You realize you're not going to recapture the heat you created with the "Cover band fees" thread, right?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
It's part of doing business I guess. I've been to many towns in state and out of state were we have had $100 billed to the band to cover the venues ASCAP fees. Now we are an original band playing no covers and we are a band that has no songs registered with BMI or ASCAP but nonetheless we still were obligated to pay those fees. Yeah it sucks but it is what it is and if we were really bothered by it we should start getting more involved but we're not.
Also if I was traveling to Myrtle Beach to play music I'd be making a hell of a lot more than $100 OR I wouldn't go there. Would they pay me a hell of a lot more to play there? Absolutely not. So I wouldn't go there.
Something is constant, though. You being good with bands paying fees or for licenses.
What about the musicians local? Any union members here? In my region (upstate NY) their is almost no union support. I don't know why that is, really. Maybe I'm missing something.
Roland GR 88
Commercial User
ASCAP fees and a local tax scheme on musicians are polar opposites. ASCAP puts money back in OUR pockets while a local tax grab is just that.
The argument against it should be obvious to us all. Start with one town, then another, then 10 and so on. It's a slippery slope that will do nothing but take money from places where it ain't.
Defending a policy like this is ignorant and insulting to those that play live venues.
The argument against it should be obvious to us all. Start with one town, then another, then 10 and so on. It's a slippery slope that will do nothing but take money from places where it ain't.
Defending a policy like this is ignorant and insulting to those that play live venues.
I wasn't talking about me. I wouldn't travel there for $100 either. But a musician living in Wilmington NC could be there in no time flat and it wouldn't be unreasonable for a weekend warrior to take a gig there for $100 a head. And if they play in Wilmington, Myrtle, Shallotte, Lumberton, Whiteville, Dillon SC, Laurinburg, NC, Fayetteville NC, Greenville NC, Jacksonville NC, Atlantic Beach NC, Emerald Isle NC, etc and ALL of those towns start charging $100 per musician fees where does that leave the weekend warrior? Paying $1,000 to make $1,000?
This is a crazy conversation to even be having. It's ridiculous. Defend your point to the end though if it makes you feel better.
On the surface it sounds like the answer to a lot of prayers.
If you play for free you are not likely to pay $100 for the ability to perform in public, Which greatly improves the opportunities for those who refuse to play without being paid.
Granted, there will be less overall live music and there will always be some romantics who see themselves as sacrificing for their art so there will always be a segment of the musical community who will play for free even if they have to pay to do so. When fragile egos are in the balance, $100 is a small price to pay for validation, but charging a fee to play out wil cut that number so far back free music will become the exception that proves the rule rather than the rule it currently is.
It will also mean the price for live music will be set by the venue owners rather than the musicians looking for work. Have no fear, there will always be more qualified musicians than available jobs, only now those jobs will just pay a little less.
What it sounds like to me is a new slant on a union, you can't play if you don't pay your dues. The only difference is you no longer have the collective bargaining power.
Consider the irony of paying a compulsory monetary tribute to the entity that broke the back of collective bargaining.
Just thought i'd drop a little sunshine on y'alls day.
If you play for free you are not likely to pay $100 for the ability to perform in public, Which greatly improves the opportunities for those who refuse to play without being paid.
Granted, there will be less overall live music and there will always be some romantics who see themselves as sacrificing for their art so there will always be a segment of the musical community who will play for free even if they have to pay to do so. When fragile egos are in the balance, $100 is a small price to pay for validation, but charging a fee to play out wil cut that number so far back free music will become the exception that proves the rule rather than the rule it currently is.
It will also mean the price for live music will be set by the venue owners rather than the musicians looking for work. Have no fear, there will always be more qualified musicians than available jobs, only now those jobs will just pay a little less.
What it sounds like to me is a new slant on a union, you can't play if you don't pay your dues. The only difference is you no longer have the collective bargaining power.
Consider the irony of paying a compulsory monetary tribute to the entity that broke the back of collective bargaining.
Just thought i'd drop a little sunshine on y'alls day.
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
I don't see the parallel. The musician's union works for the membership, and it's job is to improve conditions for musicians, provide benefits, etc.. This will do nothing to change the venue owner's position, or help musicians.
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
The local people should charge their politicians a $1000 politician fee ...
Most politicians are scum and sub human
It is still a situation where you must pay to be able to earn, you just make less and have none of the benefits you once had when you paid for the ability to earn. It's like the antiunion union. You pay so you don't starve or you sit down and shut up.
I think most regional and national acts would be advised by their lawyers and managers to not play there because out of town acts would be taxed an amount partially based upon income. This would also remove an incentive from the larger acts to fight this as they would see money going down a hole that may or may not pay off in the end and would be looked upon as not something to invest a lot of money in pursuing. With the state of the music industry I don't think you would see any large acts or groups going down this road with this despite the fact they might actually win. They would avoid it like the plague and move any large festivals out to more friendly areas. This has been done before for noise ordinances and other reasons.
On a harsher note this would leave any push back to grass roots individuals or small weekend warriors to fight. They would have to pursue the fact in court that this municipality is essentially double taxing a business (the musicians) just because it is playing music within the confines of that municipality. Any music group as a registered business would be considered the aggrieved party in this case.
In the end it will come down to how much social and economic impact the Mayor and Town Counselors see before they rescind this. I have no doubt they have been advised that the groups most likely to defend against these actions are not in a strong economic position to pursue it.
They are taking advantage of the weaker defendant in this case.
On a harsher note this would leave any push back to grass roots individuals or small weekend warriors to fight. They would have to pursue the fact in court that this municipality is essentially double taxing a business (the musicians) just because it is playing music within the confines of that municipality. Any music group as a registered business would be considered the aggrieved party in this case.
In the end it will come down to how much social and economic impact the Mayor and Town Counselors see before they rescind this. I have no doubt they have been advised that the groups most likely to defend against these actions are not in a strong economic position to pursue it.
They are taking advantage of the weaker defendant in this case.
"This is the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER . . . it is my responsibility to enforce all the laws that haven't been passed yet. It is also my responsibility to alert each and every one of you to the potential consequences of various ordinary everyday activities you might be performing which could eventually lead to The Death Penalty (or affect your parent's credit rating). Our criminal institutions are full of little creeps like you who do wrong things . . . and many of them were driven to these crimes by a horrible force called MUSIC!
Our studies have shown that this horrible force is so dangerous to society at large that laws are being drawn up at this very moment to stop it forever! Cruel and inhuman punishments are being carefully described in tiny paragraphs so they won't conflict with the Constitution (which, itself, is being modified in order to accommodate THE FUTURE).
Our studies have shown that this horrible force is so dangerous to society at large that laws are being drawn up at this very moment to stop it forever! Cruel and inhuman punishments are being carefully described in tiny paragraphs so they won't conflict with the Constitution (which, itself, is being modified in order to accommodate THE FUTURE).
I'm not sure how Myrtles works, but here the fee is a business fee. If you live in the county and are a musician with income you must get a professional license. If you live in another jurisdiction, you would have to file and pay there. They don't charge outsiders to play, only you as a money-earning resident of the community.
The idea itself is not new in its implications. When i started out you had to be an M.U member to work in certain areas of the business.
Clubs and TV work were a "closed shop", so to play clubs you needed an MU card....but to get an MU card you have to have "hours under your belt."....Catch 22.
But the idea of a licence for musicians to "track them" has nothing to do with music, its politics and tax i fear.
Now if the system was no venues, clubs etc did not hold the Licence, but the musicians they hired did, then the power of Live Music is back in the musician's hands.
If you want live music then you hire and pay Licensed musician's, so any and every venue is a "Live Music Venue potentially, as are festivals and streets where musician's play or perform.
No City council can stop live music as the performer has the Licence, to stop a performer from carrying out what they are licensed to to would be illegal?
Every band or performer can then charge more because they have the licence, not the venue, so live music is performance lead....not venue led.
As usual in these matters the detail is what matters, may be tricky to start with but in theory, it is just an old fashioned union closed shop idea...no card no work.
The other side is any Licensing Authority will vastly increase their revenues, because a Town with say a dozen licensed venues, so a dozen licences bought and issued would be dwarfed by the hundreds, if not thousands, of individual licences they could issued to individual musicians/performers??????
In all, one or the other, but not two separate licensing systems for live music.
Lets see how it develops...if it ever does???
Clubs and TV work were a "closed shop", so to play clubs you needed an MU card....but to get an MU card you have to have "hours under your belt."....Catch 22.
But the idea of a licence for musicians to "track them" has nothing to do with music, its politics and tax i fear.
Now if the system was no venues, clubs etc did not hold the Licence, but the musicians they hired did, then the power of Live Music is back in the musician's hands.
If you want live music then you hire and pay Licensed musician's, so any and every venue is a "Live Music Venue potentially, as are festivals and streets where musician's play or perform.
No City council can stop live music as the performer has the Licence, to stop a performer from carrying out what they are licensed to to would be illegal?
Every band or performer can then charge more because they have the licence, not the venue, so live music is performance lead....not venue led.
As usual in these matters the detail is what matters, may be tricky to start with but in theory, it is just an old fashioned union closed shop idea...no card no work.
The other side is any Licensing Authority will vastly increase their revenues, because a Town with say a dozen licensed venues, so a dozen licences bought and issued would be dwarfed by the hundreds, if not thousands, of individual licences they could issued to individual musicians/performers??????
In all, one or the other, but not two separate licensing systems for live music.
Lets see how it develops...if it ever does???
Why not have a minimum income such as with Federal taxes where if you don't make over 10,000 a year, you don't need to file. It's already hard enough for gigging musicians without having to worry if they band leader is a card carrying member of whatever bs the yocals have dreamed up.
No, unfortunately venues will just be more likely to hire DJs so they don't have to deal with musicians and their licenses.
Just so everybody knows - if you make a big enough stink, you can change this. We did.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
That's beyond screwed up. We already have to get taxed on money we earned through our own hard work and practice and investment. I for one think artists should be able to earn tax free under 20k a year.
Leaves the weekend warrior in the garage. Secondly if your headed on your "tour" for Jacksonville, Emerald Isle, Lumberton, Whiteville, Dillon, Lauringburg, Greenville etc. your doomed from the start. Again I'm not saying I agree with it I'm just stating that it is what it is. A business license.
