public domain standards

[runmollyrun]

My band is running into restrictions about playing licensed music at a couple of venues that don't want to pay the ASCAP/BMI fees. Does anyone know where we can get a list of jazz standards that are in public domain? Any suggestions of tunes?

[zeytoun]

http://www.pdinfo.com/listPDsongs/PDPopularSongs.htm

[Chrix]

There's some good tunes in there...

After You've Gone
Avalon
Back Home in Indiana
Beale Street Blues
Danny Boy
Deep River
For Me & My Gal
Georgia
Give My Regards to Broadway
Jelly Roll Blues
Limehouse Blues
Look For The Silver Lining
Memphis Blues
My Melancholy Baby
Shine On Harvest Moon
St. Louis Blues
You Made Me Love You


Definitely a few sets right there. These are tunes I've played/am familiar with. I'm sure a lot of the others on this list are great as well.

[fingers]

Personally, as an ASCAP member I think I'd avoid venues that don't want to pay that fee. I think it is not being respectful of the industry. ASCAP is free to join and offers tons of great benefits and protections to its members but part of its revenue stream are those licenses.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by fingers

Personally, as an ASCAP member I think I'd avoid venues that don't want to pay that fee. I think it is not being respectful of the industry. ASCAP is free to join and offers tons of great benefits and protections to its members but part of its revenue stream are those licenses.

This is pure curiosity on my part, as I am incapable of composing a tune anyway, but how does ASCAP compensate individual composers?

[zeytoun]

Originally Posted by fdeck

This is pure curiosity on my part, as I am incapable of composing a tune anyway, but how does ASCAP compensate individual composers?

You as a composer would become a member to protect your work.

They send out one of their several hundred investigators to take notes of songs played at venues, then they compare them against their database of members. The venues pay a fee.

After a 12.5% overhead, they distribute it to members. They are opaque about how they calculate the royalty allocations. Also, since they rake in a huge revenue, they aren't afraid to play heavy-handed with their lawyers.

Legally, the venue is the one that bears the legal brunt of any violations.

The venue in question could just be being cheap or lazy, or they could have a philosophical beef with the ASCAP. I know I personally am all for artistry being compensated, but as is common with my generation, am rather anarchistic in my approach. I would favor creating an alternative to the ASCAP that was more voluntary in it's approach. The alternative organization would have a lower overhead (because of no "undercover detectives" or huge legal department) so it would pass on a greater percentage of royalties to it's members.

[fingers]

In addition to keeping track of the usage of your material they also offer free legal consults in person with entertainment lawyers, you get discounts on instrument insurance, educational seminars, even help finding lodging.

I have nothing but good things to say. We also all know that some restaurant and bar owners are freakin cheapskates with little respect for musicians or the music industry in general.

zeotoun. Sounds like you had a bad experience. Do tell. I'm not a hardcore member or anything. I'm just relaying the good things they have done for me.

[Dave Martin]

Originally Posted by zeytoun

The venue in question could just be being cheap or lazy, or they could have a philosophical beef with the ASCAP. I know I personally am all for artistry being compensated, but as is common with my generation, am rather anarchistic in my approach. I would favor creating an alternative to the ASCAP that was more voluntary in it's approach. The alternative organization would have a lower overhead (because of no "undercover detectives" or huge legal department) so it would pass on a greater percentage of royalties to it's members.

There are at least two alternatives to ASCAP - BMI and SESAC.

[Dave Martin]

The courts have ruled many times that ASCAP and BMI have the right to charge venue owners a licensing fee. And all it takes is for the licensing organization to hear ONE song from its catalog (which, by the way, it would already have done, long before it gets to the point of legal action) before the venue is liable.

The cost of a license is a small part of the cost of running a music venue; if the owner has issues with that small an amount, I would wonder whether I would be paid at the end of the gig...

[Sam Sherry]

Originally Posted by zeytoun

I know I personally am all for artistry being compensated, but as is common with my generation, am rather anarchistic in my approach. I would favor creating an alternative to the ASCAP that was more voluntary in it's approach

The stereotype of your generation, rightly or wrongly, is the folks who brought us Napster and YouTube -- organized theft on a scale which makes loan sharks jealous. If you ever wanted proof about how well or poorly "voluntary" works in the internet age, Napster was it.

Your post makes it clear that you personally rise well above those low-water marks. Bravo.

[runmollyrun]

I don't have much experience with ASCAP as a member, however I've heard that, apart from sales of recordings, they distribute a lot of royalties based on radio play. This would seem to skew the benefits heavily toward established artists and dead guys' estates, while placing more of the liability on small businesses where emerging artists build their followings. However I don't know enough about it to argue the point.

The venues we've been playing that don't want to pay the ASCAP fee are not music clubs, they are community centers, farmers markets, city parks etc. that don't derive any direct financial benefit (ticket sales, cover charge, bar receipts) from having live music. I wish there was a way the fee could be prorated so that these folks could get a break. But in the mean time, we're just looking for good tunes to play -- thanks for the suggestions -- more?

[zeytoun]

@everyone
I'm just explaining my reasons for my position here. I certainly don't mean it as an attack on anyone who disagrees, and I am not intending this as a way to convert people to my thinking. I just happen to be fascinated and highly-opinionated on the subject of intellectual property.

@fingers
Agreed that the reasoning of the restaurant is more likely to be based on cheapskatedness on the part of the restaurant, than another reason.

I personally don't have any bad experience, I just disagree with any system that relies on coercion (the force of the legal system to ensure compliance), and that operates at such a scale without any public regulation.

Additionally, they operate in a near monopolistic fashion, oftentimes resorting to harassment, intimidation, etc., even when no laws have been broken (see ASCAP vs. Buffalo Broadcasting, where an appeals court overturned a federal courts 1982 decision that the ASCAP engaged in racketeering, price-fixing, and monopolistic practices). Their S.O.P.: When an agent finds a venue offering live music, they harass the owner to purchase a license. If the owner refuses, and makes a venue policy not to play ASCAP licensed music, they spy on the venue, and if one of the performances slips up and plays one, the venue gets slapped with a lawsuit, with fines of up to $20K per instance, plus legal fees.

Basically, the effect of this, is that there is no way to opt out. Sooner or later, one of your performers will slip, and you will be caught, so you might as well pay the blanket fee.

Plus, there is no way to ensure that the original artists are getting compensated fairly. The license is a blanket fee; venues are not allowed the per song license fee. Their method for determining how to redistribute royalties almost certainly causes statistical discrimination to fringe artists.

@dave
I am talking about an alternative that acts differently from ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. Much smaller legal department, no investigators, no threats of lawsuits, no multi-million dollar leases at Lincoln Plaza. Basically just a logistics collective, that would collect voluntary licensing/fees, and redistribute the fees to the artists.

@sam
When intellectual copyright laws were first instated here in the US, the situation was very different. Sheet music was available only through big publishers, who could get rich while the composer died penniless.

I don't intend to derail the thread by starting a huge thread about intellectual property laws, because after all, even if you and I might disagree about them, both of us want to see musicians and composers fairly compensated for enriching society with their creations.

But, right or wrong, the end of intellectual property as we know it is probably here. And it's a two-edged sword. Some benefits of the technology is that many artists can bypass the traditional distribution methods, allowing us to hear many musicians we may never have heard otherwise.

The other side is that in order to ensure that creativity is properly rewarded we either have to a) clamp down on technologies that offer us many benefits or b) find a new way of doing things that allows us to have those benefits without losing the advantages of our innovations.

An example of voluntary, by the way. Radiohead released their last album, In Rainbows, digitally via a website where you could enter your purchase price (including a purchase price of $0.00). The album sold 3 million copies, and the digital release with voluntary payment made more money that their total sales for the previous album, Hail to the Thief.

[Wally Malone]

My day gig is AFM International Representative and I work with 45 AFM Local Unions. Over the past year and a half or so I've gotten calls from Local officers who have received calls from their members telling them that they had lost their gigs due to BMI/ASCAP, etc. Of course, many AFM members are also composers and this is part of their income stream to make a living. What I would like to see is a level playing field where the venues would pay the same rate for live or canned music. Currently when given the choice of paying a lower fee for the DJ's and canned music the venue owners decide to cut the live music. I wouldn't have a problem if it was all at the higher rate for live music so that the venue owner wouldn't have to make the decision to eliminate the live music.

Wally

Originally Posted by fingers

Personally, as an ASCAP member I think I'd avoid venues that don't want to pay that fee. I think it is not being respectful of the industry. ASCAP is free to join and offers tons of great benefits and protections to its members but part of its revenue stream are those licenses.

[fingers]

But isn't the other issue that the live performers are more expensive. Isn't that what has hurt the union too. And the fact that few clubs pay scale anymore. This is before my time but I have heard that is part of the reason the Chicago local just stopped going to bat for people playing clubs and restaurants... 'cause it was a losing battle.

Truth is, as I am in this business longer, I'd rather play at a venue that values and respects musicians and the profession in general than one that is willing to replace live music with a dj. Let's be realistic. A dj or canned music is always going to be more cost effective ASCAP/BMI or no. There has to be part of a manager/owner that believes in live music as an important social phenomenon.

[Dave Martin]

Originally Posted by Wally Malone

My day gig is AFM International Representative and I work with 45 AFM Local Unions. Over the past year and a half or so I've gotten calls from Local officers who have received calls from their members telling them that they had lost their gigs due to BMI/ASCAP, etc. Of course, many AFM members are also composers and this is part of their income stream to make a living. What I would like to see is a level playing field where the venues would pay the same rate for live or canned music. Currently when given the choice of paying a lower fee for the DJ's and canned music the venue owners decide to cut the live music. I wouldn't have a problem if it was all at the higher rate for live music so that the venue owner wouldn't have to make the decision to eliminate the live music.

Wally

One one hand, I can sympathize with your reasoning, but in truth, the fees are NOT extortionate (unless it goes to court, when legal costs will far outweigh the cost of the license). A venue that uses live music gets more value from the live music heard there than they would get with a dj or a cd player. Perhaps I'm reaching here, but I would hope that you, as an AFM rep, would agree that live music is of more value (and therefore, worthy of paying more for) than recorded music.

[Dave Martin]

Originally Posted by runmollyrun

The venues we've been playing that don't want to pay the ASCAP fee are not music clubs, they are community centers, farmers markets, city parks etc. that don't derive any direct financial benefit (ticket sales, cover charge, bar receipts) from having live music. I wish there was a way the fee could be prorated so that these folks could get a break. But in the mean time, we're just looking for good tunes to play -- thanks for the suggestions -- more?

Actually, the fees vary depending on a number of different criteria - and a community center or city park wouldn't pay the same fees as a bar or restaurant. By the way - are you saying that someone working for your local city park, farmers market and community center have asked you to only play Public Domain songs? I"ve heard of a few live music venue owners who do this, but never a publicly owned property before...

[Wally Malone]

Dave, yes, I do agree that live music has more value. Many venues are making that decision to eliminate the live music and go for the canned music due to the difference in cost. Over the last year I have received calls from AFM Local officers who have had calls from their members on this issue. If this were one or two calls I wouldn't perceive it as such a problem but I have had a dozen calls. Please also notice that I didn't recommend lowering the live music fee but of increasing the canned music fee to that of the live music to level the playing field.

Wally

Originally Posted by Dave Martin

One one hand, I can sympathize with your reasoning, but in truth, the fees are NOT extortionate (unless it goes to court, when legal costs will far outweigh the cost of the license). A venue that uses live music gets more value from the live music heard there than they would get with a dj or a cd player. Perhaps I'm reaching here, but I would hope that you, as an AFM rep, would agree that live music is of more value (and therefore, worthy of paying more for) than recorded music.

[runmollyrun]

Hi Dave -- we've only run into the licensing issue at private venues, but sometimes the line between public/private is a little gray.

Regardless this is a good opportunity to learn some new tunes and maybe write some of our own. Those pre-1920 songs have such an old-timey sound. I'm loving all the different versions of "Alice Blue Gown" on YouTube!

[Dave Martin]

Originally Posted by runmollyrun

Regardless this is a good opportunity to learn some new tunes and maybe write some of our own. Those pre-1920 songs have such an old-timey sound. I'm loving all the different versions of "Alice Blue Gown" on YouTube!

You're absolutely correct about that - I did a record with a Trad-Jazz group last year, and some of the old Dixieland tunes they did just killed.

[larry]

You could take standards and rearrange the head - just don't play the original melody.

"Take A Train"

"Another Ewe"

"Suzy By Sunlight"

Etc.