A Mark In Time
General Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: JF on October 28, 2013, 05:21:19 PM
-
at my work, one of our activities is to publish articles on this site dedicated to culture :
http://culturebox.francetvinfo.fr/ (http://culturebox.francetvinfo.fr/)
one of my collegues (named also JF), fan of the beatles (among many other artists), wrote an article about a french book which anlalyses every Beatles' songs, one by one in chronological order :
http://culturebox.francetvinfo.fr/les-beatles-la-totale-les-fab-four-chanson-par-chanson-en-650-pages-144077 (http://culturebox.francetvinfo.fr/les-beatles-la-totale-les-fab-four-chanson-par-chanson-en-650-pages-144077)
(note that the pic he chose, is one with George in the front, his fav beatle, like me)
I read some pages, and learned something about the song her majesty, something I didn't know, maybe some of you already knew this :
in the first recording, the song was included in the b side medley, between Mean Mr Mustard and Polythene Pam.
Indeed, at the beginning of Her majesty, you can clearly hear the end chord of Mean Mr Mustard, and the starting chord of Polythene Pam is the ending chord of Her Majesty (that's why the song ends abruptly)
I never paid any attention to this before.
For some reasons, Paul asked the sound engineer (I beleiev Geoff Emerick, but not sure) to cut Her majesty, and to delete it.
But the rule at EMI studios was to not delete any recording (specially Beatles' recordings), and to keep everything.
So the sound engineer cut the track, and as it was another rule at EMI studios, added a 20s blank tape at the start ("amorce" in french, can't find the english word) and put it on a shelf.
The album version was mixed with the edit : Polythene Pam pasted just after Mean Mr Mustard.
But another engineer came and found the tape of Her majesty and believed that it had to been added to the master.
So he added it at the end of the mix, after the end, but with the 20s "amorce" tape
Then the beatles came in studio to listen to the final mix, and discovered the surprise : her majesty after the end, with 20s blank.
Paul found that it was a nice surprise and decided to keep it on the final mix, but without note it on the sleeve.
That's why the vinyl version of Abbey road doesn't mention her majesty. the song is known as the first hidden track in rock history.
My colleague didn't hear it during decades, because at the end of the end, he used to stop his vynil platine, so he never knew the song until the late 80ies when the CD was released with the booklet including the track name ! (he had the same thing with the track at the end of sergent pepper, the one for dogs, with ultra-sounds)
anyway, the main thing is that when I read this, I had to hear how it would have sounded. I listened to my CD and tried to swap between tracks...and indeed I heard the chords thing, but to really hear it, I made a little edit on Nero wave editor, and wooww !! it REALLY sounds nice ! I would have prefer this version, and the album ending on the end, as it was supposed to be. so symbolic for the last track of the last beatles' record.
By searching on YT today, I found that, of course, other people had the same idea and did it.
So, for those interested, I wanted share it with you :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBXgbO9h_G0
-
Nice story. Actually I thought that it was very weird to end the wonderful medley that ends the real last Beatles records with "Her Majesty", butits a interesting story!
-
Thanks for the info. Gonna listen to it in the evening.
-
Fascinating stuff!
The medley is absolutely sublime. I too have thought about the appropriateness of Her Majesty showing up after it all, but hey, it's the Beatles! They were always full of surprises.
-
I would guess that "amorce" would be "leader tape" in English. It is a section of blank tape - non-magnetic, so that it cannot be used for recording. See here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leader%20tape
As well as separating sections of recorded material, marking the beginnings (and sometimes ends) of recordings, bits of leader tape were also used to protect the ends of recordings both from deterioration (as recording tape could be physically fragile) and also from the fingers of engineers and others when that piece of tape was threaded on to a playback machine. Sometimes, you will find reference to a recording tape being "leadered" - that is, when a piece of leader tape is attached to the beginning of a section of magnetic recording tape.
That was an interesting story, by the way. I don't think I've heard the story before but, if I have, I had forgotten it, so thanks for repeating it here.
I hope I haven't mentioned this before but, a couple of weeks ago, mrs twm and I attended the official launch of Mark Lewisohn's new book on The Beatles (actually, Volume One of three books). The event took place at the Liverpool Institute for the Performing Arts (the former Liverpool Institute school that Paul and George attended) which is adjacent to Liverpool art college (that John attended at the same time). And we also got a chance to tour the latter building, which is about to be renovated, just before the launch. Earlier in the day, we took the minibus tour out to John and Paul's childhood homes, which turned out to be much more interesting than I had anticipated. A really enjoyable day.
In other threads, I have mentioned perfomers that I have seen live in the past. On this occasion, I can advise that mrs twm saw The Beatles live and still has the concert programme book somewhere. We did, however, attend several performances by The Scaffold, one of whose members was Mike (Paul's brother). At one of these concerts, Paul was there with Jane Asher and her parents. They were close enough that, even though they entered in the darkness after the start of the performance, mrs twm spotted them straightaway. In the interval, the four of them stood together in the lobby chatting but nobody wanted to be so "uncool" as to stand close to them. There was this distinct space all around them - a "cordon sanitaire", as we Brits and the French say.
-
The story (I believe) was first recounted in Lewishams first big Beatles book - the complete recording sessions! I have an old beaten up copy.
The story goes, 2nd Engineer John kurlander finished some remixes and cross fades and Paul heard the medley for the first time on 30July1969, according to Kurlander he said, "I don't like Her Majesty, throw it away."
John says he cut it out but accidentally left in the last note as it was only a rough mix anyway. John asked what he should do with it and Paul replied again, "Throw it away."
In johns words,
"I'd been told never to throw anything away, so after he left I picked it up off the floor put about 20 seconds of red leader tape before it and stuck it onto the end of the edit tape.... even though I'd written on the box that HM was unwanted (Malcom Davies) cut a playback lacquer of the whole sequence... but when Paul got the lacquer he liked hearing Her Majesty tacked on the end."
Highly recommended book.
-
many thanks twm and Flecth for your informations/precisions :wave
yes leader tape is the english word, I could'nt find it on translation.
Flecth, you explained the story very well, far better than me :thumbsup
(hard for me to remember exactly what I read last week, and trying to explain it in my non-native language...)
it seems that the french book "les beatles la totale" is a translation of Lewisohn's complete recordings sessions ?
I couldn't find any "official" relation between the 2 books :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lewisohn#Ouvrages_sur_les_Beatles (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lewisohn#Ouvrages_sur_les_Beatles)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complete_Beatles_Recording_Sessions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complete_Beatles_Recording_Sessions)
http://livre.fnac.com/a6211809/Jean-Michel-Guesdon-Les-Beatles-la-totale (http://livre.fnac.com/a6211809/Jean-Michel-Guesdon-Les-Beatles-la-totale)
but as it seems that many books like this one were written, so...
-
Thanks JF for bringing it to my attention! Never heard this story before! The accidents in a studio actually shape the product and in a way culture itself. Since Sg.Pepper was issued before Abbey road, the first hidden track must be the dog whistle even though inaudiable to human ears and only for dogs in England since only the UK edition has it.
-
since only the UK edition has it.
I dodn't know this.
I have the french CD edition and it features the "loop" at the end, long after the final chord of Day in the life. I believe that the "ultrasounds" are mixed into this sound, no ?
do you mean that only the UK LP edition featured this "track" ?
Or am I mistaken and are the "ultrasounds" a different "track" from this loop ?
-
since only the UK edition has it.
I dodn't know this.
I have the french CD edition and it features the "loop" at the end, long after the final chord of Day in the life. I believe that the "ultrasounds" are mixed into this sound, no ?
do you mean that only the UK LP edition featured this "track" ?
Or am I mistaken and are the "ultrasounds" a different "track" from this loop ?
The UK edition refer to the original 1967 LP.
And it has to be checked because Australian pressing were dupe of the UK motherstamp so actually it is possible that some non UK pressing did also have this feature. Fact is that the original US Sgt Pepper LP has not although being the [edit] first [edit] Beatles US album released with the same tracklist as the UK one.
Later UK reedition of the lp did also omit this short track at the end and it was put back at the time of the cd release.
-
http://youtu.be/DaXnqw-Zv0Y
Spot on ds1984!
-
The CD replication of the 'loop' is just plain silly imo. The loop was designed to annoy people who's record player arms didn't lift off from the end groove - which was common back then, instead of the auto return arms of all record players now.
Having a cd loop that fades out is just stupid. I don't like it's 'pretend' nature.
Incidentally, Sergeant Pepper should be listened to in mono, it's far superior to the lame stereo mixes and remasters. If you can't get a mono LP (which would be rare these days in good condition) then I recommend the Mono remasters from a few years back on cd.
The Beatles in stereo only makes sense from 1968 onwards. Yet the majority have never heard these classic records how they were originally mixed and MEANT to sound.
-
I like the loop at th CD end
typically John' humor, nonsense, etc..
Of course you are right, it makes more sense on a LP, but on the other hand, I thinks it's a good thing to hear on a CD what was on the LP.
Some years ago, as a joke, a french band (I think Noir Desir but not sure) included a noise miming the turn to the B side in the middle of CD tracks, to remember that during vynil days, you had to take a pause between the 2 sides.
About stereo /mono, I believe that Beatles with George Martin experimented a lot with stereo during 66-68 era. The first that comes to mind is when i'm 64 mixed in a very strange way : the bass in the center, Paul on a channel, and other intsruments on the other channel. Strange, but I think it was part of the experimentation "flavour" of Sgt Pepper
As for a day in the life, I like it a lot in stereo. If you use headphones, you will hear that all instruments/voice are changing channels between the start and the end of the song. I find that it adds to the "mystery" of the song, but maybe is it because I don't understand all lyrics :)
and (a little bit) off topic : during years I never understood how play the rhtyhm part of Revolution. On the orignial mix I heard only one rhythm guitar.
But when listening to "Love", I finally understood : ther are 2 rhyhtm guitars, but they were mixe on the same channel.
so even after 68, the beatles stereo mix weren't always "good ideas" I may say
-
Great story, thanks
-
The stereo vs mono debate.
Remember that until the White album session they did record on a 4 track machine so doing stereo recording with such equipment was just plain nonsense.
Stereo was a marketing thing and stereo playback machine then had nothing to do with later 70's Hi-Fi evolution.
Remember that Beatles record was intended primarily for UK market. US was another thing.
So Beatles recording were intended in mono and the stereo mix were made afterwards. PPM was even released in stereo over one month after the mono.
When the first portable stereo machine did appear with loudspeaker being separated only by a few inch, combined with the fact that only four tracks were available to work from, George Martin did decide that getting voices on one side and instrument on the other one would give the better possible stereo separation.
The change has come during the recording of the White album when Abbey Road studio did feature 8 tracks machines thus allowing to mix with stereo in mind. But the White Album remains basically a mono minded recording (although released only in stereo in some countries, like the US).
Please note that for the 2009 remasters, the mono and the stereo mix were not treated the same : the mono one had no limiting/clipping applied while the stereo had. So the stereo may sound louder than its mono counterpart.
-
More pertinent to the debate is simply The Beatles themselves put NO care or artistic approval on those hastily done dodgy stereo mixes (especially sgt Pepper) - stereo was regarded as a gimmick and no one really knew if it would become popular, but the whole world listened to radios with one speaker.
I'd say the albums where you notice the biggest differences in sonic power (or a better way to say it might be a 'smooth carefully crafted mix') would be Rubber Soul, Revolver & Pepper.
Hearing the songs in stereo might be 'interesting' as far as being able to hear different instruments and vocal tracks, but the overall product is poor in comparison.
Yes it's subjective, but until you've heard the Mono originals, you ain't heard nothing !! ;)
Don't forget Sgt Pepper was lauded a masterpiece by the whole world loooooong before ordinary folk bought stereo LPs and a very long time before the awful 87 CDs were issued.
I did buy the stereo remaster set, hoping (foolishly) that the Abbey Road maestros would remix those original tracks with care and love, but no they simply polished the exact same stereo mixes that were done in such haphazard amateur fashion. I couldn't stand it, and purchased the mono remasters as well!! :)
-
I know it is not exactly relevant, but I think that the reason for the latest remasters is simply to by-pass the 50 year copyrights (from the moment of recording) that were about to expire for the first Beatles recordings. (at least in Europe)
Fletch since you seem aware of the whole thing, what do you think?
-
thanks to all for this accurate explanation :thumbsup
on the contrary I think that for example hendrix (and engineer Kramer) used the stereo very well (by creating a sound landscape I may say), and it was also around 67-68
-
Some artists like Dylan and Velvet underground actually recorded twice, once for Mono and another one for stereo, so actually two different recordings!
-
I know it is not exactly relevant, but I think that the reason for the latest remasters is simply to by-pass the 50 year copyrights (from the moment of recording) that were about to expire for the first Beatles recordings. (at least in Europe)
Fletch since you seem aware of the whole thing, what do you think?
I honestly don't know much about copyright law stuff, except for the famous Dylan example.
With the stereo & mono remasters I know the engineers put A LOT of effort into polishing the tracks, plus all the CDs had already been reissued in 87/88.
I thought it was a shocking waste of a golden opportunity to re-mix those pre68 Beatles songs in stereo with love and care.
A great example would also be the song If I Fell from hard days night.
The stereo mix has Paul's harmony voice famously cracking in the second verse/chorus, the remasters copied this faithfully !!! That's how lacksidasical they did stereo mixes up till 67, and only a hard core few ever heard this awful mix until stereo took off around 1970.
The mono version of If I Fell is what everyone heard, it's what the Beatles heard when it was finished and it's fantastic!
I think I've made my point!! ;) there's no doubt a lot of folk enjoy the stereo stuff (including Paul & Ringo!!) but that's just because they're ignorant haha!!!! :)
-
on the contrary, The "love" album remixed lot of songs , and for example it restored the lead line which was bad edited on Day tripper
-
Thank you for the enlighting replies! Another point I would like to discuss would be about the true need of all these and the commercial tricks that actually target the same old fans, to re-buy the same recordings in various masterings, mixes, formats and editions. The case I have in mind is the Lennon box, which instead of including the great remastered CD versions of 00s (I know I have at least 2-3 of the CDs) includes the old muddy original transfers to the CD format. And the box does not contain either the 4CD collection of rarities or the naked Double fantasy.
On the other hand I very much liked the idea of putting together all the albums in a box, like Johnny Cash 2012 box. 65 CDs and in a resonable price. While Dylan on the other hand, an on going artist releases a similar box too pricey and not containing everything. You have to buy the mono versions seperately, the bootleg series and various compilations with rare tracks seperately and so on.
-
In Dylan case Sony/Columbia did owns unpublished material that under american law would become publishable by anyone getting a copy of the tapes under the "use it or loose it" law.
For the Beatles this is totally different. The European law stated until last year that a recordings made over 50 years would go to public domain and thus could be published by anyone getting a copy of the tape.
That mean that if EMI pubhish a remaster, only the remaster is protected but not the original pre 1963 tape.
The changed for all recording made and published after january 1st 1963 expending to 70 years instead of 50. (right owners are even asking now to go further to a 90 years protection!). For recording made and published before january 1st 1963 they are now in public domain. That is so true that the first Parlophone Beatles single, Love Me Do is now in public domain and you can find various release since end of 2012.
Now about the 2009 remasters.
They needed to be done because the 1987 technology was still developping and evolved since.
Be aware that remastering is not remixing. Remixing the Beatles are impossible as they mostly used 4 tracks tapes with already several voices or instrument mixed in each channel. You can't mix that. All they can do is to choose how they pan each of the 4 channels (and remember, these recording were mono intended).
At that time the recording were not "Hi Fi" intended neither, all they have to do is to sound good on the radio or on cheap record player.
So the source material is not top notch quality.
EMI did quite a very marketing choice. For the casual music listener if you ask him if stereo or mono is better the answer is evident : of course STREREO. The Bealtes afficionado knows that the truth is not that evident so EMI decided 2 things :
- make the Stereo version more for casual listener with a bit of loudness war in it and selling the album individualy
- make the Mono version for the "true" fan.
Give it the autenthicity feel, LP replica, keep all the signal intact so if needed mastering it at a lower volume than the stereo version. But selling it in an expensive box, announcing that it would be a limited run (never official figures were given and to date still available for sale
-
Thanks ds1984. Didn't know that European copyright laws have changed to 70 years. This is unheard off! The 50 year copyrights from the time of recording and for that matter for literature (it used to be 50 and in the late 90ies changed to 70 but counting after the death of the author)
had a logical explanation: that the original performer, composer, and writer would live off his recordings for the rest of his life and his children as well. But 70 years means 3-4 generations. And the American law has extended to 100 years! It used to be 70 then 90 years and many recordings were made available until 1923, but then they extended it So no new public domain music before 2023...
Greedy companies I guess.
-
Thanks ds1984. Didn't know that European copyright laws have changed to 70 years. This is unheard off! The 50 year copyrights from the time of recording and for that matter for literature (it used to be 50 and in the late 90ies changed to 70 but counting after the death of the author)
had a logical explanation: that the original performer, composer, and writer would live off his recordings for the rest of his life and his children as well. But 70 years means 3-4 generations. And the American law has extended to 100 years! It used to be 70 then 90 years and many recordings were made available until 1923, but then they extended it So no new public domain music before 2023...
Greedy companies I guess.
We have to separate producer/publsher rights from author right to be paid.
The 50 to 70 extension only concern the publishing protection but the author right are a different thing.
The composers or the author still receive money even if the recording or the book is in the public domain.
That only mean that the producer/publisher have not exclusive right to exploit it anymore. In case of recording the performer if not author composer doens't get any penny anymore.
The authors right payment only extinct 70 years after the passing of the last surviving author/composer.
We should also note that in Europe we have two system depending of the country, some are more on copyright oriented (such as England) other on "author rights" (such as France) but the UE laws tend to make a one rule to everybody.
-
Thank you DS!
OK. So let's see if I got it right.
Authors get the rights while they are alive no matter how many years have passed.
If they write their masterpiece at 15 and live up to 115 this means 100 years.
And then after they die the rights go to his family for another 70 years.
I guess the same goes for lyrics.
But does it stand for the musical composition as well?
So the author of a book actually never stops receiving rights from his work, because his work will become public domain 70 years after his death.
But the lyricist in a way loses his rights 70 -100 years after the original day of the first recording?
So if he recorded at 15, he stops receiving money at 85 from Europe and 115 from the US?
Or is it that he still receives rights from the printed form of the lyrics but not from the recording containing them?
(The recording itself becomes public domain in Europe after 70 years and in the US in 100 years after)
I understand the copyright versus author rights and I believe that author's rights have a logic, although this extend of years is beyond reason and most probably the big corporations lobbied for the extensions.
-
Many thanks DS1984, very enlightening :thumbsup
-
Thank you DS!
OK. So let's see if I got it right.
Authors get the rights while they are alive no matter how many years have passed.
If they write their masterpiece at 15 and live up to 115 this means 100 years.
And then after they die the rights go to his family for another 70 years.
I guess the same goes for lyrics.
But does it stand for the musical composition as well?
Yes
So the author of a book actually never stops receiving rights from his work, because his work will become public domain 70 years after his death.
But the lyricist in a way loses his rights 70 -100 years after the original day of the first recording?
No, he wrote song so he is consdered as an author.
The basic logic is :
- the creative work form the mind (writer, author, composer, arranger) are under the author right and paiment to them are due on every support / media / transmission/ diffusion done : passing + 70 years. When more of one author participate the 70 year count start when the last surviving of the "team" pass away.
- the editor, producer and the performer : exclusivity and mechanical rights during 70 years following the first publishing
Example based on UE system :
Reccord : Hound Dog - song first published in 1953
Release date : February 1953
Performer :Big Mama Thornton
Label : Peacock Records
Author : Jerry Leiber (lyricist) and Mike Stoller (composer) -
Producer : Johnny Otis (officialy - actualy it was Leiber and Stoller but not credited as it)
Publisher : Spin Music
Under the author system :
Author right until 70 years after passing
Production right until : 50 years after first publication (beware old system, now 70 for recordings published after january 1st 1963)
Jerry Leiber (lyricist) : receive fees each time his lyrics are reproduced (sung or written...)
Passed in 2011 so Hound Dog Lyrics are protected until 2081 (2011+70)
Mike Stoller (composer) : receive fees each time his music is reproduced (performed or written...)
Still alive so can't be determined now but at least until 2083
Big Mama Thornton and Johnny Otis : royalties and mechanical fees from 1953 until 2003.
From 2004 onward they have received nothing.
Peacock Records : had exclusive rights to exploit the tape until 2003 (1953+50). Since 2004 any record label can publish this recording but have to pay the author's right to Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller.
Spin Music : had exclusive rights to exploit printings of the music and lyrics until 2003 (1953+50). Since 2004 any publisher can print lyrics and /or music but have to pay the author's right to Jerry Leiber and/or Mike Stoller.
So if he recorded at 15, he stops receiving money at 85 from Europe and 115 from the US?
Or is it that he still receives rights from the printed form of the lyrics but not from the recording containing them?
(The recording itself becomes public domain in Europe after 70 years and in the US in 100 years after)
Lyricist being an author he will receive money from everybody who use his work.
Each time a record is sold he gets his authors right on it.
Not the performer. He gets it only from the recording use and for 70 years after the recording date.
I understand the copyright versus author rights and I believe that author's rights have a logic, although this extend of years is beyond reason and most probably the big corporations lobbied for the extensions.
Of course. Actually the "passing +70 years" was also to protect the family of author who could die early in age. Dying at 30 this allowed his surviving to get the money at least until 80 at a time when 80 years old was considered quite very old. Now people live longer life and this meaned that some eldest could see their income cut before they die.
-
Thanks DS for breaking it down and for the nice example. :wave
Still think (and this is only my personal opinion) that the system of rights, even if it benefits only the writer and performer and not the companies, is unfair and perpetuates the inequalities in our society. I think that it is unfair to all mankind when a man to write 1, 2, 20 hit songs in his early age and live off of the rights until his old age. And believe me I try to make a living off photographs, but no, not this way. Another man has to break his back for peanuts (as ZZTop used to sing"Just got paid today, got a pocket full of change"). It is not about ethics, morals, but about justice and logic. What do you think?
-
Hey vg, I've seen and admired your photos on Facebook. My son has rapidly educated himself with a basic SLR this year and I'm amazed at his dedication and progress.
His flickr account is fleeeeeetch
Would you mind casting your pro eye over his work and offering and tips / advice ? He's thinking of enrolling in a course as a Xmas present, would that be a good idea? I know you take lots of artistic portrait shots, I'm not sure Joel is throwing himself into any particular niche yet, he's too young.
Sorry for going way off topic !!! :)
-
Sure thing Fletch! Of course it would only be an opinion, 50-50 I may be mistaken.
I searched flickr with the name you provide but comes up with nothing, while I find several Fletch from Australia.
If there is no problem, copy and paste the address of his flickr main page, send my a PM or through facebook.
It should look something like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vassilis_d_gonis/
-
Thanks DS for breaking it down and for the nice example. :wave
Still think (and this is only my personal opinion) that the system of rights, even if it benefits only the writer and performer and not the companies, is unfair and perpetuates the inequalities in our society. I think that it is unfair to all mankind when a man to write 1, 2, 20 hit songs in his early age and live off of the rights until his old age. And believe me I try to make a living off photographs, but no, not this way. Another man has to break his back for peanuts (as ZZTop used to sing"Just got paid today, got a pocket full of change"). It is not about ethics, morals, but about justice and logic. What do you think?
If you make money using somebody else creation it is fair that that creators still gets its part out of it?
If a song a hit or a book are still a best seller 50 years after being first disclosed to the public, why the record companies or the publishers should be the only remaining ones to still make profits from selling them?
There is a time for commercial exploitation and a time for public domain. Putting the line between the two is subject to debate.
-
Sure thing Fletch! Of course it would only be an opinion, 50-50 I may be mistaken.
I searched flickr with the name you provide but comes up with nothing, while I find several Fletch from Australia.
If there is no problem, copy and paste the address of his flickr main page, send my a PM or through facebook.
It should look something like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vassilis_d_gonis/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fleeeeeetch/with/8588993052/
Thanks mate, don't no why the search didn't work, I guess there's a lot of Fletchs in this world !! :)
I'll send Joel your link! I've seen a lot of your stuff on fb... I don't always press 'like' because it's a little risqu
-
@DS1984 Thank you for your point of view! It is the only solid argument there is. As a matter of fact a musician friend of mine that i have been discussing the same matters uses the exact words:" If you make money using somebody else creation it is fair that that creators still gets its part out of it" I agree with this but there is a limit. I mean it is a way of thinking really, like the Royal families or the patents etc. I think the whole procedure is tainted by greedy companies, that try to get more and more money without actually offering something, or offering it too expensive, without respect for the consumer or the artist. It is no secret that only a few musicians can live off the sales of their records and have to rely heavily on live tours and merchandise. And do you think that the people that play covers or radio stations, note down and declare what they have been playing so that the original artist gets his share? Still it puzzles me.
@ Fletch
OK, found it, will go through and get back to you in a couple of days,probably by PM or facebook message. From a quick look they are great!
-
And do you think that the people that play covers or radio stations, note down and declare what they have been playing so that the original artist gets his share? Still it puzzles me.
In France this is compulsory. You have to declare what is performed or broadcasted (and pay the SACEM!)
-
Here as well, but very few do it. Of course everybody pays our two copyright companies, but royalties go to the established artists, while the smaller names get nothing.