BMI (Page 1 of 2)

IDK, when I grew up  I worked the door for a band that did all covedrs,,, but the sure fire way around this,, Play all original music.  Hilly Crystal had it right when he opened CBGB's  Play original.  (or something soooo obscure  no one knows its not yours)
I just sent this to my buddy ( via FB)  who is a professional musician for 40 yrs .   He may get back to me.

I know this was a problem years ago. I didn't know it was resurfacing. I have been doing a few gigs for a guy who won't advertise. He has had this problem in the past and is trying to avoid it. I like Beamers idea of all original music. Only problem there is most people want to hear covers. It's hard to get people to accept new music. Even the Rolling Stones can't play new material without complaints.

    Joe

You don't pay to play cover tunes.  The bar pays so that whoever wrote that song gets paid for your right to play that cover tune.   Responsibility for acquiring those rights rests with the venue.   

It is actually to your benefit to join BMI and other artists rights organizations though, as it generally costs nothing, and it ensures you will get paid if someone is playing your original songs.

and some excerpts from Alton (you can tell he is one of my favorite guys)  Taken from this web blog http://allmanbrothersband.com/modules.p … ;tid=13287 (and his almost big time band that i have been name dropping here for ever - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYz0tjm5nns and http://www.metalforcesmagazine.com/site … rior-mf15/   and the last long time project  the sharkadellics http://www.sharkadelics.com/  & https://www.reverbnation.com/thesharkadelics 

EXCERPT:
So, realistically speaking, what's the best-case scenario for a cover band?

To find out, I looked up Alton Eddins, guitarist for the Sharkadelics, one of the region's most heavily promoted cover groups. Eddins, once aligned with guys who would later form '80s metal outfit Firehouse, has had his own dalliances with original music. ("Everyone who knows me has heard that story 100 times," the guitarist jokes.) These days, however, he's with a band that's successful in its own right.

"I guess you could say that we play a lot of hard-rock and pop-type music," Eddins muses. "We play some funk, too. Songs like 'Brick House,' and things like that. We try to keep it interesting."

Eddins notes that songs by The Clash pop up in a Sharkadelics show as frequently as those by The Commodores – but his group's set list is largely composed of radio-rock tracks that almost anyone with an FM receiver would know. The Sharkadelics try to appeal to as many people as they can; providing variety is part of their job, and they take it very seriously.

Not long ago, in fact, the group was picked for a Budweiser sponsorship. They started getting bigger and better gigs, and their faces began appearing in print advertisements – courtesy of one of the world's most successful breweries. The Sharkadelics even received boxes of giveaway items to distribute at shows – a development that, not surprisingly, pleased the crowd to no end.

The only catch – if you can even call it that – is that band members now have to wear Budweiser-emblazoned clothes during their performances. They consider it a small concession.

Because the Sharkadelics now find themselves at the top rung of their chosen profession – an in-demand band playing to packed bars on choice nights. Eddins even claims that his group makes a decent living off their performances.

So, the big question: Where to next?

"Nowhere," admits Eddins. "Not around here, at least. Not in this market.

"Hopefully," he adds, "we'll be exactly in the same place 10 years from now that [we're in] today."

In Nz the venue pays a license fee that covers bands that play.
Personally i`d rather hear original music.
Most of the cover bands around town play the same stuff & all sound the same.
I hope they are getting well paid for it,other wise why would you bother?
apart from getting paid i can`t see the point in doing covers.

Zurf
You aren`t creative? of coarse you are,just listened to your version of Scotts song.
hope i didn`t piss anyone off with my comments about covers,but it is my opinion.
I guess the thing that gets me most about covers, is when the person covering it
doesn`t put a bit of themselves in the cover.
i write mediocre songs,but still get a bigger buzz than any cover i try.
I often think `creative` is more a` in the head thing` than an `actual ability thing`

BMI is the music mafia,  its not about the artist, its about their profit margin, They didnt have to worry about it in the old days cause it covered mainly for covers you do on a record or commercial, but now with streaming and low record sales,ect,, they are going after club owners like a strong arm collection for the mob.  Honestly, and no offence to any in chordie, but I would take advice from the guy who is still in the thick of the industry at the club level.  Not only the above stuff I have showed you , but he has also been road mgr for Caleb Johnson (American idol winner and touring with Kiss at this time) and he works sound for the Artimis Pyle (original Lynyrd Skynrd drummer) band.  The guy lives music and Pays his bills with  it.  I would take his advice any day.

A club has no right to host performances of a work owned by someone else any more than a publishing company has a right to put someone's work on a record if they don't own it.  That is not only morally correct, it's the law.

BMI distributed $950 million in royalties to artists this year on a little over a billion in revenue.   Most of the money they take in goes back to their member artists.

Add in any shopping mall , televised , or otherwise 'public airwave' accessible media playing say, oldies , and the issue would appear to boarder on moral turpitude Jerome

Further, the $$$ goes to the 'copywrite owners',  which in what i understand is the majority of cases , isn't the original creator at all, instead the record labels as well as music industry CEO's are the one's  sucking up the $$$

~S~

That's perfectly OK.  In 100% of those cases the rights to the work were explicitly transferred by contract.   That is also just and the law.  If I write a song and Sony Entertainment buys the rights to the song from me, that is my choice.  I got paid.   If that song goes on and makes Sony a bazillion dollars because they have access to massive marketing and distribution channels, and had Justin Beber sing it, then that is *also* just and correct.  They bought the rights to the song. It belongs to them now.  The reason labels get a large portion of that revenue is because they purchased a large portion of songs from people.

If you sell your car and someone goes and wins the Indy 500 in it,  it doesn't entitle you to any of the winnings.

It was the Kingsmen (the band that blew the song up) that got sued, specifically *because they hadn't paid any royalties for their cover* of it.  They won that suit.  And they weren't sued by Berry.  They were sued by the guy who ran the company Berry sold it to.

Berry sold his publishing rights for $750 but retained radio play rights.  He bought 3/4ths of the publishing rights back in the 80s.   He didn't get ripped off.  He wrote a song, sold it, and it blew up huge.   He made a pretty decent living writing songs, had one blow up to huge fame, and bought and sold his rights to it just as the law says.

It is absolutely morally correct that the owners of a song have 100% complete control over what happens with that song.  That includes all rights for play, copy, publishing, and reproduction.

No, they'd simply wait for their check from BMI or ASCAP, just like the thousands of other artists those organizations protect.  It is their job to look after McCartney and Plant's best interests.

What they do with their property is entirely up to them.  If they think it's cool you play their stuff, then good on them.  If they think you should pay them for the right to use their material then you should break out the checkbook.

It is the theft of someone's right and privilege to control how their work is used by those who think they should simply have access to whatever they want regardless of the artists desires.  And it's usually with some contorted justification based on "greedy executive" straw men and the singularly bizarre notion that by violating those artists rights, they're actually doing them a favor.  By your line of reasoning, Berry shouldn't even have received $750 for Louie Louie as anyone should have just been able to use it however they wanted.

If you want full control over stuff, write your own stuff.  When you're playing someone else's stuff, you do it according to their rules.  And for a whole lot of people, their rules are "I've joined a rights enforcement group to do that for me."

That's how it should be, as well as being the law.

Unfortunately , the end result on my turf is, the death of live music fellas. 

Being a number of localities BMI confronts simply shut down

Venue=0           Cover bands=0        Original artist=0   

article

~S~