935 as Happy Birthday, they revived it, and kept it out of the public domain. Their estates STILL collect money on it every time it's used in a TV show or a movie.
Put Good Morning, Dear Teacher (sans lyrics) in a movie, during a scene in which someone's bringing out a birthday cake, and you're using a song from 1890 (which is in the public domain). If the end credits of your movie list Good Morning, Dear Teacher rather than Happy Birthday To You, you could probably get away with using it for free.
Love Me Tender—one of Elvis Presley's biggest hits, started life out as a Civil War era song called Aura Lee. Sing Elvis's lyrics on the radio, and you owe someone money. Hum it (or sing the original lyrics), and you owe nothing.
There really ain't nothin' new in the world. Allan Sherman wasn't the first song parodist, and he certainly wasn't the last. Weird Al Yankovic has probably sold many more records than Allan could have. Allan's song parody career lasted perhaps twelve years. Weird Al's been around a lot longer than that, and the numbers of record buyers hit record numbers in the 1980s.
There is a HUGE number of parodists today who record others' musical works, but with lyrics different than the original. Whether or not the song makes fun of the original, or of anything, it is legally defined as a parody. Many parodists record independently, or on small labels, with "shoestring" budgets. Those who do this sidestep/conveniently forget to pay (financial) tribute to the original composers. When parodists/satirists do this, they're violating the law. There is a copyright law in every civilized country in the world, and in many less-than-civilized ones. Almost all countries with a copyright law in place require some variety of compensation/royalties be paid to the owner of a copyright when their work is used.
Weird Al, and Nutty Allan (Sherman) had something in common, though. They were both very high-profile writers and performers. They can't afford to try cheating the system. They couldn't afford to just use a composition with a then-enforceable copyright, without paying the monies mandated by the Copyright Act.
Mark Russell and The Capitol Steps are well-known political satirists and parodists. On The Capitol Steps' official website they acknowledge the original compositions they parody. One of the founding members of The Capitol Steps wrote a terrific article on the parody phenomenon. Read on, and you'll find a link.
Now we come to my big bugaboo, or bee in my bonnet. (Truth be told, I don't look very good in bonnets, but that's another story). Religious (music) groups are using popular songs that still have enforceable copyright, and are illegally using those songs to "spread the word" of their religion. This practice isn't specific to one religion. Whoever's doing it, I think it's pretty icky (that's a technical word), and horribly hypocritical to steal in the name of God.
Religious music groups who illegally sell (for profit, even if they don't make a profit) others' music with lyrics and themes very different from the original, seem to me to be quite hypocritical. In the spirit of proper disclosure, I participated in one such record in 1986. I asked the producers to obtain the necessary permissions. The copyright owners refused to grant permission, but the producers released the recording anyway.
You may wonder if music parody of copyrighted work is even legal. Well, it has always been legal, but until 1994, parodists who wanted to release a parody recording of an existing work required the permission of the copyright owner (in order to release it commercially). In 1994, the US Supreme Court handed down a decision that affected music parodists in a very positive way. In Campbell v. Acuff Rose, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision about whether or not a parodist must obtain the permission of the copyright holder before recording and releasing a parody of a copyrighted work. Before this case was decided, Elaina Newport and Bill Strauss of The Capitol Steps wrote a wonderful article about the case, and its potential ramifications.
Luther Campbell (of the rap group 2 Live Crew) wrote a parody of the classic Roy Orbison song Oh, Pretty Woman. Campbell's lyrics, and his take on the song were/was very different from the original. The publisher (Acuff Rose Music) believed that 2 Live Crew version would cast the original song in a bad light, and thus make the original song less marketable.
The plaintiff contended that his parody of the Roy Orbison song Oh, Pretty Woman, while wildly different in lyrical content from the original, did not detract from the marketability of the original recording and/or composition. Campbell asserted that he should therefore be permitted to use the work without having to obtain permission from the copyright holder. The Sixth Circuit Court sided with Acuff Rose Music, but the US Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit's finding, and agreed with Luther Campbell.
No matter how that decision would have come down, any user of copyrighted musical work is obligated to pay royalties based on a mandated statutory rate of 9.1 cents per song per record/unit manufactured. That's for compositions of less than 5 minutes in length. Many parodists who have recorded works subsequent to 1994 believe mistakenly that because of Campbell v. Acuff Rose, they're allowed to use the music scott-free. Nope, 't'ain't so. The royalties mentioned above are known as "mechanical royalties"—so named because they are calculated based on "mechanical" (now also digital) reproductions of the original works/recordings. We could get into performance royalties, but that's a whole other post.
U.S. Copyright Law takes into account the phenomenon of a "derivative work". An example of a derivative work would be an orchestral arrangement of a song by The Beatles. Sex and The City—a wildly successful HBO series, now in syndication, was turned into a movie. That's another type of derivative work.
Most parodists, however, knowingly violate the law. They create intellectual property, put a copyright statementon it, and then don't respect the original copyright holders' work. Even more nervy than that, many parodists put a copyright warning on their commercial recordings. In essence they're saying "Don't you dare steal our product. Leave the stealing to us."
They are creating derivatives from which the copyright holder of the original has a right to benefit. With small-label independent recordings the original composers do not see dime one.
Here's the saddest part of the whole independent/underground music parody theft business. When one asks the parodists why they don't pay for the music they're using, they state pretty openly that they're probably too small to get caught. If they do get caught, the publishers/copyright holders/record companies which may own the original works would have to spend too much money for too little return to bother going after them.
An addendum to the sad story is how cheap it is to use the music legally. Let's say a band makes a record of ten song parodies, and manufactures 10,000 units, for sale at $15 each. That's gross income of $150,000. To legally use the music, they'd have to pay $9100. And they just don't do it. That boggles the mind! If you had to pay $9100 to use a work that could gross $150,000, would you do it? Let's keep in mind one thing. Songs consist of two elements: music and lyrics. So, 50% of the materials used by song parodists belong to someone other than the parodist. $9100 to use 50% of the stuff you're selling, and from which you're grossing $150,000 is a drop in the bucket.
Let's put another thing out there for consideration: Song parodists who aren't registering their works with The Harry Fox Agency , and Performance Rights Organizations are depriving the songs' composers and publishers of additional revenue they might have gotten from airplay and public performances of the song parodies.
There's money to be made from singing song parodies on tour. The performer's almost never liable for performance royalties. That's the liability of the venue (almost always). But that's another discussion for another time.
If you reading this create for a living, or you know anyone who creates for a living, or are related to anyone who creates for a living, I hope you'll feel strongly enough about this issue to investigate if the parody music you might think to buy is legal. If it doesn't support the creator of the original work (without which there would never have been a derivative), don't buy it.
Be an informed consumer of intellectual property. Keep funding the artists' ability to make a living, and to continue giving us great works.
Parody has a long and interesting tradition. It has been used throughout the centuries, in many cultures, as a way to express protest, as a way to satirize some political or social phenomenon, or just as a means of amusement. Some have made a career out of it.
Allan Sherman is probably the best example of a contemporary song parodist. He was a really funny showbusiness jack-of-many trades. His credits include writing for Jackie Gleason, and producing Bill Cosby's first comedy album—Bill Cosby Is a Very Funny Fellow, Right?. He was also a very busy and successful television producer, and performer of song parodies during the 1960s.
Allan Sherman's (Sorry to have given a Wikipedia link, but this entry's pretty good, and pretty accurate.) greatness lay in several facets of his work—his song or composition choices, his comic persona, the subjects of his lyrics, and the production values are just a few reasons why Allan was such a great parodist.
The arrangements on Allan's records deserve their own blog entry. One paragraph will have to do. Lou Busch—Allan's co-conspirator in these musical pursuits—was an astounding and versatile musician. Lou's arrangements for Allan Sherman were part of the reason I wanted to be an arranger. They perfectly complemented Allan's performance, and sense of humor, and were always perfect for the song and the lyric. Busch's arrangements weren't copies of any single recording of a song—although one comes close.
Allan's biggest hit was a parody called Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah—a funny take on summer camp. Most people who knew the song parody had no idea that the original was from an 1870s opera called La Gionconda by Amilcare Ponchielli . The song (on which Hello Muddah Hello Faddah was based) is called Dance of the Hours. Allan Sherman brought us opera, and we didn't even know it. The first time I heard the original, I thought "Wow, an instrumental version of Hello Muddah Hello Faddah. It's a nice tune even without the lyrics.". His parody When I was a Lad was copped from Gilbert and Sullivan's HMS Pinafore.
Allan also did a very ambitious project called Peter and The Commissar a very interesting take on Peter and The Wolf by Sergei Prokofiev. Sherman showed a depth and breadth of knowledge, not only about how to entertain, but about how to perform. He did not have what most would call a soothing voice. But in his comic persona, he made the performance/execution work perfectly.
Why all this fuss about Allan Sherman? Allan performed the art of parody respectably, respectfully, and very creatively. From a business perspective he did the right thing too. He paid both tribute and money to the composers of the original works (except for those works that were in the public domain). [Sometimes parodying a work that's in the public domain is a great idea, because it's royalty-free, and because it may be either well-known (a "classic"), or may be good enough to warrant /attract a new audience. Most people had (and still have) no idea who Ponchielli was, but they know his work because of Allan Sherman.
But this post really isn't about him—it's about how music parody fits into the music business. To see it in proper context, we should look at the history of music parody, music business of the past, and the music business overall.
Musical parodies go back a long way. Many American school-children are taught a song we knew as My Country, 'tis of Thee". I was shocked to have found out (as a kid) that the song was originally a British song called God Save The King. God Save The King was later adapted to God Save The Queen, after the King died. Isn't it hilarious that young American students sing a British song as tribute to the country from which America declared its independence?
Yankee Doodle—one of America's best known songs—is a song parody!
The Battle Hymn of the Republic started as a melody with a very different lyric .
Franz Josef Haydn wrote the melody for a song called Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser (God Save Franz the Emperor). Less than fifty years later, someone using different lyrics turned into the German National Anthem—Deutschland Uber Alles, which translates to "Germany Above/Before All". Many people still have very negative associations with the song because of the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Mel Brooks used the anthem very effectively in the original movie of The Producers, to make fun of the Nazis. But the melody by Haydn is beautiful. It's such a shame to see its parody/adaptation be held in such low regard because of its having been "repurposed".
So what does that have to do with the music business today? LOTS.
I'm not a lawyer, but we can even have some legal fun with this one.
Happy Birthday To You is just a different lyric to Good Morning, Dear Teacher (ca. 1890). Because the original composers (Mildred and Patty Hill, in case you like trivia) put different lyrics to it, and published the song again in 1935 as Happy Birthday, they revived it, and kept it out of the public domain. Their estates STILL collect money on it every time it's used in a TV show or a movie.
Put Good Morning, Dear Teacher (sans lyrics) in a movie, during a scene in which someone's bringing out a birthday cake, and you're using a song from 1890 (which is in the public domain). If the end credits of your movie list Good Morning, Dear Teacher rather than Happy Birthday To You, you could probably get away with using it for free.
Love Me Tender—one of Elvis Presley's biggest hits, started life out as a Civil War era song called Aura Lee. Sing Elvis's lyrics on the radio, and you owe someone money. Hum it (or sing the original lyrics), and you owe nothing.
There really ain't nothin' new in the world. Allan Sherman wasn't the first song parodist, and he certainly wasn't the last. Weird Al Yankovic has probably sold many more records than Allan could have. Allan's song parody career lasted perhaps twelve years. Weird Al's been around a lot longer than that, and the numbers of record buyers hit record numbers in the 1980s.
There is a HUGE number of parodists today who record others' musical works, but with lyrics different than the original. Whether or not the song makes fun of the original, or of anything, it is legally defined as a parody. Many parodists record independently, or on small labels, with "shoestring" budgets. Those who do this sidestep/conveniently forget to pay (financial) tribute to the original composers. When parodists/satirists do this, they're violating the law. There is a copyright law in every civilized country in the world, and in many less-than-civilized ones. Almost all countries with a copyright law in place require some variety of compensation/royalties be paid to the owner of a copyright when their work is used.
Weird Al, and Nutty Allan (Sherman) had something in common, though. They were both very high-profile writers and performers. They can't afford to try cheating the system. They couldn't afford to just use a composition with a then-enforceable copyright, without paying the monies mandated by the Copyright Act.
Mark Russell and The Capitol Steps are well-known political satirists and parodists. On The Capitol Steps' official website they acknowledge the original compositions they parody. One of the founding members of The Capitol Steps wrote a terrific article on the parody phenomenon. Read on, and you'll find a link.
Now we come to my big bugaboo, or bee in my bonnet. (Truth be told, I don't look very good in bonnets, but that's another story). Religious (music) groups are using popular songs that still have enforceable copyright, and are illegally using those songs to "spread the word" of their religion. This practice isn't specific to one religion. Whoever's doing it, I think it's pretty icky (that's a technical word), and horribly hypocritical to steal in the name of God.
Religious music groups who illegally sell (for profit, even if they don't make a profit) others' music with lyrics and themes very different from the original, seem to me to be quite hypocritical. In the spirit of proper disclosure, I participated in one such record in 1986. I asked the producers to obtain the necessary permissions. The copyright owners refused to grant permission, but the producers released the recording anyway.
You may wonder if music parody of copyrighted work is even legal. Well, it has always been legal, but until 1994, parodists who wanted to release a parody recording of an existing work required the permission of the copyright owner (in order to release it commercially). In 1994, the US Supreme Court handed down a decision that affected music parodists in a very positive way. In Campbell v. Acuff Rose, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision about whether or not a parodist must obtain the permission of the copyright holder before recording and releasing a parody of a copyrighted work. Before this case was decided, Elaina Newport and Bill Strauss of The Capitol Steps wrote a wonderful article about the case, and its potential ramifications.
Luther Campbell (of the rap group 2 Live Crew) wrote a parody of the classic Roy Orbison song Oh, Pretty Woman. Campbell's lyrics, and his take on the song were/was very different from the original. The publisher (Acuff Rose Music) believed that 2 Live Crew version would cast the original song in a bad light, and thus make the original song less marketable.
The plaintiff contended that his parody of the Roy Orbison song Oh, Pretty Woman, while wildly different in lyrical content from the original, did not detract from the marketability of the original recording and/or composition. Campbell asserted that he should therefore be permitted to use the work without having to obtain permission from the copyright holder. The Sixth Circuit Court sided with Acuff Rose Music, but the US Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit's finding, and agreed with Luther Campbell.
No matter how that decision would have come down, any user of copyrighted musical work is obligated to pay royalties based on a mandated statutory rate of 9.1 cents per song per record/unit manufactured. That's for compositions of less than 5 minutes in length. Many parodists who have recorded works subsequent to 1994 believe mistakenly that because of Campbell v. Acuff Rose, they're allowed to use the music scott-free. Nope, 't'ain't so. The royalties mentioned above are known as "mechanical royalties"—so named because they are calculated based on "mechanical" (now also digital) reproductions of the original works/recordings. We could get into performance royalties, but that's a whole other post.
U.S. Copyright Law takes into account the phenomenon of a "derivative work". An example of a derivative work would be an orchestral arrangement of a song by The Beatles. Sex and The City—a wildly successful HBO series, now in syndication, was turned into a movie. That's another type of derivative work.
Most parodists, however, knowingly violate the law. They create intellectual property, put a copyright statementon it, and then don't respect the original copyright holders' work. Even more nervy than that, many parodists put a copyright warning on their commercial recordings. In essence they're saying "Don't you dare steal our product. Leave the stealing to us."
They are creating derivatives from which the copyright holder of the original has a right to benefit. With small-label independent recordings the original composers do not see dime one.
Here's the saddest part of the whole independent/underground music parody theft business. When one asks the parodists why they don't pay for the music they're using, they state pretty openly that they're probably too small to get caught. If they do get caught, the publishers/copyright holders/record companies which may own the original works would have to spend too much money for too little return to bother going after them.
An addendum to the sad story is how cheap it is to use the music legally. Let's say a band makes a record of ten song parodies, and manufactures 10,000 units, for sale at $15 each. That's gross income of $150,000. To legally use the music, they'd have to pay $9100. And they just don't do it. That boggles the mind! If you had to pay $9100 to use a work that could gross $150,000, would you do it? Let's keep in mind one thing. Songs consist of two elements: music and lyrics. So, 50% of the materials used by song parodists belong to someone other than the parodist. $9100 to use 50% of the stuff you're selling, and from which you're grossing $150,000 is a drop in the bucket.
Let's put another thing out there for consideration: Song parodists who aren't registering their works with The Harry Fox Agency , and Performance Rights Organizations are depriving the songs' composers and publishers of additional revenue they might have gotten from airplay and public performances of the song parodies.
There's money to be made from singing song parodies on tour. The performer's almost never liable for performance royalties. That's the liability of the venue (almost always). But that's another discussion for another time.
If you reading this create for a living, or you know anyone who creates for a living, or are related to anyone who creates for a living, I hope you'll feel strongly enough about this issue to investigate if the parody music you might think to buy is legal. If it doesn't support the creator of the original work (without which there would never have been a derivative), don't buy it.
Be an informed consumer of intellectual property. Keep funding the artists' ability to make a living, and to continue giving us great works.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Repurposing—Annuities for creative people.
Those of you who put food on the table by doing what you
love are, for the most part either underemployed
or underpaid. Those whose souls you nourish
value your work. Most of those who feel revitalized
after hearing your music, seeing your movie,
reading your book, or even just cruising your blog,
wouldn't mind paying for the privilege. But, for
most of you, getting paid for that work is a one shot deal.
Whoever is employing you wants to get rid of you
quickly. They want to make a profit, and be done
with paying off the talent. That accounts for
why advertising agencies are pretty well done
with paying residuals for musicians who write,
produce, and perform on radio and television
commercials. Those at the top of the showbusiness heap can
demand compliance to union regulations about residuals, or can
work only with those for whom compliance to union regulations is
par for the course. This isn't a rant about union organizing, though.
That one will come later.
For now, let's discuss finding a way to make money off your stuff once the initial purchaser of your talents/works has taken their slice. Did you sign away your copyrights? Your publishing rights? Let's hope not.
Could you, as George Harrison and Bob Dylan have, put out a book of the lyrics to your songs, with the special added value of commentary by the composer? Maybe. If you're famous, people will buy it. If you're a screenwriter, can you adapt your movie for the stage? If you're an author, can you serialize your novel on the web? Or, maybe you can work the other way around. Maybe you can, as Tracy Quan did, serialize your novel on the web first, gain a following and/or a buzz, and score a book. From the book, Tracy scored two more books, and a TV show based on the book/series of books. Pretty good, ay?
How about all the comedy talk shows on TV? Jay Leno did a book of dumb headlines (and ads, and other stuff that appears in print). Some were featured on the "Headlines" segment he does on The Tonight Show, others were "added value"—headlines that hadn't been on the show. David Letterman has had several books of "Top Ten Lists". During the recent WGA Strike, "lateshowwritersonstrike.com" published some original Top 10 Lists, but they weren't all that funny (on purpose).
Bill Maher's HBO show—Real Time with Bill Maher—has a segment called "New Rules". There's a "New Rules" book. George Carlin took some of his most famous routines, and put them in his Braindroppings books. Those books were big sellers too.
Most of these examples contain original content along with the repurposed content. Added value is what sells them. Various licensees of The Beatles recordings have found some really silly ways to capitalize on The Beatles' music. Someone found recordings of them before they sounded very polished, and put that out. Others put out "Greatest Hits" compilations. Many people have done "cover" albums—interpretations of The Beatles' music. My favorite of these was the title track of a Bing Crosby album: Hey Jude, Hey Bing.
Of course, one of my favorites, Jonathan Katz has found a great way to repurpose content. He has used bits of his standup act, and bits from projects that may or may not have launched in his current (internet radio) series "HEY, WE'RE BACK". He used pieces of his standup in his hit animated series Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist. Just as significantly, he gave dozens of standup comedians the opportunity to repurpose their material, bringing it to a television audience who may never have seen the comics' faces before.
Bill Cosby had one of the most popular TV series of all time, based on his 1982 movie Bill Cosby, Himself.
Mildred and Patty S. Hill wrote Good Morning, Dear Teacher in 1890. You're not familiar with the song? Maybe you've heard of it in its repurposed form—Happy Birthday To You. Millie and Patty changed four words in 1935, copyrighted it with the new name, and their estates are still taking in millions of dollars from a song that's 117 years old.
But, the moral of the story is that good work can take many forms, and sell in more than one. And if not, maybe the first form in which your work is distributed is not the one that will "hit".
My best friend Lisa Liel—a historian—repurposed in an extraordinary way. She took a long out-of-print interpretation of the Book of Esther, and added some commentary to it. Her work was second edition of the book. The estate of the original author's work is pleased as punch, even though the original's in the Public Domain now.
How many forms has your work taken? Can you think of other forms into which your work will translate easily? Have you done something out of the norm with your musical composition, screenplay, poem, blog, or other intellectual property? I'd love to know about it.
Drop me a line.
love are, for the most part either underemployed
or underpaid. Those whose souls you nourish
value your work. Most of those who feel revitalized
after hearing your music, seeing your movie,
reading your book, or even just cruising your blog,
wouldn't mind paying for the privilege. But, for
most of you, getting paid for that work is a one shot deal.
Whoever is employing you wants to get rid of you
quickly. They want to make a profit, and be done
with paying off the talent. That accounts for
why advertising agencies are pretty well done
with paying residuals for musicians who write,
produce, and perform on radio and television
commercials. Those at the top of the showbusiness heap can
demand compliance to union regulations about residuals, or can
work only with those for whom compliance to union regulations is
par for the course. This isn't a rant about union organizing, though.
That one will come later.
For now, let's discuss finding a way to make money off your stuff once the initial purchaser of your talents/works has taken their slice. Did you sign away your copyrights? Your publishing rights? Let's hope not.
Could you, as George Harrison and Bob Dylan have, put out a book of the lyrics to your songs, with the special added value of commentary by the composer? Maybe. If you're famous, people will buy it. If you're a screenwriter, can you adapt your movie for the stage? If you're an author, can you serialize your novel on the web? Or, maybe you can work the other way around. Maybe you can, as Tracy Quan did, serialize your novel on the web first, gain a following and/or a buzz, and score a book. From the book, Tracy scored two more books, and a TV show based on the book/series of books. Pretty good, ay?
How about all the comedy talk shows on TV? Jay Leno did a book of dumb headlines (and ads, and other stuff that appears in print). Some were featured on the "Headlines" segment he does on The Tonight Show, others were "added value"—headlines that hadn't been on the show. David Letterman has had several books of "Top Ten Lists". During the recent WGA Strike, "lateshowwritersonstrike.com" published some original Top 10 Lists, but they weren't all that funny (on purpose).
Bill Maher's HBO show—Real Time with Bill Maher—has a segment called "New Rules". There's a "New Rules" book. George Carlin took some of his most famous routines, and put them in his Braindroppings books. Those books were big sellers too.
Most of these examples contain original content along with the repurposed content. Added value is what sells them. Various licensees of The Beatles recordings have found some really silly ways to capitalize on The Beatles' music. Someone found recordings of them before they sounded very polished, and put that out. Others put out "Greatest Hits" compilations. Many people have done "cover" albums—interpretations of The Beatles' music. My favorite of these was the title track of a Bing Crosby album: Hey Jude, Hey Bing.
Of course, one of my favorites, Jonathan Katz has found a great way to repurpose content. He has used bits of his standup act, and bits from projects that may or may not have launched in his current (internet radio) series "HEY, WE'RE BACK". He used pieces of his standup in his hit animated series Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist. Just as significantly, he gave dozens of standup comedians the opportunity to repurpose their material, bringing it to a television audience who may never have seen the comics' faces before.
Bill Cosby had one of the most popular TV series of all time, based on his 1982 movie Bill Cosby, Himself.
Mildred and Patty S. Hill wrote Good Morning, Dear Teacher in 1890. You're not familiar with the song? Maybe you've heard of it in its repurposed form—Happy Birthday To You. Millie and Patty changed four words in 1935, copyrighted it with the new name, and their estates are still taking in millions of dollars from a song that's 117 years old.
But, the moral of the story is that good work can take many forms, and sell in more than one. And if not, maybe the first form in which your work is distributed is not the one that will "hit".
My best friend Lisa Liel—a historian—repurposed in an extraordinary way. She took a long out-of-print interpretation of the Book of Esther, and added some commentary to it. Her work was second edition of the book. The estate of the original author's work is pleased as punch, even though the original's in the Public Domain now.
How many forms has your work taken? Can you think of other forms into which your work will translate easily? Have you done something out of the norm with your musical composition, screenplay, poem, blog, or other intellectual property? I'd love to know about it.
Drop me a line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
