The estate of Frank Zappa seems to be vigourous in its discouragement of any acts who may want to play his compositions live. I gather that there are quite a few musicians from his old lineups over the years who resent having to apply for permission to play music to which they felt they had made a significant contribution. It seems a very fraught issue on both sides, though, so I have to reserve judgement.

You don't have to apply for permission to perform published music registered with a performance rights organization, which covers any piece of music ever recorded and a good deal more. You can just play it, and the venue in which you perform pays the PRO's a fee to cover anything you might decide to play.

The estate of Frank Zappa cannot prevent the performance of any Frank Zappa compositions by anyone who is playing in a venue covered by the PRO with which the compositions are registered (which is ASCAP, BTW).

What they CAN prevent is use of trademarks owned by Frank. If the Underwoods or Napolean Murphy Brock want to go on the road with a band called "The Mothers," (and if there has been any bad blood between Franks's old band mates and the estate, I suspect it's over something like this) then it's not gonna happen. But they can play "Peaches in Regalia" all they want. Hell, they can go on the road as a tribute band and call themselves "The Brothers of Necessity" if they want.

As for whether or not those musicians "feel" they made a significant contribution, well, obviously I don't know their state of mind. But there's barely a note on any Frank Zappa record that did not come from the pen of the composer, and their contribution consisted largely of being able to play what Frank told them to play.

But those fees don't cover the playing of music radio in the work place: that was the surprise development that the Performing Rights people have been pursuing, at least where I live. Might be different where you are; I don't know.

Been a lot of this sort of stuff going on:

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forum ... hp?t=69122

Seems like taking things a step too far, doesn't it?

Which no doubt indicates the desperation falling fees from traditional sales is causing throughout the industry...

Cheers - C

EDIT: ah, here's the official gen. This includes playing music radio in the work place, not just CDs:

http://www.prsformusic.com/playingbroad ... fault.aspx

Yep, if the music provided globally, throughout the office, then the PRO can levy a fee.

But obviously no fees apply to people using individual radios at individual workstations, which is no different than an individual listening to radio at home or in the car.

No company I know of pipes radio globally throughout the office. Companies that do use music don't want DJ's, commercials, etc., in their air and will opt for a satellite provider like Muzak. For example, there is music playing all the time in Hyatt hotels... it has a basic style (a sort of modified trance), and is more uptempo in the lobby than in the restaurant. If you want something specific like that, of course, you're going to pay a music service to program it for you.

As for recouping losses from twindling CD sales, PRO organizations are only collecting fees for publishers and songwriters... the record companies don't make a dime from these fees, and the songwriters and publishers collect based on surveys of performance (airplay, mostly), not sales.

Though as I said earlier, a Performing Rights fella interviewed on the subject said that even a lone individual in their place of work should have a license to listen to music radio. The example of a cab driver was given.

How they'd catch someone in that situation is, of course, a different matter.

The point is, the fees the radio station pays don't cover it, however weird that seems.

***

SlapChop, I don't want to intrude, but I happen to recall you have some test results due. Best wishes to you on that...

Cheers - C

Well, what that guy said in the interview and what the law will allow are two different things. I think he just overstepped his mental boundaries.

And thanks for the kind thought, man. I'll know in about 3 hours.

on the zappa note - i remember an interview with dweezil who was encouraging bands to play his dad's music.

_________________

Dweezil definitely wants new audiences to be exposed to his father's music, but Zappa Plays Zappa is currently the only outfit endorsed by the Zappa estate to tour and play those compositions. If you do a bit of digging at the ZPZ site it makes for quite an interesting read, but it's too complicated for me to summarise... or even fully understand. It's sad when people fall out with each other over musical differences, but I guess it happens more often than the dream that music brings people together does.

Regardless, DZ seems a nice guy and he puts on a great show... I was at the recent Sydney concert where a six-year-old from the audience took the stage at the end with Dweezil's guitar and struck some of the best rock poses ever. I just wish the Zappa clan weren't so quick to freeze people out once they stray from the fold. That could just be the Italian background, though, if my wife's family is anything to go by... heh.

+ 1 on the italian thing... i married a cicillian.
... and just to throw this out there, what about the "public domain" thing once the composer goes the way of all the earth? (not that my christian band has any intentions of doing any of frank's stuff)... but there's a lot of stuff out there where there's nobody left to complain, unless the "legal entity" still exists.

_________________

heh.. Calabrese, here. The sister-in-law's husband is Sicilian, and that's as far afield as any of them strayed for centuries... until I came along, that is. My grandfather came from one of the Aeolian islands off the coast of Sicily, so perhaps I can claim a tenuous connection.

I think "public domain" is just as the name implies... it's there for everyone. I don't know if an artist's estate can reclaim it once it's passed into the public domain; perhaps it's possible. There are also pieces which are technically still under copyright but nobody ever seems to pursue infringements... "Happy Birthday" being one of the most well-known examples...

(Yeah, I'm gonna have to write a chorus... We need another chorus...
...and this would seem to be as good as any other place to sing it 'til I'm blue in the face!)

Nobody pursues infringement of "Happy Birthday" because everyone in the industry knows it's covered by copyright, and they fill out a cue sheet every time they use it on TV or movies. That stupid little song is still a cottage industry all by itself.

Obviously, copyright doesn't end with the composer's death.

This conjecture about the estate of Frank Zappa and whether or not it's because he was Italian is a load of bull. Frank was a capitalist, he understood the music business and he guarded his copyrights and trademarks because that's how he made a living.

Why not just read what the Library of Congress has to say about copyright law, or buy (or borrow form your library) a copy of "This Business of Music?" Then, instead of making wild guesses about how this all works, you'll know.

Indeed - Happy Birthday may be the single most famous ever example of copyright and how people come a cropper over it through their misconceptions.

For the story look here - and check out how the lyrics of the song are conveyed on that page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

A friend of my wife's has written a good book (about publishing) that covers the hillarious and painful lessons people have learnt over copyright infringements regarding song lyrics in particular...

Cheers - C

Sorry, SlapChop... I don't mean to offend with my frequently half-formed opinions. I tend to write from work, where I have don't the time to frame a decent post or to research my comments properly... so I resort to "heh" as a device to indicate that my remarks are to be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not claiming to be expert in any field, really, I just like to engage in the odd bit of mild banter. I know FrankieTheKid is a Zappa fan, so I was just tossing that in there without thinking anything would come of it.

I always wondered whether some sort of release or agreement had to be signed for using music such as Happy Birthday, and assumed it was covered by the blanket license of whichever organisation wanted to use it (if it was a film production or the like). I guess what I really meant was that nobody was going to come charging in and stopping you from singing it at a restaurant or other public place.

As to the whole Zappa performance issue, I wish I hadn't brought it up. I was reading Adrian Belew's blog and came across a reference to some seemingly childish behaviour between Dweezil Zappa and André Cholmondeley (Belew's tour manager and guitarist for Project/Object, a Zappa... uh... influenced band), which, having nothing better to do at the time, I followed up on DZ and Cholmondeley's respective sites. Sadly It was enervating reading, and I had hoped to mention it in a "why can't we all just get along" manner. Apparently the whole issue stems from a supposed final wish on the part of FZ relayed by his daughter Moon Unit that, upon his death, people were to donate money to a favourite charity in lieu of sending flowers, or failing that "just play his music." I imagine Frank was picturing everyone putting on a favourite album and remembering good times, but some musicians took the statement literally. Gail Zappa, in her capacity as executor of Frank's estate, comes across as being perhaps overzealous in her attempts to shut these musicians down... but anybody in her position would appear that way, most likely. That's why I'm trying not to have an opinion one way or the other.

When I joined up here I tried to follow a policy of posting only on topics I knew something (however little) about, but I soon realised that I was hardly going to be posting at all if I adhered to that resolution. Easier by far to weigh in and then wait for someone more knowledgeable to set me straight; that way I get to enjoy a bit of the cut-and-thrust that I'm missing in my workplace and learn something at the same time.

mondo: No offense taken. I realize that I post in a matter-of-fact manner that sometimes reads as if I'm being snarky, when I'm really just making a flat-footed statement. So, I apologize for any of that.... seriously, I'm not a nasty person. I just tend to write exactly what I'm trying to express, and then I stop.

You're right, "Happy Birthday" is covered by PRO's, just like everything else. If you write a TV show and have your characters sing it during an episode, then some production assistant is going to fill out what's called a "cure sheet:" a document that says, essentially, "Hey, ASCAP or BMI, we used a piece of music written by one of your composers, and it's in this episode of this show and blah blah blah." That's just one of the ways PRO's keep track of what is getting played where. And no, nobody's gona charge you for singing it at Chuck E. Cheese.

This is NOT the same as using an original, copyrighted recording of a song as underscore in a film or TV show. The right to use recordings this way are called "synchronization" rights (because they date back to some old, old technology for synchronizing music to film). Synch rights have to be negotiated on a per-use basis with the people who own the recording. That might be you if you're an indie band, that might be Sony if you're signed. In this case, if you're the songwriter AND the artist, you get the synch money and the PRO money.

So you can see why the pop music industry changed from staff songwriters writing hits for pop idols to pop idols who insisted on writing their own songs. It's not because they had so much to express... it's because there is so much money in being both the songwriter and the recording artist. Bands break up over writing credits, young songwriters in Nashville get told, "Sure, she'll cut your song for the next album, but she gets a co-writer's credit," because having your name as writer on a hit song can mean a pile of money now and down the road.

I don't doubt what you've read about the Zappa thing, I just see where The Widow Zappa has a legal leg to stand on. Frank's music is published, it's covered by his PRO, and so anybody can play it till their brains melt. They might be trying to claim some kind of damages, what with Dweezil being on the road with essentially the same show, but I don't see how Mrs. Z can stop Project/Object from playing. That's another case I'd love to see the attorney's explanations of.

Slapchop did you ever realize how many top 10 and #1 songs Maddonna has written.If you look at her writing credits she is one of the most succesful song writers in history. So tell me how many time do you think she came up with the word THE in a song.