Working with bands is hands-down my favorite part about being an entertainment attorney. I really admire the amazing stamina that band members show and the drive they have to succeed. And you know what? It's really freakin' difficult. It can be especially awful when you KNOW you and your bandmates have the will and the ability to succeed, and you just haven't been in the right place at the right time. Then, POOF! Someone recognizes your talent, and you're riding on a cloud to celebrate that accomplishment (as well you should!).
I am honored to represent a band by the name of New Liberty. To me, they have the whole package; not only is their music well put together and catchy, but their live performances are full of energy and personality. On top of that, they are some of the hardest working guys in the music business right now, and have the business-savvy and the determination that it takes to make it in this industry. They've been working tirelessly to attract the attention of labels and booking agents alike, and they're getting some great feedback. One of the best so far as has been an acknowledgment by Roadrunner Records, who have prominently featured New Liberty's song "Blue 42" on their A&R site. How do you get on their? Roadrunner reps have to dig your stuff - that's the ONLY way. So congrats, guys - and a huge shout out to Roadrunner for digging the music! Rock on.
Showing posts with label record labels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label record labels. Show all posts
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Stroke of Genuis: UK Antitrust Body Say Ticketmaster/LiveNation Merger May Hurt Competition
In an announcement that surprises... um... NO ONE...The UK Antitrust Body announced today that the Ticketmaster/LiveNation merger would stifle competition in Europe's concert and ticket market, and suggested alternatives that basically force the two to work separately. Thank. The. LORD! my question is: why has this situation proceeded as far as this? Why is the FTC still wavering on this and debating??
I'm sorry, but this situation just makes me so angry. Anyone can look around their city and see that nearly ALL the venues are ruled by LiveNation, which means indie bands can only get into a handful of small venues, many of which are just bars with a stage. There's no branding or genre-specific indie venues, which means getting repeat customers is difficult. In this economy, people will only spend money on luxury items like concerts tickets if they know what they're going to get; do you think teens and 20-somethings are going to take a risk on a band they haven't heard if that venue serves every genre? But I digress.
The point is, the music industry is imploding from the inside out, and the only way it can carry only successfully to the next generation is too allow the next generation (i.e. new/baby/indie acts) to thrive. They need access to venues and they need people at shows. No money = no equipment, no play. It's not rocket science.
I'm sorry, but this situation just makes me so angry. Anyone can look around their city and see that nearly ALL the venues are ruled by LiveNation, which means indie bands can only get into a handful of small venues, many of which are just bars with a stage. There's no branding or genre-specific indie venues, which means getting repeat customers is difficult. In this economy, people will only spend money on luxury items like concerts tickets if they know what they're going to get; do you think teens and 20-somethings are going to take a risk on a band they haven't heard if that venue serves every genre? But I digress.
The point is, the music industry is imploding from the inside out, and the only way it can carry only successfully to the next generation is too allow the next generation (i.e. new/baby/indie acts) to thrive. They need access to venues and they need people at shows. No money = no equipment, no play. It's not rocket science.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Audissey Guides Gets Props from Forbes! VOTE!
Hi folks! I just love it when our customers achieve success in their businesses and invite us to share in that success. One of our customers, Audissey Guides, has been selected as a semi-finalist in Forbes' Boost Your Business Contest. Can I get a WOOT WOOT?? Audissey Guides is pretty much owns, I won't lie; they works with museums, towns and other places to put together audio tours for your iPod. Each tour is completely unique and has you interacting with the environment; not merely hearing about it. Interactive entertainment, anyone? Kick ass.
So, as entrepreneurs, want do we do for each other? We VOTE. So do it, yo! And a little secret? You can vote once for each email address you have... sneaky...! Have an amazing day, entertainers.
So, as entrepreneurs, want do we do for each other? We VOTE. So do it, yo! And a little secret? You can vote once for each email address you have... sneaky...! Have an amazing day, entertainers.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Songs v. Recorded Music, or Artists v. Labels
In my line of work, I do quite a bit of copyright consulting for my customers, many of whom are musicians. My approach to copyright registration is more "teach a man to fish" than "give a man a fish"; as an integral part of their careers, I think artists should be empowered to learn how to register and manage their copyrights. This is especially important if the artist later signs with a label or a publishing company, who may be administering the copyright on the artist's behalf. An artist needs to be able to read royalty statements and understand which copyrights are generating which type of income.
Tied to this, I frequently hit a road block when I talk to musicians about recorded music. Every piece of recorded music actually embodies two separate copyrights - one for the actual "song" and one for the actual "recording" or "master." For example, if you would like to record your own version of a song, you need only license the copyrights associated with the "song" itself, not the recording. However, if you wish to sample a bit of recorded music, you must license both copyrights associated with the "song" and the "master."
Enter the issue of contention between Artists and Labels: when an artist signs a recording agreement, they retain the copyrights to the songs (subject to any publishing agreement they may have signed), but any recordings made of the songs under the label belong to the LABEL. This is an unfortunate industry standard that very few artists have been able to avoid. Case in point: British artist Calvin Harris lashed out on Twitter when YouTube removed a music video of his song that he posted himself. The article cites that the copyrigt claim was most likely put forward by BPI, a representative for the recorded music industry. Recorded music = labels. I can totally understand why Calvin Harris is pissed off, but my assumption here is that he probably doesn't own the rights to the masters; his label does. This disconnect in copyright ownership creates inherent and added friction to the already strained relationships between artists and labels.
So how can we stop this? There needs to be a balance here. If the recording industry wants to keep the standard of owning masters (which I'm sure they do), they should be extending licenses back to artists to promote their recorded own work. Artists extend that right to labels by licensing their name and likeness for labels to use for promotional purposes, so license should be reciprocated. The idea that an artist can't post their own recorded music on a FREE site for their own promotional purposes is simply ludicrous. In this digitally driven world, there needs to be new and reasonable standards for labels. After all, in the words of Calvin Harris, "it's my fucking song you absolute bastards."
Tied to this, I frequently hit a road block when I talk to musicians about recorded music. Every piece of recorded music actually embodies two separate copyrights - one for the actual "song" and one for the actual "recording" or "master." For example, if you would like to record your own version of a song, you need only license the copyrights associated with the "song" itself, not the recording. However, if you wish to sample a bit of recorded music, you must license both copyrights associated with the "song" and the "master."
Enter the issue of contention between Artists and Labels: when an artist signs a recording agreement, they retain the copyrights to the songs (subject to any publishing agreement they may have signed), but any recordings made of the songs under the label belong to the LABEL. This is an unfortunate industry standard that very few artists have been able to avoid. Case in point: British artist Calvin Harris lashed out on Twitter when YouTube removed a music video of his song that he posted himself. The article cites that the copyrigt claim was most likely put forward by BPI, a representative for the recorded music industry. Recorded music = labels. I can totally understand why Calvin Harris is pissed off, but my assumption here is that he probably doesn't own the rights to the masters; his label does. This disconnect in copyright ownership creates inherent and added friction to the already strained relationships between artists and labels.
So how can we stop this? There needs to be a balance here. If the recording industry wants to keep the standard of owning masters (which I'm sure they do), they should be extending licenses back to artists to promote their recorded own work. Artists extend that right to labels by licensing their name and likeness for labels to use for promotional purposes, so license should be reciprocated. The idea that an artist can't post their own recorded music on a FREE site for their own promotional purposes is simply ludicrous. In this digitally driven world, there needs to be new and reasonable standards for labels. After all, in the words of Calvin Harris, "it's my fucking song you absolute bastards."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
