feedback
Where the music publishers fit in
and why they want more royalties
Editor's Note: This month 's FEED-
BACK section will depart somewhat
from the format we originally estab-
lished for the section. This departure
was spurred by the feedback our
magazine has received from an editorial
which appeared in last month's mag-
azine entitled "Fair Royalties and
Record Promos. "
That editorial, which drew the
attention and criticism of several
( persons sympathetic with the music
publishers' argument concerning any
hike over the current $8 per jukebox
fee. But, according to several readers,
the editorial was based on information
which was at least partially inaccurate.
While PLA Y METER will continue to
oppose any and all rate hikes or the
idea of periodical review of the $8 rate
(an issue which is currently under study
and debate I. we think the information
we received as to the reasons behind
the music publishers' end of the
argument would be of value to our
readers.
Following is a synopsis of the reason
for royalty fees, where they go and why
music publishers think they are impor-
tant:
Like the coin-operated music and
amusement industry, the recording
industry is a many-pronged operation.
Many different types of talent are
involved, from the music composers to
the performers to the engineers and on
down the line. Likewise, business
dealings are conducted at various
levels, composers, performers, mana-
gers, booking agents, music publishers
and many others.
Writing and arranging music is, of
course, where it all begins in the music
industry. Writers and arrangers are
generally of two types: those who write
for other artists and those who write
music for themselves. Many serious
writers do at least a little of each,
performing some of the music they
write and writing other music for their
associates in the ind-..stry.
long ago, the question of fair
compensation to music and lyrics
composers - whose songs were being
60
performed by others for profit - arose.
After all, composers argued, without
their contributions, singers and other
musicians wouldn't have any music to
perform .
Thus, the establishment of music
.publishing houses, music copyrights
and royalty payments to the com -
posers. And it is the feeling of music
publishers that each time a composer 's
song or music is performed for the
public, whether in the way of live
entertainment or taped or prerecorded
albums, the composer is entitled to
"fair compensation " for his creation -
and especially when the performance
of the song is in some way contributing
to somebody's profits and livelihood .
John Sturdivant, Record World
magazine vice president and south -
eastern manager (and also practically a
member of the Play Meter staff at
times), called our magazine shortly
after our February issue " hit the
street." He wanted to talk about the
previously mentioned editorial.
Sturdivant, as usual, offered some
smoke-clearing comments about the
situation and explained how some
media, including television and radio,
are required to pay their share of
performance royalties.
He made an important point : "Al -
though you are partially correct in your
editorial when you say that ' ... in the
recording industry, the name of the
game is selling records,' that is only one
part of the game." He cited examples
of other important profit earning realms
of the music business.
" Whoever wrote the theme for
' Bonanza: the long -running classic
television series, probably could have
retired and lived like a king simply on
the royalties NBC paid him every time
the show opened and its theme song
was played . He also cited Johnny
Carson 's Tonight Show theme , pinned
by Paul Anka, who has reaped bundles
in royalties paid by the network every
weeknight that the late-hour mainstay
opens .
In other words, television networks
pay royalties to every composer whose
music is ever used on the air .
Sturdivant said, elaborating that if, for
instance, Cher performed a 10-year-old
Beatles number written by lennon -
McCartney, the two would receive
royalties for Cher's privilege .
Radio, too, indirectly pays royalties
for the privilege of playing the music of
various composers on the air for its
listeners, Sturdivant said . Although the,
exact method of royalty payments
differ among the "big three" (ASCAP,
BMI and SESAC) music publishers, the
royalties come out of radio station
licensing fees, which are determined by
the size of the market and other such
factors. Radio stations, then, do not
pay royalty fees directly to artists or
music publishers, but they do P
them.
What this all means, Sturdivant said ,
is that a music composer can reap
bundles off music he produces - even
though sometimes not many record -
ings of it are sold - simply from
performance royalties.
Sturdivant used the terms "radio hit"
and " jukebox hit" to describe this
unique situation, where a song can
garner heavy airplay on radio and heavy
exposure on jukeboxes but doesn't
happen to sell many records.
This, he said , is probably the basis of
the music publishers' argument to raise
the jukebox royalty fee . Music pub-
lishers are trying to get the most money
for the artists they represent . It's all a
matter of economics for music pub-
lishers and composers. And , of course,
that is the basis of the battle for
jukebox operators, who now pay $8
annually per jukebox to pay copyright
royalties.
Our side's contention is that $8 is
fair ; their contention is that it is not
enough . Sen. John l. McCellan, a
proponent of a higher rate, is currently
researching public opinion of raising
the rate. Suggesting that the current $8
fee should be hiked to as high as nearly
$20, McClellan has sent survey letters
to operators, music licensers, jukebox
manufacturers and music publishers
asking their opinion toward the matter.
(See Related story in operating
section .)