sign in sign up
<<
Home , Julie London, June Christy, Mitch Miller, Percy Faith, Stan Getz, Tony Bennett

NCRA1

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR THE RECORDING ARTS

STAN KENTON National Chairman February 14, 1968 CHARTER MEMBERS: KENNY DENNIS Fellow Recording Artist: ALFRED DRAKE SID FELLER While I try not to deluge you with correspondence, I am not JERRY FIELDING always successful. BROTHERS FOUR This letter is a case in point. GOGI GRANT JIMMY HASKELL Our campaign to secure copyright legislation is, like all JOHNNY KEATING legislative matters, somewhat complex. GUY LOMBARDO The two enclosures make it simple. JULIE LONDON I have two requests, both of which are simple and painless. JOHNNY MANN FREDDY MARTIN Will you take time to read the enclosures and, having done that, BILLY MAY write a personal note to one or more of the Senators comprising the Subcommittee On Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights? These ALFRED NEWMAN are the men who will soon decree life or death for the legislation MINNIE PEARL we seek, specifically Amendment 131 to Senate Bill S. 597. Let MORT SAHL them know how you feel. SIMON & GARFUNKEL DICK STABILE They can be addressed thusly: APRIL STEVENS NINO TEMPO MEL TORME The Honorable John L. McClellan The Honorable Hiram L. Fong Member of Senate Member of Senate FRED WARING 3241 New Senate Office Building 1107 New Senate Office Building MEREDITH WILLSON Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. NANCY WILSON The Honorable Philip A. Hart The Honorable Hugh Scott PETER YARROW Member of Senate Member of Senate 362 Old Senate Office Building 260 Old Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.

The Honorable Quentin N. Burdick Member of Senate 110 Old Senate Office Building Washington, D.C.

Form letters are of little or no value. But it is undeniable that personal letters from celebrities create impact. Perhaps is a personal relationship with one of the Senators. So much the

9300 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, BEVERLY HILLS, 90212, TELEPHONE (213) 278-2345 Page Two

better. In any case, a letter drawing on your personal experiences and pointing up the need for performance fees will be of incalculable help. If you have no particular preference, I would suggest you write to either Senator Burdick or McClellan, or both.

Such a letter could be the most financially rewarding one you will ever write.

Thank you.

enes. NCRA

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR THE RECORDING ARTS

STAN KENTON National Chairman

CHARTER MEMBERS: STATEMENT 07 POSITION LOUIS ARMSTRONG TONY BENNETT JUNE CHRISTY BOB COOPER The nation’s recording artists, arrangers, musicians, and record KENNY DENNIS producers are being deprived of a fundamental economic right. It ALFRED DRAKE is the right to copyright protection for the commercial use of PERCY FAITH their recorded performances. SID FELLER JERRY FIELDING BROTHERS FOUR The purpose of the National Committee for the Recording Arts is to STAN GETZ call attention to the need for legislation to correct this injustice. BENNY GOODMAN GOGIGRANT JIMMY HASKELL The spirit of copyright laws is that no man may take JOHNNY KEATING a creative work and profit therefrom without compensating the FRANKIE LAINE originator of the work. PEGGY LEE GUY LOMBARDO JULIE LONDON Today, when a recorded performance is played on the air, the composer HENRY MANCINI and publisher receive a performance fee. Artists and musicians make JOHNNY MANN an equally creative contribution — through their style, individual­ SHELLY MANNE ity, and expertise — yet receive no compensation whatsoever for the FREDDY MARTIN commercial use of their recorded works. BILLY MAY MITCH MILLER ALFRED NEWMAN In many respects, a recorded performance in no way differs from a MINNIE PEARL live, filmed, or television rendition of musical work. Each has BUDDY RICH commercial value. MORT SAHL SIMON & GARFUNKEL DICK STABILE It is morally just that the artists whose talent, personality, and APRIL STEVENS rendition give life to a musical composition receive tangible rec­ NINO TEMPO ognition for their contributions to recorded performances. MEL TORME BOBBY TROUP FRED WARING Today, phonograph records are played during 80# of broadcast time MEREDITH WILLSON throughout the United States. Featured recording artists have in NANCY WILSON fact been replaced by their own recordings, for which the broad­ GERALD WILSON caster pays them nothing. KAI WINDING PETER YARROW Our present law has other unfortunate by-products. Many foreign countries which otherwise grant a performance fee deny royalties to American recording artists because this country does not reciprocate by awarding royalties to any performers, either American or foreign.

It is against this background of legal, moral, and economic justifi­ cation that the National Committee for the Recording Arts urges Congress to grant recording artists copyright protection equal to that so long enjoyed by their co-creators.

This gross inequity can be corrected by passage of Amendment 131 to 8. 597.

9300 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212, TELEPHONE (213) 278-2345 Reprinted from FEBRUARY 1968 • 60 CENTS I M FINE ARTS FEATURES DETAILED FM PROGRAM SCHEDULES

ARTISTRY IN PROTEST by Harvey Siders Not too , I reviewed a re­ gious “band” of his long career. But around 1955, Eisenhower finally cording by Julie London that con­ Names (“sidemen,” if you will) such said ‘O.K. we’ve got to do something tained a deliciously sexy version of as Louis Armstrong, Tony Bennett, to modernize them.’ ” the old Mickey Mouse theme. It made Alfred Drake, Benny Goodman, Peggy Twelve years later, after myriad me wonder whether those pre-puberty Lee, Guy Lombardo, Henry Mancini, studies, committee reports, hearings prodigies, the Mousketeers, knew Freddie Martin, Alfred Newman, and analyses, the sub-committee is something I didn’t. Mort Sahl, Mel Torme, Fred Waring, ready to report it to the Senate Ju­ My pre-occupation with that sing­ Meredith Willson, Nancy Wilson were diciary Committee, and perhaps by song alphabet lesson proved to be as brought together under the banner of spring the committee will be readv to ephemeral as Miss London’s album, the National Committee for the Re­ bring the pending legislation (S-597) but interest was revived when I cording Arts. before the full Senate. read that she played that same track That group (we’ll call it the NCR A) Understandably, there is a “now (You remember the bit: M-I-C-K-E-Y has set for its goal the updating of our or never” attitude pervading the . . .) for a Senate sub-committee on ancient and unrealistic copyright NCRA. In Stan Kenton, the com­ patents, trademarks and copyrights. laws—laws which Kenton hastens to mittee couldn’t find a more deter­ Aside from plugging her own point out were formulated in 1909, mined or more knowledgable national record, Miss London also played Bar­ when you could count the number of chairman; in choice of counsel the bra-Streisand’s version of Happy Days phonograph records in existence and NCRA has an influential Washington Are Here Again. Granted, that tune radio was a distant dream. firm of Chapman, DiSalle (Mike Di­ has long been identified with the One year before that, then men who Salle, former governor of Ohio) and Democrats, but politics had little to do organized ASCAP (among them Vic­ Friedman; and responsible for spread­ with the choice of tunes. tor Herbert) saw to it that publishers ing the committee’s message is the Julie London was proving a point— and composers received a fee every public relations firm of Ruder and interpretation can alter material radi­ time their songs were performed. To­ Finn. cally. (Both renditions, being slow, day, the “Composers, Authors and To date that message has come sultry and sensuous, had the desired Publishers” who make up the second from diverse sources: pop, and effect of surprising the senators.) In syllable of ASCAP benefit to the tune classical musicians; plus executives more general terms, the record ses­ of millions from the licensing fees from the record industry. But those sion underscored one of the most vital imposed on radio and TV stations who have lent their time and effort needs in the entertainment industry and the Muzak-type operations that are unanimous in the need for chang­ today: copyright protection for the haunt supermarkets and elevators. ing our outdated copyright laws. A recording artist. No such foresight was lavished on recent set of hearings before the Miss London managed to do an the singers, musicians and arrangers Senate Judiciary Committee bore impressive job even though she was who make a particular version of a eloquent proof of that collective senti­ out of her element as a disc jockey. tune popular as a result of their ment. How her Capitol caper came about specialized efforts. An attempt was Mitch Miller, who is eastern chair­ in the first place can be attributed to made to rectify the omission in the man for the NCRA, told the com­ another entertainer—a household ex­ early Thirties when Paul Whiteman mittee, “It seems almost unbelievable pression in the world of modern and Fred Waring founded the Na­ that in a nation where private prop­ —Stan Kenton. tional Association of Performing Ar­ erty rights are protected by law, an Never one to shy away from ad­ tists. Their attempts were as abortive artist’s creative work may be ex­ verse public reaction when he was as Tommy Dorsey’s a decade later. ploited by others for personal profit, championing progressive, In the fifties, Kenton made his without being required to share that jazz, Kenton has now taken on the first bid to change the antiquated profit with the artist.” Congress of the United States, and copyright provisions, but his timing Miller was high in his praise of an anyone who knows Stan’s persuasive was not propitious. Why should the amendment to the copyright laws in­ powers will agree he’s not at all out current effort fare any better? Well, troduced by the Democratic. Senator of his element as a quasi-lobbyist. as Kenton pointed out, “Congress from New Jersey, Harrison Williams. Early in 1967, Kenton organized didn’t want to touch the copyright That amendment would allow record­ the most unusual and most presti­ laws. It was like changing the Bible. ing companies to copyright their re­ cords and collect royalties based on Mr. Livingston furnished some spe­ Again, from Livingston’s testimony: commercial play by radio and TV cific examples “ . . . often singer and “Consider , a very stations, and juke-boxes. Then the micro-groove of the record industry, valuable copyright, from which pub­ royalties would be divided between the and White Christmas; lisher and writers have earned tre­ record companies and the artists, or, to go further back, Sophie Tucker mendous performance fees over the similar to the royalty split that and Some Of These Days; or Fanny years; could the song ever have ASCAP and BMI effect between pub­ Brice and My Man. Similarly, Young reached such enormous popularity lishing companies and composers. At Heart became a valuable song be­ without ? Yet—and this While this sounds fair, and more cause of ’s recording is perhaps the crux of my argument— important, necessary, considerable and Mona Lisa because of Nat Cole’s Judy Garland’s performance is still opposition is expected to the Williams recording. heard on radio, but she and the record amendment. It will stem from those The Capitol prexy noted two addi­ manufacturers receive practically no sources reaping fortunes from the tional inequities: the original inter­ income from the sale of her record. talents of the performers: the broad­ pretation of jazzmen ; and the indis- In contrast, the publisher and song­ cast industry and the coin machine pensible contributions of arrangers. writer continue to be paid for each impresarios who control the nation’s In the case of jazz, a soloist weaves a radio play of Judy Garland’s delayed jukeboxes. Theirs will be a concerted skillful improvisation which is not broadcast!” drive for maintenance of the status only a variation on, but often an im­ A similar example linked Hello quo, and their potential is as strong provement of, the basic, usually simple Dolly with the name of Louis Arm­ as their thesis is weak. They insist theme. Yet the jazz artist goes unpaid strong. No surprise there, but what that performers do not make a crea­ while the writer of the original me'ody Livingston was getting at involved “a tive contribution, and therefore do continues to receive royalties based on copyright which will produce revenue not qualify for copyright protection. record sales and performances. on a long-term basis. Yet Louis Arm­ Among those refuting this argument strong’s actual performance, elec­ was an individual who knows every tronically delayed, will be sold by song are inseparable ... I suggest radio stations to advertisers for the Alan Livingston, president of Capi­ next twenty years without Louis Arm­ tol Records. In his statement to the strong’s permission or without any sub-committee, one of Livingston’s compensation paid to him. This is main contentions was, “creative con­ ludicrous!” tributions certainly merit compensa­ That phrase “electronically delayed tion ... In the case of phonograph broadcast” requires some classifica­ records, the song itself is the first of tion. The way Mr. Livingston figures the creative contributions, but only it, a is as much a the first. Can anyone question the “delayed performance” as a video contribution made to a song’s value taping of a TV show, or a motion pic­ by a record interpretation?” ture. Movies—whether exhibited in When Mitch Miller brought up this theatres or shown on TV—are duly point,'he had this to say: “I am not licensed, which means every time denigrating the role of the composers those properties are shown, their —men like , , copyright owners are duly compensa­ and many other great ted. composers. These men have written Regarding arrangers, Livingston Further, there is the common prac­ songs which are the language of the cited the case of Nelson Riddle, a top­ tice of compensating the performers world for generations to come ; but it flight orchestrator, who “made tre­ themselves, every time the movie or takes ■ the combined talents of the mendously important musical contri­ TV show is scheduled. And it is not composer, the performers, the arran­ butions to the success of Frank unusual for even the secondary per­ ger, and the to give Sinatra, especially during Sinatra’s formers (who, Livingston reminded a song all the ingredients of a hit.” return to great popularity in the the senators, can “negotiate for re­ Then, speaking in italics, Miller 1950’s.” Riddle received one-time pay­ run payments”) to continue to benefit emphasized “a good of ments for his , ranging from repeated use of their talents. a bad song will very seldom sell; a from $150 to $200, according to By the same token, there should be bad arrangement of a good song will Livingston. Many of his scores be­ continued recompense for recording surely not sell; but a good arrange­ came record hits, and each time artists. Essentially, there is no differ­ ment and a good song, combined with they’re played on the air, the publisher ence in the profit motive between a good artist, will have all the creative and songwriter benefit, but Riddle is movie houses and sponsored TV ingredients of a hit song.” through getting paid. shows, and the radio stations that Continued on page 44 ARTISTRY IN PROTEST Continued from page 10 and does make its own tape recordings at home directly from AM, FM and FM stereo multiplex radio. I am told that listeners call into radio stations to ask them to play a particular com­ position at a particular time so they can make the tape recording. There is nothing the performer can do about this form of record ‘pirating’ . . . But it is another example of how radio broadcasting is causing a decrease in the sale of classical records, which is our only source of income from re­ cords.” Leinsdorf has additional related thoughts that emphasized the inequi­ ties of copyright as applied to classical artists. “When the artist performs twice in live performance, he is paid twice; if you perform six times, you are paid six times; but with a re­ corded performance, my work can be exhibited as often as the person who owns the recording likes, and the cost —to the radio station—will be the same.” And there is a personal problem that performers must face up to, which Leinsdorf brought out: the problem of time-shortened careers—for singers thrive on spot commercials and par­ His reasoning is two-fold: “First, it more than instrumentalists. The ticipating sponsors. would curtail payola, though probably human voice can remain at peak How essential the phonograph re­ not eliminate it, but more, these new capability just so long, then it gives cord is to radio programming has sources of revenue would change the out. But performers “have no way of been clearly documented. A Library thinking in record companies them­ depreciating themselves in their tax of Congress study reveals 80 percent selves.” structure. I think for those people it of radio air time is devoted to record­ What Lees is driving at with his is not fair for others to be making a ings. How inexpensive the use of those second thought is that the record com­ profit from their talents, long after recordings is underscores the in­ panies might be in a better position the performers stop receiving any in­ equities even more. It is estimated that to issue better quality music. “As of come.” expenditures for records totaled four- now, all they get is the profit from the When Guy Lombardo appeared be­ tenths of one percent of the radio in­ record sale to the home consumer.” fore the sub-committee, he reminded dustry’s total expenses. As a result, the efforts of the record the senators that he had made a Taking the most recent year for industry are geared to the teen-age similar appeal for copyright revision which documented data is available, market. The reasons are purely eco­ more than 25 years earlier when he 1965, radio revenues neared the $800 nomic: the teenie-boppers comprise and Paul Whiteman and Fred Waring million mark, with an increase of ten as much as 85 percent of the record- took their case to Congress as the Na­ percent in pre-tax profits over the tional Association of Performing previous year. Less than three percent A variation on this theme sheds Artists. of total broadcast expenses went for light on another trend that is causing The fact that the lawmakers turned royalties—to composers and pub­ decreasing sales among classical music a deaf ear to NAPA might have been lishers ; none to performers. lovers. It was put into proper focus influenced by the comparative well­ Writing in High Fidelity Maga­ by Erich Leinsdorf, musical director being of musicians then. The big band zine took the point of and permanent conductor of the Bos­ era was at its zenith; the Millers, view that record companies, as well ton Symphony Orchestra. His testi­ Dorseys and Goodmans were enjoy­ as performers, should be paid when mony included this warning: “The ing the fruits of live, remote broad­ their products are played on the air. listening public now has the ability casts on network radio; hotels and ballrooms featured big bands and fore we get another chance. It’s got who keep their machines well fed with people had enough money (thanks to to be done—and now!” coins. a war-stimulated economy) to come Kenton’s enthusiasm is being chan­ The jukebox industry poses a for­ out and dance. neled wisely into efforts aimed at midable hurdle in its opposition to But today presents a totally different uniting the diverse elements who are making waves in the copyright law. picture. Live music is practically non­ in favor of changing the copyright Kenton recalled a discussion he had existent on network radio. (Lombardo provisions. The importance of agencies in Washington with Abraham Karnin- could think of only two “cases of live such as ASCAP and BMI, and the stein, the Register of Copyrights, dur­ music . . . and Don record companies, and the big talent ing which Kaminstein expressed his McNeil’s Breakfast Club”). And local management outfits, like Sol Hurok concern over the jukebox lobby. radio stations no longer have any staff Productions, getting together and “Do you know where their power musicians. Ironically, with the advent fighting a legislative anachronism in­ comes from?” Kenton quoted the of disc jockeys, “live performers were stead of each other is of the highest Register. “It comes from every hamlet, put out of business by their own re­ priority. every county, every tavern owner— cordings.” wherever there’s a jukebox in the Lombardo, who used to have his United States. They have flooded own live radio program, concluded Congress with tons of mail on previous with this endorsement of the Williams issues.” amendment: “Certainly we can’t fight Kenton picked up where Kamin­ the electronics age . . . But if the com­ stein left off. “And this is what the mercial use for profit of an artist’s senators are fearful of: they’re afraid recorded performance is to be per­ that if we don’t figure out something mitted, the copyright law must be with these juke box people, they’re changed to permit the recording ar­ going to have the same heat turned on tist to share in the profits . . . par­ them.” ticularly since it has drastically re­ As for public reaction, Stan ad­ duced his opportunity for employment mitted “it’s pretty hard to arouse their as a ‘live’ performer.” interest. If we tell Joe Public we want There can be no doubt that the to get money for the performance of testimony from all these big names a phonograph record, he’d ask, ‘what’s has created an incontrovertible argu­ the matter, is Sinatra broke? Are the ment in favor of revising the 1909 Beatles hungry?’ We’ve had to give copyright laws. Beyond any shadow up trying to interest the public as far of a doubt, it has been established that as the average person’s viewpoint is the creative aspect makes the differ­ concerned. What we have to concen­ ence between a hit and just another trate on is the industry—that is, the record. It has also been clearly de­ NAB (National Association of monstrated that the radio and coin Broadcasters) and what we have to machine industries are enjoying The way Kenton sees it, the NCR A depend on is the discretion of Con­ tremendous, virtually expense-free, will have to present a strong, united gress.” profits from those recordings without front to overcome the two biggest There’s a great deal at stake. As remunerating the artists whose talents obstacles: the juke box lobby and Kenton said, “this is not a political “sell” the records. public apathy. question; election year has nothing to The timing coudn’t be more propi­ It’s difficult to believe that an entire do with it. This is strictly a moral tious. Action on S-597 should take industry can be so greedy as to forget issue.” Those in the know agree that place this spring. As Stan Kenton re­ that it owes its very existence to the time to correct gross inequities in marked: “these copyright laws that phonograph records. But such is the the copyright laws is long overdue. are up for revision are extremely case with jukebox owners. They gross What happens come spring will find complicated. There are so many more than a half-billion dollars an­ the familiar struggle between eco­ ramifications and angles to it and nually, yet pay* nothing to the record­ nomic necessity and private interests. we’re just one part of the whole thing. ing artists (or even the composers) Victory will most likely go to the But I feel this way: It’s going to be better organized. •One aspect of copyright revision which now such a thing for them to wrestle with, has House approval (it has yet to reach the If the NCBA wins its case, the en­ Senate) would levy an annual license fee of that if they should revise the laws $8 on each juke box operator. Those monies tire record industry will be forever would then be divided among performers by and the record manufacturers and the various societies representing them. Kenton indebted to the indefatigable Stan feels it is a pittance, but he realizes that there recording artists are not included, it is a chance of improving that fee in time. His Kenton, the vital force who showed theory is that correcting a law is easier than will probably be another lifetime be­ establishing one. how to put artistry in protest.