Thanks Boss!

As a novice musician who has played, …and wishes to continue playing local venues…I want to extend a very meaningful Thank You to Mr. Bruce Springsteen for his stance on this.

ASCAP must have their heads up their proverbial backsides on this one. Sounds like they were trying to make an example…and using Bruce’s name in the process.

Gratuitous plug inserted here.

Get a life folks!

6 comments to Thanks Boss!

  • Had no idea until today that an organization like ASCAP even existed.

    I followed some of the links from the Daily News link and got tickled by a guy who said, “Bruce doesn’t need the 8 dollars a month he would get from the band playing his music at that pub”

    There was also a poll that showed that 41% of respondents thought Springsteen was wrong to pull his name from the suit.

    There has got to be more here than I understand.

  • jadarm

    Man, thats what I was thinking too, but I read and re-read the thing. I will do some more looking into it but, hell, the thing to do anymore is be in a “tribute” band. (personally, I think they would have been laughed off the stage had they done something like that in the 80′s)

    People actually strive like hell to get an “original” scene in their hometowns or nearby. Places you can actually go play your original tunes and there WILL be someone there who is wanting to hear original tunes. (doesn’t necessarily mean they will like it though)

    But the fact is, the majority of what people play is cover tunes, because that is what the majority of people want to hear, …something they are familiar with.

    If you are somewhat familiar with the club scene, at least the ones I have been around, you would notice that these guys aren’t the richest on the planet, …most close their doors within a few years.

    I would like to know the reasons behind that 41% you referenced in the poll.

  • Although I’m a staunch opponent of the current copyright laws I have to disagree with you all on this, and the boss.

    First of all the article is factually wrong in that the lawsuit could not have been a copyright suit. The band did not distribute Bruce’s music; this would have been a “performance” rights suit. ASCAP BMI and SESAC are the three main Performance rights organizations tasked with collecting and distributing royalties for performance of music (and plays in the case of SESAC). This has been one of the most elegant, and democratic of all the ways royalties are collected. Fees are paid to these organizations by anyone who provides music as entertainment.

    We could only wish copyrights were handled so elegantly a lot of the problems with moronic lawsuits because someone happens to be listening to the radio while recoding video of aunt Martha’s 72nd birthday and posting it on You tube. This is not about the band owing a few dollars to Bruce. It’s about an established business practice going back to the early 20th century.

    Any business that plays music (other then over a radio) as entertainment pays a license fee to these three organizations (well some don’t pay SESAC because it’s catalog is different and much smaller). Non-profits, corner lunch counters with a juke box, places that host Radio and TV stations, DJ’s, internet radio DJ’s, everyone. the cash collected gets distributed as royalties to composers based on an established formula that includes polling, logging, sales figures and raw data collected from the establishments.

    If you don’t have the business to pay these fees you can’t have live music unless you absolutely insure that all the music performed will be all original. Also these organizations go out of there way to tailor license fees to the venue based on capacity, how often they have music ect. It’s fine if Bruce doesn’t wasn’t the money he is owed, but he’s making a decision for the enter industry. If one bar can get away with it then no one will pay the fee and the system will collapse. I mean that fee is like 200 bucks a month, no a kings ransom and it’s consider the cost of doing business for any bar with live music.

    Performance rights fees should be the model for electronic copyright, but people are too greedy. The reason performance rights is such an elegant, flexible and workable system is because it was created and established when too much record keeping could bring a business to it’s knees. It’s a wonderfully fair system and it also insures that performers can perform (and alter) music for a live performance with out the songwriter getting having undo control (like Frank Zappa’s widow who want’s to stop all live performances of Frank’s work when Frank himself used to do spoofs of other peoples music all the time).

    Bruce should have signed on to the suit and returned the royalty fees to the band if he wanted to maintain his “street cred” because the suit effects more then just this one bar and this one performance.

  • Thanks for stopping by and giving the other side Rick. I knew there had to be more to this than I realized. I still think that before you stick a guys name on a lawsuit you need to run it by him first.

  • jadarm

    I don’t really know about the “street cred” remark either, seems to me that Bruce hasn’t forgot where he himself came from.

    As far as local bars being brought to their knees? I don’t think they need any help from ASSCRAP to do that either.

    I understand where you are coming from, I am not a fan of shareware sites where you can get the newest material for free (along with a few viruses) but, although I haven’t done a scientific poll recently, I doubt there are too many bars around here paying ASSCRAP their dues.

    Most of them do well to make payroll.

    If they were distributing the songs as merchandise, then I can see that. If not?

    I still say “Thanks Boss!” … He knows the “law” is bogus too.

  • Jadarm,

    You really don’t have any idea about what you’re talking about here. You just don’t have a clue.

    any establishment if the have live music, or DJ’s or host music or there patrons they are paying the license fees. There are a few who fly under the radar but they are very few and far between. Most local bars don’t have music or they pay a service which does pay the fee (cable radio would be one of these) If they are a “sports” bar they are paying way more then that to have those TV’s hooked up to the local cable company to show the games, a hell of a lot more (they don’t pay residential rates). The law is not only not “bogus” in any way shape or form, it should be extended to copyright as well in my opinion because it’s worked brilliantly and fairly for almost 100 years. What would be bogus is if a live band was responsible for contacting ever performance rights holder to get permission and pay them individually for the right yo play their songs in a bar THAT would be a cluster F__K.

    Buck, I agree with the narrow issue of using Bruce’s in the lawsuit without his consent. He should have been told.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>