Should bands/musicians be able to decide where their music is played?

mj.scuba · 24-09-2010, 14:49

Politicians have played music at party conferences and rallies for a long time. Bands and musicians are happy for their music to be played anywhere else, should they be allowed to object to their songs being played at political events just becuase they disagree with those politicians? I'm of the view that they shouldn't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11406906

Digsy · 24-09-2010, 14:51

Technically it's not music, it's noise pollution.
When you can find a REAL band/musician complaining about where their music is played, then you'll have something to talk about.

auto98uk · 24-09-2010, 15:04

Whether or not you like their music is irrelevant to the discussion digsy.

Anyway, yes they should need permission - even Bruce Springsteen got annoyed when the GOP decided to use Born in the USA (not realising it is an anti-war song, but never mind).

Digsy · 24-09-2010, 15:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by auto98uk

Whether or not you like their music is irrelevant to the discussion digsy.

Anyway, yes they should need permission - even Bruce Springsteen got annoyed when the GOP decided to use Born in the USA (not realising it is an anti-war song, but never mind).

If you've purchased a copy of a song, it's yours, not theirs, you can play it pretty much wherever you want, no?

HeadingNorth · 24-09-2010, 15:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digsy

If you've purchased a copy of a song, it's yours, not theirs, you can play it pretty much wherever you want, no?

No. Completely wrong.

You have the right to play it in private; you can't play it in public without a performing rights licence or some such. Whether an artist can block such a licence because he disapproves of your business, I do not know.

auto98uk · 24-09-2010, 15:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digsy

If you've purchased a copy of a song, it's yours, not theirs, you can play it pretty much wherever you want, no?

No

If you play it in public you need a licence, and/or pay royalties on it.

Now if you want to get onto whether it should be ok, that is a different question and my answer might be different.

truman · 24-09-2010, 15:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digsy

If you've purchased a copy of a song, it's yours, not theirs, you can play it pretty much wherever you want, no?

Errr no...well,not without a licence for some places or occaisions...

Digsy · 24-09-2010, 15:20

Quote:

Although the DPP had played the song at meetings inside the party's headquarters, and not publicly, the pop group protested because it was being used in a political context.

I suspect they are only complaining because it's a right wing racist party, that they don't want to be associated with.

Now back to the point if you purchase a copy of a song, it's yours, not theirs, you can play it pretty much where you want, providing you have a license to do so in public (assuming your country has such a license), no?

If an artist doesn't want songs played by a certain type of people, maybe they should specify so on the album cover.
Although it'd be a bit of a prejudice to say, "you can't play our songs if your racist or political".

Boblet · 24-09-2010, 15:34

The PRS collects the royalties from public performances on behalf of the band/artist, but I don't think the band/artist has the right to block the public playing of their song

They do (or technically those who own the rights to the music) have the right to stop it being used for commercial purposes (I believe), but playing it at a conference wouldn't come under this as far as I'm aware

However these rights do expire but I forget how long they last - I remember Cliff Richard chuntering about this last year so I suspect it's after 50 years

L00b · 24-09-2010, 15:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by mj.scuba

Bands and musicians are happy for their music to be played anywhere else, should they be allowed to object to their songs being played at political events just becuase they disagree with those politicians?

Whoever owns the copyright in the sound recording(s) decides the matter (questions of licensing for public performance put aside).

That's the simple answer, as note that there is also the underlying question of who owns the copyright(s) in the musical work and song lyrics (they are different from the sound recording copyright).

So, not necessarily the band/musicians. And most probably not if they're signed up (and have, as usual, assigned their rights as part and parcel of the deal).

As regards durations:

musical work = 70 years after death of author
song lyrics = 70 years after death of author
sound recordings = 50 years from creation or 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first released

Tony · 24-09-2010, 16:02

If the bands can manage a 1 hour turnaround on approvals then they can fill their boots with yeys or nays,

If they want to be commercial they would have to be commercial. Obviously if they don't want to be paid for their work then they can pick and choose as much as they like. If they want to be paid then they simply need to decide who they want to use it.

melthebell · 24-09-2010, 16:05

course they should in times when the music is used in a different context

ie:- music from an anti racist band being used by the bnp, or vice versa as it would send out the wrong message completely about you, your music and your whole life

Tony · 24-09-2010, 16:15

So long as they only have their music played in an anti-racist environment?

It might limit their income a bit if they want to be picky.

melthebell · 24-09-2010, 16:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony

So long as they only have their music played in an anti-racist environment?

It might limit their income a bit if they want to be picky.

i never said ONLY

i meant if say your anti racist (take madness say) and the bnp or ku klux klan were blasting your song out day in day out, people are going to presume things about you and your life / politics etc?

same if skrewdriver for some reason were taken and used by the uaf, people would start presuming things about skrewdriver that may change the whole outlook about them

Tony · 24-09-2010, 16:23

It's a good point that you make. You know my feelings on racism but musicians are business people and if they want to pick and choose they should expect an income reduction commensurate with their personal choices.

Would they want to receive a single penny from a gig/party/event/iPod that didn't meet their ideals.

auto98uk · 24-09-2010, 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony

If the bands can manage a 1 hour turnaround on approvals then they can fill their boots with yeys or nays,

If they want to be commercial they would have to be commercial. Obviously if they don't want to be paid for their work then they can pick and choose as much as they like. If they want to be paid then they simply need to decide who they want to use it.

What if the song being played at a party conference is likely to reduce their sales?

melthebell · 24-09-2010, 16:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony

Would they want to receive a single penny from a gig/party/event/iPod that didn't meet their ideals.

i think most wouldnt actually

politics can be ingrained in your whole being for some people, if your a staunch labour supporter for say 30 years and the tories use a track of yours at their annual conferance i think a lot of people wouldnt like it, and prolly wouldnt want "the filthy" money itd prolly feel like you were being paid by the enemy