Bad News For ASCAP Members

[michael11]

Not backing vocals in songs... in video... So, that means that anytime they can call it a backing track and get away with it, they will.

In others words, people who write songs, not instrumentals, just got a pay cut.

That is unfortunate.

But from all of the cue sheets that I have, the majority of placements were background instrumental songs anyway. Most of the uses for songs with vocals were VV uses (visual vocal).

I hope that people do not make a huge deal about this. I do not want people to feel bad about a situation they have no control over. Music is a very tough business to make a living from. It is not for the weak or weary.

I did not intend to cause chaos. I just wanted to point out that if money is the primary reason to get into music, that may not be the smartest choice. There are many great careers that require less stress and more financial reward.

Besides, why get angry when you can make music? Money comes and goes. Just focus on making excellent music and let the chips fall where they go.

Seems to me DI you are pointing at The Emperor's New Clothes

[DesireInspires]

Seems to me DI you are pointing at The Emperor's New Clothes

Perhaps. Nothing to worry about though. Life will go on.

[mojobone]

Read it like a listing. (or a like a lawyer) They're talking about background usage of vocal songs. Maybe this is open to some interpretation; I would consider a vocal song used during a montage as a featured vocal, but maybe ASCAP won't. I'd be a bit concerned over how it applies to source music, as well, cuz that's a bigger (and more common) change.

[coachdebra]

Honestly, it really doesn't make a difference for many musicians.

Most artists with ASCAP were not earning enough to live off of to begin with. Is it fair that the vocal rate was cut? Nope. Is there anything that can be done about it? Nope.

I have a suggestion for your new handle - Debbie Downer - every time I read your posts I hear that "Waahh Waah Waaaaah" sound effect.

[popbaby]

From what I gather this is supposed to open up more money for "legit" features, as even the amount of features is supposed to be cut. What I am unsure of, and everyone is jumping the gun on, is whether or not the BI will be more per play. If that's the case they might be bringing down the BV rate to match the BI, but the BI going up could essentially mean a bit more money for a lot of people. I just hope the theme rates have stayed the same or have gone up!

[mojobone]

Popbaby brings up a good point; there's been an ongoing conversation about the disparity in rates for vocal and instrumental music among the membership, dating back several years, at least. I had heard they were trying to fix it, so they may in fact be moving the rates a bit closer together.

[matto]

From what I gather this is supposed to open up more money for "legit" features, as even the amount of features is supposed to be cut. What I am unsure of, and everyone is jumping the gun on, is whether or not the BI will be more per play. If that's the case they might be bringing down the BV rate to match the BI, but the BI going up could essentially mean a bit more money for a lot of people. I just hope the theme rates have stayed the same or have gone up!

Yes, the BV and BI rates will essentially be the same. Up to this point BV paid a LOT more than BI, something like 10 times the BI rate. This has been a bone of contention for decades for instrumental composers who have argued that if a piece of music used for the same purpose, it should pay the same.
Because the revenue ASCAP has available to distribute is of a fixed size and there are so MANY more BI usages than BV, making the rates the same results in a huge drop in pay for the BV uses, but only a slight increase for BI uses.

It's bad news for songwriters/artists who have a smallish catalog and predominantly get BV uses, and somewhat good news for busy instrumental underscore composers for tv, or production music composers with large catalogs who have lots of BI placements.
As somebody who does both I would have preferred a more tiered system where BV would pay 2-3 times the BI rate. I would consider that fair since vocal songs have the additional element of lyrics which I believe are a value that should be recognized in any royalty distribution methodology.

The reason this change has happened now, after decades of contentious arguments by both sides, is most likely due to changes in the make-up of ASCAPs board of directors, and perhaps even more importantly, changes in the face of the music industry as a whole and in particular shifting interests by the major publishing entities which have recently acquired significant stakes in the (largely instrumental) production music industry.

Btw I'm BMI, so this change affects me only peripherally at this point. It should be pointed out that BMI has made a similar change some years ago for certain channels (and will expand it to others in the near future) but the resulting system is a bit more tiered.

If you're upset with this development, definitely let your ASCAP rep know. You should also be aware that it is ASCAP's board of directors that makes these decisions, and if I'm not mistaken that board is elected by the general membership...

matto

[BruceBrown]

It's all too hard. I'm gonna quit.

NOT
Bruce

[mojobone]

As somebody who does both I would have preferred a more tiered system where BV would pay 2-3 times the BI rate. I would consider that fair since vocal songs have the additional element of lyrics which I believe are a value that should be recognized in any royalty distribution methodology.

matto

It's also worth noting that Vocal cue royalties are often split 50/50 between a composer and lyricist, which was the justification for the original disparity, if I'm not mistaken.

[Mark Kaufman]

I always suspected background vocalists were ruining the music industry.

Although I am a BMI guy, the same sort of adjustment may well come down the pike for the other PROs as well.