As I’ve discussed at length on this blog, live events are crucial for developing musicians in acquiring new fans, building a buzz, and getting to the stage where they can monetize what they are doing effectively. For artists just starting off, smaller non-traditional outlets like open mic performances at coffee shops, church or library events, etc can be a good place to make this first plunge into the live performance arena. And for these non-traditional outlets (which are not solely focused on music), hosting live music can bring in some additional traffic, as well as provide a way to support local arts. It’s a symbiotic relationship, which helps musicians to hone their live performance chops, and smaller businesses to engage with their community.
Copyright law dictates that any venue that hosts live music is required to have a performance license, and pay the associated annual licensing fee. As Joan Anderman points out in her Boston Globe piece this morning, the Performance Rights Organizations (who are tasked with collecting these licensing fees and distributing the proceeds to their members) are aggressively pursing these smaller “venues,” many of which make little or no money from the music they present. As such, many of these smaller business owners are eliminating live music from their schedule. As Anderman points out:
Among them is Magret Gudmundsson, who until recently hosted a monthly acoustic open mike in her Middleborough, MA cafe, Coffee Milano. “I like having it here, but we’re not making any money from it and they wanted $332 a year,’’ Gudmundsson said. “The town really needs something like this. They ruined it.”
The PROs counter that the music provided by these artists is adding value to these businesses, and they should pay for this value in the same way they pay for other utilities. There is no doubt that music has value, but if tiny outlets truly are not generating enough revenue from these performances to cover the costs of the license, is it more beneficial for the artists (whom the PROs are representing) to consider these outlets as a way to get their live chops down and hopefully start their local following, as opposed to an income generating vehicle? Are the PROs, as my friend Milan might say, killing an ox for a pound of meat?
I’m all for artists collecting money for their work. But if the end result of PRO field agents (who get paid a commission based on the fees they collect) working coffee shops for a license fee means that there are fewer small outlets for developing artists to perform at and perfect their craft, I’m not sure the ends justify the means.
Take a look at Joan Anderman’s Globe piece here
Wow, after reading the blog, and the article in the Globe, it’s a little disheartening. On one hand, I’m a performer who would benefit from exposure, and potential CD sales at these small venues. On the other hand, I’m a songwriter who would also benefit from the collection of license fees. But which one is more important??
I think more and more people are realizing that music is a service, but non-profits and coffeehouses are also providing a service when they allow local musicians to come in and perform. These venues could get service from Muzak if they wanted to, but instead, “support” local performers.
Ultimately what we may see from this is possibly a new PRO, or at least new guidelines.
Hi Jared,
Thanks for the comment. I agree with your point on new guidelines. I like what Folk Alliance is suggesting: a license waiver for nonprofits, nontraditional venues, and coffeehouses with a capacity of 50 or fewer. It seems to make more sense to me than to squeeze these small outlets so much they get out of hosting music events.
Mike
Lest we lose sight of the forest, you do realize that fee is less than $1 a day for a blanket license for music? This sounds more like the typical “can pay, won’t pay.”
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your post. Sure, and I don’t disagree that paying a licensing fee is the right thing to do for most outlets. I do think some flexibility would be helpful for primarily non-music businesses / non profits with a razor thin margin and I actually don’t think the suggesting from the Folk Alliance is that far off. My interest lies with advancing the careers of developing musicians, and my concern is that if these smaller outlets are turning away from hosting live music because they cannot afford the fee, it’s the developing artists who will suffer.
My local coffee house too had an open mic night until someone (the competition?) informed the PROs. I personally like that PROs are attack dogs from hell, which means they get me paid. As for the cheap ass owner who charges $4-something for a mocha but doesn’t want to pony up for a music license, f*ck ‘em!
No one goes into business to go out of business.
The trading principle at work: Popular artist offers high-quality product (music) to audience. Audience highly values artist’s product, flocks in droves to venue featuring live performances by said artist. Venue books said artist, sees increased receipts (e.g., increased sales of food/beverages) directly as a result of the presence of said artist. Venue owner has no qualms about paying fee to PRO; live music in this case has proven to be good for his business. In turn, artist/writer receives royalty check from PRO.
This is a Win-Win-Win scenario, but only if the trader principle is respected by all concerned parties: “You can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip.”
When we stop drawing a crowd (and some of us don’t, for various “reasons”), sooner or later we’ll say “bye-bye” to the venues. If I were the owner and live music was costing me more than not having it, what would I have to do? Cause and effect.
Artists that live in a community where a popular local venue is suffering because they’re being threatened by a PRO should just have a fundraiser and come up with the money. But I do like the idea of waivers for certain venues…
Leave a Comment