Musicians are set to receive royalties from sales and airplay well into their old age under a new EU ruling.

On Monday, the EU Council voted to extend the copyright on sound recordings from 50 to 70 years.

The move follows a campaign by artists like Cliff Richard as well as lesser-known performers, who said they should continue to earn from their creations.

Critics argue that many musicians will see little benefit, with most income going to big stars and record labels.

The change applies to the copyright on studio recordings, which is often owned by record labels, rather than the right to the composition, which is owned by the songwriters.

Under the 50-year rule, the copyright on songs by The Beatles, the Rolling Stones and The Who would have expired in the next few years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk...t-arts-14882146

how does this affect US produced records?

this ruling should bring the EU in line with the US right?

  On 13/09/2011 at 01:58, Kris Holmes said:

this ruling should bring the EU in line with the US right?

I think US copyright is way more complicated than 50 years = public domain.

also, how does international copyright work? do countries obey the laws of the places where the copyright originated or do US recordings fall under this law in the UK?

The latter Bob, it's a very timely piece of legislation which amazingly at one stage was opposed by the UK the Eurppean country with most to gain!

Out Of Copyright merchants have been making a living off other peoples music over here for the last 5 or more years

  On 13/09/2011 at 03:24, ady croasdell said:

The latter Bob, it's a very timely piece of legislation which amazingly at one stage was opposed by the UK the Eurppean country with most to gain!

Out Of Copyright merchants have been making a living off other peoples music over here for the last 5 or more years

Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense since I know that the PRS in different countries also apply their own rules to american recordings (for example, collecting for performers in some countries even though that's not required in the US).

Something good from the EU......I think it's good news as plenty of musicians now still alive after 50 years after their work, and I am glad they should continue to benefit, and not just have their work plundered by all and sundry....Steve

Edited September 13, 201113 yr by Steve G

  On 13/09/2011 at 06:59, Steve G said:

Something good from the EU......I think it's good news as plenty of musicians now still alive after 50 years after their work, and I am glad they should continue to benefit, and not just have their work plundered by all and sundry....Steve

I just read the article. It is talking about the master right not falling into the public domain, not the song:

--

The change applies to the copyright on studio recordings, which is often owned by record labels, rather than the right to the composition, which is owned by the songwriters.

---

Musicians may have written the songs but they almost never own the master rights unless they produced their own recordings, which they didn't if they were on any sort of label. This won't help musicians, it will help record labels. The article talks about this.

There was a pretty interesting article in the new york times recently about master rights possibly being reclaimed by musicians even though they did not produce the recordings themselves.

Edited September 13, 201113 yr by boba

  Quote

also, how does international copyright work? do countries obey the laws of the places where the copyright originated or do US recordings fall under this law in the UK?

Bob, it sounds like you need a primer on the Berne Convention.

  Quote

The Berne Convention requires its signatories to recognize the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way as it recognizes the copyright of its own nationals. For example, French copyright law applies to anything published or performed in France, regardless of where it was originally created.

Happy reading..

The artist will continue to earn royalties though Bob so they will get money now that they wouldn't have had the old 50 year law stood

Is this also applicable to (40's and 50's) recordings for which the copyright has already expired?

  On 13/09/2011 at 07:29, boba said:

I just read the article. It is talking about the master right not falling into the public domain, not the song:

The change applies to the copyright on studio recordings, which is often owned by record labels, rather than the right to the composition, which is owned by the songwriters.

Musicians may have written the songs but they almost never own the master rights unless they produced their own recordings, which they didn't if they were on any sort of label. This won't help musicians, it will help record labels. The article talks about this.

There was a pretty interesting article in the new york times recently about master rights possibly being reclaimed by musicians even though they did not produce the recordings themselves.

Correctomundo. But surely the musicians will be better off as a result of their recordings receiving royalties for a further 20 years?

Of course it helps record companies, who only tend to recoup on roughly 3% of the acts they sign anyway. Sometimes it's hard to grasp, but recording, production, mastering, manufacturing, warehousing, distribution and all the other expenses involved in getting records to the market costs a lot of money to lay out. In 97% of cases (my estimate) that money is not recouped, so, if nothing else, it's nice to have an extra 20 years to have a chance at getting your money back.

You have to bear in mind that roughly 95% of all record companies will eventually go bust, get sold or just run out of steam eventually.

Ian D

.

  On 13/09/2011 at 07:29, boba said:

I just read the article. It is talking about the master right not falling into the public domain, not the song:

--

The change applies to the copyright on studio recordings, which is often owned by record labels, rather than the right to the composition, which is owned by the songwriters.

---

Musicians may have written the songs but they almost never own the master rights unless they produced their own recordings, which they didn't if they were on any sort of label. This won't help musicians, it will help record labels. The article talks about this.

There was a pretty interesting article in the new york times recently about master rights possibly being reclaimed by musicians even though they did not produce the recordings themselves.

Bob

Record labels I've ever worked for pay their artists royalties, and at Ace we continue to pay after the 50 year date, because we feel we have a contract that ties us to paying royalties. Meanwhile out of copyright labels pay the royalty part of their earnings straight into their own bank account. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to see which version of events is better for the artist.

Secondly most of the time the song is owned by a publishing company not the songwriter. But those companies have rights that extend to 70 years after death.

  On 13/09/2011 at 10:48, Dean Rudland said:

Bob

Record labels I've ever worked for pay their artists royalties, and at Ace we continue to pay after the 50 year date, because we feel we have a contract that ties us to paying royalties. Meanwhile out of copyright labels pay the royalty part of their earnings straight into their own bank account. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to see which version of events is better for the artist.

Secondly most of the time the song is owned by a publishing company not the songwriter. But those companies have rights that extend to 70 years after death.

Any publishing company generally will pay royalties and performing rights societies like BMI will pay the writers share direct to the writer.

On the other hand most artists only ever get their initial advance on the master recording, which is supposed to be an advance on future royalties, but many large labels still don't account for and pay royalties on the recording session even after the advance is recouped.

I agree that having the master go into the public domain doesn't help the artist, but extending the time mainly helps the labels who don't pay artists royalties on the recording.

  On 13/09/2011 at 15:08, boba said:

Any publishing company generally will pay royalties and performing rights societies like BMI will pay the writers share direct to the writer.

On the other hand most artists only ever get their initial advance on the master recording, which is supposed to be an advance on future royalties, but many large labels still don't account for and pay royalties on the recording session even after the advance is recouped.

I agree that having the master go into the public domain doesn't help the artist, but extending the time mainly helps the labels who don't pay artists royalties on the recording.

But Bob this is nonsense based on the musicians of the world's constant gripes about record companies, which seems to ignore my point about how many of them do get paid. It also ignores the fact that many of the records we love were funded by independent record company owners who put their life and soul into recording music and could do with a bit of income in their retirement.

Sure many musicians don't earn back their advances, but they were still paid those advances and then if the record didn't sell they didn't pay back the loss making part of the deal. On top of that I have lost count of the number of artists who have completely forgotten about royalty cheques they have received down the years, but when you look in the books they certainly cashed them. Or artist who have simply not told the record company where they are, because they believed they would never get paid again.

Yes sure there are label's that don't pay, but in recent years a vast number of musicians do earn royalties from label's like Ace and Fantasy, and yes even majors. Comp I put together helped David Axelrod earn a vast deficit back from EMI and burst into credit, whilst his publisher tried to hide chunks of his income from a massive sample or two.

Yes the music industry can be an evil place, but giving recorded rights to the out of copyright merchants never helped any artist, whilst legitimate in copyright reissues have. The extension of the copyright term will keep these viable and earning artists money.

As for the goodness of publishing companies, they are mainly owned by the major labels, and their morals are no worse or no better than record labels.

Edited September 13, 201113 yr by Dean Rudland

reeeeeeeeeeeeeet petite

  On 13/09/2011 at 15:49, Dean Rudland said:

But Bob this is nonsense based on the musicians of the world's constant gripes about record companies, which seems to ignore my point about how many of them do get paid. It also ignores the fact that many of the records we love were funded by independent record company owners who put their life and soul into recording music and could do with a bit of income in their retirement.

Sure many musicians don't earn back their advances, but they were still paid those advances and then if the record didn't sell they didn't pay back the loss making part of the deal. On top of that I have lost count of the number of artists who have completely forgotten about royalty cheques they have received down the years, but when you look in the books they certainly cashed them. Or artist who have simply not told the record company where they are, because they believed they would never get paid again.

Yes sure there are label's that don't pay, but in recent years a vast number of musicians do earn royalties from label's like Ace and Fantasy, and yes even majors. Comp I put together helped David Axelrod earn a vast deficit back from EMI and burst into credit, whilst his publisher tried to hide chunks of his income from a massive sample or two.

Yes the music industry can be an evil place, but giving recorded rights to the out of copyright merchants never helped any artist, whilst legitimate in copyright reissues have. The extension of the copyright term will keep these viable and earning artists money.

As for the goodness of publishing companies, they are mainly owned by the major labels, and their morals are no worse or no better than record labels.

I understand that artists like to bitch about not getting paid when they may have been paid, but I've definitely seen enough cases of artists not getting paid master royalties and having to chase down larger labels that I don't think it's "nonsense". One thing that compounds the problem is a catalog being sold and resold, they definitely don't try very hard to keep good records of their contracts with artists over the recordings and pay.

With publishing, obviously song catalogs also get sold and resold (and obviously many publishers also don't pay) but at least the songs have a much closer tie to the writer as they're always credited and BMI will pay the writers share directly.

  On 13/09/2011 at 03:24, ady croasdell said:

The latter Bob, it's a very timely piece of legislation which amazingly at one stage was opposed by the UK the Eurppean country with most to gain!

Out Of Copyright merchants have been making a living off other peoples music over here for the last 5 or more years

it's best to get the dough into the pockets of the folk that did the graft especially some of the small one hit folk a little cheque now and again would meen the differance between jam or ham to some people.Some time ago there was an advert on tele with " another girl another planet" i wondered at the time if they got owt from it and if they ever will hopefully now folk and thier widows/widowers may get a little now and again.By the way Ady I'm sure I saw you today in Harbough with a rather dapper blue pin stripped suit on , I said how do and you walked by me !!!! at the crossroads oppersite the old market/church best regards Simon P.S you may have thought that I was trying to sell the big issue !!!!!

I have mixed feeling on this legislation.

Not many of my musical heroes from Detroit or Chicago from the mid to late sixties will gain a penny from this new ruling, for one thing, most of them signed it all away for a one fee at the time anyway, I'd be willing to bet on that.

I can't help but feel the big gainers will be the multinationals companies like Disney & Warner Bros or Mick Jagger/Paul McCartney, people who need & deserve it the least. This is a monopolized industry that's down on it's knees due to new technology/media & should be looking for new ways to stream & rightly share deserved artistic revenues, not preserve it's old failing ways.

Cheers

Aid.

How can anyone deny rights owners (and their successors) the continued right to copyright protection so they can receive financial benefit from their work or investments after 50 years ?

Recorded music is property (the same applies to musical compositions) and I don't think a typical home owner, for example, would be very happy if they automatically lost ownership of their home after 50 years. Property is something you should be able to sell, assign or pass on to your children and grandchildren.

So the extended term from 50 to 70 years is good news (at long last) and it will benefit record companies and artists too in most cases.

Two years have already passed since the extended term was approved by the European Parliament and it may take another two years for some member states to amend their laws (the ruling requires all EU member states to implement the new term directive intro their national laws) but at least it's progress at last.

It's true that many artists receive little (or no) direct financial benefit from reissues of their old recordings (for various reasons, some of which are justified) but it was very important to get extended protection written into the laws.

And, as has been mentioned, there are some record companies (believe it or not) who voluntarily account direct to artists without any contractual obligation - in respect of their "moral rights". It's far from one sided.

By the way, it's worth noting that the term of copyright in sound recordings is very different to the term which applies to musical compositions. The new term for sound recordings is 70 years after the date of first issue, the term for compositions is 70 years after the death of the composer(s). The difference is huge.

Paul

Also it depends what the agreement was at the time of the recording for the musicians. On my Detroit session recordings, I paid union rates, the accepted and correct way to hire musicians in the city. It was what I was asked to do rather than paying a nominal flat fee. The union rate was much more, but part of the money I paid was for the unions pension scheme for their elder musicians. The rate included the pressing of 99,999 before I would have to negotiate more payment which would not be a problem of course. That rate did not include a fee,should the track(s) be synced up in a movie, where again, I would have to pay more - and rightly so, as I would be earning something from that.

May I say, that US musicians on US sessions do not qualify for a UK PPL residual on airplay of recording they appeared on. There are plans for that to change and maybe even back dated. The issue is, not many UK label have bothered to register the US musicians in the UK database, because it is so time consuming and thought pointless. All my recordings have every member of the musicians, studio personal, engineers logged on the song database. UK musicians on UK recordings and registered correctly will collect a PPL performer royalty on air play,in the UK.

What makes this extremely complicated is that each territory has different rules, but many have reciprocal agreements with the UK etc which does help. Somebody mentioned earlier about the 'law' being obeyed by different countries, which is a good point. With the advent of electronic registrations and the technology leap with broadband, the collection agencies have better control of what is played and reported back to them by radio and TV stations etc. There is even a collection agency for legal internet broadcasts. Then, there lies the biggest issue about the law - worldwide. If your radio station, or Internet station or whatever plays, duplicates, copies etc and does not have a licence (in this country PRS and the PPL), royalties are denied back to those involved with the recording in the first place. So, if people want to support the owner of the recorded work, or the song writers, you have to listen to legal broadcasters who have an infrastructure set up to pay licence fees, which are in turn distributed to labels, musicians (UK), publishers and writers. Remember, the income from recorded works is not just from the sale, it's the airplay,duplication, syncing etc which is part of their expected revenue. Listening to YouTUbe , illegal podcasts, and music on the internet for example does not earn a penny, but values the music at nothing! However,I do believe recently YouTube have started to pay royalties on legal videos and those who should loud enough for it.

Edited September 13, 201113 yr by Carl Dixon

For example - this snippet of 'Double Up' is copyright. I own the recorded work and am co writer of the song. The song is already registered with the PRS for the song writing royalties. As the track is not finished or released yet, I have not assigned it an ISRC number. Mine being a GBXNExxxxxxx series of letters and numbers. Once the track is ready to sell, I will register it with the PPL and include any musicians, performers or featured artists into their database for 50% of the royalties generated by airplay for example. The 50% is split between those names:35% featured artists and pro rata I believe for the others. The other 50% will go to the label. If they have agreed to pay a further royalty to musicians, fine, if not it is theirs, and rightly so, they took the risks.

This is 'Double up' Philly in style (I hope), but at present a UK production. This is the end of the radio edit into an instrumental break. I may shorten that repetitive bit:

https://soundcloud.com/55motown/double-up

and the same applies to 'Walk away the Winner'. Why am I allowing people to hear the snippets? Because I need feedback about the songs, their production and whether they fit the bill! Some have suggested vocals, I will probably do some on all the 5 tracks I am doing. In this world, the social networking is key to getting heard.....but within reason. Not if somebody wants to take my works, and change them without my permission which has happened:

https://soundcloud.com/55motown/walk-away-the-winner

If these audio links need removing - let me know....

Edited September 13, 201113 yr by Carl Dixon

let me follow up on what i was saying. I was not saying this change is bad or disagreeing that the labels that paid for the work should not continue to earn (and hopefully pay) royalties. My only point was that the benefit of these laws most of the time go to the labels and not the artists.

the article i was talking about in the NYT (I will try to find it) was talking about something much more radical, saying that master rights should revert back to the artists after a certain number of years. I'm not sure I agree with that but it was an interesting twist on ownership.

  On 13/09/2011 at 23:28, boba said:

let me follow up on what i was saying. I was not saying this change is bad or disagreeing that the labels that paid for the work should not continue to earn (and hopefully pay) royalties. My only point was that the benefit of these laws most of the time go to the labels and not the artists.

the article i was talking about in the NYT (I will try to find it) was talking about something much more radical, saying that master rights should revert back to the artists after a certain number of years. I'm not sure I agree with that but it was an interesting twist on ownership.

Hello Bob,

I agree there are too many cases where artists don't benefit financially from reissues. And there are many cases where the benefit is almost worthless because the royalty rates were so low in those days and quite often advances and / or deductable costs weren't recouped (...it's also unfair that in most cases the full recording costs were recoverable from artist royalties).

Many old agreements were also quite ambiguous (especially simple or verbal agreements) because most parties didn't think about long term revenues, reissues, film sync deals, overseas income etc - and obviously they didn't account for digital rights. It isn't always easy to establish who is due to what.

Most artists I've dealt with aren't really sure about the precise terms and conditions of their original deals - especially with independent labels - and quite often their recordings were sold or leased to another party via an intermediary (very often the person who actually received the advance). Quite often artists are shocked to discover (long after the event) that a manager / producer / agent / lawyer / accountant received advances which were then deducted from the artist's royalty account.

Here's an EXTREME example: Candi Staton told me just a few years ago that Warner were still unrecouped on 'Young Hearts Run Free' (!!!) so it seems that someone received some very large amounts which were charged to her account.

It's obvious that many artists received bad advice or no advice at all, not just with agreements but with taxes and pensions too. These days it's very different of course but the costs of managers, lawyers and accountants are very high - especially if big money doesn't come rolling in. Look at how many artists had a hit record but still claim they didn't really earn anything.

On the other hand, it's also fair to add that I've known a few cases where artists claimed they were "robbed" despite having been paid a good advance for recordings which didn't even recover costs. It happens a lot and the simple theory I have (in most of those cases) is that some artists just don't like to admit that any of their recordings were unsuccessful; they prefer to believe their record was a big seller but the record company underpaid or underreported on sales. I suppose it's human nature.

In general, the typical record deals of old were unfair to artists. A very successful artist, or an artist with a powerful manager or lawyer, might demand a renegotiation in their favour but most others had no chance of changing the terms.

It also helps when an artist really understands the terms and conditions of an agreement so they can calculate how much they can expect to earn if, for example, one of their old recordings is reissued as one track out of 24 tracks on a mid-price CD which sells just a couple of thousand. Sadly there are cases where artists unrealistically expect to earn a significant amount from that kind of activity - simply because they haven't done the sums and nobody has thought to explain how things work. They can only be disappointed.

Every case is different and there are two sides to every story, no doubt you've heard many of them.

Thankfully, these days there are some record companies who voluntarily offer to pay additional royalties directly to artists who aren't contractually due to anything. In effect, this means paying twice and it's to be applauded. It's an individual moral judgement but if some companies do it, I don't see why others can't follow their example. Goodwill gestures in respect of "moral rights" keep everyone happy.

I've been in situations where I've paid advances or royalties to artists and I've apologised if it's a small amount (..."sorry it's only $500" for example) only to be told that it's more than they've ever been paid before. I'm amazed at how often that happens.

We could discuss these issues forever (especially the reversion of rights etc) and I doubt everyone would be happy. Music can be made relatively cheap these days but there was a time when someone had to risk injecting a significant amount of capital to record some tracks. In those cases I think it's important to respect their rights as well as the artist rights.

Best wishes,

Paul

Paul - you hit the nail on the head with 'injecting a significant amount of capital to record some tracks'.

The investors are the last people to be recognised. Imagine a track that was not a hit, but....because of it's longevity in a certain market, becomes exceedingly popular, enough so the artist can perform the song and command payment for it. This could happen for years. Then, think about the writers and the label, plus of course the executive producer. Only 300 records were pressed, the writers made nothing as it really did not get any airplay and was never 'covered', the label made nothing because it pressed 300 records, in the first instance, of which 80 were sold in shops and the rest sent abroad with a damaging extra customs hole through the label area, because that was the best deal they could get to get rid of them. The executive producer may or may not have received something back when there was a buzz about the recording, but now does not own the recorded work and wherever it is , it is shelved or in a loft somewhere. Then 30 years down the line the exec producer and artist find their recording is one of the most popular songs in the genre and everybody loves it. Loves it so much, it is plastered all over Youtube a hundred times by different fans, turns up on pod casts, which are free to download, and being played on illegal internet stations and on file sharing sites throughout the world, where no royalties are being paid.

However, a friend of mine actually said that 'acknowledgement is not always about money'! What I also meant to say was the word 'copyright' is now becoming a joke. Either it is or it isn't, or...does it need re-defining?

Edited September 14, 201113 yr by Carl Dixon

  On 14/09/2011 at 09:16, Carl Dixon said:

Paul - you hit the nail on the head with 'injecting a significant amount of capital to record some tracks'.

The investors are the last people to be recognised. Imagine a track that was not a hit, but....because of it's longevity in a certain market, becomes exceedingly popular, enough so the artist can perform the song and command payment for it. This could happen for years. Then, think about the writers and the label, plus of course the executive producer. Only 300 records were pressed, the writers made nothing as it really did not get any airplay and was never 'covered', the label made nothing because it pressed 300 records, in the first instance, of which 80 were sold in shops and the rest sent abroad with a damaging extra customs hole through the label area, because that was the best deal they could get to get rid of them. The executive producer may or may not have received something back when there was a buzz about the recording, but now does not own the recorded work and wherever it is , it is shelved or in a loft somewhere. Then 30 years down the line the exec producer and artist find their recording is one of the most popular songs in the genre and everybody loves it. Loves it so much, it is plastered all over Youtube a hundred times by different fans, turns up on pod casts, which are free to download, and being played on illegal internet stations and on file sharing sites throughout the world, where no royalties are being paid.

However, a friend of mine actually said that 'acknowledgement is not always about money'! What I also meant to say was the word 'copyright' is now becoming a joke. Either it is or it isn't, or...does it need re-defining?

I'll tell you what Carl. You're one of the few people who has experienced all sides of the equation, as financier, artist, producer and record company combined. A multitude of roles that very few people would ever experience or even want to pursue.

As you were setting up the whole thing I could see some really obvious potential pitfalls which, from experience, generally happen with new labels. I've made every mistake in the book so I'm an expert.

However, I honestly believe that many labels get a lot of unnecessary bad press. The spotlight is always on the artist who generally have an inbuilt platform to express their views, unlike the labels. I know many label owners that ended up much more impoverished then their acts. Some sad stories are out there that will probably never be exposed, but there's undoubtably a lot of bitter ex label founders too. It's not all one-way traffic. Read Hitsville USA - the Stax story to see the other side of the coin. I don't think Jim Stewart got much return on his vision in the end.

Ian D

Exactly Ian. And yes, I always value your point of view because of your history. Also Paul Mooneys'. There are many more on this forum who have terrific expertise with all sorts of things and make me think hard about what I am going to say. Yes, the pitfalls were there, but as you know, I needed to experience this for myself. The dream was wonderful, but getting my head around copyright, digital sales,promotion, PRS, BMI, PPL, BASCA, publishing etc, I have needed to evaluate all of that to be able to write, and release new music, how I want to do it! In addition, should I ever be fortunate to be commissioned to write something for somebody else, would be able to give advice, and watch my back!

I know this may sound a little hard, but the prejudice against new music today, or anybody being creative is no more or less apparent than say, in 1965, but there is a massive difference because the audience is now so fragmented nobody listens to the same radio stations and can comment as a collective. In addition because of the technology I would hate to think that in 10 years down the line someone says, love your track Carl, it's the most popular in this genre and people love to dance to it! They also copy it, distribute it, sample it, play it on illegal broadcasts, give it away in full bandwidth pod casts, upload it onto YouTube and Soundcloud with 50% vocal/50% instrumental as a personal remix from the purchased digital downloads, copy it onto CD compilations and give away and the worst of all with the Pied Piper remix of Soul Recession, (which I thought was quite good) add a kick drum, strings, extra wah wah and percussion - all without my permission - and these are your fans!!!! The two things Pied Piper taught me was, I can collaborate on a good song decent enough to a) get interest from the States to cut it and release, and b) good enough to make into a modern dance track which must have been ages in the making. But the question is, what did it do for the producers, writers and 'Double Exposure'? Not alot. Even DE do not perform it at live gigs - yes, they are out on the road in the US because of that Soul Recession studio session in 2008! That session stopped them giving up on ever appearing again. But the song is complicated, not known about and really their repertoire is so good,the last thing anybody wants to hear, is a new song - ever heard that old chestnut before? So it does not get performed etc.....

As you can see I am having trouble letting go of the historical methodology of music making and not mentioning that if it was not for the very technology that creates the problems, I could not do my music compositions as they are, as I am not a proficient musician.In addition, when it comes to the sales side of things and because I have refer url's on certain sites, I can actually see what was searched and how the person arrived at say, CD Babys' web site and my songs! Through this I evaluate my next move and use the social networking sites to showcase what I have done and am up to. Any comments left on YouTube or Soundcloud are invaluable. Amazingly Pied Piper is very vocal about my new stuff, which is interesting and actually quite nice. So the copyright thing is extremely important for the music business. Copy right actually means what it says! If people do not own the rights or have a license from an agency to play and duplicate, you should not be copying it for other people - end of! And at just 79p per mix, it's a bargain. Yet I know there are hundreds of illegal SR MP3's floating about. I actually received one of them from somebody advising me of this great new Philly track by Double Exposure and a link to Amazon. So there I am looking at my wife's artwork, and listening to an illegal copy of my own works....quite funny really. The music business has had it. It's going to take education and a miracle to try and recoup some worth back into the music. I guess that is where vinyl and the right marketing could actually work, but only for 500 copies etc. That's another story.

Edited September 15, 201113 yr by Carl Dixon

And of course, the business model as we knew it is rapidly being redefined. Today, CD Baby announced that their catalogue, which includes most of my releases, is available for 'Spotify' customers. What this means that people can stream the songs free of charge ( up to 20 hours a month, the pay a tariff) and I believe/hope, a small royalty is paid back to the label to appropriate wherever. Can I ask if anybody on Soul Source is a member of Spotify and to listen to 'SR - radio announcer mix' and I will see how the admin and payments, if any, and when! Could be an interesting experiment - copyright!!!!!

This is the link: https://www.spotify.com/uk/download/mac/?autodl&welcome

So the answer is yes, I am trying to adapt, but it is hard!

  On 15/09/2011 at 18:55, Carl Dixon said:

And of course, the business model as we knew it is rapidly being redefined. Today, CD Baby announced that their catalogue, which includes most of my releases, is available for 'Spotify' customers. What this means that people can stream the songs free of charge ( up to 20 hours a month, the pay a tariff) and I believe/hope, a small royalty is paid back to the label to appropriate wherever. Can I ask if anybody on Soul Source is a member of Spotify and to listen to 'SR - radio announcer mix' and I will see how the admin and payments, if any, and when! Could be an interesting experiment - copyright!!!!!

This is the link: https://www.spotify....?autodl

So the answer is yes, I am trying to adapt, but it is hard!

I hate Spotify even though I'm told it's a key plank in everyone's 'digital strategy'.

I think it's absolutely ridiculous to allow Spotify to stream music without adequate compensation to the owners and creators. Same with You Tube really. Same with i-tunes dictating what the price would be to the people who friggin' OWN the repertoire. Ridiculous. If I'd have been running the show, I'd have told Steve Jobs what he was going to be paying for the use of the repertoire.

I'm not really a fan of the 'big picture' merchants in the music biz. In my view, they've managed to get it wrong every single time over the last 20 years. If anyone's interested in this kind of stuff, I can highly recommend the following book:-

"Appetite For Destruction: The Spectacular Crash Of The Record Industry In The Digital Age"

https://www.amazon.com/Appetite-Self-Destruction-Spectacular-Industry-Digital/dp/1416552154

The only reason I'm still in the business is because I'm into music and there's not much else that interests me so much.

So basically I'm doomed to be in perpetual torment..........

Ian D

Nice link, thanks Ian. One for the holiday reading pile, if I ever manage to get a holiday that is......

  On 15/09/2011 at 21:43, Steve G said:

Nice link, thanks Ian. One for the holiday reading pile, if I ever manage to get a holiday that is......

Actually, it's fantastic holiday reading along with.......

"Too Big To Fail" - Andrew Ross Sorking

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Too-Big-Fail-Inside-Battle/dp/1846142385

...which I know you'll love LOL.

Actually, if you ever manage to get a holiday, then feel free to pass by here and I'll stock you up with books 'cos I've got a great library over here.

I'm thinking about getting a Kindle actually. There's something reassuring about having your entire book library with you at all times.

But hang on......?

Isn't that exacty what happened to music..............?

We're in the middle of a media revolution and the rules are changing by the week. It's like the wild west right now.

Ian D

I buy loads of books but I also got a Kindle recently and they are handy, that's what I'm reading Darling's book on.

It's nice to be able to order a book and receive it within minutes rather than having to wait several days or weeks for delivery.

But it's more bad news for printers, wholesalers and retailers. And it seem it's easy to illegally download many ebooks free of charge so I think it will be a bad thing for the industry.

Only the trees will be happy.

  On 15/09/2011 at 22:28, Paul Mooney said:

I buy loads of books but I also got a Kindle recently and they are handy, that's what I'm reading Darling's book on.

It's nice to be able to order a book and receive it within minutes rather than having to wait several days or weeks for delivery.

But it's more bad news for printers, wholesalers and retailers. And it seem it's easy to illegally download many ebooks free of charge so I think it will be a bad thing for the industry.

Only the trees will be happy.

It makes total sense to me. My house is groaning under the weight of multiple 1000's of records and multiple 100's of books.

And the end of the day, I want to listen to music and read books as easily as humanly possible via electronic means whilst luxuriating in the luxury of knowing that, if I'm so inclined, I can dig out the physical copy if I want.

But I'm dying breed.......

Also, I'm not sure if a lot of my favourite (but maybe little known) books will even be available on Kindle. What appeals to me is the fact that I can probably find a book quicker on Kindle, then I could wading through the piles of physical books over here.

Ian D

  On 15/09/2011 at 22:50, Ian Dewhirst said:

It makes total sense to me. My house is groaning under the weight of multiple 1000's of records and multiple 100's of books.

And the end of the day, I want to listen to music and read books as easily as humanly possible via electronic means whilst luxuriating in the luxury of knowing that, if I'm so inclined, I can dig out the physical copy if I want.

But I'm dying breed.......

Also, I'm not sure if a lot of my favourite (but maybe little known) books will even be available on Kindle. What appeals to me is the fact that I can probably find a book quicker on Kindle, then I could wading through the piles of physical books over here.

Ian D

Same here, I really need more space and I like the convenience of Kindle.

But most books I buy are unlikely to be available on Kindle.

Now you can take an entire library to the beach and get a sun tan while you read.

Ian - I hear you with the digital thing. It's actually quite offensive for the creators of the music. In fact to let a computer company define what should and should not happening the music business is disgraceful. But, what's the alternative? The records shops seem to get by, but I bet they have to sell all sorts of other merchandise, CD's etc to survive. This morning on BBC Breakfast somebody has got a new album out where you can tailor the tracks on the version you get, plus you can design your own sleeve art! Almost scraping the barrel, but peoples imaginations are turning to other ways to create a buzz and get a purchase. I always thought it was about the song, melody and production values. But that is only part of the musical merry go round. But look at vinyl collectors, their passion is an off shoot were their conviction actually, might save the day if we can get other music fans to do what they do and collect black bits of plastic with a hole in the middle. All I would do is hopefully write a decent song, embed it ion a 45rpm and hey presto - a collectable that plays my tune!

I remember a conversation I had on the phone with 7Digital who said that in time, we will all stream, royalties will be paid and nobody will think twice about owning their own copy of a song. And, that is starting to happen in certain genres. I think hands are tied with this, but maybe this scenario will invent or maybe even encourages something of value to be produced to accompany the song that people will like to own. Maybe artwork, lyrics, memorabilia all available at the point of sale. In fact. Lets call it a picture disc, or LP, or even CD!

Mmmm. Interesting piece from Bob Stanley (coincidentally a massive Northern Soul fan) of St Ettiene in the Guardian today. He makes some good points which I probably concurr with.......

https://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/15/copyright-extension-cliffs-law-beatles

Ian D

Ian - Interesting, the Guardian article.

'Craig Douglas and the other minor stars of the 60s won't get the chance to reissue their own recordings and make money for themselves. That sounds like copyright theft to me.'

I appreciate the comments and agree with many, but....I would like to clarify with the author 'their own recordings'. I strongly disagree with this comment.. Had the artist/musician the conviction to record himself and create a recorded work for exploitation, surely he would have commissioned a studio to do it, and walked away with the master? That clearly did no happen, and a service that was available back in day did just that, and took the risk - the record label. If somebody else paid for the session, they own the recording unless there is an agreement to the contrary. Also if the reputation of the record labels was that bad, why would any aspiring artist/writer/performer work for hire in such an organisation and expect the earth. Moreover, 50 years down the line what would they expect also, that magically all the rights of a labels ownership revert to the people involved with the performance on the master tapes, after they signed a performance waiver over to the label anyway? I think the words 'That sounds like copyright theft to me' is used rather damningly in this instance and unnecessary.

I have absolute conviction with my songs for example. So much so, even after years of ridicule, no interest from people, musicians, singers, gospel choirs, the musicians union in London/publishers (talking of ten years ago here), people almost laughing at the notion I could write chords, melodies and lyrics, let alone create a demo, and finance the studio work, then release the stuff......I did it, and have no regrets. And if I do not make another penny, so be it, but should I be fortunate to be commissioned to do something with a label, I will not expect something for nothing from them now or in the future. I know the score, and I think there is a lot of sour grapes with this, and dare I say it, ignorance, which I am guilty of myself.

I think when it comes to small independents or should I say 'performers the big labels aren't interested in', they have a fantastic opp to get their music out to the world via all this Internet stuff, and of course to be pirated, copied, given away free, sampled to death, appear on illegal compilations around the world, have your fans take the recordings and change them, remix them, hack them together with a kick drum and strings, allow free downloads on illegal torrent sites etc etc.....now, that's copyright theft for the label and the writers of the songs!

Carl Dixon, News at Ten....London!!!!

ps - this is a great subject - right up my alley. So much so, I am thinking of studying somewhere about copyright, property rights, trade marks etc, and still writing the songs!

Edited September 17, 201113 yr by Carl Dixon

  On 17/09/2011 at 10:08, Carl Dixon said:

Ian - Interesting, the Guardian article.

'Craig Douglas and the other minor stars of the 60s won't get the chance to reissue their own recordings and make money for themselves. That sounds like copyright theft to me.'

I appreciate the comments and agree with many, but....I would like to clarify with the author 'their own recordings'. I strongly disagree with this comment.. Had the artist/musician the conviction to record himself and create a recorded work for exploitation, surely he would have commissioned a studio to do it, and walked away with the master? That clearly did no happen, and a service that was available back in day did just that, and took the risk - the record label. If somebody else paid for the session, they own the recording unless there is an agreement to the contrary. Also if the reputation of the record labels was that bad, why would any aspiring artist/writer/performer work for hire in such an organisation and expect the earth. Moreover, 50 years down the line what would they expect also, that magically all the rights of a labels ownership revert to the people involved with the performance on the master tapes, after they signed a performance waiver over to the label anyway? I think the words 'That sounds like copyright theft to me' is used rather damningly in this instance and unnecessary.

I have absolute conviction with my songs for example. So much so, even after years of ridicule, no interest from people, musicians, singers, gospel choirs, the musicians union in London/publishers (talking of ten years ago here), people almost laughing at the notion I could write chords, melodies and lyrics, let alone create a demo, and finance the studio work, then release the stuff......I did it, and have no regrets. And if I do not make another penny, so be it, but should I be fortunate to be commissioned to do something with a label, I will not expect something for nothing from them now or in the future. I know the score, and I think there is a lot of sour grapes with this, and dare I say it, ignorance, which I am guilty of myself.

I think when it comes to small independents or should I say 'performers the big labels aren't interested in', they have a fantastic opp to get their music out to the world via all this Internet stuff, and of course to be pirated, copied, given away free, sampled to death, appear on illegal compilations around the world, have your fans take the recordings and change them, remix them, hack them together with a kick drum and strings, allow free downloads on illegal torrent sites etc etc.....now, that's copyright theft for the label and the writers of the songs!

Carl Dixon, News at Ten....London!!!!

ps - this is a great subject - right up my alley. So much so, I am thinking of studying somewhere about copyright, property rights, trade marks etc, and still writing the songs!

I could make a million quid out of publishing if I could team up with a workaholic adminstrator. There is so much money just laying around waiting to be collected with the proper tools and administrative processes but it is a very time consuming and I just can't get very excited about the actual work. I also know all sorts of interesting things about the murky world of publishing and collection agencies, many of which I don't agree with and would undoubtably have moral problems with too. There's some very unsavoury elements to parts of the UK publishing business which I just feel happier not to be involved with.

I like the million quid bit though........

Ian D

Edited September 17, 201113 yr by Ian Dewhirst

Fascinating read guys

You are right about the admin side - it's a pain. Even though copyright is automatic in this country if you have something tangible, I use the Washington copyright service to register my compositions. So if you search their database, there will be registrations for most of my saleable products. I guess this is where the publisher comes in and does away with that scenario so the writers can write, rather than spending hours doing song administration. Ron Roker (Real Thing/Stone cold love affair, Polly Brown/Dionne Warwick -Do you believe in love at first sight, C J & Co/Devils Gun, Guilty/Pearls and First Choice etc) is a contact of mine and we met though wonderful circumstances. His good friend who sadly passed away was writer/arranger Gerry Shury, who I guess many of us remember him for The Armada Orchestra, for example. He advised me I should get a decent publisher who will take the songs to artists and labels for exploitation and do the donkey work. He said it was justified because it's a pain and if you have a hit, the percentage they take is a good investment and.....will want more songs from you

If anybody wants any stories about Ron, let me know. He came up to London to meet me and and heard one of my instrumentals, here in my spare room. He came up with lyrics there and then, of high quality off the top of his head. The man is a fabulous writer and my encounter with him, gives me some faith in the business, because everything he said, was music to my ears....so to speak. Not wishing to give the game away, bur for PRS members if you search their database, you will find a composition we have collaborated on together, which is an absolute thrill. It's very early days, but this is giving me such a buzz to finally realise my notion and philosophy about retro sounding music can and will be more prevalent in the future if I get my way! So, this is why I am a little precise with my copyright and intellectual property right scenarios. It is extremely important to respect those rights and not devalue the worth of the song, the melody, the recording etc, and because it is almost accepted that music is free now, it should not be in the future. There needs to be a compromise with the technology where we can all engage with the music, but the right dues as customers or the works originators are respected. After all, if the customer ceases to pay for the music, in effect he becomes a thief!

Edited September 17, 201113 yr by Carl Dixon

And no sooner do I go on Facebook today, then the latest post is the Pied Piper remix of "Soul Rece$$ion" by Double Exposure 're-loaded' by public demand'.

Looking at the credits I'm curious as to whether he actually overlaid the additional strings and horns with the players credited? In other words, like a whole other recording session.......

Mixed by Pied Piper

Additional production by Pied Piper

Additional strings by: Cees Van Schaik & Opera Strings

Additional Horns:

Tenor Saxophone – Rolf Römer

Trombone – André Paquinet

Trumpet, Flugelhorn – Bernhard Jobski, Horst Larisch, Milo Pavlovic, Rolf Ericson

Additional guitar: Ingo Cramer

Original Lineup:

Drums: Earl Young

Bass guitar: Jimmy Williams

Keyboards: T Conway & Bobby Eli

Guitars: Bobby Eli & Dennis Harris

Percussion: Rikki Hicks

Tambourine: Chiquita Green

Additional percussion: John Morales

Additional backing vocals: Chiquita Green, Janice McClain

Executive Producer: Carl Dixon

Written by: Bobby Eli/Chiquita Green/Carl Dixon

Produced by: Bobby Eli

I know it's a contentious issue Carl, but Pied Piper is pretty respected in the remix community and he's definitely taken a shine to this tune without a doubt, so could it be worth doing a limited 12" and offering legal downloads on this mix?

Plus the title's actually bang on for this moment in time isn't it?

.

Ian D

Yep, I hear you Ian! Bobby and I spoke last week about letting the announcer version be the one that gets played, rather than his or Tom Moultons re-mix. You see, I wrote those notes (from Original Line Up downwards), I came up with the $$ signs in the title, my wife did the artwork. Those extra items were not part of the original song, or my or Bobbys' intention and there lies the issue. It is not about money or hit records, its about many thinking that they can and do, copy and exploit others works and in essence devalue what has been done by those involved with the production in the first place. Being the executive producer, I took the initiative to go over to Philly and be creative with what I had hoped were my skills and song writing abilities and with Bobby and Chiquita, came up with the 4 tracks, SR being one of them. I suggested doing more mixes because it would be tough getting the song heard (I won't give up on this will I ha ha - I sound a lecturing old copyright officer!!!).

I guess the notion of a 12" mix where somebody else has contributed to the song becomes a property right issue and therefore makes me feel extremely uncomfortable. It should be the John Morales or Tom Moulton mixes in the first instance. Also Jimmie Williams the bass player on the session (Ain't no stoppin' us now') is being interviewed on blog radio about his work in Philly in the 1970/80's. These are the people I champion, those who for the right fee, will give e their expertise and respect.

How on earth can I sell these people out to make a quick buck? Now......maybe if I make a million, i go back and cut more songs.......so maybe that's what the angle is!

Edited September 18, 201113 yr by Carl Dixon

Ian the other main issue is, that the other elements may be owned by somebody else and are copyright infringed so to speak - the mix cannot at present, be condoned by myself, Bobby or Salsoul Records even though he implied it was a Salsoul cut, which it certainly is not.In fact, that is rather offensive, because this cut is new, fresh, but with those past elements because it is indeed the same players on some of those records. Yes, I agree it's not a bad pedigree to be called Salsoul on my very first Philly collaboration etc...........

I need to get my thinking cap on.

Edited September 18, 201113 yr by Carl Dixon

Ian - you know I listen (within reason ha ha) to your advice, because of your past etc. I know you have been in the business many years and could write a book about your escapades. If you did write a book, I would buy it, but not change the words or the sleeve art on it and give it away or even pretend I am involved with it. So I have a major moral issue with this as you know. My limited experience in the business does not have in its remit, illegal re mixes and even a potential hit because of it.

From your experience: what would you do, bear in mind there may be no clearance for the samples, overdubs, etc, the elements may belong to other peoples songs, the musicians may have played something somewhere and they were not familiar with SR, and when they hear themselves on the radio, take action against the label....?

And `i guess the heading of this thread sums up exactly why we need a copyright act - so we can sue for losses etc! (or stress)....

Edited September 18, 201113 yr by Carl Dixon

Hello Carl

These things happen.

Most people who do unauthorised remixes don't fully understand or respect copyrights; in many cases they don't even know the origin of samples used in their own remixes.

If you object to the remix, or to the uploading of the remix, you should swiftly issue cease and desist notices to stop the circulation while you establish ownership rights.

The same applies if you want to use the remix or authorise someone else to use it. It's important to establish your rights first and then negotiate terms for any usage.

But also remember that if you use their remix, you may be liable for any uncleared samples they have used. So be careful.

This is why you need a professional publisher to protect your copyrights, as I've said before.

Paul

  On 18/09/2011 at 15:36, Carl Dixon said:

Ian - you know I listen (within reason ha ha) to your advice, because of your past etc. I know you have been in the business many years and could write a book about your escapades. If you did write a book, I would buy it, but not change the words or the sleeve art on it and give it away or even pretend I am involved with it. So I have a major moral issue with this as you know. My limited experience in the business does not have in its remit, illegal re mixes and even a potential hit because of it.

From your experience: what would you do, bear in mind there may be no clearance for the samples, overdubs, etc, the elements may belong to other peoples songs, the musicians may have played something somewhere and they were not familiar with SR, and when they hear themselves on the radio, take action against the label....?

And `i guess the heading of this thread sums up exactly why we need a copyright act - so we can sue for losses etc! (or stress)....

Well I feel a lot more comfortable with remixes to be honest. Probably because I'm essentially a DJ and quite like the different angles that some mixes, remixes and re-edits can take. Also, some of these efforts significantly improve on the originals in terms of beefing up certain areas and making the songs more attractive to different audiences. So I'm generally always interested in what other mixes bring to the equation.

Also, we're living in an age now, where re-edits are opening up huge audiences for people who never heard the original in many cases, so they're certainly creatively valid in my opinion. Probably 60% of what I actually play out to serious Disco audiences these days tend to be re-edits, which makes it more interesting for eclectic audiences.

It's a similar thing to some of the new releases which sample key parts of old records. The biggest record for me this summer has been the Jack Splash remix of Cee-Lo's "I Want You" which liberally samples piece from a Saint Tropez track from '79. Is it a better for it? Yes, totally. Would I have ever played the Saint Tropez? No, never - mainly because apart from that great background chorus, the song is unplayable.

So, legal and moral issues apart, I think good remixes and re-edits are a positive thing generally. That Pied Piper remix of "Soul Rece$$ion" is actually great. It's obvious that a lot of time and effort has gone into it and I'd take that as being a credit to your vision. He's taken a mammothly positive attitude to the song and could potentially break it out to a much larger audience.

Have you had a chat with him? He's a good friends with my mate Jay Negron, so if you wanted to talk it probably wouldn't be difficult. But I don't know if there's been any communication between you guys. Thinking about it, he probably knows half the guys on the record 'cos he's been around a while.........

Ian D

Also, I should add that I've just had a horrible week in making a stupid attempt to try and clear 2 Jackson's re-edits/remixes. One is Onur Engin's 8 minute extended version of "Show You The Way To Go" - The Jacksons (which never even had an extended mix or 12" release ever) which is a work of art that he spent 18 months finessing and the other is Julien Love's fantastic re-edit of "Living Together" by the Jacksons which is a huge record around the world and much bigger now than it ever was 35 years ago.

The processes that one has to go through in getting the necessary legal clearances are long, torturous, painful, very stressfull and often much more expensive than the actual project is worth. That's why bootlegging is increasing faster than anyone realises which will turn into a much much bigger problem soon. There needs to be a clear cut, simple way of clearing for remixes, samples and useage. It's too complicated by far. It's far easier to bootleg and the chances of you getting caught are less than 1% I reckon.

I say that after having been told that it will be virtually politicially impossible to get the above re-edits legally cleared for numerous reasons. Plus the process would more than likely take 'years' and need to go through approvals via 5 different parties. So unfortunately no one will ever get to be able to buy those tracks legally. So they'll simply get bootlegged and no one will see any money apart from the bootleggers. What sense does that make?

It's not been a good week for me fellas. I do everything by the book and generally get slaughtered for it. Right now I'm STILL waiting painfully for clearances on albums that should have been out in 4 weeks which means that I spent most of last week begging U.S. companies to clear tracks before the CD disappears completely!

The business part of the music business needs overhauling completely. It's like a dinosaur and far too complicated for it's own good.

The music bit is fine in comparison!

Ian D

  On 18/09/2011 at 16:40, Paul Mooney said:

Hello Carl

These things happen.

Most people who do unauthorised remixes don't fully understand or respect copyrights; in many cases they don't even know the origin of samples used in their own remixes.

If you object to the remix, or to the uploading of the remix, you should swiftly issue cease and desist notices to stop the circulation while you establish ownership rights.

The same applies if you want to use the remix or authorise someone else to use it. It's important to establish your rights first and then negotiate terms for any usage.

But also remember that if you use their remix, you may be liable for any uncleared samples they have used. So be careful.

This is why you need a professional publisher to protect your copyrights, as I've said before.

Paul

Since when have musicians ever listened to advice Paul?

Also, I think I've always understood that Carl wanted to learn all the processes himself anyway 'cos that's what generally came across in his posts. Which is fair enough. You definitely learn what not to do, that's for sure.

I don't blame him actually. I'm still confounded by the stupidity of the business on a weekly basis, plus the rules really are changing very quickly. For every company whch continues to charge ridiculous advances and royalty rates in the current market and every company that wants to charge $500 per track for 'tape retrieval' or take 6 months to clear a track, there's a bunch of bootleggers out there who are just laughing that we still put up with it all and that's what worrying to me.

Ian D

Thanks Paul, thanks Ian. Invaluable advice and points of view. Piper knows his stuff, and I appreciate that. Amazingly he is following me on Soundcloud, and so is Jay Negron. They both like my current works which is really the type of encouragement any retro song writer would like. But, I question some of those following me....I see and feel what they are hoping to do.....and I object to it, I guess it's part of this massive learning curve I have embarked on. I should actually take it as a massive compliment, and secretly.....I do, but I never ever want to let those people down who have helped me create my songs. I respect them too much.

The bottom line on this is, sales are poor, but that does not necessarily mean we are desperate to have our song changed to something not intended....without our permission in the first instance. But, maybe one day...things might be different.

Paul , when you say publisher looking after your interests, these are for the writers, yes? Not the recorded works?

Ian, sounds like you have a nightmare with the admin. I would not know where to start. And I appreciate if it is a legit record company things need to be done properly, otherwise......copyright complications.

You know, I am not a DJ, but always wanted to be. I appreciate the interests in longer mixes with exciting new inclusions into what could be termed as not suitable for today's dance crowd or listening public. Indeed, I used to mix 12" myself back in the day, as I thought I had an ear for this type of thing. That clearly has helped me with my composing today, and even I like to hear that conga break or isolated track feature etc. So, I see what is going on, but playing it at a gig as a one off is one thing, but, posting it on the Internet free, is another, especially one week after it was released. Anyway.....getting ready to listen to Jimmie Williams the Philly bass player on SR and the other cuts. He is on the radio tonight at 11pm UK time. It's an Internet radio/blog...so there you go...Alaysha blog radio I think it is called. I will get the url. You want to hear what the musicians think about what is going on with their performances hence why I am so adamant.

Hopefully this is the link forthe programme:-

https://www.blogtalkradio.com/alyshalive/2011/09/18/alysha-live-radio-show-with-special-guest-yusuf-wilson