MOTUnation.com

You might get a kick out of this. He's definitely not going to be working with these people and obviously doesn't care. I guess he told off some successful TV production company that wanted free music in an email, then posted his email to the world! LOL

(I gotta admit... he has a point!)

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permali ... /06/whitey

I saw this in the Guardian a few days ago. It also refers back to the planning for the London Olympics when musicians were told they should be happy to provide their services for free. Apparently somewhere in the £9B budget they forgot music.

I always find the debate within the comments section of these stories interesting. One guy mentioned that his ensemble was contacted by White House planners to perform at some swank gala (don't think it was a charity event) and got pitched to do it for free. He says they asked if maybe they might be lucky enough to get a photo op with the Pres or VP or something that would make it worthwhile. The answer was no. He says he turned it down.

It's the war on music!

glamacchia wrote:Backwards masking comes to mind if asked to provide for free. Nothing like playing it backwards to hear vog.esuohetihwehttaorgenesuoh over and over again in the chorus.

I was curious, so I worked out what your backwards thing/URL says.

Although I am not sure what you intended to mean by using it, I am sure that I find that phrase pretty f@ck:ng offensive.

James Steele wrote:You might get a kick out of this. He's definitely not going to be working with these people and obviously doesn't care. I guess he told off some successful TV production company that wanted free music in an email, then posted his email to the world! LOL

(I gotta admit... he has a point!)

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permali ... /06/whitey

Nice man. I like the point about even the cleaning lady gets paid but not the musicians...lol.
I bet it took the cleaning lady 30 yrs to learn how to push that broom didn’t it?

I read the letter and a bunch of the follow up posts. A point made by several of the respondents is a good one: Worldwide performance royalties from Olympic broadcast will be HUUUGE. If Whitey was able to retain all rights to his music/recordings and collect the full 200% (100% writer/100% publisher) performance royalty via his PRO, he would make significant coin from performances even if not paid any up-front licensing fees. Sure, the devil is in the details, but remember, this isn't film (where, in the US, there is no per-screening royalty paid for music), this is for TV.

HCMarkus wrote:I read the letter and a bunch of the follow up posts. A point made by several of the respondents is a good one: Worldwide performance royalties from Olympic broadcast will be HUUUGE. If Whitey was able to retain all rights to his music/recordings and collect the full 200% (100% writer/100% publisher) performance royalty via his PRO, he would make significant coin from performances even if not paid any up-front licensing fees. Sure, the devil is in the details, but remember, this isn't film (where, in the US, there is no per-screening royalty paid for music), this is for TV.

Well, maybe we should eliminate up fronts altogether and just truly insult all musicians. Then, someone one the back end will decide they too should not pay. And then what? The math here is not hard to fathom, "let one stop paying, all will want to stop paying."

BKK-OZ wrote:

glamacchia wrote:Backwards masking comes to mind if asked to provide for free. Nothing like playing it backwards to hear vog.esuohetihwehttaorgenesuoh over and over again in the chorus.

I was curious, so I worked out what your backwards thing/URL says.

Although I am not sure what you intended to mean by using it, I am sure that I find that phrase pretty f@ck:ng offensive.

Noted. Post deleted and user given ONLY warning.