Doors open to change

...continued from front page

Every hit is on offer here tonight: Light My Fire , Roadhouse Blues, Break on Through; and my personal favorite (and definitely the highlight of the night) L.A.Woman.

As anyone with a record collection or who listens to the radio can attest, these songs have stood the test of time, and sound just as good now as when they did when they were written.

The only thing missing for me is the sound of an original Hammond organ, tonight unfortunately replaced with a modern Korg keyboard that "replicates" the sound. Call me a purist, but I feel that no modern imitation has quite the sound of a Hammond...nothing else oozes such feel and warmth.

This band does, however, deliver a faultless and stunning performance, complete with psychedelic image projected on a large movie screen behind them.

Interstingly, and unlike the original Doors, this lineup features a bass player. This could be another effect of the missing Hammond - no foot-pedals to play the bass tones.

A truly great show - and it will be very interesting to hear what the forthcoming album from The Doors of the 21st Century has to offer.

Home

Author! Author!

Dear Uncle Terry,

I saw an interview on the TV where a guy said that the only way musicians made money out of recording contracts was if they wrote their own material. Do you agree with this?

Barbara,

via email

Dear Barbara,

Like many things on television this has a grain of truth in it but doesn't tell the whole story. Artists who write their own material are contributing two products to a recording:

1. Their composition.
2. Their performance.

Income from the exploitation of the recorded performance is generally what can be negotiated with the record company. Non-writing artists as well as writing artists get this. (We do now have performer copyright in this country but the norm seems to be that artists must sign it away as a condition of getting a recording contract!)

The writer has another source of income and that is from the exploitation of the actual song. Often this is handled by a "Publisher", a company that often takes a significant percentage for doing nothing more than moving money from one bank account to another. (Some publishers are also extremely adroit at making money disappear through a maze of offshore bank accounts.) Publishers also offer advances on royalties with various recoupment arrangements; these are rarely in the artists favour. Often the publisher is an arm of the record company (if the potential conflict of interest that this represents hasn't just knocked you to the floor then you haven't been paying attention.)The writer also receives public performance royalties, this is what APRA collects, but the publisher gets a slice of these too.

So you see, the publishing side of the music industry is basically controlled by the same sorts of charming people who control the recording side. How do you think the artist fares?

The short answer to your question is: "…perhaps sometimes, but they are still being screwed!"

Uncle Terry strongly recommends not signing anything without (genuinely) independent advice and information. Contacting the Musicians' Union is a good idea. Also, join APRA if you are a writer, and never give away your copyright.

Coke adds life but subtracts royalties

Dear Uncle Terry,

I heard there's a great story about how some guy who wrote a Coke commercial and got ripped off. Is this true?

Carl
via email

Dear Carl,

Uncle Terry thinks you may be referring to the great "I'd like to teach the world to sing" fiasco. This happened a long time ago, if Uncle Terry's memory serves him correctly it was in the early 1970's. The story goes something like this: A songwriter in the US was hired to write a commercial for the Coca Cola company and was paid a certain fee. Unfortunately part of the deal was that he sold his entire copyright in the song. The song was then used as part of a very successful advertising campaign for the soft drink, in fact the campaign was so successful that it drew the attention of the management of an English band called the New Seekers who recorded a version of the song with the Coca Cola references deleted and replaced by something suitably banal.

New Seekers looking innocent
A deal was struck with the Coca Cola company who now owned the copyright in the song. The record was a massive hit worldwide, composer royalties of all kinds were collected by Coca Cola and the songwriter received nothing. There was a great hue and cry about the unfairness of this so eventually Coca Cola donated all their royalties to charity (needless to say, the songwriter was not one of the charities).

The moral should be self evident.

Negativity

Dear Uncle Terry,

Why are you so down on the music industry?

Shareena

Dear Shareena,

Experience.

Uncle Terry

Home