So I was trying to find a video to prove my point about the problems of live musicians sometimes (let's just say the last wedding I went to, the organist was a little flimsy on the pedals leading to some...interesting...harmonies.)
But then I found this video of a wedding where the bride marched in to the Largo from Xerxes by Handel???? I've never heard of this before, but it seems so...inappropriate?
B.M. Music Theory - University of Connecticut
M.M. Music Theory - College-Conservatory of Music at the University of Cincinnati (in process)
My Soundclick Page - feel free to browse my compositions I post up there
At least someone will make a bit of money from the music at a wedding. Cynically, I am quite happy about the import of this. People spend crazy amounts of cash at weddings, and then want to pay the musicians pennies, if at all.
The difference between a private party at your house (and, if that's what it is, you WOULDN'T be liable to pay for a licence unless the music was in any way entertaining the general public rather than only your private guests) and a wedding is that weddings take place in public, licenced premises. If you play recorded music in one of these spaces, then of course you should pay - you are, effectively, broadcasting to the general public. The other professionals involved in a wedding don't give their services for free, so why should the musicians (just because their work happens to be on a CD)?
Last edited by Delicious Manager; Jun-26-2012 at 13:04.
I just love the way people feel self-righteous about defending copyright, even though it is due to reform sooner or later. But they need not worry, for PR is their friend - it will not be said it is due to the ridiculousness of the current state of copyright, oh no, it will be due to the "embracing new realities and the ever-changing way we think about music, film and other copyrighted material, all in the best interest of the consumers and artists". You know, the generic corporate mission statement talk.
Hope you don't mind me asking a tangential question about copyrights, for I'm curious to learn what percentages of album sales are alotted towards musicians' unions and copyright holders?
Not certain if you know this, or are at liberty to divulge the info, but input on this subject would be welcomed.
For example, if a customer purchases one classical music CD @ $19.99, then would 25% (say $5?) be dispursed to the current company holding the rights, and then would another 25% go towards a musicians' union's Trust? And so forth...
A valid question that I too would like to have an answer to. I don't have any statistical figures on what portions of a CD sale go to whatever entity or how it's doled out. That would be the type of information shared between the musician/group and the recording company when they signed a contract. Each contract is probably quite different depending on multiple scenarios, I would think.
Consider the professional musician/group, who would have paid hundreds of dollars to produce a CD, and expecting to earn a living and/or meet expenses for creating the CD, then only to have it copied and distributed to profit someone else's pocket ... I would be quite incensed if that were to happen to me.
Charge double if there's dancing in front of them?
I'm all for public endowment of the arts - increase subsidization of opera companies, orchestras and ensembles - but don't create another stupid bureaucratic headache for the government, the overhead for which to manage and enforce will eliminate any benefits.
I'm a little confused - in Canada would discos playing pop or rock music and pubs with their own CD players be committing the same kind of infringement?
'Supreme Court ruling scraps royalty for music downloads'
'Supreme Court of Canada Stands Up For Fair Dealing in Stunning Sweep of Cases'
It appears from these rulings, that the nickel-and-diming dreams and schemes of some were for naught.
Is Mendelsohn receiving money?
In Canada we must pay for e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g !